|
Post by stoneage on May 22, 2008 23:53:45 GMT
Could plesiosaurs and did they come on to land? Also what were they capable of doing with their necks? Whats the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 23, 2008 0:01:15 GMT
How do you know plesiosaurs gabe birth to their young alive?
|
|
brad
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by brad on May 23, 2008 3:59:43 GMT
They shouldn't have to. And thats sort of the point, palaeoart shouldn't necessarily have to, and often doesn't reflect the scientific peer-reviewed scientific consensus. Thus, it shouldn't be used as evidence for the scientific consensus. Is the point of peer-review to maintain a scientific consensus? To make sure that papers not conforming to the consensus have a hard time being published? I don't think all peer-reviewed papers are good, and all unreviewed papers are bad. I think the value of peer-review is that no one has 100% knowledge of any subject, so if you pass your paper around to other specialists in the same field, they can suggest additional relevant references you might not have been aware of, point out where your "new" ideas have been suggested in previous literature, suggest things that the audience of the paper might want to see included ("add a figure of this bone in ventral view"), etc. I think the reviewers should be there to help you make a better paper, not suppress papers for being nonconformist. "Crazy" papers make science journals less boring. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 23, 2008 4:21:50 GMT
They shouldn't have to. And thats sort of the point, palaeoart shouldn't necessarily have to, and often doesn't reflect the scientific peer-reviewed scientific consensus. Thus, it shouldn't be used as evidence for the scientific consensus. Is the point of peer-review to maintain a scientific consensus? To make sure that papers not conforming to the consensus have a hard time being published? I don't think all peer-reviewed papers are good, and all unreviewed papers are bad. I think the value of peer-review is that no one has 100% knowledge of any subject, so if you pass your paper around to other specialists in the same field, they can suggest additional relevant references you might not have been aware of, point out where your "new" ideas have been suggested in previous literature, suggest things that the audience of the paper might want to see included ("add a figure of this bone in ventral view"), etc. I think the reviewers should be there to help you make a better paper, not suppress papers for being nonconformist. "Crazy" papers make science journals less boring. ;D I think it is more a matter of artists trying to either buck the consensus (e.g. Czercas) that has been developed through multiple lines of evidence, or over-extending their interpretations of the current evidence under the guise of scientific accuracy (e.g. Rey). It is not that publication requires consensus (in fact, the very nature of science is that every conclusion is a hypothesis that challenges everyone else to provide evidence to the contrary); instead, it is that publication develops those multiple lines of evidence and builds the data sets to strengthen current hypotheses based on the evidence at hand. The real beef here, as mentioned above, is that some artists go too far (as mentioned above) and this in turn affects wider perceptions of what the current scientific understandings are.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 23, 2008 10:16:56 GMT
Brad,
Sounds like you are in a bit of muddle regarding the purpose and rational behind peer review.
If the conclusions of a paper are supported by evidence, it will pass the peer review process. The peer review process is in place to maintain the standards of science, which is in itself an evidence based endeavor. The scientific consensus results from the peer review process passively, but it does not suppress conclusions, it supresses bad science.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 23, 2008 12:41:20 GMT
Brad, Sounds like you are in a bit of muddle regarding the purpose and rational behind peer review. If the conclusions of a paper are supported by evidence, it will pass the peer review process. The peer review process is in place to maintain the standards of science, which is in itself an evidence based endeavor. The scientific consensus results from the peer review process passively, but it does not suppress conclusions, it supresses bad science. Usually
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 23, 2008 13:31:18 GMT
Well, that's the purpose and rational behind peer review. As a peer reviewer myself, I don't let my own personal opinions (either on the topic, or of the authors if it is not anonymous) influence my review. I can't say that every peer review adhers to this. But then again, that's why there is more than one reviewer for a paper, usually three depending on the journal. And the editors should notice any major foulplay, an additional level in the process. As an author of peer reviewed papers too, I can vouch that the peer-review process is tough on authors, I have had papers hacked to pieces and spat back at me (rejected), and crocodile snouts are hardly controversial!
Anyway, peer-reviewed papers are not guaranteed to be faultless. But when tallied together, they represent the scientific consensus.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 24, 2008 2:38:52 GMT
Anyway, peer-reviewed papers are not guaranteed to be faultless. But when tallied together, they represent the scientific consensus. But what happens if the scientific consensus is incorrect or based on a flawed interpretation of ambiguous evidence, as it is when it comes to, say, sinosauropteryx fuzz? ;D [j/k] *Expects Dinotoyforum to say I have several cans of Pringles on my shoulder* ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 24, 2008 4:42:35 GMT
Anyway, peer-reviewed papers are not guaranteed to be faultless. But when tallied together, they represent the scientific consensus. But what happens if the scientific consensus is incorrect or based on a flawed interpretation of ambiguous evidence, as it is when it comes to, say, sinosauropteryx fuzz? ;D [j/k] *Expects Dinotoyforum to say I have several cans of Pringles on my shoulder* ;D Then there is a lot more research to clear up the ambiguity--by the very nature of the word 'ambiguous' the facts could point in two ways, now it is up to the two camps to provide falsifications of the other AND provide evidence to back up their claims (oddly, in most debates people forget this second point). Until that time, an artist, book or toy line can claim whatever it likes; a scientist should always give that qualification "...as far as I know.." or "..from what I understand from the evidence...". Unless they are in one of those camps, then anybody listening should be wary.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 24, 2008 12:03:27 GMT
But what happens if the scientific consensus is incorrect or based on a flawed interpretation of ambiguous evidence, as it is when it comes to, say, sinosauropteryx fuzz? ;D [j/k] *Expects Dinotoyforum to say I have several cans of Pringles on my shoulder* ;D Then there is a lot more research to clear up the ambiguity--by the very nature of the word 'ambiguous' the facts could point in two ways, now it is up to the two camps to provide falsifications of the other AND provide evidence to back up their claims (oddly, in most debates people forget this second point). Until that time, an artist, book or toy line can claim whatever it likes; a scientist should always give that qualification "...as far as I know.." or "..from what I understand from the evidence...". Unless they are in one of those camps, then anybody listening should be wary. Like Sbell says, ambiguous evidence requires more research. Again - The scientific consensus is passive in that it will change if the evidence becomes overwhelming in another direction. Science is self-correcting.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 24, 2008 15:43:47 GMT
Also, the reference you quoted, 'In The Presence of Dinosaurs' also shows restorations of plesiosaurs which go against the consensus. In one picture a baby plesiosaur is waddling across the sand turtle-style (unlikely, plesiosaurs gave birth to live young) and in another the long neck of an elasmosaur is shooting high up out of the water (unlikely/impossible). Again illustrating the fact that artists have the freeeeeedommm to do what they want. But they should be more responsible about distinguishing between artistic license and scientific accuracy. Despite dragging his name in a lot, I pick on Luis Rey as much for his wildly bizarre illustrations as his insistence on his bases in scientific understanding, despite all evidence to the contrary. The problem is that someone sees those depictions, hear the he claims a high degree of scientific accuracy, and assume that his work reflects scientific consensus. And speaking of seal/plesiosaurs--does anyone know if the Sternberg Museum in Kansas still has the plesioisaurs dragging out on the beach? It is a full scale diorama, and it just looks intuitively wrong. But what's wrong with periscope reptiles? ;D this one? Instead of mutating this thread into a plesiosaur palaeobiology thread (Stoneage asked some questions too), better to create a new thread?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 24, 2008 20:57:56 GMT
But they should be more responsible about distinguishing between artistic license and scientific accuracy. Despite dragging his name in a lot, I pick on Luis Rey as much for his wildly bizarre illustrations as his insistence on his bases in scientific understanding, despite all evidence to the contrary. The problem is that someone sees those depictions, hear the he claims a high degree of scientific accuracy, and assume that his work reflects scientific consensus. And speaking of seal/plesiosaurs--does anyone know if the Sternberg Museum in Kansas still has the plesioisaurs dragging out on the beach? It is a full scale diorama, and it just looks intuitively wrong. But what's wrong with periscope reptiles? ;D this one? Instead of mutating this thread into a plesiosaur palaeobiology thread (Stoneage asked some questions too), better to create a new thread? Ha ha! That's the photo--I don't really know why, other than it looks really wrong.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 24, 2008 22:45:59 GMT
An "Ask the Plesiosaurologist" thread would indeed be great
|
|
|
Post by EmperorDinobot on May 25, 2008 20:43:45 GMT
The eye is too far back...
And I saw today a drawing of a Dilophosaurus in feathers, and another one with some random hypsilophodontids with feathers, too. Please keep them on the coelurosaurs! Not on anything else dangit!
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 25, 2008 20:50:14 GMT
The eye is too far back... And I saw today a drawing of a Dilophosaurus in feathers, and another one with some random hypsilophodontids with feathers, too. Please keep them on the coelurosaurs! Not on anything else dangit! Actually, no, the eye is in the right place Polycotylids are an exception - they have very short postorbital regions and long snouts, so the orbits appear further back in relation to the length of the skull.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on May 25, 2008 21:08:27 GMT
I saw a luis rey picture of a leyellanasaura with feathers. Come on....
|
|
|
Post by joshwennes on May 26, 2008 15:22:17 GMT
I'm just not seeing what's so wrong about all of this.....I personally think the feathers is a nice touch. There's something to be said about artistic freedom. We don't rip on artists for portraying dinos with different color schemes. Sure, we don't have any evidence that some dinos had feathers. But, is there anything wrong with portraying them as possibly having feathers? These pictures are not in science publications. They are in books. Are they non-fiction? Yes. But, if you look at any book that is considered a research quality book, it won't have such illustrations. In fact, books with those illustrations always put something in there about the presence of feathers not being known yet. We used to portray sauropods as being swamp living animals because of their immense size. Do we anymore? We used to think it was unheard of for any dino to have feathers, or proto-feathers. Do we anymore? Is it odd that the only dinos to have been found with feather impressions have come from China and Germany? Yeah, it is, but it's not all that odd. It takes an incredible environment to fossilize anything, let alone a soft feather. The factors have to all align at the perfect time. That is so unbelievably rare. I understand that we find skin impressions without feathers or without evidence of feathers. Am I saying that all dinos may have had feathers? Of course not, I'm not that dense. I just don't see any problem with illustrations that portray them that way. Is hadrosaurs with feathers a far fetched concept? Oh yeah, but it's not impossible. That's the beauty of paleontology, there's very little black and white.....it's simply a lot of gray. It is open to interpretation. Heck, there's even a place for someone who thinks that bone can degenerate over time, a skull can go from bony knobs to a thick dome. Some artists are going to do whatever they want, simply because they can. I know I probably did not help this conversation at all, just wanted to throw in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on May 26, 2008 16:32:56 GMT
I don't think that leaellynasaurua was even related to the dinosaurs that we discovered that did have feathers. That is the only thing I don't get.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 26, 2008 17:47:15 GMT
Actually its not suspected that Diplodocus did not go extinct. Its bulk and a lack of land plant caused it to enter the water. Eventually it started to suck in fish with its vegetation and evolved into Elasmosaurus. Gradually they developed feathers and became smaller And over many millions of years evolved into the penguin Icadyptes salasi about 42MYA. So this shows convergent evolution in that both Ornithischians and Saurichians both developed feathers independently. Triceratops had a beak and birds have a beak. A part of all Dinosaurs are still with us.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 26, 2008 18:05:27 GMT
Sends Stoneage to the naughty corner to keep Piltdown company. ;D
|
|