So we can all agree birds are reptiles, right? Posted on January 22, 2023 by Anonymous So we can all agree birds are reptiles, right?
Amphibians are just fishs with legs
Reptiles are just salamanders with scales
Birds are just lizards with feathers and a beak
Mammals are just lizards with fur
More or less. But you can know this and not annoyingly call parrots "dinosaurs" to try to act reddit smart.
you just have reddit rent free in your head
>EVERYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH IS RENT FREE
Lol the term "rent free" was popularized on twitter, another shithole that gays like to defend.
You literally posted one of your reddit threads that got deleted on reddit.
you are so obviously reddit it hurts.
The reason we like to point out that birds are dinosaurs is because it pisses off creationists like you.
and once you get pissed, we know you're a brainlet and we can ignore you or ban you. Which is why your shit gets deleted on reddit. You're a creationist or some similar retard, no scientist cares what you think. You're not even an effective critic of science since you don't understand what you're trying to criticize.
Mammals are beast of the lands.
Whales are "breathing fish". They may share a commen ancestor and commen traites. But because how they live they need to be qualified in a diffrent class
So we can all agree Siphonophore "colonies" are a single organism, and """scientists""" are fucking retarded, right?
No, because I want to call my liver a separate animal that just happens to be specialized into a symbiotic relationship with me.
yes and humans are fish, taxonomy gays are retarded. we all know what a reptile is.
Letting birds get paleontology degrees was a mistake.
Yes, in a technical sense that is irrelevant to day to day use
There are two ways to look at it.
In terms of common layman English, birds are not considered reptiles. We consider them so divergent from other traditional reptiles (snakes, lizards, crocodilians, turtles) that in terms of non-scientific, everyday life, we put them in a different category to traditional reptiles based on our initial observations. This also part of the foundation for Linnaean taxonomy.
In terms of modern taxonomy, birds are reptiles because excluding them would create a paraphyletic group. Putting crocodilians (fellow archosaurs of birds) in the category of reptiles means you cannot reasonably exclude birds. And the general scientific premise for reptiles is that every amniote past the last common ancestor with Synapsids that isn't a Synapsid is essentially a Sauropsid (Reptilian). We can also notice that some features of birds are highly specialized reptilian features (such as feathers sharing traits to similar structures on pterosaur fossils and certain basal proteins in crocodilian scales), while others (such as endothermy and the loss of teeth for beaks) are the product of convergent evolution that came about for differing reasons (or some similar reasons but different genetic expressions) to those found in other animal groups.
Phylogeny wise, they’re very closely related
But they’re not reptiles
That’s like saying mushrooms are plants
>That’s like saying mushrooms are plants
It’s not like that at all
we actually switched before you were born.
never in your life has "Reptilia" been a class.
Reptilia will never not be a class. I don't know what you're so worried about. You don't believe in classes anyway. But that kind of gives the game away, doesn't it? Just like all corruptors you define your entire little cult by how you can fuck up the competition because you have no merit of your own.
you do know you're insane, right?
like getting angery about cladistics is not normal human behavior.
Nobody's angry about cladistics. You're just wrong and always will be. But you're the worst kind of wrong. You're wrong in a way that convinces you you're right. Like a guy that understands that gas makes a car run so starts pouring it all over his engine. Linnaeans have understood phylogeny for several times longer than cladists have even existed, but you all pretend like you invented it. We're just not fucking retarded about it. Normal, sane people don't feel the need to "correct" people when they say "look a bird" by saying, "Um, axchually, that's an avian dinosaur." We knew birds came from dinosaurs before you even existed. The only new thing you retards brought to the table was a supremely messy and functionally inconvenient method of classifying organisms.
you seem a bit angery
we're all fish
No because all reptiles including mesozoic "birds" were mesotherms at best, while Cenozoic Birds are actual endotherms. People need to stop saying "non-avian dinosaurs", unless they start calling lungfish "non-human sarcopterygians".
>OH NO NO NO yet another paper indicates Dinosaurs weren't endotherms
>IT JUST KEEPS HAPPENING!!
Birds and crocodilians are archosaurs.
Since when that decides cladistics? Are echidnas not mammals now?
>Since when that decides cladistics?
"reptile" isn't a clade. They're defined by being cold blooded and scaley.
Reptilia is a clade and it includes birds. It isn't 1822 anymore.
>Reptilia is a clade and it includes birds.
You still haven't petitioned the ICZN to conserve the name, so no.
even if you did petition, they'd turn it down because scientists think it's bullshit.
don't give a damn about them. There is no monolithic "science council" that decides what is and isn't accepted.
What exactly do you think words are and how they are defined? This is a reply in general to the topic.
Do you believe words have some independent existence from human usage?
Words are defined by their use. And people have originally coined the terms reptile or fish in reference to -- well, these creatures. And they still continue to use these terms like this.
Trying to equate these terms to monoclades is retarded. Do you not see how this lowers information density? Terms like "fish" need to become "ray-finned fish plus some lobe-finned fish but excluding the tetrapods".
If they were defined by their original use then the term reptile would include amphibians
I am not saying they were "defined by their original use" (although you could make the argument that this partially defines a word -- but again, not my point). I am rather saying that the perception of people how a term was originally coined, informs how they a) actively use the term in their language, and/or b) deem the term "correctly used" if used by others.
Use me as an example. I extremely object to the notion that "fish" should now include tetrapods. Why do I object? To a large degree, because the term was not coined with that definition. This is, however, just my personal evaluation. If I didn't know "fish" originally didn't include tetrapods, I might just go with how the word is used exclusively.
If one isn't midwitted, one should see what I am advocating for: a disentanglement of the notion that words exists outside the *human perception* of such, and this regardless of such supposed "inherent/objective" qualities such as word coinage origin (despite what I just said initially -- again, it's perception that's important) or the definitions that scientists use.
Admittedly it's a bit complicated to explain. It's a very philosophical discussion.
all this means is you have one language for plebs and one for the elite.
which we already have. So you're just bitching that the elites have a secret language built using your own words, but giving them a different meaning.
you have no control over that. As you say, words are defined by how people use them. You can't stop people from taking your words and using them correctly so the average person can't understand what they're saying. You can bitch about it, but you can't stop it.
Your complaints also betray a much deeper problem. You don't like tetrapods being called fish because your mind can't handle gradients. You prefer a dichotomy even if it's a false one. This is autism, and in your case it's a severe learning disability.
This also means you concentrate on differences in things while being blind to the similarities. You are more than 80% similar to a fish, anatomically, physiologically, and probably even genetically.
But you're completely blind to those similarities, and choose to instead concentrate on the differences. This is again autism, and it's a sever social disability because social interaction depends on similarities, not differences.
You are a deeply flawed person, complaining about normal people. Which is fun, that's what Wauf is for. But ultimately meaningless. You're not likely to reproduce and your ideas constrict thought rather than expand it. So they will never matter.
tl;dr: if you want to change how people think and speak, maybe try not being a literal retard.
It's very cute to be insulted and "analyzed" similarly to how I would do to another anon, just at maybe a quarter the proficiency at it. It reminds me of a dog that "works" human jobs. Very adorkable. Frankly, I think there is a psychological mechanism at hand why you try to paint me as an oblivious autist: you feel intellectually threatened because my veering off into philosophy makes me sound "deeper" than this discussion supposedly warrants. Now, sounding "deep" was not my intention, but anyway, continuing.
You are rolling out pedestrian facts that first stunned me 10+ years ago, when I was a teenager just starting to (recreationally) learn about biology. Yes, of course humans are fundamentally based on the fish template. You are stating this as if this were a grand argument that should leave me speechless, and on Reddit you might just have a chance with that. You know what humans are also fundamentally based on? The eukaryote template. We are 50% genetically similar to a banana. Do you think it's valuable to now collapse these two branches of the tree of life, because of these extreme similarities between bananas and apes?
So yes, I focus on differences -- because that way, more information can be encapsulated. If you program, you should be aware behind the "diff" principle.
I don't find you threatening
you seem to lack self-awareness, so I offered some insight
Pointing out that humans are eukaryotes isn't "collapsing" anything.
that is a false equivalence
crippling, debilitating autism.
you don't realize your brain is utterly broken.
this is schizophrenia.
>Pointing out that humans are eukaryotes isn't "collapsing" anything.
Your side is not merely "pointing out" -- which paraphyly also allows -- but constructing an equivalence upon these terms.
The rest of your post is insults, and above was not a genuine argument, just contradicting. So you have evidently thrown in the towel of this debate.
On the other side, your arguments truly are perplexing. Why do you, like a schizophrenic, just read statements into my posts that I never made? I know the affair of phylogeny and cladistics is already a bit complicated, so if you throw in the complexities of semiotics (the study how meaning is constructed and communicated) and Wittgensteinian philosophy, your ability to keep an overview is truly blown and you start to babble bewildering, ChatGPT-reminiscient sentences.
I am not invoking that there are two "neat categories". If you need to use this language, then the "neat categories" side is rather yours. I believe in the messiness of the actual tree of life: every single node represents a clade. And most of these nodes are completely unnamed, unranked. Every generation can represent such a node. Where we apply the knife and declare one side of the node "fungi" and the other "animals" (e.g.) is a purely arbitrary human linguistic concern.
And no, you are laughably wrong if you claim paraphyly collapses information. You have no idea what you, and I, are talking about. According to paraphyly, it's valid to refer to prehistoric dinosaurs as "dinosaurs", but according to monophyly, the equivalent is "non-avian dinosaurs". Under paraphyly, non-tetrapod fish are "fish", but under monophyly, that precise same category is called "non-tetrapod fish". Do you not see how one is more entropic than the other? Okay, I just realize you haven't actually studied information theory so you care genuinely lost what I am even referring to.
>constructing an equivalence upon these terms.
to the uneducated perhaps
>all this means is you have one language for plebs and one for the elite.
>which we already have. So you're just bitching that the elites have a secret language built using your own words, but giving them a different meaning.
a normal person realizes that just because humans are fish does NOT mean fish are all humans.
so no equivalence exists in the normal mind.
it's only the pathological mind that has this problem.
>Do you not see how one is more entropic than the other?
certainly, but all we've done is taken a complex idea and confined it to the minds capable of absorbing it.
a secret language. Not held in secret, it's actually out there for anyone that cares to learn the language. Most people don't want to and don't care. Nor is there any need for them to learn it. But to the initiates in this language, it conveys far more information, not less.
as to why you'd insist that evolutionary biologists try to convey less information per word, I can't really imagine. The method you propose is certainly less efficient and useful, which should be apparent to you by the simple fact that we used to use it and literally nobody does anymore.
there are fields where it's still useful, such as ecology and communication to the public. But outside that very narrow scope it has been completely replaced and pretty much everyone loves the new language because it's far more accurate than the old.
You see this total agreement among scientists as evidence of corruption, but of course it's not to anyone except an extreme neoluddite such as yourself.
>On the other side, your arguments truly are perplexing. Why do you, like a schizophrenic, just read statements into my posts that I never made?
It's called strawmanning. It's what you have to do to win an argument when you're lying.
>then the "neat categories" side is rather yours
Lol no it isn't.
the problem with your thinking is
1. If humans are fish that does not imply that all fish are humans, so the category "fish" still encodes as much information as before.
2. If humans are fish that implies that humans are also every step from fish to human, and all the steps before, so the category is expanded to a point approaching infinity
so mathematically, your application of human vs fish is the one collapsing information, and I mean by a lot.
your brain can't handle that level of information so you collapse it into 2 neat categories instead of the millions that actually exist. As retards tend to do.
and then for the icing on the cake you pretend your collapsed information is somehow broader than the actual information. Indicating you aren't aware of your mistake, you don't understand that your brain is short circuiting.
>Yes, of course humans are fundamentally based on the fish template. You are stating this as if this were a grand argument that should leave me speechless
This is the fundamental flaw in cladism that leads to all others. Cladists are such nufags they think they invented the theory of evolution. They don't seem to realize the Linnaean system existed for decades alongside the understanding that some classes come from others. Like all systems, the Linnaen system is artificial (so is cladism). It's better than cladism because it's neater and more organized. Linnaeans don't have to say "non-human fish" or "non-avian dinosaur". We just say things like "dinosaur" and everyone knows what we mean.
Of course you do. That's why you're here 24/7 shilling the mainstream. ANY dissent anywhere is a threat to all of you NPCs everywhere.
>Cladists are such nufags they think they invented the theory of evolution
no, they just recognize that evolution and phylogenetic relations are a think and server as better criteria to classify and group organisms than merely morphological resemblances and other superficial traits
You dumb bitch, that was the case before cladistics even existed.
Are you going to keep insisting that humans aren't reptiles?
I don't know why you think you're smart by bringing up the "le mammals are reptiles" point, this was already put to bed decades ago by paleontologists.
>this was already put to bed decades ago by paleontologists.
yes, by declaring reptiles to be an invalid taxon.
>That's why you're here 24/7 shilling the mainstream.
I tell you every time. My curiosity is in how the schizophrenic brain avoids seeing its own failures. You have no clue you're insane despite presumably having been told every day for most of your life. It's fascinating.
>we wouldn't, reptiles are diapsids while humans are synapsids, two different clades of amniotes
we don't know which one came first so humans would be reptiles. Or reptiles would be synapsids, which is less likely.
Mammals come from reptiles, stupid. This dishonest claim that amphibians split into a polytomy of synapsids and diapsides is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Ancestral synapsids, had scales, beaks, sclerotic rings and laid eggs.
>Um cladisim means birds are dinosaurs
>NO NO NO YOU CAN'T JUST CALL MAMMALS REPTILES!!!
This is what happens when your system is so terrible that the basic application of it makes the person using it mad.
The problem is "reptilia" is """paraphyletic""" which is the cardinal sin in the religion of cladism. They can never explain why paraphyly is bad, they just all know it's the devil.
>Mammals come from reptiles, stupid.
yes I know.
I was the one that taught you that. It only took you 4 years to learn.
as you now know, it means humans are also reptiles under any monophyletic "Reptilia," and even if they weren't it just makes reptiles synapsids.
>They can never explain why paraphyly is bad, they just all know it's the devil.
paraphyly isn't bad. Just because monophyly is better, doesn't make paraphyly evil or something. Stop being so dramatic.
>They can never explain why paraphyly is bad,
The purpose of taxonomy is to describe how organisms are related to each other
obviously, excluding some of their relatives for arbitrary reasons is the opposite of that purpose.
Family names are a decent example of this.
Say you got Bob and Susan Smith, and they have 3 sons, Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Now say Harry is the only one with brown hair.
if we want to know how they're related, do we call Tom, Dick, and Harry Smiths because their parents names are Smith? Or do we give Harry a different last name because he has brown hair and none of the others do?
If we're using their last name to describe how they're related, they're all Smiths. We don't give one of them a different last name just because he has different hair color. He's still related and that's what the name should imply.
This should be obvious to anyone who isn't clinically retarded. We don't just go handing out new last names just because a person is different. That's what the first name is for.
Then genus and species names describe how animals are different. All the other names above that rank describe how they're the same.
It's obvious what you're saying. That's why it takes 6 paragraphs to "refute" you. Lies take more time than truth.
Nufags always try to steal language and warp it towards their own agenda. It's a literal communist technique. Commies believe language and reality are the same thing and if they can nuspeak everyone enough they can great reset the world. And the reason is commies always come from the upper classes where the most work any of them have ever done is reading.
Reptilia is a class. "Clade" isn't a classification of anything. Thanks for playing cladistics. Cladists always lose because they're too stupid to understand patterns.
>Reptilia is a class.
>"Clade" isn't a classification of anything.
then it doesn't need a name.
>They're defined by being cold blooded and scaley
So I guess tegus are seasonally not reptiles then
That isn't how it works retard. If it was, humans being subject to hypothermia would make them ectotherms. God damn, why did NPC contrarianism become this common?
Argentine black and white tegus exhibit some endothermy, I guess that disqualifies them as being reptiles then?
Humans and coelocanths are fish.
>>OH NO NO NO yet another paper indicates Dinosaurs weren't endotherms
>All studied embryos were ornithischians
No shit the animals with crocodylian respiration and ectothermic bone growth patterns were ectotherms.
Now if retards like you could stop pretending that ornithischia and saurischia were the same thing, that'd be nice.
>NOOO ONLY THEROPODS ARE DINOSAURS
The age of every retard with internet access getting all their dinosaur info from a combination of twitter, reddit and deviantart is over. Retards like you will one day have to learn that Theropods are just dinosaurs also, not pre-birds.
One day, people will recognise that 'Dinosauria' encompasses a selection of vastly different animals whose anatomical diversity puts mammals to shame.
Hopefully you'll have roped yourself before then.
It doesn't. Dinosaurs, even by cladist gayry is a monophyletic clade.
>a monophyletic clade
A monophyletic clade that includes birds
I guess you'll have to choose which hill to die on on soon. Keep birds but lose half of all dinosaurs to cladist bullshit or lose birds and accept the correctness of the Linnaean truth. We already know where the clade cult is leading.
20 years from now:
>Um axchually dinosaurs don't exist
Just like cladist retards are doing now with fish and reptiles.
A million times this. ICZN makes REALLY fucking stupid decisions all the time, like PREVENTING the correction of spelling errors in published names, even with everyone full well knowing the name was spelled incorrectly, including the author. ICZN is what happens when you give autists power.
>Keep birds but lose half of all dinosaurs to cladist bullshit
Or just keep birds and all dinosaurs
Birds aren't dinosaurs anymore than humans are fish.
Even by any correct scientific understanding, birds aren't dinosaurs. Just like sharks aren't lancelets and flowering plants aren't gymnosperms. The problem with cladists is that they can't understand that you can know where something comes from and not think the ancestor and the descendant are the same thing. Linnaeans understand that Doug Jones and his daughter Sally Jones are from the same family. Cladists think Doug and Sally are the same person.
More than that, cladists believe the Jones family doesn't exist because Sally's son is named Mark Smith.
>Birds aren't dinosaurs anymore than humans are fish
Yes they are, by a couple hundred million years
that's is like saying that humans aren't mammals
No, it's like saying Humans aren't reptiles.
that's actually why we got rid of the name
birds aren't the main problem
if reptiles were monophyletic, humans would be reptiles too. Creationists like OP can't handle that.
Who's "we"? Cladists are the only delusional fucks that pretend reptiles don't exist. No cladist yet has ever explained why "paraphyly" is bad on anything other than personal issue grounds.
I wasn't one in 1975 when they tossed out the name, but I agree with them.
>No cladist yet has ever explained why "paraphyly" is bad on anything other than personal issue grounds.
you are clinically retarded, nobody can explain anything to you.
>if reptiles were monophyletic, humans would be reptiles too
we wouldn't, reptiles are diapsids while humans are synapsids, two different clades of amniotes
>birds aren't dinosaurs
Why, because they're highly derived? Even though they were living simultaneously along other dinosaurs that shared many of their traits? Are you going to be the one to draw an actual line, and if so, where is that line?
>where is that line?
He seems to think whether or not something is warm blooded defines whether or not it’s a bird or reptile, so I’m not sure where he would place facultative endotherms like tegus
Because I'm not a cladist gay. Just like humans aren't reptiles.
So are you just going to keep insisting that birds aren't dinosaurs because they just aren't when someone presses you for an actual answer, or would you like to elaborate?
You will cope forever.
But you will always cope harder 🙂
Why are mouse and keyboard connected to the monitor?
It's an AIO grandpa.