| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
| | ::Well it definitely wouldn't be fish. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC) | | ::Well it definitely wouldn't be fish. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
| | ::I'm actually confused about this. Mammals do not have ribs going all the way to the hips. Those look more like reptile ribs. 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC) | | ::I'm actually confused about this. Mammals do not have ribs going all the way to the hips. Those look more like reptile ribs. 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
| − | :::The head of this shuttle looks a lot more like a whale's head, specifically a toothed whale like a sperm whale. The arms are closer to the paddle-like structure of whale arms, but much longer, to be able to form the wings and control surfaces at the back. Having the ribs continue all the way to the pelvis, like a snake, would be an adaptation to give structure to the cargo doors, but that would likely impede their ability to open. Also, I do not know of any mammal that have ribs above the shoulder blades. The clavicles should be there [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Those are extended transverse processes of the cervical ribs, or at least that's how I interpreted them. Note that the transverse processes are evolutionary descendants of what were ribs in an ancestor. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::To me, there's definite impression of a bat skeleton, most notably that the fingers are hugely elongated to become the formers for the wings and the legs/feet are small enough to be nearly useless for anything more than basic gripping.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.215|108.162.245.215]] 16:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | These "citation needed" tags are getting ridiculous, but I do wonder about whether any space craft had plastic parts. Metal, yes. Carbon fiber, yes. Plastic? I doubt it. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC) | | These "citation needed" tags are getting ridiculous, but I do wonder about whether any space craft had plastic parts. Metal, yes. Carbon fiber, yes. Plastic? I doubt it. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
| Line 25: |
Line 22: |
| | :I'd be very wary of someone using a form of personal incredulity to demonstrate something (c.f. the "junkyard+tornado->jumbo jet" 'counter-'argument). I'm not aware of the book, but it sounds like it's anti-evolution, by your telling of it, and picking a case where you can 'find' a simple distortion that works across two examples doesn't then invalidate the intermediate stages for which there's no reason to believe a consistent evolutionary pressure would create similarly smooth transitions at all stages you get to observe. It's observing the end-points of a random-walk and then being surprised at where the walker has managed to visit along the way. The term "missing link" is also outdated (those who use it these days tend to then require additional missing links be found betwixt any now-found 'links' and their neighbours, rather than ever be usefully satisfied) but I suppose might have still been a bit more mainstream back in 1942. | | :I'd be very wary of someone using a form of personal incredulity to demonstrate something (c.f. the "junkyard+tornado->jumbo jet" 'counter-'argument). I'm not aware of the book, but it sounds like it's anti-evolution, by your telling of it, and picking a case where you can 'find' a simple distortion that works across two examples doesn't then invalidate the intermediate stages for which there's no reason to believe a consistent evolutionary pressure would create similarly smooth transitions at all stages you get to observe. It's observing the end-points of a random-walk and then being surprised at where the walker has managed to visit along the way. The term "missing link" is also outdated (those who use it these days tend to then require additional missing links be found betwixt any now-found 'links' and their neighbours, rather than ever be usefully satisfied) but I suppose might have still been a bit more mainstream back in 1942. |
| | :So sounds like a fun book to read (I like a good cryptozoology/gods-were-aliens book, too!) but I'd be wary about it not having aged well (as I would with bits of the Origin Of Species, though it has held up surpisingly well), and I hope you're also reading it in a suitable frame of mind and not taking it (or passing it on) at face-value. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC) | | :So sounds like a fun book to read (I like a good cryptozoology/gods-were-aliens book, too!) but I'd be wary about it not having aged well (as I would with bits of the Origin Of Species, though it has held up surpisingly well), and I hope you're also reading it in a suitable frame of mind and not taking it (or passing it on) at face-value. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC) |
| − | Yes, the book (On Growth and Form) is certainly dated in places (first edition was in 1917). But I wouldn't characterize his arguments as being completely anti-evolutionary. It's just that he notices many instances where the physical forces on organisms seem to be directing the form of the organisms. He doesn't explain the exact mechanism of change. (At least in the abridged edition.) He's pretty searchable with Google Images. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 20:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Maybe search when I can spare time. Sounds a bit Lamarckian, too... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | By way of explanation, I think I thought of D'Arcy Thompson because of his strong emphasis on how physics and mechanics (could) contribute to biological forms. Mr. Munroe seems to be playing with some of the same ideas. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 03:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | Well that's horrifying. [[User:TheLonelySandPerson|TheLonelySandPerson]] ([[User talk:TheLonelySandPerson|talk]]) 01:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC) | | Well that's horrifying. [[User:TheLonelySandPerson|TheLonelySandPerson]] ([[User talk:TheLonelySandPerson|talk]]) 01:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC) |
| Line 36: |
Line 30: |
| | What’s up with the “type of fish or shark”? Sharks are a type of fish, the “or shark” doesn’t make sense? | | What’s up with the “type of fish or shark”? Sharks are a type of fish, the “or shark” doesn’t make sense? |
| | :Presumably Randall was thinking "bony fish". Maybe that was too technical to be funny. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC) | | :Presumably Randall was thinking "bony fish". Maybe that was too technical to be funny. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC) |
| − | :((Edit conflict, and I'm really just expanding upon Nit's summary, but having written it now, here you are...)) It's messy, but often sharks are (paraphyletically) kept out of the "fish" category. Similarly to how mammals, amphibians, etc of the ''tetrapoda'' are actually descended from the "fish" superclass (under its classical branch name, of course). Thus to separate from the bony-fish (and possibly other subtrees, across which the common term "fish" might alply), sharks may be deemed not-fish for classification purposes and it is often good practice to do so.
| |
| − | :Common names confuse matters: a dogfish (shark) is very far related from a starfish, at least as much as a seahorse is more fish (very so, in fact!) than equine. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: If bees can be classified as fish, then so can sharks! But wouldn't be easier to just expand the definition of endangered species to include invertebrates, rather than lumping things clearly where they do not belong? But, hey, what do I know? I am just a scientist, not a lawyer. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | Just for clarification, a California court has not ruled that bees are a type of fish. They ruled that when a law specifically states "for the purposes of this law, X includes Y," it means that for the purposes of that law X includes Y. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.151|172.71.26.151]] 16:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :It's very like the old "Beavers are fish, for the purpose of eating at Lent/etc" from the Catholic church. Except that I presume they ''aren't'' effectively encouraging the eating of bees/fish, in lieu of anything else... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.43|162.158.159.43]] 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Yep, Catholics can now eat beaver, capybara, or bees on Friday. But not Space Shuttles.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.21|172.71.22.21]] 20:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hello, I've replaced the CNN video with an NBC archive video because the CNN video is georestricted to US only (You can check restrictions using https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi, checking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfnvFnzs91s returns a nearly-red map except for the US). - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.61|172.68.253.61]] 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I've gotta say this is the most confusing skeleton I've seen. It's certainly a vertebrate (spine? check. skull? check), and it's certainly at least a tetrapod (girdles? check. 1 proximal limb bone, two distal limb bones per limbs? check.), and definitely at least a basal reptile. However, it is correct that mammals (modern synapsids) don't have ribs going down to their hips. Additionally, if those holes in the top of the skull are supposed to be the temporal fenestrae, those are the highest-placed temporal fenestrae I've seen on a synapsid. Usually they're much lower (as an example: in a human, our temporal fenestrae are the space under our zygomatic arch - our "cheekbone," though in all fairness humans are actually poor examples of many things in synapsids). Also, the lack of a third phalanx on any of the digits is throwing me for a loop; I'm sure there are mammals that lose some phalanges on all digits, but for the life of me I can't think of one (even a horse has all three phalanges on the one digit they keep). TL;DR: this skeleton looks more like that of a diapsid reptile than a mammal, in my opinion. (My only qualification is that I have a masters in biology, and, for a year or so, I studied under a paleontologist who specialized in the split between diapsids and synapsids) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.248.143|172.69.248.143]] 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I believe those are the eye sockets. The temporal fenestrae would have to be below them, and largely hidden from the top view. A side view would probably have made identification easier.[[User:DL Draco Rex|DL Draco Rex]] ([[User talk:DL Draco Rex|talk]]) 18:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I provided the requested citation concerning Georg Steller's extinction, so I removed the "Citation Needed". [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I would have linked to {{w|Georg Wilhelm Steller|his Wikipedia page}}, myself, for general wikisolidarity/not-having-the-padlock-icon, but probably a matter of taste... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 10:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
| |
