Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

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 (256,300 Views)
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Now you're just putting words in our mouths.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


Dark Tiger
Oct 4 2014, 06:03 PM
A) Our current classification system is very much artificial and non-existent. There are no clear lines between 'reptiles' and 'birds', that's just something humans made up to classify something.

B) People that choose not to follow this 'mainstream' classification are not necessarily idiots nor inexperienced.

My point: There is no clear, realistic distinction between Pterosaurs, Dinosaurs, Ichtyosaurs, Reptiles in general, Birds, hell even Mammals have irregularities. None of what is mentioned above are 'facts', they're things most people have chosen to 'accept' in order to understand this world, but at the end of the day there is NO OBVIOUS LINE.

What annoys me? People constantly bringing up the fact that Pterosaurs are not Dinosaurs and if anyone says otherwise they are immediately stupid or inexperienced. I am both of these things, and I agree on the point that Pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, but what does it matter.
I'd just like to say that I'm nowhere near being a hardcore paleofan, but I still know that petrasaurs aren't dinos.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


Arguably both sides of this argument hold somewhat of a point.

Val, you have come to a 'What Annoys you the most' topic, in a Paleontology subforum, you have to expect some amount of criticism about people's expressing their lack of knowledge on the subject, and as for 'forcing it down your ear', this subforum is especially for Dinosaurs and other Extinct Animals, I do not see how you could come here and not expect discussion of those. Furthermore stating 'I wouldn't be surprise if the staff close this forum down.' is unnecessarily inflammatory, yes there are often problems within this sub-forum, but that doesn't mean we have any interest in closing it down.

This being said, I will agree that there is, or at least seems to be, a prevalent attitude of dismissiveness toward people who don't have interest, or only have a casual interest in this subject. The fact of the matter is Paleontology is a very niche interest. I understand how frustrating it can be when someone doesn't have any explicit interest in your subject or any knowledge, but frankly it's unfair to expect the majority of people to know anything but the bare basics about Paleontology related subjects.

This all being said Val, threatening or suggesting the subforum will be shut down is crossing the line, consider this a verbal warning, even if I, to a degree, agree with some of what you're saying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nomis
Member Avatar
the Mountain Born

Murdock129
Oct 4 2014, 07:13 PM
Arguably both sides of this argument hold somewhat of a point.

Val, you have come to a 'What Annoys you the most' topic, in a Paleontology subforum, you have to expect some amount of criticism about people's expressing their lack of knowledge on the subject, and as for 'forcing it down your ear', this subforum is especially for Dinosaurs and other Extinct Animals, I do not see how you could come here and not expect discussion of those. Furthermore stating 'I wouldn't be surprise if the staff close this forum down.' is unnecessarily inflammatory, yes there are often problems within this sub-forum, but that doesn't mean we have any
I meant the forcing down your ear part in public not in the forum because we were talking about regular people. Also sorry for saying what I said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


To be fair that could easily apply to people who are overly vocal about any particular interest of theirs, not just Paleontology. And it's ok, just don't do it again and we're cool.

Also dangit, I had a whole long thing written out about Paleontology and comparing it to one of my own interests (which I don't get to talk about on this forum much), talking about issues with people not being so knowledgeable about it or believing wrong things about it, written out but couldn't find where to put it in my post #FirstWorldProblems

Back fully on topic, when my paleontologist friends get irritated at me for loving old stuff with those old Stop Motion Dinosaurs, I know it's not how they really were, I just love those old depictions, I fully understand it's not accurate ):
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anton
Member Avatar
King of Cotingas

Drax
Oct 4 2014, 06:59 PM
Dark Tiger
Oct 4 2014, 06:03 PM
A) Our current classification system is very much artificial and non-existent. There are no clear lines between 'reptiles' and 'birds', that's just something humans made up to classify something.

B) People that choose not to follow this 'mainstream' classification are not necessarily idiots nor inexperienced.

My point: There is no clear, realistic distinction between Pterosaurs, Dinosaurs, Ichtyosaurs, Reptiles in general, Birds, hell even Mammals have irregularities. None of what is mentioned above are 'facts', they're things most people have chosen to 'accept' in order to understand this world, but at the end of the day there is NO OBVIOUS LINE.

What annoys me? People constantly bringing up the fact that Pterosaurs are not Dinosaurs and if anyone says otherwise they are immediately stupid or inexperienced. I am both of these things, and I agree on the point that Pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, but what does it matter.
I'd just like to say that I'm nowhere near being a hardcore paleofan, but I still know that petrasaurs aren't dinos.
Wonderful example.

If you actually read my post, you'd know I do too, and your reply is relatively pointless.
I'm just saying that there is no physical distinct line between the 2, so bashing on people because of their lack in knowledge about said (non-existing) line is unnecessary and stupid by definition.

I never, in any way, stated that Pterosaurs were in fact Dinosaurs, more-so I stated that they might very likely be related to each other, and that I'm tired of the old 'Pterosaurs are not Dinosaurs' argument, when the entire distinction between them is completely artificial.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I have nothing against people having no or minimal interest in paleontology
the same goes for people who don't have a great deal of knowledge and are willing to accept that they don't

what I have a problem with is people who don't know anything, even the basics, and yet claim themselves to be correct
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anton
Member Avatar
King of Cotingas

I have a feeling you're indirectly talking about me, stargate. I do not claim to know anything about paleontology, mind you, the example I'm giving is just an example, same goes for living creatures, plants, whatever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Justice Society of America
Member Avatar
Local Turd

Pterosaurs aren't descended from dinosaurs, so the distinction is not artificial. Saying that they were is like saying that all humans are actually ring-tailed lemurs; they're related, but they're not the same. Both pterosaurs and dinosaurs are monophyletic groups. Dinosaur is not a paraphyletic term. The distinction is only "artificial" if one group is directly descended from another, such distinguishing dogs from gray wolves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anton
Member Avatar
King of Cotingas

Following that logic, we're all fish, because we all descended from fish.

Taxonomy is something us humans made up. This is where I'll end the discussion because I just don't know how to explain it any further.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nomis
Member Avatar
the Mountain Born

Skeletons say nothing. Only the DNA does which we don't have. But then again the skeletons are all we have so we have to make assumptions of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Justice Society of America
Member Avatar
Local Turd

Dark Tiger
Oct 4 2014, 07:53 PM
Following that logic, we're all fish, because we all descended from fish.

Taxonomy is something us humans made up. This is where I'll end the discussion because I just don't know how to explain it any further.
And following your logic, you are your best friend.

And by taxonomy, I assume you mean evolution then?

Also, while yes Nomis skeletons are not a 100% accurate source of information, dinosaurs possess several traits that pterosaurs do not have and vice versa, so as far as we know, they are likely not a single monophyletic group. However, they do have several things in common, as well as things in common with Schleromochlus, so they likely were related and formed a clade with Schleromochlus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anton
Member Avatar
King of Cotingas

Justice Society of America
Oct 4 2014, 08:10 PM
Dark Tiger
Oct 4 2014, 07:53 PM
Following that logic, we're all fish, because we all descended from fish.

Taxonomy is something us humans made up. This is where I'll end the discussion because I just don't know how to explain it any further.
And following your logic, you are your best friend.

And by taxonomy, I assume you mean evolution then?

Also, while yes Nomis skeletons are not a 100% accurate source of information, dinosaurs possess several traits that pterosaurs do not have and vice versa, so as far as we know, they are likely not a single monophyletic group. However, they do have several things in common, as well as things in common with Schleromochlus, so they likely were related and formed a clade with Schleromochlus.
You don't know me like I do xD
By Taxonomy I mean Taxonomy.

Props to you being the first to actually come up with arguments other than 'You don't share my opinion', btw. :worship:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Also, I think "made up" is a strong word for taxonomy, which makes it sound like taxonomy is some silly, unsupported concept that we came up with out of the blue. It's a tool that we use to understand the relationships between organisms, and we'd get nowhere if we abandoned it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nomis
Member Avatar
the Mountain Born

I think the only reliable source is genetics, the rest of the assumptiono shouldn't be considered fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply