User talk:Fatapatate

Discussion with BellaKazza

First i want to say evolution is bull and it can't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellaKazza (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is an hypothesis...do you have an argumentation ? Fatapatate (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiktaalik

You write: "transitional form is an outdated concept that is nowadays banned from evolutionary assumptions"

This is a rather depressing edit summary. The original Tiktaalik paper in Nature has the following right in the abstract:

Here we report the discovery of a well-preserved species of fossil sarcopterygian fish from the Late Devonian of Arctic Canada that represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose.

I understand that species like Tiktaalik aren't direct ancestors of (for example) modern tetrapods, but they are cousins of the real ancestors, and do tell us useful things about evolution ... i.e. the common ancestor of Tiktaalik and modern tetrapods presumably had whatever features are shared by those two groups... Evercat (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evercat, I reverted this edit. BTW, Fatapatate, on your userpage you claim to be "getting a master's degree in paleabiobiversity". What exactly is "paleabiobiversity"? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a vulgarization purpose (at least for scientific pages). The best way for the lay reader to misunderstand and conclude that Tiktaalik is his ancestor is to write "Tiktaalik is a transitional form". Furthermore I totally disagree with the Nature paper. Tiktaalik has a mixture of plesiomorphic and apomorphic characters, like every organism on this planet. But I say that this fossil is not informative on the contrary its mixture of plesiomorphic and apomorphic characters is the unique insights that the article was referring to (but with a bad formulation).

And who are you to disagree with Nature? Not to be rude, but this is not the place to express personal opinions or to promote fringe theories... just so you know. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a personal opinion I'm advocating here, but what I've been taught by my eminent teachers (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle and Université Pierre et Marie Curie); the view that all cladists would have if they had understood that cladistics is basically hierarchy (and not linear gradation like people did before Hennig). And by the way it's not with Nature that I discuss (it has no sense), but with the formulation of the autors.Fatapatate (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, your input is welcome. However, you might want to start a discussion before making any edits that might be controversial. It would also help if you provided some references to back up your viewpoint. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Look at my FT-special userboxes :

This user is a Free Taxon. His/her goal is to fight gradism.

KΦΘ

This user is a Free Taxon. His goal is to fight gradism.

N@ldo (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done NaldoFatapatate (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pudu puda range

Sorry 'bout that, I missed out on the species restriction.-- Elmidae 10:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]