[Mattshark]

Smugfish, on 29 October 2009 - 01:41 PM, said:

That's a very sad argument indeed. So what forms of cryptozoology are you willing to believe in, then? Or are all eye-witness accounts simple misidentifications in your self-righteous mainstream mind?

Get over yourself, you are making a weak argument that confuses nostrils for eyes, and male sexual organs as feet and it can only work if your ignore evidence.
Their is a reason why cryptozoology is not a science.
And it is your being self-righteous because I dared to use reality against your argument.

Smugfish, on 29 October 2009 - 01:55 PM, said:

They're definitely NOT too heavy to GLIDE!! Think of a smaller ray that evolved to glide/fly that then grew bigger!

Still too heavy, elasmobranchs have high density they are heavier for their size than anything that could fly and they are heavier than we are for their size (elasmobranchs sink, we float).

Get an education.

[Smugfish]

Mattshark, on 29 October 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

Get over yourself, you are making a weak argument that confuses nostrils for eyes,

What??

Mattshark, on 29 October 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

Still too heavy, elasmobranchs have high density they are heavier for their size than anything that could fly and they are heavier than we are for their size (elasmobranchs sink, we float).

Total BS. I don't even think you have that much of a science background. Yes, fish did evolve swim bladders which means they don't have to continually swim to stay at the same depth, unlike the rays and sharks. This doesn't mean that a ray, not having an air filled sac, can't glide like a flying fish!!!!

Mattshark, on 29 October 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

Get an education.

You're obviously a FAKE. If you're such a biology and evolutionary expert (which has only been self acclaimed), then you won't mind if I give you a little test:

QUESTION: What is the connection between parasites and the evolution of the placenta in mammals? (I know the answer of course)

This post has been edited by Smugfish: 30 October 2009 - 11:54 AM

[sinewave]

Smugfish, on 29 October 2009 - 08:55 AM, said:

They're definitely NOT too heavy to GLIDE!! Think of a smaller ray that evolved to glide/fly that then grew bigger!

What is your evidence for this assertion? The ability to "fly" in water does not translate directly to similar abilities in air. You are ignoring the fundamental aerodynamic ratio of weight versus surface area. Rays rely on their specific gravity being close to that of the water for a certain amount of neutral buoyancy and their structure and musculature have developed accordingly. They sink but not like a stone. Smooth and powerful in water, they are simply not strong enough, rigid enough, or light enough to achieve any level of sustained flight. Once they leave the water the best they can do is plummet.

This post has been edited by sinewave: 30 October 2009 - 02:59 PM

[Drago]

Smugfish, you really think you're the first person with a pet theory to get mad at Mattshark and call him a liar because he's knowledgeable enough to pick apart unsound theories?

Mattshark says he's a biologist that focuses on ocean life (The specific name evades me at the moment - leave me alone, I'm high on pain meds for coughing pains!) So far you're claiming to be the same thing, plus an evolution expert, plus an aviation and physics expert - or at least you seem to be claiming you are, since you're totally ignoring what everyone is telling you about flight characteristics, properties, and the physics behind them.

You started off as a respectable person with just an interesting theory - you're quickly turning into the "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" guy.

[adrianv]

Drago, on 30 October 2009 - 04:44 PM, said:

Smugfish, you really think you're the first person with a pet theory to get mad at Mattshark and call him a liar because he's knowledgeable enough to pick apart unsound theories?

Mattshark says he's a biologist that focuses on ocean life (The specific name evades me at the moment - leave me alone, I'm high on pain meds for coughing pains!) So far you're claiming to be the same thing, plus an evolution expert, plus an aviation and physics expert - or at least you seem to be claiming you are, since you're totally ignoring what everyone is telling you about flight characteristics, properties, and the physics behind them.

You started off as a respectable person with just an interesting theory - you're quickly turning into the "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" guy.

Its sad what people start to do when they are proven wrong.

[Smugfish]

Smugfish, on 30 October 2009 - 11:53 AM, said:

QUESTION: What is the connection between parasites and the evolution of the placenta in mammals? (I know the answer of course)

ANSWER:

Quote

Originally Posted by Frank Ryan
Explanation the ERVWE1 locus...

Among the many animals that live on land, and in the oceans, only the mammals don’t lay eggs. They protect the developing foetus within the mother’s womb for lengthy periods, so that it is born into the world as a fully formed baby. To achieve this, mammals have evolved a special organ capable of nourishing the foetus in the womb, and all the while protecting it from being attacked by the mother’s powerful immune system. The organ that makes this possible is the placenta. We humans have the most specialised placenta of all the mammals, more deeply penetrating into the mother’s womb, and with an exquisitely fine membrane, only a single cell thick – much finer than tissue paper – that separates the mother’s blood from that of the foetus, and through which this all-important nourishment takes place. But here the wonder increases. This ultra fine membrane is very unusual – its cells are fused together so their membrane have dissolved away, making up a single monolayer. Animal genes cannot fuse cells in this way. How then does our human placenta, vital to the miracle of every human birth, manage to do this?

It does so with the help of very special types of viruses, which have been incorporated into our chromosomes. The discovery of these viruses has shocked the world of science, since scientists are more familiar with viruses as the cause of infectious diseases, such as AIDS and flu. But now we know that these viruses really are playing a key beneficial role in our human life story. They are known as human endogenous retroviruses – in the scientific jargon, HERVs – and they have, in essence, become an integral part of us through an evolutionary mechanism known as genetic symbiosis. More remarkably still, these viruses have a genetic make-up that is very similar to the virus HIV-1, notorious as the cause of AIDS.

The wonder of the viruses and the human placenta doesn’t stop there. Our human chromosomes are full of similar viruses, and genetic sequences that come from them. They are an integral part of our genetic makeup. Two of the three placental viruses make proteins, known as syncytins, that enable the placental cells to fuse, and they also help the placenta to stop the mother’s immune system from damaging the foetus in the womb. A Swedish pathologist, Erik Larsson, has recently discovered that these syncytins are also playing some important, but as yet unknown, function in the normal human brain.

Frank Ryan is the author of Virolution (on sale in highstreet bookshops) and a renowned Biologist and Evolutionary expert. I leave Mattshark to work out the connection between viruses and parasites. He can probably manage that.

Mattshark; as to the question of the eyes needing to be in the place where the nostrils of the ray are found, just shows what little imagination you have.

Torpedo ray (eyes at top) -> plankton feeding ray (eyes forward) -> flying ray (eyes forward) -> shellfish eating ray (eyes at bottom) -> seaside cave dwelling ray (wolf-face). (QED)

This post has been edited by Smugfish: 31 October 2009 - 10:09 AM

[sinewave]

Smugfish, on 31 October 2009 - 05:08 AM, said:

ANSWER:



Frank Ryan is the author of Virolution (on sale in highstreet bookshops) and a renowned Biologist and Evolutionary expert. I leave Mattshark to work out the connection between viruses and parasites. He can probably manage that.

Mattshark; as to the question of the eyes needing to be in the place where the nostrils of the ray are found, just shows what little imagination you have.

Torpedo ray (eyes at top) -> plankton feeding ray (eyes forward) -> flying ray (eyes forward) -> shellfish eating ray (eyes at bottom) -> seaside cave dwelling ray (wolf-face). (QED)

Um, what does that have to do with the question of whether or not rays can fly?

[Mattshark]

sinewave, on 31 October 2009 - 03:57 PM, said:

Um, what does that have to do with the question of whether or not rays can fly?

I was thinking that. But since he is ignoring basic biology and aerodynamics I think rationalism is a bit out the window. Also what ray has its eyes ventrally placed exactly? And what biological advantage does that give it exactly? It would simply make it very easy prey and give it very irritated eyes.

[DieChecker]

I think he is trying to point out the evolutionary range of variety amoung rays. To show that if the eyes of the rays can vary so much, so can their density, to allow for better gliding.

What I have not seen is any reason why one would need to fly so far inland and why it would perform the other reported actions attributed to the MothMan. And why we have not seen any others before or since? A one-off mutant? Possible I guess. But it would be a terribly far afield mutant.

All this is based on the mouth structure that was reported, and not by a marine expert. And really is just a vague description.

This post has been edited by DieChecker: 01 November 2009 - 02:43 PM

[Mattshark]

DieChecker, on 01 November 2009 - 02:42 PM, said:

I think he is trying to point out the evolutionary range of variety amoung rays. To show that if the eyes of the rays can vary so much, so can their density, to allow for better gliding.

The point is there is not that range amongst rays. No ray has eyes underneath. He is arguing purely from his own ignorance on eleasmobranchs. His argument has absolutely no merit.
Southern stingray, eats crustacea and other benthic/demersal life, note location of eyes, on top.

Lesser electric ray, eats crustecea and is predominately demersal, note location of eyes, on top (similar to Torpedo torpedo)

Common skate, again same ecological niche, again eyes on top.


Smugfish thinks nostrils are eyes, he is arguing purely from his complete lack of knowledge of elasmobranch biology and absolutely nothing supports one word of his claims.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 01 November 2009 - 05:21 PM

[sinewave]

Mattshark, on 01 November 2009 - 07:45 AM, said:

I was thinking that. But since he is ignoring basic biology and aerodynamics I think rationalism is a bit out the window. Also what ray has its eyes ventrally placed exactly? And what biological advantage does that give it exactly? It would simply make it very easy prey and give it very irritated eyes.

I am hoping it is just simple ignorance on the part of smugfish.

This post has been edited by sinewave: 01 November 2009 - 07:59 PM

[nom kitty]

I have to side with Mattshark on this.
There have never been any ecological demands on rays to evolve into flying, non-gilled slimy things that can spear you from a hight...
I've no biology degree so correct me if I am wrong, there are several things that would need to change on the ray:
* His gills...I don't think he would fair to well in the atmosphere the way he is...
* His weight...Yeah, he glides carelessly in the water but out of it would be a different matter. So he would either have to get some might big wings or change his internal structure to be lighter and more flight friendly.
* His skeletal structure...He has flippers not wings and because they were designed for a water environment they wouldn't do to well as wings so he would need to get some sort of bat like thing happening with those flippers if he wanted to be airborne and actually fly rather than glide from tree to tree. Oh and if he wanted to glide from tree to tree he would need to sprout some limbs other wise when he goes for that tree branch he is going to slap into it like pancake!
* His skin...Its like a eel. Its moist and slimey and he would dry up very quickly in the atmosphere so either he gets some little glands that produce moisture for him all the time or he gets some new skin like that of a lizard.

Now that sure is a hell of a lot of work for something that wasn't a necessity for a species to survive.

[Smugfish]

DieChecker, on 01 November 2009 - 02:42 PM, said:

I think he is trying to point out the evolutionary range of variety amoung rays. To show that if the eyes of the rays can vary so much, so can their density, to allow for better gliding.

What I have not seen is any reason why one would need to fly so far inland and why it would perform the other reported actions attributed to the MothMan. And why we have not seen any others before or since? A one-off mutant? Possible I guess. But it would be a terribly far afield mutant.

All this is based on the mouth structure that was reported, and not by a marine expert. And really is just a vague description.

Thanks for considered remarks again. The ray would want to get to shallow water for safety. Out of the water and in a cave is even safer still. A mutant species of ray could conceivably have evolved to feed on plankton, learn to glide/fly and then go back to feednig from the floor. It's eyes could migrate underneath to aid it's food location. Eyes on top wouldn't be needed because it isn't hiding in deep water anymore.

The connection with viral genetic symbiosis is that parasites carry a high number of viruses. Therefore there is more chance for 'advanced' evolution (such as the evolution of the placenta in mammals).

The weight to lifting_area ratio of the proposed ray needs to be compared with the weight to lifting area of a flying fish. Its that simple.

[Mattshark]

Smugfish, on 02 November 2009 - 05:10 PM, said:

Thanks for considered remarks again. The ray would want to get to shallow water for safety. Out of the water and in a cave is even safer still. A mutant species of ray could conceivably have evolved to feed on plankton, learn to glide/fly and then go back to feednig from the floor. It's eyes could migrate underneath to aid it's food location. Eyes on top wouldn't be needed because it isn't hiding in deep water anymore.

The connection with viral genetic symbiosis is that parasites carry a high number of viruses. Therefore there is more chance for 'advanced' evolution (such as the evolution of the placenta in mammals).

The weight to lifting_area ratio of the proposed ray needs to be compared with the weight to lifting area of a flying fish. Its that simple.

Seriously are you just ignoring reality now. It is not possible.
1) Gills don't work out of water, they need water to pass over them to extract oxygen.
2) Shallow water makes animals easier prey for terrestrial and avian species.
3) RAYS ARE TOO HEAVY, they have a much higher density than the majority of marine life in general. Sharks and rays are all negatively buoyant, they sink. Anything negatively buoyant will not glide of fly, they can leap and that is all, so can white sharks, blacktip sharks, spinner sharks and basking sharks. They can not develop hollow bones like birds because they are cartilaginous and cartilage doesn't even have marrow to lose.
4) ALL RAYS HAVE EYES ON TOP OF THEIR HEAD..... is this concept just too complex for you? I mean are words all confusing?
5) Rays don't have bones like fish so you can't be comparing their morphology to a species that doesn't even have the same body plan.
6) A planktivourous ray would have no evolutionary drive to fly.
7) Planktivourous animals don't feed on the sea bed.
8) Elasmobranchs have some of the most well developed immune systems in the world and are not highly susceptible to viral infection.
9) Even if parasites carry viruses it is highly unlikely they'd be able to infect the ray.
10) Elasmobranchs have already evolved a form of placenta.
11) It is clear that you comprehensively don't understand evolution or ichthyology or aerodynamics, or marine biology, or marine ecology or animal behaviour.
12) Elasmobranchs lack a method of controlling buoyancy outside of swimming, if they can glide they'd be too light to sink and they'd be stuck at the surface.
13) Elasmobranchs lack ribs for body support and hence have issues in body supoort out of water.

Well done. Wrong on all accounts.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 02 November 2009 - 05:40 PM

[Smugfish]

Mattshark, on 02 November 2009 - 05:30 PM, said:

Seriously are you just ignoring reality now. It is not possible.
1) Gills don't work out of water, they need water to pass over them to extract oxygen.

I've covered this before. Only a stiffening of the gills is needed so that they don't collapse under their own weight when out of the water. You need to slow down and READ the given links supplied: How Mangrove Fish and Mudskippers Live on Land, Amphibious Fish Breathe Air and Walk Around

Attached File(s)

•  mudskipper2.jpg (81.92K)
  Number of downloads: 5

This post has been edited by Smugfish: 03 November 2009 - 10:14 AM