So, basically, these are any amniotes that are not birds or mammals? Sounds senseless. But if we consider "reptiles" exclusively within the Sauropsida clade excluding Synapsids, then it turns out that birds are also reptiles. (Btw, why is the Sauropsida clade needed at all? This is literally just a synonym for Diapsida).
Still makes no sense. "Reptiles" simply do not exist. This is an obsolete Linnean paraphyletic taxon (but in schools, for some reason, they teach us exactly according to the Linnean system).
So, basically, these are any amniotes that are not birds or mammals? Sounds senseless. But if we consider "reptiles" exclusively within the Sauropsida clade excluding Synapsids, then it turns out that birds are also reptiles. (Btw, why is the Sauropsida clade needed at all? This is literally just a synonym for Diapsida).
Reptiles is an ecological term. It refers to animals that fill certain niches and have certain badal characteristics-scales, squat legs, cold blood, etc
feathers = bird
scales = reptile
what else do you need
also fins = fish
>all these ancient animals in the thread
they don't exist now so who cares
are you seriously expecting some poopiosaur to mug you on the street unless you call it a bird or a reptile????? fuckign retards
>feathers = bird
>scales = reptile
Then who is this? I have his skull, and it looks quite reptilian, although the creature itself was feathered and warm-blooded.
A cartoon. Raptors don't have feathers. Just birds. Also, raptors not only WEREN'T warmblooded, they're some of the COLDEST blooded dinosaurs.
A raptor is a bird of prey.
I guess whether or not you would use sauropsida or reptila comes down to your intent . If you are studying lizards and need to distinguish them from warm blooded feathered animals then you'd probably be considering the definition of reptile to not include birds.
if you are studying evolution or dinosaurs or something, then you should probably just ignore reptilia entirely and just consider 'reptiles' to be sauropsida. honestly i dont think reptilia should exist or it should just be synonym for sauropsida. why does the distinction of how the animal looks suddenly matter if it has feathers? a bat and a cow are both mammals despite looking entirely different. why do we make the distinction for birds? seems like a silly holdover from linnaeus.
>if you are studying evolution or dinosaurs or something, then you should probably just ignore reptilia entirely
yep. Wauf forgets something like 99% of species are extinct, so most taxonomists are in fact paleontologists. And many of them study dinosaurs. So when "Reptilia" was dumped by taxonomists in 1975 it was mostly dinosaur paleontologists that agreed to get rid of it.
>seems like a silly holdover from linnaeus.
Linnaeus didn't really comment on that. It's more of a creationist idea that animals are of different "kinds." Or at best a saltational model of evolution where something very suddenly and completely becomes something else.
But you're absolutely right. This isn't a debate in science. Nobody has seriously used "Reptilia" in almost 50 years now. In another 50 years the general public will catch on. Peop here are part of the general public, not scientists.
>honestly i dont think reptilia should exist
it was discarded long before anyone here was even born. Hell, it was tossed before most of anon's grandparents were born.
>If you are studying lizards and need to distinguish them from warm blooded feathered animals then you'd probably be considering the definition of reptile to not include birds.
That's the definition everyone has always used because reptiles have different ecologies and life histories due to their shared features.
>if you are studying evolution or dinosaurs or something, then you should probably just ignore reptilia entirely and just consider 'reptiles' to be sauropsida.
Which is literally wrong and proves not only that cladistics needs to be abandoned, but that paleontologists are fucking idiots these days.
>honestly i dont think reptilia should exist or it should just be synonym for sauropsida.
What a brave stance!
>why does the distinction of how the animal looks suddenly matter if it has feathers?
It's not just feathers. This is like saying the only difference between a Kenyan and a Swede is skin color.
> a bat and a cow are both mammals despite looking entirely different
Yes, but they share all the traits that matter: parental care for their young, hair, milk - that's the important one.
>why do we make the distinction for birds?
>seems like a silly holdover from linnaeus.
I hate your kind more than you could possibly fathom. So uselessly pliable. How noble and courageous that you put your fucking brain on autopilot and pretend to have independently arrived at the literal mainstream (wrong) view of taxonomy.
Birds are reptiles, you could say that animals that didn't evolve from synapsids are reptiles.
I don't know why birds are not considered reptiles, I guess since they are warm blooded, but dinosaurs probably were too.
To answer your question, reptiles do exist they just include birds. Some people use the term reptiles to distinguish the modern scaly cold-blooded ones from birds but its an erroneous distinction.
Completely anal semantics, but they technically aren't reptiles because they don't fit the definition of what a reptile is as far as Reptilia is concerned. Nor do they fit the informal definition but that's neither here nor there. Sauropsida is basically Reptilia but monophyletic due to the inclusion of Aves. Arguments can, and have been made for Reptilia to include Aves and become a monopyletic grouping, in which case it and Sauropsida would be identical so there's really not a need to do so.
Birds are absolutely Archosaurs though, and crocodilians are more closely related to birds than any other group in Sauropsida/Reptilia.
I mean - which of the two looks more reptilian? For a cladistic classification, the term "reptile" should be completely forgotten. It should remain only in mass culture as the vernacular for a simplified designation of tetrapods that are not amphibians, mammals or birds.
And that's why we're forgetting cladistics.
Which reptile is this? If cladistics don't matter then this must be a reptile because it has scales!
Those are "scales" in a colloquial sense only. They are nothing resembling true scales in any anatomical sense. They're just matted hair.
Um. Nope. It's a reptile, those look like scales, so it has to be a reptile. How it looks is all that matters.
Matted fur? Don't be a furgay, those are scales and have always been scales. It has scales so it's a reptile. Everyone knows that fur is fur, and that's only on mammals, you can't tell me that fur can just become scales. Besides, all fossil evidence for fur is fake and created by German communists to make men more effeminate. Its obvious that prehistoric mammals were all bald and the recent push by "scienists" to cover them in fur is just trying to feminize them by putting hair on them.
Well, by your standards, Pangolins are already reptiles.
Should we consider bats to be birds because they fly? Are pangolins reptiles because they have scales? Should platypus be an amphibian because they can swim and lay eggs? Why does an animals appearance matter?
Pangolins don't have scales and many birds don't fly. Stop being a worthless piece of shit.
The unecessary confusion that comes with the usage of paraphyletic and polyphyletic groupings in taxonomy is why cladistics and strict monophyly is far superior.
I don't even get why the paleoschizo has her (his) panties in a twist over the classification of Reptilia as a paraphyletic group that is essentially useless for classification. Not like it will change the colloquial use of the word Reptile. The actual phyletic classification of Sauropsid will only ever being used by biologists, paleontologists, and fucking nerds. Imagine seething so incessantly over a classification that changes basically nothing about how reptiles are classified because it acknowledges that Aves is a lineage of Archosauria.
Do placental mammals not count as synapsids because they have extremely derived features like fur, live birth, and endothermy? If Placentalia are still synapsids, why do Birds not count as an especially derived archosaur lineage? Why is it so important for the informal definition of a reptile to be codified as a taxonomic classification despite the mountains of evidence that tie birds into Archosauria? These questions have obvious answers for anyone who cares about classifying life in a way that makes sense. Arguing that Sauropsida (which is essentially just non-synapsid amniote lineages) makes less sense as a group than Reptilia makes it clear that the person holding this opinion has a massive chip on their shoulder about a certain other topic relating to the integument of a group of animals that, barring Aves, has been extinct for 66 million years. Because the paraphyletic grouping Reptilia includes Dinosauria, but not Aves.
Nobody is confused except cladists. Is this why cladistics came about? Because feathers = bird, scales = reptile was too hard for them? LOL
>Reptilia is a paraphyletic group
>essentially useless for classification
That's an opinion, and a particularly ill-educated one. Not an objective fact.
>it's a feathergay
Wow imagine my shock!
No they're not.
>I don't know why birds are not considered reptiles
Because they have different characteristics than reptiles. Cladists are such simple idiots.
Sauropsida is not Reptilia. Sauropsida is cladists realizing they fucked up by getting rid of Reptilia, trying to recreate it, then creating an entire cottage industry of denying fossil evidence to claim that amphibians shit out mammals and reptiles totally separately.
>Um I don't know what a bird is. I mean they come from reptiles...
>All this fucking autism
This is why cladistics is retarded. Don't go to a public aquarium, you might mistake the lungfish for your dad.
>I'M NOT CONFUSED YOU ARE
>demonstrates his abject confusion through the vicious assault of strawmen
I know you're literally, actually mentally ill, but it doesn't take a genius to tell why ascribing the entirety of a vertebrate group to an arbitrary paraphyletic class doesn't work. It's like if people had decided that Mammalia described mammals as it currently does, except if the animal can fly. Suddenly bats aren't mammals but their own unique group for... reasons, despite having an obvious mammalian lineage, and despite sharing features with all the mammals that can't fly.
You think like a child, and are incapable of seeing beyond skin deep comparisons between animals. Which goes to explain why you're such a deranged scalechud. I personally couldn't imagine having the relationship between, say, Aves and Crocodilia explained to me in detail: their relationship as members of Archosauria, the features they still share despite the derived nature of Avians, and the plethora of fossil evidence (which you deny exist because you think being Chinese lets you alter rocks at the atomic level, a conclusion exclusively based on you failing to understand what a composite fossil is) that shows how Avians arose from decidedly more reptilian ancestors and still unironically believing that a paraphyletic grouping that excludes Aves but groups Crocodilia with fucking Squamates is useful in terms of modern classification.
You want it straight, in terms your chimp brain can understand? In every sense but the informal colloquial one, birds are reptiles. They are feathered, endothermic, active, and highly derived, and they are still reptiles.
>Don't go to a public aquarium, you might mistake the lungfish for your dad.
By your rigorous standards you must think pic related is a worm.
L m f a o
This word doesn't mean what you think it means. Paraphyly is not a synonym for "bad".
>It's like if people had decided
>This completely fabricated scenario I made up proves that Linnaeaus was wrong and stupid. I bet you feel dumb now!
>You think like a child, and are incapable of seeing beyond skin deep comparisons between animals
Well guess who else you're accusing of this? Literally every single biologist who came before your retarded generation. But I'm sure you know better.
No such thing. Reptiles have scales.
>Aves and Crocodilia
>Um, actually these totally different animals have a common ancestor 250 million years ago, that means they're the same
Please do tell me more about how western paleosois can't be fooled by chink fossils.
>Um actually we already know the chinks are doctoring fossils and it doesn't matter! We can't be fooled!
Archaeoraptor cope all the fuck over again. Every single time a chink doctors a fossil and gets caught, paleomorons try to use it as "proof" they can't be fooled, except you ALWAYS are.
>believing that a paraphyletic grouping that excludes Aves but groups Crocodilia with fucking Squamates is useful in terms of modern classification.
>Get with the times, old man, everything new is good and everything old is bad!
Do you have cherry red hair?
>birds are reptiles
Then humans are sarcopterygians. And I don't lower myself to debating with fish.
>They are feathered, endothermic, active, and highly derived, and they are still reptiles.
Then so are mammals.
>By your rigorous standards you must think pic related is a worm.
Vertebrates evolved from wormlike ancestors, so that's kind of your thing, not mine.
That was far too long of a post to be so annoyingly smug AND wrong.
>um achskually ur wrong because i say you are
That's your entire post. Imagine complaining about people being smug when you're not only this smug, but so incomprehensibly wrong about literally everything.
>NOOOOOOOO EVERYTHING MUST STAY THE SAME AS IT WAS 200 YEARS AGO!!!!!
>UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE IN FUCKING SCIENCE CAN'T CHANGE EVER!!!!!
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T USE A HYPOTHETICAL TO POINT OUT HOW ARBITRARY AND DUMB MY PARAPHYLETIC OBSESSION IS!!!!
>NOOOOOOOO FEATHERS DON'T EXIST BECAUSE A CHINK GLUED REAL FOSSILS TOGETHER!!!!
you can't even defend this one anymore, you yourself brought up that article about the composite skull, which, if you didn't know, skulls are bone.
>NOOOOOOOO ANIMALS MUST STAY IN ARBITRARY GROUPS THAT IGNORE THEIR GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS BECAUSE I SAY SO!!!
>also squamates and crocodilians are closer together than birds and crocodilians despite aves and crocodilia both being members of archosauria 🙂
>uhm ackshually birds aren't reptiles because they um.... they uh... don't look like them!
>also reptile as a taxonomic class totally isn't an arbitrary grouping that excludes members not based on genetic lineage, but instead superficial physical features shared by groups that diverged in the early triassic
When I call you a scalechud, I mean it. You use the same exact rationale trannies use to claim they're women, and then lash out when people point out the logical fallacies and loopholes you jump through to justify positions that explicitly deny reality. Pretty similar to trannies actually, you think what matters for classification is merely skin deep, that superficial exteriors are what makes an animal. Much like trannies, you go out of your way to avoid genetic lineages because it's uncomfortable to your narrative, and you would much rather live in a world where people look beyond the superficial to determine how animal groups relate to each other.
You are a scalechud.
nothing you said was true or even an argument retard
Remember folks, it's irresponsible to engage the schizos on their pet topics. Just remind them to seek treatment and move on.
Now that the dust has settled, how do you define "reptile"? Is it just an informal label?
>how do you define "reptile"
- Cold-blooded (ectothermy)
- Oviparous or ovovivaparous
- Body covered in scales
>Is it just an informal label?
No. Cladists just think anything they didn't create is "invalid".
>Oviparous or ovovivaparous
better luck next time
All "viviparous" reptiles are ovoviviparous. That term is yet another considered "problematic" these days though.
Sauropsida isn't real. It claims to stand in for Reptilia, but reptiles exist outside of and before "Sauropsida".
>Sauropsida: all amniotes sharing more recent ancestry with Clade Reptilia than with Mammalia
>Reptilia: the most recent common ancestor of Crocodylia, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Chelonia, plus all descendants
Sounds like sauropsida would be better to use until we get a proper definition for the sister taxon of synapsida
>Um axctually sweaty, we should let the cladist adults be in charge of definitions
No. Cladists didn't invent Reptilia, they don't get to turn it into what they want. End of discussion.
what definitions do you use then?
I already gave it.
- Cold-blooded (ectothermy)
- Oviparous or ovovivaparous
- Body covered in scales
how do you define, or what definition of sauropsida are you going by?
Sauropsida is a hallucination made up by cladists so they can still pretend they know what a reptile is, while excluding a significant number of reptiles from the fossil record because they lead to branches they don't like calling reptiles. Because cladists are retards who can't distinguish between mother and daughter.
>prefers Reptilia over sauropsida as synapsida sister taxon
>cant define sauropsida
excluding a significant number of reptiles from the fossil record because they lead to branches they don't like calling reptiles
which? you aren't saying some synapsids are reptiles are you?
>prefers Reptilia over sauropsida as synapsida sister taxon
No. Synapsida is another hallucination. Early mammal ancestors are literally reptiles.
ok ok, so then what do you make of pterosaurs and the ichthyosaurs that aren't covered in scales?
Pterosaurs are archosaurs and ichthyosaurs share a common ancestor with archosaurs and lepidosaurs
>ok ok, so then what do you make of pterosaurs and the ichthyosaurs that aren't covered in scales?
Ichthyosaurs literally have scales. I'm not sure about Pterosaurs now that you mention it. That's actually interesting. Perhaps they deserve their own classification if they were divergent enough. Never thought about it since I'm not a Pterosaur sperg. Aquatic reptiles are another issue, however and that is that eventually they would develop true viviparity almost certainly.
You're still using cladistic groups to judge Linnaean classification.
>Ichthyosaurs literally have scales
thats why I said some, since a few have left impressions where its just smooth skin
>I'm not sure about Pterosaurs now that you mention it
Those only had scales in the extremities, much like birds
>You're still using cladistic groups to judge Linnaean classification
Im using cladistic groups to indicate their relation between other reptiles, that's the purpose of it
What APPEARS to be just smooth skin. Ichthyosaurs have very fine scales.
>Those only had scales in the extremities, much like birds
Yeah that's a good point. Interesting. But like early Dinosaur-Birds, I think they would still qualify as reptiles, unless they were warm-blooded. If Pterosaurs achieved true endothermy, they may warrant a separate class.
Cladistics is nonsense. A lot of the relations are assumed, rather than assured. Basically all cladists agree that Pterosaurs are so closely related to Dinosaurs they basically nest WITHIN Dinosauria, despite this almost certainly being wrong.
>you aren't saying some synapsids are reptiles are you?
Absolutely. This is why cladistics is nonsense.
>all sauropsid amniotes excluding birds
Not him but grow up. If you can't make your point without leaning on useless racism that makes you the unintelligent one.
ain't no such thang
It would be obviously silly to lump reptiles and birds in the same family just because you're triggered by the definitions not being as clear cut as you'd like.
You are not me how is this in my readchan app as my post wtf is going on here
This shit is not funny
Get out of my phone you sick fucks
Reptiles are scaley morons
no birds are not dinosaurs nor are they reptiles. get over it.
Agreed. I'm getting so anti-cladism that I now oppose groups that are inclusive due to descent. Birds are different enough from Dinosaurs to no longer be called Dinosaurs. Similarly mammals are distinct enough from their reptilian and amphibian ancestors to no longer be called reptiles or amphibians. Things like "Amniote" or "Craniate" are just (sometimes) useful rules of thumb, not real categories. Linnaean classification was used for centuries because it works. Like everything modern, cladism has been used for a few short decades and it's nearly collapsed the entire system.
The best argument includes insults AND sourced fact.
>then it turns out that birds are also reptiles
>can't breathe through skin
Some reptiles give live birth and can regulate body temperature at certain points of the year
Human categorization is just inherently flawed. At some point you just have to arbitrarily cut things off.
EZ: Its like half way between a lizard and a dinosaur.
>asked to prove that his chinese fossil faking machine exists
>runs away after being pressed for not providing evidence
>Deny chinese fossil fraud exists
>Get proof offered
>Move goalposts and start demanding exact techniques, ignore openly admitted fraud
If china faking a composite fossil proves they faked feathers then all the fake composite and misidentified fossils of the west proves that evolution is a hoax and the world was created when odin slew a giant.
But you didn't offer proof. You just called everyone who called out your shit a chinese shill. How does a chimerized fossil that is plastered together from obviously seperate rocks prove that the Chinese somehow have the ability to turn rock into feathers. Does Germany also have this ability considering Archaeoptryx and the fur of Eocene bats?
>The vast majority of chinese fossils are so lifelike that they somehow are completely indistinguishable from western equivalents
>especially Germany where we have fossils of feathers
>but there was that one thing with archaeoraptor (which was just real fossils glued together)
>OBVIOUSLY THIS MEANS THE CHINESE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALTER ROCK INTO FORMS SO LIFELIKE THAT WESTERN PALENTOLOGISTS LITERALLY CAN NOT TELL ITS FAKE
Do you realize how much of a jump that is to make? Everything you ramble about in your schizo post is irrelevant because the entire premise relies on insane assumption that the Chinese have the ability to change stone at the atomic level.
>So, if Velociraptor is a reptile, is Archaeopteryx a reptile as well
Likely yes, because they don't appear to have achieved endothermy yet. Enantiornithes may have been birds and not reptiles. It's difficult to tell where the cutoff point is, because that's literally how evolution works. You're also forgetting that some researchers literally called birds reptiles like Paleodatabase.
>Thus, the Edaphosaurus or the Moschops are not reptiles, but the dove or the goose are
And this is why cladists need to be ignored. They're retards.
LOL I think you mean paraphyletic. Though most cladists do seem to have feathergayry as a paraphilia.
>with a boundary somewhere within the Avialae and Cynodontia clades
That sounds about right.
>As for the cladistics itself, the old term "reptile" by good should be excluded from it altogether, leaving only precise, dry, neutral terminology.
Only if you'r a cladist retard. Frankly, I think cladistics needs retired. I think it's done enough damage now.
You gays love Archaeoraptor, don't you? And you wonder why anyone would ever accuse you of being glowmorons. You literally act just like them. Archaeoraptor was the sacrifice you gave to the public to try to convince them you "can't be fooled". Except you can. Constantly. Remember aquatic Brachiosaurs? Or how about pic related?
See what I mean. You're immune to Occam's razor. You think Archaeoraptor is some kind of bizarre sacrifice because the circumstances around it prove your deranged narrative false. You've invented a headcanon of reality that relies on an entire nation faking fossil and the entire field of Paleontology either going along with it or somehow being fooled so completely that the only logical conclusion is that the Chinese have the ability to change stone at the atomic level.
You are literally mentally ill and are the most pseudointellectual poster on this board by a wide margin. You are not worth talking to.
No feathermoron has any right using the term Occam's Razor.
Neither does the schizo paleochud who doesn't understand what the word Composite means. Because of course a skull formed together from multiple animals is evidence that an entire country changed stone itself to fake feathers so completely that they're utterly indistinguishable from western fossils of feathers.
>NOOOO CHINESE FOSSILS ARE REAL!! CONFORM RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!
>only response is stomping his feet and screaming no like a toddler
I accept your concession.
I'm not required to agree with you. Cope.
It's okay to be wrong, just don't pretend that you're on the side of logic and reason when you use a composite skull as evidence of a conspiracy that an entire nation can edit stone at the atomic level in order to make fake fossils completely indistinguishable from their western counterparts.
And let's be clear about how badly feathergays are out of line re: Occam's Razor. The feathergay "theory" if you can even call it that, is that feathers are an ancestral trait to dinosaurs or archosaurs or amphibians or god only knows what, yet scales evolved from feathers MULTIPLE TIMES to the point that nearly every single dinosaur that ever lived had scales. Now which is the simpler explanation: that feathergays are full of shit and that scales are ancestral to dinosaurs, which would make sense since all their closest relatives other than literally one group: modern birds, have scales and most dinosaurs have scales and scales have NEVER been shown to come from feathers and in fact any bird that has ever lost feathers has only replaced them with bare skin. Same with hair in mammals, which implies integumentary structures like like scales are VERY difficult to evolve. OR that feathers are magic and can come and go as needed and even avoid fossilization if it fits the narrative?
No it isn't. That's the difference between the criatura you are and myself. I don't think it's okay to be wrong, which is why I'm trying to correct this shit.
If you think it's not okay to be wrong then why have you dedicated yourself to the conspiracy that China can fake fossils so precisely that they are completely indistinguishable from western feather fossils?
You hate Occam's razor because it confronts you with the reality that there's no force on the planet can edit stone at the level that would trick paleontologists around the entire world.
So basically you're admitting you believe that T. rex just "lost feathers" and somehow gained scales. I'm sorry you low IQ moron, but these are your two choices. You've chosen wrong. You sided with a well-known fraudulent industry. That's on you.
Sorry, what do birds have on their talons against scares? Skills? Oh right, scales! Ones that are completely different morphologically to the only othdr living archosaur lineage! The evidence that feathers can become scales is in living animals you fucking moron.
Not to mention the climatologists effect on integument in large animals shown by large pliestocene mammals. But please, hang on to the idea that late cretaceous tyrannosaurs couldn't possibly have had feathered ancestors because you because they just CAN'T okay!
Scales don't come from feathers, no matter how many times you claim it. Sorry. Birds simply never lost their feet scales.
don't be racist
Why is the CIA putting smoochin lips on my favorite dinosaurs?
Because they're all sex pests unironically.
>People actually think theropods did not have lips
Is this the same absolute fucking idiot that argued that because aquatic crocodiles didn't have lips that animals with clearly different skull morphology and selective pressures didn't and was BTFO at every point?
>well, because bracketing-poodle.png
Explained in detail here:
All anatomical and phylogenetic features point to the absence of lips in theropods. The only thing glowies can "appeal" with is:
>muh, there is not a single land predator with bare teeth
While not even thinking about saber-toothed cats or Tasmanian devils (as well as about the fundamental difference in the teeth structure of synapsids, lepidosaurs and archosaurs).
All that remains for them is just cope and crow:
>we dubunked all this
Even though nothing like this ever happened and they themselves understand this, no matter how hopelessly retarded they are (or infantile like that reddit-spacer). The're just afraid to admit it to themselves.
Stopped reading there.
What was being explained to you is that not only were your "BRACKETING!" arguments completely fucking retarded but there were clear features that suggested they had lips. Holy shit you are just fucking dumb. How about this? You scream about a glowie strawman and I just call you a retard.
>empty crowing and personal insults again
Glowies are such glowies. Why are you so afraid of dry facts and common sense? Is that really necessary inventing far-fetched explanations for already working things?
In the link above, each point is parsed in detail, and not a single glowie has answered why and in what the OP is wrong. Left "ideology" simply reduces the brain.
Not an argument you swine looking semen swizzler. I have determined through phylogenetic bracketing that your brain could not possibly be larger than a chimps, so the excess space in your skull could only be taken up by the rancid semen of the last 100 cocks you sucked.
I spelled this out for you, homo.
"How about this? You scream about a glowie strawman and I just call you a retard."
You gonna get mad enough to double reply again?
I think you need to check into a psych ward before replying again, paleochud.
I don't believe that he is actually a retard or a schizo. That reddit-spacing poster is just a silly underage boy, who came to this board to "troll" anons with his grotesque stupidity. Just ignore him, my queer-friend.
>Schizophrenic man figures out ctrl+shift+i
>literal unironic paranoid schizo
Kek. Tell us again how you established this board in the early days of the internet. It's really amusing.
>complains about personal insults
>immediately calls anyone who disagrees with him a "glowie" and automatically assumes they're the acolyte of some nobody youtuber he dislikes to shut down any need to actually respond to factual information
You're like a fucking science denying twitter chud. Instantly honing in on someone observing reality by calling you out as the mental midget you are and crying that they called you a retard instead of actually trying to defend your nonsense because, just like a chud, you subconsciously know none of it is true.
Glowie is not an insult - it's an identifier. Aren't glowies actually proud of being called glowies? Trans-pride and stuff?
Lol. I mean you're not wrong.
>t. denied science, got BTFO
this is worse than the threads where the schizo insisted his favorite bigfoot hoax film was real because "there's no way anyone made a suit that looked that good in a 100x100px video!"
Biggest problem in these threads is that everyone assumes all the retards in it are people they're not.
The paleochud is the same one who, despite all evidence to the contrary, spams about how T. rex is actually just like the movie monster from the Jurassic Park films. Twisting in knots to somehow make the assumption that this animal we have complete skulls of had lips like that of a crocodilian despite having anchor points more similar to lipped varanid lizards. The one who insists that all fossils that have come out of China are fake by merit of being Chinese, despite evidence of feathers being found on North American relatives to the relevant animals like Dakotaraptor's quill knobs. He uses that as some kind of crowbar to wedge in his idea that all dinosaurs ever were scaly lizards despite the vast pools of evidence we have for feathers among all coelosaurian lineages, and utterly discounts the idea that there was some kind of pressure that had late Cretaceous Tyrannosaurids secondarily develop a scaly or at least massively feather reduced integument. Despite the fact that Elephants and Wooly Mammoths prove that similar environmental pressures induced changes in large mammals.
He, much like trannies on twitter, claims to have science on his side, despite the mountains of evidence that prove both his claims about dinosaurs, and their claims about their own womanhood otherwise. Trannies aren't women, and T. rex was not a movie monster no matter how good of a film Jurassic Park is.
now watch, his next post will be something about glowies, brian engh, and trannies, and, of course, "you tried so hard to reddit space but i still see you glowie chud"
>the vast pools of evidence we have for feathers among all coelosaurian lineages
You assume there's vast evidence. Outside of china, nope. The evidence is far more scant than you could imagine. And I've already explained the problem of "quill knobs" to you. In fact, I've covered several times that chinese fossils of similar groups are feathered, when those groups found OUTSIDE of china are scaled. So far the only exception to this I've seen are Ornithomimus edmontonicus, but even that one's suspect to some degree, because one of the fossils appears to have fake feather "dots" painted on. The others do appear to be of higher quality, however.
>Despite the fact that Elephants and Wooly Mammoths
Jesus christ you're STILL on this elephant shit? Find me a scaled elephant and we'll talk. Until then DROP IT. Elephants DO NO GAIN SCALES WHEN THEY LOSE HAIR. This is an extremely important difference your IQ is too low to grasp.
The china fossil hoax trade is well known, your choice is to remain ignorant. Not my problem.
You're mixing up several posters. I never say "glowie". That's what glowmorons say.
Oh right, see, I know you'd use it again. Hinging on Arcaeoraptor despite many of the expeditions in East Asia being western run. Or are you going to say that Velociraptors found in Mongolia by American paleontologists with quill knobs in the exact same place as the North American Dakotaraptor specimins are fake. Or are you implying that the Chinese have a magical device that presses fossils of animals like Microraptor into the earth with such lifelike precision that western paleontologists can't tell it's fake? You're dealing with a science that has its specimens literally, and I emphasize LITERALLY, set in stone. Archaeoraptor wasn't fake because some chinaman painted a rock, it was fake because it was an amalgamation of different fossils of real animals like the aforementioned Microraptor to try and create a more impressive specimen. Despite your claims to do intense research you seem to not even have read the first paragraph on wiki-fucking-pedia on the case you hinge your whole "CHINA FAKE AND BAD" bullshit on.
Your China narrative has so many holes it's not even funny.
>UH ACKSHUALLY ELEPHANTS NO SCALES SO OWNED
Birds have scales. Ever look at the Talons of an eagle? Not only that, but we have evidence from animals like Microraptor (which is real, get over it) that these animals had feathers covering their entire body, including their legs, at one point. So, paleochud, where do birds' scales come from?
>secondarily develop a scaly
Physically impossible. Qualitative mutations can never be rolled back. There are workarounds, such as changing the proportions of the integument of the body, but it is impossible to turn the feather back into scales, even though they are composed of the same protein. If the nucleotide sequence responsible for the synthesis of feather protein structures has changed, it will not return back.
>inb4 muh atavisms
Atavisms are never complete or qualitative. The thickened hairline in humans does not increase the number of hair follicles, and the atavistic tail is not a real tail, but only an outgrowth of the skin, etc.
>but it is impossible to turn the feather back into scales
Yes, it can, you retard. Feathers and scales are separated by five genes and the intermediary forms are all functional. A feather evolving into a scale again is more probable than an ape evolving a layer of blubber and multipyramidal bean shaped kidneys.
apes didn't, they never had those traits. our ancestors hybridized with big cats to create apes, wolves to create babboons, horses to create pigs, and dolphins to create humans.
You knew I'd resort to speaking the objective truth again?
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门
Here's the schizo meltdown we've all been waiting for
Cute dog. Hey, you know, it's weird, but when this paleo shit really picks up I don't see any schizo dog hate or MUH TOXO threads!
Tell me, how do the Chinese fake fossils, you're the one that says they literally press specimens into rocks, so why don't you enlighten us on how that's possible?
Again, your whole "CHINA FOSSIL FAKE GRRRR!!!" bullshit hinges on a chimerized fossil of multiple real animals (Microraptor, a Dromaeosaur and Yanornis, a bird) to invent a more impressive specimen for personal gain. It's not a case about some Chinaman inventing a way to press fossils into a rock. Fucks sake the "Archaeoraptor" specimen wasn't even a single stone, you can literally see where it's pressed together you absolute fucking retard.
The only "objective truth" I see is that you seem to unironically believe that being Chinese lets you alter stone itself.
Bitch you're the one denying it after having evidence served directly to you.
>here is proof china faked one fossil by plastering two fossils together
>now you must believe feather impressions were faked somehow
Okay westerns have passed pig teeth off as a new hominid and radiocarbon dating has been wrong so far so man was created and the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Damn you're a dishonest bitch.
What evidence? Show me the evidence that China has some kind of secret magical device that presses into stone that are so life-like, so much like the fossils found in other nations across the planet, including Germany, where we not only have preserved feathers from Archaeopteryx, but also the preserved fur of Eocene bats?
Does Germany also have the magical feather/fur faking machine?
>2014 sjw screenshot
It's an umbrella term just like" dinosaur" and "monkey"
The paleoschizo is back at it again
You, schizophrenic mass replyer, are the most mentally ill of them all. Paleo"pseuds" this, Chinese fakes that, "waaahhhh this artist that isn't a paleontologist and is in no way taken seriously in the field drew a picture I don't like," ackshually feathers don't exist despite direct evidence being on the fossils of even large animals like Yutyrannus and Therizinosaurus.
Just because your opponent is a massive prick with his head up his ass doesn't make your legitimately contrarian anti-science conspiracy schizoposting any more convincing. Especially when it's your default position to discount all research in a field where evidence is literally set in stone that doesn't come from a time period where people believed these animals were lumbering beasts that dragged their tails across the ground. Next time you cry about paleopseuds look in a mirror.
>your opponent is a massive prick with his head up his ass
Oh, and does head up his own ass...
*and does he have
I'm a fucking retard.
Not him, but I have some bad news for you, queeranon. It looks like non-basal coelurosaurs are still "toxic" and "masculine". Live with it.
(Imagine the glowies seething when they find a head print with an obvious lack of lips?)
reminder that this poster does think theropods had lips just not full lips. he doesn’t specify this because he’s a troll who knows he’ll get more replies by saying this.
Why do paleothreads (specifically dinothreads) read like someone put computers that can only connect to this board in a psych ward that has run out of anti-psychotics?
reptiles *sensu lato* - the sister taxon to Synapsida
reptiles *sensu stricto* - Eureptilia, the sister taxon to Parareptilia
reptiles *super sensu lato* - a paraphyletic grade which can be broadly defined as the clade Reptillomorpha, excluding near-mammals and avians
>But if we consider "reptiles" exclusively within the Sauropsida clade excluding Synapsids
This is the funniest part of cladist nonsense. Unless you believe the first fish to walk on land immediately created a polytomy of reptile line animals and mammal line animals, Synapsids are just Sauropsids, so the cladists are fucking up and producing paraphyly, but just being way more dishonest about it. And reptiles are tetrapods with scales, excluding those with feathers, which are birds. It ain't that hard to figure out.
>what is stem vs. node
it was easy
but they didn't believe him
If its not a amphibian, bird or mammal it's a reptile
I mean - dimetrodon, crocodile and monitor lizard are all "reptiles". But their relationship to each other is very conditional. The crocodile is closer related to the chicken than to the monitor, and the dimetrodon to the hamster than to both. And what position turtles occupy in this group is still the subject of discussion.
>genetic distance only works in one direction
to be fair this is a slightly more subtle error
you won't learn why this is wrong until your 3rd year of college level biology in most cases.
and I've never met anyone on Wauf that understands it.
You seem to misunderstood the original question. If Sauropsida = Reptilia, then birds are also automatically included in the ranks of reptiles?
Obviously, if you studied (or just wanted to study) not at a college, but at a normal higher educational institution, you would be able to find logical chains in the words of your interlocutor. But after all, it was clear to everyone that you're not, when you, like a moronic parrot, spammed the same looped quote about the jaw of a monitor lizard, sincerely not understanding why they were laughing at you. We see exactly the same thing right now.
That's why I have to ask you again - should I send you a link to /lgbt/ one more time? It is allowed to be stupid there, and in general you will be better among your own kind. Think about it.
>It is allowed to be stupid there
As if Wauf, where normies and women flock, is any more or less 'intellectual' of a board.
>when you, like a moronic parrot, spammed the same looped quote about the jaw of a monitor lizard,
that wasn't me.
I'm usually the one pointing out that you're retarded, but not always. I love that you take your defeats to heart though. You can't admit you're wrong but maybe somewhere deep down you remember how you're humiliated every day here.
again? Hmm... Usually, such a desperate frank level of self-soothing, I noticed only for underaged. So... Maybe THIS is the answer to all this cancer posting, reddit spacing, parroting and regular exposing yourself to public ridicule? Perhaps you're acually not an idiot, or a glowie, but just a silly kid? Oh, crap...
your english if fucking terrible
so tell me, piggy, what is a
>normal higher educational institution
>not a college
this sounds hilarious
how do they educated the mentally retarded in your country?
>your english if fucking terrible
>how do they educated the mentally retarded
Like pottery eh?
I honestly want to know.
do they have some sort of academic camp or prison for the mentally disabled where you live?
did you get your degree in a special college with lots of crayons and modeling clay?
And I can still speak English much better than yourself.
>I can still speak English much better than yourself.
you should try doing it then.
so far your english is pathetic.
are you a pajeet?
No. But tell me how do they educated the mentally retarded in your country.
>how do they educated
>how do they EDUCATE
I'm trying to determine if the anon is actually retarded or just don't talk so good.
it's hard to understand an argument in a language you can't read. If he's just bad at engrish maybe he's not completely stupid.
>>it's how do they EDUCATE
Is it now?
I gotta run to work but I honestly laughed at that. Thanks for the smile you fucking retard.
Kek. He also thinks he's talking to the same person. Personifying your demons into one single thing is also a classic feature of the child's/infantile psyche.
>He also thinks he's talking to the same person
not at all
this guy right here:
Is pretty clever
he played that brilliantly.
I'd be very surprised if it was the same idiot I've been talking to.
>caviling on foreigner's English
>changing the subject to nationality
Yes, you're right, it's definitely just a stupid embittered kid. Leave him alone, guys.
>You seem to misunderstood the original question.
yes, let's skip your absolutely fucking retarded comments about Diapsida and pretend that didn't happen.
>If Sauropsida = Reptilia, then birds are also automatically included in the ranks of reptiles?
So you're a "hydrobiologist" and you don't understand how clades work?
Are you really trying to distract from a retarded question by asking an even more retarded one?
Yes, apparently you sure are. Well... Sorry for all these insults, then. A notable problem with this site is that although age restrictions are formally in place, there is no any working mechanism for applying them. I did not really intend to argue with a silly child, because your lack of education is only a problem of age, not personal qualities. Once again I apologize.
(But if you're an adult and just plain moron - dude, you're in BIG problems. Seek help, really, it's unhealthy.)
>But if you're an adult and just plain moron - dude, you're in BIG problems.
see, this is what I mean.
>if you're an adult and just A plain moron
notice the "A" there. the sentence makes no sense if you leave words out.
>you're in big TROUBLE
In english we don't say you're in big problems. That immediately ID's you as ESL or a bot.
either way your inability to speak english makes you look stupid, whether you are or not.
protip, you're also stupid.
Re-tard. Any parent clade automatically includes all child clades. If sauropsids = reptiles, then birds are also reptiles. You really are either a moron or an underaged.
>Re-tard. Any parent clade automatically includes all child clades. If sauropsids = reptiles, then birds are also reptiles. You really are either a moron or an underaged.
yes, that's what I said
why would a "hydrobiologist" not know that if sauropsids are reptiles then birds are also reptiles.
as you say, he's either a moron or an undergrad.
No need to move the arrows, cringe reddit-spacing retard. I'm talking specifically about you. Birds can be anything but "reptiles". Thus, the term "reptile" is not viable and can only have a place in the outdated Linnaean taxonomy. And your place is either in school or on reddit, depending on your case.
>the term "reptile" is not viable and can only have a place in the outdated Linnaean taxonomy
yes, I've spent the last 13 years telling Wauf this
so nice of you to finally figure it out.
But regarding OP's retarded question,
If reptiles are sauropsids then birds are by definition reptiles
this is why reptiles aren't sauropsids. This is also why nobody uses "Reptilia" as a taxon anymore. In fact we stopped using it 50 years ago in taxonomy. You kids just finally learned. Further proof that basically none of you went to college.
It's still widely used, kid. And, to be honest, your obsession with college is quite sick. As, however, and all the rest of your childish activity... As I said, I don't want to argue with the toddlers (or infantile adults, if everything is THAT bad) at all, so I'll just give you good advice - isolate yourself in the /dog/ general and don’t dishonor this near-scientific board with your underage cringe.
I don't understand your slang. But I meant that I graduated from university 4 years ago, if anything.
the only reason we have paleo threads is because back in 2009 I was on Wauf discussing dinosaurs and my threads kept getting deleted. So I came to Wauf and brought my science with me.
now I'm invaded by a bunch of anti-science liars like you trying to ruin it. Go jack off to dinosaurs in your mom's bathroom like Allah intended.
No. I just don't believe that anyone can be THAT schizo. So I still prefer to think that you are just an edgy toddler, who in view of his youth and lack of education, gives out more and more grotesque nonsense with each new post.
Yeah. I feel myself a complete idiot for wasting time with either a stupid schoolkid or a non-ironic retard. Well... At least I posted some thematic stuff that may be interesting to an outside reader, so it was not entirely in vain.
Whatever. Take my last (you) to your post, sorry for everything and farewell. From now I will simply ignore all subsequent posts with reddit spacing, obvious cancerposting and desperate samefagging, no matter what blatant nonsense you give out there. If someone will further humiliate you or drive you into a corner - know that it's not me anymore. I don't do that with kids.
>If someone will further humiliate you or drive you into a corner
almost never happens.
I don't mention my degree in dinosaur paleontology to pull rank or claim victory
I mention it so you know what you're dealing with. I can teach you biology. You have little or nothing to teach me.
>I don't mention my degree in dinosaur paleontology to pull rank or claim victory
Because you don't have one lol
>I mention it so you know what you're dealing with. You have little or nothing to teach me.
Yeah you're a schizo. Please get mental help.
>Because you don't have one lol
are you the "hydrobiologist" that never learned cladistics and I just taught about wikipedia?
if so you're dunning and krugering all over the place. You think you "pass" as a scientist and nobody wants to tell you that you pass like that Jenner dude passes as a woman.
lol project much?
anyone that has actually studied biology at a college level knows I have also.
and we know you didn't.
you can pretend to be almost anything online but you can't pretend to know things.
>are you the "hydrobiologist"
Who are you talking to, schizo? Take your meds asap.
>almost never happens.
Then why are you constantly seething and cancerposting multiple replies to the same post? Samefagging is the most classic sign of desperate coping.
>I don't mention my degree in dinosaur paleontology
Yeah, in college. Sure. (Based retard.)
>I can teach biology
All you can "teach" is multi-gender theory and demonstrate mental retardation with your own example.
>You have nothing to teach me
That's true. Because the mentally retarded have a limit to the information assimilation. No matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to insert new data into your defective CPU.
>It's still widely used, kid.
It was abandoned by taxonomists in 1975. Paleontologists are taxonomists.
It's widely used in ecology where gradistics is more important than cladistics. It's informally used by other scientists sometimes. And it's used by the fools that tried to bring back a clade "Reptilia."
but taxonomists rejected it long before you were born.
let me know if I need to explain any of the words in my post to you. I'd be happy to help you understand.
>birds are by definition reptiles
Trying to make it as hard as possible to ignore his shitposts.
The point isn't to actually have a discussion, it's to try and drown out anything who isn't directly engaging with his over inflated ego during the manic phases of his schizo cycle.
>why is the Sauropsida clade needed at all? This is literally just a synonym for Diapsida
tell me again about your college degree, idiot.
>Reddit queer discovered Wikipedia
>Reddit queer discovered Wikipedia
meanwhile OP the totally-not-lying biologist hasn't found it?
Even stupid cladists admit reptiles still exist. They just fucking lie about it now.
>Btw, why is the Sauropsida clade needed at all? This is literally just a synonym for Diapsida.
That's what reptiles are
Nothing. Just a paraphyletic taxon and and biological morph of amniotes with a set of specific characteristics.
>but in schools, for some reason, they teach us exactly according to the Linnean system
tell me you never went to college without telling me you never went to college.
Actually, I've been graduating from university for 4 years and now I work as a hydrobiologist. But both at school and at the university in the course of basic biology, we were still taught the Linnean system.
you can lie about what you've done, you can't lie about what you know
everyone that's been to college knows you're a liar.
>that reddit spacing
Oh, it's you. Well, thank's you for your opinion, illitrate reddit queer. It was very useful and important. /S
I recognize that fag as well. Apparently anyone who didn't learn the exact syllabus he did, never got an education. At one point he claimed that he didn't really believe what he typed, and just enjoyed the responses he got. The standard " I was just pretending to be stupid" sort.
>anyone who didn't learn the exact syllabus he did, never got an education
In the US we teach cladistics in 6th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade. Also in college intro classes.
now you fools might in fact be from some third world toilet that doesn't teach cladistics. Or maybe you slept through science classes. But anyone with half a brain was introduced to cladistics at age 12 and repeatedly after that.
Public schools teach a lot of bullshit. Cladistics is one example.
The issue is they have ancestral traits in common that a chicken doesn't: they're fully covered in scales, they're cold blooded or mesotherms at best, they reproduce via egg-laying or ovovivipary, etc. Few of these traits are shared by birds or mammals. Where "mammal" even begins in Synapsida is a good question. It seems to have been a MUCH longer transition than from reptiles to dinosaurs. You can almost name the genus where Dinosaurs appear. With mammals we don't even know where hair first appeared. Cladists are fucking retards that think they're clever by pulling this "morpha" trick where they just paste "morpha" on the end of traditional groups and now you're back to the classical class group that always existed, because cladists always eventually have to resurrect old classes after they mutilate them. Reptilia is a useful class because the creatures have common traits and are related (it's not polyphyletic). Cladist retards just call it "Reptiliomorpha" now.
This thread only exists because cladists are blithering idiots. Now that all the questions have been answered, it can die.
Archosaurs were covered in scales (except for some coelurosaurs) but are warm-blooded. Synapsids up to the therapsids were cold-blooded, but only a few of them had some kind of rat-tail scales. Everything is very complicated with the term reptile.
This is just the designation of a certain biological morph of amniotes that has a certain set of features (some of them). At the same time, the boundaries are very blurred. So, if Velociraptor is a reptile, is Archaeopteryx a reptile as well? At the same time, equating the term "reptile" with sauropsids, as suggested by that cringe underage redditor above, does not make any sense. Modern birds do not fit the term reptiles in any way, although from a cladistic point of view they are, if we equate reptiles with sauropsids. Thus, the Edaphosaurus or the Moschops are not reptiles, but the dove or the goose are. Autism as it is.
The term "reptile" still makes sense, as a paraphilic morph that includes both synapsids and sauropsids with the exception of birds and mammals, with a boundary somewhere within the Avialae and Cynodontia clades. As for the cladistics itself, the old term "reptile" by good should be excluded from it altogether, leaving only precise, dry, neutral terminology.
>Archosaurs were covered in scales (except for some coelurosaurs) but are warm-blooded.
They're not warm-blooded. You seem to be forgetting that crocodilians are archosaurs and are cold-blooded. And dinosaurs were never warm-blooded. Even the birdlike ones during the Mesozoic don't appear to have been. It is only when LITERAL birds evolved during the Mesozoic that they MAY have been warmblooded. But the world was tropical back then, so who knows? Note that Archaeopteryx and Troodon rank BELOW Leatherback Seaturtles.
>Synapsids up to the therapsids were cold-blooded
We have absolutely no idea when the shift occurred. And I don't know where you dumb retards keep getting this "rattail scale" narrative from.
>Everything is very complicated with the term reptile.
No feathermorons just want it to be, so you invent convolutions that don't exist, like the artificial separation of Synapsida and Sauropsida. If these are genuine clades, then Synapsids are Sauroposids also. Early Synapsids are undeniably reptilian.
>At the same time, the boundaries are very blurred
There are exactly TWO (2) places where the boundaries are blurred: At the root of Mammalia and the root of Aves, precisely as everyone has always said. And that's just a transitional issue. We have a much better idea of where birds appear than where true mammals appear and it seems to have taken longer for mammals to come from Synapsids than for birds to come from Dinosaurs (which are reptiles).
- Are cold-blooded (so not Birds)
- Are oviparous or ovovivaparous
- Have scales covering their bodies
It's not hard to understand. Cladists just don't WANT it to be true.
>I've been graduating from university for 4 years
damn how many mfs in your class
Remember to tell cladists to take their meds when they try to claim the "Linnaean system doesn't exist." Try to get them committed if you can.