I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
discussion on feathers going in the past, only
to have the collective wig out, but I'll say it
again:

Feathers are independent of ANYTHING you
care to associate them with.

Flight? Nope. They appear long before flight
and they exist today on flightless birds.

Dinosaurs? Nope. There are dinosaurs with
feathers but plenty of examples where, due to
such an excellent state of preservation, we have
to rule out feathers.

HERE'S THE KICKER:

There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
then they're a living hell for a tropical species.

And feathers aren't about water, as all birds have
them and not just waterfowl..

Birds and feathers are so entwined at this point,
some 150 million years or longer, that all attempts
to raise a bald chicken have been in vain.

As long as they're protected from the sun, bald
chickens would be cooler for hot climates AND
reduce processing i.e. plucking.

My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
feathers are ultimately about patterns.

Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!

There are more bird species than mammal species,
but under the feathers many are difficult to tell
apart.

The feathers, THE PATTERNS, seem to help them to
diversify. Birds are really good at spotting the
differences, so they can climb into a new niche and
adapt extremely quickly, thanks in large part to the
feathers keeping them from breeding with anything
less suited to that niche.

The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
need a coating.

Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
second Google search isn't helping..

Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?

Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
nurturing could there have been?

The so called "Opposite Birds" are believed to have
hatched as mini adults. No nurturing. And they were
by far the most common bird before the KT Boundary,
or whatever the spazz heads are calling it these
days...

So I don't see the feathers are a neonatal trait retained
into adulthood. Not the feathers per se. I see the patterns.

My guess is that proto feathers or whatever did begin as
a neonatal trait, and very quickly took on patterns...

colors, designs.

And it was THAT, it was THOSE patterns which proved so
useful, and feathers were a Grade-A wicked neato way
of producing new and different patterns as needed.

There.

You may now kiss the bride.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725671997341925376

On 8/15/23 11:17 AM, JTEM wrote:
>
> I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
> discussion on feathers going in the past

If that's what you tried, you are seriously incompetent at starting a
legitimate discussion. I have a tip for you: try not to insult
prospective responders, and try not to insult actual responders. Try
very hard.

>, only
> to have the collective wig out, but I'll say it
> again:
>
> Feathers are independent of ANYTHING you
> care to associate them with.
>
>
> Flight? Nope. They appear long before flight
> and they exist today on flightless birds.
>
> Dinosaurs? Nope. There are dinosaurs with
> feathers but plenty of examples where, due to
> such an excellent state of preservation, we have
> to rule out feathers.
>
> HERE'S THE KICKER:
>
> There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
> feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
> a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
> then they're a living hell for a tropical species.

You misunderstand how flexible feathers are. They can be adjusted to
retain or shed heat. And of course there are other tools for
thermoregulation. Have you ever seen a bird pant?

> And feathers aren't about water, as all birds have
> them and not just waterfowl..
>
> Birds and feathers are so entwined at this point,
> some 150 million years or longer, that all attempts
> to raise a bald chicken have been in vain.
>
> As long as they're protected from the sun, bald
> chickens would be cooler for hot climates AND
> reduce processing i.e. plucking.
>
> My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
> feathers are ultimately about patterns.
>
> Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
> colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!

This is an old theory, that feathers evolved originally for display of
pigments. Conceivably it's true, but the current idea of feather
evolution is that they began as thin, hollow filaments, so not as useful
for that purpose as the flat structures we know. But perhaps they began
doing something else and were later coopted for display.

> There are more bird species than mammal species,
> but under the feathers many are difficult to tell
> apart.
>
> The feathers, THE PATTERNS, seem to help them to
> diversify. Birds are really good at spotting the
> differences, so they can climb into a new niche and
> adapt extremely quickly, thanks in large part to the
> feathers keeping them from breeding with anything
> less suited to that niche.

That would require some kind of linkage between the new niche and the
new colors. Not impossible but best arranged in allopatry.

> The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
> began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
> They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
> need a coating.
>
> Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
> trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
> dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
> I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
> class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
> hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
> second Google search isn't helping..

You're probably thinking of Maiasaura. But a better example of parental
care is Oviraptor.

> Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?
>
> Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
> parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
> be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
> many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
> nurturing could there have been?

Many birds do this too. They raise the kids until they're
self-sufficient, which can take a short time. Or mom starts working on
the second clutch while dad takes the older kids out to feed them. Some
birds manage 3 or even 4 broods in a season.

> The so called "Opposite Birds" are believed to have
> hatched as mini adults. No nurturing. And they were
> by far the most common bird before the KT Boundary,
> or whatever the spazz heads are calling it these
> days...

Megapodes have no post-hatching parental care.

> So I don't see the feathers are a neonatal trait retained
> into adulthood. Not the feathers per se. I see the patterns.
>
> My guess is that proto feathers or whatever did begin as
> a neonatal trait, and very quickly took on patterns...
>
> colors, designs.
>
> And it was THAT, it was THOSE patterns which proved so
> useful, and feathers were a Grade-A wicked neato way
> of producing new and different patterns as needed.
>
> There.
>
> You may now kiss the bride.
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725671997341925376

Shit head, John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> >
> > I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
> > discussion on feathers going in the past

> If that's what

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LVqaG0lHm3s/m/9H0_rE4fCQAJ

You are a waste product. You are a highly disordered narcissist thirsty
to get in a "Dig," hoping to look more intelligent than the wet, stinking
pile of shit that you are. And I'm only too glad to point this out.

> > There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
> > feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
> > a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
> > then they're a living hell for a tropical species.

> You misunderstand how flexible feathers are.

I don't misunderstand anything, you raging jackass.

> > My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
> > feathers are ultimately about patterns.
> >
> > Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
> > colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!

> This is an old theory

Of course it is. I've been talking about it for a long time,
and you're a stupid jackwad who just admitted that it's
valid even as you desperately attempt to "Argue" against
it.

> that feathers evolved originally for display of
> pigments.

Cites.

But it's also exactly what I never said.

Your legendary lack of reading comprehension STILL does not
make an argument.

> That would require some kind of linkage between the new niche and the
> new colors.

No, you snot eating mongoloid. All it requires is that the birds select
mates on the basis of the patterns. So if a bird can survive in a
particular niche, other birds that share its patterns would more than
likely share its ability to exploit said niche. From there, micro evolution
is your friend.

> > The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
> > began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
> > They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
> > need a coating.
> >
> > Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
> > trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
> > dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
> > I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
> > class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
> > hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
> > second Google search isn't helping..

> You're probably thinking of Maiasaura. But a better example of parental
> care is Oviraptor.

Again, your legendary lack of reading comprehension is
NOT an argument but, I was discussing the distinct LACK
of nuturing...

> > Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?
> >
> > Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
> > parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
> > be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
> > many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
> > nurturing could there have been?

> Many birds do this too.

So, speaking rhetorically, the "Nurturing" thing isn't a big
deal so it's doubtful that neonatal traits would be a big
draw...

> > The so called "Opposite Birds" are believed to have
> > hatched as mini adults. No nurturing. And they were
> > by far the most common bird before the KT Boundary,
> > or whatever the spazz heads are calling it these
> > days...

> Megapodes have no post-hatching parental care.

If you check, even you might find that I had just said that.

Bringing you back up to speed:

Feathers likely began as thermal regulation but soon proved
excessively useful for producing patterns (colors, designs).
And THIS was what was being retained into adulthood -- the
ability to quickly produce/evolve new patterns -- rather than
the feathers per se.

The feathers were the mode of delivery.

Now go hump your dog, spazz.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725671997341925376

On 8/15/23 12:58 PM, JTEM wrote:
>
> Shit head, John Harshman wrote:

See, now? This is where you lose all possibility of the real discussion
you claimed to want. I'm assuming that you can't help it, rather like
the tale of the scorpion and the frog.

John Harshman wrote:

> See, now?

Look. You may deserve to be restrained while a legion of homeless men
with colds spit in your mouth but, even the likes of you has to recognize
the fact that you BEGAN this interaction with hostility. You did.

OF COURSE I'M GIVING YOU TOO MUCH CREDIT!

Maggot.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725671997341925376

On 8/15/23 14:49, John Harshman wrote:
> Have you ever seen a bird pant?

when they are sick they can. Also in extreme heat. They're respitory
system is different, but still, yes.

On 8/15/23 7:50 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
> On 8/15/23 14:49, John Harshman wrote:
>> Have you ever seen a bird pant?
>
> when they are sick they can. Also in extreme heat. They're respitory
> system is different, but still, yes.

My point was that many birds do pant to cool down, notably cormorants.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:49:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/15/23 11:17 AM, JTEM wrote:
> >
> > I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
> > discussion on feathers going in the past

> If that's what you tried, you are seriously incompetent at starting a
> legitimate discussion.

Not in the OP. You are letting your bias against JTEM get the better of you,
and so you lead off with a bunch of flamebait.

> I have a tip for you: try not to insult
> prospective responders, and try not to insult actual responders. Try
> very hard.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

I *always* treat people who are civil and apparently sincere in a post with a civil response.
It is only when their behavior deteriorates that I bring in past behavior as a sign that
their behavior is a continuation of long ingrained habits.

You bitterly resent my bringing in your past behavior, referring to my criticism
as "gratuitous insults." Yet here you are leveling REAL gratuitous insults at JTEM.

> >, only
> > to have the collective wig out, but I'll say it
> > again:
> >
> > Feathers are independent of ANYTHING you
> > care to associate them with.
> >
> >
> > Flight? Nope. They appear long before flight
> > and they exist today on flightless birds.
> >
> > Dinosaurs? Nope. There are dinosaurs with
> > feathers but plenty of examples where, due to
> > such an excellent state of preservation, we have
> > to rule out feathers.
> >
> > HERE'S THE KICKER:
> >
> > There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
> > feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
> > a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
> > then they're a living hell for a tropical species.
> You misunderstand how flexible feathers are. They can be adjusted to
> retain or shed heat. And of course there are other tools for
> thermoregulation. Have you ever seen a bird pant?
> > And feathers aren't about water, as all birds have
> > them and not just waterfowl..
> >
> > Birds and feathers are so entwined at this point,
> > some 150 million years or longer, that all attempts
> > to raise a bald chicken have been in vain.
> >
> > As long as they're protected from the sun, bald
> > chickens would be cooler for hot climates AND
> > reduce processing i.e. plucking.
> >
> > My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
> > feathers are ultimately about patterns.
> >
> > Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
> > colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!

> This is an old theory, that feathers evolved originally for display of
> pigments. Conceivably it's true, but the current idea of feather
> evolution is that they began as thin, hollow filaments, so not as useful
> for that purpose as the flat structures we know.

Might not some of those hollow filaments have been filled with
pigmentation? Yes, I know, a lot of brilliant coloration in
feathers is not due to pigmentation. Perhaps you even had
this fact in mind when you wrote what you did.

If you had not started out by insulting JTEM, he might have
responded like I have done just now.

> But perhaps they began
> doing something else and were later coopted for display.

Or perhaps most of the pigmentation was no longer needed when
REAL feathers, complete with calamus, central shaft, barbs, barbules and hooks, evolved.

I make an exception for kiwis, which are clearly descended from birds with
real feathers, by calling what they sport "feathers." On a nonavian dinosaur
I would call them "advanced protofeathers."

Note that kiwis, which are nocturnal, have very drab coloration,
also in line with what I wrote.

OTOH most pterosaurs were diurnal, and I'm glad that
_The Princeton Guide to Pterosaurs_ showed them with gaudy
coloration. Do you suppose all of that was external to their
protofeathers?

> > There are more bird species than mammal species,
> > but under the feathers many are difficult to tell
> > apart.
> >
> > The feathers, THE PATTERNS, seem to help them to
> > diversify. Birds are really good at spotting the
> > differences, so they can climb into a new niche and
> > adapt extremely quickly, thanks in large part to the
> > feathers keeping them from breeding with anything
> > less suited to that niche.

> That would require some kind of linkage between the new niche and the
> new colors.

Poor reasoning on your part here. Perhaps your bias against
Eldridge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is to blame.

> Not impossible but best arranged in allopatry.

Eminently possible, with the new colors already maintaining
purity within the old population.

> > The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
> > began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
> > They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
> > need a coating.
> >
> > Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
> > trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
> > dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
> > I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
> > class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
> > hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
> > second Google search isn't helping..

> You're probably thinking of Maiasaura. But a better example of parental
> care is Oviraptor.

The name is unintended irony. The Roy Chapman Andrews expedition
assumed Protoceratops was a poor nurturer, and when they found
a nest with an unrelated dinosaur on it, they assumed a storm
had caught it in the act of raiding a Protoceratops nest.

Turns our all those "Protoceratops eggs" were really Oviraptor eggs.

OTOH what basis do you have for thinking that parental care
went beyond the guarding of eggs?

> > Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?

I've commented on this many times, often saying what
liars they were when they said that the newest version
was "keeping all your favorite features."

> > Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
> > parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
> > be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
> > many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
> > nurturing could there have been?

> Many birds do this too. They raise the kids until they're
> self-sufficient, which can take a short time. Or mom starts working on
> the second clutch while dad takes the older kids out to feed them. Some
> birds manage 3 or even 4 broods in a season.

These are the birds whose hatchlings are not precocious.
Do you have evidence that Oviraptor hatchlings were like that?

> > The so called "Opposite Birds" are believed to have
> > hatched as mini adults. No nurturing.

No comment from you here.

> > And they were
> > by far the most common bird before the KT Boundary,
> > or whatever the spazz heads are calling it these
> > days...

You were most uncooperative here, mentioning a taxon
of neornithine birds instead of telling him the
"spazz heads" use the term *Enantiornithes.*

> Megapodes have no post-hatching parental care.

> > So I don't see the feathers are a neonatal trait retained
> > into adulthood. Not the feathers per se. I see the patterns.
> >
> > My guess is that proto feathers or whatever did begin as
> > a neonatal trait, and very quickly took on patterns...
> >
> > colors, designs.
> >
> > And it was THAT, it was THOSE patterns which proved so
> > useful, and feathers were a Grade-A wicked neato way
> > of producing new and different patterns as needed.
> >
> > There.
> >
> > You may now kiss the bride.

Could this be what set you off? What if he had said, instead,
"You may now watch the birdie." ?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 8/16/23 6:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:49:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/15/23 11:17 AM, JTEM wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
>>> discussion on feathers going in the past
>
>> If that's what you tried, you are seriously incompetent at starting a
>> legitimate discussion.
>
> Not in the OP. You are letting your bias against JTEM get the better of you,
> and so you lead off with a bunch of flamebait.

>> I have a tip for you: try not to insult
>> prospective responders, and try not to insult actual responders. Try
>> very hard.
>
> "Do as I say, not as I do."

What purpose does that serve?

> I *always* treat people who are civil and apparently sincere in a post with a civil response.
> It is only when their behavior deteriorates that I bring in past behavior as a sign that
> their behavior is a continuation of long ingrained habits.
>
> You bitterly resent my bringing in your past behavior, referring to my criticism
> as "gratuitous insults." Yet here you are leveling REAL gratuitous insults at JTEM.

I put this sentence in only because you would complain if I didn't respond.

>>> , only
>>> to have the collective wig out, but I'll say it
>>> again:
>>>
>>> Feathers are independent of ANYTHING you
>>> care to associate them with.
>>>
>>>
>>> Flight? Nope. They appear long before flight
>>> and they exist today on flightless birds.
>>>
>>> Dinosaurs? Nope. There are dinosaurs with
>>> feathers but plenty of examples where, due to
>>> such an excellent state of preservation, we have
>>> to rule out feathers.
>>>
>>> HERE'S THE KICKER:
>>>
>>> There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
>>> feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
>>> a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
>>> then they're a living hell for a tropical species.
>> You misunderstand how flexible feathers are. They can be adjusted to
>> retain or shed heat. And of course there are other tools for
>> thermoregulation. Have you ever seen a bird pant?
>>> And feathers aren't about water, as all birds have
>>> them and not just waterfowl..
>>>
>>> Birds and feathers are so entwined at this point,
>>> some 150 million years or longer, that all attempts
>>> to raise a bald chicken have been in vain.
>>>
>>> As long as they're protected from the sun, bald
>>> chickens would be cooler for hot climates AND
>>> reduce processing i.e. plucking.
>>>
>>> My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
>>> feathers are ultimately about patterns.
>>>
>>> Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
>>> colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!
>
>> This is an old theory, that feathers evolved originally for display of
>> pigments. Conceivably it's true, but the current idea of feather
>> evolution is that they began as thin, hollow filaments, so not as useful
>> for that purpose as the flat structures we know.
>
> Might not some of those hollow filaments have been filled with
> pigmentation? Yes, I know, a lot of brilliant coloration in
> feathers is not due to pigmentation. Perhaps you even had
> this fact in mind when you wrote what you did.
>
> If you had not started out by insulting JTEM, he might have
> responded like I have done just now.

The supposed point of feathers is that they are broad, flat surfaces
that work well for color display. Hair is less suited. And that's
especially true for structural color.

I should also point out that scales are also broad, flat surfaces, so
hairlike structures would have been a step back.

My suggestion is that both hair and protofeathers initially evolved in a
sensory role, were coopted for insulation, and only later were adapted
to other functions.

And no, he wouldn't have.

>> But perhaps they began
>> doing something else and were later coopted for display.
>
> Or perhaps most of the pigmentation was no longer needed when
> REAL feathers, complete with calamus, central shaft, barbs, barbules and hooks, evolved.

Not understanding that one. Why would real feathers lessen the need for
pigmentation, or color in general? How is that relevant to any
evolutionary scenario?

> I make an exception for kiwis, which are clearly descended from birds with
> real feathers, by calling what they sport "feathers." On a nonavian dinosaur
> I would call them "advanced protofeathers."
>
> Note that kiwis, which are nocturnal, have very drab coloration,
> also in line with what I wrote.

I confess that I don't see the relevance of any of that.

> OTOH most pterosaurs were diurnal, and I'm glad that
> _The Princeton Guide to Pterosaurs_ showed them with gaudy
> coloration. Do you suppose all of that was external to their
> protofeathers?

No idea. The coloration is conjectural, and the location of this
conjectural coloration is even more so.

>>> There are more bird species than mammal species,
>>> but under the feathers many are difficult to tell
>>> apart.
>>>
>>> The feathers, THE PATTERNS, seem to help them to
>>> diversify. Birds are really good at spotting the
>>> differences, so they can climb into a new niche and
>>> adapt extremely quickly, thanks in large part to the
>>> feathers keeping them from breeding with anything
>>> less suited to that niche.
>
>> That would require some kind of linkage between the new niche and the
>> new colors.
>
> Poor reasoning on your part here. Perhaps your bias against
> Eldridge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is to blame.

A proper response would have been to explain how the reasoning was poor,
not just state it. Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with it.
It's a simple population genetic argument. If selection favors
assortative mating for some new niche, the colors must in order to be
useful, be a signal strongly correlated with whatever characters are
used in the new niche. Genetic linkage or pleiotropy would be the
strongest reason for correlation.

>> Not impossible but best arranged in allopatry.
>
> Eminently possible, with the new colors already maintaining
> purity within the old population.

Not sure what you were saying there.

>>> The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
>>> began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
>>> They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
>>> need a coating.
>>>
>>> Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
>>> trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
>>> dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
>>> I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
>>> class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
>>> hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
>>> second Google search isn't helping..
>
>> You're probably thinking of Maiasaura. But a better example of parental
>> care is Oviraptor.
>
> The name is unintended irony. The Roy Chapman Andrews expedition
> assumed Protoceratops was a poor nurturer, and when they found
> a nest with an unrelated dinosaur on it, they assumed a storm
> had caught it in the act of raiding a Protoceratops nest.
>
> Turns our all those "Protoceratops eggs" were really Oviraptor eggs.
>
>
> OTOH what basis do you have for thinking that parental care
> went beyond the guarding of eggs?

I believe there is also some evidence of young remaining in the nest for
some time after hatching. Still, brooding is parental care even if it's
only of eggs.

>>> Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?
>
> I've commented on this many times, often saying what
> liars they were when they said that the newest version
> was "keeping all your favorite features."

I think he was talking about the search engine, while I think you're
talking about Google Groups.

>>> Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
>>> parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
>>> be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
>>> many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
>>> nurturing could there have been?
>
>> Many birds do this too. They raise the kids until they're
>> self-sufficient, which can take a short time. Or mom starts working on
>> the second clutch while dad takes the older kids out to feed them. Some
>> birds manage 3 or even 4 broods in a season.
>
> These are the birds whose hatchlings are not precocious.
> Do you have evidence that Oviraptor hatchlings were like that?

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 8:19:16 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/16/23 6:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:49:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/15/23 11:17 AM, JTEM wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
> >>> discussion on feathers going in the past
> >
> >> If that's what you tried, you are seriously incompetent at starting a
> >> legitimate discussion.
> >
> > Not in the OP. You are letting your bias against JTEM get the better of you,
> > and so you lead off with a bunch of flamebait.
>
> >> I have a tip for you: try not to insult
> >> prospective responders, and try not to insult actual responders. Try
> >> very hard.
> >
> > "Do as I say, not as I do."
> What purpose does that serve?
> > I *always* treat people who are civil and apparently sincere in a post with a civil response.
> > It is only when their behavior deteriorates that I bring in past behavior as a sign that
> > their behavior is a continuation of long ingrained habits.
> >
> > You bitterly resent my bringing in your past behavior, referring to my criticism
> > as "gratuitous insults." Yet here you are leveling REAL gratuitous insults at JTEM.
> I put this sentence in only because you would complain if I didn't respond.
> >>> , only
> >>> to have the collective wig out, but I'll say it
> >>> again:
> >>>
> >>> Feathers are independent of ANYTHING you
> >>> care to associate them with.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Flight? Nope. They appear long before flight
> >>> and they exist today on flightless birds.
> >>>
> >>> Dinosaurs? Nope. There are dinosaurs with
> >>> feathers but plenty of examples where, due to
> >>> such an excellent state of preservation, we have
> >>> to rule out feathers.
> >>>
> >>> HERE'S THE KICKER:
> >>>
> >>> There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
> >>> feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
> >>> a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
> >>> then they're a living hell for a tropical species.
> >> You misunderstand how flexible feathers are. They can be adjusted to
> >> retain or shed heat. And of course there are other tools for
> >> thermoregulation. Have you ever seen a bird pant?
> >>> And feathers aren't about water, as all birds have
> >>> them and not just waterfowl..
> >>>
> >>> Birds and feathers are so entwined at this point,
> >>> some 150 million years or longer, that all attempts
> >>> to raise a bald chicken have been in vain.
> >>>
> >>> As long as they're protected from the sun, bald
> >>> chickens would be cooler for hot climates AND
> >>> reduce processing i.e. plucking.
> >>>
> >>> My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
> >>> feathers are ultimately about patterns.
> >>>
> >>> Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
> >>> colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!
> >
> >> This is an old theory, that feathers evolved originally for display of
> >> pigments. Conceivably it's true, but the current idea of feather
> >> evolution is that they began as thin, hollow filaments, so not as useful
> >> for that purpose as the flat structures we know.
> >
> > Might not some of those hollow filaments have been filled with
> > pigmentation? Yes, I know, a lot of brilliant coloration in
> > feathers is not due to pigmentation. Perhaps you even had
> > this fact in mind when you wrote what you did.
> >
> > If you had not started out by insulting JTEM, he might have
> > responded like I have done just now.
> The supposed point of feathers is that they are broad, flat surfaces
> that work well for color display. Hair is less suited. And that's
> especially true for structural color.
>
> I should also point out that scales are also broad, flat surfaces, so
> hairlike structures would have been a step back.
>
> My suggestion is that both hair and protofeathers initially evolved in a
> sensory role, were coopted for insulation, and only later were adapted
> to other functions.
>
> And no, he wouldn't have.
> >> But perhaps they began
> >> doing something else and were later coopted for display.
> >
> > Or perhaps most of the pigmentation was no longer needed when
> > REAL feathers, complete with calamus, central shaft, barbs, barbules and hooks, evolved.
> Not understanding that one. Why would real feathers lessen the need for
> pigmentation, or color in general? How is that relevant to any
> evolutionary scenario?
> > I make an exception for kiwis, which are clearly descended from birds with
> > real feathers, by calling what they sport "feathers." On a nonavian dinosaur
> > I would call them "advanced protofeathers."
> >
> > Note that kiwis, which are nocturnal, have very drab coloration,
> > also in line with what I wrote.
> I confess that I don't see the relevance of any of that.
> > OTOH most pterosaurs were diurnal, and I'm glad that
> > _The Princeton Guide to Pterosaurs_ showed them with gaudy
> > coloration. Do you suppose all of that was external to their
> > protofeathers?
> No idea. The coloration is conjectural, and the location of this
> conjectural coloration is even more so.
> >>> There are more bird species than mammal species,
> >>> but under the feathers many are difficult to tell
> >>> apart.
> >>>
> >>> The feathers, THE PATTERNS, seem to help them to
> >>> diversify. Birds are really good at spotting the
> >>> differences, so they can climb into a new niche and
> >>> adapt extremely quickly, thanks in large part to the
> >>> feathers keeping them from breeding with anything
> >>> less suited to that niche.
> >
> >> That would require some kind of linkage between the new niche and the
> >> new colors.
> >
> > Poor reasoning on your part here. Perhaps your bias against
> > Eldridge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is to blame.
> A proper response would have been to explain how the reasoning was poor,
> not just state it. Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with it.
> It's a simple population genetic argument. If selection favors
> assortative mating for some new niche, the colors must in order to be
> useful, be a signal strongly correlated with whatever characters are
> used in the new niche. Genetic linkage or pleiotropy would be the
> strongest reason for correlation.
> >> Not impossible but best arranged in allopatry.
> >
> > Eminently possible, with the new colors already maintaining
> > purity within the old population.
> Not sure what you were saying there.
> >>> The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
> >>> began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
> >>> They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
> >>> need a coating.
> >>>
> >>> Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
> >>> trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
> >>> dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
> >>> I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
> >>> class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
> >>> hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
> >>> second Google search isn't helping..
> >
> >> You're probably thinking of Maiasaura. But a better example of parental
> >> care is Oviraptor.
> >
> > The name is unintended irony. The Roy Chapman Andrews expedition
> > assumed Protoceratops was a poor nurturer, and when they found
> > a nest with an unrelated dinosaur on it, they assumed a storm
> > had caught it in the act of raiding a Protoceratops nest.
> >
> > Turns our all those "Protoceratops eggs" were really Oviraptor eggs.
> >
> >
> > OTOH what basis do you have for thinking that parental care
> > went beyond the guarding of eggs?
> I believe there is also some evidence of young remaining in the nest for
> some time after hatching. Still, brooding is parental care even if it's
> only of eggs.
> >>> Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?
> >
> > I've commented on this many times, often saying what
> > liars they were when they said that the newest version
> > was "keeping all your favorite features."
> I think he was talking about the search engine, while I think you're
> talking about Google Groups.
> >>> Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
> >>> parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
> >>> be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
> >>> many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
> >>> nurturing could there have been?
> >
> >> Many birds do this too. They raise the kids until they're
> >> self-sufficient, which can take a short time. Or mom starts working on
> >> the second clutch while dad takes the older kids out to feed them. Some
> >> birds manage 3 or even 4 broods in a season.
> >
> > These are the birds whose hatchlings are not precocious.
> > Do you have evidence that Oviraptor hatchlings were like that?
> No. But what is the relevance? I merely point out that multiple broods
> is compatible with parental care, even extended parental care.
> >>> The so called "Opposite Birds" are believed to have
> >>> hatched as mini adults. No nurturing.
> >
> > No comment from you here.
> So?
> >>> And they were
> >>> by far the most common bird before the KT Boundary,
> >>> or whatever the spazz heads are calling it these
> >>> days...
> >
> > You were most uncooperative here, mentioning a taxon
> > of neornithine birds instead of telling him the
> > "spazz heads" use the term *Enantiornithes.*
> You mistake what he means by "it". He was referring to the KT boundary.
> >> Megapodes have no post-hatching parental care.
> I should also mention black-headed ducks, the only anseriform obligate
> brood parasites, which have no post-hatching parental care at all.
> >>> So I don't see the feathers are a neonatal trait retained
> >>> into adulthood. Not the feathers per se. I see the patterns.
> >>>
> >>> My guess is that proto feathers or whatever did begin as
> >>> a neonatal trait, and very quickly took on patterns...
> >>>
> >>> colors, designs.
> >>>
> >>> And it was THAT, it was THOSE patterns which proved so
> >>> useful, and feathers were a Grade-A wicked neato way
> >>> of producing new and different patterns as needed.
> >>>
> >>> There.
> >>>
> >>> You may now kiss the bride.
> >
> > Could this be what set you off? What if he had said, instead,
> > "You may now watch the birdie." ?
> No, it could not be.
I've never seen anything JTEM posted that was worth a reply.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 3:58:34 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> Shit head, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > >
> > > I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
> > > discussion on feathers going in the past
>
> > If that's what
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LVqaG0lHm3s/m/9H0_rE4fCQAJ
>
> You are a waste product. You are a highly disordered narcissist thirsty
> to get in a "Dig," hoping to look more intelligent than the wet, stinking
> pile of shit that you are. And I'm only too glad to point this out.

This is not going to convince anyone except what fans you have at tumblr,
but whoever they are, they aren't of any help to you here.

Watch how I handled Harshman in my reply to the same post
to which you are replying here. Unlike you, I left in everything
he wrote, so that people can SEE why I am as negative towards
him as I was in the opening fifth of my reply to him.

He shot back at what I wrote, sure, but he was so ineffectual that he made himself look
like a fish flopping on the bank. And, rest assured, I will let readers see that
and more when I begin the next round tomorrow.

> > > There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
> > > feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
> > > a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
> > > then they're a living hell for a tropical species.
>
> > You misunderstand how flexible feathers are.

I overlooked that part of his reply. It's typical mild
Harshman flamebait, designed to make you look
bad when you go for the bait, as you did:

> I don't misunderstand anything, you raging jackass.

He did, however, partially address what you had said:

[restoration of what you deleted]
>>They can be adjusted to retain or shed heat.
>>And of course there are other tools for thermoregulation.
>> Have you ever seen a bird pant?
[end of restoration]

I know how birds can fluff up their feathers in cold weather to
let in lots of insulating air, but I don't see how feathers could
shed heat in a treeless plain with the sun blazing down. Can you?

> > > My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
> > > feathers are ultimately about patterns.
> > >
> > > Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
> > > colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!
>
> > This is an old theory
> Of course it is. I've been talking about it for a long time,
> and you're a stupid jackwad who just admitted that it's
> valid even as you desperately attempt to "Argue" against
> it.

You deleted whatever admission of validity there was.

> > that feathers evolved originally for display of
> > pigments.

> Cites.

I don't think Harshman knows any.

> But it's also exactly what I never said.

Very true. And I believe Harshman knows it, because he
knows a lot of bird coloration has nothing to do with pigments.
So do I -- I even told him about that in my reply, but I absent-mindedly
didn't realize that he was misrepresenting you about it.

> Your legendary lack of reading comprehension STILL does not
> make an argument.

> > That would require some kind of linkage between the new niche and the
> > new colors.

> No, you snot eating mongoloid. All it requires is that the birds select
> mates on the basis of the patterns. So if a bird can survive in a
> particular niche, other birds that share its patterns would more than
> likely share its ability to exploit said niche. From there, micro evolution
> is your friend.

That was also well put. Harshman's perennial sidekick Simpson may have seen
that Harshman was in trouble here. That would explain why he quickly seconded Harshman's
cowardly evasion of everything you wrote in this reply of yours.

> > > The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
> > > began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
> > > They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
> > > need a coating.
> > >
> > > Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
> > > trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
> > > dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
> > > I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
> > > class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
> > > hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
> > > second Google search isn't helping..
>
> > You're probably thinking of Maiasaura. But a better example of parental
> > care is Oviraptor.

> Again, your legendary lack of reading comprehension is
> NOT an argument but, I was discussing the distinct LACK
> of nuturing...

> > > Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?
> > >
> > > Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
> > > parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
> > > be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
> > > many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
> > > nurturing could there have been?

Are you sure they were talking about the same hadrosaur?

>
> > Many birds do this too.
> So, speaking rhetorically, the "Nurturing" thing isn't a big
> deal so it's doubtful that neonatal traits would be a big
> draw...
> > > The so called "Opposite Birds" are believed to have
> > > hatched as mini adults. No nurturing. And they were
> > > by far the most common bird before the KT Boundary,
> > > or whatever the spazz heads are calling it these
> > > days...

It's often called the KP boundary, because they've
split up the Cenozoic differently than they used to;
it used to be Tertiary-Quaternary (hence KT), now it's Paleogene-Neogene.

> > Megapodes have no post-hatching parental care.

> If you check, even you might find that I had just said that.

Where did you talk about Megapodes?

> Bringing you back up to speed:
>
> Feathers likely began as thermal regulation but soon proved
> excessively useful for producing patterns (colors, designs).
> And THIS was what was being retained into adulthood -- the
> ability to quickly produce/evolve new patterns -- rather than
> the feathers per se.
>
> The feathers were the mode of delivery.
>
> Now go hump your dog, spazz.

You left in way too little for anyone to see what elicited this insult.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 8/16/23 6:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 3:58:34 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>> Shit head, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
>>>> discussion on feathers going in the past
>>
>>> If that's what
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LVqaG0lHm3s/m/9H0_rE4fCQAJ
>>
>> You are a waste product. You are a highly disordered narcissist thirsty
>> to get in a "Dig," hoping to look more intelligent than the wet, stinking
>> pile of shit that you are. And I'm only too glad to point this out.
>
> This is not going to convince anyone except what fans you have at tumblr,
> but whoever they are, they aren't of any help to you here.
>
> Watch how I handled Harshman in my reply to the same post
> to which you are replying here. Unlike you, I left in everything
> he wrote, so that people can SEE why I am as negative towards
> him as I was in the opening fifth of my reply to him.
>
> He shot back at what I wrote, sure, but he was so ineffectual that he made himself look
> like a fish flopping on the bank. And, rest assured, I will let readers see that
> and more when I begin the next round tomorrow.
>
>
>>>> There are no bald birds. All birds are covered with
>>>> feathers. And if feathers are groovy for a bird on
>>>> a cold New England day in Autumn, or even Winter,
>>>> then they're a living hell for a tropical species.
>>
>>> You misunderstand how flexible feathers are.
>
> I overlooked that part of his reply. It's typical mild
> Harshman flamebait, designed to make you look
> bad when you go for the bait, as you did:
>
>> I don't misunderstand anything, you raging jackass.
>
> He did, however, partially address what you had said:
>
> [restoration of what you deleted]
>>> They can be adjusted to retain or shed heat.
>>> And of course there are other tools for thermoregulation.
>>> Have you ever seen a bird pant?
> [end of restoration]
>
> I know how birds can fluff up their feathers in cold weather to
> let in lots of insulating air, but I don't see how feathers could
> shed heat in a treeless plain with the sun blazing down. Can you?
>
>
>>>> My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
>>>> feathers are ultimately about patterns.
>>>>
>>>> Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
>>>> colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!
>>
>>> This is an old theory
>> Of course it is. I've been talking about it for a long time,
>> and you're a stupid jackwad who just admitted that it's
>> valid even as you desperately attempt to "Argue" against
>> it.
>
> You deleted whatever admission of validity there was.
>
>>> that feathers evolved originally for display of
>>> pigments.
>
>> Cites.
>
> I don't think Harshman knows any.
>
>> But it's also exactly what I never said.
>
> Very true. And I believe Harshman knows it, because he
> knows a lot of bird coloration has nothing to do with pigments.
> So do I -- I even told him about that in my reply, but I absent-mindedly
> didn't realize that he was misrepresenting you about it.
>
>
>
>> Your legendary lack of reading comprehension STILL does not
>> make an argument.
>
>>> That would require some kind of linkage between the new niche and the
>>> new colors.
>
>> No, you snot eating mongoloid. All it requires is that the birds select
>> mates on the basis of the patterns. So if a bird can survive in a
>> particular niche, other birds that share its patterns would more than
>> likely share its ability to exploit said niche. From there, micro evolution
>> is your friend.
>
> That was also well put. Harshman's perennial sidekick Simpson may have seen
> that Harshman was in trouble here. That would explain why he quickly seconded Harshman's
> cowardly evasion of everything you wrote in this reply of yours.
>
>
>>>> The best theory I've heard (seen/read) is that feathers
>>>> began as thermal regulation. Probably in the young.
>>>> They didn't have the mass to retain body heat, so they
>>>> need a coating.
>>>>
>>>> Some people have said that feathers are a neonatal
>>>> trait retained into adulthood. If you ask me though,
>>>> dinosaur nurturing instincts are greatly over stated.
>>>> I remember, in an introduction to dinosaur paleontology
>>>> class, a million years ago, learning about... was it a
>>>> hadrosaur? I don't remember, and the proverbial 30
>>>> second Google search isn't helping..
>>
>>> You're probably thinking of Maiasaura. But a better example of parental
>>> care is Oviraptor.
>
>> Again, your legendary lack of reading comprehension is
>> NOT an argument but, I was discussing the distinct LACK
>> of nuturing...
>
>>>> Has anyone else noticed how shitty Google is now?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, they sounded like such awesome, nurturing
>>>> parents, or at least that's how they were made out to
>>>> be, and then you learned that they maybe laid as
>>>> many as four clutches of eggs per year. So how much
>>>> nurturing could there have been?
>
> Are you sure they were talking about the same hadrosaur?
>
>>
>>> Many birds do this too.
>> So, speaking rhetorically, the "Nurturing" thing isn't a big
>> deal so it's doubtful that neonatal traits would be a big
>> draw...
>>>> The so called "Opposite Birds" are believed to have
>>>> hatched as mini adults. No nurturing. And they were
>>>> by far the most common bird before the KT Boundary,
>>>> or whatever the spazz heads are calling it these
>>>> days...
>
> It's often called the KP boundary, because they've
> split up the Cenozoic differently than they used to;
> it used to be Tertiary-Quaternary (hence KT), now it's Paleogene-Neogene.
>
>
>>> Megapodes have no post-hatching parental care.
>
>> If you check, even you might find that I had just said that.
>
> Where did you talk about Megapodes?
>
>
>> Bringing you back up to speed:
>>
>> Feathers likely began as thermal regulation but soon proved
>> excessively useful for producing patterns (colors, designs).
>> And THIS was what was being retained into adulthood -- the
>> ability to quickly produce/evolve new patterns -- rather than
>> the feathers per se.
>>
>> The feathers were the mode of delivery.
>>
>> Now go hump your dog, spazz.
>
> You left in way too little for anyone to see what elicited this insult.

I should just like to say that self-parody is the very best kind of parody.

erik simpson wrote:

> I've never seen anything

You just posted 10,282 characters to add a single sentence of
text which itself amounted to a narcissistic splatter of your
feely-weelies... as if anyone can care.

There are no bald birds. And you are a fraud that is so convinced
of his own worthlessness that you have to cower behind sock
puppets.

You can't dare try a ratonal, on topic response. You know you'll
just fail again...

There are no bald birds. There are flightless birds but no bald
birds. Feathers trace their origins BEFORE birds. There are
animals that fly without feathers.

Dimwits think feathers = flying.

You're wrong.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725671997341925376

Peter Nyikos wrote:

>, JTEM wrote:
> > Shit head, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > > JTEM wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I tried a number of times to get a legitimate
> > > > discussion on feathers going in the past
> >
> > > If that's what

> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/LVqaG0lHm3s/m/9H0_rE4fCQAJ
> >
> > You are a waste product. You are a highly disordered narcissist thirsty
> > to get in a "Dig," hoping to look more intelligent than the wet, stinking
> > pile of shit that you are. And I'm only too glad to point this out.

> This is not going to convince anyone except what

It's an example of the very thing you just said I did not do.

It's a 6 year old thread where I tried to get a discussion going on feathers,
posted in response to your claim that I have never done so.

If anyone is too stupid to grasp the implications, WHO CARES what they
think! They're not worth it. They're not.

> > > > My personal belief (and this is 100% right) is that
> > > > feathers are ultimately about patterns.
> > > >
> > > > Birds are excellent at this, pattern recognition. The
> > > > colors, the designs... THE PATTERNS!
> >
> > > This is an old theory
> > Of course it is. I've been talking about it for a long time,
> > and you're a stupid jackwad who just admitted that it's
> > valid even as you desperately attempt to "Argue" against
> > it.

The collective isn't even aware of its own part in a conversation.

> > > that feathers evolved originally for display of
> > > pigments.
>
> > Cites.

> I don't think Harshman knows any.

The thermal regulation seems the most likely answer.

> It's often called the KP boundary, because they've
> split up the Cenozoic differently than they used to;
> it used to be Tertiary-Quaternary (hence KT), now it's
> Paleogene-Neogene.

It was the cretaceous tertiary boundary but CT was
already taken, hence KT. The Quaternary is
conventionally dates to about 63 million years after
the cretaceous... a little more, actually.

> Where did you talk about Megapodes?

I was talking about birds that needed no nurturing. This was
in addition to my mentioning of dinosaurs who weren't
exactly nurturing...

The point is that feathers weren't about nurturing, trigging
a nurturing response.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725671997341925376