|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 23, 2008 8:28:57 GMT
As expected, you can't answer my arguments--you are just trying to explain away what you wrote by saying you really don't mean what you wrote, which is a very bad way of arguing, though not surprising -- it's easier for you to just post scarecrow pictures. As if that was a valid argument or response!
If you don't like my posts, then don't answer them! Very simple! You answer, then when you don't like what you read, you say' troll'. Rather thick coming from someone who poses as an 'invisible user'.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 23, 2008 8:45:24 GMT
Oh and as for why I returned, I decided I wasn't going to run out of here by the likes of you, CCM, and others like you. Only tomhet or Dr A have the right to kick me out, not you. You could ask them to expel me, then when they tell me to leave I'll go. In the meantime, any dino-bird nonsense will be responded to.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Oct 23, 2008 9:28:45 GMT
Well, I would not ask them to ban you, and never did. I don't even leave people bad "karma". I even had hoped you would come back the first time you made such a piffle over someone offending you because back then I thought that maybe we were just not understanding one another, and that you were here to share information, learn and enjoy dinosaurs and dinosaur figure collecting. That is why I am here. I recall you saying ""Oh, since you have definitely come down on Sbell's and CCM's and Thaggy's side of the argument, apparently without reading my responses, it does appear my contributions are of no importance here as it transpires. Therefore, my final goodbye. I'm won't be suckered into coming back again." about why you left. dinotoyforum.proboards100.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2&page=25You said that here. I would, though, go back to what Dinotoyforum asked you at the end of the Archeoraptor thread.... dinotoyforum.proboards100.com/index.cgi?board=dinos&action=display&thread=346&page=6"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?" You had never responded to him there. I am in many ways amused at how very similar both of these discussions are. You dodged, and then made the claims that everyone "against you" were the ones who made the strawman arguments... "In the meantime, any dino-bird nonsense will be responded to." With...more Ad hominem and Strawmen, right ?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 23, 2008 10:08:02 GMT
As for the three questions Dr A and you are making so much of a fuss about:
1. I don't commit straw man arguments; I answer what I read. It seems though that on this forum the 'straw men argument' means 'argument which is irrefutable and thus cannot be answered,' like Xu Xing and Phil Currie's media extravaganza before actually studying the specimen.
2. But they did name archaeoraptor, in a press conference to boot, without a peer reviewed paper but in National Geographic. (All previous attempts were firmly rejected by the journals Nature and Science, in a rare case of upholding scientific standards even when presented with a fuzzy dino.). Only when the hoax was exposed did we hear talk of 'composites' of birds like Yanornis. Since Dr A has already said that 'fraudulent' specimens can be made valid species by some hocuspocus that involves a peer review, then I think that was settled, at least to Dr A's satisfaction. The moral implications I do not agree with, since the inescapable conclusion is that it seems acceptable for fraud to occur in paleontology as long as a paper can be written about it later--hence "Irritator"--but since the admin of the forum has decided and stated that this procedure is acceptable practice I won't belabor the point further. Since I am not a paleo, at least my conscience won't be besmirched by that working method.
3. I don't understand what Dr A means with that question.
And I will reply-- whether you believe them or not is of no concern to me, unless you post your usual corvian silliness or some scarecrow pic and goad me to respond. May I suggest however spending time thinking about your replies rather than googling for scarecrow pics, so at least I will have something coherent to respond to.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 23, 2008 13:40:10 GMT
Under the pics it says "Dinosaur tail marks are rare". So they've discovered other marks before? I've seen dino tail marks before. I wish I could remember where, but I distinctly recall a diagram of a tridactyl dinosaur track site with tail marks specifically noted on it. The mark seemed to be where the dinosaur may have been turning sharply, or jumping or some sort of activity other than ordinary locomotion, and the interpretation as being from the tail appeared to be correct. Here's an example of a what track from a genuine tail dragger looks like (an amphibian): I used to have difficulty accepting the high tail position introduced in restorations by Greg Paul and others. My initial reaction was that it defied gravity and necessity, and for a while I felt a low-slung tail gave a more naturalistic appearance. However, if you look at the typical death pose in articulated dinosaur remains, such as the Carnegie Museum's Camarasaurus, that backward curve of the tail is caused by the tightening of the ligaments that in life must have had little effort holding it aloft. Looking at it from that perspective made things a lot more apparent to me. In animals such as Diplodocus, it's hard to imagine the tail held for such a distance, but it quite likely was. Just now thinking about it, I'm gaining more of an appreciation for what a bizarre adaptation that diplo tail was. Hey, what are you doing, bringing this thread back on track! Seriously, how do these threads get so heavily derailed? Anyway, I have to admit that raised tails was something I had to get used to as well, but in retrospect it seems to fit the skeletal evidence far better. I remember an old PBS Dinosaurs program where Bakker (when he wasn't completely insane) pointed out a museum display where the tail vertebrae had actually been forcibly altered to fit the kangaroo-pose that had become accepted (I think it was an iguanodon, but it was definitely an ornithopod of some sort). After all, at one point, dinosaurs were considered big lizards, therefore they should be draggers (although not all lizards drag). So we had reconstructions like this: Of course, skeletal anatomy and common sense won out. It usually does.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 23, 2008 13:57:15 GMT
Those markings on the Velociraptor ulna were quite illusory, I mean, they just saw what they wanted to see if you ask me. If dinos had protofeathers, what would be the use of big true feathers? I truly hope one day we'll consider those stupid reconstructions of 'feathered' dinosaurs as inaccurate as the sprawling Diplodocus ;D Fact is, we know very little and we assume a great deal. I agree with ya,Tom
|
|
|
Post by b33 on Oct 23, 2008 16:28:49 GMT
Piltdown has responded with clear, thorough arguments to everything crowman has put at him. Crowman just keeps littering this thread and board with his scarecrow comments.
Edited for insulting comments and member banned for recurrent disregard for forum rules. -Admins
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Oct 23, 2008 19:15:38 GMT
Hey, what are you doing, bringing this thread back on track! Seriously, how do these threads get so heavily derailed? Anyway, I have to admit that raised tails was something I had to get used to as well, but in retrospect it seems to fit the skeletal evidence far better. I remember an old PBS Dinosaurs program where Bakker (when he wasn't completely insane) pointed out a museum display where the tail vertebrae had actually been forcibly altered to fit the kangaroo-pose that had become accepted (I think it was an iguanodon, but it was definitely an ornithopod of some sort). After all, at one point, dinosaurs were considered big lizards, therefore they should be draggers (although not all lizards drag). So we had reconstructions like this: Of course, skeletal anatomy and common sense won out. It usually does. yeah I'm not quite sure what happened with this thread either . I was gonna post that reply a day earlier, back when this was a one-page, on-topic thread, but I wanted to see if I could find that trackway diagram. In the meantime it seems to have become another proxy battle in the ever raging dino-bird wars. Iguanodon was supposedly mounted with broken tail bones. I think that's a special case. I have huge respect for Mantell's reconstruction of Iguanodon and Leidy's restoration of hadrosaurus. They didn't have much to work on, but they still got a lot right. But I have to wonder about Dollo. Over 30 articulated skeletons and he still felt the need to use a kangaroo as a model? It was right in front of him and he somehow managed to deceive himself.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 23, 2008 20:46:57 GMT
Hey, what are you doing, bringing this thread back on track! Seriously, how do these threads get so heavily derailed? Anyway, I have to admit that raised tails was something I had to get used to as well, but in retrospect it seems to fit the skeletal evidence far better. I remember an old PBS Dinosaurs program where Bakker (when he wasn't completely insane) pointed out a museum display where the tail vertebrae had actually been forcibly altered to fit the kangaroo-pose that had become accepted (I think it was an iguanodon, but it was definitely an ornithopod of some sort). After all, at one point, dinosaurs were considered big lizards, therefore they should be draggers (although not all lizards drag). So we had reconstructions like this: Of course, skeletal anatomy and common sense won out. It usually does. yeah I'm not quite sure what happened with this thread either . I was gonna post that reply a day earlier, back when this was a one-page, on-topic thread, but I wanted to see if I could find that trackway diagram. In the meantime it seems to have become another proxy battle in the ever raging dino-bird wars. Iguanodon was supposedly mounted with broken tail bones. I think that's a special case. I have huge respect for Mantell's reconstruction of Iguanodon and Leidy's restoration of hadrosaurus. They didn't have much to work on, but they still got a lot right. But I have to wonder about Dollo. Over 30 articulated skeletons and he still felt the need to use a kangaroo as a model? It was right in front of him and he somehow managed to deceive himself. As with many things, people get a notion in their heads, and refuse to change with new understanding. As such, the German reconstruction of Diplodocus pictured above was forced into being because the museum people knew that dinosaurs are reptiles, and reptiles sprawl. Of course, this ignored the rather obvious skeletal evidence,as well as common sense, even at the time. Of course, in retrospect we are far more aware of how diverse reptile morphology could be--there were many non-sprawling 'reptiles' such as paraiesaurs and rauisuchids, but at the time they were understood even less. As for the thread derailment--it is just such an easy thing to get off topic. All it takes is a comment here or there, and suddenly everything becomes about 'that' "debate". Perhaps as a suggestion to the admins, these derailments need to be nipped quicker to keep the thread focused? And I know full well that I can get into those vortices as well; it starts out well-intentioned enough (responding to a comment), but eventually always seems to spiral into the same place. I think there is a thread to 'discuss' bird-dino stuff (or was it locked?).
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 23, 2008 23:38:55 GMT
Yes, sbell, you bring me up and mock my arguments every chance you find, then when I respond you accuse me of being a troll and derailing the thread! Very typical dino-bird logic.
If you want to be a mod go ask Dr A to make you one, since it's so obvious you're just itching to take over the place to enforce your dino-bird phantasy and kick out all the naysayers.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Oct 23, 2008 23:48:47 GMT
I don't think this is fake. If those really are tailmarks, I don't really see what the big deal is. I mean, would it really be such a shock if dinosaurs were capable of touching their tails to the ground? Of course not. These are living animals. Walking on my tip toes is not something I normally do--because of the biomechanics of my body, it's not a normal or comfortable position. That doesn't mean I don't do it sometimes for various reasons. Just look at the various footprints of theropods walking on their ankles through mud for support, that have been interpreted by creationists as human footprints. Animals don't walk around like stiff plaster models. Or stiff CGI models
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 24, 2008 3:43:53 GMT
Yes, sbell, you bring me up and mock my arguments every chance you find, then when I respond you accuse me of being a troll and derailing the thread! Very typical dino-bird logic. If you want to be a mod go ask Dr A to make you one, since it's so obvious you're just itching to take over the place to enforce your dino-bird phantasy and kick out all the naysayers. Thank you for your nomination, I will do that. I know I shouldn't respond--no good comes of it. But I will this one more time. Sorry if it sounded like I was referring to you, I really wasn't. You may notice that I referred to myself in that post--because I know I do it as well. There are several of us that do, on both sides of the equation. We shouldn't--nothing really ever comes of it anyway. My main point was that this particular argument does not need to come up in the various science posts, that there is a thread for that (unless it's locked, I haven't looked), and we should all make a concerted effort to stick to the topic in the header (in this case, tail marks, and the potential for faked trace fossils). I also realize that in 'normal' conversation, topics ebb and flow as people converse, but forums are different--there is rarely real-time interaction, and there is no non-verbal communication to indicate that people really aren't trying to hurt feelings or such things, only trying to get to points of understanding (I hope). But in the cold environment of typing on keyboards, that can easily be lost or forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by bjeast on Oct 25, 2008 6:29:14 GMT
I have found this thread interesting, then frustrating, then interesting again. I'm also finding it challenging not to go into "parent mode." I'm also finding it hard not to go into "irritated professor" mode. Ah what the heck... Here's what I suggest. Oh, and by the way, since I'm kind of new here, I know you might be wondering why I'm even offering my opinion on this, but I figure, why not?
We've had some interesting, shall we say, "differences of opinion" in this thread. But I think it might help if we tried to avoid saying "he started it." Let's just keep things going on topic. You all have some great things to say, and I enjoy reading the varying perspectives, long as they stick to the topic at hand.
Now, I know you know this, but remember to discuss the article itself. And try to stick to facts. I know, I know, what a "fact" is seems to be a matter that's hard to define. That's okay. We'll work around that as best we can. :-)
Also, stay away from generalizations. They're sometimes helpful, but when they sound like "all paleontologist want, are, do...." they're usually wrong. Same thing goes for the media. Some media members aren't careful. But some really do try. It's usually best to avoid generalizing.
Just discuss what's there. And if someone disagrees with you, fine. You know that's going to happen, no matter what we talk about. I fully realize that it's pretty easy to get frustrated with someone when they refuse to acknowledge the iron-clad nature of your well-reasoned point. Trust me, my wife will agree with that. :-) But that's life. And it's definitely life online.
Maybe if we tried to pretend you're in the same room with the person that you're talking with. And that you're going to be with this person for a while. The anonymity of the net sometimes works against us, but we can try. And of course, even this tip doesn't always work. Things can get pretty ugly when we're in the same room, too. But it's worth a shot.
Cheers, and peace, my fellow dino-lovers :-) I'd suggest a group hug, but I'm not quite sure we're ready for that. :-)
P.S. Oh, and just so know, I've been around enough to know that sometimes even with best of intentions we just can't get along. I just thought I'd try to help, since I really do enjoy a lot of what I read here. :-)
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 25, 2008 8:42:38 GMT
I have found this thread interesting, then frustrating, then interesting again. I'm also finding it challenging not to go into "parent mode." I'm also finding it hard not to go into "irritated professor" mode. Ah what the heck... Here's what I suggest. Oh, and by the way, since I'm kind of new here, I know you might be wondering why I'm even offering my opinion on this, but I figure, why not? We've had some interesting, shall we say, "differences of opinion" in this thread. But I think it might help if we tried to avoid saying "he started it." Let's just keep things going on topic. You all have some great things to say, and I enjoy reading the varying perspectives, long as they stick to the topic at hand. Now, I know you know this, but remember to discuss the article itself. And try to stick to facts. I know, I know, what a "fact" is seems to be a matter that's hard to define. That's okay. We'll work around that as best we can. :-) Also, stay away from generalizations. They're sometimes helpful, but when they sound like "all paleontologist want, are, do...." they're usually wrong. Same thing goes for the media. Some media members aren't careful. But some really do try. It's usually best to avoid generalizing. Just discuss what's there. And if someone disagrees with you, fine. You know that's going to happen, no matter what we talk about. I fully realize that it's pretty easy to get frustrated with someone when they refuse to acknowledge the iron-clad nature of your well-reasoned point. Trust me, my wife will agree with that. :-) But that's life. And it's definitely life online. Maybe if we tried to pretend you're in the same room with the person that you're talking with. And that you're going to be with this person for a while. The anonymity of the net sometimes works against us, but we can try. And of course, even this tip doesn't always work. Things can get pretty ugly when we're in the same room, too. But it's worth a shot. Cheers, and peace, my fellow dino-lovers :-) I'd suggest a group hug, but I'm not quite sure we're ready for that. :-) P.S. Oh, and just so know, I've been around enough to know that sometimes even with best of intentions we just can't get along. I just thought I'd try to help, since I really do enjoy a lot of what I read here. :-) Totally agree
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 25, 2008 20:43:00 GMT
;D What you have to remember is that we are like a dysfunctional family. These arguments have been going on for a long time now. We have a history that in order for you to know what is going on now, you have to know what went on before. People don't tend to change much. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Oct 25, 2008 23:26:45 GMT
Heres an idea. How about we blow the whole site up and erase dinoaur facts from history books and forget all of this ever happened.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Oct 28, 2008 8:31:04 GMT
I had been meaning to ask you guys about this. It seems to me I have seen stuff like this before, and had been wondering how there would be drag marks if current reconstructions are correct. Oh, sorry.I jumped to the end and did not see the five pages before this. That said, even with all the, uh, discussion going on, I am not much closer to being able to form an opinion one way or the other. I have no scientific degrees, or credentials. I am one of them there "common readers". So, I rely on pros like you to present the facts and evidence. It is very hard to wade through all of the infighting and such. Not just here but in other areas as well. I swear, I rarely see any one scientist agree with another. How are we supposed to have any idea what the truth is, between all the hype and fighting??
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Oct 28, 2008 12:11:25 GMT
I had been meaning to ask you guys about this. It seems to me I have seen stuff like this before, and had been wondering how there would be drag marks if current reconstructions are correct. Oh, sorry.I jumped to the end and did not see the five pages before this. That said, even with all the, uh, discussion going on, I am not much closer to being able to form an opinion one way or the other. I have no scientific degrees, or credentials. I am one of them there "common readers". So, I rely on pros like you to present the facts and evidence. It is very hard to wade through all of the infighting and such. Not just here but in other areas as well. I swear, I rarely see any one scientist agree with another. How are we supposed to have any idea what the truth is, between all the hype and fighting?? The truth is tail drag marks exist, but their rare. This shows us that dinosaurs were capable of moving, and of getting into various positions, just like the *shock, horror* real life animals that they were! The natural position was tail up. The tail could have touched the ground for any number of reasons. Walking in a crouched position, rearing a bit, sinking a bit in mud, swishing the tail around, etc. There's a famous impression of a dilophosaur track, with footprints halfway up the leg, and the impression of the pubic boot visible. Does this mean we're wrong in showing dilophosaurs walking erect, and they actually walked on their butt? No... it means they *gasp*... SAT DOWN once in a while! I know, it's hard to imagine theropods doing anything but running around full speed roaring after prey 24/7, but we're just gonna have to get used to these kinds of shocking discoveries.
|
|
|
Post by bjeast on Oct 29, 2008 3:21:33 GMT
Thanks, thag!
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Oct 29, 2008 5:50:22 GMT
I had been meaning to ask you guys about this. It seems to me I have seen stuff like this before, and had been wondering how there would be drag marks if current reconstructions are correct. Oh, sorry.I jumped to the end and did not see the five pages before this. That said, even with all the, uh, discussion going on, I am not much closer to being able to form an opinion one way or the other. I have no scientific degrees, or credentials. I am one of them there "common readers". So, I rely on pros like you to present the facts and evidence. It is very hard to wade through all of the infighting and such. Not just here but in other areas as well. I swear, I rarely see any one scientist agree with another. How are we supposed to have any idea what the truth is, between all the hype and fighting?? The truth is tail drag marks exist, but their rare. This shows us that dinosaurs were capable of moving, and of getting into various positions, just like the *shock, horror* real life animals that they were! The natural position was tail up. The tail could have touched the ground for any number of reasons. Walking in a crouched position, rearing a bit, sinking a bit in mud, swishing the tail around, etc. There's a famous impression of a dilophosaur track, with footprints halfway up the leg, and the impression of the pubic boot visible. Does this mean we're wrong in showing dilophosaurs walking erect, and they actually walked on their butt? No... it means they *gasp*... SAT DOWN once in a while! I know, it's hard to imagine theropods doing anything but running around full speed roaring after prey 24/7, but we're just gonna have to get used to these kinds of shocking discoveries. actually, it never made sense to me that they would be active all the time. Wouldn't they be conserving energy for when they were hunting. Lions lay around sleeping or resting all the time. And, when they have just eaten they don't tend to attack again. Not like the JP portrayal of a Rex that would abandon a fresh dino carcass to go running after a buncha lil' people. But, of course they rested. I do have one nagging question though. If sauropod necks were all stiff and such, how did a Brachiosaurus get a drink?
|
|