|
Post by Grey on Sept 29, 2015 4:46:00 GMT 5
Factually your response is "yes" so that doesn't change very much. I don't call you a fanboy but your energy to contradict me, your wild assumptions (one specimen= average size !) and your history implies some bias.
But at first, I was really asking for your clear opinion, nothing more.
No double standard, the first question was really objective. That I personnally think you're biased then or after I asked this does not change anything. Actually I'm not skilled, much less than you, but I'm certainly objective.
When I brought the very strong indications, evidences (Buchy's thesis, communication...) that claims of 25 m pliosaurs were rubbish, you still argued. The "mother of all predators" statement for C. megalodon is not mine but from Mike Siverson. Maybe you suggest everytime a paleontologist considers Carcharocles megalodon as "the most spectacular predator in the life history on Earth" (Gottfried), "probably the apex predator of all time" (Chuck Ciampaglio), "perhaps the largest marine predator in the Earth's history" (Kent), "the largest apex predator in history" (Pimiento)...I'm behind them putting the words into their mouth ?
It's not my fault if this species is the maybe most often labelled as such by professionnals both in communications or in papers and documents. Even Lambert et al. limited the status of the biggest bite for Livyatan to tetrapods and not to vertebrates because of megalodon (personnal com).
Strongly suggesting meg to be the largest extinct macropredator known when a number of researchers all use that statement, that the data currently shows no other massively built macropredator reaching 18 m in the record and in despite that I keep revising this statement (my interest into potential downsizing for the species, or upsizing for other large apex predators), is really the mark of a biased fanboy ? Absolutely not.
I don't recall to have recently written that C. megalodon was "the absolute biggest predator ever", merely that it is currently the biggest and that the 18 m larger estimate from Pimiento et al. is not necessarilly the peak size in the species.
But since I've showed interest in the abstract by S. Peart suggesting a downsizing in the size, I still don't see the bias.
Wrong, I've considered at times Livyatan or the hypothetical macropliosaurs or the biggest Physeter as the biggest ones, I don't always write my changing opinion but it appears several times on the board. The "Top Dog" thread was the reason of this. Would a biased fanboy privately share a picture suggesting a new macropliosaur that would outclass his beloved giant otodontid ?
Downsizing it at 15 m but actually enlarging at near 60 tons. I've always used the 17.5 m (which estimate of mine are you alluding ?), even if I do not strongly believe in it.
Have I criticized your 14.1 m estimate recently ? I don't think so, I only say I prefer to report the official 13.5-17.5 m rather than your 14.1-17.5 m estimate even if it's true you don't use the upper figure these times, maybe because someone else than me (blaze) suggested here that these upper estimates are doubtful, implying that any suggestion from me is unrelable ?
As for the 14.1-17.5 m estimate you used, it was notable that you revised the lower estimate by Lambert et al. but you did not touch the upper bound.
I've more criticized, not your model of Livy, but your tendency to present it as the latest rigorous estimate about it.
In the end, you're the one making this personnal, hence why I respond to you in this discussion that will not end on anything substantial.
For the rest, I enjoy a good sea monsters story and while I have some difficulties to imagine a hypercarnivorous animal bigger than the largest Carcharocles, I prefer to pray for the find of a 45-50 cm Livyatan tooth rather than speculating that an roughly 15 m holotype necessarilly represented an average-sized animal, to take as written in the stone that the average size for megalodon was 14 m or to assume that a somewhat shorter average estimate, if true, would obligatory imply a shorter maximum size for the selacian.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 29, 2015 19:11:34 GMT 5
No, it is not even remotely close. What it is is a blatant attempt at misrepresenting my viewpoint.
Let us revisit what you wrote again, shall we?
As we’ll see you first told some lies (I can’t help but think they were intentional) and then constructed some strawmen that make me seriously question your purported honest intentions when writing the above.
1. That is plain wrong, and I have shown that in my last response which you claim was "almost 100 % exact" what you summarized. Assuming that is what we are discussing, it was 14.2-15.4m by my estimate (conservatively in the sense of being free of liberal assumptions, not conservative in the sense of being too low). 2. Also plain wrong. My upper estimate was 15.4m and 56t. As I wrote the most likely weight figure for the lower figure would be ~33t. Where exactly is this "almost 100 % exact"? 3. That is a ridiculous oversimplification of my reasoning. It is likely to be closer to the average than to either extreme of the population. Hence it is you who is taking extra assumptions by comparing it to only the upper extreme of C. megalodon. Comparing it to either a particularly large or a particularly small megalodon is biased. 4. I am making no claims regarding the existence of other Livyatan individuals, since none are known any any statement pertaining to them is complete conjecture. Lately it was you who enjoyed speculating on larger sizes than those found in the fossil record, not me. Probabilistically speaking, yes, of course larger individuals have existed. I neither consider them here nor have much interest in them any more. 5. That is an obvious fact, but I do not record having used it as an argument anywhere. But I cannot see why you had to ask about that. 6. Now that you bring it up, it is very well possible that Livyatan had the most powerful jaws of any known taxon (once more, if you perceive that I have brought evidence for it, then why do you ask, and if you perceive that I didn’t, then why did you even suspect me to have that view? I do not recall having argued about that lately, but I do recall having argued quite clearly that bite force isn’t the sole determinant of an animal’s power (again unlike you, who has certainly given greater importance to it than I have), hence making the latter not a logical consequence of the former. 7. Once more a thing I didn’t actually argue recently, although as I wrote in my last reply it is indeed what the evidence supports, and I have certainly brought some evidence to support it myself, but without arguing the point. Once more this leaves me wondering why you included this in your "summary" if it was supposed to be part of a genuine question. Clearly you do not agree that the evidence supports this, and yet from me bringing the evidence you somehow concluded that I thought so.
Great reasoning. I contradict you, hence I’m a fanboy. But certainly one should never contradict the only truly unbiased person in the world…
Concerning your history, I don’t even want to start. Concerning your wild assumptions, I’ve already explained everything countless times.
You certainly weren’t, you have demonstrated that yourself. What answer could I have given you that you would not in turn have answered with the accusation of bias? Ask youself that. Whatever opinion I would have expressed, you weren’t actually interested in it, you just wanted to remark how biased I am. I could have responded anything I wanted, you would still have sticked to your preconceived view. As you did by the way, without even getting the irony in this.
Actually no, you didn’t. Strong evidence turned up much later (namely the fact that this is actually present in ALL or almost all known giant pliosaurs), and I accepted it. Back then you were unable to demonstrate that, be it through either of our linguistic problems or you being unable to do it, or simply not considering it necessary. But (making an argument from authority following the example you set) perhaps you want to call Frey or Stinnesbeck biased fanboys too then? But this is in the past, and I’m not the one bringing it up. That you still do just demonstrates your lack of objectivity and your focus on personal grudges instead of scientific arguments.
I am not the one always resorting to calling you a biased fanboy sooner or later, you are the one doing that with me. I was fine discussing on a factual level and keeping myself and you out of the matter, but whether you admit it or not, you started suggesting that I’m biased. And you can continue to claim that you keep revisiting your statement, doesn’t changed the fact that you have not actually changed your opinion regardless of the argument being presented to you, and especially if I was the one to present it, you usually just started insulting me right away.
Oh great, you showed (or pretended to show) interest in it, ergo you are not biased? That sounds just as laughable as the argument that you changed your opinion regarding the matter, and just never said so (which is basically saying as much as "I’m not biased, because I say so!!!!"). I showed undeniable interest in every estimate for C. megalodon, I have certainly pointed out that I consider some to be underestimates, and yet I am so biased that to you its worth dragging every single discussion down to stupid youtuber flamewar level? I also questioned the conclusions stated in that abstract as you will recall, how come I’m still biased, but you are not simply for claiming to "show interest" in it?
Why wouldn’t he, considering he knew, and everybody else did too, that this was a highly dubious specimen? Wouldn’t a biased fanboy like me likewise have used that to jump to conclusions? How come if I’m so biased I take every opurtunity to "dethrone" megalodon that I A. expressed scepticism about its pliosaurid affinity and the plausible sauropod origin of the fragment in my very first response to you and repeatedly did so throughout the discussion, B. kept pointing out every way in which these estimates may be too high, and kept pointing out all the involved assumptions and uncertainties, C. proposed the lowest estimates of all that were made in the relevant thread, after you were the first to advocate mythical 20m+ sizes D. never made any "this is the largest macropredator yet known!!!" posts as you’d expect from a fanboy, or as you do for C. megalodon all the time?
The only published weight estimate is higher than the figure I produced…so where exactly was I enlarging it?
Learn to round correctly. And yes, sort of, though of course not on factual grounds: "As for the 14.1-17.5 m estimate you used, it was notable that you revised the lower estimate by Lambert et al. but you did not touch the upper bound." that is clearly another one of your suggestions of me being biased.
Also: "maybe because someone else than me (coherentsheaf) suggested here that these lower estimates are doubtful" OHHHH, how SUSPICIOUSSSS!!!!!
That means it’s not "my" "14.1-17.5 m estimate". In fact 17.5m is not my estimate at all, even if I had used it recently. I’m differentiating between estimates I made and estimates I only cite, although I think a case could certainly be made that the revision to the lower estimate is more of a formal, statistical issue than a proper new estimate. My estimate (or coherentsheaf’s for the former figure) is 14.2-15.4m. Period. Consider that as fanboyish as you want to, this is lower than the official figures, not higher.
You really don’t even get the irony, do you? I consider arguments based on their scientific value, not based on who made them. Blaze did make a convincing case that the lenght estimate for Zygophyseter may be unreliable. It was in response to that that I used a reportedly (reported by…wait…you!) more complete analogue. It is not my fault what the data suggest, although you sure try to believe that really hard. You already demonstrably failed in attacking that estimate itself, so now instead you are attacking me.
Could you stop lying, please? I definitely did, as you will recall from the figures I requested for blaze’s comparison. And that was even before the doubts about the upper estimate, which led me to "touch" it.
My alledged tendency to present it as such is rather a tendency to present it as defensible. That is factually correct, considering that since the (for now) final version you have been totally unable to criticise the estimate itself on factual grounds. You have to stop this childish behaviour of resorting to name-calling, insults, personal attacks whenever you run out of objective arguments.
I’m not the one who’s taking things as written in stone. But if you have not admitted that by now, you never will.
It is you according to whom 18m, 60-70t for megalodon is "conservative" (not even a need to ask you whether that’s accurate), and if I’m not mistaken you use that term to express that it is probably too low (correct me if I’m wrong, because if that’s so I could actually agree). And it is you who absolutely wants to compare that size figure to the only known Livyatan.
No matter whether you trust the official published (13.5-17.5m) or my (14.2-15.4m) estimates, this Livyatan ends up at least comparable to the average size of adult megalodons, and quite possibly higher. Those are not "wild assumptions" (which rather characterises your insistence on considering the estimates for megalodon to all be underestimates, or your insistence on comparing the largest in a sample of one to the largest in a sample of hundreds), they are facts. It is also a fact that Pimiento & Balk contains the data necessary to demonstrate without much difficulty how improbable it is to find a megalodon larger than the Livatan holotype.
And yet in the light of the uncertainties I have repeatedly proposed that we treat them as equal in size–would a biased fanboy do that? (rhetorical question, your answers no longer surprise me, althougb I sure would love for that to happen some day) You do not need to assume the holotype of the cetacean "necessarilly represented an average-sized animal" for that, even though it is less biased than assuming it to be either above or below it. You don’t, you are making that up because it suits your views. And there’s still a difference between even "above average" and "largest in hundreds"). You are making the assumptions that deviate from the actual data, not me.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 29, 2015 20:43:59 GMT 5
You demonstrated a great energy and anger to contradict my suggestions. And I've not called you a fanboy but possibly biased.
I was, you were suggesting since months Livyatan to be larger, to have a bite as deadly, to be more potent at ramming, to be heavier at the same length... I asked for your clear opinion about the outcome, whatever you were biased or not. The fact you took this personnal while it wasn't started this discussion.
Buchy's thesis was clearly debunking the validity of the popular 25-30 m estimates that you used at the time in your German board. Her explanations to me via email were even more clear that such sizes estimates were absolutely baseless. The statements from other pliosaurs researchers were just as rigorous and convincing.
And yet, you didn't want to accept the evidence.
Frey and Stinnesbeck ? Because I don't want to report the personnal grudges between researchers I've never said the reason, according to Buchy, about why they always reported these inflated sizes figures in the medias. And for the record, the true plesiosaur expert in the team was Buchy, Stinnesbeck is a geologist and Frey and archosaur specialist.
Maybe I'm wrong about you today that you're biased, but at the time you were ABSOLUTELY a biased fanboy unable to question yourself as you ruled unrivaled on your boards, drawing 30 m Aramberri pliosaurs...
No, you strongly implied my "fanboy" attitude in the other discussion last week, but at the end you demonstrated you fanboy attitude with the classic "you want me to say there 20 m megs, well accept that there were 200 tons sauropods !".
The true fanboy wouldn't have even posted an abstract suggesting his favorite beast was going to be downsized. I seriously considered it at first and I even wanted to start a specific thread about sharsk downsizing but creature considered it too similar to the Meg size thread.
It's true you express skepticism toward it. But your energy to not accept that Carcharocles peak size was possibly in excess of 18 m despite strong clues about that and that the upper limit suggested by Gottfried et al. are absolute rubbish just suggests the other trend.
At first it seemed quite possible it was indeed a huge plio element, even some paleontologists were curious about that. I certainly showed enthusiasm toward the possibility of a large baleen whale-sized plio.
A. You were somewhat skeptical, not that much. B. True. C. Well this shows I was enthusiast toward the possibility of a 20 m plio. But here again you contradicted me, possibly with good reasons though. D. Ah, I'm writing this about C. megalodon all the time ? Certainly not, but a number of fanboy researchers write it indeed.
Higher than only one metric ton at 17.5 m. Your point was to made Livyatan shorter but heavier at the same length than Carcharocles, along with your reduction of its regression weight because of the fanboy weights estimates by Gottfried.
I was not criticizing your lower figure of 14.1 m but the fact you showed no no interest into the possible unlikelihood of the upper bound.
And yes you have no problem to accept contradiction to your figures as long as they don't come from me.
I failed to attack which estimate ? Though I was septical about the upper figure, some of my first estimates were even higher than this (based on Brygmo).
Because you really think the shape you made is actually factual ?
Since the methods involded are potentially conservative and that a shark shedding a tooth is theoretically still growing, I don't see the problem while saying that this individual was possibly a bit more than 18 m or that it was slightly larger when it died. Note that I don't even say it reached 19 or 20 m.
I don't see the problem while comparing it with the adult specimen of Livyatan,. The holotype could be average but could be as well a larger adult equivalent to a large meg.
Just like for meg, there are isolated teeth from the odontocete but none really suggest larger individuals than this specimen.
Plus, since we can find megalodons slightly larger than 18 m through other methodology, so I don't see the problem.
So now the Livyatan holotype is factually an average individual ? And the 14 m average size from Pimiento is definitely factual as well ?
The possibility remains valid that Shimada's method or at least a number of calculations from it are conservative. The author himself called it as such.
This just shows how much you don't want understand that the finding of an isolated tooth shed by a shark at a given moment of its life has nothing to do with the actual skull of an animal that was full grown.
This shows as well how much you convinced yourself of your wild assumption of "one specimen= average size".
Since you enlarged the odontocete at near 60 tons and the same size and reduced the current published estimate for Carcharocles from Gottfried, yes.
And the fact to insist to exclude any larger published figures for Carcharocles on the premise that it is not fair for an adult Livyatan is a bias.
The fact you think the Livyatan is necessarilly an average adult while there is nothing to suggest it is a bias.
Largest in hundreds ? Yeah counting neonates, juveniles, subadults and not even accounting the possible size fluctuations due to the method involved.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 29, 2015 21:28:23 GMT 5
And I suppose you did not do the same with mine according to yourself?
You have in the very same post, see below. Whatever you think of me, keep that opinion to yourself, nobody is interested in it.
The fact that since months, years actually, you have not been able to avoid getting personal a single time made me take this personal. And the fact that as long as I don’t agree with you, I’m automatically biased, as you very clearly stated yourself. Well guess what, your opinion doesn’t sound any better. You think C. megalodon is larger, 18m and 60-70t represent conservative (as in "too low") estimates of totally normal sizes for this taxon (normal enough to be comparable to any random individual of another species), generally all published size estimates are probably underestimates and the best weight estimate to use is the highest. Livyatan was most likely around 14-15m at maximum, and any indication of a particularly robust built that is represented by Brygmophyseter is purely illusory, because it "looks strange". Megalodon moreover has a more potent bite and just as potent a ram. Did I forget anything? If I had posted that out of the blue, surely you would not have considered that to be a provocation…
What I did was point out that that 100t megalodon is a very liberal estimate, similar to a 150t Amphicoelias or other gigapod (or a 100t Apatosaurus if you prefer). Because you do get such estimates by using no more liberal assumptions than Gottfried et al. did for their hypothetical upper megalodon (based on nitpicked data which they themselves explicitely wrote were unreliable). That’s a fact, whatever you make of it. You were of course fully welcome to accept that and stick with your statement, nobody would have made any suggestions of bias, and as I wrote I’d agree under those circumstances. Again, regarding your own recent provocation, what answer could I have given you that would not have caused you to call me biased?
And now you will certainly claim that your equivalent energy to defend an estimate that the authors themselves stated to be unreliable, your even greater energy to downsize Livyatan and deny the fact that it, being the only one of its kind, makes it a terrible analogue for the largest in hundreds of megalodons, does by no means make this hypocritical.
And yet, I have accepted the evidence. How does that fit in your ridiculous views? If I was a stupid fanboy back then, at least I have improved. You sure haven’t.
So for the record, we are now actually allowed to call scientists biased and ignore them on the basis of what you perceive are their specialities? Stinnesbeck’s publications are almost all in palaeontology, not geology. No idea where you got the idea from that he’s not a palaeontologist. It’s just that you pretty much have to study geology at some point if you are studying palaeontology, no wonder you didn’t know that though. It’s also not as if you cannot have more than one taxon of expertise (and regarding peoples’ expertise, perhaps you are not as good at judging it than those people are themselves), I know scientists specializing on both sauropods and marine reptiles, others specializing on both sharks and whales, others still whose expertise basically includes all tetrapods.
Note that I am not agreeing with Frey and Stinnesbeck at all, as I explained I have come to consider estimates of maximum size that are not based on real specimens but extrapolations based on growth, guesstimates, overly liberal attempts at hypothesizing an estimate etc. pointless (you apparently don’t though). It’s just that you are once more making ad hominem attacks instead of scientific arguments (and factually wrong ones on top of that).
The very views that I currently hold, the ones that make me focus on normal individuals and not fantasize about the hypothetical maximum sizes of the largest isolated cases or imaginary individuals that grew longer, are my reason for not hypothesizing about those 20m+ pliosaurs any more.
Of course those people you are attacking, unlike me, aren’t here and probably could only laugh about what you have to say. The point remains that you give great weight to expert opinions and are happy to attack everybody who disagrees on the grounds of arguments from authority alone, as long as they fit your agenda (your opinion that megalodon was the biggest predator ever is a beautiful example for this), but have no problem with dismissing them, even on personal grounds, if they don’t.
So was this really necessary?
The statements from other pliosaurs researchers were just as rigorous and convincing. Those were the actual strong evidence that turned up much later, and which I accepted. Yes, when I was 14 I did not immediately swallow what you claimed, because I got the impression that this was an interesting hypothesis but there were at the time no arguments making it more likely than the alternative. And certainly your embarrassing behaviour thereafter did not help. Now there are such arguments, from reliable sources, presented in an objective and professional tone, and which I fully accept. And now I would not speculate on the adult size of that specimen even without them, based on the same reasoning you consider so fanboyish.
Taking into account a broader range of data instead of only focusing on the one that conveniently gives you the highest estimate is certainly terribly biased and the equivalent of calling Gottfried et al. fanboys… While when you question palaeontologists’ expertise or objectivity, nitpick the estimates you like best and ignore everything else, you are the only objective person in the world.
You might wanna rephrase that bolded part.
Well firstly, that is not cited correctly. And how is it me who is the fanboy, after all I’m willing to accept one as much as the other (though I think I was speaking much more broadly, considering Wedel’s actual 150-200t range), unlike you. Also, see above.
A fanboy certainly wouldn’t have expressed any scepticism, according to your own logic. And yes, you are writing it all the time. It’s hard not to find a comment by one of your DA accounts on every other size comparison/drawing/restoration of any kind regarding either of these animals, either "correcting" someone or just plain stating something like "Biggest apex predator of all time!".
I had no reason at all to consider it unlikely. As soon as actual arguments (those advanced by blaze, it’s really strange you always seem to need someone to do those things for you…) were put forth, I did show interest in it and subsequently revised my opinion.
I’d be fine with someone challenging "my figures" no matter who that is, as long as it’s on factual grounds.
That may look like this: "This estimate may be inaccurate because it failed to consider…/these data are not correct (source) etc.." NOT like this: "Oh, you are so arrogant, you even posted that in the profile thread !! I dislike that so much ! You are a such a haughty fanboy !!"
Likewise I myself also criticise opinions, not people. When someone else argues the same stuff you do, I’ll challenge them just as well. It wont get so ugly though, most people seem to have the extraordinary talent of discussing with me without having to need to resort to the same means as you.
And in the end, it’s you who cannot live with my opinion, not the other way around. So much that while discussing a single, independent detail of this confrontation (namely ramming) you had to get back to present your own oversimplified view of mine.
The one you have been calling me a fanboy for since hours (15.4m, 56t–and not my freaking fault that that’s what the data suggest, as much as you want to believe that I did not actively try to get it that high–unlike certain other estimates we have discussed btw). Which in turn is also the reason you’ve been calling me a fanboy, although half the time you do it, and the other half you don’t admit that you did.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 29, 2015 23:28:24 GMT 5
I do not want to argue anything here about the matchup, but want to remark that this escalated when theropod accused grey of malice, while grey was asking if he interpreted theropods opinion right. Be polite and get your tinfoil hat off.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 29, 2015 23:36:34 GMT 5
Matter of fact he didn’t, but since that was also clearly not his intention. But assume he had, you really don’t notice a rhetorical question when you see one?
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 29, 2015 23:45:14 GMT 5
How can you guess his intention? I doubt you are a mentalist. And I cannot see any rhetorical question at that point of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 29, 2015 23:50:40 GMT 5
I’ve been doing this for years, even for me there’s a point when I get enough of it. You are smart to not have read any of our discussions, but that’s certainly not the first time he’s made one of his ingenious little "summaries" of my viewpoint and "asked" whether they are correct. If that had been a genuine question, how come he made clear he had already made up his mind? So what exactly do you figure was the purpose of that "question"? If you were to read this one, it’s quite clearly demonstrated that there wouldn’t have been a single answer I could have given without being called biased. That is except for "No, I now fully agree with you, megalodon is the mother of all predators.".
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 30, 2015 0:04:34 GMT 5
Well, I read the entire discussion. I think that was a simple enquiry and nothing more. I have written with Grey in private and can assure you that his view on anything discussed here is not any kind of monolithic construct. And, to be quite frank, you are no angel, either.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 30, 2015 0:13:52 GMT 5
So then you would agree that this equivalent question is also a simple enquiry? "Did I get this right? You think C. megalodon is larger, 18m and 60-70t represent conservative (as in "too low") estimates of relatively normal sizes for this taxon (normal enough to be comparable to any random individual of another species), generally all published size estimates are probably underestimates and the best weight estimate to use is the highest. Livyatan was most likely around 14-15m at maximum, and any indication of a particularly robust built is purely illusory, because it would "look strange". Megalodon moreover has a more potent bite and just as potent a ram."
And yes, my initial response was certainly a reaction to the fact that in every recent discussion we’ve had he immediately complained about me alledgedly treating him like a fanboy. If you consider that the point where this escalated (though obviously that's an arbitrary choice) then so be it. From previous experience I know with certainty that had I given him an honest answer straight away this would have escalated anyway. But if this makes life easier for you, I won't stand in your way. Not that you cared to give your opinion on any of the ones that weren't.
So you are actually a mentalist then?
No, I’m certainly no angel. If I was I’d be able to just ignore grey. I certainly admit that I have run out of patience in this case, based on my considerable experience. I should have resistedd the uurge to reply at all in the first place. The result once I replied at all however was inevitable, though we may or may not have saved ourselves one inevitable "you are biased" opening-rant in response to any honest answer I could have given and weent straight to the action.
I’m not even claiming I’m not biased, I think we all are, although some more than others. People who think they are totally objective are either not actually people or more likely just deluding themselves. I am trying to keep my personal biases out of science though, and I have certainly not used a biased method in this case.
What I hate is when someone is arrogant enough to consider himself totally bias-free and at the same time spends his time giving his opinions on other peoples’ biases instead of producing an objective argument. The best examples have already been provided here.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 0:14:12 GMT 5
I failed to attack which estimate ? Though I was septical about the upper figure, some of my first estimates were even higher than this (based on Brygmo).
Because you really think the shape you made for Livy is actually factual ?
Since the methods involded are potentially conservative and that a shark shedding a tooth is theoretically still growing, I don't see the problem while saying that this individual was possibly a bit more than 18 m or that it was slightly larger when it died. Note that I don't even say it reached 19 or 20 m.
I don't see the problem while comparing it with the adult specimen of Livyatan,. The holotype could be average but could be as well a larger adult equivalent to a large meg.
Just like for meg, there are isolated teeth from the odontocete but none really suggest larger individuals than this specimen.
Plus, since we can find megalodons slightly larger than 18 m through other methodology, so I don't see the problem.
So now the Livyatan holotype is factually an average individual ? And the 14 m average size from Pimiento is definitely factual as well ?
The possibility remains valid that Shimada's method or at least a number of calculations from it are conservative. The author himself called it as such.
It is also a fact that Pimiento & Balk contains the data necessary to demonstrate without much difficulty how improbable it is to find a megalodon larger than the Livatan holotype.
This just shows how much you don't want understand that the finding of an isolated tooth shed by a shark at a given moment of its life has nothing to do with the actual skull of an animal that was full grown.
This shows as well how much you convinced yourself of your wild assumption of "one specimen= average size".
Since you enlarged the odontocete at near 60 tons and the same size and reduced the current published estimate for Carcharocles from Gottfried, yes.
And the fact to insist to exclude any larger published figures for Carcharocles on the premise that it is not fair for an adult Livyatan is a bias.
The fact you think the Livyatan is necessarilly an average adult while there is nothing to suggest it is a bias.
Largest in hundreds ? Yeah counting neonates, juveniles, subadults and not even accounting the possible size fluctuations due to the method involved.
You first reacted offsensively, making allusions to my so-called fanboyism. I merely wanted to post some reservation about the claim that it is unlikely that a 20 m Carcharocles would weigh 100 tons.
Apparently you are since you provocked that discussion while I just asked your current opinion about the contest. But your paranoid attitude changed that.
You never, NEVER, agree with me despite that what I claim is finally true. I have better things to do to have personnal grudge against you. Hence why I stay calm.
No. I think that a 18 m Carcharocles is a large adult and that the actual Livyatan holotype, which Lambert confirmed as an adult, could have been as well a large individual of its species, in the absence of any clues (larger isolated teeth, relatively young age in the holotype...) suggesting otherwise.
It appears possible but not demonstrated beyond doubts that the current estimates based on vertical measurements in teeth are prone to underestimate because of decoupled scaling (Kent 1999) and because of a stopped growth in the teeth in some large Carcharodon specimens (Gottfried 1996). The 16 m estimate was itself considered conservative and Gottfried recalled the report of even larger teeth. Gottfried said as well that some features in the teeth suggested higher estimates than 16 m.
Given the huge variability, I can leave with a 20 m meg either at 60 or 100 tonnes. I see no reason to reject Gottfried data on this.
Livyatan was 13.5-17.5 m but scrutinity suggests a 14-16 m range. Its body shape may have been robust, probably similar to an equally sized Carcharocles (I've failed to see any description of stem-physeteroids as being extraordinary bulky).
Megalodon bite was probably more voluminous than that of Livyatan but equally potent at the same size, though with different effects on the prey-item (but looking forward Lambert et al. about Livy).
That's my current opinion and I think it is equivalent to the one I suggested coming from you.
With at least one adult at 18 m, and a number of others at 19 m or so using other methodologies, we're much nearer to find evidence for a 20 m megalodon than for 150 tonnes sauropod, a 150 tons weight figure loosing credential every years.
The authors never stated the 20 m estimate to be unreliable, merely hyothetical. The 20 m estimate is based on the alleged 7.1 m great white with 59 mm teeth and the 168 mm tooth. It appears this great white was 6.6 m but there are teeth 173 mm high (Black Hills) and others reported at 180 mm (more on that later).
I've never demonstrated a great energy to downsize Livyatan, I've even suggested some upsizing earlier.
This only Livyatan specimen is a definitive adult so it can be compared to any adult Carcharocles.
Here you don't know what you're talking about. I've discussed both with Stinnesbeck and Buchy.
Stinnesbeck told me he was geologist so not qualified to respond to queries about marine reptiles. Buchy also said privately that he's geologist so has a limited experience with marine reptiles biology.
Guessing about >20 m pliosaurs while the largest complete ones we have from mature individuals that died while being full grown are 12-13 m, 15 m at most. So guessing about 20 m pliosaurs based on this is crap.
However guessing about a 20 m megalodon because we already have a number of specimens reaching 17-18 m through potentially conservative methods and (the fact that each tooth is shed by a shark still growing slowly at the time) is much less crap and hypothetical than a >20 m plio.
Who am I attacking ? I only report what they told me themselves.
I give weight to experts opinions when they're not in minority and that they're backed by the current data>>>the current data suggests Carcharocles reached at least 18 m, while for now Livyatan is somewhere between 14-17.5 m.
I have no agenda, I follow the data and the most likely statement. I don't follow wild assumptions like "the Livyatan holotype was a medium-sized individual, like a 14 m megalodon".
My agend of megalodon as the biggest predator ? If you have evidence for an apex predator bigger and more powerful than a 18 m Carcharocles, then please show me it.
The fact to use the only published data about Carcharocles weight makes me a non-objective fanboy ?
You certainly didn't reject it as absurd at the first glance.
I don't think to call it the biggest apex predator ever everytime and I don't have multiple DA accounts.
In anycase, this is a statement used by a number of researchers as well. So what is wrong with it ?
Blaze found the details of the strange estimate by Bianucci 2006 but I've started the discussion originally, reporting the discussions of my contact with Kimura about Brygmophyseter.
Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 0:16:14 GMT 5
Matter of fact he didn’t, but since that was also clearly not his intention. But assume he had, you really don’t notice a rhetorical question when you see one? I was definitely asking your clear opinion about this, there was no provocation implied. That I consider you biased or not does not change that I didn't want this escalate in this boring argument. You could have said "yes I currently Livyatan the most powerful" we wouldn't be in this annoying discussion which leads nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 0:24:29 GMT 5
That is except for "No, I now fully agree with you, megalodon is the mother of all predators.". Is it me or you really hate that quote ? Which is not mine and has been used several times by the aforementionned researcher.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 30, 2015 0:59:20 GMT 5
The words "estimate" and "reconstruction" mean something very different from "fact", as do "realistic", "likely", or "defensible" compared to "factual. So no, not because of that. Now I wonder how you read what I wrote and understood something like "My estimate is factual". Same problem here, you don’t differentiate between "probable", "objective" and "factual". It could be a smaller adult equivalent to a small meg, why do you not consider that if all that counts is what it could be? There is no such thing as a full grown shark, but that does not mean sharks potentially reach infinite size. Irrespective of that, sharks do not stop shedding teeth beyond a certain size limit. If teeth lost by 18m+ individuals were rare, then so were 18m+ individuals, the growth stage these sharks were at does not figure into that. I did not "enlarge" the odontocete–once again, my estimates are both lower, one slightly, one considerably, than the only published figure. As for "reducing" "the current published estimate for Carcharocles from Gottfried" et al. then I can only repeat what you are suggesting; I am biased because I take into account all studies on the matter and not just one? Ah yes, I was making allusion to your "so-called fanboyism" (Why so-called? Where did I ever call you a fanboy? I have been careful to not do that all my life!) but you weren’t? I do not think it is necessarily an average adult, but I think assuming it was either particularly large or particularly small is what’s biased. You never agree with me either, whether what I claim is finally true or otherwise. You have previously suggested malicious intend in my reasoning, even after I have been proven right. For example You did not agree with my suggestion that 15m+ was not the average size of C. megalodon, but it turned out to be true. You did not agree that Gottfried et al. used the vertical tooth measurement, but it turned out to be true. You told me to "check my eyes" when I remarked that mounted megalodon jaws had a far higher gape angle than the mounted Livyatan, but it turned out to be true (unless GIMP is a fanboy too that is). Calm? In which of those cases did you stay calm? And considering the absence of clues to suggest it is, you still prefer (to the extent were you are calling me a fanboy for not doing it) to compare it to something that is a CONFIRMED, very large adult. And it is a flat-out lie if you claim that I "rejected" Gottfried et al.’s regression. As you recall I used it along with 5 others, all of them serving the exact same purpose, none of them worse for any apparent reasons. You have seen a published figure and a volumetric estimate based on it, suggesting this in Brygmophyseter. You keep dismissing it based on the reasoning that it is "not factual". I did not claim this to be the case in other stem-physeteroids, for which no sufficient data are available. I suggested this, based on published evidence, for this one taxon of stem-physeteroid, which as you will recall, considering its completeness you were the one to suggest to base an estimate on. If better data turns up I will revise my estimate to account for it. You are free to use it, but if you don’t on the grounds that it is not published and "not factual" it is hypocritical to at the same time make your own estimate. Yet i have only seen you compare it to 18m+ Carcharocles, not just any adult Carcharocles but the maximum figure reported in the current literature. If you have evidence of an apex predator in which you have a probability >50% and can therefore expect to find a specimen bigger than the Livyatan holotype, "please show me it". Again, I’m not the one calling you a fanboy. You are the only one who is making such claims. I did use Gottfried et al.’s regression, or is that not true? But it is certainly more objective to ALSO take into account the other regression equations published for exactly the same purpose (estimating great white shark mass from great white shark length) to test the result. Yet you are the one actually suggesting I’m biased because of this. Neither did you. But I did suggest that it may not be a pliosaur immediately. So this is not your comment, despite the fact that that’s a name you have used on Google and Youtube and how it reflects precisely your opinion on the matter? comments.deviantart.com/1/537683194/3854109557In that case, I apologise. And I suppose that guy with whom I had a long stupid discussion here→ because he insisted to make baseless claims about statements, people and estimates being "conservative" isn’t you either then? I don’t care about the statement, you can use it all you want. But you claim it to be fact, and you claim me to be biased because I disagree with you. Well sometimes details are what it takes, not just having initiated the discussion. And you would not subsequently have claimed how biased you thought I was, and we wouldn’t be discussing the exact same thing we are discussing now. Yeah. Sure. Au contraire, the title is really nice. And I know you really like it too. I just find it epithomizes a certain degree of sensationalism, which despite your claims to the contrary has not been applied to Livyatan so far (but then, megalodon had over 100 years more time get publicity). Of course I find the title "father of all predators", just as nice, for Livyatan. I even suggested long ago to let both of them keep their titles.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 30, 2015 1:43:21 GMT 5
Your sentence alluded your reconstruction was factual.
Same here, your sentence suggested a fact of this.
I have never rejected this. You surely reject any possibility of the holotype being a full grown large individual.
One shark lost thousands of teeth in its lifetime and yet maybe only one of those teeth succeeded to be found by us and studied. Because of this, that larger individuals than 18 m may leave us few teeth does not mean they were that rare at the time.
This added to the possibility that the methods involved are somewhat conservative makes the likelihood of finding individuals above 18 m stronger.
Your estimate is much higher at equal length than the one published.
All studies ? There is only study about megalodon weight, you're making your own estimates a status of studies ?
And I think we can compare it to any adult size in Carcharocles.
Given the life stage status are derived from the conservative approach by Gottfried (tooth height measurements) and that Shimada himself considered his results as conservative, I have no problem with the notion that C. megalodon average size could be slightly larger than 14 m. But I certainly can live with.
As for the average size you had predicted, well congratulations.
I've been agreed with you a number of time and often relied on your suggestions and data. But the other situation never has occurred. But I'm a biased amateur, not even a scholar, no wonder you don't consider any of my data or calculations valid. Especially when they don't fit your agenda.
I'm comparing it to any adult size. I've even compared it to the Calvert mount of a medium-sized adult male, or to the "large female" at 16 m from Gottfried et al.
It's been a while that you didn't use Gottfried regression while depicting the potential weight of a megalodon specimen, despite it's the only published one.
I have not made any estimate of my own for Livyatan. I expect it similar to Physeter at the same length. That's obviously the most reasonnable approach.
Previous posts of mine in the thread shows the contrary. But yes using a 18 m meg is just as valid, especially when you reach more easily 18 m sizes with others, potentially more solid methods.
I knew you were going to respond to my question by a question. You're unable to admit what the current data says.
Yes, Livyatan is the biggest holotype of a fossil macropredator ever known. Of course, Carcharocles has no holotype.
Your failed provocations attempt in the Paleontology Project discussion were made to work against a fanboy, luckily I'm not one.
I don't remember to have seen one of your figures to be based on Gottfried regression but on yours.
However, I don't complain against testing the estimates using other regressions. But using the only published one is just as valid.
It's true you were rather reasonnable about the alleged plio.
Yes that's my comment, what's the problem with it ? Yes, Carcharocles is a spectacular predator and the current fossil record shows it quite possibly as the largex top carnivore known. This doesn't prevent me to question this time to time as seen on this board.
Fact ? No but quite the most likely. Your opinion that Livyatan was larger than Carcharoclesautomatically implies that Livyatan reached sizes in excess of 18 m. Which utterly baseless at this point. That's a biased viewpoint IMO.
Sorry I'll try to improve my sills to please you so you can agree with me.
|
|