|
|
Post by deanm on Jan 28, 2011 13:47:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 28, 2011 14:07:47 GMT
Hadrosaur bones have been reported from 'beyond the Cretaceous' before, but have always been dismissed as having been reworked. It'll be interesting to see what kind of reception this gets.
|
|
|
|
Post by deanm on Jan 28, 2011 14:16:05 GMT
You're right about the previous dinosaurs post KT claim.
I wanted to look at the paper but it is a "pay per view" but others on the forum may have access through school etc so their viewpoints after reading it would be good to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 28, 2011 15:37:10 GMT
It's going to have to hold up to a lot of scrutiny. Some of the points of possible contention:
-they used a revolutionary way of dating bone samples, one which hasn't really been tested in enough independent studies yet
-using the dates from that new technique to provide an 'exact' date
-comparing that date to another one (the K/T bdy) that is still being fine-tuned
If any one of those falls for some reason (my guess? first one) then this will be another 'remixing' situation.
One reason--the article itself mentions that Uranium isotopes can enter the bone during fossilization--in other words, the uranium enters only after the animal dies; depending on the time frame for the fossilization of that piece of bone, that could have been, oh, 700,000 years later or more...
And why in New Mexico? The very name of the state indicates it's proximity to the actual Yucatan blast. I've always been more curious why dinosaurs didn't extend past the boundary in further away areas like Africa or even northern Asia.
But no matter how this plays out, it is a good example of how science is constantly faced with new data, and having to try and understand how each new data point alters previous understanding (if it holds true). There was, after all, a time when the K/T was pegged at about 64.8 Ma (there have been other close dates as well). Before the iridium layer was used as the boundary (one being geologic, one being faunal, the rocks and extinction event don't actually have to match up).
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 28, 2011 16:11:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 28, 2011 16:24:28 GMT
And in the first sentence, with their discussion of 'archaeological discoveries', we pretty much know how well-informed the author of this article is. ;D And the discoveries mentioned are still going to need to stand up to a lot of scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Post by darwinian on Jan 29, 2011 3:19:40 GMT
As I understand these hadrosaurs were found in a compound in Montanna, preserved with firearms, confederate flags, and forty tons of ammunition. |
|
|
|
Post by darwinian on Jan 29, 2011 3:27:23 GMT
At some point we are going to come to our senses and pass a Natural Selection Facilitation Act. It's good to know that when that day comes, creationist websites will make it much easier to sift through the populace. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 29, 2011 4:48:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 29, 2011 14:50:27 GMT
Well, what frequently happens is that some sort of data point shows up--in this case, a single potential fossil that survived beyond what we thought--and the militant evolution deniers decide that means the whole thing is false and so we should go back to using the Bible as a science reference (note--I m not saying all, or even most, Christians-and others-say or want this, just the extreme and vocal minority). Even though this one find doesn't actually change anything. It just means that we learned something new, and had to reformulate our hypothesis of that particular extinction event (it doesn't impact Natural Selection at all). It's just that, when they are looking for negative evidence to prove something, it is far easier and more tempting to try and tear down the opposition (as another example--some of them still try to use the Piltdown hoax as evidence that evolution doesn't work. Apparently, the self-correcting nature of science is not what eventually brought that hoax to light). |
|
|
|
Post by darwinian on Jan 29, 2011 18:27:31 GMT
Well, what frequently happens is that some sort of data point shows up--in this case, a single potential fossil that survived beyond what we thought--and the militant evolution deniers decide that means the whole thing is false and so we should go back to using the Bible as a science reference (note--I m not saying all, or even most, Christians-and others-say or want this, just the extreme and vocal minority). Even though this one find doesn't actually change anything. It just means that we learned something new, and had to reformulate our hypothesis of that particular extinction event (it doesn't impact Natural Selection at all). It's just that, when they are looking for negative evidence to prove something, it is far easier and more tempting to try and tear down the opposition (as another example--some of them still try to use the Piltdown hoax as evidence that evolution doesn't work. Apparently, the self-correcting nature of science is not what eventually brought that hoax to light). Right. Most creationists tend to buy into a false dichotomy - if science is wrong, Genesis must be right. Where scientists see the self correcting nature of science as beneficial, creationists see it as proof that science stands on a shaky foundation, lacking in truth. |
|
