So we can all agree birds are reptiles, right?

So we can all agree birds are reptiles, right?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      More or less. But you can know this and not annoyingly call parrots "dinosaurs" to try to act reddit smart.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you just have reddit rent free in your head

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >EVERYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH IS RENT FREE
          Lol the term "rent free" was popularized on twitter, another shithole that homosexuals like to defend.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You literally posted one of your reddit threads that got deleted on reddit.

            you are so obviously reddit it hurts.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 moron, 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So we can all agree Siphonophore "colonies" are a single organism, and """scientists""" are fricking moronic, right?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, because I want to call my liver a separate animal that just happens to be specialized into a symbiotic relationship with me.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    yes and humans are fish, taxonomy homosexuals are moronic. we all know what a reptile is.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >this thread

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Letting birds get paleontology degrees was a mistake.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, in a technical sense that is irrelevant to day to day use

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Phylogeny wise, they’re very closely related
    But they’re not reptiles
    That’s like saying mushrooms are plants

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >That’s like saying mushrooms are plants
      It’s not like that at all

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    we actually switched before you were born.

    never in your life has "Reptilia" been a class.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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 frick up the competition because you have no merit of your own.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you do know you're insane, right?

        like getting angery about cladistics is not normal human behavior.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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 fricking moronic 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 morons brought to the table was a supremely messy and functionally inconvenient method of classifying organisms.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you seem a bit angery

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    we're all fish

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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".

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1613716114

    >OH NO NO NO yet another paper indicates Dinosaurs weren't endotherms
    >IT JUST KEEPS HAPPENING!!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Birds and crocodilians are archosaurs.

      https://i.imgur.com/5rLj2Y9.png

      But you will always cope harder 🙂

      Since when that decides cladistics? Are echidnas not mammals now?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Since when that decides cladistics?
        "reptile" isn't a clade. They're defined by being cold blooded and scaley.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Reptilia is a clade and it includes birds. It isn't 1822 anymore.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >ICZN
              don't give a damn about them. There is no monolithic "science council" that decides what is and isn't accepted.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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 moronic. 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".

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              If they were defined by their original use then the term reptile would include amphibians

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                all this means is you have one language for plebs and one for the elite.

                which we already have. So you're just b***hing 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 b***h about it, but you can't stop it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                tl;dr: if you want to change how people think and speak, maybe try not being a literal moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

                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 morons 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.

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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 b***hing 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 b***h about it, but you can't stop it.

                >all this means is you have one language for plebs and one for the elite.
                >which we already have. So you're just b***hing that the elites have a secret language built using your own words, but giving them a different meaning.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >then the "neat categories" side is rather yours
                Lol no it isn't.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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 morons 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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 nugays 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.

                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.

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Cladists are such nugays 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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You dumb b***h, that was the case before cladistics even existed.

                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?

                Are you going to keep insisting that humans aren't reptiles?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >this was already put to bed decades ago by paleontologists.
                yes, by declaring reptiles to be an invalid taxon.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

                >if reptiles were monophyletic, humans would be reptiles too
                we wouldn't, reptiles are diapsids while humans are synapsids, two different clades of amniotes

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Mammals come from reptiles, stupid. This dishonest claim that amphibians split into a polytomy of synapsids and diapsides is absolutely fricking ridiculous. Ancestral synapsids, had scales, beaks, sclerotic rings and laid eggs.

                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.

                >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.

                >this was already put to bed decades ago by paleontologists.
                yes, by declaring reptiles to be an invalid taxon.

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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 moronic. 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's obvious what you're saying. That's why it takes 6 paragraphs to "refute" you. Lies take more time than truth.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Nugays 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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Reptilia is a class.
            not anymore
            >"Clade" isn't a classification of anything.
            then it doesn't need a name.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >They're defined by being cold blooded and scaley
          So I guess tegus are seasonally not reptiles then

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Argentine black and white tegus exhibit some endothermy, I guess that disqualifies them as being reptiles then?

            That isn't how it works moron. If it was, humans being subject to hypothermia would make them ectotherms. God damn, why did NPC contrarianism become this common?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Argentine black and white tegus exhibit some endothermy, I guess that disqualifies them as being reptiles then?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Humans and coelocanths are fish.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >>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 morons like you could stop pretending that ornithischia and saurischia were the same thing, that'd be nice.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >NOOO ONLY THEROPODS ARE DINOSAURS
        The age of every moron with internet access getting all their dinosaur info from a combination of twitter, reddit and deviantart is over. morons like you will one day have to learn that Theropods are just dinosaurs also, not pre-birds.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't. Dinosaurs, even by cladist homosexualry is a monophyletic clade.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >a monophyletic clade
              A monophyletic clade that includes birds

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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 morons are doing now with fish and reptiles.

                >ICZN
                don't give a damn about them. There is no monolithic "science council" that decides what is and isn't accepted.

                A million times this. ICZN makes REALLY fricking 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Keep birds but lose half of all dinosaurs to cladist bullshit
                Or just keep birds and all dinosaurs

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Birds aren't dinosaurs anymore than humans are fish.

                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.

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                More than that, cladists believe the Jones family doesn't exist because Sally's son is named Mark Smith.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Birds aren't dinosaurs anymore than humans are fish
                Yes they are, by a couple hundred million years

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                that's is like saying that humans aren't mammals

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No, it's like saying Humans aren't reptiles.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Who's "we"? Cladists are the only delusional fricks that pretend reptiles don't exist. No cladist yet has ever explained why "paraphyly" is bad on anything other than personal issue grounds.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Who's "we"?
                paleontologists

                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 moronic, nobody can explain anything to you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >if reptiles were monophyletic, humans would be reptiles too
                we wouldn't, reptiles are diapsids while humans are synapsids, two different clades of amniotes

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because I'm not a cladist homosexual. Just like humans aren't reptiles.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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?

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

      You will cope forever.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But you will always cope harder 🙂

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why are mouse and keyboard connected to the monitor?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's an AIO grandpa.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *