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 (256,299 Views)
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

-there is a certain degree of subjectivity to taxonomy yes, but not to that degree
-genetics are a form of taxonomy, or to be more specific they are a way of determining taxonomy
-genetics are no more valid a form of taxonomy than skeletal analyses, sure at times they leave less room for error in identification of species, but they are no more valid for placement of species than skeletal remains
-did you stop to think where the basis of those "genetic lineages" come from, they need a reference point in order to map genetically, and guess what they use, basic anatomical analyses, you can't use genetics for everything, actually without anatomical means you can't even make use of genetic means (in regards to taxonomy, obviously CSI and what not could still make use of genetics)
-I suppose gravity shouldn't be considered as fact either

@Dark Tiger no, I meant in general, not you
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anton
Member Avatar
King of Cotingas

CyborgIguana
Oct 4 2014, 08:25 PM
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.
I think so too. I used the words 'made up', because I wasn't thinking very clearly at the time, just wanted to get it out there before the conversation was already 3 pages further xD Could've worded it better in hindsight, it's not how I meant it of course.

To make things clearer: I don't think taxonomy, or any of the more famous, relatively accurate classification systems are bullshit AT ALL. I'm just saying they have their flaws, and in the original context I only said that to avoid the pterosaurs are/are not dinosaurs debate. I AGREE on the fact that they aren't.

Can we all be friends now? :D

:dino:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I agree, I'm sick of this "we know nothing about the past" theme that seems to be growing increasingly common in this forum. It's undeniably true that we know little about the details, but I think we've got a good grasp on most of the basics of prehistoric life (such as which organisms are related to each other, what they ate, where and when they lived, etc).

EDIT: That was in reply to Stargate's post.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Oct 4 2014, 08:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Justice Society of America
Member Avatar
Local Turd

Okay, I understand you saying that they are closely related, but as far as we can tell, "dinosaurs" and "pterosaurs" are both divergences off of a basal avemetatarsalian (I know you've acknowledged this already, but I feel the need to state my reasoning here, in case someone comes along, sees my argument, and tries to rip it apart because I didn't state it).

While it would be false to state that there is a clear line between either one of them and the avemetatarsalian, it would not be false to state that there is a line between dinosaurs and pterosaurs, because the dinosaurs are all descendants of avemetatarsalian child A and the pterosaurs are all descendants of avemetatarsalian child B (again as far as we can tell).

While the difference is small, people are getting upset about it because pterosaurs are supposedly one of the most widely known prehistoric animals; it's saddening to see people watch some dinosaur movie or hear some story about dinosaurs that includes pterosaurs and not want to do more research about it. Whenever I see a movie that I really liked, I usually go and do more research about the subject of that movie.

Edit: I got ninja'd by a lot of people, this is a reply to Dark Tiger's last post on the last page
Edited by Justice Society of America, Oct 4 2014, 08:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


The disappointing revelation that our methods for determining the colours of feathered dinosaurs may not be so accurate after all. Really, science? Really?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Guat
No Avatar


CyborgIguana
Oct 4 2014, 10:46 PM
The disappointing revelation that our methods for determining the colours of feathered dinosaurs may not be so accurate after all. Really, science? Really?
At least it could get us closer to the true colors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

I can't find that study, do you have a link?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Its always been a bit sketchy, such uncertainty is hardly new
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Val
Oct 4 2014, 08:28 PM
I think the only reliable source is genetics, the rest of the assumptiono shouldn't be considered fact.
Yet people from ancient times had already classified most animals already, most correctly, without even knowing what genetic was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


stargatedalek
Oct 4 2014, 07:43 PM
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
I know this is a little late, but ah, thanks for the proper explanation of how you feel.

And yeah, now I get you, and agree. I know I get extremely P-Oed when people say stupid and false things as fact about say, Professional Wrestling which I love. Like saying Professional Wrestling doesn't hurt, that the blood is fake, that the rings are padded and that kinda stuff, things people believe but are fundamentally wrong

Unrelated:
When so many paleontology discussions (not so much here but elsewhere) are solely 'Who would win in a fight *BLANK* or *BLANK*?'

Like I get it for T-Rex and Spinosaurus, that question was brought up in Jurassic Park, but I hate that it applies to every single big/scary/impressive extinct animal

Heck actually, I don't mind it as a general consideration, but the issue is that it's such a common thing, there's more to these creatures than just fighting. Like I'm interested to think say 'Could Basilosaurus beat a Megalodon in a fight', but I'm interested in more with both species than just that, many people seem to only care about that

Y'know what I mean right guys?
Edited by Murdock129, Oct 5 2014, 02:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Especially annoying when it's applied to animals that would NEVER have met naturally in the wild (like the aforementioned T. rex vs. Spinosaurus).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


Well yeah, to be honest that applies to everything I was talking about.

Like discussing who'd win in a fight, Triceratops and T-Rex or such at length is alright IMO because conflicts might have really arisen and it allows for considerations about how they lived their lives.

Debating who'd win between two giant therapods that lived in the same area at the same time really helps us get an idea of their lifestyles, did one spend the whole time running from the other? Did one perhaps form packs to defend against the more dangerous one? Did they possibly predate one way or the other.

It's the pure fantasy matches that are more of a bother. It doesn't matter if Gastornis or Phorusrhacos would win in a fight, as (as far as I know) they'd never have met
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan The Man
Member Avatar
Honorary Party Member

At least a portion of people that do Tyrannosaurus vs Spinosaurus stuff know they didn't live together. When you say that they obviously didn't live together, making the topic seem sub-sapient in intelligence, I think you folks miss the point: it's just a speculative battle. People out there realize that the two therapods existed in separate ecosystems, they're just doing it because they'd like to imagine such a scene and the outcome (that, or to "settle" which one of their divine reptiles is superior). It's like Godzilla vs Gamera- both kaiju are part of separate franchises, and yet people do it all the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


As we've said, we have no issue with the actual existence of the fantasy battles, what irritates us is their predominance among the Paleontology community. These, as you put them, fantasy battles, are often discussed more than almost anything else, and in some circles are the only thing talked about in Paleontological communities.

Also I do feel the need to note, Godzilla vs Gamera are in different franchises, but it's definitely not outside the realm of possibility they might fight at some point given Godzilla vs King Kong exists.

I don't think there's any situation possible where a Giant Ground Sloth would fight an Allosaurus or such
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Guat
No Avatar


Also Giant Ground Sloths and Allosaurus were real animals unlike kaiju.
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