|
Post by kuni on Jan 1, 2009 19:37:43 GMT
Arioch,
I'm not convinced you've thought things through...those examples of pack hunting wouldn't pass muster in an Animal Behavior 101 class.
At one end of the scale we have solo hunting - the animal makes a kill for its own benefit. Very simple.(example: tiger)
Then we have aggregate hunting - multiple animals go after the same prey animal, and hunting success increases with the number of animals. Each animal is still in it for itself -- having others nearby merely increases the chances it'll get some food at the end of the hunt. (example: crocodiles)
NOW, we get to cooperative hunting. The predators are part of a small family group. Each animal works with the others around it so that the group makes a kill. In this case, each animal is helping the group because they are close relatives, and close relatives share many of their genes in common with the individual. Individual success is still important, but not the predominant concern, because the animal can either pass its genes on directly or help out brothers and sisters and pass genes on indirectly. (example: wolves, lions, Harris hawks)
At the next level we have true eusociality, but with the exception of naked mole rats, no major groups of vertabrates are eusocial, so every group-living vertabrate is in it for itself and its close kin.
|
|
|
Post by dinonikes on Jan 1, 2009 19:45:24 GMT
well, you say creationists as a slur word, which is insulting. Those people are not irrational pe se, they just believe in something different tan you. Their Faith is far and away stronger than your scientific belief because there is NO proof at all to base it on. For some, that is a very profound thing, and I feel that to ridicule them for it is fairly crass and distasteful . If you are finding this conversation to be so silly, why do you continue with it? We are not likely to suddenly convert to your point of view, so why hang around casting aspersions and insults? I feel i have to say something in response to this post- you are saying that some feel it is a profound thing to believe in something when or because there is no scientific proof. That is the whole basis of the attack on Ning when he was talking about believing in dragons- everyone here was jumping down his throat about him believing in dragons as his 'messiah' I believe the quote that was thrown at him read, and the lack of proof to back that there are or were ever dragons.. Now it is profound to believe in something that there is no scientific proof to support. i am not attacking the Christian faith here, and I certainly don't believe in dragons. It just concerns me when a scientific discussion heads towards a religious slant in any way.. I admit i am very sensitive about this due to the attempts to eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools, or to require the teaching of creationism alongside evolution- claiming they are both just 'theories' anyways and should be presented side by side as some kind of alternative buffet choice-
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 1, 2009 19:48:55 GMT
How it came solo hunting tigers to this conversation? And the differences between the hunting of lions or wolves and the hawks hunting are already specified . Don´t try to argue if you didn´t noticed it. Say that all is the same is kind of a insult to the intelligence. Hawks cooperative behaviour is simple, and thats all. No leader of pack, no hierarchical order, no sharing the food...not like the mammals, Period. It could be more advanced in its execution than the methods of the crocodiles, but in fact, not really different. Genetic relations don´t change this. And you were even simplifying this more. The complex cooperative behaviour and the simple one is commonly accepted, aswell the differentiation between them. Maybe i should said that this behaviour in mammals have alot of variants but it won´t contribute to the discusion. There are general terms. I always felt people were a bit too willing to indulge in fantasy when it comes to dromeosaurs. It's kind of embarrassing. Yeah, i feel exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 1, 2009 19:55:49 GMT
I assure you not all Christians believe in creationism. I'm Catholic (Yeah, the big daddy of Christian religions) and don't believe in creationism at all. It has some valid points, but sometimes you have to look at science for answers. Why must we go on arguing? Can't we all get along?
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 1, 2009 20:41:35 GMT
Okay, for the last time, it's *not* simple cooperative behavior. The article(and the original Science paper) specifically talks about how the hawks will do "false dives" with no chance of predation success to give others in the group a chance to go in for the kill. That's DIRECTLY analogous to what lions do, and is one of the key differences between social hunting and cooperative hunting.
Now, there may be more and deeper levels of cooperation, but this one is a pretty big step, and at least leaves open the possibility that their sister taxon contained individuals capable of cooperation. It is by no means direct evidence that dromaesaurids did - when it comes to dinosaur "raptors", I'm slightly in favor of the crocodile and/or tiger hypothesis myself.
(Now I'm wondering what the braincase of a Harris hawk looks like in comparison to other hawks and to dromaesaurs. Interesting...)
One other small point: Genetics ABSOLUTELY matters to a discussion like this, and to any questions about altruism and group living. No behaviorist worth their salt would claim otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 1, 2009 20:43:53 GMT
The point is, where do you find dinosaur genes? And don't tell me in birds because that's bollocks, I mean real genes.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 1, 2009 20:46:28 GMT
The point is, where do you find dinosaur genes? And don't tell me in birds because that's bollocks, I mean real genes. Well, about 90% of all DNA is the same so.... (I know, not very helpful, just wanted to break up some of the arguing)
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 1, 2009 20:48:11 GMT
Haha good point Ct! only 10% differences of DNA separate us from worms! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 1, 2009 21:17:09 GMT
The point is, where do you find dinosaur genes? And don't tell me in birds because that's bollocks, I mean real genes. I'm not talking about genes in terms of DNA/genomics, I'm talking about it in terms of heritability, a very different concept. Organisms maximize their chances of spreading their genes to the next generation either by having lots of offspring or by helping close relatives have lots of offspring. That being said, I'm not sure why you and sid get so hostile when feathered dinos get brought up. Unlike tricky behavioral questions, feathers have been pretty convincingly established as part of the maniraptoran lineage, and, especially once Feduccia isn't around anymore, will be the de facto established theory. That's really a subject for another thread, though.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 1, 2009 21:26:04 GMT
^^^ I didn't mention feathers in my post.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 1, 2009 21:32:39 GMT
^^^ I didn't mention feathers in my post. Sorry, meant to say "bird-dinosaur connection" there.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 1, 2009 21:37:50 GMT
I'm not being hostile, I'm just saying that unless we find direct evidence of their behaviour, it's mere speculation.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 1, 2009 22:22:21 GMT
And there will never be any direct evidence of their behaviour. Well, besides what they ate, how they physically moved, etc.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 22:51:08 GMT
well, you say creationists as a slur word, which is insulting. Those people are not irrational pe se, they just believe in something different tan you. Their Faith is far and away stronger than your scientific belief because there is NO proof at all to base it on. For some, that is a very profound thing, and I feel that to ridicule them for it is fairly crass and distasteful . If you are finding this conversation to be so silly, why do you continue with it? We are not likely to suddenly convert to your point of view, so why hang around casting aspersions and insults? I feel i have to say something in response to this post- you are saying that some feel it is a profound thing to believe in something when or because there is no scientific proof. That is the whole basis of the attack on Ning when he was talking about believing in dragons- everyone here was jumping down his throat about him believing in dragons as his 'messiah' I believe the quote that was thrown at him read, and the lack of proof to back that there are or were ever dragons.. Now it is profound to believe in something that there is no scientific proof to support. i am not attacking the Christian faith here, and I certainly don't believe in dragons. It just concerns me when a scientific discussion heads towards a religious slant in any way.. I admit i am very sensitive about this due to the attempts to eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools, or to require the teaching of creationism alongside evolution- claiming they are both just 'theories' anyways and should be presented side by side as some kind of alternative buffet choice- you have a point, and I have already apologized for that. I do however believe that evolution is forced upon people just as much as religion is. It is still a theory because it cannot be proven. I do not feel creationism belongs in the classroom, that is purely a religious angle. Unless it is a private religious school, it has no business in state funded education. I do believe that a few *very* minor word choices could suffice. Such as, "most scientist now believe....., or "one theory is....", or even " the prevailing theory is", or the most commonly accepted theory is. You get the point. I am only disturbed at the presenting of things as irrefutable fact, when they are still theory. Widely accepted most likely explanation theories, true, but still.
|
|
|
Post by dinonikes on Jan 1, 2009 23:38:35 GMT
I feel i have to say something in response to this post- you are saying that some feel it is a profound thing to believe in something when or because there is no scientific proof. That is the whole basis of the attack on Ning when he was talking about believing in dragons- everyone here was jumping down his throat about him believing in dragons as his 'messiah' I believe the quote that was thrown at him read, and the lack of proof to back that there are or were ever dragons.. Now it is profound to believe in something that there is no scientific proof to support. i am not attacking the Christian faith here, and I certainly don't believe in dragons. It just concerns me when a scientific discussion heads towards a religious slant in any way.. I admit i am very sensitive about this due to the attempts to eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools, or to require the teaching of creationism alongside evolution- claiming they are both just 'theories' anyways and should be presented side by side as some kind of alternative buffet choice- you have a point, and I have already apologized for that. I do however believe that evolution is forced upon people just as much as religion is. It is still a theory because it cannot be proven. I do not feel creationism belongs in the classroom, that is purely a religious angle. Unless it is a private religious school, it has no business in state funded education. I do believe that a few *very* minor word choices could suffice. Such as, "most scientist now believe....., or "one theory is....", or even " the prevailing theory is", or the most commonly accepted theory is. You get the point. I am only disturbed at the presenting of things as irrefutable fact, when they are still theory. Widely accepted most likely explanation theories, true, but still. I do agree with you here- I guess my only problem with the creationists trying to get their agenda into schools it that they probably wouldn't want the buddists' story of creation or the Native Americans' or whatever religion or culture you want to substitute here. i would have no problem and even would like the idea of children learning the different ideas about how we all got here- so long as every angle was covered and not just the Christian version. I am not in any way upset with you, just trying to state an opinion, please don't take it too seriously. I find there is too much being taken too seriously here in these discussions. It should be more of an exchange of ideas instead of an exchange of other feelings. I have found your instights really interesting as i have reread a lot of these old threads here since joining a month or so ago.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 1, 2009 23:53:03 GMT
I do believe that a few *very* minor word choices could suffice. Such as, "most scientist now believe....., or "one theory is....", or even " the prevailing theory is", or the most commonly accepted theory is. You get the point. I am only disturbed at the presenting of things as irrefutable fact, when they are still theory. Widely accepted most likely explanation theories, true, but still. Or we could, say, actually teach folks what science and the scientific process is all about, so they realize that a scientific theory isn't irrefutable fact, but still really likely to be true. Remember: a scientific theory isn't just a hypothesis, it's a hypothesis that has stood up to massive amounts of testing and experimentation. When people use "theory" in everyday language, it's more like "a hunch" then "well-tested idea", which tends to be a source of confusion. Really though, this is a topic for another thread if someone wants to start it.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 2, 2009 0:09:33 GMT
It is and it isn't. I use it here to say that not everything we currently"know" about dinosaur looks or behavior is entirely set in stone. **another punny from the mascot** There is room for different interpretations of the evidence to be discussed. I am not in any way implying I don't support evolution, because I most certainly do. I would be careful of that thread, if you think feelings are running hot here.
No, my main frustration today has been with the attitude with which I have been talked to. I do not see why we can't just say what we think or feel without being called idiots, or morons, or irrational. I think at this point, we all know Arioch feels very strongly about cladistics, and really can't comprehend anyone feeling differently. Fair enough. I doubt there is any way any argument from us will change his views, and the only retort would be to attack him personally, which is pointless.
I just don't see why I have to be an irrational, idiotic moron, who posts useless crap from nowhere. ( This is a combination of frustration from this and the marine reptile thread ). So, I am wondering, if I am to be treated this way every time I involve myself in a discussion, why bother. Like I said to Dr. A, perhaps I am useful here solely to post pretty pics and make y"all laugh, sorta like a team mascot, or court jestor. I am REALLY disappointed in the site right now....
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 2, 2009 0:17:35 GMT
Bah, I wouldn't worry about it, teton. Arioch did talk down to you...but if it's any consolation, he's not quite the expert on phylogenetics and cladistics he claims to be! Things just got a little too spirited!
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 2, 2009 0:24:25 GMT
It's not just him> It is Ning too. And in every serious post I have tried involving myself in. I truly don't feel I belong here after all.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 2, 2009 0:31:06 GMT
Ning believes in dragons, man. I'd recommend getting some good dino+evolution books, so you won't feel like you're floundering(though I've seen no evidence your level of knowledge is particularly low...). I just got Holtz and Rey's "Dinosaurs: The Most Complete Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages", and it's really fantastic! Holtz explains cladistics and talks about the major groups of dinosaurs in a phylogenetic context. In addition, he has tons of little "asides" where he tells you about recent research that's improving our knowledge of dinosaurs, and he solicited contributions from 33 different paleontologists (not all of whom agree!) so you can get a sense of how these scientists approach paleontology.
|
|