|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 30, 2008 8:46:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 9:02:17 GMT
Thought so. I knew it was impossible organic tyrannosaur tissue would survive 70 million years. But Mary Schweitzer and her team are in denial. They even state the collagen 'biofilm' samples cluster with chicken, when an independent attempt to verify the biofilm showed the proteins were actually classed with newts. Let's see how far though this self-correction is broadcast through the bird-dino loving mainstream media.
I suppose we shouldn't rely then on her analysis of the sex of the rex. (Long ago Feduccia had already dismissed it as preposterous, but the bird-dino people still clung to it)
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 9:02:52 GMT
At least Dr Admin has made a bad day good with this news ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 9:10:10 GMT
I remember Schweitzer and Horner (no surprise Horner was involved in such dubious 'science') waxing rhapsodic about the presence of remains of t. rex blood vessels in the 'organic tyrannosaur tissues'. Seems like their imagination got the best of their scientific objectivity  And checking google only 23 news outlets so far have reported this find. The announcement of the discovery of the purported 'tyrannosaurus proteins' [sic] on the other hand made headlines and news in hundreds of newspapers and other media worldwide. Schweizter even claimed to find an unique tyrannosaur protein at that time The disparity in coverage is obvious and unsurprising. |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 9:13:31 GMT
And this is not even the blistering attack that Pavel Pevsner of UC San Diego was promising  I remember Mary Schweitzer being lionised and canonized in the popular science magazines. Perhaps she should have spent her time doing research instead of granting interviews |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 30, 2008 9:27:16 GMT
Good! Good! Release your anger! Only your hatred can destroy me!
I agree it's a problem with the media.
I hope this convinces you that the scientific community is more critical of its peers than you have previously given them credit for.
The main problems with science are ego and subjectivity (Schweitzer is putting the horse before the cart in her argument in the story). All else can be resolved and revised.
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 9:41:12 GMT
If I recall correctly, they publicized the discovery of the t-rex "organic tissue" first before any papers were written on them, or even tests for that matter.
Alas, this seems pretty common when it comes to dinosaur studies & the media: it's like the recent discovery of the edmontosaurus named Dakota, which was featured in two books and a National Geographic cable special without even a single paper being written. NG has learnt apparently absolutely nothing from its archaeoraptor debacle.
I agree more peer reviews and criticism are called for. I suggest the reviewers of dinosaur papers come from other disciplines (herpetology, ornithology, molecular and evolutionary biology) for more objectivity.
|
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Jul 30, 2008 10:39:58 GMT
Thought so. I knew it was impossible organic tyrannosaur tissue would survive 70 million years. But Mary Schweitzer and her team are in denial. They even state the collagen 'biofilm' samples cluster with chicken, when an independent attempt to verify the biofilm showed the proteins were actually classed with newts. Let's see how far though this self-correction is broadcast through the bird-dino loving mainstream media. So wait, I thought you said you don't like feathered dinos for aesthetic reasons. Now you don't think they're related to birds at all? Do you agree with Feduccia that dromaeosaurs are not dinosaurs, but flightless birds with superficial similarity to theropods? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 30, 2008 12:37:13 GMT
No more fuzzy tyrant,
No more Chickensaurus Rex...
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 19:14:46 GMT
No more fuzzy tyrant, No more Chickensaurus Rex... ;D Thank goodness indeed  ;D Now if only somebody could write a study that the alleged "fuzz" found on Dilong was merely fraying collagen fibers from the dilong's skin, then there would be absolutely no proof [sic] tyrannosaurs had feathers |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 19:23:47 GMT
I am still amused at the thought of Horner, Schweitzer and company giving interviews saying they had found tyrannosaur blood vessels ;D ROFL They are just like those faith-based people who see religious icons on slices of toast or on dirty glass sliding doors ;D If they can't distinguish between blood vessels and slime, even with electron microscopes and batteries of tests . . . We should be extremely grateful that museum curators did not follow their advice to slice through their dinosaur specimens looking for "dinosaur proteins"  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 30, 2008 21:19:30 GMT
I am still amused at the thought of Horner, Schweitzer and company giving interviews saying they had found tyrannosaur blood vessels ;D ROFL They are just like those faith-based people who see religious icons on slices of toast or on dirty glass sliding doors ;D If they can't distinguish between blood vessels and slime, even with electron microscopes and batteries of tests . . . We should be extremely grateful that museum curators did not follow their advice to slice through their dinosaur specimens looking for "dinosaur proteins" Indeed! ;D Let's hope that good news won't stop here...Just imagine what an EPIC day would be if what you said about Dilong would turn to be true  ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 21:48:38 GMT
Heh-heh, they carbon-dated similar "dinosaur organic tissue" and found that it was formed around 1960 ;D Yes, there were dinosaurs in the days of Eisenhower! Perhaps indeed Horner will next say he has found proof sauropods were on Noah's Ark after all! ;D
Hmm, perhaps they should also carbon date the feathers of microraptor and the fuzz on beipaiosaurus. I'm sure we will find they were fossilized at around, say, 1995 +- 5 years ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 30, 2008 21:53:10 GMT
I'd like to thank Dinotoyforum though for posting this, he has restored my faith in dinosaurs He has probably saved most of the rest of my dinosaur collection from being sold off Not to mention the great entertainment value of watching the bird-dino people writhe in horror and howl in denial (sorry, I'm into Schadenfreude) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 30, 2008 22:13:44 GMT
you love dinosaurs again! hoozaa!
And all it took was a single study whose conclusions fit with what you believe through faith already.
But don't get too excited - they only 'may' be scum ;D
They should definitely date the Lioaning soft tissue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 30, 2008 22:38:05 GMT
They should definitely date the Lioaning soft tissue. Yeah,they definitely would do it! ;D By the way,why they haven't done it yet?? Fear of the (scaly) truth,maybe?  |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 30, 2008 22:45:14 GMT
They should definitely date the Lioaning soft tissue. Yeah,they definitely would do it! ;D By the way,why they haven't done it yet?? Fear of the (scaly) truth,maybe? i don't know that they haven't. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jul 30, 2008 22:47:50 GMT
Yeah,they definitely would do it! ;D By the way,why they haven't done it yet?? Fear of the (scaly) truth,maybe? i don't know that they haven't. ...but it is certainly not fear. It's usually a lack of money, time, resources, and/or curatorial policy. |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jul 31, 2008 8:52:55 GMT
And all it took was a single study whose conclusions fit with what you believe through faith already. But don't get too excited - they only 'may' be scum ;D They should definitely date the Lioaning soft tissue. Faith, or rather intuition, is merely logic equipped with a hyperspace ring for faster processing of information. ;D As it is said, faith can move mountains; and the mountains have paid a courtesy visit to Mahomet. And to continue the mountain imagery, Schweitzer, Asara et al had tried to make a mountain out of a molehill, but created only sludge ;D About the Liaoningsaurs--I was reading tonight the original description formally erecting beipiaosaurus into a genus. What I found was a mishmash of irresponsible speculation, chicanery, and bad science all around. In one paragraph they talk of finding "filamentous structures", then suddenly they discourse about feathers, flight, and the presence of filaments in much of the theropoda. This, by the way, without studying the 'filaments.' No electron microscope, no X-ray, no radioactive dating (carbon dating is probably more appropriate for a Liaoningsaur ;D ), no analysis, nothing. They only present a handful of photos and posit a 'similarity' to the filaments on Sinosauropteryx. One minute, filaments; the next, feathers. And even granting per arguendo that the 'filaments' are really protofeathers, it is a very long way from 50 mm structures on its arms to this, now on display in the AMNH courtesy of Mark Norell:  I have "filamentous structures" on my arms and legs too. Funny, I don't think I have feathers  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 31, 2008 16:10:35 GMT
Totally agree with you,Piltdown...There is almost an OCEAN between saying "filaments" and sayin' "feathers"!
But you know how some scientists are,nowadays..."Fortune and glory" is all they seek and to hell good science... ;D
|
|
;D ;D
;D