|
|
Post by ambulocetus on Jun 27, 2011 4:07:26 GMT
I remember on this forum not long ago, I had S. Bell correct my calling a basilosaurus a "zueglodon." I've posted before I don't like this particular name change becuase it is scientifically inaccurate.
The reason I'm posting on it now is because I was watching a creationsit video given to me by a person trying to convince me of creationism. The "scientist" on the video made many false claims. One of them was that the basilosaurus was a "serpent like creature that had no relation to whales." it seemed he was attempting to mislead his audience, by using the fact that it WAS serpent like, and had a reptilian name.
Does anyone think basilosaurus should still be the "real" name of an ancient cetecean?
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 27, 2011 4:32:49 GMT
I remember on this forum not long ago, I had S. Bell correct my calling a basilosaurus a "zueglodon." I've posted before I don't like this particular name change becuase it is scientifically inaccurate. The reason I'm posting on it now is because I was watching a creationsit video given to me by a person trying to convince me of creationism. The "scientist" on the video made many false claims. One of them was that the basilosaurus was a "serpent like creature that had no relation to whales." it seemed he was attempting to mislead his audience, by using the fact that it WAS serpent like, and had a reptilian name. Does anyone think basilosaurus should still be the "real" name of an ancient cetecean? They make the same arguments over things like Hyracotherium (so named because the initial discoverer thought it looked like a Hyrax). All it does is demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific process--the names are based on the initial assumptions of the namer; as our information gets better, we refine how we define the relationships. The name has to stay the same, though, or we would have a very hard time tracking down original references (maybe not now, but in a pre-computer world, it was no small feat to work back to original publications). |
|
|
|
Post by ambulocetus on Jun 27, 2011 5:31:42 GMT
I remember reading about how they said that about hyracotherium somewhere. It may not be so much ignorance, as willful misrepresentation. Creationists study the fossil record and are aware of the facts themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Jun 28, 2011 0:53:21 GMT
I remember reading about how they said that about hyracotherium somewhere. It may not be so much ignorance, as willful misrepresentation. Creationists study the fossil record and are aware of the facts themselves. Not if they think Basilosaurus is reptilian just because it has a reptilian name. That's about as ignorant as people who think Quetzalcoatlus was the inspiration for Aztec gods just because some guy in 1970 named it after one. I'd say that shows this person is ignorant not only of the facts, but of such basic things as how animals get their names. Either that or he's willfully misleading people by distorting the facts or presenting them in a way that points toward a false conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by ambulocetus on Jun 29, 2011 4:24:15 GMT
One or the other. Possibly he was ignorant, which was my point about basilosaurus having a misleading name. The name does honor to the actual discoverer, but its misleading nonetheless. Then again, some of those who promote creationism do intentially mislead, since without their agenda, they wouldn't draw the same conclusions. In doing so, they're breaking the comandment not to bear false witness, which is one thing they are not supposed to do.
|
|
