|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 2, 2011 2:57:53 GMT
My point exactly. Nobody is capable to picture an ornitischian dinosaur being slow and dumb anymore, despiting its peanut sized brain and other modern theories questioning its assumed highly endothermic nature. That would made it uncool, so it can´t be. "Well that´s only a theory, but hey we can´t be sure and everything is possible!", this common response from someone who doesn´t even consider it is usually just another way to say that you don´t really care about what paleontologists say unless it fits your personal taste, and you will stick to your cool pseudofantastic creatures no matter what. It denotes just a lack of objectivity and personal interest in avoiding anything that contradicts your preconceptions and preferences. There lies the actual dogma, not in theories developed by experts and backed up by real evidence or the lack of it, with NOTHING suggesting otherwise besides someones imagination .
And I honestly dont see such a change in the mainstream mentality , just thousands and thousands of dogmatic paleofans stucked with the post-JP notion of paleontology and deaf to any other suggestion. Stuff like Planet Dinosaur is too recent and maybe not enough accurate to settle some real difference, but is a step in the right direction. Maybe in a couple of decades we would have moved a bit, who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Oct 2, 2011 4:58:04 GMT
You may not like it but it takes time for ideas to change. To the general public and casual fans who don't take the time to read every scrap of newly-published material it's very hard to keep up with the latest theories. The ideas of the dinosaur renaissance didn't catch up to the general public for about 25 years, when Jurassic Park was released.
And people don't immediately accept everything the scientific community tells them. You may call that dogmatic but at the turn of the 20th century the scientific commnunity believed that humankind's biggest challenge was the weakening of the gene pool by the mentally and phyiscally unfit and the racially impure. Turns out they dropped the ball on that one.
So give it time. People will come to accept that dinosaurs weren't as agile or intelligent as modern-day mammals. But they're never going to stop using their imagination to embellish the details, so you might as well get used to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 2, 2011 8:43:19 GMT
Krissy and Gwangi absolutely nailed the point! Arioch, understand me: i'm more inclined to think that dinosaurs were more complex that you believe not because it's cooler, or because i "dogmatic" believe it without a question (and when i was talkin' about paleo-fans taking every new theory as gospel, i was also thinkin' about you... No offense, of course  ), but because logic makes me think this way; just lookin' at the fossil will never be enough to understand who they really were, granted, and parsimony tells us to not be too speculative, double granted, but at the same time, considering how long non-avian dinosaurs lived on this planet, the fact they basically occupied the same ecological niches modern mammals occupy today and that modern birds can be as (or even more) complex than, say, a lion... Well, this tells me BY LOGIC, that maybe some of them could have been way capable of features we usually associate to our furry cousins. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 2, 2011 12:09:03 GMT
I really don´t know how it seems that I take every new theory " as gospel", like there wasn´t a reasonable amount of evidence brought by experts in some of them (and besides of that, no, not every new theory is valid). Care to say an example? in the worst scenario, that´s better than mere speculation done by non experts based on assumed and possibly wrong analogies, or believe that all feathered fossils coming from China are just fakes. "Logic" usually stems from each person subjective judgements, even creationists normally found their own arguments based on -their own- logic, so it is a meaningless word unless it is accompanied by solid evidence or developed, objective scientific thinking. Thanks for confirming what I previously stated, anyway.
And fair point, Krissy.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 2, 2011 13:00:44 GMT
I really don´t know how it seems that I take every new theory " as gospel", like there wasn´t a reasonable amount of evidence brought by experts in some of them (and besides of that, no, not every new theory is valid). Care to say an example? in the worst scenario, that´s better than mere speculation done by non experts based on assumed and possibly wrong analogies, or believe that all feathered fossils coming from China are just fakes. "Logic" usually stems from each person subjective judgements, even creationists normally found their own arguments based on -their own- logic, so it is a meaningless word unless it is accompanied by solid evidence or developed, objective scientific thinking. Thanks for confirming what I previously stated, anyway. Maybe i misunderstood you, but when you use expression as "the sad truth" or when sometimes you talk like you really witnessed those creatures living their lives, well, it sounds a lil' dogmatic to me. You're right that logic can be a trap (the creationism example is spot on!), but the thing is, some of the scenarios you and even some experts propose (lack of parental care, among other things) aren't well backed up by evidence as you would believe; what we usually have in paleontology is a partial evidence that maybe THAT species (or, worse, only that specimen) behaved this or that way... Granted, some theories are more speculative than others, but at the same time some of them are not as absurd as the more academic ones. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 2, 2011 13:34:21 GMT
We didn´t witness the extinction of non avian dinosaurs, but we know that they became extinct 65 million years ago. We don´t depict Campanian dinosaurs living in the late Maastrichtian the same way you won´t see T.Rex depicted living alongside Mammoths in the Miocene. But sure, we only have partial evidence of that! so it can´t be called the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 2, 2011 14:56:23 GMT
^ Agreed. Too bad some people dont give much credit to logic, specially when the conclusions threaten their personal preferences and the Rule of Cool on extinct dinosaurs. That better not be directed at me. Because thats hardly where I stand on things. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 2, 2011 18:30:50 GMT
We didn´t witness the extinction of non avian dinosaurs, but we know that they became extinct 65 million years ago. We don´t depict Campanian dinosaurs living in the late Maastrichtian the same way you won´t see T.Rex depicted living alongside Mammoths in the Miocene. But sure, we only have partial evidence of that! so it can´t be called the truth. Obviously ALL prehistoric animals lived at the same time! Are you telling me that Invicta poster isn't accurate?! How dare ya! ;D Joking aside, there's a BIG difference between your examplve and what i'm saying; physical evidence (such as stratigraphy and/or fossil findings such as, say, the quill knobs of Velociraptor) can't be taken as "partial evidence", as opposed to behaviour of which we don't have (almost) no concrete basis to work on. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 2, 2011 19:34:43 GMT
Well then, since the only time I have literally refered to something as the truth -which you keep pointing out- it was based on reliable stratigraphical record (decreasing of dinosaurian variety towards the very end of the mesozoic) as much as the K/T extinction, you shouldn´t have a problem with that statement. Unless you want to contradict yourself now! either way I think this discussion is a bit pointless, lets move on, please...
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 2, 2011 20:02:03 GMT
When i talk about the validity of stratigraphy i mean that we can use it with confidence to date when a certain dinosaur lived and where, not taking into the account the fact that many other species could have lived along with the aforementioned dinosaur but didn't fossilized... Remember, fossilization is a VERY rare process |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 2, 2011 20:37:58 GMT
When i talk about the validity of stratigraphy i mean that we can use it with confidence to date when a certain dinosaur lived and where, not taking into the account the fact that many other species could have lived along with the aforementioned dinosaur but didn't fossilized... Remember, fossilization is a VERY rare process Not only that but places like Hell Creek only serve as a window into what life was like at that particular time and place. You cannot really gauge dinosaur diversity on a global scale based on a couple specific locations. That is like saying because large mammals are scarce in the UK they must be scarce everywhere. I live in NY, we have little in the way of dinosaur fossils. We'll probably never know what animals lived here during the 160 million year reign of the dinosaurs. Populations may have been low at Hell Creek at the end of the Cretaceous but thriving here in NY. It is kind of sad really but it is also exciting, who knows what we will find and where. I do understand what Arioch is saying though. We have to be able to come to conclusions of some sort by studying these animals. If Hell Creek says dinosaur population were on the low than that is what we have to accept until something shows us otherwise. Until that something comes along we can't really say dinosaur diversity was high because there is nothing to back it up. That said, saying that dinosaur populations were low is "the sad truth" is not 100% accurate either, this kind of science does not deal in absolutes. It is still just a theory and could be shown wrong as soon as tomorrow. Even things we feel confident about such as birds being dinosaurs could tomorrow be completely turned upside down and we need to accept that...however unlikely it may be. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 2, 2011 21:13:19 GMT
Thats applicable to a lot of things outside paleontology that we give for granted, actually. Like humans being primates. But do we currently have a minimal reason to not believe that we are primates or birds are dinosaurs, or non avian dinos did become extinct in the late Mesozoic and prior to that they were already in decay for some millions of years? No, all what we have just points to that. Then, why keep questioning just for the sake of it...? only people who doesnt like its implications, prefer sci fi over reality or have its own agenda do that. Does that mean that we shouldn´t keep looking for more evidence to either streghten or debunk it? no, but meanwhile, accept that as a "truth" is not prideful! it doesn´t matter if some years later that turns out to be slightly or completely wrong, and nobody is going to blame you, because you had no reason to think otherwise. That´s how paleontology and a fair deal of science works, the truth is constantly evolving but only on a solid basis. Such an amount of caution based on...nothing is unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 3, 2011 0:30:13 GMT
Thats applicable to a lot of things outside paleontology that we give for granted, actually. Like humans being primates. But do we currently have a minimal reason to not believe that we are primates or birds are dinosaurs, or non avian dinos did become extinct in the late Mesozoic and prior to that they were already in decay for some millions of years? No, all what we have just points to that. Then, why keep questioning just for the sake of it...? only people who doesnt like its implications, prefer sci fi over reality or have its own agenda do that. Does that mean that we shouldn´t keep looking for more evidence to either streghten or debunk it? no, but meanwhile, accept that as a "truth" is not prideful! it doesn´t matter if some years later that turns out to be slightly or completely wrong, and nobody is going to blame you, because you had no reason to think otherwise. That´s how paleontology and a fair deal of science works, the truth is constantly evolving but only on a solid basis. Such an amount of caution based on...nothing is unnecessary. The truth is always the truth it doesn't change based on new evidence. Theories and hypothesis may change but they aren't the truth, there only speculation. And if you accept and don't question, how can you ever hope to get close to the truth. Truth is an absolute fact or reality. You can't use circumstantial evidence, and call it truth. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 3, 2011 0:54:56 GMT
The truth is always the truth it doesn't change based on new evidence. Theories and hypothesis may change but they aren't the truth, there only speculation. And if you accept and don't question, how can you ever hope to get close to the truth. Truth is an absolute fact or reality. You can't use circumstantial evidence, and call it truth. Exactly. There is a lot of difference between the truth and a best guess. Saying dinosaurs were on the decline is not a truth, it is a hypothesis based on the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 3, 2011 1:18:19 GMT
And absolute, impartial and complete truth is something UNACHIEVABLE for we humans, and not only regarding prehistoric life but also the recent past. All we can do is get a brief glimpse of it through the constant acumulation of evidence and theories ( even hypothesis, at least until they´re verified). That is our truth, the only one we can have and the only one we can call truth (unless you want to get into religious or metaphysical stuff). And what bloody circumstancial evidence am I using? Do you know what Scientific Truth is, stoneage? And questioning any theory based on nothing is just pointless. All the revolutionary movements on the past in any kind of science had a basis to back them up, they didnt fight the established thoughts and theories just for the sake of it. The mere lack of absolute certainty is not a good enough reason to question anything and never has been! that´s only our motivation to keep looking for new evidence and alternative theories, and only once you have found it, and not before you would able to suggest that X theory might be wrong. Being constantly reminding ourselves that "we can never really know the complete truth" to dismiss science is foolish. Of course we can´t! "Exactly. There is a lot of difference between the truth and a best guess. Saying dinosaurs were on the decline is not a truth, it is a hypothesis based on the evidence. " Thats a logical phallacy. If you can´t never know what the actual truth is, how do you really know that such hypothesis is NOT certain? |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 3, 2011 3:39:49 GMT
Jeeze, can't we just get back to talking about DINOSAURS? Specifically Tyrannosaurs and Alamosaurus. I mean really, is this argument worth anything anymore? Are anyone's opinions going to change due to it? I'll answer both with a no, and I'm talking from years of experience here. I've dealt with people like Arioch before, they aren't satisfied until they drive home every point of their argument. I clearly stated that I understood what he said three posts back and that just went on being ignored in favor of further bickering. Now we aren't even talking about dinosaurs, we're talking about the definition of a truth...I'm over it and honestly just don't care. Back on topic. It looks like this was discussed on Dinosaur Tracking a couple years ago. blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2009/03/tyrannosaurus-vs-alamosaurus/At least we know they actually lived together, I wasn't even certain of that until I read the above link. The topic was discussed again on DT... blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2009/03/see-tyrannosaurus-take-a-bite-out-of-alamosaurus/Looks like even Jurassic Park speculated on the subject, it never occurred to me that the mounted sauropod in JP could have actually lived alongside Tyrannosaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by pylraster on Oct 3, 2011 13:48:19 GMT
Indeed the topic was about T.rex and sauropods but it degenerated into something else completely. The question still remains in the air, as we haven't seen Alamosaurus with bite marks resembling those of T.Rex...
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 3, 2011 17:21:19 GMT
Yeah, back on T.rex/Alamosaurus epic battles and the possibility of it In JP that mount in the Visitor Center was indeed a Rexy vs Alamo diorama; i too discovered that the long necked guy lived along with Rex some years after i saw the movie... Eh, this fact somehow even validates the first (and only, at least for me) "Land Before Time" movie; if we assume Littlefoot and his family were Alamosaurs and not Apatosaurs as usually (and canonically) thought, that fight between Littlefoot's mother and Sharptooth gets a brand new layer of accuracy ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 3, 2011 18:44:18 GMT
Yeah, back on T.rex/Alamosaurus epic battles and the possibility of it In JP that mount in the Visitor Center was indeed a Rexy vs Alamo diorama; i too discovered that the long necked guy lived along with Rex some years after i saw the movie... Eh, this fact somehow even validates the first (and only, at least for me) "Land Before Time" movie; if we assume Littlefoot and his family were Alamosaurs and not Apatosaurs as usually (and canonically) thought, that fight between Littlefoot's mother and Sharptooth gets a brand new layer of accuracy ;D ;D ;D Yeah but you still have things like stegosaurus and dimetrodon walking around in that movie too lol |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 3, 2011 21:16:03 GMT
Uuh... Ehm... Well, just pretend that Dimetrodon somewhat survived the Permian extinction and the Stegosaurs portrayed there are an yet to be identified species from the Late Cretaceous ;D
|
|
), but because logic makes me think this way; just lookin' at the fossil will never be enough to understand who they really were, granted, and parsimony tells us to not be too speculative, double granted, but at the same time, considering how long non-avian dinosaurs lived on this planet, the fact they basically occupied the same ecological niches modern mammals occupy today and that modern birds can be as (or even more) complex than, say, a lion... Well, this tells me BY LOGIC, that maybe some of them could have been way capable of features we usually associate to our furry cousins.
