|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 5, 2008 22:11:14 GMT
Only 4 people were involved in the thread before my rant: Dinotoyforum Piltdown sid Tomhet
Piltdown posted a number of times with increasingly blatant misrepresentations of the news and faulty logic. sid popped in to agree with him. Tomhet celebrated, which I took to mean with Piltdown's assessment, not DTF's point about science correcting itself, but I'm not sure on that one.
I don't know how somebody like crazucrowman, who has helped me explain these concepts before so he obviously understands what he's talking about, could reasonably think I was including him among the morons.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 6, 2008 10:00:00 GMT
I was attempting to be funny, and calm everyone down a few notches by being humorous - Thats why I used the little dinosaur icon thinga-mathinger. "I swear I will never use a figure of speech or hyperbole for emphasis ever again (not really, that last statement was hyperbole, used for emphasis)." I do agree 100% though. I think humor, sarcasm, wit, and everything else is largely lost on here, and people have to try to remember that - what in casual conversation may really make a person chuckle, on the internet it could come off as grating and unplesant. I have friends call me things in jest all the time (crazy, for one!, hence my user name but on the net you can't pick that up. Something meant to be "fun", or just "casual" could be taken wrong/different way then it was meant given usage.
|
|
Red Scorpion
New Member
Hubert Cumberdale, you taste like soot and poo!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Red Scorpion on Aug 14, 2008 5:31:45 GMT
OK first off, dromeosaurs were NOT I repeat NOT birds, related yes, but they were in no way, shape, or form BIRDS!
Second, the whole feathers is completely idiotic, velociraptor - NO FEATHERS, quills at the most. Deionychis - NO FEATHERS, for sure, Utahraptor - definatly no feathers (too big). T-rex - 100% postitive had no feathers! (I don't even think it was a true coluesaur)
Feathers just basiclly takes the most vicious b*****ds from Jurassic Park (raptors), and expands them to a concept that streaches the whole dinosaur family to a whole other (and quite frankly) moroniclevel.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 14, 2008 8:55:14 GMT
"OK first off, dromeosaurs were NOT I repeat NOT birds, related yes, but they were in no way, shape, or form BIRDS!"
Well, I guess that depends on where you draw the distinction of what makes a bird, well, a bird. Read back on some of the posts and you will see what I am talking about.
"Second, the whole feathers is completely idiotic, velociraptor - NO FEATHERS, quills at the most. Deionychis - NO FEATHERS, for sure, Utahraptor - definatly no feathers (too big)."
How can you say that ? The science and fossil record does not back you up those claims. The relatives of those animals were feathered, its a very good chance that they were as well.
"Feathers just basiclly takes the most vicious b*****ds from Jurassic Park (raptors), and expands them to a concept that streaches the whole dinosaur family to a whole other (and quite frankly) moroniclevel"
? I fail to see how science is "moronic".
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 15, 2008 10:12:35 GMT
OK first off, dromeosaurs were NOT I repeat NOT birds, related yes, but they were in no way, shape, or form BIRDS! Second, the whole feathers is completely idiotic, velociraptor - NO FEATHERS, quills at the most. Deionychis - NO FEATHERS, for sure, Utahraptor - definatly no feathers (too big). T-rex - 100% postitive had no feathers! (I don't even think it was a true coluesaur) Feathers just basiclly takes the most vicious b*****ds from Jurassic Park (raptors), and expands them to a concept that streaches the whole dinosaur family to a whole other (and quite frankly) moroniclevel. Gimme an high five,buddy Anyway,what most people seem to forget when speaking about dinosaurs and so on,is the bio-diversity due to the climate and to different evolutionary paths...Assuming that basal Dromies were feathered,why ALL the descendants should be feathered as well? Is it logical to assume that ALL the Raptors across the world were feathered the same,friggin' way? Sorry,but i don't buy it...For what we know,Velociraptor could have been fuzzy,and,at the same time,Deinonychus could have been scaled;i mean...If a coat of fuzz (or feathers) would have been useful in a cold climate,why would have been useful in a desert or a hot environment? Just look at mammals...There are furry ones,naked-skinned ones (just like whales) and a mix of both...Biodiversity is the key,and nowadays most paleontologists seem to forget that
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 15, 2008 14:43:18 GMT
OK first off, dromeosaurs were NOT I repeat NOT birds, related yes, but they were in no way, shape, or form BIRDS! Second, the whole feathers is completely idiotic, velociraptor - NO FEATHERS, quills at the most. Deionychis - NO FEATHERS, for sure, Utahraptor - definatly no feathers (too big). T-rex - 100% postitive had no feathers! (I don't even think it was a true coluesaur) Feathers just basiclly takes the most vicious b*****ds from Jurassic Park (raptors), and expands them to a concept that streaches the whole dinosaur family to a whole other (and quite frankly) moroniclevel. Gimme an high five,buddy Anyway,what most people seem to forget when speaking about dinosaurs and so on,is the bio-diversity due to the climate and to different evolutionary paths...Assuming that basal Dromies were feathered,why ALL the descendants should be feathered as well? Is it logical to assume that ALL the Raptors across the world were feathered the same,friggin' way? Sorry,but i don't buy it...For what we know,Velociraptor could have been fuzzy,and,at the same time,Deinonychus could have been scaled;i mean...If a coat of fuzz (or feathers) would have been useful in a cold climate,why would have been useful in a desert or a hot environment? Just look at mammals...There are furry ones,naked-skinned ones (just like whales) and a mix of both...Biodiversity is the key,and nowadays most paleontologists seem to forget that Yup, no feathered animals in deserts these days, that's for sure. They sure don't insulate (a two-way street, learn physics), they don't act as mating signals, have no effect on brooding, can't work for camouflage, and probably can't do a huge host of other things I am not thinking of off the top of my head. Why are the anti-feather people always so eager to throw it back out there? I realize with my new responsibilities, I have been far more sporadic, but still, this keeps popping up. The same tired rhetoric, illogical arguments, and statements that are basically "I don't like it, so that's a valid enough argument against it". Science doesn't care what you think. Science only reports what it sees, and explains it in a testable framework. If you don't like the feather stuff, do the SEM work, come up with a stronger argument for whatever alternative you come up with (if I hear 'hoax' or 'forgery' I will e-Scream) and get the science community to see why your rational arguments are stronger than those that already exist. Removing the 'badness' of 'raptors by putting feathers on is not an argument. Also, Cassowaries and most birds of prey are pretty awesome creatures--you get in a small cage with a Harpy Eagle and tell me that the feathers make it seem wimpy.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 15, 2008 15:01:05 GMT
Gimme an high five,buddy Anyway,what most people seem to forget when speaking about dinosaurs and so on,is the bio-diversity due to the climate and to different evolutionary paths...Assuming that basal Dromies were feathered,why ALL the descendants should be feathered as well? Is it logical to assume that ALL the Raptors across the world were feathered the same,friggin' way? Sorry,but i don't buy it...For what we know,Velociraptor could have been fuzzy,and,at the same time,Deinonychus could have been scaled;i mean...If a coat of fuzz (or feathers) would have been useful in a cold climate,why would have been useful in a desert or a hot environment? Just look at mammals...There are furry ones,naked-skinned ones (just like whales) and a mix of both...Biodiversity is the key,and nowadays most paleontologists seem to forget that Yup, no feathered animals in deserts these days, that's for sure. They sure don't insulate (a two-way street, learn physics), they don't act as mating signals, have no effect on brooding, can't work for camouflage, and probably can't do a huge host of other things I am not thinking of off the top of my head. Why are the anti-feather people always so eager to throw it back out there? I realize with my new responsibilities, I have been far more sporadic, but still, this keeps popping up. The same tired rhetoric, illogical arguments, and statements that are basically "I don't like it, so that's a valid enough argument against it". Science doesn't care what you think. Science only reports what it sees, and explains it in a testable framework. If you don't like the feather stuff, do the SEM work, come up with a stronger argument for whatever alternative you come up with (if I hear 'hoax' or 'forgery' I will e-Scream) and get the science community to see why your rational arguments are stronger than those that already exist. Removing the 'badness' of 'raptors by putting feathers on is not an argument. Also, Cassowaries and most birds of prey are pretty awesome creatures--you get in a small cage with a Harpy Eagle and tell me that the feathers make it seem wimpy. If they simply admitted that "I don't like it, so that's a valid enough argument against it" we could put a line under this forever. But as I have mentioned before, they want to have their cake and eat it, they use science when it suits them and ignore/deny it when it does not. These people have clearly not taken the oath: " I couldn't care less if Velociraptor is feathered or not. Whats true is true, and my motive is truth"
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 15, 2008 15:14:52 GMT
I am just going to interject here because I LOATHE this faulty argument, and I hear it all the time.... I spend way to much time learning about birds, and unfortunetly, a large number of dinosaur folk who discuss other dinosaurs choose not to. I think that makes understanding feathers, and how the animals that sport them use them, very diffiuclt. I second what both Dinotoyforum and Sbell posted above, and wish to add to that. "If a coat of fuzz (or feathers) would have been useful in a cold climate,why would have been useful in a desert or a hot environment?" If this would indeed be the case, like sbell said, one would think that the mammals and birds that lnhabit the worlds deserts would all be "naked", but - they are not. On the note of mammals, why do Camels have fur ? Javelinas ? Oryx ? Wild Asses ? Roos ? All of these animals live in some of the worlds most extreme hot environments, and all have dense coats. ALSO, just to add to this, a mammals hairy coat, and a birds feathers are very different integuments. Feathers can be raised and lowered by the bird to cool it, and mammals do not have the same abilities. I would suggest learning about how birds deal with desert and hot temps BEFORE making claims like that - books.google.com/books?id=YvmC2sU-LqgCI would also actually take a little time and learn about the desert biozone as well....while hot as a skillet during the day....it can get downright cold, and sometimes even freezing at night depending on location. And, even where it is hot year round, and even hot/warm at night like the tropical rainforest, feathers are quite useful in a that environment as well. Iam not seeing any naked rainforest bird species either.... Usually at this point someone will tell me "but the scales protect them from the sun" - If you stop and take a look at any desert reptiles, besides a very select few, like the sulcata tortoise, and perentie monitor, they are small animals. They have to be. The desert is simply not hospitable to large reptiles. And even for the sulcata tortoise and perentie, have to burrows to escape the scorching temps and sun. Reptiles of the desert simply must burrow underground, or hide until it gets cooler. To sum it up in short, the feathers on an animal like a velociraptor would be an insulator from the heat as well as protection from the cold. They would be a sunshade and be useful for brooding, camo, display - all the things modern birds have feathers for. Ostriches live in some of the hottest places on the planet, and while they show reduced plumage on some parts of their bodies (head/neck and thighs) they are still quite densely feathered. Most other species of rattites are fully feathered. I do not have the article at hand, but in reading about corvids, and their black plumage regarding overheating and the desert environments the often occupy, there were findings that the birds actually suffered very little from the heat absorption because of the structure of those feathers. "Just look at mammals...There are furry ones,naked-skinned ones (just like whales) and a mix of both... There are, for the record, hairs on whales. Fetal cetaceans have hairy snouts and youngsters have whiskers that generally fall out before their first year, and the adults of some species have specialized hairs as well. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080507-pygmy-whale.htmlElephants - lots of hairs, young ones can be especially "fluffy" We are as hairy as our closest primate relatives, the other great apes. Our hair is simply finer and shorter. Biodiversity is the key,and nowadays most paleontologists seem to forget that" No, they don't - Not at all. Zip. Moot. "Biodiversity" has nothing to due with the structures on an animals hide due to its lineage. If anything todays paleontologists are more then ever recognizing how diverse the prehistoric ecosystems were.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 15, 2008 17:07:33 GMT
Ha! E-Scream!
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 15, 2008 17:09:34 GMT
E-screams, U-scream, we all scream for I-scream.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 15, 2008 17:25:22 GMT
I am just going to interject here because I LOATHE this faulty argument, and I hear it all the time.... I spend way to much time learning about birds, and unfortunetly, a large number of dinosaur folk who discuss other dinosaurs choose not to. I think that makes understanding feathers, and how the animals that sport them use them, very diffiuclt. I second what both Dinotoyforum and Sbell posted above, and wish to add to that. "If a coat of fuzz (or feathers) would have been useful in a cold climate,why would have been useful in a desert or a hot environment?" If this would indeed be the case, like sbell said, one would think that the mammals and birds that lnhabit the worlds deserts would all be "naked", but - they are not. On the note of mammals, why do Camels have fur ? Javelinas ? Oryx ? Wild Asses ? Roos ? All of these animals live in some of the worlds most extreme hot environments, and all have dense coats. ALSO, just to add to this, a mammals hairy coat, and a birds feathers are very different integuments. Feathers can be raised and lowered by the bird to cool it, and mammals do not have the same abilities. I would suggest learning about how birds deal with desert and hot temps BEFORE making claims like that - books.google.com/books?id=YvmC2sU-LqgCI would also actually take a little time and learn about the desert biozone as well....while hot as a skillet during the day....it can get downright cold, and sometimes even freezing at night depending on location. And, even where it is hot year round, and even hot/warm at night like the tropical rainforest, feathers are quite useful in a that environment as well. Iam not seeing any naked rainforest bird species either.... Usually at this point someone will tell me "but the scales protect them from the sun" - If you stop and take a look at any desert reptiles, besides a very select few, like the sulcata tortoise, and perentie monitor, they are small animals. They have to be. The desert is simply not hospitable to large reptiles. And even for the sulcata tortoise and perentie, have to burrows to escape the scorching temps and sun. Reptiles of the desert simply must burrow underground, or hide until it gets cooler. To sum it up in short, the feathers on an animal like a velociraptor would be an insulator from the heat as well as protection from the cold. They would be a sunshade and be useful for brooding, camo, display - all the things modern birds have feathers for. Ostriches live in some of the hottest places on the planet, and while they show reduced plumage on some parts of their bodies (head/neck and thighs) they are still quite densely feathered. Most other species of rattites are fully feathered. I do not have the article at hand, but in reading about corvids, and their black plumage regarding overheating and the desert environments the often occupy, there were findings that the birds actually suffered very little from the heat absorption because of the structure of those feathers. "Just look at mammals...There are furry ones,naked-skinned ones (just like whales) and a mix of both... There are, for the record, hairs on whales. Fetal cetaceans have hairy snouts and youngsters have whiskers that generally fall out before their first year, and the adults of some species have specialized hairs as well. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080507-pygmy-whale.htmlElephants - lots of hairs, young ones can be especially "fluffy" We are as hairy as our closest primate relatives, the other great apes. Our hair is simply finer and shorter. Biodiversity is the key,and nowadays most paleontologists seem to forget that" No, they don't - Not at all. Zip. Moot. "Biodiversity" has nothing to due with the structures on an animals hide due to its lineage. If anything todays paleontologists are more then ever recognizing how diverse the prehistoric ecosystems were. Hear Hear! This comes from someone who (clearly) knows far more about birds and feathering than I ever intend to.
|
|