Thursday, February 20, 2014

... or Preliminary Answers on AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge (with a correction on the "Permian Otter" or "Teckel")

Video with challenge (not recommended for the innocent):
AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whether ducks and geese are one or two kinds (I think two), they are not same kind as galliforms.

And I am not sure if Kiwi is a kind of Ostrich, I think not, but Nandu and Emu are.


Velociraptor on Palaeocritti site

Holotype (AMNH 6515): skull and partial forelimb
Paratype (AMNH 6518): Partial skull, forelimb and hindlimb bones
Referred specimens: IGM 94.07.28; IGM 100/24; IGM 100/25; IGM 100/54; IGM 100/200; IGM 100/976; IGM 100/981?; IGM 100/982; IGM 100/985; IGM 100/986; IGM 100/2000 (juvenile skull and partial skeleton); PIN 3143/8; ZPAL MgD-I/97

I'd like details about how partial that partial skeleton is.

["IGM 100/2000" of course]

It is conceivable that panthers are one or two kinds but hardly same kind as cat or lynx.

Possibly as Aelurosaurus.

[Cat, not panther, of course]

Permian, from Beaufort, exactly one partial skull:

Aelurosaurus on Palaeocritti site

And if you say "can't be same kind as cat, they weren't evolved in Permian times yet", that is precisely the point. Kind of a "Carboniferous rabbit" if you like.

Except of course, Carboniferous and Permian and the rest seem, as far as fossils go, to be distributed in space. Twodimensionally. You are NOT finding Permians under Cretaceous which are under Miocene, anywhere.

And same with my suspicion that procynosuchus was an early teckel, even if it lost a few phalangs the sample on board the ark:

Procynosuchus delaharpeae on Palaeocritti site

More on my very clear suspicion the "time labels" are really just biotopoes from the time of the Flood, see here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

And this series with associated tables:

Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You're a special kind of idiot, aren't you?

You do realize the name Aelurosaurus felinus is in reference to the shape of some its teeth, right? Just like carcharadontosaurus is named after some of its teeth resembling those of a shark, not because it is one. If you went by your logic, then the blue whale must be a species of mice because musculus means "little mouse".

As for the procynosuchus being an "early teckel", there is an obvious reason for why it's only your suspicion and no one else's. It's wrong. There are a lot more differences (such as the skull alone) that show that they are unrelated, especially since the dachshund is a breed of dog that came about only in the early 1600's in Germany.

And it's easy to see how you get so confused on epochs and fossil layers and geological layers, especially when you use creationist websites and not peer-reviewed, accredited sources that have been proven to be right time and time again.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here is aelurosaurus for you:

You said what resembled a cat? A few teeth?

OK, but what exactly do we have except a few teeth that does NOT resemble a cat?

"Remains Holotype: partial skull "

In the case of a blue whale and a mouse, I would ask you what DOES resmble a mouse, plus the remains we have of blue whales are far MORE then just a partial skull.

Do you get the picture?

The particular breed of teckel may have really originated in 1600's in Germany, or it may have been first recorded there. Its immediate ancestor was hardly a wolf or a great dane. Meaning we do not know when we first get dogs looking like that.

Procynosuchus delaharpeae on my Palaeocritti back up blog or salvage blog

Procynosuchus delaharpeae on Palaeocritti site

Now, skull worked over by artist looks like a teckel skull to me.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
We have parts of the jaw and skull. Tell me, what kind of cat has eyes on the side of its head instead of facing forward, or that long of a jaw compared to skull size?

You do realize that teckel and dachshund are the same thing, right? And that it is well known when the breed arose, right? And that there are no records of dogs like them andy significant time beforehand, right? And that it's not that hard to breed a trait into a dog for a specific task, right?

You've never seen an actual teckel skull, have you? If you had, you would have realized that the dimensions are different, that the skull of the procynosuchus has much thicker upper and lower jaw bones, which are also longer overall compared to that head, and there is no main distinction between the upper jaw and the skull, unlike that of a teckel. You'd also notice that the skeleton (we have complete skeletons of procynosuchus) has legs splayed out at the sides like a lizard, and not underneath like a dog, has a rib cage that extends all the way back to hind legs, unlike a dog which has more robust ribs that end halfway, as well and the overall general shape of the bones is rather different.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Eyes on side of skull ... you may have a point. OK. Either other kind or skull very distorted (or both, if instead the cat like features result from distortion).

Teckel or dachshund per se are from Germany (I speak German and knew the word Dachshund before I knew the word teckel), but their immediate ancestors before that were very much not German shepherds.

However, in the palaeocritti site they were compared to otters, and when I had a fresh look at otters (I am not a zoologist, the palaeontological side of this makes it a new but obvious side kick for me) they were a bit more similar to Procynosuchus delaharpeae.

But otters or teckels ... either way it could very well be a disproof of Dawkins' point about carboniferous rabbits.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Or simply show a case of convergent evolution where two completely different species lived in a similar environment and thus evolved similar traits that benefit them the most in said environment.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Or simply show a case of convergent evolution"

Ah, that exists?

Well, if so how do you know "similar traits argue similar ancestors"? Thank you for ruining, not your explanation, but rather, while defending it, your main proof.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Because convergent evolution doesn't explain the presence of the same bone structures and the like, only "similarities", such as the case between the teeth of carcharadontosaurus and sharks (there are differences, such as the presence of roots in the former), or overall body morphology, such a long, slender, flexible form common to some terrestrial species that enter the water, like otters.

There is also the fact that we have other fossils that show diversification and states of progression with ancient lineages.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In order for them to "show" any states of progression, one would need to know they were from different ages.

As said on the other thread, we do not.

Procynosuchus has a bone structure very close to the otter. I have in fact asked one European country where otters are extinct but where there have been such how different their otter skeletons are from Procynosuchus. Still waiting for an answer. Digits are at least five on both of them (on forefeet at least). Head might be as close as we come to a clear divergence, except one of them has a slenderer rib cage.

That is what I notice without being any kind of expert. As you rightly said I wasn't.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl You already stated that you have no expertise in the fields of paleontology or geology, yet you assert that there is no way to judge the age of the rock. Your making the false assumption that only fossils are used to age the surrounding rock, when they are not.

Also, you just asserted a moment ago that the Procynosuchus skeleton looked almost exactly like a dachshund, now your saying it looks almost exactly like an otter? Do otters and dachshunds have the same-exact skeletal structures? You also haven't taken into account the fact that the fossil has legs on the sides, like a lizard, instead of underneath it, like a mammal.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You're making the false assumption that only fossils are used to age the surrounding rock, when they are not."

I am nowhere making this assumption. What I am rather saying is that beyond [range of] C14 it is the most BASIC method - along with a supposed order between the fossil deposits, plus counting each where it is as its thickest and where it is lacking it is counted as eroded since TIMES the slower deposition rates of sediments.

"Do otters and dachshunds have the same-exact skeletal structures?"

Dachshund was mostly referring to the form of its head, slenderness and short legs. Otters are a bit closer to them than I thought, my memory of "water animals" being more built on beavers. I checked out otters after making the statement.

"You also haven't taken into account the fact that the fossil has legs on the sides, like a lizard, instead of underneath it, like a mammal. "

Will check.

Did check, you are right that Procynosuchus delaharpeae has legs on side if TSK (whatever institution that is) has mounted the skeleton correctly.

(Skeletal reconstruction of Procynosuchus delaharpeae, based on specimen TSK 34. From Kemp, 1980.)

Institution Abbreviations on Palaeocritti site

TSK seems to miss ... other specimens were not complete.

ah, I seem to have been wrong even about specimen sigla starting with the abbreviation for the institution ...?

No comments: