Why I hate paleontologists, v 02

[thetyrantlizard]

Is there anything resembling an IQ or logic test for paleontologists, or is it that anybody who picks up a bone can say anything he wants about it, no matter how preposterous or baseless? Scientists have discovered a fingernail -- mind you, just one fingernail-- of a raptor, and they now claim it proves birds are dinosaurs! From one claw! It looks all the world like a velociraptor claw, which is hardly newsworthy and doesn't of course prove anything, yet there they go, talking as if it's the greatest paleo find since the discovery of archaeopteryx. This is disgusting.

[thetyrantlizard]

*Migrates from the meaningless thread*

This is yet another installment of the feathered dinosaur debate; I came across a link on the 'other' site on why dromeosaurs/raptors should have feathers, and I must say it contains some of the most preposterous 'logic' ever. Aren't palaeontologists required to take courses in philosophical logic and scientific reasoning before pontificating on dinosaurs?

A few of my pet peeves:

1. From all over the world there have been numerous skin impressions of almost all the major dinosaur families--tyrannosaurs, carnotaurs, ceratopsians, hadrosaurs, ankylosaurs, coelurosaurs, stegosaurs, sauropods, etc etc--and NONE, and I repeat NONE, of them have ever been found with feathers, protofeathers, fuzz, etc.

Therefore, isn't it at least suspicious that ALL of the purported feathered dinos are found in only ONE location--Liaoning, China? They have even found protofeathers on psittacosaurs, for goodness' sake--this is manifestly absurd.

2. The usual defense of the bird-dino connection is that the skeleton of a deinonychus resembles that of a bird. To which one answers--convergent evolution.

Take for instance the Jurassic plesiosaurs and the Cretaceous elasmosaurs. For all intents and purposes they look exactly the same, and it was thought the Cretaceous elasmosaurs were descendants of the plesiosaurs. Sounds good--except that it's false. Elasmosaurs are actually not closely related to plesiosaurs; they are highly derived cousins of the pliosaurs (eg liopleurodon). So similarity doesn't prove descent.


To be continued--that is, if Aus-Ja isn't converted by Sau*loser

[thetyrantlizard]

Many of you may have heard of the latest 'news' or 'study [sic]' regarding the purported 'mid-life' crisis of albertosaurus. Anyway, for those who haven't here's a sample link:

www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/07/14/tyrannosaurs.midlife.ap/index.html

To which one responds--nonsense.

1. Why should it surprise anyone that after reaching a certain age albertosaurs fought each other for mates and tried to protect its young? Isn't that what animals of whatever classification do? Do we really need a study to tell us that fights between albertosaurs could result in injury? Surely a glance at the teeth would have suggested that even to a non-scientist! And goodness knows how this 'research' means that albertosaurs behaved llike mammals is simply incomprehensible. Why, don't lizards, frogs, and crocodiles compete for mates too?

2. With astonishing duplicity and disingenuousness the authors of the study state that the life span of an albertosaur (30 years) is comparable with that of large mammals, like the bear. Well, a grizzly averages about 500-600 lbs., a large one maybe 1100 lbs but not more; an albertosaur is estimated to weigh 3 TONS, or 2500 kg., or maybe 6000 lbs. Surely that it is not a proper basis for comparison! It's like estimating a human's lifespan by comparisons to a dog's. The PROPER comparison would be to elephants--which can live till 70. This is just propaganda on the part of the paleos who want to insist on their warm-blooded, fuzzy dinosaurs, despite all PHYSICAL, SCIENTIFIC evidence to the contrary. Whatever the reason for albertosaurus' relatively short life span, it certainly isn't because it was warm-blooded, or cold-blooded, or whatever.

"Science" and 'research' such as this paper merely illustrate why most other scientists regard dinobird paleontologists with such disdain, even contempt. There is no 'scientific' logic or reasoning going on--it is all just supposition.

[thetyrantlizard]

I knew this was going to happen, but it still enrages me--remember juravenator, the scaly, FEATHERLESS coelurosaur they described earlier this year? Despite the incontrovertible evidence that it was a scaly dinosaur, the dino-bird paleos have insisted, no, DECLARED that it MUST have feathers--otherwise, I suppose, their tenures will be revoked. Here therefore is the first representation of a 'feathered' juravenator:



Forgive my n00bishness, but

[Thorondor 33]

Sickening, very sickening.

[swiftpawfatfox]

*takes `The Humongous Book Of Dinosaurs' and starts hitting paleontologists*

[fratercula]

(Those are quill knobs by the way, and that is Velociraptor.)

Whether you like it or not, dinosaurs had feathers. There is not, as you claim, "just one fingernail." Keratin "fingernails" (claw sheaths") have never been found on dromaeosaurs, and if they were they would do nothing to argue for or against the presence of feathers in dinosaurs, However, the hundreds of feathered dinosaur specimens certainly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that many dinosaurs wore a full covering of feathers.

[Tylosaurus]

Lovely pics mate but you might want to resize them or post them as 800x600 thumbnails that lead to the bigger onces after clicking on them

But hey, many thanks for posting them and also welcome to the DinoWorld forums and yes of course Dino's had feathers xDD Birds are actually new gen Dinosaurs, the Australian Cassowary for example it's feet and the bones within them are identical to that of the Australovenator only at a much smaller scale, here a nice video that shows that: