|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 7, 2010 9:40:18 GMT
Those poor cheating farmers knew enough about paleontology to fool Phil Currie and Xu Xing  Of course they couldn't get past Storrs Olson, because as an ornithologist he had more real scientific training than the establishment cladistic paleontologists Poor Storrs Olson. How mistaken he was as a denialist of the growing evidence on dinosaur-bird connections: "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith"Do you know if he has recanted yet? |
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Sept 7, 2010 10:51:50 GMT
Under optimum conditions feathers do fossilise as do scales and soft material. Yeah they do. I should've said "most of the time".....doyyyy. Oh well. Slap on the wrist for me, that was a stupid thing to say. Think I was on something. By the way, feathers on certain Chinese dinosaurs hold up at microscopic level! ;D And yer, feathered dinosaurs have been found by international palaeontolgists. If anything, the far-too-bald maniraptorans that we keep seeing are the 'popular' view. Lol, no slaps from me, I assumed you'd been at the laughing juice  Some do seem to hold up judging by some protein analysis I've seen somewhere about the place. Problem is, the world is awash with Chinese 'faux' fossils which have been created for generations as curios .................. they do some great dragon fossils! The skills to create such things are there and of course Ebay is crawling with 'marks' to buy these things when they're passed off as genuine ;D No, I don't think bald maniraptorans are exactly the popular view. It's just a different take on the evidence at hand. I'm quite happy to accept feathered, proto feathered or quilled fossil material as it surfaces. Just not blanket added to animals that are related in some way when the actual evidence for that particular species isn't there. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 7, 2010 11:13:14 GMT
Just not blanket added to animals that are related in some way when the actual evidence for that particular species isn't there. Very few fossil mammals show "preserved" fur. But nobody complains when people depict hairy Smilodons, Plesiadapis, Hyracotherium... Why? There is scientific indirect evidence for fur on those animals, and there is similar indirect evidence of feathery covering for maniraptoran dinosaur species whose fossils don't show integument. It's just that we are all used to see furry mammals, but it's hard to some people to get used to feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs yet. |
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Sept 7, 2010 11:55:27 GMT
Very few fossil mammals show "preserved" fur. But nobody complains when people depict hairy Smilodons, Plesiadapis, Hyracotherium... Why? There is scientific indirect evidence for fur on those animals, and there is similar indirect evidence of feathery covering for maniraptoran dinosaur species whose fossils don't show integument. It's just that we are all used to see furry mammals, but it's hard to some people to get used to feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs yet. Skepticism with respect to the appearance of extinct animal forms is always warranted to some extent, but less so with more recent mammal genera than with older nonavian dinosaurs. One of the reasons we all love dinos so much is that they're so alien to our normal experience of the animal world: there isn't any extant reptile group that quite matches the nonavian dinosaur families, and so our inferences about them have to be drawn from other taxa. On the other hand, we do have plenty of direct experience with mammals, and so inferences that we draw about animals within the class Mammalia are going to be somewhat more secure, if still fallible. Because of evolution, we can make sounder inferences about the integument of extinct mammals even though there's more paleontological evidence for dinosaur feathers (as far as I can remember off the top of my head, at least). Put it this way: if I give you a picture of me and ask you to draw a mental image of my sister and my great-grandfather's cousin, the former image will likely be closer to the truth than will the latter, even if both are bound to be strictly wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 7, 2010 12:34:49 GMT
One of the reasons we all love dinos so much is that they're so alien to our normal experience of the animal world (...) I understand your argument, but it relies on the notion that dinosaurs are somewhat "misterious". And dinosaur are not "alien" nowadays, thanks to huge scientific research during the last decades. We know A LOT about them. What's more, the dinosaurs in question ( Oviraptor, etc.) are closely related to extant animals we have plenty of direct, "normal" experience with: the birds. Your argument would apply better on dinosaurs like the ceratopians or the hadrosaurids... |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 7, 2010 20:59:13 GMT
No, I don't think bald maniraptorans are exactly the popular view. It's just a different take on the evidence at hand. I'm quite happy to accept feathered, proto feathered or quilled fossil material as it surfaces. Just not blanket added to animals that are related in some way when the actual evidence for that particular species isn't there. I'm not going to accept that certain species didn't have feathers when there is no evidence otherwise, especially considering that their closest relatives had them. Seriously, there is no evidence that any oviraptor had scales...or dromaeosaur for that matter. There is evidence for feathers, so aren't you basically accepting evidence that isn't there? Or perhaps bald dinosaurs are more popular after all. |
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Sept 7, 2010 21:25:53 GMT
I understand your argument, but it relies on the notion that dinosaurs are somewhat "misterious". And dinosaur are not "alien" nowadays, thanks to huge scientific research during the last decades. We know A LOT about them. What's more, the dinosaurs in question ( Oviraptor, etc.) are closely related to extant animals we have plenty of direct, "normal" experience with: the birds. Your argument would apply better on dinosaurs like the ceratopians or the hadrosaurids... I just have to beg to differ. Paleontologists have collected a great deal of fossil information in the past few decades and biologists have learned a lot more about biomechanics in that time, but to say that the inferences we've drawn about dinosaurs as a result qualify as knowledge is just unscientific. Nonavian dinosaurs have to be mysterious simply because there aren't any around to observe or measure and their closest relatives have had a lot of time to diverge along their own evolutionary path. Modern birds have been evolving separately from their common ancestor with other Maniraptorans for 150 million years--that's a heck of a lot of time for small variations to accumulate! We infer what we can about nonavian dinosaurs from birds and other relatively close extant analogues because it's the best we can do, but such inductive reasoning has its limits. Equus and Hyracotherium shared an ancestor 60 million years ago; by comparison, Casuarius is separated from its common ancestor with Oviraptor by more than twice that temporal distance. All else being equal, if you had to put money down on Hyracotherium having hair or Oviraptor having feathers, which bet would you most rationally place first? I'm not saying that there isn't good evidence for nonavian dinosaurs having feathers; it's just that if you're relying on taxonomy alone, there's a greater degree of certainty in drawing conclusions about early mammals, which was the initial question. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 7, 2010 22:27:53 GMT
Caudipteryx had feathers, mind you, and that was a more primitive oviraptorosaur.
*Runs for the hills*
|
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Sept 8, 2010 2:20:52 GMT
Caudipteryx had feathers, mind you, and that was a more primitive oviraptorosaur. *Runs for the hills* By parity of reasoning, that would mean that we should conclude that humans are covered in fur since Orrorin was likely fur-covered. Like I said, I'm not denying that it's reasonable to infer that Oviraptor, Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Troodon, et al had feathery integument. It really is, and many (though not all) of those who deny it demand too high a skeptical standard to permit most otherwise valid paleontological inferences. All I'm doing is answering the question that was posed a few posts back: that is, why is there so much controversy over feathered dinosaurs when there's comparatively little outcry over restoring early mammals with fur despite the lack of direct evidence in the latter case. That answer is that (1) inferring the appearance of one taxon from the appearance of another taxon is always fallible and so requires some degree of uncertainty; and so (2) there's less controversy over imagining early mammals covered in fur because there ought to be relatively less uncertainty. Never mind me, really. I'm just excited about teaching my Philosophy of Science lectures this week. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 8, 2010 7:05:17 GMT
By parity of reasoning, that would mean that we should conclude that humans are covered in fur since Orrorin was likely fur-covered. It's the other way round. We know humans are not furry, we don't know how furry was Orrorin, but we would feel comfortable with furry Orrorin depictions because a) hair is the default for mammals and for Primates, and b) we have reasons to think that hair was lost at a later "point" in human evolution. I know, I know that was not your point... The controversy is perhaps in some internet fan forums There is not a scientific controversy about this issue. We all agree on that, I think. There is always the possibility that some taxon lose its covering for an unknown reason. And there is always the possibility that our scientific knowledge is wrong. OK  |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 8, 2010 8:56:52 GMT
but to say that the inferences we've drawn about dinosaurs as a result qualify as knowledge is just unscientific It's scientific knowledge, yes, with its limitations, open to corrections. Not "dogmatic", of course. OK. But you appear to make a big separation between non avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs, non avian being "mysterious". The "mystery" should be a matter of degree. We didn't observe any "living" Hesperornis or Concornis (avian), but you probably consider them less "mysterious" than Caudipteryx (non avian, initially considered as avian), and Caudipteryx less "mysterious" than Stegosaurus, wich is a *#€$~ monster :-) Keep in mind that many birds of modern aspect and classification (like Vegavis) were already living in the Late Cretaceous. To be fair, you should compare Oviraptor with an ancient "non mysterious" bird. Bah, that's a lot of million years anyway. Forget it :-) I don't know... but I would probably decide after considering the size and the environment of the animals to estimate the probability of hair or feather losing. Hyracotherium was a bit smaller in weight, and lived in woodlands. Oviraptor in an arid environment ? I think I would put some money on a partially naked, partially feathered Oviraptor. Ok, your point is good, and I think you are right in a big part. But I'm not considering just taxonomy. I'm considering phylogeny, evolution, parsimony. Occam's razor... I think the distance between taxons or the "mystery" is not very relevant here. What is really relevant is the scientific evidence about what is the primitive, "default" feature in each case: fur in mammals, a feather covering in Maniraptora. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Sept 8, 2010 9:12:09 GMT
It's wonderful to see the dinosaur feather topic discussed in a polite manner on the forum for a change, many of our newer members may not remember the 'dinobird wars' from times gone by. But I think it is a significant derailment from the original thread topic here. I ask that the discussion (if continued) is moved to a new thread, on the proviso that the discussion remains cordial. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Sept 8, 2010 9:29:40 GMT
No, I don't think bald maniraptorans are exactly the popular view. It's just a different take on the evidence at hand. I'm quite happy to accept feathered, proto feathered or quilled fossil material as it surfaces. Just not blanket added to animals that are related in some way when the actual evidence for that particular species isn't there. I'm not going to accept that certain species didn't have feathers when there is no evidence otherwise, especially considering that their closest relatives had them. Seriously, there is no evidence that any oviraptor had scales...or dromaeosaur for that matter. There is evidence for feathers, so aren't you basically accepting evidence that isn't there? Or perhaps bald dinosaurs are more popular after all. It remains a matter of preference. There doesn't appear to be any physical evidence that this species, Oviraptor, was feathered or scaled. Therefore there are no evidential grounds for saying that one representation with feathers is more accurate than one with scales. I've trawled for the evidence and literally what it comes down to is that Oviraptor is very similar to something else and therefore was likely feathered. That's not scientific fact based on physical evidence it's scientific theory alone and certainly wouldn't win a case in a court of law. Believe me, If the actual evidence were there I'd happily go for the feathered representation however as things stand I personally prefer the unfeathered |
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Sept 8, 2010 9:39:07 GMT
It's wonderful to see the dinosaur feather topic discussed in a polite manner on the forum for a change, many of our newer members may not remember the 'dinobird wars' from times gone by. But I think it is a significant derailment from the original thread topic here. I ask that the discussion (if continued) is moved to a new thread, on the proviso that the discussion remains cordial. Thanks! Apologies, I think our posts crossed. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Sept 8, 2010 10:47:45 GMT
It remains a matter of preference. There doesn't appear to be any physical evidence that this species, Oviraptor, was feathered or scaled. Therefore there are no evidential grounds for saying that one representation with feathers is more accurate than one with scales. There is also no physical evidence that Smilodon was furry or scaled or feathered, or covered with long spikes, or multicolor tentacles. Therefore there are no evidential grounds for saying that one representation is more accurate than the others. So let's draw a tentacled Smilodon  |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Sept 8, 2010 12:45:41 GMT
It remains a matter of preference. There doesn't appear to be any physical evidence that this species, Oviraptor, was feathered or scaled. Therefore there are no evidential grounds for saying that one representation with feathers is more accurate than one with scales. There is also no physical evidence that Smilodon was furry or scaled or feathered, or covered with long spikes, or multicolor tentacles. Therefore there are no evidential grounds for saying that one representation is more accurate than the others. So let's draw a tentacled Smilodon Quoted from above: "It's wonderful to see the dinosaur feather topic discussed in a polite manner on the forum for a change, many of our newer members may not remember the 'dinobird wars' from times gone by. But I think it is a significant derailment from the original thread topic here. I ask that the discussion (if continued) is moved to a new thread, on the proviso that the discussion remains cordial. Thanks!" |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Sept 8, 2010 17:44:22 GMT
It's wonderful to see the dinosaur feather topic discussed in a polite manner on the forum for a change... Hear, hear. |
|
|
|
Post by eris on Sept 8, 2010 18:05:00 GMT
It's wonderful to see the dinosaur feather topic discussed in a polite manner on the forum for a change, many of our newer members may not remember the 'dinobird wars' from times gone by. Nice to know my contributions to the early development of DTF were so appreciated |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Sept 8, 2010 18:40:58 GMT
Piltdown, this post is in breach of forum rule 2. "Respect designated topic areas", and was posted after my direct request above for members to stay on topic. As such I've temporarily disabled your account for 7 days. Thank you for your understanding.
- Admin
|
|
|
|
Post by terrorchicken on Sept 8, 2010 18:58:01 GMT
Im new to the forum (& to interacting with the dino fig collector crowd), & I had no idea the feathered dino thing was such A BIG DEAL!  moving on to the OT, I hope Shleich or Bullyand try their hand at an oviraptor some day. Maybe they will try one if Papo's & Collect A's sell well. |
|
Of course they couldn't get past Storrs Olson, because as an ornithologist he had more real scientific training than the establishment cladistic paleontologists 
