Comments by "Dr. Ian Plect" (@Dr.IanPlect) on "Animal Origins" channel.

  1. "Evolution defined as-Speciation at the family level of taxonomy." - opening with a nonsense definition already has you as clueless
    13
  2. "Polar bears feed on seals and walruses because they shared a common ancestor." - not reality, though
    8
  3. Why do you use up oxygen.
    8
  4.  @brentahre9693  And that childish reply sums up your attitude and vacuity. Muted.
    7
  5. Maker sure you publish that giant body of debunking work asap.
    6
  6. sewage
    6
  7.  @aljuric5887  even more tripe
    5
  8. Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism.
    5
  9. Pathetically wimpered desperate claims by a mythology worshipper, 6k years later.
    5
  10. PhD zoologist here, you've made 2 claims as follows. "Whales are not descended from land animals. That's just a silly myth - that's your claim, can you substantiate it? "The ancestor of whales was in the water, evolved in the water, and remained in the water." - that's your claim, can you substantiate it?
    5
  11. Another troll hoping for a bite?
    5
  12. "Giraffes don’t have long necks!" - they do ,even leaving aside your next flaw, 'relative to their legs', by comparison with other animals, they absolutely have long necks "If you have ever seen a giraffe drinking, you realise that they have a SHORT neck relative to their height/length of their legs." - the legs are also long both in absolute and relative terms to other animals and for their own body dimensions. Such a long neck becomes necessary to be of utility alongside long legs. "So I’d suggest that the selection was for leg length and that the increase in neck length was an incomplete compensation for this." - no, the selection was for the ability to attain food sources unavailable to competitors; elongate your legs and neck and suddenly you have access to previously unavailable food.
    5
  13. Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism.
    5
  14.  @easportsaxb8057  "where did you get that information? Because no, the clouded leopard is much more related to other pantherines such as lions, tigers and leopards. It's the most primitive of the subfamily Pantherinae." - this ignorant comment shows you don't understand this statement; "The Clouded Leopard is the closest living relative to the Saber-Toothed Cat"
    4
  15.  @Gayacegunslinger  Not by name, though. Grolar is specific to a grizzly hybrid. Kodiaks are not grizzlies, both are brown bear subspecies. It could be Kolar or Podiak!
    4
  16. tripe
    4
  17. Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism.
    4
  18. ​ @indyreno2933  You know very well what you do; - post flawed taxonomies and other info - when corrected or confronted, you ignore it and stubbornly respond, commonly with 'actually...' ------------- If you had a better attitude regarding what I and others correct you about, I wouldn't have to continually provide warnings about what you post as 'information', because you wouldn't keep doing it. As you have done for at least 8 years that I know of (I'm nurnord!). Ian Plect is my real name, and I have a BSc in biology and PhD in zoology; my point being that I don't comment on your comments for fun. I do it because you endlessly spew flawed info from my profession, something I'm passionate about. Your latest being your 'Since chalicotheres are hoofed mammals, chalicotheres do not have claws' comment. If you want a further explanation and to LEARN why this is wrong, reply under that comment (I've already replied to it summarising your error)
    4
  19.  @indyreno2933  My warnings don't always specify each comment of yours; it's a general description of what you tend to do. I note you ignore my other points; typical.
    4
  20. oxygen thief
    4
  21. YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate taxonomies, this effort is among your worst mess yet. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs. I'm a PhD zoologist and detest this kind of misinformation and ignorance.
    4
  22. incoherent rants are useless
    4
  23. DRIVEL
    4
  24.  @bibletheology2889  I won't go round in circles; muted.
    4
  25. You are conflating evolution and speciation. No new species could arise and evolution would continue regardless.
    4
  26. Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism.
    4
  27. "The fact that fish are still around from 350 million years ago shows that DNA is very stable." - the only thing shown here is your ignorance of the subject
    4
  28. Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism.
    4
  29. mythology
    4
  30. "Fun fact: clouded leopards have the largest saber teeth of modern cats" - WRONG; only relative to body size; tiger's are larger
    3
  31.  @mhdfrb9971  "no it's not. They're not even the same species and subfamily" - that comment just exposes your ignorance; NO extant feline is in the same species or subfamily as saber-toothed cats, so that's not a basis for refutation!
    3
  32.  @easportsaxb8057  There is NO aggressive tone, just fervent energy, and your replies are far from tone free. "But I still think I'm not the wrong in this argument." YOU ARE, and this reply itself demonstrates even more lack of understanding (read below) "Sure, Neofelis is most basal living pantherine, but not the most basal felid." - 'most basal felid' is of ZERO relevance here! This is about 'which living felid is nearest to stc', not 'which felid is most basal' "It may sit closer to Machairodontinae than the rest of Pantherinae" - at last, you agree on a point I made ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS is where your flaw lies; "but it DOES NOT sit closer to Machairodontinae than Felinae" - this comment in particular is that which 'demonstrates even more lack of understanding'! - this is NOT about which subfamily the clouded leopard is closer to; Machairodontinae or Felinae! Of course it's closer to Felinae as there's a more recent common ancestor, but that's not the question! ------- - it's 'which living felid is closest to stc'! SIMPLE 1. ALL living felids are in a sister clade to Machairodontinae. 2. The clouded leopard is the closest to the common ancestor of both clades. 3. Therefore the clouded leopard, of living felids, is closest to stc. Or stating it the other way; stc's closest living relative is cl. Something just occurred to me in what may be tripping you up; when I write; a) 'the clouded leopard is the closest living felid to stc, do you subconsciously read that as; b) 'clouded leopard is therefore closer to stc than it is to other living felids'? Because a) and b) are stating distinct things and don't conflict!
    3
  33. "Apes didn't evolve "from" Old World monkeys; they are Old World monkeys. We're simply a particular subset of them." - a flawed comment and wrong as a result
    3
  34.  @tjarkschweizer  Yes, with how long and repetitive his comments are over the years, he must have a saved file of this that he selects from!
    3
  35. Subspecies, not species.
    3
  36.  @Coelacanth_yes  "he even forgot pandas he says there in a completely separate family from bears" - Read my longer critique! He hasn't forgot, I already know he baselessly excludes them as bears!
    3
  37.  @dinohall2595  Yes, he has a habit doing the following on wildlife videos; - posting obsolete/inaccurate/flawed taxonomy - stubbornly insisting that said taxonomy is correct - ignores corrections and posts even more nonsense anyway - it does seem to be about showing off 'knowledge' -------------- I'm a PhD zoologist, Reno knows me by other names (this is a new account). I've been pointing out his nonsense for years. Just today on another video I corrected his comment asserting; - giant pandas are not bears - bears are closer to dogs than pinnipeds - bears, dogs and pinnipeds are closer to each other than to mustelids Sometimes I go through his nonsense and explain at length why it's wrong, other times (as my first comment here) I don't have that energy! As a professional zoologist, it hurts to see the kind of misinformation he dumps.
    3
  38. Indian rhino is a valid, widely used name, end of.
    3
  39. why
    3
  40. Many animals don't comport with their grouping which is often based upon the primitive condition.
    3
  41.  @originalkingalpha5116  If you need to ask...
    3
  42. well?
    3
  43. coward
    3
  44.  @Ballistics_Computer  Marginally, but mostly I detest the perversion of my field. He breaks down bear taxonomy in another comment under this vid; it's even worse.
    3
  45. Beware of a commenter called Indy Reno posting nonsense taxonomy and other flawed info. He does this all the time and stubbornly ignores criticism.
    3
  46. Delusional, disgusting vomit mythology.
    3
  47.  @giuseppecatone7360  "I will pray for you" - and I'll think for you
    3
  48.  @giuseppecatone7360  Ok, one go at this; - can you substantiate your god exists? If so, do it...
    3
  49.  @thatoneguyRyan1  Yes, the lemur lineage split off 55 million years ago from the ancestral lineage leading to apes and us within.
    3
  50.  @BrianH7  Oh, here's Mr. 'law of monophyly' spewing more trolling crap!
    3
  51. Yet again Reno gets it wrong. - claws are not defined by lineage, but by their homological presentation in a wide range of taxa, i.e. distinct lineages have claws in a wide range of morphologies
    3
  52. Mark; you have much to learn; "Has evolution been 100% cofirmed?" a) yes; allele frequencies in populations changing across generations has been confirmed. THAT is evolution. "I've read that it still definitely a theory" -b) Mark, evolution refers to the fact of evolution which is a), and to the theory of evolution; the body of work, data, experiment and evidence that supports the subject "and there really is no proof" c) science doesn't use 'proof', it gathers evidence in support of natural phenomena "Shouldn't there be evidence that its actively going on now?" - yes and there is; a) is an ongoing process in organisms
    3
  53. creationist vomit
    3
  54.  @AMC2283  "ummmm you brought it up" - NO! YOU need to pay attention! THIS is a QUOTE from NineLaivz; "The fact that fish are still around from 350 million years ago shows that DNA is very stable." THIS is my REPLY TO THAT QUOTE; - the only thing shown here is your ignorance of the subject -------------- Now, get off your high horse and acknowledge your error and answer what you meant by both parts of; "fish isn't a species, it's a class of vertebrate. One can't talk scientifically to conclude religion."
    3
  55. 'such as', was the operative part, it was a few examples, not a complete list. And we're nothing special.
    3
  56.  @generaldissatisfaction5397  Indeed, vermin everywhere.
    3
  57.  @number1enemyoftheuseless985  oxygen thief
    3
  58. It's a brown bear subspecies, not a species. Add that to your 'WAY more' pile.
    3
  59.  @dwaynefrancis1384  Yeah, I think his 'WAY more' pile is compared to a toddler. 👍
    3
  60.  @Gabberag  ok
    2
  61.  @indyreno2933  YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate/made up taxonomies. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies.
    2
  62.  @beastmaster0934  "Yep. Despite being around the size of a medium-sized dog, their canine teeth are the same size as a tiger’s." - no, distinctly smaller
    2
  63.  @easportsaxb8057  "I genuinely do not understand what your criticism is". I'd rather you understood where you went wrong. - read and compare these; a which feline is the clouded leopard most related to b which feline is the closest living relative to the saber-toothed cat ------ a asks of ALL felines b asks of living felines, which is closest to stc You misunderstood "The Clouded Leopard is the closest living relative to the Saber-Toothed Cat" (which answers b) as addressing a. ------------- But ok, you've expressed your attitude; you'd rather give up and not reply than just take a moment to understand the difference!
    2
  64.  @easportsaxb8057  "I don't think I misunderstood the statement; I was actually addressing the point (that clouded leopards are NOT sabre-tooths closest living relatives)" No, the comment you objected to; "The Clouded Leopard is the closest living relative to the Saber-Toothed Cat." is CORRECT, of all living felines, the clouded leopard IS closest to the stc! ------ I remind you again that your response to this... "where did you get that information? Because no, the clouded leopard is much more related to other pantherines such as lions, tigers and leopards. It's the most primitive of the subfamily Pantherinae." ...is NOT addressing the point! The point is clear and obvious; of all living felines, the clouded leopard is most closely related to the stc. This DOES NOT conflict with the clouded leopard being closer to lions, leopards etc! ------------ PLEASE understand your flaw; YES, clouded leopards ARE closer to other Pantherinae, lions etc than to stc, that's not in contention, nor did that other person say otherwise. ***BUT, because clouded leopards have a common ancestor further back than the rest of Pantherinae, the degree of relationship to other felines is NOT equal. THEREFORE of all Pantherinae, the clouded leopard sits a bit closer to stc than the rest. Add to this the fact that no other living felines outside Pantherinae sit further back toward the stc than the clouded leopard, and you have; the clouded leopard, of all living felines, is the nearest to stc. AGAIN, this DOES NOT conflict with 'clouded leopards are closer to other Pantherinae'! ***You even said it yourself "It's the most primitive of the subfamily Pantherinae"!
    2
  65. "i wonder why the front limbs became the sole limbs since the hind limbs were longer in the early ancestors" - the combination of front flippers for longitudinal stability and dynamics of whale locomotion at the rear renders rear flippers obsolete.
    2
  66. no
    2
  67. He didn't.
    2
  68. where did you get that?
    2
  69. NO, your 'lord' is foul stench mythology. THIS is science.
    2
  70.  @Astro_Crunch  That's a good example of the mentality of the deluded.
    2
  71. "we are all fish that are adapted to live on land (or were at one time)." - having fish ancestors neither means we are now, nor were we fish
    2
  72. ​ @oldgeezerproductions  Your understanding of evolution and classification is flawed throughout your reply. I'm going to reply in a manner intended to provoke thought and reexamination of your current understanding of the subject, which is lacking. I'm a zoologist by profession (BSc biology, PhD zoology); "It depends entirely from which point of view you are taking. You may as well say: "having chordate ancestors neither means we are now, nor were we chordates."" - that nonsense highlights your lack of understanding; a) we are chordates now because we retain the necessary traits to be classified as chordates!, 'fish' has a set of characteristics unique to them (the entire basis of taxonomy; group identity on the basis of traits!), we no longer have those traits that make a fish a fish. THAT is the difference in your flawed analogy between fish and chordates b) your other silly misunderstanding from my first reply "nor were we fish", is in not realising what that states! 'We were fish' is stating 'in a previous life we were fish'! NO, our ancestors were fish, 'we' were never fish! 'You' are only ever the one organism you lived as, a human, 'you' were never a fish. Take heed of misusing words in making a point "We are our ancestors" - there you go again! NO, 'you' are 'you', you were never a previous individual of another species! AGAIN; take heed of misusing words to make a point "and they are us" - same again; our ancestors were individuals only, they didn't reform as a descendant, the descendant is a distinct individual. Again; take heed of misusing words to make a point "(even if different species) because we did not come from any kind of "Special Creation" out of mud (or rib as the case may be)." - drop the entirely irrelevant religious angle, it's nonsense "The organs, biochemical processes and structures we have within our bodies are modifications of the basic designs worked out by creatures we call "fish" who were indeed our ancestors." - an arbitrary point! I could point to other milestone taxa before and after fish that evolved significant traits that were the beginnings of major groupings ancestral to us! Why not call us those taxa ? A major example is tetrapods, 4 limbed vertebrates. These evolved after fish and EXCLUDE fish. So why not drop 'we are fish' in favour of this? The answer is easy and I've stated it already; we are NOT fish anymore, just as we are not those early tetrapods anymore. We evolved traits that distinguish us from them. "Within all of us, as mentioned, are these structures, so in a very real sense, we are indeed fish that are adapted to live on land just as we are apes that have adapted to large-brain consciousness." - addressed above ------------- Reread this part of your thinking; "The organs, biochemical processes and structures we have within our bodies are modifications of the basic designs worked out by creatures we call "fish" who were indeed our ancestors." - Consider this; we evolved from single-celled ancestors (bacteria/archaea). In your own thinking; 'The organs, biochemical processes and structures we have within our bodies are modifications of the basic designs worked out by creatures we call "bacteria/archaea" who were indeed our ancestors." So, why not run with 'we are bacteria/archaea'? The answer, AGAIN is; we no longer have the traits that define us as those ancestors (namely; they have a prokaryotic cell, ours are eukaryotic and they are single-celled, we are multi-cellular). The point is the same; we evolved traits distinct from those ancestors that excludes us from those taxonomic groupings! Please don't gloss over my substantive reply. ----- A final note in case you might bring this up; being within Sarcopterygii and its cladistic implications still doesn't mean we are fish.
    2
  73.  @oldgeezerproductions  Your lack of response speaks volumes; muted.
    2
  74. yes
    2
  75. cats are vile
    2
  76.  @JJ-oq3tz  👍
    2
  77. vomit
    2
  78.  @KO_Fangboi  ...
    2
  79. YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate/made up taxonomies. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs.
    2
  80.  @indyreno2933  "the only defining characteristic of a bear is the ability to roar, giant pandas cannot roar, therefore they are not bears" - this remark is so ridiculous I don't think a I need to critique it. It's the thinking of a child "the giant panda is the only extant representative of a separate family, which is the family Ailuropodidae" - yet another invalid taxon misapplied, gp's are bears and therefore the family Ursidae. ---------- Yet again Reno, you spout drivel. I await your 'Actually...'.
    2
  81.  @dinohall2595  Endless examples of that, from religious people too!
    2
  82. yes, and some are closer to some elephants than those elephants are to other elephants
    2
  83. "And the great apes, such as gorillas, chimpanzees and Oranutans" 'such as', was the operative part, it was a few examples, not a complete list. And we're nothing special.
    2
  84. No, they didn't 'deforest entire continents'.
    2
  85.  @tummytub1161  So, you CAN'T substantiate 'deforest entire continents', YET, YOU JUST CLAIMED SO in your first comment! Just admit it was a wildly exaggerated comment!
    2
  86. YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated/inaccurate/flat out made up taxonomies, this effort is among your worst mess yet. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I or others correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs. I'm a PhD zoologist and detest this kind of misinformation and ignorance. His typical response to criticism is to entirely ignore it and blindly regurgitate the same or other taxonomic nonsense, usually beginning 'Actually...'.
    2
  87. doesn't have horns
    2
  88. Ratufa indica
    2
  89.  @dinohall2595  Further, a lot of the time the taxonomies are obsolete/wrong/made up. I'm a PhD zoologist and have been observing this person doing this for about 8 years now. He knows me by various of my own previous usernames which I'll add for his benefit; nurnord, Michael Anderson. YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate taxonomies. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs.
    2
  90. no
    2
  91.  @hittdf5111  "both bonobos and humans are part of the hominidae family it doesnt matter if "thats not your view", it is a fact." - irrelevant
    2
  92.  @Mark-bm5nk  "of course it's a law...it's a theory" - Mark! 'law' and 'theory' are distinct!
    2
  93.  @CesarSanchez-et7qg  "Yes we just can't see obvious examples of evolution in our lifetime because of how long it takes" - a statement that clearly misses what evolution is (seea) in my comment to Mark, this can be observed every 20 minutes!)
    2
  94.  @Mark-bm5nk  sewer rat; muted
    2
  95.  @own4801  "It is technically still a theory" - stating that alone isn't accurate, as I already replied; "Has evolution been 100% cofirmed?" a) yes; allele frequencies in populations changing across generations has been confirmed. THAT is evolution. THAT makes it a fact "I've read that it still definitely a theory" b) Mark, evolution refers to the fact of evolution which is a), and to the theory of evolution; the body of work, data, experiment and evidence that supports the subject
    2
  96.  @gjeraldh2989  again; muted
    2
  97. Moreso than...
    2
  98. Saintphoenix; oxygen thief
    2
  99. First, 'mammal-like reptiles' is obsolete. We no longer think mammals or any synapsids evolved from or were reptiles. Some therapsids and their lineage before and after are of course ancestral to all mammals. They are synapsids and mammalian ancestry passes through all synapsid groups. Some of those ancestral therapsids would have had said teeth, but a specific trait like tooth type isn't necessarily indicative of ancestor-descendant relationship. Traits can be convergent; similar teeth independently arising in distinct lineages, e.g. wolves and hyenas. So don't think those therapsid teeth directly descended to modern or prehistoric canines.
    2
  100.  @adamgallyot9063  yep
    2
  101.  @Coelacanth_yes  And I remember you too, you were very respectful! So I checked all names, yes they are all valid and current orders of birds. What's this for?
    2
  102.  @indyreno2933  YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate/made up taxonomies. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs.
    2
  103.  @Ragnarra  I'm far from encyclopaedic on the names, in this instance I cross referenced them with official literature to help chol out. Taxonomy, like all science, is in constant flux and does have areas of ambiguity and disagreement, as you relate.
    2
  104. Absolutely.
    2
  105. "the evolutionary history of mammals are probably far less understood by the supposedly educated public than are dinosaurs, living reptiles or birds." - to be clear, as your wording may be construed otherwise; birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are reptiles "How many kids or science-literate adults can confidently describe the differences between monotremes, marsupials and placentals? Probably far fewer than those who can explain the pterosaur, ichthyosaur, dinosaur divide." - hmm, I'm not so confident here! I'd say the tendency is the other way; the general public think pterosaurs and icthyosaurs are dinosaurs, just aquatic types! Whereas with those 3 mammal groups, a vague bit of gesturing and mumblings of 'eggs', 'pouches' and 'live birth' may be heard!
    2
  106. You were doing ok until the last sentence.
    1
  107.  @minutemansam1214  not quite as long
    1
  108.  @easportsaxb8057  "clouded leopard is the most 'primitive' of the subfamily Pantherinae, but it isn't archaic enough to have been related to machairodontines such as Smilodon." 1. as used here, what do you mean by primitive? 2. "but it isn't archaic enough to have been related to machairodontines such as Smilodon"; TRIPE
    1
  109.  @mhdfrb9971  That childish drivel is irrelevant to your taxonomic ignorance in this thread.
    1
  110.  @mhdfrb9971  A reminder of your ignorance before muting; -------- "no it's not. They're not even the same species and subfamily" - that comment just exposes your ignorance; NO extant feline is in the same species or subfamily as saber-toothed cats, so that's not a basis for refutation! -------- Muted.
    1
  111.  @easportsaxb8057  Yes, he has done it for years. Just look at his reply; yet more crap. That's what he always does, ignores criticism and spews out even more vomit!
    1
  112.  @easportsaxb8057  "are you attacking me for defending truth or are you just doing it for the sake of it? Because I don't see how I didn't understand the statement. Maybe read the conversation again. The statement by the user I replied to was obviously wrong. So I corrected it. Neofelis (clouded leopards) belong to the Pantherinae subfamily of felids, therefore they're more closely related to other pantherines, such as lions, tigers, leopards and others than to machairodontines which include the famous sabre-tooths, suggested by the user to be the closest relatives of clouded leopards. I see some hypocrisy here, maybe you're the ignorant one." - I was going to let this go until this nonsense appeared! ---------------- READ CAREFULLY Your reply completely misinterprets his statement; "where did you get that information? Because no, the clouded leopard is much more related to other pantherines such as lions, tigers and leopards. It's the most primitive of the subfamily Pantherinae." 1. The statement was NOT 'which feline is the clouded leopard closest to'! That would be other Pantherinae. 2. It was 'The Clouded Leopard is the closest living relative to the Saber-Toothed Cat' - that's a very distinct statement! - of course it's closer to other Pantherinae members, but his statement addressed 'which living feline is closest to saber-toothed cats'! Answer; clouded leopard! And they ARE closer to stc than other Pantherinae members are to stc, because as a more basal outgroup, their immediate common ancestor is closer to stc than the immediate common ancestor of other Pantherinae is. It's that clear cut. ------------ Now, drop the hostile tone, read why you are wrong not by lacking knowledge, but by misinterpreting what was and was not stated! When you do, it would be nice for you to withdraw this silliness 'I see some hypocrisy here, maybe you're the ignorant one'!
    1
  113.  @easportsaxb8057  well?
    1
  114.  @stilwells  "this person doesn’t get how evolution exists" - why do you conclude that?
    1
  115.  @stilwells  "just because somethings big like a sauropod, doesnt mean it will evolve into something else big" - that doesn't address how his comment means he 'doesn't get how evolution exists'
    1
  116.  @stilwells  "are you like, dumb, because the brachiosaurus didnt evolve into a giraffe, thats common sense" - that's of no relevance to he 'doesn't get how evolution exists' ------------ YOU are the one looking dumb by not understanding basic words in front of your face.
    1
  117.  @stilwells  Your continued snark will only get you muted.
    1
  118.  @stilwells  muted
    1
  119.  @AMC2283  "It was a tail in fish that evolved legs in amphibians onward and those genes still exist" - no, the tail did NOT evolve into legs, tetrapod (4 limbed animals) legs evolved from lobe-finned fish fins. The tail is a distinct structure retained in many tetrapod taxa
    1
  120. tripe
    1
  121. Why? Validate your claim!
    1
  122.  @kingbugs3558  I've been looking for this thread to answer you as I accidentally deleted it from my notifications! ------- That 2.4% means the DNA sequence is identical in both sequence and position on the chromosome. Think of it as a deck of cards, if 2 species differ by 2 cards (as in 2 of the 52 cards in each deck are unique to their respective species), that's a very close relatedness. This you could approximate to the overall differences between us and chimps. But this is NOT what the 2.4% relates to, that is not only a high degree of the same genes (cards) overall, but saying that 2.4% of the genes (cards) is identical and in the same locations on the chromosome (i.e. 2.4% of the cards are in the same order and same placement in the deck). THAT is what shows high relatedness that can only come about through ancestry.
    1
  123.  @Gayacegunslinger  👍
    1
  124.  @Svensk7119  Yes, but they'd be wrong, just as folks use terms like; 'Kodiak grizzly', 'brown or grizzly bear'...and are wrong!
    1
  125. tripe
    1
  126.  @commandergree  Well, that was pretty crude.
    1
  127.  @commandergree  No, it was flawed and semi-literate. Did you delete it due to my criticism?
    1
  128.  @commandergree  It's not here, you deleted it; muted.
    1
  129.  @maskonfilteroff3145  not convinced
    1
  130. Neither are ancestral to pinnipeds.
    1
  131.  @zebedeemadness2672  Paelogale is a misspelling of Palaeogale, a genus of small carnivorous mammal. Possibly on the mustelid lineage but more data is necessary to resolve the phylogeny/taxonomy.
    1
  132.  @DAVIDPETERS12C  "I have deleted no replies." - that was in my inbox from YOU! "That's a feint" - your foul attitude is one chance away from muting -------- I'll engage you on positive grounds, not the belligerent crap you are showing here...
    1
  133.  @DAVIDPETERS12C  muted
    1
  134.  @Astro_Crunch  muted
    1
  135. @Flux Such irrelevant sewage from an amoeba; muted.
    1
  136.  @kuirkyy  no
    1
  137. I wouldn't say 'large'.
    1
  138. muddled nonsense
    1
  139. This is all nonsense. I'm not going through it all, I'll just expose the silliness of the first bit; "The short-face bear, Arctodus, evolved form the wolverine" - no, it evolved from ancestral bears, Plionarctos, the genus from which sfb evolved - wolverines and ALL bears diverged 10s of millions of years before the wolverine even existed! "The grizzly bear, Ursus arctos" - straight away, you can't even name a taxon correctly, brown bear is Ursus arctos. The grizzly is one of its subspecies; U. a. horribilis ----------- I'm stopping there, the rest is nonsense too.
    1
  140.  @DAVIDPETERS12C  I've noted your shady demeanor in 2 comments here now, you reek of having some agenda in pseudoscience. I'm on the scientific side, with phylogenies and original papers supporting me, not to mention my own knowledge including a zoology PhD. By all means, refute my critique, with valid data.
    1
  141.  @vermicelledecheval5219  species, not specie
    1
  142.  @vermicelledecheval5219  Yeah, species is singular AND plural.
    1
  143. And it contradicts itself!
    1
  144. Nonsense.
    1
  145.  @realmonster5866  Add poor attitude.
    1
  146.  @realmonster5866  muted
    1
  147. ?
    1
  148.  @AMC2283  Why mention drift? This Coleman buffoon only needs to be corrected regarding his trolling about monkeys and apes that never evolved. In any case drift is a sideshow to ns.
    1
  149. What medal do you suppose this 'analysis' warrants?
    1
  150.  @indyreno2933  ignoramus
    1
  151.  @indyreno2933  Actually, Reno is an ignoramus that spews outdated or entirely wrong taxonomic information.
    1
  152.  @youtubestudiosucks978  The bucket of vomit is muted.
    1
  153. tripe
    1
  154.  @MarkLewis...  The oxygen thief is muted.
    1
  155. "Until now, I’d only heard of a few rhino ancestors, like the Paracer, the wooly rhino" - neither are ancestral to rhinos
    1
  156. oxpecker, without viewing the bit you refer to, though other birds do it too
    1
  157.  @ultrademigod  What a stupid comment; ALL of taxonomy is for our benefit, ffs.
    1
  158.  @minutemansam1214  cheetahs, not cheetah's
    1
  159. What's your point?
    1
  160. Yet more flawed taxonomy from ignorant Reno.
    1
  161. YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated/inaccurate/flat out made up taxonomies, this effort is among your worst mess yet. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I or others correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs. I'm a PhD zoologist and detest this kind of misinformation and ignorance. His typical response to criticism is to entirely ignore it and blindly regurgitate the same or other taxonomic nonsense, usually beginning 'Actually...'. ------------------ 1. Note that Reno stubbornly omits the giant panda as a bear at all; a topic decided long ago following genetic analysis confirming their relatedness and ancestry. 2. He erroneously lists subspecies as distinct species; Melursus inornatus, Helarctos indochinensis, Helarctos euryspilus, Euarctos emmonsi, Euarctos cinnamomum, Euarctos kermodei 3. 'Euarctos' is an invalid genus name, (it's Ursus). There are EIGHT (not 15) extant bear species in FOUR (not 5) genera, as follows 4. His listings for Ursus are a complete cow pat disaster; just ignore it all, it's a disgrace. Ursus (4) Brown bear, Ursus arctos Polar bear, Ursus maritimus American black bear, Ursus americanus Asiatic black bear, Ursus thibetanus Ailuropoda (1) Giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca Tremarctos (1) Spectacled bear, Tremarctos ornatus Helarctos (1) Sun bear, Helarctos malayanus Melursus (1) Sloth bear, Melursus ursinus
    1
  162.  @Coelacanth_yes  As I stated, yes! I've known Reno for about 8 years now, always the same pattern of sewage.
    1
  163.  @animalorigins  As you can see, the ignoramus gave the same response about pandas again. It's complete tripe, just ignore him.
    1
  164.  @indyreno2933  'Buffalo' is an ambiguous term, it refers to wild species and domesticated groups too. Cattle are domesticated bovines, as such, the blanket statement, "buffalo are actually cattle" isn't accurate.
    1
  165.  @indyreno2933  I yet again disagree with your stated taxonomy. However, I'm surprised you replied at all. As I said a few days ago, why don't we have a discussion about the taxonomies you post? Not so much this 'cattle' term which isn't really science, but your long time used terms used for bears, species/subspecies designation etc? If you think you have valid arguments, then why not air them? I don't care about winning/losing a debate, what drives me is getting to the truth, the science.
    1
  166.  @Coelacanth_yes  Yep, that's him. Hence why I generally just post warnings for others about his comments. Well, I do get dragged in sometimes!
    1
  167.  @Coelacanth_yes  Let's clear up your terms here; "wild cow like bovine not a cow" - 'bovine' refers to ALL members, wild and domesticated, so 'wild cow like bovine' isn't correct - 'not a cow'; cow can indeed refer to any member of domesticated bovine (therefore a synonym for cattle), as it's not limited to defining an adult female member of cattle. You must remember though it has other references such as adult female of wild bovines. Better to say 'wild bovines, not cattle'. Domestication creates animals with better or more desired characteristics; tameness, more milk production, higher meat yield, strength (say for pulling a plough), aesthetic appeal etc. Hence why so many cattle breeds exist around the world.
    1
  168.  @indyreno2933  "also, "cow" refers exclusively to females" NO, yet again Reno; as I've just replied to chol, 'cow' DOES NOT just refer to females! Consult a reputable dictionary and you'll see it's also a noun referring to ANY domestic bovine (cattle), REGARDLESS of sex or status (status refers to things like; had a calf or not, castrated or intact etc.). Just stop the ignorance.
    1
  169.  @Coelacanth_yes  Reno, the stubborn ignoramus as he is, has repeated the nonsense about cow only referring to females. I'm attaching my reply to him to show you why that's nonsense; "also, "cow" refers exclusively to females" NO, yet again Reno; as I've just replied to chol, 'cow' DOES NOT just refer to females! Consult a reputable dictionary and you'll see it's also a noun referring to ANY domestic bovine (cattle), REGARDLESS of sex or status (status refers to things like; had a calf or not, castrated or intact etc.). Just stop the ignorance." -------------
    1
  170.  @indyreno2933  I'm not re-addressing repetitive drivel, just new nonsense you spew.
    1
  171. WRONG again, Reno. As usual, your claimed taxonomy is a mess.
    1
  172. Reference the ignoramus, Indy Reno below; YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated/inaccurate/flat out made up taxonomies, this effort is among your worst mess yet. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I or others correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs. I'm a PhD zoologist and detest this kind of misinformation and ignorance. His typical response to criticism is to entirely ignore it and blindly regurgitate the same or other taxonomic nonsense, usually beginning 'Actually...'. ------------------ 1. Note that Reno stubbornly omits the giant panda as a bear at all; a topic decided long ago following genetic analysis confirming their relatedness and ancestry. 2. He erroneously lists subspecies as distinct species; Melursus inornatus, Helarctos indochinensis, Helarctos euryspilus, Euarctos emmonsi, Euarctos cinnamomum, Euarctos kermodei 3. 'Euarctos' is an invalid genus name, (it's Ursus). There are EIGHT (not 15) extant bear species in FOUR (not 5) genera, as follows 4. His listings for Ursus are a complete cow pat disaster; just ignore it all, it's a disgrace. Ursus (4) Brown bear, Ursus arctos Polar bear, Ursus maritimus American black bear, Ursus americanus Asiatic black bear, Ursus thibetanus Ailuropoda (1) Giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca Tremarctos (1) Spectacled bear, Tremarctos ornatus Helarctos (1) Sun bear, Helarctos malayanus Melursus (1) Sloth bear, Melursus ursinus
    1
  173. Reno; ignoramus.
    1
  174.  @indyreno2933  Actually, Reno is an ignoramus that spews outdated or entirely wrong taxonomic information.
    1
  175.  @indyreno2933  Actually, Reno is an ignoramus that spews outdated or entirely wrong taxonomic information.
    1
  176. Are asking about the phylogeny at 0:54? Ask away...
    1
  177.  @zebedeemadness2672  no, it was an error
    1
  178. 'filinead'?
    1
  179.  @stevenelbert8989  Which requires a capital.
    1
  180. Your mother has some explaining to do!
    1
  181.  @zebedeemadness2672  no, it was an error
    1
  182.  @Q-physics  you're clueless
    1
  183.  @Q-physics  You are factually muted.
    1
  184. vomit
    1
  185.  @jonathankerr4859  You'll find that modern classification has that built into it; the primitive state defines the group even though many members may have evolved out of that trait. As for why, I agree, I protest it too.
    1
  186.  @jonathankerr4859  indeed! I'll give you another example. Turtles are anapsid, that means they don't have a temporal fenestra, a skull opening on the side. Yet, they are in a group called Diapsida, animals with 2 tf. The reasoning is as above; the primitive state defines the group even though many members may have evolved out of that trait. In this case, the ancestors of turtles (still within the same group) were diapsid and turtles evolved to lose the openings.
    1
  187.  @tummytub1161  Your response doesn't refute mine.
    1
  188. A major reason for scientific names.
    1
  189. T.C. You're an ignoramus.
    1
  190.  @Coelacanth_yes  Ah, I see, you mentioned the 'actually' point here, then noticed I had mentioned it on the other thread! Yeah, by all means feel free to put the correct taxonomies, I tend not to with him anymore, but it's still useful for others reading it. One thing though, follow zoological convention and capitalise taxa names.
    1
  191.  @indyreno2933  Regurgitating your vomit will never make it taste good.
    1
  192.  @Coelacanth_yes  Well, it's my preference.
    1
  193.  @indyreno2933  You're an ignoramus, Reno.
    1
  194. LISTEN!
    1
  195.  @fearlessjoebanzai  clueless
    1
  196.  @fearlessjoebanzai  You started the negative tone.
    1
  197.  @fearlessjoebanzai  That was a fair response when the name of the animal you asked for is SPOKEN!🙄🙄🙄
    1
  198.  @fearlessjoebanzai  The oxygen thief is muted.
    1
  199. No, not a joke nor an oversight.
    1
  200.  @zebedeemadness2672  no, it was an error
    1
  201. Your appraisal is weak.
    1
  202.  @Eye_Exist  I see the oxygen thief isn't immune to irony. Muted.
    1
  203. Indeed not.
    1
  204. The difference; - shared DNA across all life, i.e. common across species yields a high similarity such as 98% ish common between chimps and us - novel (new DNA or genes), specific to a taxon that developed them after speciation that nonetheless got into the gene pool of another species, interbreeding being one way.
    1
  205. YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate taxonomies. FOR THOSE UNAWARE, this commenter; Dogmatically ignores criticism and continually posts flawed taxonomies. It's always the same; he posts flawed taxonomy, I correct it, he ignores it and posts even more bs.
    1
  206. Wrong.
    1
  207.  @hittdf5111  No, because that's not my view. Think this thread through...
    1
  208.  @gjeraldh2989  Yes, you did have one by stupidly getting this wrong, just as Hitt did. And you are muted.
    1
  209.  @hittdf5111  "what did i get wrong?" Simply following the thread answers that. - "24:04 you forgot bonobos and humans" - "Wrong." -------- And I'm serious.
    1
  210.  @hittdf5111  No, my view is entirely accurate and you fail to see the simple reason why.
    1
  211.  @indyreno2933  YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate/made up taxonomies, this effort is among your worst mess yet.
    1
  212. A possum genus; Phalanger, don't know the species.
    1
  213. pathetic
    1
  214.  @waspanimations7037  "Evolution is literally adaption" - it's not
    1
  215.  @waspanimations7037  "Evolution is a species adapting to it's enviornment over millions of years" - no, that is not how evolution is defined
    1
  216. wdym
    1
  217. 'Muffon'? Do you mean mutton? That's a type of sheep meet; older meat, as in the animal is more than 2 years old when slaughtered for meat. If you mean something else from this video, give me a timestamp.
    1
  218.  @dweebteambuilderjones7627  Yes, I appreciate that, yeah, he must have meant that, thanks.
    1
  219. Which are mammals!
    1
  220.  @ilayohana3150  Then why point it out? Your comment presents strongly as 'this is a video about mammals, yet that's not a mammal'. Your foul attitude gets you muted.
    1
  221. Arctotherium (a)ngustidens
    1
  222. why
    1
  223. All extant mammals have them.
    1
  224.  @AMC2283  In fact, can you elaborate on why you wrote the fish bit too?
    1
  225.  @ennothedishonorable5530  fair point
    1
  226. no
    1
  227.  @alvinip3832  Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walruses) share a fairly recent common ancestor with dogs and bears. But they didn't descend from either, the 3 have divergent paths from that common ancestor.
    1
  228. no
    1
  229.  @MOISTSQURT  muted
    1
  230. no, about 13ft for the largest bulls
    1
  231. he meant 17-7
    1
  232. Reno; do you still claim giant pandas are not bears?
    1
  233.  @indyreno2933  Ailuropodidae is an invalid taxon, giant pandas are bears; Ursidae. You are an ignoramus.
    1
  234.  @indyreno2933  Repeating yourself, as you do, doesn't make invalid info valid; you remain an ignoramus.
    1
  235.  @indyreno2933  Dogmatically ignoring criticism and continually posting flawed taxonomies is your hallmark for close to a decade that I know of. This account of mine is new, do you remember 'nurnord'? That's me, you and I go back many years. It's always the same; you post flawed taxonomy, I correct it, you ignore it and post even more bs. Pathetic.
    1
  236. mythology crap
    1
  237.  @BrianH7  "law of monophyly" - Brian, all you have done here is type a few words, that's not a rebuttal to anything - explain what this means and its implications for position --------------- Until then, you have nil. Which, given you have left other trolling crap comments, neatly describes your cranium content.
    1
  238.  @BrianH7  well?
    1
  239. ?
    1
  240.  @ramauldramharack2138  That's still gobbledygook, and stop thumbing up your own comments.
    1
  241.  @ramauldramharack2138  1. Yes, your original comment was vomit. 2. As I note with this comment, ONE MINUTE after posting, there's a thumbs up. So I now add LIAR to vomit-spewing oxygen thief.
    1
  242. it does
    1
  243. nonsense
    1
  244.  @prototropo  "But it seems misleading then to insinuate birds are reptiles, when the larger truth is that all those descend from the sauropsids" - I don't understand why all reptiles being descendants of sauropsids makes classifying birds as reptiles a problem?! - it goes; sauropsids evolved to archosaurs, which evolved to reptiles, which evolved to dinosaurs, which evolved to birds. What's misleading?! It's a descendant lineage, nothing misleading. "just as gorgonopsia and cynodontia were not a true mammals, but we share with them the synapsid lineage." - yes...?
    1
  245. Cats, not Cat's; and; drivel.
    1
  246. A silly comment about mythology worshippers.
    1
  247. Yeah, that and the amount of info grows hugely!
    1
  248.  @chuckrothans7535  "Technically there is actually a third species of hippo on earth 🌎 the Madagascar Dwarf hippo which was believed to have been extinct has recently been believed to actually still be alive." & "the Madagascar dwarf hippopotamus according to the fossil records went extinct 1000 years ago. However in 2019 there was a skull of a Madagascar dwarf hippopotamus discovered in a swamp, after it was studied it was dated to have died only 200 years ago. Which means that the species between the time it was originally thought to have been extinct and the time that this individual died would suggest that the species was still alive in that time gap and could possibly even still be in hiding." ---------------- NOT ONE WORD of these 2 comments supports the notion of this species being alive. It's useless, waffling drivel.
    1
  249. Avian dinosaurs being extant doesn't render 'dinosaurs died out' incorrect. It's not specifically a universal statement.
    1
  250. "Isn't the crown group definition a bit useless? It defines what mammals were back then by using the LCA of all present mammals. But what are the present mammals? To me it sound like it uses mammals to define mammals or is that misunderstood?" - crown group doesn't define 'what mammals were back then' (whatever that is supposed to mean). A crown group is a group of extant species and their lineages back to and including the most recent common ancestor of the group. Nothing about that defines previous taxa, as you state.
    1
  251. I think you mean baleen whales with baleen plates!
    1
  252. tripe
    1
  253.  @rontop4988  "there is no evolution happened in dogs. There is no evidence to back it, its just speculation" - your claims, for you to substantiate
    1
  254.  @rontop4988  baseless coward
    1
  255. Greenland. "This map looks odd" - do you wear a helmet in bed, just in case?
    1
  256. yes
    1
  257.  @JamariusPharrel  irrelevant
    1
  258. tripe
    1
  259. "Aren't they similar in body plan to the groundsloths?" - you're misusing 'body plan', that's a much more general trait than what you mean. ALL vertebrates have the same body plan. - what you mean is specific morphological traits similar in each group (ground sloths and Chalicotheriidae). But they aren't closely related, the similarities are convergent evolution
    1