|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 0:35:43 GMT
I was discussing the denouncing of feathered dinos (specifically microraptor) by select members of this fora. the thread is for "Archeoraptor"
Archeoraptor was being discussed in general. Here are some of the facts. Archeoraptor was a composite animal of 2 separate parts (2 legitimate animals) slapped together and thought (at least by some, possibly even the person who sold it to the other) as authentic. The gun was jumped, and the "animal"/s given a name and was beginning to be described. Subsequent peer review quickly identified that the creature was a composite of 2 animal. The 2 specimens are scientifically important in their own right.
What amazes me is why no one doubts the authenticity of say, Apatasaurus because initially parts of it were composite. The head similar to a Camarasaur was slapped on making the fabled "Brontosaurus" for such a long time.
Creationists/anti dino/bird people like to use archeoraptor to say "see this was a fake" and from there, deduce that all feathered dinosaurs, by default, must also be fakes.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 2:43:00 GMT
1. The 'farmer' and the dinosaur dealer in China knew very well that their specimen was a 'composite' (a polite term for fake I guess). The Czerkases seemed sincerely convinced of its authenticity, which leaves the various palaeontologists and National Geographic, who should have known better. Of course now that archaeoraptor has been exposed they now conveniently recall that they informed Stephen Czerkas and/or National Geographic of the anomalies. Czerkas naturally doesn't remember such doubts being expressed. I doubt they were, given the potential for the spotlight for co-authorizing the study of the 'missing link' [sic].
2. Archaeoraptor was never peer reviewed or independently inspected till several months after its publication in National Geographic and its subsequent exposure as a hoax. In fact, the original scientific paper was rejected by Nature, whose editor deserves some credit for refusing to be bullied by the publishing deadlines set by NG and rejecting the paper precisely because there was no time for peer review.
3. Let me emphasize that Archaeoraptor would now still be regarded as a genuine fossil were it not for the very loud denunciations of Storrs Olson and company, who are constantly being disparaged by the dino-bird palaeontologists, presumably because they are right and the dino-bird paleos always turn out to be wrong. Were it not for Storrs Olson's stinging letter to National Geographic lambasting the entire archaeoraptor episode -- and this before Xu Xing finally discovered irrefutable proof of the fraudulence of archaeoraptor --the dinosaurological community would still be clinging to the authenticity of Archaeoraptor.
4. That the two specimens are regarded as scientifically important in their own right--well, where I come from it's a consuelo de bobo (tomhet and richard should know what I mean). If it helps dinosaurologists sleep better at night about their role in this mess, fine, but it doesn't fool me.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 25, 2008 3:10:41 GMT
And lest anyone think that NG and dinosaurology has learnt anything from the archaeoraptor episode, take Dakota the 'mummified' edmontosaurus. Books and videos have been released about the specimen (the video is by National Geographic, surprise ), but not a single scientific paper. Perhaps their conclusions are valid, but scientific protocol has been suspended yet again for a sensationalistic media campaign. This happens all the time. Just look at C-Rex. People don't know how to wait for the paper. Don't believe anything until you see it in print, then scrutinize it more. I've seen people trotting out some very spurious claims made by that dino mummy show with zero science behind it.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 3:14:59 GMT
Today at 20:06, thagomizer wrote: Well, then why did Currie and Xu Xing agree to co-author the article erecting archaeoraptor, if they were so plagued by doubt in the first place?
Becuase somebody has to like, study it and find out if it's really fake or not? Would you rather them say "well I have a hunch it's fake, so let's just throw the d**n thing in the trash."
Since when is Czerkas a non-scientist? Sloppy scientist, maybe... But you could say the same of Bakker.So it's all right to co-author a scientific paper knowing full well that there is a problem with the specimen (or at least that's what they are saying now)? Or is it publish and press conference first, examine and study later? And speaking of Bakker I don't trust his opinions, but since he wasn't directly involved in archaeoraptor I didn't mention him.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 3:18:56 GMT
And lest anyone think that NG and dinosaurology has learnt anything from the archaeoraptor episode, take Dakota the 'mummified' edmontosaurus. Books and videos have been released about the specimen (the video is by National Geographic, surprise ), but not a single scientific paper. Perhaps their conclusions are valid, but scientific protocol has been suspended yet again for a sensationalistic media campaign. This happens all the time. Just look at C-Rex. People don't know how to wait for the paper. Don't believe anything until you see it in print, then scrutinize it more. I've seen people trotting out some very spurious claims made by that dino mummy show with zero science behind it. Unfortunately the people who don't wait for the paper are usually the paleontologists themselves. Had Mary Schweitzer actually sent her samples of "proteins" out for study before she was interviewed for Discover magazine, the organic tissue flap would never have occurred. Phil Manning is in for it when he publishes his CT-scan findings on edmontosaurus. But that's all right, his book is already in the stores anyway.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 25, 2008 3:22:17 GMT
1. The 'farmer' and the dinosaur dealer in China knew very well that their specimen was a 'composite' (a polite term for fake I guess). He said the person the Czerkas' bought it from. They didn't buy it in China, it had been smuggled out. They bought it at the gem and mineral show in Arizona. Who knows how many hands it passed through till that point. Why should National Geographic know better? They're not paleontologists, they're reporters and photographers. Maybe not. What does it matter? The composite was found out one way or the other. It's happened before even in stuff that was published. Microraptor gui had the end of it's snout "faked" on. This is part of the official description, so it was discovered. Casts of the specimen leave the fake part off. Let's be clear: Nat Geo does not publish anything, any more than Prehistoric Times does. It was reported by Nat Geo, not published, which means something different.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 3:26:16 GMT
*Sigh* "composite' (a polite term for fake I guess)." Composite - A term for a specimen constructed of more then one specimens material. Some composite fossils are the same species, (like those Mosasaur jaws) Others, like in the case of Archeoraptor, were 2 legit specimens of 2 different animal put together. "Fake" indicates artificial construction. The specimens were not constructed, no matter how much you wish it to be the case. "Let me emphasize that Archaeoraptor would now still be regarded as a genuine fossil were it not for the very loud denunciations of Storrs Olson and company, who are constantly being disparaged by the dino-bird palaeontologists, presumably because they are right and the dino-bird paleos always turn out to be wrong." Wow, your faulty logic bus just hit a moose. Thats all I am going to follow that one up with. So, because some people missed it, others who are dino/bird paleontologists would have all missed it ? Wow. "That the two specimens are regarded as scientifically important in their own right--well, where I come from it's a consuelo de bobo (tomhet and richard should know what I mean). If it helps dinosaurologists sleep better at night about their role in this mess, fine, but it doesn't fool me." "Fool" you ? Seriously....What have you say about Apatosaurus ? According to what you are saying here, it should also not be valid because initially, as "Brontosaurus" it turned out to be a composite ? Are you going to provide links to those papers I asked about ? I am interested in reading them.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 3:36:12 GMT
1. Yes, National Geographic isn't a scientific journal, but should they independently verify the claims made in its pages? They should not be exempt from journalistic standards either. NG admitted that their error stems from the fact that they implicitly trusted Currie without checking his claims.
2. The fact that the Czerkases knowingly bought the specimen when its export from China was illegal should say something about the ethics of dinosaurology as practiced today.
3. The counterslab was discovered only after Storrs Olson et al denounced the findings. Had Xu Xing not discovered it, according to the official investigation made by NG, even today it would be considered a genuine specimen.
My point is not whether or not archaeoraptor, or microraptor, or whatever is feathered, or whether edmontosaurus had a large tail, or whether the t-rex bones are genuine--it's that somehow when it comes to dinosaurs common sense and skepticism fly right out the window, not to mention the scientific method. Had proper protocol been observed in archaeoraptor the entire mess could have easily been avoided. But NG has learnt nothing, as shown by its Dinosaurs Unearthed DVD, where wild claims were being made without any evidence to go on. (Manning was actually looking for bird proteins in the toenails of the edmontosaurus. Should we be surprised he found none?)
If somehow somebody examines the sinosauropteryx 'proto-feathers' and determines them to be such, fine. But the study of Lingham Soliar shows they were not protofeathers but flaying collagen. Until such time as the issue is settled by an independent third party Bakker, Horner and company shouldn't go around saying that birds are dinosaurs, or dinosaurs are birds, or that studying ducks gives us insight into brontosaurus, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 3:42:16 GMT
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: "A new Chinese specimen indicates that 'protofeathers' in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres." Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, Alan Feduccia, and Xiaolin Wang.
Proc. R. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0352
To no one's surprise, the only riposte from Kevin Padian was that why does the PRSB publish such stuff. Very scientific refutation, eh?
I have a lot more where that came from, but anyone here can Google as well as I can.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 3:50:59 GMT
*Sigh* "composite' (a polite term for fake I guess)." Composite - A term for a specimen constructed of more then one specimens material. Some composite fossils are the same species, (like those Mosasaur jaws) Others, like in the case of Archeoraptor, were 2 legit specimens of 2 different animal put together. "Fake" indicates artificial construction. The specimens were not constructed, no matter how much you wish it to be the case. "Let me emphasize that Archaeoraptor would now still be regarded as a genuine fossil were it not for the very loud denunciations of Storrs Olson and company, who are constantly being disparaged by the dino-bird palaeontologists, presumably because they are right and the dino-bird paleos always turn out to be wrong." Wow, your faulty logic bus just hit a moose. Thats all I am going to follow that one up with. So, because some people missed it, others who are dino/bird paleontologists would have all missed it ? Wow. "That the two specimens are regarded as scientifically important in their own right--well, where I come from it's a consuelo de bobo (tomhet and richard should know what I mean). If it helps dinosaurologists sleep better at night about their role in this mess, fine, but it doesn't fool me." "Fool" you ? Seriously....What have you say about Apatosaurus ? According to what you are saying here, it should also not be valid because initially, as "Brontosaurus" it turned out to be a composite ? Are you going to provide links to those papers I asked about ? I am interested in reading them. So archaeoraptor was not 'constructed'? Pieces from two different species were yoked together to produce one fake fossil, and this practice is being defended as par for the course? If this is not enough to indict paleontology as practiced in the 21st century, I don't know what will. Frankly in no other discipline can one say that well, much of this fossil is fake, but we'll formally describe it anyway. You can't even get away with such folly in mainstream, non-scientific publishing anymore. (Ask James Frey.) And read the article in NG admitting to its culpability. It states quite clearly that it was the group of people who do not believe the dino-bird theory who exposed the fraud in the SVP and in writing too. Where were Paul Sereno? Jack Horner? Angela Milner? Robert Bakker? Holtz? Brett-Surman? It was Storrs Olson who called NG on this fraud, not the mainstream dinosaurological community.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 25, 2008 3:53:44 GMT
2. The fact that the Czerkases knowingly bought the specimen when its export from China was illegal should say something about the ethics of dinosaurology as practiced today. No, it should say something about the ethics of the Czerkases. There are many paleontologists who refuse to publish on illegal specimens, unless they are repatriated first. How much petrol did you have to use in your Delorean to figure that out? You think nobody else would ever look at that specimen again capable of identifying the fact that it was a composite? I mentioned the composite nature of the Microraptor gui snout--this was discovered using a simple UV test. There's no such thing as bad publicity A number of lines of evidence disagree with this. But I agree the case here isn't as solid as it is for maniraptorans. That's where the evidence leads us. If Microraptor is a bird, why is it so convergent with theropod dinosaurs? Nobody has proposed any hypothesis to explain this, so it's not science. If birds evolved from non-dinosaurs, where are the transitional forms? No evidence of any. If "protofeathers" are collagen, why do only theropods have them, and why do things that are clearly birds like confuciousornis have the exact same structures? You, Olson, etc. have never answered any of these questions. So while we may be wrong, you guys are not doing a very good job of showing how. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 25, 2008 3:55:38 GMT
And read the article in NG admitting to its culpability. It states quite clearly that it was the group of people who do not believe the dino-bird theory who exposed the fraud in the SVP and in writing too. Where were Paul Sereno? Jack Horner? Angela Milner? Robert Bakker? Holtz? Brett-Surman? Busy with their own projects? Is it the job of the " mainstream community" (i.e. the celebrities) to police National geographic and peer-review every paper that comes along?
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 4:12:30 GMT
Thag covered alot of what I was going to....and in less words...
As far as sinosauropteryx and "proving" feathers on "dinosaurs", Dilong paradoxus with its filamentous protofeathers could make the argument for feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs alone. What about Caudipteryx ? Actually, Archeoperyx could do the same thing. Really...you are grasping at straws. Oh, no, they have found feathered dinosaurs! crap...uhh. They are fakes. Oh no, they have proven legit ? Uh...oh thats it, they aren't dinosaurs, those are just birds. Dinosaurs remain featherless on those speedy baselines.
You do not seem to be only attempting to discount sinosauropteryx as legit. You keep making claims that ALL of the feathered specimens are fakes, oh, wait, just the ones from china! Why not Archeopteryx ?
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 4:25:25 GMT
"So archaeoraptor was not 'constructed'? Pieces from two different species were yoked together to produce one fake fossil, and this practice is being defended as par for the course? If this is not enough to indict paleontology as practiced in the 21st century, I don't know what will."
They were "yoked together" to make one faulty specimen that was a composite of 2 real specimens. That faulty specimen was then improperly described, and the people who attempted to describe it were sloppy. The 2 specimens being artificially combined did not invalidate them being specimens of other organisms.
"Frankly in no other discipline can one say that well, much of this fossil is fake, but we'll formally describe it anyway."
Much of it was not a FAKE. It is 2 separate real specimens. No plaster, no carving. Just glue. The specimens were MISREPRESENTED as a species it was not. It happens alot in paleontology....sometimes in zoology. It was discovered this was the case, and the 2 specimens were properly described. I am still waiting for why this is any different then brontosaurus/apatosaurus...
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 4:39:11 GMT
2. The fact that the Czerkases knowingly bought the specimen when its export from China was illegal should say something about the ethics of dinosaurology as practiced today. No, it should say something about the ethics of the Czerkases. There are many paleontologists who refuse to publish on illegal specimens, unless they are repatriated first. How much petrol did you have to use in your Delorean to figure that out? You think nobody else would ever look at that specimen again capable of identifying the fact that it was a composite? I mentioned the composite nature of the Microraptor gui snout--this was discovered using a simple UV test. There's no such thing as bad publicity A number of lines of evidence disagree with this. But I agree the case here isn't as solid as it is for maniraptorans. That's where the evidence leads us. If Microraptor is a bird, why is it so convergent with theropod dinosaurs? Nobody has proposed any hypothesis to explain this, so it's not science. If birds evolved from non-dinosaurs, where are the transitional forms? No evidence of any. If "protofeathers" are collagen, why do only theropods have them, and why do things that are clearly birds like confuciousornis have the exact same structures? You, Olson, etc. have never answered any of these questions. So while we may be wrong, you guys are not doing a very good job of showing how. The burden of proof is on you, not us. 1. As expected, it's all the fault of the Czerkases who have no PhDs! Then why did Tim Rowe sign on, why Currie, why Xu Xing? 2. What is all this talk about burden of proof? If there is proof there is, if there is none, then there is none. If the palaeontological record of birds is shrouded in the mists of prehistory then so be it. It's better than cladistically mapping out the proposed 'history' [sic] and making it up as you go along! 3. What, humans don't have collagen? 4. As for somebody eventually spotting the composite (which is apparently the acceptable euphemism for 'fake' in paleo), how long did it take for someone to notice that the coelophysis was not a cannibal, as the stomach contents were those of a different species? If no one looks, and everyone just accepts the pronouncement of a paleontologist at face value, this is what happens. Had NG sponsored the independent examination of the archaeoraptor fossil before the publication and not six months after this could all have been avoided. Press conferences have priority, however.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 4:54:35 GMT
They were "yoked together" to make one faulty specimen that was a composite of 2 real specimens. That faulty specimen was then improperly described, and the people who attempted to describe it were sloppy. The 2 specimens being artificially combined did not invalidate them being specimens of other organisms. "Frankly in no other discipline can one say that well, much of this fossil is fake, but we'll formally describe it anyway." Much of it was not a FAKE. It is 2 separate real specimens. No plaster, no carving. Just glue. The specimens were MISREPRESENTED as a species it was not. It happens alot in paleontology....sometimes in zoology. It was discovered this was the case, and the 2 specimens were properly described. I am still waiting for why this is any different then brontosaurus/apatosaurus... So if it's glued together, it's perfectly all right to describe them, but if there is plaster it's not? So that's how palaeontology operates now, by degrees of fakery? It is irrelevant whether it often happens or not--a lie is a lie, period. If this means that half, or two-thirds, or even more of the described dinosaur species are invalidated, then so be it. The two specimens were properly described after the fact. They would not have been described as two specimens were the archaeoraptor not exposed as a fraud; they would have been considered as one individual of the 'missing link' [sic] between birds and dinosaurs. What if, say, a photo of the head of Hayden Christiansen was superimposed on the body of, oh, Arnold Schwarzenegger? Would that be paleontologically acceptable? Why of course--they are two valid individual actors, aren't they? Thus has dinosaurology sunk to the level of National Enquirer--and at least the Enquirer gets its stories right occasionally. "Sloppy" is a rather mild term for the negligence of Phil Currie and NG.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 6:09:30 GMT
"degrees of fakery ?"
Again, I will reiterate, one is a misidentification of a composite fossil, (archeoraptor) that was identified as such, and later properly described, and the other (plaster) could be, depending on the real material compared to the plaster, a reconstruction or a forgery. Forged fossils are easy to identify. Composite foissils are generally easy to identify as well.
You keep pretending that a composite fossil is the same thing as a forgery made of artificial material. Archeoraptor was 2 fossil specimens, likely from the same locality, put together by a person who was probably ignorant of paleontology, and sold. The specimens were not constructed, and have proven under extreme scrutiny to be 2 authentic separate species.
"It is irrelevant whether it often happens or not--a lie is a lie, period. If this means that half, or two-thirds, or even more of the described dinosaur species are invalidated, then so be it"
That makes no sense regarding fossils, or even regarding science. Are you saying that every false theory is a "lie" ?, and that is a "lie" period ? Are you saying that species that were once classified as one and were later reclassified as 2 or more separate species are a "lie" ? Does this make the identification of the Bornean clouded leopard a lie, being that is used to simply be a form of "the Clouded Leopard" ? Under your faulty way of thinking, science would simply not progress anywhere...
Information changes as we gain more. Information helps science progress. If it did not....science would become...well, stagnant, much like religion.
"The two specimens were properly described after the fact. They would not have been described as two specimens were the archaeoraptor not exposed as a fraud"
You mean, had archaeoraptor not been exposed as a misidentification of what was 2 specimens of different, authentic, fossil animals combined as a composite ? You can yell FAKE as loud as you want till' the cows come home, hoping that the word validates the discarding the findings, but, it doesn't. Quit the moaning over spilled milk. The fossils were identified as what they were, and things move on...heck, we even learn from them. I would bet people are going to be looking very carefully to make sure it doesn't happen again.
All of this conjecture makes me wonder though, are you one of those people who think we didn't land on the moon either ?
"they would have been considered as one individual of the 'missing link' [sic] between birds and dinosaurs"
But, as I have said many times now, they were not. (this Eohippus isn't dead enough yet *gets metal pipe out*)
"What if, say, a photo of the head of Hayden Christiansen was superimposed on the body of, oh, Arnold Schwarzenegger? Would that be paleontologically acceptable? Why of course--they are two valid individual actors, aren't they?"
Well, if we stripped away the skin and left only bone, technically, the composite skeleton would be zoologically accurate as a generic representation of our species skeleton. It would be that of a male homo sapiens, and legitimate as such. Careful findings may indicate the head came from a different specimen from the body, but that would not invalidate the species.
"Thus has dinosaurology sunk to the level of National Enquirer--and at least the Enquirer gets its stories right occasionally"
Thus you clearly have little to no concept of how species classification, identification, and paleontology really work. Yes, there was press, jumping to conclusions, and false claims made....oh, but they were proven to be false claims, the specimen was carefully scrutinized, and now we have the facts. If the facts were identified prior NG, you would be arguing the authenticity of some other feathered fossil to back your beliefs instead of this one.
Seriously, those who make such a big deal of archeoraptor are usually desperate to make a case out of nothing.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 6:14:27 GMT
Oh, so fakery is not considered wrong in palaeontology? If I am ignorant of how to commit such wrongdoing, perhaps I should be grateful
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 6:16:07 GMT
Perhaps I should commit forgery and call it a 'composite', how do you think the police or the judge or the prosecutor will take that?
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 6:17:59 GMT
Let evil be called "composite", then it shall be washed as white as snow!
|
|