|
Post by tomhet on Apr 21, 2008 16:00:14 GMT
'Your thing', that sounds kind of dirty ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 16:03:13 GMT
ha - for some reason I am reminded of this quote:
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true" - Homer Simpson.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 16:05:23 GMT
'Your thing', that sounds kind of dirty ;D Urg - Bad Tomhet! Bad!
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 21, 2008 16:23:06 GMT
But if great swinging flabby globules of rubbery red flesh is your thing, that's fine Actually, rereading this sentence now, it does sound charged with sexual tension ;D Enough! this is a family forum! Seriously though - these animals are Uuuuuuuuuugly! Why Luis Rey chose such an monstrous, unlikely, species-specific morphological feature, from a distantly related species separated by 100 million years or so, is beyond me
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 21, 2008 17:17:19 GMT
ha - for some reason I am reminded of this quote: "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true" - Homer Simpson. That pretty much sums up most anti-dinosaur feather arguments!!
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Apr 21, 2008 19:08:17 GMT
Seriously though - these animals are Uuuuuuuuuugly! Why Luis Rey chose such an monstrous, unlikely, species-specific morphological feature, from a distantly related species separated by 100 million years or so, is beyond me *Reports dinotoyforum to the Society for the Prevention of Defamation of Domesticated Fowl* ;D [j/k] It's true though, Luis Rey's proto-feathered maniraptorans have more avian features (like feathers) than his portrayals of birds proper.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 21, 2008 23:39:59 GMT
reinforcements arrived!! ^^ I will reply all of your posts later Mr. admin and Sbell because there's a lot to read and I have to leave.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 22, 2008 0:17:12 GMT
reinforcements arrived!! ^^ I will reply all of your posts later Mr. admin and Sbell because there's a lot to read and I have to leave. There's a thin line between Reinforcements and Cannon Fodder.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Apr 22, 2008 0:27:05 GMT
*Avoids the glowering Mr Dr. Admin* ;D
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Apr 22, 2008 2:28:02 GMT
So I'm still a little confused...Piltdown, do you really not think any species of dinosaur ever had feathers, or is this just some sort of running joke between you and dinotoyforum? I mean, it'd be like somebody saying they don't believe that Carnotaurus had those rows of bony bumps along its back simply because they interfere with how this person pictures the animal in life, even though there is fossilized evidence.
Now, something that does make Carnotaurus different from the case of feathered dinosaurs is that we have known about these ossicles for as long as we've known of the dinosaur since they were discovered with the holotype specimen, and as such every (accurate) reconstruction of Carnotaurus features them, so people have accepted this as part of the animal's anatomy. I think things would be different if we had no fossilized Carnotaurus skin until recently.
The point I'm trying to make is that it sounds completely ridiculous to try and deny the overwhelming evidence which suggests that, indeed, there were certain genera of dinosaurs which sported feathers of some sort, simply because it is a matter of aesthetics for you. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Now, when I was ten years old I had problems with this idea of feathery Deinonychus and other maniraptorans, but I was young and ignorant then and these days it makes perfect evolutionary sense to me. Even if we had no evidence of feathered dinosaurs, I would still expect that certain species did.
Part of being a dinosaur enthusiast, at least in my opinion, is keeping up with new discoveries and letting my image of how I think these animals behaved and what they looked like change with time. There's no sense in being stubborn about it.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Apr 23, 2008 2:46:35 GMT
Well, I for one don't like feathered dinosaurs, I hate their appearance, but that's not why I don't believe in them. The Chinese dinosaurs could have been feathered (I really don't know, personally I think they're spurious but that's just me) but there shouldn't be feathered representations of other non-Chinese dinosaurs until we actually find the freaking feathers. We just don't have proof.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 23, 2008 3:24:28 GMT
Well, I for one don't like feathered dinosaurs, I hate their appearance, but that's not why I don't believe in them. The Chinese dinosaurs could have been feathered (I really don't know, personally I think they're spurious but that's just me) but there shouldn't be feathered representations of other non-Chinese dinosaurs until we actually find the freaking feathers. We just don't have proof. Tomhet, I am finally hearing sense from the anti-feather side! I agree with you totally here on one major point: I don't think that a species should necessarily be portrayed with feathers if there has not been evidence of feathers in the fossils (for example, with the small feather points on Velociraptor arms, I guess they are fair game. And those are not strictly "Chinese" fossils). On the other hand, I don't necessarily mind the appearance, if it is done tastefully, and within certain reasonable parameters. The Safari Dilong (toob and large version) are an example of figures with subtle feathering that I think enhances the figures--sort of a covering like non-flying avian dinosaurs (moas spring to mind, or kiwis) . The new Bullyland Velociraptor is an abomination--a few holes in the fossil arms indicating guard feathers should not result in a weird vulture-lizard hybrid; and I will stop after mentioning his name again, because that's all that is required-Luis Rey.
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Apr 23, 2008 3:57:52 GMT
Yes, now there I do agree with you, tomhet. Reconstructions of larger theropods with feathers are ridiculous, especially since from an evolutionary standpoint, they almost certainly did NOT have plumage because an animal the size of an Allosaurus would not need insulation to maintain its body temperature, for the same reason why elephants are mostly hairless.
However, I think it is perfectly within reason to assume that most, if not all of the smaller maniraptorans had some sort of plumage, even if there is no current paleontological evidence. Since they are all so closely related, it wouldn't make much since for some to have feathers and others to be featherless.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 23, 2008 8:45:14 GMT
... but there shouldn't be feathered representations of other non-Chinese dinosaurs until we actually find the freaking feathers. We just don't have proof. Far be it for me to know what is going on in anyone elses mind, and very presumptive and possible quite patronising as I may now sound, I continue, and apologise in advance.... While this is justifiable reasoning to a degree, I suspect that this is post hoc rationalisation for a decision already made on aesthetic and emotional grounds. I especially think this is the case for nearly all of the arguments put forward by Piltdown, who rejects the concept of feathered dinosaurs - full stop. If this argument (i.e. only objective physical fossil evidence please) is true and honest, it must be applied consistently. For example, there is no such evidence for a dorsal fin in Shonisaurus. I hear no stubborn knee-jerk reaction in this case, on the contrary, this is one of your favorites is it not Tomhet? So, why draw lines in the sand at different distances for different clades? Either there is objective proof or there is not. The fact that the argument is indeed being applied inconsistently, seems to indicates that you are trying to justify decisions you have already made. Discuss ;D
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Apr 23, 2008 11:00:01 GMT
While this is justifiable reasoning to a degree, I suspect that this is post hoc rationalisation for a decision already made on aesthetic and emotional grounds. I especially think this is the case for nearly all of the arguments put forward by Piltdown, who rejects the concept of feathered dinosaurs - full stop. Discuss ;D Actually, contrary to what most people on this site and others believe, I used to believe in feathered dinosaurs. I read Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies and Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World when they were first released, and there are drawings of feathered dinosaurs galore. In some of my earlier eBay listings I even described tyrannosaurs as congregating in 'flocks', thereby underscoring the avian relations of the theropods. It is when I began analysing the purported evidence--the 'findings' of 'farmers' in Liaoning, which somehow became even more and more brazen even as Mark Norell and Luis Chiappe went ga-ga and proclaimed the issue settled. Not even the archaeoraptor fiasco has deterred anybody. (It is not commonly mentioned by most people that the original fossil of the alleged four feathered horror Microraptor gui was found even by its original authors to have been tampered with to make it look more vendable.) I am not approaching this as a scientist--most of you are palaeontologists and biologists, and I'd be foolish to counter the argument on that ground, given that I can only with very great difficulty identify the bones in a human, let alone a brachiosaurus. But common sense and a certain skepticism--how all the findings were 'found' by 'farmers' in Liaoning ONLY, and that the German Juravenator, which by all the laws of cladistics should have been supposedly as feathered as a chicken, was instead scaly (and the weaselly excuses for Juravanator's featherlessness don't pass Occam' s razor)-- this would be cause for reasonable doubt, not scientific proof or certainty, or should have been. With that, I'm done. Should people choose to believe the 'proof' of alleged 'fuzz' (and how did purported impressions of 'fuzz' lead directly to paintings of flight feathers for many of these alleged feathered "dinos"?) there is nothing I can do or say that will make them change their mind. I don't believe in being au courant with all of the advances in science--I believe in being right period. And since many of the theories advanced by the former avant-garde like Bakker and Padian (like live-bearing brontosaurs and running biped pterosaurs and mass diarrhea as the cause of the death of the dinosaurs) have been disproven, the day will come too when this feathered dinosaur hypothesis is either disproven, or reinforced by additional finds elsewhere. *Prepares to sleep the repose of the blessed*
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 23, 2008 11:39:45 GMT
Repose of the blessed? But this truck has no breaks! agggg! "Should people choose to believe the 'proof' of alleged 'fuzz' there is nothing I can do or say that will make them change their mind" Indeed, at present there is nothing you can do or say to demonstrate that you are right, thats why my mind will not be changed at present . It's not because 'believers' are fundamentalist dogmatists, perhaps this was your implication. This is wrong, speaking for myself at least. I believe (misuse of the word in my opinion, 'accept' is more accurate" ) that some dinosaurs had feathers, yet I will happily change my mind in the light of additional evidence. I already HAVE changed my mind following discussions with you on dinosaur 'fuzz', I now recognize this as a debatable area. Anyway, your sentence seems to contradict this later one: "the day will come too when this feathered dinosaur nonsense is either disproven, or reinforced by additional finds elsewhere" Again, this latter sentence seems to betray an a priori belief; should not your statement have read: "the day will come too when this feathered dinosaur issue is either disproven, or reinforced by additional finds elsewhere" How can it be nonsense if the jury is out? ;D EDIT - I wanted to add a note about your slight self-deprecation - "I am not approaching this as a scientist--most of you are palaeontologists and biologists, and I'd be foolish to counter the argument on that ground" Not at all - one's qualifications/ background have no bearing on the strength/weakness of their arguments, which are always self contained, and I would hate to think that you may repress any arguments on this basis. If you have a point, you have a point. Moreover, it often does help to think outside the box
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 23, 2008 13:05:12 GMT
While this is justifiable reasoning to a degree, I suspect that this is post hoc rationalisation for a decision already made on aesthetic and emotional grounds. I especially think this is the case for nearly all of the arguments put forward by Piltdown, who rejects the concept of feathered dinosaurs - full stop. Discuss ;D Actually, contrary to what most people on this site and others believe, I used to believe in feathered dinosaurs. I read Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies and Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World when they were first released, and there are drawings of feathered dinosaurs galore. In some of my earlier eBay listings I even described tyrannosaurs as congregating in 'flocks', thereby underscoring the avian relations of the theropods. It is when I began analysing the purported evidence--the 'findings' of 'farmers' in Liaoning, which somehow became even more and more brazen even as Mark Norell and Luis Chiappe went ga-ga and proclaimed the issue settled. Not even the archaeoraptor fiasco has deterred anybody. (It is not commonly mentioned by most people that the original fossil of the alleged four feathered horror Microraptor gui was found even by its original authors to have been tampered with to make it look more vendable.) I am not approaching this as a scientist--most of you are palaeontologists and biologists, and I'd be foolish to counter the argument on that ground, given that I can only with very great difficulty identify the bones in a human, let alone a brachiosaurus. But common sense and a certain skepticism--how all the findings were 'found' by 'farmers' in Liaoning ONLY, and that the German Juravenator, which by all the laws of cladistics should have been supposedly as feathered as a chicken, was instead scaly (and the weaselly excuses for Juravanator's featherlessness don't pass Occam' s razor)-- this would be cause for reasonable doubt, not scientific proof or certainty, or should have been. With that, I'm done. Should people choose to believe the 'proof' of alleged 'fuzz' (and how did purported impressions of 'fuzz' lead directly to paintings of flight feathers for many of these alleged feathered "dinos"?) there is nothing I can do or say that will make them change their mind. I don't believe in being au courant with all of the advances in science--I believe in being right period. And since many of the theories advanced by the former avant-garde like Bakker and Padian (like live-bearing brontosaurs and running biped pterosaurs and mass diarrhea as the cause of the death of the dinosaurs) have been disproven, the day will come too when this feathered dinosaur hypothesis is either disproven, or reinforced by additional finds elsewhere. *Prepares to sleep the repose of the blessed* A couple quick points: 1--Pointing out the rarity of Liaonang as 'proof' is like claiming that the rarity of Burgess or Solenhoffe means we cannot begin to accept that Pikaia appears to have a notochord-like structure or Archaeopteryx had feathers (or that they birds of Liaonang don't have feathers). They are amazing and surprising locales specifically because of the rarity of those localities. That they occur where they do is a freak of geopolitics, not nature. 2-Tampering is not uncommon; people who find fossils (especially those who wish to sell them) frequently, in all kinds of places, will 'improve' the fossils, to the chagrin of all involved (where do you think the dino name "Irritator" came from?). And it is the scientists who study these with a practiced eye that can discern this 'help'. Archaeoraptor is an unfortunate example of what happens when the popular press gets hold of something--it was 'published' in National Geographic specifically because the official publications were slowed up by questions of legitimacy (but NG had a deadline, so onward they went!). And besides, it isn't hard to figure out evidence of tampering--there is this field called 'archaeology' that has gotten very good at determining human-made marks on surfaces--including scratch marks on stone. Turns out, if those farmers are faking things, they are doing it without metal tools, and with out leaving marks typical of human manipulation. Which is more likely--fossilized feathers, or expert carvers that can fool electron microscopes? After all, who noticed that Microraptor was tampered with? People who were checking if there was tampering before immediately making their statements (again, Archaeoraptor gave them all a push to be more careful to avoid just this problem) And for the record, I have met Chinese researchers--they are just as honest and motivated as anyone else (your opinion of that statement will be tempered by your perception of humanity, I suppose). In fact, they often feel, or at least felt (it's been a while) that they had something to prove, and so tend to be even more vigilant. 3- Belief is outright non-scientific (as alluded to previously). No good scientist ever 'believes' anything--they may accept or disagree with current conclusions that were reached from analyses of the current data, but the mind is always open if convincing new evidence comes along one way or the other; or if an interpretation is made that better suits the evidence at hand (side note--this is a favourite Creationist tactic, that 'evolution' is a belief system. No it isn't, it is merely the best scientific theory we have to explain biodiversity RIGHT NOW). That said, there is plenty you can do to 'change minds'--fund research, or do it yourself, to provide evidence that every single feather imprint is faked, or a remnant of taphonomy. Or provide a different evolutionary route for the evolution of birds, then find fossil evidence of this separate route. Okay, I think I'm done for now.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 23, 2008 14:33:01 GMT
Sbell - high five! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 23, 2008 14:56:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 23, 2008 15:25:25 GMT
lol!
|
|