|
Post by richard on Aug 25, 2008 21:26:38 GMT
Factt: Archaeoraptor was a hoax (or composite if you wish) and 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 whbo knows more about bird anatomy than all of dinosaurology. . this is what matters... this is what all this thread should be about
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 25, 2008 21:38:01 GMT
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... It's posts like this that make me want to come down to that level and say inappropriately mean things. All I will say is that I for one did not miss your input recently; save for the cryptozoology thread (pay no attention. it is not the thread you are looking for) the general discussions have been less combative. By this time, we get it. You don't like the bird-dinosaur relationship. Fine. Get on with your life. Your opinion doesn't actually matter to the reserachers anyway (actually, to be truthful, none of our OPINIONS matters at all). I don't know what it is, or why you are afraid of what the current evidence is telling the researchers, but there you have it. Some might be wrong, mistakes might be made. So be it. Other scientists will point out these errors. It turns out that a composite of two feathered dinos that someone glues together is still two feathered dinosaurs; that someone jumped the gun on publishing in a popular magazine is neither here nor there; a scientist pointed out the folly of rushing in, the two pieces were separated and scientifically described. Why is that so hard to accept? Maybe this--look at a plate of food. There are several different foods there, and I tell you it is a hamburger. You look closer and realize that I am wrong (for whatever reason). There is a steak, a side of fries, and a carrot. Does the food become inedible because I misnamed it? No, it's still food, it can still be eaten. It's still good. I messed up (why? doesn't matter here). You are simply separating and describing the various elements of the plate I set before you. Tell you what--Phil Currie will be coming down to my Centre at some point in the near future (he is working on our T rex specimens). Do you want me to pass to him your cogent arguments about the specimens he's seen first hand in the field and the lab, and pass to you his replies? Sound good? Or is your own research moving along at an acceptable pace already?
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 21:48:12 GMT
Tell you what--I wasn't discussing anything in this thread about the dino-bird relationship. I was discussing archaeoraptor specifically.
Oh, you can tell Phil Currie anything you wish about me. I knew you were going to use your typical and patently evident scientific snobbery to say, "well, you don't do research or have a PhD, so you know squat". I know how you people think. I don't give a d**n about dinosaurs anymore anyway. If I were there though I would give him a lecture on proper scientific procedure, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 21:50:46 GMT
Oh and by the way my 'opinion' about the dino-bird relationship is based on several studies--but since it's Alan Feduccia and Theagarten Lingham-Soliar and not Thomas Holtz doing the studies, you won't pay attention to them. Yes, I know how you people actually behave, instead of how pompously you claim to objectively act.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 25, 2008 21:51:57 GMT
Maybe this--look at a plate of food. There are several different foods there, and I tell you it is a hamburger. You look closer and realize that I am wrong (for whatever reason). There is a steak, a side of fries, and a carrot. Does the food become inedible because I misnamed it? No, it's still food, it can still be eaten. It's still good. I messed up (why? doesn't matter here). You are simply separating and describing the various elements of the plate I set before you. archaeoraptor was n't a dinosaur really... it was a hoax.. now another thing are the fossils of other species that were mixed, that's another stuff but archaeoraptor is just as valid as unicorns. (or did I misunderstand?)
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 21:57:09 GMT
You didn't misunderstand richard--archaeoraptor is as valid a species as a unicorn. What our 'scientists' [sic] here are saying is that unicorns are real, because they are part horse and part narwhal horn, so unicorns are as valid as anything else, being a 'composite'.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 22:00:28 GMT
"IT WAS JUST A COMPOSITE OF BONES."
No one here has claimed Archeoraptor in its presented form was a legit specimen of said creature. It was just a composite of other valid dinosaur fossils. The fact that Archeoraptor was not a legitimate specimen does not invalidate the 2 parts that made it up. Just like Brontosaurus does not invalidate Apatosaurus or Camarasaurus.
"And who's denying and twisting facts here?"
You, actually. And you keep doing it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER...
Factt: Archaeoraptor was a hoax (or composite if you wish) and 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."
Yes, Archeoraptor was a composite, and was introduced that way. I hate to break it to you though, I have never once denied that! Pointing these facts out over others does not invalidate a single thing I have presented to you! I guess in some way you think it does ? *ponders that one for a while*
I fully acknowledge what happened regarding the presentation of the misidentified specimen that was a composite of 2 separate specimens, and don't for a second have a reason to twist or deny it. My only "agenda" is the factual information.
"Fact: Storrs Olson and others in the paleoornithoogical community were the ones who loudly protested this hoax."
Yes. They were the first to do so. That in no way means that others would not have done the same given time to describe and examine the fossils/s.
"Fact: only after that did NG and Xu Xing do the actual investigation and discover that indeed Arcaheoraptor was a hoax--er, composite."
Yes, during the "actual investigation", description of the fossils and subsequent peer review of the specimens. As thag said, the "specimen" was not formally described prior to that point. NG is just an entertaining and often educational magazine. It has no validity for bringing new finds to the world...just presenting them to the people who buy thier magazine and watch thier TV channel.
"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 whbo knows more about bird anatomy than all of dinosaurology."
And, you are back here again. That claim is not a fact. Its one you keep trying to pass off as a fact though. Being that the specimen/s was presented to the scientific community as Archeoraptor, and was not previously formally described, the identification of the fossil as a composite of 2 separate valid specimens of other organisms would of course have to wait until the initial "specimen" was properly deemed a composite of those 2 separate valid fossil animals.
"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."
*Sigh* Really man, thats the best you have ? You didn't refute anything. Why is it you can not seem to accept the other undeniable facts that validate the 2 specimens found that were misidentfied as archeoraptor ? Or any of the other facts I have preseted to you ?
"this is what matters... this is what all this thread should be about"
Well, support for the absurdist! Really Richard, are the gaps in his logic (That I believe he is presenting on purpose) that hard for you to see ?
"If I were there though I would give him a lecture on proper sceintific procedure, but that's just me."
ROTLMGDAO! Ok.ok. I've got it together now. Sorry. Well..not really. Man, that one even made Sherpa laugh and he is upstairs! Ok, so, Now, as you are an expert on proper "sceintific procedure", why don't you give me that lecture instead ? *stifles laughter*
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 25, 2008 22:02:07 GMT
Oh and by the way my 'opinion' about the dino-bird relationship is based on several studies--but since it's Alan Feduccia and Theagarten Lingham-Soliar and not Thomas Holtz doing the studies, you won't pay attention to them. Yes, I know how you people actually behave, instead of how pompously you claim to objectively act. I don't have opinions--as I said, none of our opinions matter. It is up to the researchers on BOTH SIDES of the study to present support for their hypotheses; the simple fact is that the dinosaur-bird relationship is far better supported right now than the 'mysterious thecodont'-bird hypothesis. If that situation with the support changes, and it could, then my opinion will change in kind. Either way, my opinion does not matter to the research either. And in any case, it does relate to Archaeoraptor, because that debacle is frequently trotted out as the collapse in the hypothesis, which is not true; or as the proof that one error means they are all faked, also not true (in fact, the feathers on the Archaeoraptor were not even fake--they were legitimate fossil impressions of feathers). And I didn't mean to be snobbish-sounding; it really was time to just get it out--you have a strong opinion, maybe express it to someone that can do something about it (again, I don't think anyone here actually studies feathered dinos/bird-dino relationships). And I'm sorry you don't care for dinosaurs anymore. They can be a source of great joy and wonder.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 22:03:30 GMT
In reply to crowman's post -- But I thought you were a scientist? So you don't know scientific procedure! That's pretty evident in the arguments you have presented!
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 22:05:04 GMT
I have to say, I am trying very hard to not use disparaging words at this point, as you clearly are just trying to be derisive.
"You didn't misunderstand richard--archaeoraptor is as valid a species as a unicorn. What our 'scientists' [sic] here are saying is that unicorns are real, because they are part horse and part narwhal horn, so unicorns are as valid as anything else, being a 'composite'."
No, my sadly misguided chum, what our 'scientists" here are saying is that the Narwhal horn and Horse skeletons used to make a fake unicorn are real, even if they get presented illegitimately as a unicorn every now and then. The presentation of these legitimate creatures parts as a unicorn does not invalidate the existence of horses and narwhals.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 22:06:20 GMT
"In reply to crowman's post -- But I thought you were a scientist? So you don't know scientific procedure! That's pretty evident in the arguments you have presented!"
Come on then, inform me!
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 22:06:26 GMT
And I didn't mean to be snobbish-sounding; it really was time to just get it out--you have a strong opinion, maybe express it to someone that can do something about it (again, I don't think anyone here actually studies feathered dinos/bird-dino relationships). And I'm sorry you don't care for dinosaurs anymore. They can be a source of great joy and wonder. Oh you did mean to sound snobbish-sounding. It was a deliberate effort to say that since I am not qualified to do scientific research I shouldn't have anything to say about dinosaurs. I've read your posts in other threads, so I know exactly what you are doing.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 25, 2008 22:07:28 GMT
"In reply to crowman's post -- But I thought you were a scientist? So you don't know scientific procedure! That's pretty evident in the arguments you have presented!" Come on then, inform me! I already gave you a link to the Sinosauropteryx thread--cure your own darn ignorance from now on.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 25, 2008 22:11:41 GMT
"IT WAS JUST A COMPOSITE OF BONES."No one here has claimed Archeoraptor in its presented form was a legit specimen of said creature. It was just a composite of other valid dinosaur fossils. The fact that Archeoraptor was not a legitimate specimen does not invalidate the 2 parts that made it up. Just like Brontosaurus does not invalidate Apatosaurus or Camarasaurus. this is the matter
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 25, 2008 22:13:43 GMT
And I didn't mean to be snobbish-sounding; it really was time to just get it out--you have a strong opinion, maybe express it to someone that can do something about it (again, I don't think anyone here actually studies feathered dinos/bird-dino relationships). And I'm sorry you don't care for dinosaurs anymore. They can be a source of great joy and wonder. Oh you did mean to sound snobbish-sounding. It was a deliberate effort to say that since I am not qualified to do scientific research I shouldn't have anything to say about dinosaurs. I've read your posts in other threads, so I know exactly what you are doing. Yeah, I probably did, and I apologize for the implications. Although I was serious, if you wanted to try and get Currie's response, we can try (he's rather busy, and I believe he is in Mongolia right now). Not as a means to embarass or insult, but because he might be better equipped to explain/debate than the rest of us (what with his intimate involvement and all).
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 25, 2008 22:30:28 GMT
Thread locked temporarily so we can take a breather. It will be unlocked shortly. EDIT - But don't wait up! ;D I'll reactivate in 24 hours or so.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 26, 2008 20:47:54 GMT
I'm intrigued by this thread.
He says 'fake' you say 'composite' He responds to this as if you are saying its OK to name a new species based on a hoax. (Thats a straw man) you say, "no no no, we are describing the separate elements, and recognizing the composite nature of the specimen, which is OK" He says 'but it's fake!!!' you say "composite!!!!" He responds to this as if you are saying its OK to name a new species based on a hoax. (Thats a straw man) you say, "no no no, we are describing the separate elements, and recognizing the composite nature of the specimen which is OK" He says 'but it's fake!!!' and so on...
So either 1. You are misunderstanding Piltdown's argument -i.e. he is not expressing himself correctly. Or. 2. Piltdown is purposefully committing a straw man to get your goat. Or. 3. Piltdown is genuinely misunderstanding your argument and committing the straw man unknowingly.
I struggle to accept 2 or 3. This doesn't seem like the the Piltdown I know, he does not seem either stupid or malicious. (I know thats a logical fallacy in of itself to dismiss these two options, but hear me out because Im gonna ask).
Which leaves us with 1 and gets me onto my hypothesis. Piltdown's belief in Chinese fossil hoaxing factories is so engrained into his head that he honestly believes that ALL chinese feathered dinosaurs are hoaxes (by his definition of the word hoax). I think he has stated this. Therefore, could it be that when:
"He responds to this as if you are saying its OK to name a new species based on a composite."
he is actually referring to the published descriptions of, say Microraptor? Because in his opinion they are hoaxes too.
So my questions to Piltdown are 1. Are you knowingly committing this straw man fallacy? 2 Or, do you truly believe that people in this thread are saying it is OK to name a new chimera species based on a known composite specimen (they are not saying this). 3. Or, is my hypothesis right, that are you referring to supposedly undetected, already described hoaxes in the fossil literature?
Or something else.
For me, one of the most interesting things about this thread is why different opinions are held given the facts, why do people think in different ways, and can we identify these different ways of thinking and reach some common ground?
So, Piltdown?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 26, 2008 21:28:08 GMT
I'm intrigued by this thread. He says 'fake' you say 'composite' He responds to this as if you are saying its OK to name a new species based on a hoax. (Thats a straw man) you say, "no no no, we are describing the separate elements, and recognizing the composite nature of the specimen, which is OK" He says 'but it's fake!!!' you say "composite!!!!" He responds to this as if you are saying its OK to name a new species based on a hoax. (Thats a straw man) you say, "no no no, we are describing the separate elements, and recognizing the composite nature of the specimen which is OK" He says 'but it's fake!!!' and so on... So either 1. You are misunderstanding Piltdown's argument -i.e. he is not expressing himself correctly. Or. 2. Piltdown is purposefully committing a straw man to get your goat. Or. 3. Piltdown is genuinely misunderstanding your argument and committing the straw man unknowingly. I struggle to accept 2 or 3. This doesn't seem like the the Piltdown I know, he does not seem either stupid or malicious. (I know thats a logical fallacy in of itself to dismiss these two options, but hear me out because Im gonna ask). Which leaves us with 1 and gets me onto my hypothesis. Piltdown's belief in Chinese fossil hoaxing factories is so engrained into his head that he honestly believes that ALL chinese feathered dinosaurs are hoaxes (by his definition of the word hoax). I think he has stated this. Therefore, could it be that when: "He responds to this as if you are saying its OK to name a new species based on a composite." he is actually referring to the published descriptions of, say Microraptor? Because in his opinion they are hoaxes too. So my questions to Piltdown are 1. Are you knowingly committing this straw man fallacy? 2 Or, do you truly believe that people in this thread are saying it is OK to name a new chimera species based on a known composite specimen (they are not saying this). 3. Or, is my hypothesis right, that are you referring to supposedly undetected, already described hoaxes in the fossil literature? Or something else. For me, one of the most interesting things about this thread is why different opinions are held given the facts, why do people think in different ways, and can we identify these different ways of thinking and reach some common ground? So, Piltdown? Interestingly, I read the responses differently--that there is a maliciousness seeping in, because the argument will not be allowed to pass (unless the Oracle comment was meant as a compliment). The fact is, it appears to be a grasping-at-straws straw man--the conceit that a fossil species was improperly named (by a popular magazine, no less), ergo paleontology (sorry, dinosaurology, whatever in tarnation that might be) cannot be trusted, because the two composing parts were once glued together. Now refute and repeat. And since people are not letting it go, people are starting to get frustrated and trying to find other ways to get an upper hand curse you cryptozoology. This is sort of the double-edged sword of online forums--you can find people to discuss what you share interests in, but at the same time, discussion is harder to keep civil because there are no verbal or non-verbal cues to let people know that it isn't personal.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 26, 2008 21:43:04 GMT
Archaeoraptor it's a fake species made on 2 extinct and real animals. Now if you are going to talk about the dinosaurs that were mixed to create archaeraptor as species or feathered dinosaurs this is the wrong thread
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 26, 2008 21:58:35 GMT
Archaeoraptor it's a fake species made on 2 extinct and real animals. Now if you are going to talk about the dinosaurs that were mixed to create archaeraptor as species or feathered dinosaurs this is the wrong thread Richard, the problem is that some people think that discussing those two species as separate and important entities is tantamount to supporting a fraud while others (including myself, and as you have indicated) are arguing that it should not be a problem given two caveats--1, that the aforementioned composite is not kept as valid, and 2-that the composing elements (in this case, Microraptor and Yanornis) are clearly distinguished within the composite, and not held together as support for that composed species. I think this is where the ideological conflict is coming in (this time). Although I htink we are all on the same page somewhat, we just aren't getting our points across.
|
|