Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]





Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you.
Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (257,611 Views)
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


Me personally, I've always been annoyed by Jack Horner's theories about ceratpsids and tyrannosaurids. I respect the man for his work on hadrosaurs, but his theories on these two groups that have been battling it out for ages are so inane and illogical that i wonder why he even bothers to make theories about them.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


For me, Dave Peters is the most annoying pseudo-paleontologist in the business. His theories about pterosaurs are even more bizarre and illogical than Horner's theories on dinosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

Just want to say, GREAT idea for a topic everyone. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Thank Dr. Hax, it was his idea. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdant Gregor
Member Avatar


Dr. Hax
Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM
Me personally, I've always been annoyed by Jack Horner's theories about ceratpsids and tyrannosaurids. I respect the man for his work on hadrosaurs, but his theories on these two groups that have been battling it out for ages are so inane and illogical that i wonder why he even bothers to make theories about them.
For the record, Jack Horner apparently argues his obligatory scavenger hypothesis as a "thought experiment" rather than a legitimate scientific theory. He claims the goal is to make people think, to question the consensus of dinosaurian behaviors in the popular media.

In other words, even Jack Horner doesn't take Jack Horner's Tyrannosaur theories seriously.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Agreed, whereas David Peters is completely serious about his arguments of bipedal dragon-like pterosaurs. But the more widespread hatred towards Jack Horner is just another example of dinosaurs hogging the spotlight from pterosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdant Gregor
Member Avatar


Arguably, Hateg Island would be a pterosaurian paradise. All of the dinosaurs have been reduced to dwarf sizes, while the giant pterosaurs remained giants. One of my favorite scenes from Planet Dinosaur was the depiction of Hatzegopteryx as the apex predator on the island of dwarfs.

It's akin to a dragon from mythology, a flying monster capable of swooping down, slaughtering the planet's "dominant" life forms, then flying away. Of course they seem as though they would spend more time on the ground than in the air, but regardless, how could that scenario not be awesome?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


As I've said on the "What annoys you most" topic, I'm annoyed by the morons who complain about feathered dinosaurs. They really need to grow up. So what, terror birds are badass but a feathered Deinonychus is shameful and silly? That makes zero f**king sense! I can name quite a few depictions off-hand of a feathered dinosaur that still looks intimidating. And here's the list right here: the Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus from March of the Dinosaurs, the Velociraptors and Utahraptors from Dinosaur Revolution, the Novaraptor from Primal Carnage, the Slashers and Nykoraptors from Terra Nova, the Utahraptors from Primeval: New World, and (as much as I hate this documentary) the Deinonychus from Clash of the Dinosaurs. Here are just a few feathered dinosaurs that could still scare the sh*t out of small children. Now grow up you butthurt morons, and quit complaining about modern depictions of dinosaurs ruining your childhood. Paleontology is a rapidly-changing science, F**KING DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

Please watch your profanity, even censored.


Sorry, I was under the impression that I could swear if I censored it. :(
Edited by CyborgIguana, Sep 28 2013, 05:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coquina
No Avatar


Dinosaurs with feathers are bad***!

Anyway, as plausible as it seems I don't like the theory of Spinosaurus being hump-backed, although the evidence states that he most likely was. He just looks so much better with a sail! /end of pointless rambles

Brian Ford's aquatic dinosaur theory is the most preposterous thing I've heard. He proposes that Tyrannosaurs had such scrawny arms because they liked to inspect their fish... pfft. He argues that because such large animals (Sauropods, Therpods) look so out of place on land that they must have lived in water.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I completely forgot about Brian Ford. That guy should be locked up, for a long time!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coquina
No Avatar


Also, Jurassic Park. That movie just... frustrates me to no end. It popularizes totally inaccurate portrayals of dinosaurs! A 6 foot Velociraptor? No way!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdant Gregor
Member Avatar


The only problem I have with the theory of Spinosaurus being a "true" hump-back beast is the idea that the extra weight would likely force the creature to be at least semi-quadrupedal. It was unable to pronate its hands, which would be a hindrance if it tried to walk on all fours. It might be possible that it could instead use the sides of its hands to support its weight, at least on occasion. I'm no expert in this though, so I wouldn't know if it truly could or not.

Personally, I find it more plausable that the beast would be "sump-backed" instead of strictly sail-backed or hump-backed. The elongated spines seem too thick to be used for a strict sail, yet, at least in my admittedly uneducated opinion, they still seem too thin to support a large hump. I believe the most logical explanation would be in between the two extremes.

As to the actual function(s) of the sump, I can only guess, but I am partial to the idea that they serve as muscle attachments for arm and possibly neck muscles for fishing. Or, while I have no basis for this aside from my own imagination, perhaps the structure evolved to assist the massive predator in maintaining a leaning posture for long periods of time, as it waited in the rivers and lakes for dinner to swim by.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

And it could also use the chameleon hump to create shading to attract fish :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
extremos
Member Avatar
Where's Mr Pig?

I actually always liked the Scavenger T-Rex theory, I always thought it was too big to run, anyways, seems like I was following the wrong thinking. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


phantom
Sep 28 2013, 07:37 PM
Also, Jurassic Park. That movie just... frustrates me to no end. It popularizes totally inaccurate portrayals of dinosaurs! A 6 foot Velociraptor? No way!
It also popularized dinosaurs in general. Pretty much no one besides paleontologists cared about dinosaurs before JP. Also, the dinosaurs in that movie were genetically altered with amphibian DNA. That's why they were so inaccurate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7 users reading this topic (7 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply