Newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology 9427

Directory

[References: line drastically abridged]
f.j.lindemann@toyen.uio.no (Franz-Josef Lindemann) writes:
>In article <56aqln$gap@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>says...
>>:It was already Hennig who made the distinction between the crown and 
>the 
>>:total group, though not in these terms. He used "*group" for the 
>first 
>>:and "group" for the latter.
I think I may have misunderstood this in what I said next:
>>Not very imaginative.  Also, unless he thought of ALL clades as being
>>total groups, he was restricting "groups" to not even include all of
>>what he called the monophyletic groups, was he?
>I take it that he in that context deliberately used general terms. It 
>was  probably his point not to be too imaginative, i.e. propose new 
>names where it seemed unnecessary.
I get the impression from what you say next that "names" refers
to specific taxa rather than such general terms as "group" versus
"*group".  In other words, he never did define "*group" as a term
in and of itself, did he?
 Thus, the taxon name Mammalia would 
>in this  usage be applied to the total group (Mammalia), the crown 
>group (*Mammalia)  and the (paraphyletic working tool) "stem-group 
>Mammalia".
This is good policy IMO.  I have proposed something similar
myself: "the clade of Therapsida" to mean the clade which consists
of all descendents of the last common ancestor of Therapsida,
while reserving "Therapsida" for the paraphyletic group that
excludes the mammals.  In this way, a classical systematist
could make all the concession needed to cladists as far as
admitting all clades into the system while preserving the
excellent features of the Linnean system.
Another idea that crossed my mind was to let an unused suffix
like "oida" [not "oidea," which is used a lot] to refer to the
clade determined by a paraphyletic taxon of whatever rank.
Thus "Tetraclaenodonoida" could refer to the clade consisting
of Tetraclaenodon and its descendants, and "Condylarthoida" 
could refer to the clade for which Condylartha is the stem group.
I decided to leave the following in, because I am quite
interested in the answer.
  One can try to make a case for more acute
>>hearing with the malleus and incus being freed from the jaw 
>>articulation, but what evolutionary advantage might the petrosal
>>promontorium have conferred?
>To be honest, I don't know. I think that the development of the 
>petrosal is closely connected to (and perhaps even a prerequisite of) 
>the formation of  the cochlea typical for higher mammals. But again, I 
>hope a mammalogist  reading this could answer your question.
Peter Nyikos                      -- standard disclaimer --   
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia,  SC  29208

Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: David L Evens wrote:
: > Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: > : David L Evens wrote:
: > 
: > : > The problem with these examples as arguments in favour of viri being
: > : > considered alive is that they all are organisms which are, isiolated from
: > : > other organisms, cable of carrying out life processes.  Viri don't do that.
: > 
: > : Such as parasites?  :-)
: > 
: > Nope.  A parasite doesn't HAVE to operate inside living cells (although
: > some do).
: So the ones that do; what about them?
They don't destroy themseslves in the process of infection as a virus will.
: You say that viruses (not _viri_, by the way) are not alive because they
: cannot carry out life processes isolated from other organisms.  Neither
: can parasites.  You may be able to classify parasites as alive by a
: separate definition you gave, but not by the one you describe here.
A virus and other kinds of parasites certainly differ in that a virus is 
destroyed in the process of establishing itself within the host, while 
other parasites are not.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:54:56 -0400, suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk)
wrote:
snip a lot about intelligent ants
>
>Also, cooperating intelligent hives would have some tremendous advantages
>in surviving a famine.  A group of hives could pool and redistribute
>resources, voluntarily reduce their mass, and cooperatively fight off the
>marauding mobile colonies that are driven to aggressive desperation by the
>famine.  
>
>> With humans experience counts for a lot, especially in our developing
>> years. Even later in life having plenty of stimuli helps you keep your mind
>> going - 'use it or lose it'. Being in one place really cuts down your
>> experience, so an ET intelligence that was sessile would have a different
>> learning system to us, perhaps some way of inheriting experience, so it
>> could be built up over time?
>
>Human beings are fairly sessile.  Even hunter gatherers have certain
>ranges with which they are most familiar.  And we also have a way of
>inheriting experience. (Gossip & storytelling.)  If the intelligent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>eusocials had some way of communicating over large distances, then their
>situation would be similar to that of early humans who associated with
>clans of around 150-300 members.  
>
There "inheriting experience". That is one thing fundamental to human
intelligence. One gets a very good idea from one's elders what does
not work and what not to try, as well as what had worked. I am a
farmer, and I work with cows I have noticed that old cows have
accumilated a lot of knowledge. I have seen a bunch of old cows break
in to a house that stored feed and the young cows standing in the same
yard did not notice what they were doing. The young cows did not
associate that house with food, and did not know a door was breakable,
the old one knew that sort of stuff but cows do not appear to pass on
any knowledge to their  young. 
Passing knowledge to younger generations and holding the accumulated
wisdom of several generations me to be very necessary to develope a
technology. If knoweldge cannot be passed on to others then no
individual could move beyond the basics sense each individual would
have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Any species with writing
should be considered intelligent. 
Of course species with out technology that was intelligent could
communicate knowledge to each other (in a kind of oral tradition) but
unless we cracked their language I do not think we could prove the
existance of a knowledge base among them.
snip more on ants

Followups restricted.  Resume crossposting at your own risk.
In article <328C9286.2740@hydro.on.ca>,
Dan Evens   wrote:
}Ed Conrad wrote:
}> Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
}> with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
}> fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
}
}Ed, this is a clumsy lie.  For a description of the finding of
}the fossil Lucy that is understandable by the non-scientist,
}read the book _Lucy_ by Johanson (sp?).
Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, _Lucy: The Beginnings of
Humankind_, 1981, Simon and Schuster, New York; ISBN: 0-671-25036-1.
-- 
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston

Ah, Jarno, you have made my day, today, in comedy! Thanks buddy.
In article <328b207d.3594017@news.cs.ruu.nl>
jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl (Jarno Peschier) writes:
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote the
> following:
> 
> >Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
> >discovered controlled fusion energy.
> 
> Sorry if I start laghing after this first sentence, but a light years
> is a unit of distance, not of time. 
> 
 Please, go ahead and laugh loud. This is a sci-fi movie and you are
permitted that art of laughter.
 Some movie makers have a mountain peak as their logo. Some have a
roaring lion. Some have Earth rotating.  My logo, which I would like to
have is to show a movie with a panning of the audience and observe them
laughing and then show me seated in a seat above the audience where I
can view the audience laughing and laugh at them.
  Mr. Peschier, I expected such a post, only I expected it from a
Scandinavian country like Norway where they only laugh when given the
go-ahead sign by they society permitting them to laugh. Apparently, Mr.
Peschier you have not read many of my posts for if you have you will
see that I lay traps. And then when a poster comes rip roaring laughing
at me, it is I who get the last laugh. Do you honestly think that I do
not know that a light year is distance? You must remember Jarno that
people here pay 6 to 10 bucks to see a movie and so I think it is best
to get them to -- think and laugh -- right at the start so that they
feel they are getting their money's worth.
  And to have a trap in every one of my movies is a good thing for me,
for it establishes my trademark. That their is an obvious , silly trap,
you laugh and then I laugh at you for laughing at me. It is not the
British understatement humor or the US slap stick and it probably flys
over the heads of the Germans.
  But a good delicate trap is an artform that I hope to exploit in my
movie productions. Remember these are sci-fi movies. Luis Bunuel (sp)
had trademarks in his films and I hope to have trademarks in my films.
I want to nurture the 'trap' as my trademark. The obvious wrong that
people laugh, yet I laugh at their laughter. It is good exercise in
humility.
> >There civilization sent a space ship in the shape
>  ^^^^^ their
> 
   Yes I do make mistakes and I type in a rush often my mind interposes
their and there. There are other words that my mind interposes when I
am in a rush.
> >through their distillation tank. The Bu-s immediately set out to net
> >all of the Permain large sized animals and run them through their
> >distillation tank. In one end is fed all of these captured animals and
> >at the other end is seen a fractionalized form of lithium.
> 
> So, all large Permian animals were composed completely and 100% of
> lithium? I didn't know that!
> 
    The lithium part was not a trap. I did not say 100%. Put your
thinking cap on or was your initial laugh unceasing.  Think for a
moment. If each animal had so much lithium then you would not have to
round up all of them to get the desired amount of lithium. The point is
that lithium is too diffuse in nature but concentrated, and a known
concentration in animal bodies. Thus , if faced with a time constraint
of one month to get a known volume of lithium and you know that animal
hearts have a given volume of lithium, you can calculate how many
animals you need, how long to round them up and be out of there in a
month's time. Take the known quantities rather than the risk of looking
for a lithium mine and not finding one.
> >  The movie is made long with interesting sequences of the Permian
> >extinction of animals, and what the Permian animals looked like and
> >what animals became extinct. And long sequences of the dinosaur
> >extinction in the Cretaceous at the hands of advanced aliens.
> 
> I really have much difficulty of taking this post for real. Movie
> makers are often stupid, but not this stupid, are they....?
> 
   You are the stupid one, for not only have you not made a movie to
show, but you have never made a movie outline such as PULSAR, BEAM ME
HOME. And I would guess that you are not creative enough to do so, and
if you did and posted it, you would be so embarrassed by it that people
there in the Holland would say, there is Jarno, he is a computer person
because he is dull and bland otherwise.
> Come on, get real and wake up. ;-)
> 
> Jarno Peschier, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl, 2:2802/247.5@Fido, 162:100/100.2@Agora,
>      74:3108/101.5@QuaZie, 27:2331/201.5@SigNet, 606:3130/200.2@F1-net
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>            'avwI' nejDI' narghta'bogh qama' reH 'avwI' Sambej
   Jarno, have you read anything about Chaos theory and attractors in
chaos ?
Well, if you have that is a fair likening of my posts on the Internet.
I set traps and many of my posts are 'nonlinear' and have attractors
and chaos in it. But to the simple minded folk that read the Net , like
you, well, they expect everything linear to them and are puzzled by my
posts. So, here's to you Jarno Peschier chump, I am laughing at you.
One movie director said it "here's to you kid"

In article , Longrich@princeton.edu (Nick Longrich) wrote:
>In article <56a66n$afo@news3.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.com wrote:
>>         But I's a SCIENTIST, see, you jus don understan
>>         how a chimpanzee can turn into a man
>   Scientists don't make the claim that humans are descended from chimps,
>but rather, that we share an ancestor. The fact that about 98% of the
>average human's DNA is also found in Bonzo is a pretty convincing argument
>that this is in fact the case.
Creationists:
Look at the morphology of a chihuahua and a Saint Bernard, are they both 
canines? Now look at the morphology of a chimp, a gorilla and yourself.
Now , why are they not of the same family?
 This, to me, is a question that I think that creationists really need to 
consider. Not just wave it away,. they really need to consider the 
similarities and then the differences.
All opinions are mine, and no one elses.
http://www.nwlink.com/~dickc
dickc

On 15 Nov 1996 13:32:27 GMT stdagp01@shsu.edu wrote:
>NASA plans to do just that sometime between 2003 and 2005
2 minutes to design a robot ;-)

>          NEUROLOGISTS FIND EVIDENCE
>            OF INTELLIGENT FOLLICLES
>               IN ED CONRAD'S BRAIN
Everybody seems to be having a chuckle at my expense.
So I decided I'M going to have a chuckle at my expense.
                               ~~~~~~~~~~
> (Boy, if I were sitting on the stool in the other corner
> of the ring,  I'd certainly have a field day with this one!)

I don't know why anyone has a problem believing H.sapiens could have 
hunted mammoths into extinction.  There is the evidence of stone points 
inside fossil carcasses, as already noted.  I remember discussing one in 
grad school where a point was actually lodged in the creature's bone.  
And, there are the mammoth bone shelter arrangements in Siberia, as 
noted.
Humans are the most awesome predators on Earth and have been for a long, 
long time.  There is a film showing African pygmies killing a huge bull 
elephant where one man runs right at the animal's side, drives a long 
spear into it and runs like hell.  The elephant did die, and it took the 
whole tribe to butcher and transport the meat.
-- 
Don Jordan
POB 2357
Chiefland, FL 32644
http://ripserv.com/indyjones

Kristen,
I recently wrote about this too and found the most information at Jeff 
Poling's DINOSAURIA ONLINE at www.dinosaria.com.  Go to Jeff's journal.  
There is a lot of bird-dino stuff there, AND pics of the "Sinosaur" from 
China in the "news and new developments" or somehting like that.
-- 
Don Jordan
POB 2357
Chiefland, FL 32644
http://ripserv.com/indyjones

Replying to jimamy@primenet.com 
: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
: 
: >Today, this pattern of reproduction is found among elephant populations 
: >that are being hunted.  
: 
: I've no knowlege of the study discussed so I ask: Are the elephants that 
: are being hunted subject ONLY to the hunting stress, OR, are they ALSO 
: suffering from stress due to habitat loss?
I don't know about the elephants, but the same pattern is seen in, for
instance, Plaice in the north atlantic. The response to increased
predation is reproduction at younger age and smaller size. Atleast for
the plaice loss of habitat isn't an issue, but heavy predation by
trawling is.
MVH: Mike Noreen       |"Cold as the northern winds 
Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
                       | Cold is the cry that rings
                       | from this far distant shore."
Proud to have been dubbed 'Incorrigible', 'idiot', 
   and 'IQ below 50' by that most "complex" of 
         Black Knights - Peter Nyikos!

I hate to get an argument started on this, but how can you say, in a 
blanket statement that "neandertals disappeared" 20,000 to 25,000 years 
ago?  You must mean "class" neandertals disappeared.  There are plenty of 
neandertal traits existing in contemporary H.sapiens.
-- 
Don Jordan
POB 2357
Chiefland, FL 32644
http://ripserv.com/indyjones

Don Jordan  wrote:
>I don't know why anyone has a problem believing H.sapiens could have 
>hunted mammoths into extinction.  There is the evidence of stone points 
>inside fossil carcasses, as already noted.  I remember discussing one in 
>grad school where a point was actually lodged in the creature's bone.  
>And, there are the mammoth bone shelter arrangements in Siberia, as 
>noted.
>
>Humans are the most awesome predators on Earth and have been for a long, 
>long time.  There is a film showing African pygmies killing a huge bull 
>elephant where one man runs right at the animal's side, drives a long 
>spear into it and runs like hell.  The elephant did die, and it took the 
>whole tribe to butcher and transport the meat.
The point that man killed mega fauna is so stipulated.  But to prove that 
we did it to the point of extinction, you need more.  For instance, we 
also have evidence that other predators killed mega fauna and lions today 
have been know to kill elephants.  That does not mean that other predators 
drove the mega fauna to extinction or that lions will kill off all the 
elephants.

In article <56khpb$m7d@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Don Jordan  wrote:
>
>I hate to get an argument started on this, but how can you say, in a 
>blanket statement that "neandertals disappeared" 20,000 to 25,000 years 
>ago?  You must mean "class" neandertals disappeared.  There are plenty of 
>neandertal traits existing in contemporary H.sapiens.
>
Apparently they are working for Texaco, or serving in the US Army.
All opinions are mine, and no one elses.
http://www.nwlink.com/~dickc
dickc

Hola, estoy buscando informaci=F3n sobre la vida en el paleozoico
superior (Dev=F3nico, Carbon=EDfero, p=E9rmico) y no encuentro en ningun =
libro
ni nada en la web, si alguien tiene o sabe donde puedo encontrar esa
informacion que me escriba a ceaneto@redestb.es
	Muchas gracias por todo.
		Daniel Rad=EDo (ceaneto@redestb.es)
ptd:si me lo envias y no funciona el env=EDo, mandamelo a partir del
lunes, porque los de redestb estan cambiando el correo.

In <3281708D.4277@hcn.hcnews.com>, 
Brother Blaze  writes:
>The Definition of life is:
>
>1) Growth or movement
>2) Reaction to external stimuli
>3) Procreation (creating copies--though not exact, perhaps) 
What, a mule is not alive because it can't create a copy (exact or
otherwise) of itself?  I think this "Procreation" requirement is
unnecessarily strict.
= === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
# Alan Anderson #  Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent.  #
  (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)

In <55sm0o$cmo@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, JHOLL4@ writes:
>  About the closest I can come to a useful definition would
>involve changing the organism's environment to better suit it.
>Life adapts itself to its environment, but intelligent life
>can adapt the environment to its needs.  Of course, then you
>find yourself in the position of trying to draw a line.
>An anthill is a form of environmental modification.
An ant colony comes very close to being intelligent by many definitions.
Douglas Hofstadter's _Goedel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid_ has
a wonderful description an intelligent ant colony (named, I believe,
"Johant Sebastiant Fermant" -- after it was "killed" by a destructive
flood the ants regrouped and "Aunt Hillary" emerged).
Individual ants aren't intelligent, of course, but then neither is a human
brain cell in isolation.
= === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
# Alan Anderson #  Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent.  #
  (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)

In <32862F96.174BDB3A@alcyone.com>, 
Erik Max Francis  writes:
>Thus, my preferred definition of life is the thermodynamic one:  Any process
>which involves a steady, local decrease in entropy*.  That is, anything that
>gradually creates order from disorder would be considered alive.
By this definition, then, is my NiCd battery charger alive?  How about a
DNA chromatograph, or a gravel-bed fish tank filter?  How about a common
item like a refrigerator?  An obscure one like a self-winding wristwatch?
There are countless examples of "powered devices" that "decrease entropy"
on a "local scale".  Living things appear to fit *within* that category.
= === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
# Alan Anderson #  Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent.  #
  (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)

Longrich@princeton.edu (Nick Longrich) writes:
>   I thought they'd found spear points in some, could be wrong. In
>siberia, there are entire huts made out of elephant bones, and I think
>there is evidence (cut marks) of butchery of elephants. Also, you could
>maybe argue that in Africa the herbivores had time to get used to the
>hairless apes. 
Thank you, I wasn't aware there was direct evidence of hunting. Which
animals have spear points in them? Just mammoths, or other megafauna?
Paul

In <55t3d7$rhi@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>
aranders@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan Anderson) writes: 
>
>In <55sm0o$cmo@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, JHOLL4@ writes:
>
>>  About the closest I can come to a useful definition would
>>involve changing the organism's environment to better suit it.
>>Life adapts itself to its environment, but intelligent life
>>can adapt the environment to its needs.  Of course, then you
>>find yourself in the position of trying to draw a line.
>>An anthill is a form of environmental modification.
>
>An ant colony comes very close to being intelligent by many
definitions.
>
>Douglas Hofstadter's _Goedel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid_
has
>a wonderful description an intelligent ant colony (named, I believe,
>"Johant Sebastiant Fermant" -- after it was "killed" by a destructive
>flood the ants regrouped and "Aunt Hillary" emerged).
>
>Individual ants aren't intelligent, of course, but then neither is a
human
>brain cell in isolation.
But the "ant colony" in this book is a fantasy, whose
point is to illustrate the author's belief in the
possibilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI): 
an intelligent human-like whole 
("Aunt Hillary" or "Fermant") is assembled
from unintelligent deterministic units (ants).
This being then holds long conversations with an intelligent
Anteater, another character,
and treats him to some tasty ants.
This fairy tale (like it or not)
has nothing at all to do with real ant
colonies, which are not in the least intelligent.
Personally I believe it is read best as
a *reductio ad absurdum* argument against AI.

In article <56kurp$27c_004@billc.nwlink.com>,
Dick Craven  wrote:
>In article <56khpb$m7d@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Don Jordan  wrote:
>
>Apparently they are working for Texaco, or serving in the US Army.
>
 Hey! Please don't insult the Neanderthals! Mousterian Culture was 
extremely complex...US Soldiers..well, there more like bannanas..they 
start out green, turn yellow, and die in bunches! :->
jbb

In article <56k4rg$naj@morgana.netcom.net.uk>, pherber@netcomuk.co.uk (Paul Herber) writes:
>On 15 Nov 1996 13:32:27 GMT stdagp01@shsu.edu wrote:
>
>>NASA plans to do just that sometime between 2003 and 2005
>2 minutes to design a robot ;-)
Not sure what you mean.
>
>