80.213.213.126 (talk) →Editorial edification?: Asshole! |
|||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
:Honestly, I make so many different edits in a day, that I cannot remember each one. Can you tell me which article? It sounds like the Evolution article, so I'll give a look and post an answer here. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
:Honestly, I make so many different edits in a day, that I cannot remember each one. Can you tell me which article? It sounds like the Evolution article, so I'll give a look and post an answer here. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
* Orangemarlin, you're an asshole and that's all there is to it!--[[User:80.213.213.126|80.213.213.126]] 13:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:23, 18 May 2007
|
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
You are AWESOME!!!
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
A little something for you
The Undeniable Mechanism Award | ||
For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. |
evo-devo
Now that things seem to be stabilizing at the Evolution article, would you consider looking at and working on the evo-devo article? As you mentioned, at one point, this is an important growing area. I did some work on it a while ago an exhausted my relevant knowledge, but it still seems like the length and quality of the article do not match its importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Gulp. What am I going to get myself into? LOL. I'll check it out! Orangemarlin 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't want you to over-commit!! I just know this article deserves to be better than it is. You can start by looking at one editor;s suggestions here and also I have a comment in the section of talk that follows (on, concerning the tendency to microevolution). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Removal of poll
Given that Creationism is a subset of intelligent design theory, don't you think it's misleading to say that the poll listed 10% support for ID, when in fact it indicated 74% support? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. ID is a subset of Creationism, polls are evil, and I prefer to get rid of the whole thing. Orangemarlin 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- ID is absolutely not a subset of Creationism, as other theories that fall under the ID umbrella are, say, seeding of the planet by aliens, which ain't Creationism. Creationism is a specific explanation as to how man came to be involving a conscious, intervening force, but there are a potentially large number of such theories. If you object to the poll, why didn't you simply remove it altogether? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's all BS, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. This should be on the ID talk page. However, you are reading the Discovery Institute propaganda, not facts. ID is Creationism by a Judeo-Christian G_d plain and simple. All they're trying to do is make it out to be something it isn't, science. At any rate, take a look at Creationism which makes ID out to be a subset. If you're going to argue what you are above (and I could be convinced, except ID really was never intended to include little green men from space), then a lot of articles need revision. That might not be worth your time. Orangemarlin 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Biology
A very worthy goal. Once I've got Evolution through to FA I will certainly try to help! TimVickers 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also a worthy goal. I've actually quit editing that article after you showed up. You've really improved it and ought to be commended. I figured I'd manipulate you over to Biology, get you started, then I'd go find another article. LOL. Orangemarlin 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You fiend! I'm on to your evil scheme now! TimVickers 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks so much for kicking me while I'm down. And you call me evil? Doc Tropics 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Trying to think differently about dinosaurs
I hear you're the expert on dinosaurs around here. If you have a second for a pathetic Apple user, I've been unable to find any information on something that's been driving me crazy for many years. I cannot for a moment believe that the K-T event executed 100% of the dinosaur species in existence at that time. It seem unconceivable, because at every extinction event, some percentage of species (and even genera) survived. Mammals survived K-T, which must have been an adequate food source for at least smaller dinosaurs. Is there any evidence that dinosaurs survived the K-T even for a few million years. Please exclude birds, because they evolved prior to the K-T event. Or maybe the Flood is right? :) Orangemarlin 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Orangemarlin!
- I'm not an expert, but I write a ton of dinosaur articles around here. There is some very limited evidence for dinosaurs in the Cenozoic, aside from birds. However, you have to consider the Enantiornithes: many birds also did not survive the K-T extinction event, either. So it wasn't an all-or-nothing situation: many early birds also went the way of the dinosaurs, as did many other groups of sauropsids: the mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, and pterosaurs. There is (I caution: very limited) evidence for non-avian Cenozoic dinosaurs, discussed at Dinosaur#Evidence_for_Cenozoic_dinosaurs: Zielinski and Budahn (2002) found a fossil bone of a hadrosaur leg bone in Cenozoic strata 64.5 million years ago, but this could have been a fluke caused by weathering. Other rumors have been misrepresentations of theories that aren't supported by fossil evidence. I'm not aware of any newer findings which support evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs beyond the K-T Boundary: right up to the boundary, yes. but not beyond it. Does this help you? Probably not. If it helps, you could also think of it like this: some paleontologists think the number of dinosaur genera was already slightly declining in the Maastrichtian (though others dispute this). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and expert is a relative thing. You know more than I, so that makes you one! For some reason, 64.5 million years ago sounds like it could be within rounding error of the K-T event, unless you're going to tell me that dating of fossils from that period of time can be made accurate. Anyways, this sounds fascinating to me. I would think that a few species survived somewhere on the planet. Of course, now this begs the question: if they all died, was the extinction event selective for reptiles and not mammals and birds? Orangemarlin 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The K-T event was around 65.5 million years ago, so the hadrosaurid bone is about a million years past expiration date, if it's not a case of weathering. The formation the fossils were in had previously been thought to have been Cretaceous, but pollen samples indicates it is actually Paleocene. You can read the PDF here. As for the extinction event, it didn't just affect reptiles: the Enantiornithes are also not found after the Cretaceous. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and expert is a relative thing. You know more than I, so that makes you one! For some reason, 64.5 million years ago sounds like it could be within rounding error of the K-T event, unless you're going to tell me that dating of fossils from that period of time can be made accurate. Anyways, this sounds fascinating to me. I would think that a few species survived somewhere on the planet. Of course, now this begs the question: if they all died, was the extinction event selective for reptiles and not mammals and birds? Orangemarlin 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I realize some species of birds and mammals also were wiped out at K-T. What I meant was why did it completely wipe out the dinosaurs, and not completely wipe out everything else? In other words, I guess I'm still skeptical that at least one species of dinosaur lasted say another few million years. This bone does sound intriguing though, if what you're saying is that we can actually accurately date to that level of sensitivity. Orangemarlin 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, Orangemarlin; it's hard to believe everything got wiped out so quickly (though only "quickly" on a massive timescale). Personally, (and this is my own theory) I think it had to do with size: all the largest animals were killed off, leaving just the smallest animals. The smallest dinosaurs roughly around the K-T boundary were, like Troodon (6 feet long); only the very smallest animals would have been able to survive a cataclismic event... But the hadrosaurid fossil is intriguing... Hey, nice work on Hanauma Bay! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting theory. I guess I pictured dinosaurs that were small, maybe the size of a dog or cat, which could be efficient predators. Of course, an event such as the K-T extinction, might have made predation very difficult. Thanks on the Hanauma Bay article. I just cleaned up the mess, it still needs a few references. I enjoy the various volcano articles, so I've tried to improve a few. You should see what a few of us did over a couple of weeks with Minoan eruption. I don't edit medical articles, because I'd write it like a medical reference article, and that's not good. I actually referred to one because I needed some quick information, hated the article so much that I rewrote a bunch of it. Then I stopped because it wasn't fun. Evolution, volcanos, hockey, a few biographies, and that's my quirky interests. I'll have to tell you that the Extinction event articles need a lot of cleanup--a couple of them lack references. I might tackle one or two, because I usually end up learning a lot by doing it. Orangemarlin 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you spend your hobby doing the same thing you do for a living, it can get to be not much fun. I'm stretched pretty thin with Dinosauria, or I'd probably pitch in to help clean up some other articles, such as extinction. But I figure there are probably around 500 dinosaur articles which need better (or any) references, and are in need of serious expansion. Hanauma Bay looks like a lovely place; I'm eager to return to Hawai'i someday. I've only been able to visit Maui, but it was a great vacation. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Editorial edification?
Hi Orangemarlin,
I was a little surprised by your reversion of my edits to the "inheritance mechanism" paragraph. I'll gladly confess to being a worse writer than Tim, but my edits were pretty innocuous, no? I'm not interesting in reverting them or arguing — there's enough heat over there ;) — but I'd just like to take the opportunity to learn better. I'd be grateful if you could explain what was awry.
Was it perhaps using "hypothesis" for the Watson-Crick model of B-DNA? To me, it seems a stretch to say that they "demonstrated" the mechanism of inheritance, since they didn't take any experimental data. In that era, many scientists proposed various structures for proteins and DNA; some were wrong and but others were later confirmed by experiment data. That's why "hypothesis" seemed better to me. Just a suggestion, Willow 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, I make so many different edits in a day, that I cannot remember each one. Can you tell me which article? It sounds like the Evolution article, so I'll give a look and post an answer here. Orangemarlin 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Orangemarlin, you're an asshole and that's all there is to it!--80.213.213.126 13:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)