|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 27, 2008 3:35:00 GMT
There we go... It's all right for you to say my arguments are creating straw men, but when I mention other people who are ornithologists you can't say that now, can you?"
Where am I creating a strawman ? Please, in quotes, point out my strawman arguments, and then explain exactly why it is a strawman argument. I would hope at this point its quite clear to anyone reading this who may have thought you continued to draw out this thread that you are now dragging it into the realm of personal attacks for lack of anything besides more strawmen to throw at it.
You continue to create even MORE strawmen arguments, and are now claiming that everything everyone else posts is a strawman to COVER the strawmen you initially created. Its downright fascinating to watch this happen from my perspective. You are like a whirling dervish of strawmen and ad hominem attacks, I keep asking, what are you are going distort, repeat or claim next!
"I knew you were just using your purported knowledge of crows to personally belittle everything I say."
Where in the world did you pull the from ? If you start making claims about crow biology/natural history that I know to be false then yes, I will point that out to you. for the record I also train and free fly Hornbills, a Kokkaburra, and various Parrot species, and work with/have worked with and care/ed for Mousebirds, Parrots, Herons, Gulls, Raptors, Big Cats, Foxes, Alligators, Crocodiles, Iguanids, Monitor Lizards, Geckos, Snakes, Turtles, and the list really does goes on. I know alot about the natural history and biology of many of these animals. I do have to say, just because I present factual information I fail to see how presenting that factual information is belittling you...unless you are making claims that is not factual. To that, all I can say is please do more research, and use that scientifc method that you know so much about!
"You can email him in South Africa and call him a mere creator of straw men arguments."
I have no need to. If his argument/claim stands up to peer review, then so be it. If the evidence lead to dinosaurs being ectothermic and scaly, then that is what I would support. Unfortunately, unless you cherry pick your sources, (that are rather weak in foundation and support from the scientific community) that simply is not the case. We keep finding fossils with feathers and good preservation, and science will continue sort out "who" is "right".
A strawman argument, BTW is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. You currently have the record for strawmen on here.
"You tell Larry Martin he's a nincompoop if you wish. I'm sure he'll find choice words to say about you too."
He might. *Shrugs* I don't really care.
"And by the way, crows and ravens are very hideous birds, if I do say so myself, and yes I see them often when I go walking, so I can have an opinion, can't I? Or do I need a license, a PhD, and a peer-review to say that, eh? So your boast of being the only corvid hunting trainer is of no import to me."
*shrugs* Ok ? So you think they are hideous ? I think they are lovely birds. That is an opinion. I think star wars sucked. Thats an opinion as well, no PHD or even any taste required. Go back and check on my "flintstones" post to get more details. If you start making claims the crows and ravens are poor fliers or such, that is no longer an opinion, and I can provide facts to prove that stance wrong.
"But since it's Alan Feduccia who's the author you won't pay attention to it. Yes, THAT's you people's 'science'!"
I paid attention to it, and I read what he wrote. I also read things like this that support the observations of the filamentous integumental appendages on Sinornithosaurus indicating that they are compound structures composed of multiple composed of multiple filaments. filaments.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6825/abs/410200a0.html
"You guys are lucky you don't believe in a god, else Judgement Day is going to be particularly difficult."
If that would really the case, I'd say to god to do whatever he/she/it does to the billions of other organisms on the planet, along with the people who were not good enough to believe in he/she/it and "special" enough to be saved or man, to me. *shrug* I think you can see how unconcerned I am with this.
Thorondor 33 - I don't think his use of crows in that example is as "innocent" as that. I think he was using it to attempt to rally some sort of anger or something out of me. Like I said, I don't really care what his opinion about crows is, anymore then I care what his favorite flavor of ice cream is. Neither of them have any validity in this argument. It is my opinion that his insisting that his opinion does have validity in this argument is why he keeps making strawmen, though.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 27, 2008 3:44:44 GMT
If it isn't completely clear by now that this guy is a troll, I don't know what else he can do to prove it to you.
I don't even think he's a moron anymore. I think he's taking the piss.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 27, 2008 3:51:00 GMT
I agree that at this point, (and possibly all along) Piltown is doing nothing more then being a troll.
I know by replying as long as I have that I am feeding the troll by doing so. Just think though, now there is a thread to direct people to if they ask about Archeoraptor, and if it was a fake!
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 3:56:20 GMT
I dont't care about your kookaburras, your hornbills, your snakes, whatever. I took care of fish in my day--does that make me an ichthyologist? Does it entitle me to pronunciamentos regarding hemicyclaspis? So what do your crows, hornbills, geckos, etc. have to do with archaeoraptor, or dinosaurs in general?
What facts have you presented? That archaeoraptor is genuine? Where are those facts? That Yanornis is arguably though doubtfully genuine is not en pointe. You have not refuted a single fact--that archaeoraptor was a fake but was propagated as genuine by people who should have known better, till Storrs Olson and the people you and sBell and thagotroll so strongly despise called you dino-bird people out on it.
So arcaheoraptor is genuine? Prove it! Not by citing Microraptor or Yanornis or KFC, but by citing another archaeoraptor! If not, then what's your point? It's ok to lie in a press con as long as you write a retraction buried in a scientific journal later?
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 3:59:10 GMT
Thagotroll, go back to your JP playing.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 27, 2008 4:05:00 GMT
Preparator Aulenback concluded that the fossil was a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens with a maximum of 5 seperate specimens. A specimen is an individual animal, plant part of a plant or microorganism used as a representative to study the properties. Initial CT scans suggested that the fossil maybe made of 5 specimens of 2 or MORE species. You may be right crazystoneman but I find this confusing. It appears to me that there not 100% sure how many specimens or species are involved. Its possible that you are right and only Microraptor zhaoianus and Yanoris martini are involved. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me. Stoneage ;D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 27, 2008 4:38:48 GMT
"I don't care about your kookaburras, your hornbills, your snakes, whatever. I took care of fish in my day--does that make me an ichthyologist?"
Did/do you study fish ? Did/do you research fish ? I am not claiming to be an ornithologist, simply a person who trains birds and animals (that you do have to pass tests and get permits to keep) who intensely studies zoology and paleontology, has recieved some formal study in various directions, and collects fossils, specimens, and toys. I have never claimed to be anything more then that.
"Does it entitle me to pronunciamentos regarding hemicyclaspis?"
I have not made "pronunciamentos". Have you studied hemicyclaspis, reading the information available on hemicyclaspis ? I would say that if you were to do so, and then recite the scientifically accepted facts regarding hemicyclaspis to someone who made claims counter to the accepted facts that you would be correct in doing so.
"So what do your crows, hornbills, geckos, etc. have to do with archaeoraptor, or dinosaurs in general?"
Nothing. Never claimed they did. I was telling you that I don't just keep and train hideous vile loathsome crows. If we get into talking about how to weight control on a raptor and command training a crocodilian would be best done, or things like that, then my experience working with my animals would be valid.
In regards to the rest of this argument, I was simply reciting facts to you I have learned about paleontology, in a manner that at least in the beginning, I thought would be enlightening, and always seek to be scientifically enlightened. I can see that was never your intent or the case, and I am done feeding the troll you turned out to be.
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Aug 27, 2008 4:46:06 GMT
Archaeoraptor it's a fake species made on 2 extinct and real animals. The genus/species isn't a fake, it's a mistake. It's also invalid, as they never published it in a journal. The fossil is another story. It's a composite, but somewhere along the line, it was misrepresented as one animal. I would seem to me that this was quite likely deliberate deception on the part of the people who wanted it to sell for as much as possible. In that sense, it's very much a fake. But there is nothing necessarily unscientific about a composite. Storrs Olson redescribed the tail of the specimen as Archaeoraptor, and that would have validated the name, but for an unrelated technicality. As I understand it, the authors were aware of the breaks, and that the fossil had been pieced together, but for various reasons thought it likely that the pieces came from the one animal. Apparently this was all fully disclosed in the original unpublished paper. It's only with the discovery of the Microraptor counterslab that we know they were wrong on that particular piece.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 27, 2008 4:46:31 GMT
If it isn't completely clear by now that this guy is a troll, I don't know what else he can do to prove it to you. I don't even think he's a moron anymore. I think he's taking the piss. Yeah, I fell for it again, but I think we would all be better off just stopping. I will no longer be responding to any ZtH posts at all, despite the personal attacks, which are of course (like derisive crow comments) meant to get me going further. At least on these kinds of topics, because they just make me want to be pointlessly mean-spirited back. If it is a comment on some sort of toy or figure, then that will be different.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 5:16:32 GMT
Look who can't handle the truth now. And I'm the one who's the troll!
HAVE ANY OF YOU 'SCIENTISTS' [sic] PROVEN THAT ARCHAEORAPTOR IS GENUINE? If not, then who's trolling, making straw men, etc. etc. Is this the archaeoraptor thread, or the yanornis thread? If you think calling a hoax a composite makes it better, so be it then!
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 27, 2008 6:41:17 GMT
Preparator Aulenback concluded that the fossil was a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens with a maximum of 5 seperate specimens. A specimen is an individual animal, plant part of a plant or microorganism used as a representative to study the properties. Initial CT scans suggested that the fossil maybe made of 5 specimens of 2 or MORE species. You may be right crazystoneman but I find this confusing. It appears to me that there not 100% sure how many specimens or species are involved. Its possible that you are right and only Microraptor zhaoianus and Yanoris martini are involved. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me. Stoneage ;D The fact is, no matter how many specimens it was made of, the scientists weren't the ones who made the fake. Calling it a "hoax" implies malicious intent on the part of the people making claims about it. The scientists involved were fooled, plain and simple. Does that make them hoaxers? No. Maybe too naive and too ready to accept what they wanted to see. The fact is that this was a high-profile embarrassment, making it likely the same mistake would not be made again. The scientists may have been fooled once, but like the old Texas saying goes, fool me once, shame on me. Fool me... er... they won't get fooled again. Archaeoraptor makes every new Chinese species that much more credible, because you know they're checking and re-checking things before publicising them, so they don't repeat this debacle. As I said before, the snout of Microraptor gui is a prime example. If the prevelence of forgeries hadn't been made so well known, they probably wouldn't have caught that, and probably wouldn't be regularly CT scanning these fossils. A lot of papers on Chinese species includes UV photos, so even independent researchers can look and make sure they're not faked. Fakes show up like a sore thumb on those UV photos, again, look at that Microraptor fossil.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 27, 2008 8:15:56 GMT
Preparator Aulenback concluded that the fossil was a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens with a maximum of 5 seperate specimens. A specimen is an individual animal, plant part of a plant or microorganism used as a representative to study the properties. Initial CT scans suggested that the fossil maybe made of 5 specimens of 2 or MORE species. You may be right crazystoneman but I find this confusing. It appears to me that there not 100% sure how many specimens or species are involved. Its possible that you are right and only Microraptor zhaoianus and Yanoris martini are involved. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me. Stoneage ;D The fact is, no matter how many specimens it was made of, the scientists weren't the ones who made the fake. Calling it a "hoax" implies malicious intent on the part of the people making claims about it. The scientists involved were fooled, plain and simple. Does that make them hoaxers? No. Maybe too naive and too ready to accept what they wanted to see. The fact is that this was a high-profile embarrassment, making it likely the same mistake would not be made again. The scientists may have been fooled once, but like the old Texas saying goes, fool me once, shame on me. Fool me... er... they won't get fooled again. Archaeoraptor makes every new Chinese species that much more credible, because you know they're checking and re-checking things before publicising them, so they don't repeat this debacle. As I said before, the snout of Microraptor gui is a prime example. If the prevelence of forgeries hadn't been made so well known, they probably wouldn't have caught that, and probably wouldn't be regularly CT scanning these fossils. A lot of papers on Chinese species includes UV photos, so even independent researchers can look and make sure they're not faked. Fakes show up like a sore thumb on those UV photos, again, look at that Microraptor fossil. Only a Texan can finish that saying.....so here it is lol "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you"
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 9:08:54 GMT
The fact is, no matter how many specimens it was made of, the scientists weren't the ones who made the fake. Calling it a "hoax" implies malicious intent on the part of the people making claims about it. The scientists involved were fooled, plain and simple. Does that make them hoaxers? No. Maybe too naive and too ready to accept what they wanted to see. The fact is that this was a high-profile embarrassment, making it likely the same mistake would not be made again. The scientists may have been fooled once, but like the old Texas saying goes, fool me once, shame on me. Fool me... er... they won't get fooled again. Archaeoraptor makes every new Chinese species that much more credible, because you know they're checking and re-checking things before publicising them, so they don't repeat this debacle. Muhahaha. Please stop tampering with the impressionable minds of other collectors, shall we? In 2004 Dilong was hailed by Mark Norell et al as the earliest "unquestionable" tyrannosauroid that was the first direct evidence showing basal tyrannosauroids all were feathered. (It says so on the abstract--I wasn't stupid enough to pay $32 to read the whole paper). Subsequently Thomas Holtz, tyrannosaur expert [sic] hailed it as the long hoped for connection proving tyrannosaurs were feathery giant chickens. Of course, what they found were not really feathers but 'filamentous integuments', but in dinosaurology that term is synonymous with feathers, if in no other discipline. Then Safari, under the guidance of the Carnegie Museum, released its feathered Dilong, and also a feathered juvenile tyrannosaur, which is as ugly as it sounds. But in 2007, as you so politely pointed out in a previous post, Dilong was demoted to a mere offshoot of the coelurosaurs, and had nothing to do with tyrannosaurids at all. This was not announced to the world media of course, unlike the "feathered tyrannosaurus" media hubbub, but buried in a cladogram of a creature called Mahakala--described by the same Mark Norell! So in 2004 it is the first unquestionable tyrannosaur; in 2007 lo and behold it is just a coelurosaur with an oversized head! Where is your care and due diligence? Where the checking and rechecking? But not to worry: we can do yet another cladogram on the Gauthier-De Quieroz model! Yes! Just by removing some characteristics and including others, dilong can be made into a tyrannosaur again, should the need be apparent! Dinosaur cladistics, where 2+2 can equal 4, or 5, or -7.75, depending on the whim of the dinosaurologist! I think troll on this forum means--someone who has uncomfortable facts which cannot be challenged except by using the word "composite."
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 9:17:25 GMT
And as for microraptor--it wasn't only the head that was spurious, but much of the forewing impressions too, which you neglect to mention. Somehow though while the forewings were questionable, the hindwings weren't! Yes, care, checking, and rechecking there!
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 9:37:40 GMT
Oh thagy, since you used the race card against me--although I am half-Chinese, so your attack was woefully inappropriate and misdirected, I have decided to compile even more instances of the lack of checking and counterchecking in the West which you so insist occurs nowadays.
Phil Manning hardly checked and double checked his findings on the edmontosaurus Dakota--he didn't even bother to write a scientific paper, he just appeared on a National Geographic video and wrote a book!
Did Mary Schweitzer check and double check her t-rex proteins? None of her proteins were replicable in any other institution--but she still insists she's right! She was featured as a saint on Discover, so she must be right, must she not? Heh, now how can we approach the work of a woman who cannot distinguish between a blood vessel and pond scum!
Archaeoraptor will happen again and again. The same excuses will be made again and again. And dinosaurology will sink even further in the reputations of the sciences again and again.
Oh and by the way, a test was filmed about the flight or gliding of microraptor in a windtunnel--turns out it CAN'T FLY OR GLIDE AT ALL unless it pulls all its wing feathers up to form a canopy over its tail. Like that is morphologically plausible. Let's see if they're going to write a paper explaining this failure though.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 27, 2008 9:49:46 GMT
I read through two full pages to find out that nothing has changed. Piltdown, you didn't answer my questions, for whatever reason which tells me that you don't really want to discuss it, you just want to hold your ground:
1. Are you knowingly committing this straw man fallacy? Or 2. 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). Or 3. Or, is my hypothesis right, that are you referring to supposedly undetected, already described hoaxes in the fossil literature?
Or. something else.
I have no reason to think these will be answered if I ask again.
Crazycrowman has clearly explained, numerous times, why it is OK to use the separate parts comprising a composite specimen. He has also made it very clear that it is not OK to knowingly regard a chimera composite as a whole as a valid species. You are dealing in absolutes. Only a sith deals in absolutes!
I'm locking this thread again out of concern for the health of those involved! I will open it again only if I am requested (PM me if you have something constructive to add)
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Oct 30, 2008 12:05:03 GMT
thread unlocked. ding ding ding - round two!
Seriously though, while everyone is more than welcome to discuss this topic and everyone is welcome to their point of view, personal attacks and abusive comments, from anyone, are not allowed. If you feel the urge to post an insulting or provoking comment, may I suggest you all do the honorable thing instead: step back and call it a day. If you feel you have been the victim of an abusive attack, bring it to the attention of the admins, don't embarrass yourselves by venting your anger on the boards.
I may as well start by repeating what I said before -
It is OK to use the separate parts comprising a composite specimen. It is not OK to knowingly regard a chimera composite as a whole as a valid species. Do we all agree on these points and if not, why not? Lets try and find some common ground and build on that.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Oct 30, 2008 12:21:04 GMT
"It is OK to use the separate parts comprising a composite specimen. It is not OK to knowingly regard a chimera composite as a whole as a valid species. Do we all agree on these points and if not, why not? Lets try and find some common ground and build on that."
Yes, I agree completely. That said, I am going to do my best to pass on round 2, as we have already had it. Everything usefull has been said that can be said has already been said to clarify the subject with those who continue to try to muddy the concepts.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 30, 2008 12:30:42 GMT
Well I disagree vehemently. It is unethical, misleading, and frequently illegal (the 'fossil' of archaeoraptor was illegally exported from China) to use the separate parts of a chimera, especially since there is now no way of verifying the provenance or authenticity of the allegedly still valid 'composite' parts. Allowing this practice will merely encourage the 'farmers' and 'dealers' to create more hoaxes--er, composites-- to make them look more presentable to potential buyers and scientists.
That said, I doubt round 2 will be result in any further enlightenment. There is an essential difference in moral principle between craven expediency and right, and these differences in belief cannot be resolved. Anyway, those who accuse me of muddying the issue have apparently not read the full account of the investigation into the Archaeoraptor affair, as I have only posted factual information. The actual behaviour of the paleos and their statements are even more embarrassing to the paleos involved than I have depicted.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 30, 2008 13:02:18 GMT
thread unlocked. ding ding ding - round two! Seriously though, while everyone is more than welcome to discuss this topic and everyone is welcome to their point of view, personal attacks and abusive comments, from anyone, are not allowed. If you feel the urge to post an insulting or provoking comment, may I suggest you all do the honorable thing instead: step back and call it a day. If you feel you have been the victim of an abusive attack, bring it to the attention of the admins, don't embarrass yourselves by venting your anger on the boards. I may as well start by repeating what I said before - It is OK to use the separate parts comprising a composite specimen. It is not OK to knowingly regard a chimera composite as a whole as a valid species. Do we all agree on these points and if not, why not? Lets try and find some common ground and build on that. Isn't opening this thread a provoking comment Personally, I'm staying out of it, because I've already tried to make that point elsewhere and it went nowhere.
|
|