|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 6:28:35 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 "
It is, and is, by peer review, distinguished as such. You are trying to twist what I said. Prior to their appearance as "Archaeoraptor", both Microraptor and Yanornis were "unknown" species. One could have legitimately been called archeoraptor. Because of the mess surrounding that name, it was not used. The it would have been an Archeoraptor with a *yanornis/microraptor* whatever one was not used) stuck on to it.
"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?"
That would be, as I said, a forgery. It is quite a different thing then a composite. If say, you built a bull skeleton out of bones from any number of different bulls, you would have built a composite bull skeleton. If you claimed it was the skeleton of a single individual animal, you would be making fraudulent or false claims about it (I guess depending on if you knew it was really made of more then one specimen, or not). If you combined a bull and a giraffe and attempted to claim it as a new species of animal, you will have made a composite animal, and would be making fraudulent claims about its origin and species. It would be identified as 2 separate species, (structure and DNA) and as a composite creature, made of the parts of a bull and a giraffe.
(Though, if you did do this, you may make it into to the papers first !...heck a rubber Gorilla costume in a freezer and the "Montauk monster" did) If you attempted to "age the bones", and pass them off as prehistoric, that fraudulent claim would be quickly disproved through proper channels as well. (Piltdown man, of which I know you are familiar with, was a composite of a man and an orang, with claims that it was prehistoric) These fraudulent claims would not though invalidate that the bones of "your creation" were from a Bull, and a Giraffe though, nor does it invalidate that piltdown mans bones from a Homo sapiens and an Orangutan.
And, unlike the creationists claim, the existence of a falsified claim like Piltdown man does not discredit the real hominid fossil findings. If anything, the fact that this false claim was identified as such helps validate real findings that are pursued through the same and proper channels. The legitimate homonid findings are as valid as they ever were. Though...you probably think that because someone made piltdown man, that invalidates the real fossil findings, because that seems to be how you think about these fossils.
You are not going to respond to any of the other questions I asked...looks like those straws you are grasping are getting mighty short...
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 6:59:25 GMT
What other questions should I answer? I think that putting two (or more) fossils together to form a whole is fakery. You call it a valid 'composite'. What is there to argue about then? If you don't think it's wrong, and that evil can be remedied by calling it a composite, how can I insist otherwise? Anyway, it's not me who is grasping at straws by calling a clear forgery a 'composite' to make it sound better.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 7:02:33 GMT
"I think that putting two (or more) fossils together to form a whole is fakery. You call it a valid 'composite'."
No, I said it is an invalid composite. It was a composite of 2 valid specimens combined to make an invalid "creature". That does not in any way invalidate the specimens that were used to make the composite. None of it was made of clay, or constructed from fiberglass, or blackbird and gecko skeletons pressed into dirt. Those would be clear forgeries. These specimens were not forgeries. The specimen that was made by sticking them together was. You are purposely attempting to "muddy that water" to cast doubt on those specimens.
"Anyway, it's not me who is grasping at straws by calling a clear forgery a 'composite' to make it sound better."
No straw grasping here. Pipe swinging though. You are grasping at straws when you are claiming that 2 valid specimens that were identified as such who had previously been combined in an invalid composite, constitute that everything involved must have been constructed by forgery. The facts simply do not support this.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 7:04:26 GMT
Anyway, are we debating Yanornis, or Archaeoraptor? And who is to say that Yanornis is not a fake--er, sorry, composite--itself? Whose word should we take? The 'farmer?' The 'dealer'? Currie? Czerkas? Heck, I'm not even going to trust an ornithologist's word, given the 88-piece jigsaw puzzle from which Archaeoraptor was faked--I mean, composited. But if palaeontology chooses to accept it, then go ahead!
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 7:08:41 GMT
If dinosaurologists think that cut and paste fossils are valid bases to erect new species, then by all means Liaoning is the Garden of Plenty! Goodness knows how many new species the 'farmers' can create by taking a wing here, a vertebra there, a beak there, a 'filamentous integument" here! Look out Adobe Photoshop--here come the Dinosaurologists! Just call it a composite, and everything will be all right
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 7:36:44 GMT
And we are back to your claims that all the feathered dinos are "fakes", and you continue to use the word "faked" as synonymous with the clearly different word "composite". "Composites" can be "faked". Not all composites are fakes, not all fakes are composites. Simply not interchangeable words. Only in your mind. Then you say you trust no paleontologists....or ornithologists. Ok. I simply can't disagree in any logical sort of way with that. The rational end of things when it comes to that goes *poof* According to you, everyone is apparently wrong about everything regarding paleontology, but you, and the things you chose to "believe" in. Its like I am arguing with a creationist again. As my grandfather said, do not try to teach a pig math - You only succeed in annoying yourself and confusing the pig. Seriously...and to think I was one of the folks on here that was hoping that you'd return after you slunk away last time. I see you just want to be combative for your series of beliefs. I am feeling thags frustration. "If dinosaurologists think that cut and paste fossils are valid bases to erect new species, then by all means Liaoning is the Garden of Plenty!" Such artificial composites are identified as such, as proven by Archeoraptor. Again, simply because Archeoraptor was a composite, and was false, does not invalidate the parts it was made of as being legitimate. I explained this repeatedly to you. You will obviously twist whatever I say to suit whatever false claims you wish to make.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Aug 25, 2008 8:02:39 GMT
There are probably a few things left to figure out when it comes to avian/theropod phylogenies, but watching Piltdown try to dance around the "fossil composite" concept is hilarious. Maybe you'll succeed eventually, crow -- it really seems like the brontosaurus analogy should make sense to him.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 9:19:10 GMT
And why should we not interchange fakes and composites in this case? Does that make it easier on the consciences of the palaeontologists to call a hoax a composite? If somehow combining bits and pieces from two different species and presenting it to the public as a third is valid, as long as it is a composite, then palaeontology is devoid of all ethics or moral compass whatsoever, and its claims to scientific rigor dubious.
Your frustration is of no concern of mine. You and thag and sbell and whoever else can shake your collective heads at my stubborness, but the fact is archaeoraptor is a hoax, a fraud, and nothing you can do or say can extenuate that fact. But if it helps you guys to call them composites, why feel free to do so.
And kuni there are a lot of things to figure out when it comes to the origin of birds. Just look at how juravenator and dilong and the therizinosaurs and the oviraptosaurs and alvaresaurids are shoved one way or the other up and down the cladogram as theropod or coelurosaurid or bird.
The parts MAY be legitimate, but the archaeoraptor is fake. If paleontology wishes to encourage such composites as a means of collecting species, fine. Just be prepared that someone from another discipline with actual scientific training will look at the evidence and laugh. That's what evolutionary biologists are doing to Mary Schweitzer's rex 'proteins' and that's what the paleornithologists in the future will do.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 25, 2008 9:58:13 GMT
phew! A lot of semantics bogging things down here. For me, calling a composite specimen a 'fake' is a stretch of the definition of the word (whereas I agree with Piltdown that calling the taxon Archaeorptor a fake is OK). The Brontosaurus analogy is apt, but there are hundreds and hundreds of composite fossil specimens. This one in Paris is made up of a number of individuals of the same species, the head is sculpted in plaster. The head is fake, but as with Archaeoraptor, to say the specimen as a whole is fake is misleading. Even if we do decide to call it fake (semantics), it doesn't retract from the genuine fossil nature of the bones. And if we can differentiate between the different individuals comprising the whole and this is mentioned in our description, and we only describe genuine bone (no describing the plaster skull!), there is no reason why it should not enter the scientific literature. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 10:05:43 GMT
I don't mind of course a model consisting of the bones of several individuals of ONE species. "Archaeoraptor" is composed of at least TWO. This is what I don't understand--how can it be scientifically acceptable to say, well, this is two different species, but no problem, we'll just call one half Microraptor and the other half Yanornis and everyone's happy. That's not the way it should work. If that is acceptable in palaeontology, certainly this will be unique in the annals of science and the humanities. Let's see in accounting how half a balance sheet of a firm can be combined with half of that of another company, and voila! a new company. Will the SEC recognize it? Will the auditors say it conforms to generally accepted accounting principles? Of course not! But apparently in paleo it's ok, as long as you say the magic word 'composite'!
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 25, 2008 10:41:23 GMT
I don't mind of course a model consisting of the bones of several individuals of ONE species. "Archaeoraptor" is composed of at least TWO. This is what I don't understand--how can it be scientifically acceptable to say, well, this is two different species, but no problem, we'll just call one half Microraptor and the other half Yanornis and everyone's happy. That's not the way it should work. Why not? It makes complete sense to me. What is the alternative, surely not ignore both specimens? So what if I told you the hind femora in this Cryptoclidus skeleton are from a Plesiosaurus? I don't see how it matters as long as we mention it in the description. If that is acceptable in palaeontology, certainly this will be unique in the annals of science and the humanities. Let's see in accounting how half a balance sheet of a firm can be combined with half of that of another company, and voila! a new company. Will the SEC recognize it? Will the auditors say it conforms to generally accepted accounting principles? Of course not! But apparently in paleo it's ok, as long as you say the magic word 'composite'! I'm not advocating that composite fossils are described as new taxa, nobody here is
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 11:37:03 GMT
"The parts MAY be legitimate, but the archaeoraptor is fake."
Never said anything but that archeoraptor was not a legitimate specimen, and was rather 2 legitimate specimens stuck together.
"If paleontology wishes to encourage such composites as a means of collecting species, fine. Just be prepared that someone from another discipline with actual scientific training will look at the evidence and laugh."
I never said that paleontology wishes to encourage such composites as Archeoraptor. Ever. You can feel free to read back. I don't know where you are going with this. If this is you attempting to claim that I do not have "actual scientific training" ? I would be highly amused if that were the case.
"Archaeoraptor" is composed of at least TWO. This is what I don't understand--how can it be scientifically acceptable to say, well, this is two different species, but no problem, we'll just call one half Microraptor and the other half Yanornis and everyone's happy."
No one is trying to validate the specimen made up of the 2 separate specimens as legit. AGAIN. I will say, simply because the specimens were stuck together incorrectly, and claimed to be something they were not, (Archeoraptor) does not make each of them invalid as the legitimate fossils that they are independently of one another.
"Let's see in accounting how half a balance sheet of a firm can be combined with half of that of another company, and voila! a new company. Will the SEC recognize it? Will the auditors say it conforms to generally accepted accounting principles?"
Uhm, you are trying to twist this again. No one said that Archeoraptor was anything besides the 2 parts that made up the misidentified composite. I would hope that each company, in your analogy would be able to identify their own balance sheets independently of each other. That is what I am saying by having the species identifiable in their own right.
To use your example to explain this exactly, I fail to see how those half balance sheets would suddenly become invalidated as company A and company B's balance sheets simply because they were cut in half and then stuck to one another. They are still the half balance sheets from their representative companies, and if separated from the other half sheet they had been falsely attached to they should still be identifiable by the company as half of one of their own balance sheets.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 16:27:54 GMT
So paleontology doesn't encourage fakery? Then why did they describe the two 'valid' species that supposedly comprise microraptor? Is this not enabling fakery? Oh, it's ok to drag into public notice fraudulent fossils of missing links between birds and dinos as long as later on down the line we separate them? And that means yes, they should have thrown both halves of archaeoraptor into the garbage heap, so as to deter anyone from trying this again. But no, as long as we can call half of the fake--excusez moi, "composite"-- a 'genuine' Yanornis and the other a "microraptor" everything's ok! The attempt to validate the two halves of the archaeoraptor fossil was just the miserable, pathetic attempt of dinosaurology to redeem whatever was left of the shreds of its reputation after the debacle was exposed. I'm very certain the importance of those two halves of archeoraptor has been exaggerated in the attempt to cover up the shame. Well, it's not working. But if the palaeontologists here say that's perfectly acceptable behaviour, hey, who I am to disagree? Just be prepared for an increasingly skeptical public who, if they knew what was going on, will one day shut down grant funding. Of course you can then console yourselves on how ignorant the public is--those faith-based freaks!-- when the lay person is actually quite correct in his assessment of paleontological ethics.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 25, 2008 18:24:06 GMT
So paleontology doesn't encourage fakery? Then why did they describe the two 'valid' species that supposedly comprise microraptor? Is this not enabling fakery? Oh, it's ok to drag into public notice fraudulent fossils of missing links between birds and dinos as long as later on down the line we separate them? And that means yes, they should have thrown both halves of archaeoraptor into the garbage heap, so as to deter anyone from trying this again. But no, as long as we can call half of the fake--excusez moi, "composite"-- a 'genuine' Yanornis and the other a "microraptor" everything's ok! The attempt to validate the two halves of the archaeoraptor fossil was just the miserable, pathetic attempt of dinosaurology to redeem whatever was left of the shreds of its reputation after the debacle was exposed. I'm very certain the importance of those two halves of archeoraptor has been exaggerated in the attempt to cover up the shame. Well, it's not working. But if the palaeontologists here say that's perfectly acceptable behaviour, hey, who I am to disagree? Just be prepared for an increasingly skeptical public who, if they knew what was going on, will one day shut down grant funding. Of course you can then console yourselves on how ignorant the public is--those faith-based freaks!-- when the lay person is actually quite correct in his assessment of paleontological ethics. I guess we just have to see how things pan out in the future. I don't see the big deal with describing the separate parts comprising a composite fossil. I just don't see how it can be considered unethical for a palaeontologist to say in a paper "this fossil is two separate animals, here is what their bones look like..." If this 'behaviour' forms a great green blip on your ethics radar, I accept it although I don't understand it. For me it would be more unethical to throw out the specimen. At the very least it should be kept to learn about the compositing process. This thread it getting quite heated - let all keep our heads *waves everyone away from the Cryptozoology thread, there's nothing to see there folks! Move along*
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 25, 2008 18:32:22 GMT
So paleontology doesn't encourage fakery? Then why did they describe the two 'valid' species that supposedly comprise microraptor? Is this not enabling fakery? Oh, it's ok to drag into public notice fraudulent fossils of missing links between birds and dinos as long as later on down the line we separate them? And that means yes, they should have thrown both halves of archaeoraptor into the garbage heap, so as to deter anyone from trying this again. But no, as long as we can call half of the fake--excusez moi, "composite"-- a 'genuine' Yanornis and the other a "microraptor" everything's ok! The attempt to validate the two halves of the archaeoraptor fossil was just the miserable, pathetic attempt of dinosaurology to redeem whatever was left of the shreds of its reputation after the debacle was exposed. I'm very certain the importance of those two halves of archeoraptor has been exaggerated in the attempt to cover up the shame. Well, it's not working. But if the palaeontologists here say that's perfectly acceptable behaviour, hey, who I am to disagree? Just be prepared for an increasingly skeptical public who, if they knew what was going on, will one day shut down grant funding. Of course you can then console yourselves on how ignorant the public is--those faith-based freaks!-- when the lay person is actually quite correct in his assessment of paleontological ethics. I guess we just have to see how things pan out in the future. I don't see the big deal with describing the separate parts comprising a composite fossil. I just don't see how it can be considered unethical for a palaeontologist to say in a paper "this fossil is two separate animals, here is what their bones look like..." If this 'behaviour' forms a great green blip on your ethics radar, I accept it although I don't understand it. For me it would be more unethical to throw out the specimen. At the very least it should be kept to learn about the compositing process. This thread it getting quite heated - let all keep our heads *waves everyone away from the Cryptozoology thread, there's nothing to see there folks! Move along* That's why I haven't actually gotten involved since this move--it just makes me angry, because I am coming from the logical science side, and have given up trying to reconcile with the illogical belief/opinion side.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 20:20:33 GMT
"So paleontology doesn't encourage fakery?" I think in all doctrines the promise of notoriety can encourage certain individuals to engage in "fakery". From literature to chemistry, heck even in stuff like "cryptozoology" and religion Again, please look back on my comments, and I believe that you would clearly see that this would be my response to this question. Neither of us can legitimately claim whether Archeoraptor was purposely "faked" or not. All all of that STILL does not invalidate the 2 parts as the individual fossil specimens that they are. "Then why did they describe the two 'valid' species that supposedly comprise microraptor?" You mean archeoraptor, with part of microraptor making up the incorrectly identified composite. "Is this not enabling fakery?" *Sigh* No, not at all. Covered this. NOW if we told the people who were involved, "Oh, you really fooled us good! well, lets keep this microrapter/yanornis composite, and continue to call it Archeoraptor, and validate it as its own species!" That would "enable fakery". Even saying "how could they have known better does not "enable fakery". The specimens were properly identified, the misidentification was corrected, be it purposeful or not, and science then moves on. Brontosaurus was a composite that proved to be so, (And because of that we have Apatosaurus, with its nice slim line head that has replaced the artificial one it initially had been given) and any number of other fossils proven to be something else under proper scrutiny and understanding of the specimen. For how much fossil material that we only have a handful of a specimen, and we know its enough to make it a valid species because its different from known valid species, the parts that have not been found are often "filled out" by looking at proposed relatives, and "connecting the dots". Sometimes this works well, other times, not. In all cases, no claims of a complete understanding from this are made. Good dinosaur books usually show the known fossils on "composite drawings" shaded or drawn realistically, with the speculative parts left as line drawings. Often, like our image and understanding of both T rex and Spinosaurus, the more we learn the more the animal changes to reflect that accuracy. "And that means yes, they should have thrown both halves of archaeoraptor into the garbage heap, so as to deter anyone from trying this again." That is completely absurd. I think the criticism they have received for the improper way they handled both this fossils "description", and presentation to the public will help to make sure it is less likely to happen again, at least on purpose, (if this was even on purpose, which I find unlikely) But, you know there are other specimens of Yanornis and Microraptor, and plenty of other feathered dinosaurs, so, even if you were being hopeful this would once again come to save your claims, "that the feathered dinosaurs are all fakes" It doesn't. To me, it sounds like the faith/belief based ramblings of someone trying to back a faith based claim. I pretty much know though, you would just hop on and say well, "Archeoraptor was clearly a fake, I bet they are all fakes" - I guess now you have expanded that to all dinosaurs are fakes ? I run headlong into the same argument with the creationists all the time. No logical person can logically contend a faith/belief based argument. "I'm very certain the importance of those two halves of archeoraptor has been exaggerated in the attempt to cover up the shame. Well, it's not working." No, I can see that your keen intellect and mind has clearly figured out the "truth"! Those pesky scientists are all liars! Especially the paleontologists! (I teach...And I live in a part of the country where they seem to think "creation" has equal footing with science, ok ? I have heard it all. When things gets to this point, no matter how logical I can try to be, I am just annoying myself, and confusing that proverbial pig. - In this case, I don't think the you were ever confused to begin with. You do not wish to forward your knowledge about the situation regarding these fossils. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and tried to logically explain what I was talking about, but understanding the issue was never your goal. Your "mind" appears to have been "made up" before this discussion ever started. You don't care that they are 2 specimens. You don't care that they are valid in their own right. I have a feeling if they had been discussed and identified individually, you would be trying to argue that they or the others that don't support you belief system regarding the dinosaurs were fakes for this reason or that. You clearly just want to fight your faith in your beliefs till the very end, and are trying to make them sound valid. "But if the palaeontologists here say that's perfectly acceptable behavior, hey, who I am to disagree?" You mean, who are you to once again, attempt to distort this to try to make it sound like you can use this incident to invalidate all of paleontology because you do not like their findings ? I hope I am not the only one who can see that you clearly understood what I was saying, about how the usage of composite and fake are different, and how you were trying to skew your balance sheet analogy. Saying its all a big conspiracy against the common man, and the religious folks is much more fun then admitting you were simply trying encourage others to give your beliefs credibility! "Just be prepared for an increasingly skeptical public who, if they knew what was going on, will one day shut down grant funding. Of course you can then console yourselves on how ignorant the public is--those faith-based freaks!-- when the lay person is actually quite correct in his assessment of paleontological ethics." An increasingly skeptical public ? Grant funding! HA! Funding ? HA! We just had everyone on the edge of their seat over a ape suit in a freezer chest for crying out loud. And before that a half decayed raccoon. Oh, you mean skeptical of real science ? YES, the religious right has been working hard to help that be an issue. I know, you will go on and on and on over Archeoraptor, and how that proves paleontologists are all hucksters, and how this and that are all a "fake", but really...It is a non issue, and has already been addressed under this topic. As for all those faith-based freaks ? I hope their god turns out to be a fully feathered "big bird" like theizinosaur. I hope she is even yellow
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 21:12:24 GMT
I guess we just have to see how things pan out in the future. I don't see the big deal with describing the separate parts comprising a composite fossil. I just don't see how it can be considered unethical for a palaeontologist to say in a paper "this fossil is two separate animals, here is what their bones look like..." If this 'behaviour' forms a great green blip on your ethics radar, I accept it although I don't understand it. For me it would be more unethical to throw out the specimen. At the very least it should be kept to learn about the compositing process. This thread it getting quite heated - let all keep our heads *waves everyone away from the Cryptozoology thread, there's nothing to see there folks! Move along* That's why I haven't actually gotten involved since this move--it just makes me angry, because I am coming from the logical science side, and have given up trying to reconcile with the illogical belief/opinion side. So it is logical and scientific to tolerate fakery as long as you can write a paper about it, and illogical and merely opinionated to say it is wrong to encourage fraud--er, 'compositing'? Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 25, 2008 21:19:51 GMT
the point here is that archaeoraptor is not real... it's just like those mixed animals in the ancient times. Yes, the bones were from extinct dinosaurs, but the "animal" never existed. ARCHAEORAPTOR WAS FAKE, WITH ALL ITS CHARACTERISTICS BECAUSE THEY WERE FROM OTHER DINOSAURS; IT WAS JUST A COMPOSITE OF BONES.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 21:24:10 GMT
And who's denying and twisting facts here?
Fact: Archaeoraptor was a hoax (or composite if you wish) but was introduced by National Geographic and Phil Currie and Xu Xing as a genuine 'missing link' between dinosaur and birds before a formal description was published and any scientific evidence presented. Fact: Storrs Olson and others in the paleoornithoogical community were the ones who loudly protested this hoax. Fact: only after that did NG and Xu Xing do the actual investigation and discover that indeed Arcaheoraptor was a hoax--er, composite. Fact: Only then did red-faced dinosaurologists jigger up two new 'valid' species to mitigate the embarrassment of being duped by a 'farmer' in Lioaning who knows more about bird anatomy than all of dinosaurology.
Well, I am done. If this narrative of undeniable FACTS doesn't instill a sense of embarrassment in dinosaurologists about their assumptions and working methods, then there's nothing more I can do. I cannot make a wrong right, unlike them.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 21:25:18 GMT
the point here is that archaeoraptor is not real... it's just like those mixed animals in the ancient times. Yes, the bones were from extinct dinosaurs, but the "animal" never existed. ARCHAEORAPTOR WAS FAKE, WITH ALL ITS CHARACTERISTICS BECAUSE THEY WERE FROM OTHER DINOSAURS; IT WAS JUST A COMPOSITE OF BONES. Very good richard Unfortunately facts make our scientists here mad.
|
|