|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 29, 2009 1:08:48 GMT
Teton's right, archeopteryx was discovered WITH feathers, but not in China, in Germany. a) Archaeopteryx is from another Lagerstätte and it's definitely from the Jurassic; scientists can't really date the Liaoning site. I wonder how can scientists figure out the evolutionary role of all those animals? b) scientists have received many specimens from farmers If that's not wrong, I don't know what is. c) on many occasions paleos haven't performed a CT scan of the fossils, just read the papers, they just describe the 'feathers' but there's no in-depth study. Besides, isn't it weird that there are lots of 'feather' impressions but practically no skin impressions? Skin is preserved more easily than 'feathers'. Actually, there are many skin impressions of small animals from the area, I believe lizards and salamanders have been found with impressions of skin. And, this is random, but when people say "CT scan", I always think they are talking about me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 29, 2009 1:15:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 29, 2009 3:02:14 GMT
I'm definitely in favor of CT scans on featherfossils, especially Chinese ones. I don't think dissing all of the Liaoning fauna is the way to go, but the presence of a couple frauds justifies doublechecking really important finds. The evidence does, uh, dovetail really nicely though... So does anyone question the veracity of Leonardo? Nate Murphy has been charged--and will likely plead guilty--to stealing and defrauding due to a dromaeosaur fossil. Therefore, by this logic, everything he has been involved with is now up for question (he lied about the original location and everything). Actually, by the logic inherent in the argument that a bad incident puts Chinese fossils under closer scrutiny, all US dinosaur finds must be treated with more scepticism--especially because this was no farmer making a buck, he was a trained professional making a buck. ;D Nate Murphy stole (at least) a turkey-sized raptor fossil, which was worth $150,000-$400,000, and lied about where he found it. Nate Murphy charged people $1600 to spend a week digging for fossils with him. So the question is was it science or money that ruled his opinions. This doesn't mean that Leonardo is invalid, but it would be nice if someone who is qualified with nothing to gain examined him. Bob Bakker is Nate Murphys right hand man. Leonardo as I understand it is comprised of sedimentary rock. I suppose Mary Schweitzer will soon be extracting DNA from this specimen! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 29, 2009 3:48:31 GMT
So does anyone question the veracity of Leonardo? Nate Murphy has been charged--and will likely plead guilty--to stealing and defrauding due to a dromaeosaur fossil. Therefore, by this logic, everything he has been involved with is now up for question (he lied about the original location and everything). Actually, by the logic inherent in the argument that a bad incident puts Chinese fossils under closer scrutiny, all US dinosaur finds must be treated with more scepticism--especially because this was no farmer making a buck, he was a trained professional making a buck. ;D Nate Murphy stole (at least) a turkey-sized raptor fossil, which was worth $150,000-$400,000, and lied about where he found it. Nate Murphy charged people $1600 to spend a week digging for fossils with him. So the question is was it science or money that ruled his opinions. This doesn't mean that Leonardo is invalid, but it would be nice if someone who is qualified with nothing to gain examined him. Bob Bakker is Nate Murphys right hand man. Leonardo as I understand it is comprised of sedimentary rock. I suppose Mary Schweitzer will soon be extracting DNA from this specimen! ;D Bakker is more angry at Nate than anyone else--for lying, for being a thief, and because his poor judgement means that the useful information--taphonomy, stratigraphy, exact location, orientation, surrounding materials, etc--are now lost, or at least compromised.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 31, 2009 23:37:38 GMT
;D Nate Murphy stole (at least) a turkey-sized raptor fossil, which was worth $150,000-$400,000, and lied about where he found it. Nate Murphy charged people $1600 to spend a week digging for fossils with him. So the question is was it science or money that ruled his opinions. This doesn't mean that Leonardo is invalid, but it would be nice if someone who is qualified with nothing to gain examined him. Bob Bakker is Nate Murphys right hand man. Leonardo as I understand it is comprised of sedimentary rock. I suppose Mary Schweitzer will soon be extracting DNA from this specimen! ;D Bakker is more angry at Nate than anyone else--for lying, for being a thief, and because his poor judgement means that the useful information--taphonomy, stratigraphy, exact location, orientation, surrounding materials, etc--are now lost, or at least compromised. In an interview with Brian Switek Robert Bakker was asked; What do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job communicating science to the public? Bakker answered: We dino-scientist have a great responsibility; our subject matter attracts kids better then any other, except rocket-science. What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.? Militant Creationism? No way. It's the loud, stident, elitist anti-creationist. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues. These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you're not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others. As many commentators have noted, in televised debates, these Darwinists seem devoid of joy or humor, except a haughty delight in looking down their noses. Dawkinsian screeds are sermons to the choir; the message pleases only those already convinced. Dawkins wins no converts from the majority of U.S. parents who still honor bible tradition. Hitchcock is a far better model. He had his battles with skepticism. He did worry that the discovery of Deep Time would upset the good people of his congregation. But Hitchcock could view three thousand years of scriptural tradition and see much value - and much accordance with Jurassic geology. Read his"Religion of Geology". It's a lovely contemplation of how the Old Testament and New deal with the beauty in Nature. And the horror. Why is there pain and death among deer and lions? Why is there pain among humans? These questions are of little interest for the Dawkinsians, but trouble most Americans. Hitchcock found no easy answers. But he saw a Plan nevertheless. Millions of years of geological time, with waves after waves of predator and prey, punctuated by extinctions, were recorded in the sedimentary annals. Careful study of fossil history gave Hitchcock a sense of awe and priviledge. He was a human being during the scientific revolution, fortunate to live in a time when society was awakening to the possibilities of understanding past ecosystems. Petrified jaws and teeth did prove that Nature was always regulated by attack and defense, pain and death. But the net result was extraordinary beauty that could be made intelligible by the human mind. So Sean Bell do you agree with Robert Bakker?
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Feb 1, 2009 2:36:59 GMT
Bakker is more angry at Nate than anyone else--for lying, for being a thief, and because his poor judgement means that the useful information--taphonomy, stratigraphy, exact location, orientation, surrounding materials, etc--are now lost, or at least compromised. But it's OK if scientists receive specimens from 'farmers' and 'collectors'? And it's not just Archaeoraptor, believe me.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 1, 2009 3:41:22 GMT
Bakker is more angry at Nate than anyone else--for lying, for being a thief, and because his poor judgement means that the useful information--taphonomy, stratigraphy, exact location, orientation, surrounding materials, etc--are now lost, or at least compromised. But it's OK if scientists receive specimens from 'farmers' and 'collectors'? And it's not just Archaeoraptor, believe me. And believe me, there are hundreds of even more amazing specimens sitting on desks right now--that will never be published. Because they came from farmers, collectors or professionals that didn't collect anything besides a curio. They are of no value to anyone without all of the necessary data. Sometimes it can be retraced, but most of the time, they just disappear into the ether of stuff that would have been useful, if not for a lot of ifs and buts.
|
|