|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 23:56:54 GMT
Again, do you own research. You come whining like a baby then accuse me of acting like a child? If I can access those papers so can you.
Perhaps Luis Alvarez is right--vertebrate paleontology is nothing more than stamp collecting. But that is unfair-- I used to collect stamps, and we certainly had higher standards of proof.
People would be amazed by what even paleobotanists and geologists and invertebrate paleontologsits think of dinosaurology. I didn't understand their contempt, but reading several "fuzzy dino" papers I can easily see why.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 17, 2008 0:01:06 GMT
By the way, I did condescend to respond to you on archaeopteryx. You come in here and complain yet don't bother to read my response! Very typical dinosaurology.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 17, 2008 0:06:48 GMT
So piltdown.. why did you come back? (as a serious question, not trying to insult or anything like that)
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 17, 2008 0:19:37 GMT
Seriously? I left at first because all this "fuzzy dino" talk was causing me serious health problems (and I'm not exaggerating, I have a blood pressure monitor here to prove it), but some people have gotten the impression that I am sulking in a corner nursing my wounds and cuddling my Papo raptor in defeat. Well, my pride is to me far more important than my physical well-being ;D
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 17, 2008 0:27:23 GMT
Seriously? I left at first because all this "fuzzy dino" talk was causing me serious health problems (and I'm not exaggerating, I have a blood pressure monitor here to prove it), but some people have gotten the impression that I am sulking in a corner nursing my wounds and cuddling my Papo raptor in defeat. Well, my pride is to me far more important than my physical well-being ;D Oh okay In a way, I am glad you came back (You really spice p things and make things less boring), but in a way, I don't like it, because you bash many paleontologists mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 17, 2008 0:35:06 GMT
Ok Piltdown, here's the problem I have with you. Everytime you come in here, you always beat the already bloodied horse on how Archaeoraptor and the t.rex soft tissue are nonsense and how those two incidents can somehow discredit the stack of evidence supporting the dinosaur-bird hypothesis. It's true, Archaeoraptor was clearly a fabrication and, while the rex tissue is looking pretty debunked these days, I believe it to be honest scientific trial and error. The media always plays a large part in blowing scientific evidence out of proportion, so I do not believe the scientists are entirely to blame here. I almost forgot--you're just like a politician, always blaming 'the media' for the inaccuracies of their own research. Was it the fault of the New York Times that Mary Schweizter rambled endlessly about t-rex proteins before actually doing the study and sending the samples to other labs to replicate the results? Was it the media's fault that Xu Xing and Phil Currie held a press conference about archaeoraptor? Did National Geographic point a gun at their heads? Whose fault was it that dilong was paraded before the media by an exultant Mark Norell as an 'unquestionable' tyrannosaurid, with feathers to boot, only to have that claim recanted a mere three years later in a cladogram about Mahakala? Where was his press con taking back the claim then, eh? No, it is obvious that publicity means more to dinosaurologists (and I use dinosaurologists to distinguish them from members of other branches of geology and paleontology who, unlike Paul Sereno, don't inform the media every time they sneeze) than their professional standards. This is not opinion, this is FACT.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 17, 2008 0:36:42 GMT
Seriously? I left at first because all this "fuzzy dino" talk was causing me serious health problems (and I'm not exaggerating, I have a blood pressure monitor here to prove it), but some people have gotten the impression that I am sulking in a corner nursing my wounds and cuddling my Papo raptor in defeat. Well, my pride is to me far more important than my physical well-being ;D Oh okay In a way, I am glad you came back (You really spice p things and make things less boring), but in a way, I don't like it, because you bash many paleontologists mistakes. Unfortunately I can't help their mistakes The solution is for paleontologists to do their work properly I don't make anything up, I call them as I see them and read them in their own words and papers
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Oct 18, 2008 11:00:04 GMT
out archaeoraptor? Did National Geographic point a gun at their heads? Whose fault was it that dilong was paraded before the media by an exultant Mark Norell as an 'unquestionable' tyrannosaurid, with feathers to boot, only to have that claim recanted a mere three years later in a cladogram about Mahakala? Where was his press con taking back the claim then, eh? I think the problem here is in your total lack of understanding regarding how the process works. Norell's cladogram showed it was a tyrannosaur. One cladogram, the Mahakala one, subsequently showed it was close to tyrannosaurs but not technically a member. Subsequent cladograms have again found it to be a tyrannosaur. The opinion of the experts right now, based on a very recent DML thread I can't be $%@#ed to go dig up, is that "we don't know for sure, but probably a tyrannosaur." Try to keep up with the state of the science if you're gonna make stupid claims, huh? Maybe you should try reading papers less than a year old, aside from the ones we mention here like Mahakala. Seriously, do you even subscribe to the DML? Or DinoForum? If not, I'd love to know how you know what new papers are out and what they say. Or does your Uni subscribe to every paleo journal and you reside at the library 24/7? Or do you get your Dino news from the NYT and NatGeo, which as you well know are 90% total bullnuts when it comes to science?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 18, 2008 19:17:45 GMT
Why? Do you mean to say that what dinosaurologists say to each other is different from what they tell National Geographic and NYT? Is not that called misleading the public? Oh, and I do read papers less than a year old. I even read the velociraptor ulna paper just last night. What a ridiculous piece of garbage it is Are you saying then that all the old research is wrong, and only the papers that are new are correct? Is the date on the journal cover now the ultimate test of accuracy? How scientific! Why bother doing actual analysis then, if you can just publish nonsense as recently as possible! Have it ever occurred to you that perhaps the new research may be--horrors!-- wrong? It does confirm my suspicions though the paleos are more interested in being au courant than being right. And I've read some of the DML threads. They are nonsensical, especially when it comes to dino birds, and why should I bother reading them then? I'm willing to bet that poor dilong will be shuffled from one cladogram to another just to accommodate the whimsies of the paleo making the cladogram. ONLY in dinosaurology does major reclassification of the entire animal kingdom happen every time they discover a rib, so I suspect it says more about the inherent folly of cladistics as practiced by dinosaurologists than science. Then again, science has been not a characteristic of dinosaurology for years.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 18, 2008 19:20:26 GMT
And why should I take the musings and speculations on DML seriously? Is it a scientific journal now? Any d**ned fool can make a cladogram apparently, choosing whichever characteristics he or she finds relevant. The smart ones will avoid even looking at them
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 18, 2008 21:52:46 GMT
Hey Piltdown,glad to see you back here But enough talkin' about fuzzy critters,paleontologists' mistakes and such...I mean,we were talkin' about the new (and wackier) theories about Pterosaurs,and how they used their wings ONLY for display... ...Just kiddin' ;D Anyway,chill out everybody (especially you,Piltdown,and Thag),there's no need to get angry,understood?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 18, 2008 23:20:35 GMT
hehe wings only for display
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 18, 2008 23:27:37 GMT
;D You mean their wings aren't for flying there only there for like sexual display or something. Wouldn't a head crest be easier? ;D
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 19, 2008 0:35:51 GMT
;D You mean their wings aren't for flying there only there for like sexual display or something. Wouldn't a head crest be easier? ;D Indeed ;D And what would happen to those large pterosaurs with both large crests and wide wingspans like pteranodon? ;D All these features for only sexual display--why, perhaps they can propose a new theory for pterosaur extinction--they disappeared because they thought too much about sex and courtship display! ;D Those immoral flirtatious flying reptiles! ;D
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Oct 19, 2008 7:39:05 GMT
Why? Do you mean to say that what dinosaurologists say to each other is different from what they tell National Geographic and NYT? Is not that called misleading the public? No, I'm saying what Nat Geo and the NYT tell the public is different from what dinosaurologists tell the NYT and NatGeo, because the people who write papers and magazines don't know what they're talking about, simplify and dumb things down to the point where they misrepresent basic facts. Read any DML post about a news story and you'd know this. The people interviewed complain 100% of the time that their research was mis-represented, or they were quoted out of context and appear to make a point they didn't mean. This is especially true of TV shows like JFC or WWD. It might be. Then you need to read even NEWER papers to find that out. The paper debunking the trex protein thing is newer than the one saying it was actual protein. Are you saying the older one is more accurate after all? So you're saying you can't understand what's being said?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 19, 2008 8:45:00 GMT
Why? Do you mean to say that what dinosaurologists say to each other is different from what they tell National Geographic and NYT? Is not that called misleading the public? No, I'm saying what Nat Geo and the NYT tell the public is different from what dinosaurologists tell the NYT and NatGeo, because the people who write papers and magazines don't know what they're talking about, simplify and dumb things down to the point where they misrepresent basic facts. Read any DML post about a news story and you'd know this. The people interviewed complain 100% of the time that their research was mis-represented, or they were quoted out of context and appear to make a point they didn't mean. This is especially true of TV shows like JFC or WWD. It might be. Then you need to read even NEWER papers to find that out. The paper debunking the trex protein thing is newer than the one saying it was actual protein. Are you saying the older one is more accurate after all? So you're saying you can't understand what's being said? I do understand, which is why I know what is being written about dino birds by paleontologists is utterly nonsensical, even farcical. And precisely why is chatter on a mailing list considered 'scientific' 'evidence' that I should be mindful of? I guess there's no need of peer review when it comes to "feathered dinosaurs" [sic], or flightless pterosaurs [sic]! Or perhaps the 'peers' are just as clueless? Oh and stop blaming the media. Almost all of the misinterpretations and false generalizations in the news articles are perpetuated by the paleos themselves. Like John Asara talking about how t-rex tastes like chicken when talking about the t-rex 'proteins'. Did the media invent that? And if they are so distrustful of the media, why do they keep consenting to give interviews then, or appear in documentaries? What I'm saying is that any study or proposition should be based on its MERITS, not the date it was accepted for publication by a scientific journal. Surely you are deliberately misunderstanding my point, as you accuse the media of doing?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 19, 2008 17:20:20 GMT
;D You mean their wings aren't for flying there only there for like sexual display or something. Wouldn't a head crest be easier? ;D Indeed ;D And what would happen to those large pterosaurs with both large crests and wide wingspans like pteranodon? ;D All these features for only sexual display--why, perhaps they can propose a new theory for pterosaur extinction--they disappeared because they thought too much about sex and courtship display! ;D Those immoral flirtatious flying reptiles! ;D ;D ;D ;D (enters a generic paleontologist) "Mmh...I wonder why i haven't thought about it yet..." ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 20, 2008 1:06:59 GMT
;D While it may be that the article didn't directly talk about pterosaurs, it did state that birds greater then 88 pounds wouldn't be able to flap their wings fast enough to fly. However Argentavis, an actual bird, weighed somewhere between 140 to 180 pounds. So do you believe it couldn't fly. Also when Scientist appear in documentarys and give opinions do you think National Geographic or whoever is taking their remarks out of context? I don't think so!
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 20, 2008 6:53:24 GMT
Indeed ;D And what would happen to those large pterosaurs with both large crests and wide wingspans like pteranodon? ;D All these features for only sexual display--why, perhaps they can propose a new theory for pterosaur extinction--they disappeared because they thought too much about sex and courtship display! ;D Those immoral flirtatious flying reptiles! ;D ;D ;D ;D (enters a generic paleontologist) "Mmh...I wonder why i haven't thought about it yet..." ;D ;D ;D *Imagines mother quetzalcoatlus telling her children, "Boys, don't "enjoy yourselves" too much or you'll go blind, suffer from beak wear, or be unable to fly!"* ;D
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 20, 2008 11:55:48 GMT
;D ;D ;D (enters a generic paleontologist) "Mmh...I wonder why i haven't thought about it yet..." ;D ;D ;D *Imagines mother quetzalcoatlus telling her children, "Boys, don't "enjoy yourselves" too much or you'll go blind, suffer from beak wear, or be unable to fly!"* ;D That was good ;D ;D ;D
|
|