Posted annoyances...

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

RHFay you have alot of info there, about these dinosaur fossils, however I would tend to disagree, however I do not want to start a debate here in, it could course a annoyance, since this this is the annoyance topic

want I will say is this:

In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs].

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /birds.asp

Evolutionary ornithologists Larry Martin and Allan Feduccia, strong critics of the dino-to-bird dogma, believe that the fossils are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods.

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3378.asp

That is all....

I hope this is not an annoyance

User avatar
Merle
Adept Scribe
Adept Scribe
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:11 am
Location: A safe little corner of my mind
Contact:

Post by Merle »

Magus wrote:Baby: the veal of Humans.

Image
You missed a good Austin Powers opportunity, there, Magus.

"Baby! It's what's for dinner! Baby! The other other white meat!"

Dang, some of you sure know a lot about dinosaurs!
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me.

User avatar
RHFay
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:07 pm
Location: Upstate New York
Contact:

Post by RHFay »

Dark Knight wrote:RHFay you have alot of info there, about these dinosaur fossils, however I would tend to disagree, however I do not want to start a debate here in, it could course a annoyance, since this this is the annoyance topic

I hope this is not an annoyance
We don't have to agree on all issues 100% of the time. If everyone believed exactly the same thing, life would be boring.

I definitely know how an on-line discussion can easily turn into a heated debate. It's happened to me here, and on other forums as well. I think part of this whole business about "posted annoyances" has to do with the limitations and drawbacks of internet communications. I think some times it's too easy to take it personally. I know, I fell into that trap myself.

As for scientists disagreeing; I spent enough time in science to know that it's in their nature. And, many of the ones that take the "minority opinion" get more press. Science is often all about getting your papers in print, and what better way to do that than get your ideas out their in the media?

We certainly still have a lot to learn about these fossils. That's what makes it fascinating.
Merle wrote:Dang, some of you sure know a lot about dinosaurs!
I've been interested in dinosaurs since I was a wee lad. I think they are the perfect real monster. Many of them were incredibly huge, and some were absolutely terrifying. Even some of the herbivores were truly bizarre.

(Check this one out:
http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/nature-o ... tygimoloch
Stygimoloch had a truly bizarre head, and its name means "Styx demon". Weird!)

I retained my love for dinosaurs well into adulthood. I even wrote a couple of my college papers on different dinosaurian aspects. Even today I try to keep abreast of some of the more interesting finds. Thank goodness for the internet! I adore the science news on the BBC, as well as the news on national geographic.com.

User avatar
RHFay
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:07 pm
Location: Upstate New York
Contact:

Post by RHFay »

Dark Knight wrote:Evolutionary ornithologists Larry Martin and Allan Feduccia, strong critics of the dino-to-bird dogma, believe that the fossils are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods.
Just to let you know, gastroliths have been found associated with the stomach regions of some of the sauropods, possibly even prosauropods, as well as the non-dinosaurian plesiosaurs:

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/cannon1906.html

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... mptype=rss

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Gastro.html

And even, perhaps, a tyrannosaurid (although I'm leery about this one's validity):

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/tarbosau ... 12219.html

This article does have an interesting description of gastroliths, including mention of their use in modern birds, crocodiles, seals, and sea lions.

(For more information regarding gastroliths in crocodiles, see:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/cbd-gb7.htm)

Of course, you have to be careful calling polished stones "gastroliths" for certain, but ones recovered from a fossil's ribcage, and found nowhere else in the dig, are probably true gastroliths. A number of gastroliths have been found associated with dinosaur skeletons.

They aren't just an avian trait. Of course, Caudipteryx and others may have truly been flightless birds, but the presence of gastroliths isn't really good evidence to support this.

User avatar
Merle
Adept Scribe
Adept Scribe
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:11 am
Location: A safe little corner of my mind
Contact:

Post by Merle »

Well, I can see why this fellow is called "Styx Demon." He's an evil looking fellow. LOL!
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me.

Post Reply