it's rotten work, but without the rot nothing can grow
it's rotten work but decay is an essential part of the cycle of death and rebirth
Anonymous asked:
So, i am lesbian, and i finally got a girlfriend, what do i do now?
find the chalice
Oh holy shit they found Silphium alive and growing in the wild.
Like now that I am awake I need to reiterate how huge this is. It was presumed harvested to extinction by the Romans. It was a favorite flavoring and according to historians one of the best contraceptives ever known. True or not it would be fantastic to study that but it being extinct made that impossible.
This is such a huge deal! I hope they get it figured how to grow it.
Trying to get people to realize birds are full on actual no holds barred dinosaurs on the internet is like playing a constant game of whack-a-mole
The game never ends there's just another mole to whack
whack whack whack
I understand that you guys aren't being totally serious, but birds are categorically NOT dinosaurs. They're BIRDS. Being descended from and very similar to an animal does not make them literally the same.
Bats are mammals. If every mammal except for bats went extinct, bats would still be mammals. This is what happened with birds. They're a type of dinosaur that evolved within the dinosaur evolutionary tree, and existed alongside other types of dinosaurs until all those other types of dinosaurs were wiped out. Surviving when the other dinosaurs went extinct doesn't mean they stopped being dinosaurs at any point.
@arctic-nimbus I am not joking, I am being serious. Birds are living dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are defined as the most recent common ancestor of [Theropods] + [Sauropodomorphs] + [Ornithischians], and ALL OF THAT ANCESTOR'S DESCENDANTS
hence, because birds descend from that ancestor, ALL BIRDS ARE DINOSAURS THE END.
I am a paleontologist and this has been known since 1996 please stop making me play whack a mole. this is googleable. this is on wikipedia. this is in most paleontological sources. this is in the literature. this is in books. this is in jurassic park. this is on this blog in many places. this is on other people's blogs in many places.
this is, or should be, common. knowledge.
fin
Okay, your condescending reply aside, you haven't addressed the elephant in the room which is what I brought up in the other thread. I'm descended from a fish. That doesn't mean I am a fish. You telling me that birds are living dinosaurs doesn't make any difference to me because you haven't made a convincing argument why I should categorize them that way as oppose to another way.
Where do you draw the line between them being living dinosaurs and them being something else?
In biology and paleontology, evolutionary groups (clades) are defined to be monophyletic. That is, a clade contains all descendants of its most recent common ancestor. No lineage ever stops being part of a clade, no matter how much it has evolved. If you're descended from a member of a certain clade, you are in that clade.
Dinosaurs are a clade, which is formally called Dinosauria. Because it's defined as a clade, then everything that is descended from a dinosaur must also be a dinosaur. Ergo, modern birds are a subgroup of the clade Dinosauria.
Think of it this way. Sauropods, ankylosaurs, therizinosaurs, and birds are each very different from their early ancestors, which would have looked kinda like this:
And yet no sauropod, ankylosaur, or therizinosaur ever stopped being a dinosaur, regardless of how much they evolved. So why would birds be any different? By the same standard that Argentinosaurus, Tarchia, or Therizinosaurus are dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs.
And yes, humans are lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii). The standard applies everywhere.
No, humans are not lobe-finned fish.
That's called an absurdity.
Perhaps by your definition of reality, humans are lobe-finned fish, if I accept the schema that you so lovingly shove down my throat.
But there is nothing more or less scientific about looking at lobe-finned fish of today, and comparing them to humans, and finding they are completely different things.
So your argument is inherently an opinion! It is a normative statement, not a fact. Stop representing it as a fact.
but it is fact
just because you don't want it to be doesn't mean it isn't
awful creature that senses my presence from across the room, instantly emerging from her hovel to hound me for snacks
enjoy some Vicky gifs.
ma’am did you know you are a vermin
Trying to get people to realize birds are full on actual no holds barred dinosaurs on the internet is like playing a constant game of whack-a-mole
The game never ends there's just another mole to whack
whack whack whack
I understand that you guys aren't being totally serious, but birds are categorically NOT dinosaurs. They're BIRDS. Being descended from and very similar to an animal does not make them literally the same.
Bats are mammals. If every mammal except for bats went extinct, bats would still be mammals. This is what happened with birds. They're a type of dinosaur that evolved within the dinosaur evolutionary tree, and existed alongside other types of dinosaurs until all those other types of dinosaurs were wiped out. Surviving when the other dinosaurs went extinct doesn't mean they stopped being dinosaurs at any point.
OK, well I'm descended from a fish. If everybody but me went extinct, I'd be the last fish left on Earth? It doesn't make any sense. It's just a semantic argument, at the end of the day. Where do you draw the line?
incorrect, because we define dinosaurs as a family group and that group then by definition contains birds, to the point that we can't agree where birds starts.
please stop questioning an actual paleontologist.
also, yeah, we're lobe finned fish. deal with it.
OK I'm not gonna engage with a condescending Tumblr paleontologist who doesn't seem to understand the issue I'm raising.
for fucks sake dude....
stop linking me to educational articles and engage with the issue at hand
I know I'm only adding another voice into the fire, but if you're issue is definitions, Birds are, by definition, Dinosaurs Dinosaur: Any animal that shares the same Most Recent Common Ancestor with Megalosaurus and Iguanodon, or, in more recent times, Triceratops and Passer (Which is the Sparrow, a true bird)* Regardless if you use the modern or initial definition set by Richard Owen, it says the same thing, Dinosaur = the Most Recent Common Ancestor between Saurischia (of which Megalosaurus and Passer are the representing members) + Onrithischia (of which Iguanodon or Triceratops are the representing members)
Birds are, without a doubt, part of the Theropoda, which means they're within Saurischia, which means they share the most recent common ancestor between Megalosaurus and Iguanodon (using the initial definition for this point), and of course with the modern version Birds are dinosaurs in the definition entirely. There is no good reason for Birds not to be called Dinosaurs.
*Diplodocus has also been added to the modern definition in some instances because Sauropods were at more of a risk of becoming non-dinosaurs due to Ornithoscelida being a possible option for early dinosaur taxonomy
As someone who has mispronounced so many words because I never actually heard them. I appreciate this post
mine is "I dream of a world in which chickens can cross roads without having their motives questioned" is that anything?
Love watching all the ninth doctor stans emerging from the wood work with a vengeance guns blazing after all the years we had to endure “skip nine”
funnytwittertweets
This is the transhumanist horror story I want to read
Came back wrong but it's. The format this consciousness was first backed up is no longer compatible so some untranslatable characters will now read like extended ascii symbols
Why feel guilty for napping!!!!! Like if ur body is tired let it lie down and rest!!!! This is officially a pro-nap blog.
ok! :D
hell yea dude. go have a nap!
this is the funniest shit ive ever seen in my life
Johnny Appleseed: America’s Forgotten Ronin
"Cowboys were an itinerant warrior class from meiji era texas"
