/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9204537
Lemme guess. They try to claim literally everything had feathers.

>>9204737
No they don't. They don't mention feathers unless there is decent evidence (which is referenced an the time). Just watch an episode or two, how hard can it be?

>>9204537
This is better posted on >>>/an/ I think.

>>9204787
I've watched a bunch now and they're pretty much just examining old plastic dino toys, so I'm glad they didn't go turbofeatherfaggot.

Alright, I gotta say this because it's making me fucking cringe. He keeps talking about Dinosaur "cladistics". You can't have fucking cladistics without genetic information. Otherwise it's just wild speculation.

>>9204853
That's wrong. What you mean is phylogenetics.

>>9204994
No. I mean cladistics. It's pointless to speculate on nested hierarchies when you have nothing to base your view on. You need genetic material. Another thing that pisses me off is the absolute OBSESSION modern fucking idiot biologists have with mtDNA to the total exclusion of nDNA. Mitochondrial genetic material can give completely different results to nuclear DNA. But then nobody does anything right.

>>9205037
What are you talking about? Cladistics existed for decades before feasible genomic analysis. Cladistics was and still is based on anatomy.

>>9205116
There is no taxonomy without phylogeny. There is no phylogeny without genetic evidence. Dinosaur relationships have been reworked so god damn retardedly many times that even if you thought you DID have an argument, the actual history of the endeavor blows the fuck out of it.

dinosaurs were giant birds

>>9205168
>There is no phylogeny without genetic evidence.
is this niBBa serious

>>9205812
Any link established without genetic information can only ever be speculative.

>>9205812
>>9205971
Also, it's EXTREMELY important to note that when you don't use genetic information with LIVING species, much greater accuracy is obtainable based on morphological characteristics alone. Remember, we're dealing with animals that have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years with Dinosaurs. The continual fidgeting with their tree should be warning enough about assuming derived characteristics based on phylogeny.

Also Liaoning. Fuck the lying Chinese shits.

>>9205971
>>9206093
you forget that in the fossil record, we're not just looking at a single slice of time; we can see what taxa were present (subject to taphonomic filtering, natch) at various points in time. we're not stuck estimating ages of divergence based on molecular clocks; a lot of the time we can actually go back through the strata and SEE DIRECTLY where the two taxa first become morphologically/ecologically distinguishable. (yes, we have no way of separating cryptic species, but at the genus and family level it works just fine.)\
we're still cautious about saying "X is the direct ancestor of Y" instead of "X diverged from this lineage shortly before Y did", but we've got more tools at our disposal than you give us credit for.

also:
>we're dealing with animals that have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years with Dinosaurs
>hundreds of millions of years
...how long ago do you think the Mesozoic was?

>>9206207
Well...I guess when I think of the Mesozoic I always think of the Triassic/Jurassic for some reason. Not sure why really.

>>9206207
And to break this down further:
1: The fossil record is fragmentary. That's it's most defining feature
2: Most relationships are inferred, not known
3: Even chronospecies are rare
4: The Chinese are fucking liars