Skip to content

Pterosaur Heresies and “Pterosaurnet” (NOT Pterosaur.net): please die

October 10, 2011

"Kill me!"

Today we’re going to discuss the blogs of two people who fail at biology in every conceivable way: David Peters (famous example already) and…some guy who probably doesn’t even have a name. Whatever, its not like I am going to debate their identity or anything, just what they present.

David Peters in particular has been notable for being a failure at biology since 2006, and since how nobody acknowledges him as a living being, I would not care the least if not for the fact that his garbage has been contaminating Google. Hence, here’s my take at his pseudo-scientific arguments:

A review of his whining against quadrupedal launch in pterosaurs (you can find the adress easily)

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS!? Sure as hell it is not a Nyctosaurus as he claims. Also, he used this as "proof" that pterosaurs did not employ quadrupedal launch. Pity the dumbass did not take into consideration that the weak hindlimbs give away the sheer stupidity of having a bipedal Nyctosaurus.

We start the article by giving away the sources of his insanity:

The idea of bipedal pterosaur running downhill into a headwind was floated by Chatterjee and Templin (2004), but had few takers. Bennett (1997) imagined the first pterosaurs leaped with their hind limbs into flight. Padian (1981) imagined they ran first.

This is pretty much the bulk of the sources he utilizes during the article. Seriously, they’re all the indication that he uses to explain bipedal locomotion and take off in pterosaurs; the rest is just nonsensical speculation. Perhaps it never occured to him that the lattermost source is no longer taken seriously by anyone, considering that the idea that basal pterosaurs engaged in bipedal running has been considered the object of ridicule since the 90’s and all, for very good reasons. Even today it is generally thought birds evolved flight by arboreal methods, either gliding or WAIR (or both), and birds are way more likely to have evolved from ground dwelling animals that pterosaurs! I have not read the paper y Bennett, but the idea that pterosaurs evolved flight by arboreal leaping is possible given the long hindlimbs of Dimorphodon. However, that does not mean pterosaurs were bipedal; many arboreal mammals use their hindlimbs to jump, but they sure as hell are not bipedal! And bats use their forelimbs to take off, despiste the fact that other gliding mammals use their hindlimbs, so you can clearly see that switching can occur!

Anyways:

“Thus, Habib reasoned, since all pterosaurs were quadrupeds (this is questionable, see below), they must have employed their strongest limbs, their wings  (this is also questionable, see below), “

IT. IS. NOT. QUESTIONABLE!!! The only way it is questionable is because you somehow seem to think that the weak hindlimbs of pterosaurs could support the animal in a penguin like position that goes against the laws of physics thanks to the absurdly huge forelimbs. And you might think that I am being unreasonable, but you’ll see why that harlot does not seem to abide by the physics of this universe.

“Of course, evidence for either the Habib (2008) hypothesis or the heretical bird-style take-off would have to come in the form of take-off tracks. Unfortunately we don’t know of any such tracks. We only know of one landing trace (Mazin et al. 2009, Figure 3), which came in feet first. So let’s examine each of the precepts of Habib’s hypothesis and see if any problems arise.”

You admit it is a landing trace, hence it is not a problem because the animal is landing, not walking normally nor taking off. It is generally agreed that the hindlimbs would have been necessary for landing, otherwise the animal would crash violently against the ground. The exact method on which pterosaurs landed is not entirely well known, but saltatorial motions have been suggested. The animation David Peters presented had the animal just land directly on the path and walk as if nothing happened, which is doubtful at best. Perhaps most importantly, however, is that several quadrupedal pterosaur footprints have been found, so bipedal locomotion was defenitely not present.

“While most pterosaurs had a larger diameter humerus than femur, not all did. Basal pterosaurs up to, but not including, Carniadactylus and Eudimorphodon had a humerus no thicker than the femur. The same held true for a few Rhamphorhynchus specimens, Sordes, some Pterodactylus specimens and at least one germanodactylid. The flightless pterosaur had a tiny humerus. Some pterosaurs, such as Zhejiangopterus andFenghuangopterus had a much shorter humerus than femur. Thus the femur in these taxa would have had much more leverage, travel and associated muscles to launch the pterosaur further and higher. Why did some pterosaurs have a large diameter or longer humerus? I don’t know. I can’t see a clear phylogenetic pattern yet.”

I would state that it is very suspicious that he only offered skeletals instead of fossil specimens, but I figured out it was the best option you had, seeing as even I would would not like to make a fool out of myself posting images of fossils that contradict the delusional statements. Perhaps more amusing, though, is that several of the skeletals contradict what he said. Appearently even his drawing skills are against him. (Incidently, it took a while for the pictures to show up in my computer. Even my sentienceless machine is against such abominations!)

“Habib (2008) reports the forelimb bones were more than strong enough. Were they long enough? The answer seems doubtful if one compares the skeleton of our greatest living leaper, the kangaroo with that of a pterosaur (Figure 4). Despite having five muscle groups from pelvis to toe contracting in a coordinated series, kangaroo initial leaps raise the toes only to the heights of the ankles. By contrast, pterosaurs had only their elbows and wrists to extend and they could extend their elbows a relatively shorter distance, not counting the effect of the propatagium, which in birds and bats prevents exactly this sort of overextension of the elbow. Even the vampire bat leaves 15-20 degrees of flex at the elbow during takeoff.”

Considering that kangaroos lack pneumatic bones and airsacs, I would question how apropriate the comparation would be, not to mention that the hindlimb structure of a macropodid is much different from the forelimbs of an ornithocheirid, not only in actual appearence, but in function; kangaroos are adapted to long distance saltatorial locomotion, while pterosaur forelimbs are adapted to quick launches. It is very obvious that the initial launch styles are different, considering that the limbs don’t even remotely resemble each other. Furthermore, David Peters is deliberately lying on this paragraph, as he is not only giving a much more restricted range of forelimb motion than what was actually true for pterosaurs, but he ignoring that fact that, unlike vampire bats, pterosaurs have long metacarpals, which actually allow further the capacity of the overextension of the elbow. Furthermore, bats also have patagia, hence stating that it blocks the capacity for overextension is quite a quite obvious form of intellectual dishonesty.

The following paragraph bases itself on the evolutionary pathway of pterosaur flight, which at the very best is speculative and at worst is mind numbing shit. Unfortunately, as you might have guessed, it’s the later, because he claims that pterosaurs followed the evolutionary path he always claimed: that pterosaurs evolved from a Sharovipteryx abomination that in turn evolved from mutant lizards. Nevermind that Sharovipteryx was clearly not a lizard because it has little to no anatomical similarities to squamates and that instead it appears to have been a basal archosauromorph, but then again David Peters’ view of diapsid classification is a twisted nonsensical bunch of speculations that largely ignore convergent evolution and several anatomical differences. Furthermore, Sharovipteryx is not considered a biped, hencing ruling out the absurd depictions of it standing on its hindlimbs like a mutilated theropod asking for the mercy of death. That said, pterosaur evolution is a fascinating topic. We do know that they are related to archosaurs, but whereas they are the sister taxa to dinosaurs and their relatives or forms more basal than pseudosuchians it is not known. A recent paper did consider them related to drepanosaurs, which might indicate that they evolve from Sharovipteryx like forms after all, but then again we don’t know if Sharovipteryx was related to drepanosaurs or not.

Then again, as I stated previously, “switching” did happen with bats, so it renders the argument of origin a dumb one (not to mention that the “examples of bipedal pterosaurs” he cited were actually quadrupedal). And that leads us to the next paragraph, which concerns itself on just how pterosaurs developed from bipedal launchers into quadrupedal launchers. As you can imagine, he ignores that such probably occured in the arboreal early non-pterodactyloid pterosaurs rather than on derived terrestrial pterodactyloids. Neat.

Next he makes up bullshit regarding the fact that wing fingers would stall quadrupedal take off. I think that he forgot that the base of of the pterosaur wing finger has a role in supporting the weight of the body alongside the clawed fingers (Darren Naish did in fact suggest that the wing finger and the associated metacarpal play a larger role at supporting the body’s weight than the remaining fingers), while vampire bats don’t do so.

The following paragraph is another of his ridiculous misinterpretations based on fossil pics rather than actual close up analysis, so I am not going to even bother to discuss it.

Finally, we analyse the final section of his delusional stupidity:

“Of course, modern stilts, flamingoes and storks do very well in their bird-style launches, even with their “stilt”-like leg bones. Bending forward at the hip would have positioned the wings at the appropriate angle of attack (see below).”

Sad flamingo skeleton is sad. Shame on you, David Peters, shame on you!

Regardless, one important aspect of David Peters’ essay that he conveniently forgets is that bone density is very important. In birds, the femur is always far more dense than the humerus, as is fitting of an animal that relies exclusively on it’s hindlimbs to take off. Perhaps more obvious, however, is the fact that birds have absurdly long metacarpals, something pterosaurs lack.

“It is important to note that bird legs and pterosaur legs had one fundamental difference: bird femora are not only tucked close to the body they are constrained by torso skin from moving much. So bird strides really begin at the knee. Birds elongate their metatarsals to produce yet another flexible leg section (the so-called “backwards knee”). By contrast, pterosaur femora swing from the hip and they all had relatively short metatarsals. Thus any mathematical comparisons, like those performed by Habib (2008) between the two types of flyers are going to be affected by this basic difference.”

Oh, son of a bitch!

Da sauces

Depending on the interpretation of this poorly drawn sketch, the furious titanic tupuxuarids are attacking either me, David Peters, or that other imbecile that we're going to cover below.

The only sources offered in the DP article I just spat on are the ones mentioned at the beginning, that concern the apseculation on early pterosaurs adquiring the capacity to fly, and those that involve the pterosaur landing trackway and the pterosaur quadrupedal launch. Therefore, most of what is stated on the article has no basis on anything except for misinterpretations of availiable evidence.

To be fair, I am guilty of this as well, so I won’t criticise DP for this. I will, however, criticise the “Pterosaurnet” imbecile for that.

“Pterosaurnet”: when people without functional brains try to mimic respectable sites

"Screw you guys, I'm flyin' home!"

Unfortunately, David Peters is not the only nutjob who wanders around on the net. An even more insane wacko has emerged lately, owner of the site “Pterosaurnet”.

This imbecile, a truly abhorrent harlot who obviously tried to copy the fabled site Pterosaur.net, has even less functional neurons than David Peters. He/she suggested the most obviously stupid thing to be imaginable: that birds are derived pterosaurs, and not coelurosaur dinosaurs. This wouldn’t bother me so much (after all, most people are smart enough to know how utterly stupid that sounds), if s/he weren’t around sites with actual experts bothering them constantly with this bullshit. And, while David Peters at least recognises fossil evidence (despiste misinterpreting it horridly), this person/thing doesn’t even pretend to know anything about this topic; it just picks parts of Wikipedia that haven’t been updated and quote mines them into looking like they support the “birds are pterosaurs” shit.

Also seems to enjoy neutrino based jokes. How odd.

"Get it!? Hahahaha...why are you pointing a shotgun at me?"

34 Comments leave one →
  1. donno permalink
    February 24, 2012 10:04 pm

    Pterosaurnet aka Dr Pterosaur aka Socrates at TalkRational is Doug Dobney of Peterborough Canada

  2. Wilson permalink
    November 29, 2012 10:49 pm

    What is wrong with the idea that birds are derived pterosaurs, and not coelurosaur dinosaurs?

    • November 29, 2012 11:13 pm

      Because:

      1- You’d have to completly fail at pterosaur and avian anatomy and biology to think that.

      2- It’s intellectually dishonest to spread lies.

  3. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 12:00 am

    That makes no sense.

    • November 30, 2012 12:06 am

      What doesn’t make sense? The former becomes painfully obvious even at a casual observation of pterosaur and bird anatomy.

      The second maybe can confuse some people, but I think I made it clear.

  4. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 12:13 am

    A casual observation of pterosaur and bird anatomy.shows they are similar. Anyone can see that.

    • November 30, 2012 12:23 am

      Oh really? Can you explain why birds have clearly dinosaurian features (such as the hip joints, furculae, digitigrade hindlimbs, feathers, et cetera), while pterosaurs not only lack these, but also have many incompatible features that prove that they evolved flight independently (such as the deltoideus muscle complexes, extremely complex wing membranes that are proven to be aerodynamically superior to avian feathers, hindlimbs primitive for archosaur standards, a notarium that fuses in the opposite direction from the avian one, fused nasoanteorbital frenestrae, et cetera)?

      BTW, if you’re the guy arguing about actinofibrils being homologous to feathers, I’ve seen your logically fallacious arguments, so don’t bother.

  5. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 1:08 am

    Concerning the hip joint. Did you know that ornithiscian dinosaurs have hips like birds?

    • November 30, 2012 3:06 am

      1- So do all dinosaurs.

      2- Ornithischian hips have a backwards pointing pubis, but so do many theropods, and otherwise the hip structure is very distinct.

  6. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 3:17 am

    You have said: “So do all dinosaurs”.
    Are you not aware of the fact that saurischians did not have hip joints like birds?

    • November 30, 2012 3:30 am

      You seem to be confusing hip-joints with the pubic arrangement. That’s not a good sign if you want to keep your credibility.

      At any rate, nearly all maniraptors do have a backwards pointing pubis.

  7. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 12:55 pm

    So you do not seem to be aware that saurischian dinosaurs have a hip joint that is not like birds. Are you aware that the dinosaur to bird theory claims that birds descended from saurischian dinosaurs?

    • November 30, 2012 4:11 pm

      Care to provide sources for that assertion?

      Because even a casual observer with chicken bones can see that the hip joint is identical.

  8. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 4:27 pm

    You have provided no sources for your assertions. Do you realize that saurischian dinosaurs have a hip joint that is not like birds? Are you aware that the dinosaur to bird theory claims that birds descended from saurischian dinosaurs?
    I am starting to realize that you do not know the basics of this topic. Particularly if you do not know that saurischian dinosaurs have a hip joint that is not like birds. And that the dinosaur to bird theory claims that birds descended from saurischian dinosaurs.

    • November 30, 2012 5:11 pm

      So, you’re pretty much admiting you made that up. And even if that was true, it’s still a single aspect against pretty much thousands of other anatomical similarities, and of many fossils showing a ladder between “normal” theropods and Neornithes

      Bother to do research, as I did; Tetrapod Zoology, the actual Pterosaur.net (not your blog) and even Wikipedia pretty much have articles with the content I posted. Your assertion, on the other hand, appears to be utterly ficticious, as only you have ever proposed that.

  9. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 5:20 pm

    “And even if that was true…”.
    You sound like a person who has checked out your sources and see that what I have been pointing out is correct..
    The reason we are talking about this particular trait is because it is the first one you listed. And now you see that the facts are the opposite of what you thought. The hip joint evidence is contrary to the saurischian dinosaur to bird theory.
    Right?
    Care to take another particular trait? Your first one did not work out.

    • November 30, 2012 5:58 pm

      At this point, I hope you are a troll, otherwise, you don’t seem to be capable of understanding how debates work

      Again, provide me with sources for your assertion. Everything, even B.A.N.D. papers, recognise that there are no differences between avian and theropod hip joints.

    • November 30, 2012 5:58 pm

      At this point, I hope you are a troll, otherwise, you don’t seem to be capable of understanding how debates work

      Again, provide me with sources for your assertion. Everything, even B.A.N.D. papers, recognise that there are no differences between avian and theropod hip joints.

    • November 30, 2012 6:15 pm

      But alas, if you’re interested, here’s some diagrams of pterosaurian and dinosaurian hipjoints:

      The saurischian hip joint is nigh identical to the avian one (though presented at a different angle), while the pterosaurian one is considerably different. Also, for as much as creationists and BANDits complain about “lizard hips”, the saurischian hips at least are almost identical to avian ones, except for the forwards pointing pubis; look at the almost mammalian pterosaurian hips.

  10. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 6:21 pm

    Calling me a “troll” does not get you off the hook. (But it does make you look desperate). The first trait you listed is contrary to the saurischian dinosaur to bird theory.
    Here is the link.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusaurischia
    The ornithischian hip structure is superficially similar to that of birds, which led Seeley to name them “bird-hipped dinosaurs,” though he did not propose any specific relationship with birds. He termed saurischians “lizard-hipped” dinosaurs because they retained the ancestral hip anatomy also found in modern lizards.
    However, as later study revealed, this “bird-hipped” arrangement actually evolved twice independently in dinosaurs, first in the ornithischians and then in the lineage of saurischains including true birds (Avialae). In this example of convergent evolution, birds developed hips oriented similar to the earlier ornithischian hip anatomy, in both cases possibly as an adaptation to a herbivorous or omnivorous diet.

    There is also a reference here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithischia
    The name ornithischia is derived from the Greek ornitheos (ορνιθειος) meaning ‘of a bird’ and ischion (ισχιον) meaning ‘hip joint’. They are known as the ‘bird-hipped’ dinosaurs because of their bird-like hip structure, even though birds actually belong to the ‘lizard-hipped’ dinosaurs (the saurischians).

    I will now expect you to support your assertions with links and post the quote..

    • November 30, 2012 6:40 pm

      On other words, you’re pretty much doing what I suspected: mistaking pubic orientation with hip joints. And again, the only reason ornitischian joints as “bird like” is because of the pubic orientation; even the way the bones fused is completly different from that of birds.

      For someone accusing others of “being desesperate”, you sure are, to commit such a massive misunderstanding.

  11. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 6:54 pm

    Please support your assertions with links and post the quote..That is what you asked of me.

    • November 30, 2012 7:08 pm

      I gave you directions. It’s not my fault you conveniently don’t check previous comments.

  12. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 6:57 pm

    Also you seem not to have noticed that the references I have given show that bird hips contradict the sauraschian dinosaur to bird theory.
    Are you now saying that birds evolved from Ornithischian dinosaurs?

    • November 30, 2012 7:07 pm

      You yourself pointed out that saurischians developed bird hips independently.

      Also, again, you’re mistaking pubic arrangement with hip joints.

      • Claude permalink
        July 6, 2014 5:21 am

        Refresh my memory, please. I’m not exactly an expert:
        In ornithischian dinosaurs the pubis has a rear process parallel to the ischium while saurischian dinosaurs have a front process pointed down and somewhat forward.
        In the advanced maniraptors the front process is bent to point backwards. This is the same as birds, so the alignment of the pubic bone is actually the same as a maniraptor rather than an ornithiscian.
        I was just recently exposed to the pole vaulting pterosaurs. That must have been a pretty incredible sight.

    • November 30, 2012 8:05 pm

      Where in pterosaur evolution does the semilunate carpal in both birds and other maniraptor saurischians evolve? Why do birds have a whole different system of flight by using evolved feathers that have also been seen in saurischian dinosaurs? Pterosaurs use their patagium membrane for flight. Why don’t birds? Did pterosaurs just decide to lose all of that efficiency for a less efficient form of flight by losing the patagium, gaining strong muscles on their legs, have a more dinosaurian anatomy, develop a semilunate carpal, grow a whole different kind of fluff, develop an s-shaped neck like dinosaurs, and etc? If you can’t find an answer, it’s because BIRDS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM PTEROSAURS. All caps, just in case you still don’t seem to comprehend the logic.

      Your pathetic argument is standing on the toes of the name of the clades. Guess what, when saurischian was named, we had few specimens of dinosaurs, as opposed to now. There are a lot of deuterostomes in the clade of protostomia, even when there is a deuterostomia clade, but that is the thing about scientific naming, which you don’t seem to get. This is straight up a Ken Ham argument. “Evolutionists say birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the name of the clade is lizard-hipped, therefore evolution is not true.” That is how stupid you sound right now.

  13. Wilson permalink
    November 30, 2012 8:43 pm

    I wondered if you would try to make something out of that “independence”. The point is that birds have a hip that is not like saurischian dinosaurs. But I see that you are not very familiar with this topic so I will not be wasting time educating you.

    • November 30, 2012 9:16 pm

      Says the person who fails to acknowledge that bird-like hips have evolved multiple times, and that pterosaur hips are more mammalian than reptile or bird like.

  14. December 2, 2012 2:50 am

    Wilson is Doug Dobney aka Socrates aka Dr Pterosaur of Peterborough Canada. He runs The Moffat House and is an alleged sex offender (allegedly child molestation).

  15. Wilson permalink
    December 5, 2012 3:12 pm

    The post from “Socrates” is a sham and should be deleted.

  16. anon permalink
    December 23, 2012 6:21 am

    gwawinapterus, please note that Wilson/Socrates/Doug Dobney is a seriously delusional individual. For an example of what he has attempted to do to a blogger, see this:

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.fi/2011/09/new-moderation-policy-doug-dobney-is.html

Trackbacks

  1. B.A.N.D.its: why do think being a fucking moron is “edgy”? « Gwawinapterus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: