Thread 5027663

It sure looks like a reptile to me. Why would mammals evolve from something like this?

>>5027663 (OP)
It is. Synapsids are literally reptiles. Cladists just think it makes them sound smart to claim otherwise. It makes them even more retarded than everyone already suspected.

>>5027663 (OP)
Because it's a really fucking old animal, everything looked like a lizard back then

>>5027668
No, some things looked like fish, insects, and amphibians.

Why not just claim that some reptiles diverged into mammal-like animals instead of denying that they're reptiles?

>>5027673
Beats me senpai

>>5027673
See: >>5027667 You were already given the explanation. It's basic bitch reddit pedantry. Retards think it makes them sound smart to say "Axchually, no Synapsids and Sauropsids are different" or "Axchually reptiles don't exist." Both of those are fucking wrong though. Basically pic related.

>>5027663 (OP)
my ancestor

>>5027690
Synapsids and Sauropsids are different though, even the hairless reptile-like synapsids had many distinguishing features as opposed to the sauropsids.

>>5027716
Yes, sweaty, but even by cladistics' own pedantry, that would just make Synapsids Sauropsids. Both of them COME from somewhere and it ain't amphibians.

>>5027716
Crocodiles and snakes also look different too

>>5027838
Snakes arent even closely related to crocs though.

>>5027842
And yet they're both reptiles

>>5027663 (OP)
You do realize mammals had to of derived from something right?

>>5027869
Yeah but from what?

humans are apes and apes are mammals and mammals are reptiles and reptiles are fish and fish are invertebrates and cladistics is stupid to argue over

>>5027663 (OP)
>Why would mammals evolve from something like this?
Faustian spirit

>>5027663 (OP)
It's a reptile.
Birds and Mammals are just highly derived forms of reptile.

>>5027869
Mammals derived from cockroaches. Reptiles derived from centipedes.
Everyone wonders where the giant bugs of the carboniferous went. 'Extinct because oxygen, hurr' is the explanation for retards that eat the slop 'scientists' serve them.
The reality (((they))) don't want you to know is that they adapted to the changing oxygen levels by developing lungs. Limb pair reduction in arthropods is well documented, and so is segment fusion.
The carboniferous was full of giant arthropods. Permian, giant arthropods disappear, giant sauropsids and synapsids appear. OH GEE I WONDER WHAT HAPPENED! SURELY THE BUGS WENT EXTINCT AND THESE NEW ANIMALS DERIVED FROM AN AQUATIC ANIMAL NOT ADAPTED FOR LIFE ON LAND INSTEAD!
It's transparent bullshit. Deep down, we're all arthropods.

>>5027663 (OP)
are you telling me OP doesnt suck cocks?
because OP sure looks like one

>>5027663 (OP)
It looked like this

>>5027973
Small chitinous fingers typed this post

>>5027873
we literally have a lizard brain still in us. Just new sections formed on top of it

>>5027976
my ancestor :)
i was so happy to learn this factoid i always loved dimetrodons

>>5027981
Most mammals have an appreciable cerebral cortex

I just got grok to agree whales are fish (given they are claudisticly)

>>5027981
And that is why grey aliens have bulbous heads.

>>5027663 (OP)
>>5027667
These are fishes

>>5027973
So why do we develop buttholes first and not mouths first like all the arthropods?

>>5027976
I don't know why they made Dimetrodon cute, but okay I can deal with that.

>>5028860
Feels good man.

>>5027873
synapsids like dimetrodon.

>>5027958
You have to go very far back to link mammals as being reptiles though. Linking birds with the rest of reptiles is something you have to do if you count crocodiles as reptiles.

>>5027976
So it's a reptile with a semi-upright posture

>>5027973
sounds reasonable, and the constant reassurance that this information is surpressed for some reason or another makes me believe it even more

>>5027663 (OP)
Define "reptile"

>>5027976
he cute

>>5030575
If it looks like a lizard or crocodile

>>5032324
Dimetrodon looks like neither, so it's not a reptile

>>5028960
God made dimetrodon cute. they just accurately depicted one for once.

>>5027663 (OP)
what do you think these tasted like?

>>5027981
>Mammal Brain
>Hippocampus
So lizards don't have souls?

>>5027663 (OP)
>crocodile-exposed teeth
>osteoderms (eupelycosaurs lacked them)
that mount is probably old, Dimetrodon wouldn't look that way methinks.

>>5027667
>>5027690
They're not though. You're essentially just describing amniotes and then getting mad at some person you've built up in your head.

Reminder that the only reason this thread is full of so much whining about cladistics is because a certain someone is mad that birds are dinosaurs

>>5032570
But birds aren't dinosaurs. Birds are endotherms by definition, while dinosaurs aren't.

>>5028995
>You have to go very far back to link mammals as being reptiles though
And? You don't have a problem saying that about fish. Cladists are just pedants.

>>5030575
An ectothermic tetrapod with true scales (no cheating) covering at least some portion of the body.

The scale part of the definition would likely have to be hyper-detailed to prevent pedants from losing their minds though.

>>5032487
They actually do have a hippocampus, that infographic is bullshit

>>5032612
>he still believes his 3rd grade class about animal classification is the only truth
Birds are dinosaurs. Endothermy being the cutoff point is entirely arbitrary and makes no sense

>>5032612
>An ectothermic tetrapod with true scales (no cheating) covering at least some portion of the body
Tegus stop being reptiles for the breeding season

>>5032617
>Whatever is old is wrong and whatever is new is right!
Did you already cut your dick off or is the surgery scheduled?

>>5032620
Nope. Take your cope elsewhere. If I stick a breeding Tegu in a freezer, it dies. Period.

>>5032621
>he thinks cladistics is new
>>5032622
If you stick most animals in a freezer they will die. Endothermy does not mean immunity to hypothermia. You still can’t articulate why Endothermy specifically is a feature that defines birds from reptiles

>>5032646
Nope. Endotherms can survive this thing called "winter". Even tropical mammals like Elephants can handle playing in the snow. What happens to your "breeding tegu" if you put it outside on a snow drift?

>>5032646
It's newer than the Linnaean system, dipshit. Even you, bot that you are, can read, though you constantly pilpul that you can't.

>>5032649
>Endotherms can survive this thing called "winter"
I understand that you’re a dribbling retard but I want you to try real hard to comprehend this: so can reptiles
>Even tropical mammals like Elephants can handle playing in the snow
Leave one in Antarctica and get back to me
>>5032650
The Linnaean system is obsolete because of a little thing called evolutionary biology

>>5032664
No no, we don't get a back and forth bot. You got shut down. Now go to sleep.

>maybe it’ll work this time if I call them bots again
Bot designed to ruin threads or schizophrenia? Place bets

>>5032676
But you are objectively A bot. Not bots. A single bot. You're not even that advanced. Literally all you do is contradict anyone speaking, then use echolalia to mimic their talking points. You're a version 1.0 cheap chatbot.

Btw, that's your last reply. Please do continue to bump the thread though.

>>5032697
Meds, schizo

>>5028857
So are you

>>5032743
Not me though. I’m a genetically modified octopus who was taught to type

>>5028995
>if you count crocodiles as reptiles
And turtles.

>>5032664
this guy won the thread
t. random bystander

>>5027663 (OP)
That's a mammal

>>5032616
It's honestly surprising how much pseudosceince gets recycled, especially with neurology.

>>5032564
>WE NEVER SAID THIS U MAD!!!
Yes, you did. For years we had to hear this incorrect pedant bullshit. You're wrong. Deal with it. You were always wrong. We won.

>>5034438
Ironic statement in a paleo thread.

>>5032649
Could a hippo?

>>5032649
Viviparous lizards can survive cold climates by freezing themselves and then thawing months later

>>5028860
Convergent evolution

>>5037236
I call them ice lizards

>>5034538
>"We won"
You type like a faggot.
Also that's just a paraphyletic clade then, which if you say that's reptiles then sure but then if you want to be actually and truly consistent then you'd need to include everything between.

(picrel is likely outdated/possibly wrong since I know turtles are taxonomic weirdos, but it helps illustrate the proposed grouping of reptiles here)
The difference w/ synapsids is that including all Diapsids as "reptiles" is way more consistent than including all amniotes, and you would need to include mammals as reptiles if you considered therapsids like dimetrodon to be a 'reptile'.

They look like reptiles because both them and synapsids came from the same ancestor, it's just that therapsids evolved differently, resulting in mammals. Evolutionary science isn't that hard

>>5027667
these two dudes literally died looking at each other?? Whoa what are the odds bros??

>>5027663 (OP)
because there are fundamental anatomical differences in skull anatomy(and other things way to numerous to mention) between all living and extinct synapsids and diapsids(reptiles and birds). Early synapsids only look superficially like living reptiles because they still have most of the ancestral traits of amniotes that modern snapsids(mammals) went on to lose that living diapsids kept

>>5027663 (OP)
That's a dinosaur and no Redditor will convince me otherwise

>>5032664
>>5035222
>>5037236
Every single one of you idiots missed the point. If you put a mammal on snow, it gets cold. If you put an "endothermic" lizard on snow, it stops fucking moving, because that's an ectothermic response.

There are no endothermic reptiles. The jewbots WILL stop.

>>5037587
You type like a seething troon. Paraphyly means less than nothing. That's part of your religion, not mine.

>B-b-but paraphyly is the DEBUHL!!!
Why? No cladist can ever answer why paraphyly matters at all.

>>5037904
>Early synapsids only look superficially like living reptiles
They literally ARE reptiles, you fucking moron.

>>5032564
Hey dickhead, see: >>5037904

Did /an/ change the posting spam filter so buggoy (Eljay) could call everyone samefag all the time?

>>5038116
>there are no endothermic reptiles
there are no reptiles at all. reptile is arbitrary, as arbitrary as calling spiders bugs. without vulgar english terminology confusing people, there is no scientific reason for such an arbitrary paraphyletic grouping to exist.

common names, scientific names, common groupings, and scientific groupings ought to be kept entirely separate. this basic policy decision would prevent all the whale-fish confusion among midwits like you.

>Why? No cladist can ever answer why paraphyly matters at all.
it doesn't. it exists to try and get retards like you to calm down and stop asking "BUT IF ___ IS A ____ THEN IS ITS DESCENDANT...", and it has failed completely.

>>5038140
Cladism is a failed religion.

>>5038143
Cladism is not a religion. It's a system of classification based on genetics and anatomy that illustrates evolutionary relationships. You know, facts. As more knowledge is discovered and existing knowledge is refined, it changes.

Calling cladism a religion is like calling the periodic table a religion.

If you can't understand this just stay out of biology wikipedia. You're worse than the "ACKSHUALLY WHALES R LOBED FIN FISH" pseuds.

>>5038145
Cladism failed, sweaty. It's time to grow up. This isn't the 1960s anymore.

>>5038146
How exactly did it "fail" besides you insisting it did?

>>5038149
I know your religion doesn't care about "outmoded concepts" like "objective reality", but the problem with cladism is that it's wrong. Again, because this is part of your religion, I realize this won't strike you as being important. But I assure you to others it is.

>>5038145
>>5038149
How come no one can ever point to a specific "last common ancestor" for anything but it's something that cladists always assume to exist?

>>5038116
>If you put an "endothermic" lizard on snow, it stops fucking moving, because that's an ectothermic response
Put a hamster in a fridge and see if it goes dormant

>>5038156
Because its unlikely to be found and unflasifiable if it is.

>>5038156
>find the EXACT individual that began a speciation event!
Call god down from the heavens

>>5038153
>cladism is wrong because i cant find an individual LCA
>just because my morphology and genetics indicate i am the descendant of my mother and also descended from my paternal grandfather does not mean i am the child of my mother and father because i never knew my dad

>>5038116
Bats are mammals and they freeze to death if they get too cold which is why they're only found in warmer areas

>>5038118
All you doing is switching the name of the clade from "amniote" to "reptile", That still doesn't change the fact that Synapsids are not Diapsids(What you think when you hear reptile).

>>5038156
Because the fossil record is biased and incomplete. Its like the first thing you learn in serious paleo, and it cant be emphasized enough. 99% of all fossil sites are either the result of riparian and lacrustine environments, volcanic or marine deposits because they are the only places where a dead animal can realistically fossilize and not end up getting eroded out of existence before we ever find them. Which means all we ever get are snapshots of generally a few million years of generally a floodplain or some marine environment where the conditions favored a sudden catastrophic burial of still living animals or the quick preservation of dead ones, we don't get to see highlands, deserts, forests, or whatever time appropriate equivalent there is to grasslands. We just get whatever lived near the floodplains or if were incredibly lucky in cases like the Messel pit a look into a tropical faunal assemblage because of something like a limnic eruption.

>>5027873
God made them :)

>>5027663 (OP)
Tiktaalik was an amphibian

>>5039160
Most people don't know what a diapsid is,.anon

Lizards are just dry salamanders

>>5038156
That's simply not true. The last common ancestor of things are only going to be found where entire families are known in detail. I can show you the last common ancestor of many Ceratopsids, for example, because the family tree of these dinosaurs is very nearly complete (with a few small gaps). The problem is that most creatures that people are looking for the last common ancestor for are pre-Mesozoic even so they're difficult to locate and belong to phylogenetic trees that are extremely incomplete.

>>5038203
Exactly my point. Even a hairless rat will never simply go dormant if put in a freezer. It will eventually get hypothermia, but that's different. A lizard in a freezer, yes even our precious "endothermic lizard" will almost immediately just freeze the fuck up and die. Because they're not actually endotherms and have basically no adaptations that come with BEING endotherms.

>>5038204
That's not correct. Here's an example. This (Chasmosaurus russelli) is the last common ancestor of Triceratops and Regaliceratops. These are two different tribes of Chasmosaurine Ceratopsids. C. russelli was so successful that it branched into two different lineages that survived for millions of years.

>>5038210
This is why every board needs IDs. Of course mods want this sort of behavior on blue boards, which is why we don't. You are describing two different posters. And cladism is wrong because it's stupid, not because of LCA issues.

>>5039115
ALL animals freeze to death if they get too cold, stupid. But ectotherms and endotherms BEHAVE different to cold. Endotherms don't slow down their metabolism significantly, ectotherms DO and their movement basically ceases. There are odd outliers like Hummingbirds but they're the exception which proves the rule.

>>5041588
There is only one retard on /an/ that hates cladism (AKA facts), and IDs would do nothing to him because he pays for residential proxies and has evaded the vast majority of his bans.

>>5039160
Except these words actually mean something and have a ranked system that brings order. It wasn't Linnaeans that tried to convince everyone that humans can grow feathers. That was cladists. You're clowns.

>>5041592
>Retarded creationist reads pop sci, gets angry from not understanding things written by people who don't understand what they're writing
Many such cases among the controlled opposition known as the radical right (especially the parts that think they aren't the radical right)

>>5039171
That all depends on which part of the fossil record you're discussing. For many parts we have entire intact chronolineages of species, as with many Quaternary mammals, Dinosaurs or Cretaceous to modern plants. People really need to talk less and look at rocks more.

>>5041591
That's because most people discussing these matters don't have enough of a grasp of the information to even know what a cladist is.

It's a child molesting clown that lives in the sewers, for anyone that doesn't know.

>>5041593
>pop sci
Where did the 'sci' part come from? You sound like a retard saying "Um wikipedia isn't a source" because you're too nil-witted to look up the sources wikipedia conveniently lists and often links to for you. This is similar to the "Um actually no paleontologist believes this! It's just paleoartists" non-argument, which is 100% false too. Paleontologists commission art for papers all the time and it's typically very inaccurate on purpose because it gets more media coverage that way.

>>5041591
Oh and I never use proxies. I always rawpost. I'm neither afraid of jannie troons, nor jewish mods. If they want to turn the site to shit, that's their honeypot spoiled. I spread the truth EVERYWHERE.

>>5041592
the weird science twitter account isn't an actual scientific source, retard. Actual cladists never said that humans could grow feathers, in fact, just the opposite, because the clade leading to humans and the clade leading to birds diverged something like 100 million years before feathers existed, (exact timing depends on whether Pterosaur pycnofibers are homologous to feathers or not, not sure if that's been resolved) so it should be impossible for humans to grow feathers unless some kind of genetic engineering was involved.

>>5027958
@grok is this true?

>>5032612
dang, i guess the icthyosaurs and mosasaurs created a whole new clade for themselves

>>5027663 (OP)
>>5027667
>>5027673

Synapsids are not so reptile like as you think. For one thing they didn't have conventional scales, and for another their reproductive habits were wetter than those of true reptiles

>>5044000
They had scales

>>5042510
No. Cladism is a misguided attempt at disrupting biology created by the CIA. An animal that comes from another group of animals ceases to belong to that group once it differentiates enough. Mammals and birds are not reptiles, for example, due to their endothermy and insulative integument, which reptiles lack.

>>5045414
>too stupid to reconcile cladism with vulgar nomenclature
endothermic, feathered dinosaurs were a thing before said dinosaurs were fully avian so were said dinosaurs reptiles or birds?

are humans no longer apes just because they have less hair?

are you a gnathostomate? a vertebrate? no? are you made from magical mud then?

>>5027663 (OP)
It’s the reptile’s mammal-like cousin

Sorry your contemporary peasant language lacks elegant words for concepts that are not well known among contemporary peasants

>>5027667
Mammals are also synapsids dumbass

>>5027663 (OP)
Because it didn't look like your image

>>5027663 (OP)
>Why would mammals evolve from something like this?
Mammals evolved from its relative. Not literally from it.
Why do autistic people want everything to be a reptile?

>>5045461
The TL;DR of why is simply cause retards ITT are trying to describe 'amniotes' (all land vertebrates that are not amphibians) as "reptile" and failing since you can just say "reptile means diapsids" and it works perfectly fine. But to consider reptiles meaning all amniotes would also include synapsids and their descendants as reptiles.
>>5038116
>No cladist can ever answer why paraphyly matters at all.
Since your gay fathers didn't explain family to you, I'll explain it. This is like saying you and your 1st cousin are distinctly unrelated, but you both are related to everyone else in your family, and then getting mad when someone says you're doing it wrong.

It's more concise and accurate to just say you're both related. Though I apologize if this answer reeks of "cladism" you fight against for some reason.

The redditry in this thread is incurable. All the answers were provided in the first few posts.

>>5027973
Turk detected.

>>5027663 (OP)
plants are reptiles etc.

>>5027663 (OP)
The early ones look like reptiles but most of them have a mixed mammal-reptile look. Their general appearance is that of reptile with small furs and mammal jaws

>>5046052
They aren't. They have a common ancestor with reptiles, this common ancestor lives 2 billion years ago.
You can say they are very distantly related, but they're still part of an evolutionary tree

>>5027663 (OP)
>>5027667
>>5027668
One of the biggest clues is in the teeth. Dimetrodon is one of the earliest animals to have heterodont (different types of teeth like incisors, canines, molars) and their teeth are permanent and can't be replaced. Whereas reptiles are homodont (their teeth are similar in shape, typically conical) and they continuously replace their teeth throughout their lives

>>5046427
>mammal jaws
Not quite yet, since it would be a long fucking time before mammals would evolve most of their jaw bones into the inner ear bones.

>>5046427
Redditosaurus glycinophagus

>>5046433
why would an animal lose the ability to replace teeth?

>>5047273
All hipsters are evolutionary derived from pelycosaurs.

I choose to believe dimetrodon looked like this, and since I'm always right it must have

>>5047487
This looks retarded

>>5027663 (OP)
It's perfectly acceptable to refer to non-mammal synapsids as mammal-like reptiles. Only redditors will say otherwise, and nobody cares what redditors think.