|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Oct 30, 2008 16:10:32 GMT
post moved... ;D I think some individuals have already decided their opinions and have preset agendas. ;D ;D You think...? You think!? ;D Well, sir, you are welcome to your unsupported assertions, but let me know when you have some evidence to back it up. ;D j/k Seriously though, I'm sure some scientists do cherry pick data to support their pet hypothesis, but having spent my brief working life around scientists I can at least provide anecdotal evidence that such behaviour is rare, frowned upon in scientific circles, and easy to spot. If it is not easy to spot, then their pet hypothesis is probably right and so the issue is effectively moot. This is why I am so keen on asking people (and myself) "what would make you change your mind?" This quickly helps identify whether the person is arguing for their position or from their position. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Oct 30, 2008 16:13:30 GMT
I forgot to ask, what do you mean by "preset agendas"?
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 30, 2008 16:26:45 GMT
Oops--didn't see this thread when I posted to the other topic.
Anyway, I started something like this a while back--it had to do with (what I percieved as) a hostility towards scientists, and yet a fascination with the toys based on the work of scientists (I am not aware of any theatre people or theologians (etc ad nauseam) that are currently involved in the descriptions of the animals that get made into toys for us,but I suppose I could be wrong). It sort of sputtered eventually. Riled some people up pretty good though; hopefully that won't happen again.
It turns out, many people don't 'believe' that the majority of scientists really don't 'need' their theories (or species, or whatever) to be the one true thing; that scientists make conclusions based on the evidence they had, or on the research of other people's earlier work. Some can be extremely reluctant to let go in the face of overwhelming evidence, but really, that is because they are humans. At least as far as I've ever experienced.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 30, 2008 16:57:41 GMT
I forgot to ask, what do you mean by "preset agendas"? ;D I guess what Im saying is that there out to prove what they already believe. Therefore anything that runs counter to that they ignore or try to discredit. Since you are more knowledgeable then me I would like to hear from you about what the differents in digits in birds in dinosaurs mean. It seems to me CCM was trying to say they were actually the same thing. Maybe you could answer some of the questions I asked him. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Oct 30, 2008 17:41:32 GMT
I forgot to ask, what do you mean by "preset agendas"? ;D I guess what Im saying is that there out to prove what they already believe. Therefore anything that runs counter to that they ignore or try to discredit. D Ignoring evidence that runs counter to your argument isn't feasible in the world of peer reviewed science. If I review a paper and it is missing a key reference, I pick the author up on it. They may not agree with it, but they must acknowledge it. Attempts at discrediting are fine however, in fact, science is about testing and falsification - this is exactly what Feduccia et al are doing with their collagen fibers research. Are they doing this because they already believe their conclusions? It's not for us to say. All we can do is judge the standards of their evidence and weigh it up against the counter-evidence. People's motives are really quite irrelevant. I'll work up a response on the bird digits and take it to a relevant thread. But I'm sure CCM would be happy to clarify the situation if you ask. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Oct 30, 2008 20:00:07 GMT
"It seems to me CCM was trying to say they were actually the same thing."
I am going to be away for a few days...but before I go...
I was saying that the fingers of modern birds have been "identified" (depends exactly on who you talk to) by Fedducia as digits 2,3, and 4. My question is how can we know what fingers the dinosaurs, including archaeopteryx had, as we have always assumed birds had digits 1,2 and 3, along with dinosaurs. Is there any way to know for certain ? We have dissected billions of birds, and until we did the analysis of embryos in growth we thought they had digits 1, 2 and 3.
The finger thing seems to me to be a mighty big red herring on the "birds are not dinosaurs" front. Even if the digits do prove out different, it would simple mean an earlier split along the dinosaur family tree.
I am specifically asking, without a velociraptor, or other extinct theropod embryo in development, would there even be a way for us to figure out what digits these dinosaurs really had ? I hear everyone say they have digits 1, 2 and 3, but please, someone who knows more about theropod hand morphology, VS and compared to that of modern animals, please, enlighten me ?
I would say if this is NOT provable that dinosaurs had digits 1, 2 and 3 (which I would guess would be near impossible to prove ?) then its likely, based on current evidence that the dinosaurs like velociraptor AND archaeopteryx probably had digits 2, 3 and 4, not 1, 2 and 3, just like modern birds do.
My mind has no hard set "agenda", I look at the evidence and facts, and just like dinotoyforum said, my stance can (and should) change with new discoveries.
On top of that I do not think that my opinions have anything to do with me supporting what I do scientifically.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 30, 2008 20:07:29 GMT
"It seems to me CCM was trying to say they were actually the same thing." I am going to be away for a few days...but before I go... I was saying that the fingers of modern birds have been "identified" (depends exactly on who you talk to) by Fedducia as digits 2,3, and 4. My question is how can we know what fingers the dinosaurs, including archaeopteryx had, as we have always assumed birds had digits 1,2 and 3, along with dinosaurs. Is there any way to know for certain ? We have dissected billions of birds, and until we did the analysis of embryos in growth we thought they had digits 1, 2 and 3. The finger thing seems to me to be a mighty big red herring on the "birds are not dinosaurs" front. Even if the digits do prove out different, it would simple mean an earlier split along the dinosaur family tree. I am specifically asking, without a velociraptor, or other extinct theropod embryo in development, would there even be a way for us to figure out what digits these dinosaurs really had ? I hear everyone say they have digits 1, 2 and 3, but please, someone who knows more about theropod hand morphology, VS and compared to that of modern animals, please, enlighten me ? I would say if this is NOT provable that dinosaurs had digits 1, 2 and 3 (which I would guess would be near impossible to prove ?) then its likely, based on current evidence that the dinosaurs like velociraptor AND archaeopteryx probably had digits 2, 3 and 4, not 1, 2 and 3, just like modern birds do. My mind has no hard set "agenda", I look at the evidence and facts, and just like dinotoyforum said, my stance can (and should) change with new discoveries. On top of that I do not think that my opinions have anything to do with me supporting what I do scientifically. If this had come up two days ago, I could have asked Phil Currie what he thought--he was here for conference meetings (he's part of our committee). I don't know how directly involved he is, but I'm sure he keeps abreast of such developments. I'll ask when I see him next (although he's off to Argentina right away, after having just got back from Mongolia). Unless someone else can provide something. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Oct 30, 2008 20:11:36 GMT
"I'll ask when I see him next"
That would be great. I have not been able to find anything significant on the matter, just the firm stance that dinos have digits 1, 2 and 3....How do we know we are not looking at digits 2, 3 and 4 in those theropods, and were not just wrong in our initial assumption of them being digits 1, 2 and 3 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 30, 2008 20:18:49 GMT
"I'll ask when I see him next" That would be great. I have not been able to find anything significant on the matter, just the firm stance that dinos have digits 1, 2 and 3....How do we know we are not looking at digits 2, 3 and 4 in those theropods, and were not just wrong in our initial assumption of them being digits 1, 2 and 3 ? Exactly--I figure that someone who is closer to that research might be able to shed light on this. This stuff is WAAY beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 31, 2008 1:23:06 GMT
 All I know is that during the great Archeoraptor debate I read about the differences in Dinosaur hand digits. It was my understanding at that time that the bird dinosaurs couldn't be the direct ancesters of birds because of this differents. That is also why I believe they claimed that birds probably developed during the mid-jurrassic. I even talked about this subject with Dinotoyforum. I thought that by looking at the Dinosaur bird hands you could tell what the digits were. Now as I understand it CCM and Dinotoyforum appear to think that birds and Dinosaur birds have the same digits. I think I would prefer an answer from Dinotoyforum on this answer because I often find it hard to tell what CCM is saying. This may be because we are wired differently. I'm basically Attention Deficit. CCM said "On top of that I do not think my opinions have anything to do with me supporting what I do scientifically." Does this mean his opinions are different then what he thinks scientifically? I mean I think your opinions should support your scientific thinking. Maybe it's me but I find this confusing. 
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Nov 2, 2008 1:22:44 GMT
-Questions of science, science and progress, do not speak as loud as my heart.-
Ok... first, the ones who discovered that archaeoraptor was fake were scientists and the ones who messed it up were the chinese farmers. Second, I think we are all forgetting about chances and probabilites.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 2, 2008 2:29:03 GMT
"I'll ask when I see him next" That would be great. I have not been able to find anything significant on the matter, just the firm stance that dinos have digits 1, 2 and 3....How do we know we are not looking at digits 2, 3 and 4 in those theropods, and were not just wrong in our initial assumption of them being digits 1, 2 and 3 ? ;D So now your going to ask Phil Curry the one who was involved in the Archeoraptor scandal. Now I bet that will be an unbiased opinion. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Nov 3, 2008 18:59:05 GMT
"I thought that by looking at the Dinosaur bird hands you could tell what the digits were." Absolutely not the case. It was, until the studies were done with embryos by Fedducia, thought that birds had digits 1, 2 and 3, and had never been questioned. Simply because looking at the birds "hand" (below) it was always thought the "thumb" corresponded with the "thumb" on other animals. (Digit 1)  I asked, and continue to ask, without having the embryo of a velociraptor or an archeopteryx to look at during its stages of early development, is there any concrete way to prove that those animals possessed digits 1, 2 and 3, or could it be that we were incorrectly assuming that they had those digits, and in actuality they could possess digits 2, 3 and 4 ? Has any research been done on this ? (I am really curious to know, and can not find anything ?) If it COULD be "proven", we would be able to take animals like archeopteryx and identify digits 2, 3 and 4, being that it is supposed to be "a bird". If its digits played out to be that, it could be used to test other dinosaurs and bird like dinosaurs. If Archeopteryx has a hand that is made up of digits 1, 2 and 3 instead, like I keep hearing that other theropods have, then we have to re think it being an ancestor of modern birds, and re class it as something else, or, a variant on early birds, don't we ? "Now as I understand it CCM and Dinotoyforum appear to think that birds and Dinosaur birds have the same digits." I would expect them to, and am asking if anyone who has a experience understanding the morphology of the theropod hand, especially in regards to animals like velociraptor, archeopteryx, and other similar creatures, like avimimus. "CCM said "On top of that I do not think my opinions have anything to do with me supporting what I do scientifically." Does this mean his opinions are different then what he thinks scientifically? I mean I think your opinions should support your scientific thinking. Maybe it's me but I find this confusing." My opinions, (I like T rex and the Flintstones, along with the colors blue and purple, and the shade black, etc) have nothing to do with the way I understand science. I can split the 2, my personal preferences and choices and the way I understand the world around me. To not do this, IMHO, probably has to do with why so many folks form biases and blocks that prevent you from being able to understand things at face value. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 4, 2008 0:15:27 GMT
;D I think the reason that Dinosaurs are considered to have digits 1-2-3 is because basal dinosaurs such as Eoraptor, Staurikosaurus, and Herrerasaurus had five fingers. However digits 4 and 5 were greatly reduced. Eventually through time it is believed that 4 and 5 disappeared leaving digits 1-2-3. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 4, 2008 0:55:33 GMT
;D It is also thought in some circles that dinosaurs and birds split from the five fingered basal dinosaurs.Which means that dinosaurs aren't birds, like Neanderthals aren't Homo Sapiens. The dinosaur birds just convergent evolution. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Nov 4, 2008 1:00:39 GMT
"I think the reason that Dinosaurs are considered to have digits 1-2-3 is because basal dinosaurs such as Eoraptor, Staurikosaurus, and Herrerasaurus had five fingers. However digits 4 and 5 were greatly reduced. Eventually through time it is believed that 4 and 5 disappeared leaving digits 1-2-3."
I am aware that is what was "believed", but am asking is there a way without the embryo to really know what digits we are looking at. It was long thought that birds wings had digits 1, 2 and 3 for the same reason. The finding that birds posses digits 2, 3 and 4 calls that into question. (depending on who you talk to as some scientists still say that the findings of digits 2, 3 and 4 on birds is not concrete)
Just because digits 4 and 5 were reduced on those earlier animals does not mean that is evidence that later dinosaurs do not posses digits 2, 3 and 4 instead of 1, 2 and 3. It is also not evidence that archaeopteryx possessed digits 2, 3 and 4 and not digits 1, 2 and 3. As a matter of fact that hypotheses is the exact same one that had led us to believe that modern birds possessed digits 1, 2 and 3 and NOT digits 2, 3 and 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Nov 4, 2008 1:10:35 GMT
"It is also thought in some circles that dinosaurs and birds split from the five fingered basal dinosaurs.Which means that dinosaurs aren't birds, like Neanderthals aren't Homo Sapiens. The dinosaur birds just convergent evolution."
?! Uhm. If birds split off from dinosaurs at any point after dinosaurs were considered dinosaurs, they would still be dinosaurs.
"like Neanderthals aren't Homo Sapiens."
Your analogy makes no sense. Those are both different species of Hominids, they are still both Hominids. No one is trying to say that Velociraptor is a Red tailed hawk.
If the group that makes up birds split of off the group that was called dinosaurs, they would still be in the same group, and make birds a type of modified dinosaur. If, as I am thinking you read somewhere and misinterpreted, that birds split off of dinosaurs BEFORE they were distinguishable as dinosaurs, as Fedducia and Martin maintain, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then birds would be highly modified reptiles instead. I have already attempted to explain this. Do you actually read what people post ?
Please, go back and re read all the dino/bird threads here. It may help you understand what is actually being discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 4, 2008 1:57:26 GMT
;D Embrologist have determined what bird digits are from studying embryos. How can that change after they hatch. Without Dinosaur embryos we are forced to look at other factors such as the gradual losing of digits. So your saying that if digits 4 and 5 are reduced that the likelyhood is that 1 and 5 would disappear and 4 would grow larger. It doesn't make sense to me. Yes this subject is controversial. There are scientist with all types of opinions. It sounds to me that you aren't certain yourself. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Nov 4, 2008 2:22:39 GMT
"How can that change after they hatch."
WHATCHEWTALKINBOUT Willis ? No one made a claim like that. (*thinks you are completely missing some key elements regarding the topic here*)
"Without Dinosaur embryos we are forced to look at other factors such as the gradual losing of digits."
And that being the case, we can not conclude from that what digits those specific dinosaurs have. We made an assumption based on the shortened digits of those "ancestral species" that the hand of those animals is made up of digits 1, 2 and 3. The embryologic "proof" that birds posess digits 2, 3 and 4 should throw that assumption into serious doubt.
"It doesn't make sense to me."
...I am resisting a joke. I did want to comment that it does not matter if it "makes sense" to you. The only things that matter are the evidence at "hand", excuse the pun.
"It sounds to me that you aren't certain yourself."
If I said I was "certain" that would make me a poor analyst regarding this information. Certainty does not make something true. I am seeking information that I was not able to find on my own, and asking if anyone who actually knows a significant amount about theropod hand morphology (not you, and possibly no one on this list) can provide me with any sort of further evidence or"proof" about what digits make up the hands of theropods like velociraptor and archaeopteryx.
IF it can not be proven (outside of embryologic studies) which digits make up the hands of archaeopteryx and velociraptor, then it is simply as good of a hypotheses to think that the have hands made up of digits 2, 3 and 4 just like modern birds do.
Without the embryologic studies that were presented by Fedducia it was previously believed in both modern birds AND dinosaurs the hands were composed of the digits 1, 2 and 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 4, 2008 3:20:25 GMT
;D I don't think what flavors, colors, taste etc. are opinions. They are preferences. Isn't it your opinion that birds are dinosaurs? Isn't it you opinion that birds and dinosaurs have the same digits? Isn't it your opinion that Microraptor is a bird? If birds diverged from Dinosaurs before Microraptor wouldn't that mean that Microraptor wasn't a bird? And isn't it your opinion that your opinions are obvious? ;D
|
|
All I know is that during the great Archeoraptor debate I read about the differences in Dinosaur hand digits. It was my understanding at that time that the bird dinosaurs couldn't be the direct ancesters of birds because of this differents. That is also why I believe they claimed that birds probably developed during the mid-jurrassic. I even talked about this subject with Dinotoyforum. I thought that by looking at the Dinosaur bird hands you could tell what the digits were. Now as I understand it CCM and Dinotoyforum appear to think that birds and Dinosaur birds have the same digits. I think I would prefer an answer from Dinotoyforum on this answer because I often find it hard to tell what CCM is saying. This may be because we are wired differently. I'm basically Attention Deficit. CCM said "On top of that I do not think my opinions have anything to do with me supporting what I do scientifically." Does this mean his opinions are different then what he thinks scientifically? I mean I think your opinions should support your scientific thinking. Maybe it's me but I find this confusing. 
