Comments by "Dr. Ian Plect" (@Dr.IanPlect) on "The Evolution of the Bear" video.

"Polar bears feed on seals and walruses because they shared a common ancestor." - not reality, though
8
@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
YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated, inaccurate taxonomies, this effort is among your worst mess yet.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
Subspecies, not species.
3
@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
Many animals don't comport with their grouping which is often based upon the primitive condition.
3
@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
It's a brown bear subspecies, not a species. Add that to your 'WAY more' pile.
3
@dwaynefrancis1384 Yeah, I think his 'WAY more' pile is compared to a toddler. 👍
3
no
2
where did you get that?
2
@JJ-oq3tz 👍
2
@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
YET AGAIN, here's Reno posting outdated/inaccurate/flat out made up taxonomies, this effort is among your worst mess yet.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
Why? Validate your claim!
1
@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
@Gayacegunslinger 👍
1
@Svensk7119 Yes, but they'd be wrong, just as folks use terms like; 'Kodiak grizzly', 'brown or grizzly bear'...and are wrong!
1
I wouldn't say 'large'.
1
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
@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
Nonsense.
1
@realmonster5866 Add poor attitude.
1
@realmonster5866 muted
1
@youtubestudiosucks978 The bucket of vomit is muted.
1
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
@Coelacanth_yes As I stated, yes! I've known Reno for about 8 years now, always the same pattern of sewage.
1
@animalorigins As you can see, the ignoramus gave the same response about pandas again. It's complete tripe, just ignore him.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@indyreno2933 I'm not re-addressing repetitive drivel, just new nonsense you spew.
1
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
Your mother has some explaining to do!
1
@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
@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
A major reason for scientific names.
1
@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
@indyreno2933 Regurgitating your vomit will never make it taste good.
1
@Coelacanth_yes Well, it's my preference.
1
@indyreno2933 You're an ignoramus, Reno.
1
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
Arctotherium (a)ngustidens
1