|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 4:30:42 GMT
Who´s he? your messiah? Actually, Crazycrowman is quite read up on all things animal related, he works, I think, for an animal rescue group and has had massive experience with crocs and other reptiles, as well as birds. While no "messiah", he always seems to have valid and interesting points, with tons of photo and video evidence to back him up. You'd like him. I believe he told me he would be on vacation visiting relatives until after the New Year. Arioch, you way of arguing seems to be just about insulting, when others disagree. Are you so threatened by other's views. I'm just saying, you seem to be getting a little heated...
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 1, 2009 4:33:39 GMT
I agree with Kevin, everybody calm down.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 5:07:09 GMT
I know, I kick started this one, but it is meant as a discussion, not a life or death matter.
Now personally, I find the idea of tree perching raptors to be unlikely. And I do believe they hunted in packs. I have no evidence for such. It's just that for many years now, the pack hunting version of raptors is all that has been presented. I don't recall ever seeing them presented as solitary hunters.
As for comparing dinos to modern animals, that is not hard evidence by itself. It is just one more tool to guess at possible behaviors. I am mindful that modern animal behavior has evolved and adapted or many millions of years, and just because animals are closely related does not mean they behaved the same. Dino behavior is all supposition and guesswork, so we should all be tolerant of other views. Unlike the feather-no feather thing, or mosasaur scale thing, there is absolutely no hard physical fossil evidence for dino behavior. It is all interpretation by individuals. Some evidence may be suggestive, but that is about it.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 1, 2009 13:38:42 GMT
But in a sort of scientifical discussion, we must put in a balance our reasons for both arguments, and see what side is more bended. People who stays in their beliefs for no aparent reason apart from being the thing he readed once in kid dino books (nostalgy factor), is what enervates me. But just a little.
Seriously, feathers in dromaeosaurids are so obvious than the fur in smilodon. Without feathers, they were naked -killer- chickens, more than bipedal lizards. You gotta love cladistics..
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 14:59:48 GMT
Actually, the dino books I read as a kid had no mention of raptors. But all major news stories and nat geo specials, and history channel specials, and science channel specials all show the raptors as pack hunters. All of the paleo talking heads tend to agree on this. So why would I think any different? I have learned you have to take all of this "evidence" with a grain of salt.
No, discussions like this do not have to be about someone being wrong, or losing. Why can't the various ideas just be talked about? Why does it have to be antagonistic? Feathered raptors is far from a done deal here. There is some SUGGESTIVE evidence, that is all. The dino fossils in China have been known to be tampered with. And such fossil evidence for feathers is not really found elsewhere. The "quill knobs" on the raptor bone is interesting. But, has anyone else found other specimens with this?? Surely, people are examining their raptor specimens quite closely now. Np other raptor? Sounds more like a mutation or illness then, if it is only in one animal.
And, I thought dinos were not birds, but rather birds were dinos. I don't love claudistics. It is not infallible, and is just as valid or not as any other THEORY out there.
It is great though, hanging your whole argument on theories and inferences that at this time can never be proven right or wrong, because not only were the animals not like anything else the earth has ever seen, they no longer exist. Yea, the birds. Even if we were to say they are surviving dinos, the species has long evolved away from the original source, and the behaviors are hardly likely to still hold valid.
|
|
|
Post by dinonikes on Jan 1, 2009 15:26:08 GMT
I have noticed that on this site things can get way too personal when things get heated. Just look at the dragon thread recently. I think that arguing about behaviour is a lost cause anyways, all animals - humans included have their own behaviors that are directly determined by their environment. You cannot compare two animals even if they are similar in anatomy or are of the same species even- just look at lions. tigers, cheetahs, leopards- all have hteir own hunting styles, mating habits, rearing tactics, etc. If you saw their fossilized bones in the future you might want ot say they were all the same. Everyone should just calm down and respect each other's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 1, 2009 15:37:45 GMT
tetonbabydoll:
Science channel specials? you mean Jurassic fight club and that shows for kiddies?
Wow, you just killed me. And no, Walking for dinosaurs have no real scientific support, too. Sorry, but i cant take seriously what you say. All the theories are equally valid? for god sake...thats how a creationist would speak. We have science, biologic facts and common sense to see which theories are plausible and which are absurd and only exists to make happy the enthusiastic kids. Forget it, please.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 1, 2009 16:04:49 GMT
tetonbabydoll: Science channel specials? you mean Jurassic fight club and that shows for kiddies? Wow, you just killed me. And no, Walking for dinosaurs have no real scientific support, too. Sorry, but i cant take seriously what you say. All the theories are equally valid? for god sake...thats how a creationist would speak. We have science, biologic facts and common sense to see which theories are plausible and which are absurd and only exists to make happy the enthusiastic kids. Forget it, please. meany ;D
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 1, 2009 17:32:21 GMT
Actually, the dino books I read as a kid had no mention of raptors. But all major news stories and nat geo specials, and history channel specials, and science channel specials all show the raptors as pack hunters. All of the paleo talking heads tend to agree on this. So why would I think any different? I have learned you have to take all of this "evidence" with a grain of salt. No, discussions like this do not have to be about someone being wrong, or losing. Why can't the various ideas just be talked about? Why does it have to be antagonistic? Feathered raptors is far from a done deal here. There is some SUGGESTIVE evidence, that is all. The dino fossils in China have been known to be tampered with. And such fossil evidence for feathers is not really found elsewhere. The "quill knobs" on the raptor bone is interesting. But, has anyone else found other specimens with this?? Surely, people are examining their raptor specimens quite closely now. Np other raptor? Sounds more like a mutation or illness then, if it is only in one animal. And, I thought dinos were not birds, but rather birds were dinos. I don't love claudistics. It is not infallible, and is just as valid or not as any other THEORY out there. It is great though, hanging your whole argument on theories and inferences that at this time can never be proven right or wrong, because not only were the animals not like anything else the earth has ever seen, they no longer exist. Yea, the birds. Even if we were to say they are surviving dinos, the species has long evolved away from the original source, and the behaviors are hardly likely to still hold valid. Agree with you,man
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jan 1, 2009 17:35:43 GMT
tetonbabydoll: Science channel specials? you mean Jurassic fight club and that shows for kiddies? Wow, you just killed me. And no, Walking for dinosaurs have no real scientific support, too. Sorry, but i cant take seriously what you say. All the theories are equally valid? for god sake...thats how a creationist would speak. We have science, biologic facts and common sense to see which theories are plausible and which are absurd and only exists to make happy the enthusiastic kids. Forget it, please. Teton's making a valid point - in paleontology, it's very difficult to draw a strong association between fossils and behavior, and so you're generally not left with one likely-right answer, but several totally plausible answers -- even if one has a little more evidence! It's crucially different than the sort of logic a creationist would use, and has everything to do with sample sizes and repeatability. Personally, I'm still waiting for you to delineate the different types of hunting with respect to sociality, and tell me why the presence of cooperative hunting and social behavior in birds means that it clearly couldn't happen in their sister taxon, the maniraptorans.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 18:03:58 GMT
And, you are either totally missing my point, or deliberately twisting my words. I said that one cannot view such programs and assume that what we are seeing is fact. It is the way they are presented, but they are not fact. As for Jurassic Fight Club, I found it of little interest. It was nearly all speculative, based on locations of animals kinda sorta found somewhere near each other. Maybe. I enjoy the shows mainly to see the cgi. They most certainly, however are not "for the kiddies" when presented as violently as they were.
And what is wrong with Kiddie shows anyway? I love a nice cartoon now and then......
I also rest my case. I challenge your viewpoint even a little and you turn to aguing and insults, which is hardly the way to conduct an adult discussion.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 1, 2009 18:27:41 GMT
I didn´t said that could´nt happen, if you readed my post well (i see not). But we have 2 types of hunting:
-Complex cooperative behaviour ( observed in mammals)
-Simple cooperative behaviour, where some animals cooperate to increase the individual success. NOT pack hunting ( observed in reptiles and birds)
Some of you are suggesting that maniraptorians cold have a cooperative behaviour like mammals, and thats just an unsense that i hope you can understand. Mammals are just too far phyllogenetically from dinosauria to consider something similar.
And its painfully obvious that we can´t have direct proofs of dinosaur behaviour observing the bones, but we have phylogenetics and cladistic to take the most rough and coherent conclusions about every living or dead animal who ressembles in some way those of present days who we know well. Call me fool if you want, but i prefer scientific data before fantasies.
Someone who just dont like or trust the taxonomic systems like cladistic, is someone who isnt able to argue with. At least seriously. Is someone irrational, like creationist are.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 18:34:18 GMT
well, you say creationists as a slur word, which is insulting. Those people are not irrational pe se, they just believe in something different tan you. Their Faith is far and away stronger than your scientific belief because there is NO proof at all to base it on. For some, that is a very profound thing, and I feel that to ridicule them for it is fairly crass and distasteful . If you are finding this conversation to be so silly, why do you continue with it? We are not likely to suddenly convert to your point of view, so why hang around casting aspersions and insults?
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 18:39:48 GMT
Your claidistix is just a starting point to maybe point in the right direction. It is not an end all to anything, just suggestion. We can't really rule anything out with these raptors, as they seem to be a mix of almost everything except mammal.They are not like anything existent today, so any suggestion or theory is deserving of a few moments of discussion. If for no other reason than to eliminate theories which certainly couldn't be true. This can still be done in a civilized way, I suppose?
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 1, 2009 18:47:57 GMT
Sure it can, but watch your spelling, please...
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 18:53:46 GMT
I mean c'mon, let's look at ther track record here.
Hmmmm these were giant reptiles. Lets put the iguanodon on all fours with a horn on its nose. Or, the Brontosaurus is a giant lizard, right? Let's reconstruct him with his legs straight out to the side! When that was proven wrong, they just couldn't accept it and put the "dumb brutes" into the swamps and rivers to support their own weight.Or, Pteranodons couldn't fly, their arms and wings are not strong enough. They must be gliders, and have to live on cliffs to survive. Powered flight? NAH. OR, hey, bronto here is missing a skull, lets just give this one, all sauopods were the same anyway....or, hey, let's put the Plesio head on its tail....OR, hey, the rex skeleton doesn't stand upright and balance on its tail? NO PROB, just break a few bones in its spine and....there ya go. Yes, I'd say paleo science has an outstanding track record for always getting it right.
ANnd that is not even counting the warm vs cold blooded thing. Or the feathers thing. Or the whole we don't believe a meteor strike could do all this thing.....
So, it seems clear that we know everything, and there is no need for alternative theories.
Oh, hey, what was it that revived the whole dino/bird thing....ummm oh yea. The discovery of animals like deinonychus. So no, I do not think they are over rated.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 1, 2009 19:10:29 GMT
Sorry, i don´t get what you mean. Maybe that the present days phylogenetics are not reliable and is better trust in speculations? lol...
I need a break.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 1, 2009 19:19:19 GMT
Sorry, i don´t get what you mean. Maybe that the present days phylogenetics are not reliable and is better trust in speculations? lol... I need a break. So now cladistics is infallible? It's an incomplete picture at best, the fossil record is far from complete. And it's irresponsible to say that you know how dinosaurs behaved because you know how birds behave, with or without cladistics
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 1, 2009 19:27:52 GMT
Look, all I mean to say is that paleo science by it's nature is inexact. That almost every time a certain theory is presented as solid fact, it turns out to be wrong somehow. That alternative theories that get put down at first often resurface with support. The dino bird connection was brought up at the very beginning of the science but fell into disfavor for many years. With the discovery of the raptors, it has come into its own. I am saying that I personally, dislike taking anything dino related as written in stone. Pardon the punny. I try to have an open mind to other viewpoints and possibilities. I am not trying to insult you, or anger you. I just don't see these things with the same sort of absolute certainty, and tend to challenge it when it pops up, as the rest of this group have discovered.
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Jan 1, 2009 19:32:40 GMT
I always felt people were a bit too willing to indulge in fantasy when it comes to dromeosaurs. It's kind of embarrassing.
|
|