Slashdot Mirror
Vorpal Rabbit-o-Saurus
guacamolefoo writes "CNN reports that a rabbit-o-saurus fossil was discovered in China. Apparently it lived about 128 million years ago and was related to the T-rex. It had feathers and large, buck teeth.
Paleontologists are finding more and more bizarre things. Some seem so strange that they must appear to some to be made up. When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus, they'll put it right next to their moon landing hoax books and their creationism propaganda."
First fossilized post found in my basement!
April 1st was 171 days ago, by my count. Or it's 194 days ahead.
So that means this article is nearly as far off the mark as it can be - it should have come about 11 days later.
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
What's up doc?
When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus, they'll put it right next to their moon landing hoax books and their creationism propaganda
According to the article, the technical name for this dinosaur is Incisivosaurus. Calling it a "rabbit-o-saurus" instead will only encourage the skeptics. The picture in the article depicts something that, aside from the buck teeth, is very different from a rabbit--it looks much more like an emu or an ostrich. This is, to my understanding, consistent with recent research that suggests that dinosaurs were the antecedents of birds. And buck teeth would, no doubt, be useful in digging up plant roots or whatever, suggesting that it was a herbivore.
Granted, it's one funny looking mother.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
I soiled my armor I was so scared......
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
It's not on the front page anymore....
Rabbit-o-Saurus?
Where's a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch when you need one?
How many scientific discoveries are mistakes? I just have to wonder how many animals may have died side by side or next to one another. I'm dreading the day they find a "two-headed" sloth.
This is a good writeup, but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the backhanded comment directed at Creationists. And I can't believe I'm seeing this attitude on Slashdot, of all places. Aren't we the ones who prefer Linux to Windows because it doesn't break as often? As rational and intelligent people, many of us professionals and experts in industry and academia, we pride ourselves on choosing the tool that gives us the best results.
Surely, while the discovery of a species of rabbit that no longer walks this Earth may surprise the evolutionists and Science-worshippers, it's plain to see that it fits right in to the Creationist worldview. Extinct species don't have to be our "ancestors." They were just creations that didn't make it through the flood.
So once again, we see Scientists scurrying about, trying to revise their fragile theories so that new information doesn't destroy them. Remember the great Scientist Aristotle? How about Newton? Those guys were the best Science had to offer, and now we know how wrong they were. But have we learned to distrust Science? No. If anything, people just worship it more. Meanwhile, the Bible has been through, count 'em, one revision in the same time period. New discoveries poke holes in Scientific theories, while supporting Biblical ones, almost without fail. And so the Scienc-ists are reduced to snide comments. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
In one sentence you made fun of Muslms, Jews, and Christians. That's what, half the world population?
So much for "open minded-ness"
BC
I used to think I was a creationist because I believed that the hand of God was behind the big bang . Then I met "creationists" who thought the earth was only 4000 years old. After wondering whether I was a true creationist for a while, I decided that these people aren't creationists but are luddites who attend churches.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
For arguments sake: isn't there just a chance that it could be a freak. Some genetic defect or something. I mean we've only got one example right?
;). Would be even funnier if they try to use the popular belief (IMO fallacy) that "evolution produces optimum solutions" to explain them (e.g. selfish gene, and all those popular explanations for animal/human behaviour using evolution/genes).
There's this guy who collects unusual farm animals - extra legs, two heads etc.
Would be interesting if future bone diggers stumble on those
"This cowlike animal has two heads - it evolved this to allows it to chew grass and look out for enemies at the same time".
"The extra limb could serve as a decoy, much like a gecko's detachable tail". Or could help chasing away flies.
It's funny, then it's sad when you find out that everyone seems to believe those scientists.
In a less harsh environments, lots more silliness can survive or even thrive. So the reason why an animal looks or acts in a particular way could just be because it's cool (and there's no reason why it's cool, except that just a bunch decided it is). If you can afford it and the environment is kind, why not have a bit of fun in your life eh?
Real example: the panda is crap at digesting bamboo (has carnivore's digestive system), but it still eats it. Why? Probably coz it thinks it tastes great.
So another reason for the buck teeth could be - "Hey it's fun. And we can whistle the top hits really loud too". Not to mention our granddads and moms were kicked out from the tribe coz they had slightly different teeth (and whistled loud whilst sleeping), so we're gonna show em we're better and cooler.
Cheerio,
Link.
China is still pretty much virgin fossil country. I have read in the past that expeditions have a hard time getting in. There have been great fossil discoveries in China in the past 15 years and I only hope that we find more interesting fossils like this in the future.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
I've always wondered if the earth was "created" with these fossils in place. IOW, these things never lived, that would explaing the dinasaurs that seem to defy the laws of physics and common sense. I can just se the Supreme Being up there laughing his ass off at us trying to imagine how these ceatures lived.
Creationism crashed my system too often, so I switched to evolution, and have been pretty happy ever since.
Still has some annoying and outstanding bugs (Mostly "Missing Link"-type bugs), the documentation is only partially finished, and the interface is more complex then Creationism, but it still works pretty well...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
If it had feathers does that mean that it tasted like chicken?
Fourty-two!
When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus....
Is anybody else enjoying the irony here? Although they derive from different roots, "skeptic" and "science" are startlingly close in meaning. "Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai ("to look carefully"). "Science" came from the Latin "scire" ("to know").
Sounds to me like skepticism and science go hand in hand. They're not opposites like you seem to want to imply they are. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully next time, guacamolefoo.
Man, can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?
if I can even spell it... How about Jabberwockysaurus? ;)
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Yes, after all, Darwinism is no less a myth than Creationism. 150 years, and not a single quark of *evidence*. Natural Selection is nothing but a fairy tale that just happens to match *some* of the observations about evolution. Just like the toothfairy does, or the little gnome that turns on and off the fridge light. Darwinism (not to be confused with *evolution*, which is a fact) has never ever been tested. Actually, it *cannot* be tested, it's not a scientific theory, as Kuhn himselft noted.
Evolution is the result of the preferential survival and reproduction of the fit[test]; fitness is defined as differencial survival and reproduction.
So, if a = b; then b = a. Great science!!!!
Give me a break. Or better yet, give me a *real* theory to explain the fact biological evolution.
So please, do show the same respect for all mystic belief you already show for the Church of Darwin and the Holy Mystery of Natural Selection.
Not very high, uh? Not, this is unlikely to be a freak. The Darwinian explanation for it is of course suspect. Fossils are not so much the ones to be suspect, the Darwinian school is. There is no proof whatever for evolution being caused by natural selection. No proof. Zilch. Nil. Lots of proof for *evolution*, but none for the Darwinian explanation for it. Not a tiny scrap of evidence that the cause of evolution is natural selection, and not, say, the self-organization of negaentropic dissipative machines. Of course, saying that makes you into a Creationist. Or so Darwinians say... The fact is, animals can do *whatever they want*, as long as they get away with it (that is, survive). Just like the stupid giant panda eating bamboo. There is no need to explain features as *advantages*. That's the way the critters are, and if they live, they live, if they don't, they don't. That's why freaks are that; freaks. They mostly don't live long, unless you create for them a special environment. But this dinosaurs with rodent-like dentition... they were successfull enough at being like that to leva fossil remains. Very unlikely that this was a freak.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Makes more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.
It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. There is no multi-millon marketing for it, and there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix---Free Science, you know.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Makes so much more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.
It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. Also, there is no multi-millon marketing for it, so you won't find it in Orwell-santioned Stores of Knowledge. And there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix. Free Science, you know.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
And that whole "peer review" thingy is just a formalization of skepticism toward one another's claims. That's why science is self-correcting, and things like Piltdown Man and the fake dino-bird brought out of China a few years ago, which creationists are so fond of harping on, are actually exposed by scientists rather than by creationists. Skepticism is very important to science.
Oh my, how I'd like that to be true! Unfortunately, ``peer review'' (which is neither) only guarantees that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years or so, and by then those who actually thougth of it, the true scientists, are retired or even dead, and the looters of science `rediscover' those findings and become the new high priests of the departed genious. Then, this new generation of looters and fakers block the new ideas for another 30 years... and so it goes on and on generation of looters following generation of looters that feed on the work of real scientists. The so-called ``peer-review'' also means that skeptics in science never get published. Only those that `get along with the program' are not silenced. Don't you belive me? Good, be skeptic, don't believe, verify. So verify: check the history of science, find out about the new ideas in science that are being suppressed, and see by yourself.
And answer this: why is the review done on things we never get to see. We have had the Inet for a couple of decades now... why is science not published first and reviewed later? To do it that way costs less than 10%, and science would be transparent to us all.
Yes, fakes---read non-officially santioned fakes---are found out. But others, like Darwinism, are not. Go and ask for any evidence that supports Darwinism... you get called ``Creationist''. The fact that you accept the fact of evolution, the fact that you want evidence, the fact that you may find Creationism ridiculous, is not relevant to these looters that call themselves scientists. Be a skeptic, be a scientist, and get labeled as ``Creationist''.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
This thing looks a lot like a jabberwock
@AlexSheive
I demand a recount!!
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Im sceptical.I recall "constructed" fossils being "found" in china.this sounds as rare as hens teeth.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Flee in terror! It's coming!
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
From your post, I see that you have a very superficial understanding of how science actually works. Some inside info could open your eyes.
This, along with your earlier assertion that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years, is a sure indication that you've never read much peer-reviewed literature.
How can you tell? Reading your crystall ball?
Actually, I've read a lot of it. The quality of a lot of what I read just proves that `peer review' does not stop poor science from being published. I've also learn not to expect anything revolutionary---it's just not published there.
Peer review isn't about ensuring orthodoxy; it's about ensuring that you support your claims.
All too true. Real peer review, that is. I've never seen such a thing in science. It could save science, though.Other than weapons research and the direct applications research going on in big companies, science is remarkably transparent.
ROTFL. Yeah, right. Again, you've read too much of Science Inc. PR realeases.For peer reviewed science all you really need is a library card.
To a library that happens to carry the journal you need. Chances are, it's not there. Not even in university science libraries. Too expensive. Go figure. The Inet is there for almost free to half a billion people and growing. Again, a library card to a well-stocked hemerotheque only grants you access to the officially-sanctioned science. The revolutionary science you don't find in those journals.with six nines' accuracy only >creationists are asking for evidence that supports >the theory of evolution
How you show your ignorance! Darwininsm is not the theory of evolution! Just one of them. The theory of biological evolution predates Darwin by millenia. And in the last decades quite a few evolutionists have been asking for evidence that support Neoarwinism, the Neodarwinian explanation for evolution. There is no evidence to be found. You just never here about this---science's transparency! See how any skeptic is labelled as ``Creationist''? You just did it, you labeled quite a few of evolutionary biologists---including me---as Creationists, and without a quark of evidence. Thanks for proving my point.
Now, if you do care about evidence, there are some very interesting papers that demolish Neodarwinism, and no, there is not a trace of Creationism in them, they are just better biology. You might find them an interesting read. Go find, them, if you dare. And if you can penetrate the Great Wall Of Silence.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
"Night of the Lepus". Giant, mutant bunny rabbits terrorize the southwest. Unfortunately, despite the silly premise, this one wasn't quite bad enough to be good.
That nature discarded?
Is there any proof of your "negaentronpc dissipative machines" either?
Oh, yes! It's called thermodynamics. Ever heard of it?
Does your nega-thingy theory fit into paleological and genetic data gathered so far regarding the development of species?
Again, oh yes it does. And it's not mine.
Selection does [fit the data].
No, it does not. Or perhaps it does, but then natural selection is not testable. Just a nice fairy tale that fits some of the observation for evolution. Most evolution simply does not fit with NS. ``The slaying of a beatiful hypothesis by an ugly fact'' and all that. Sorry.
You yourself say that successful organisms survive, but at the same time say that the idea of advantages is faulty.
Of course they survive that survive! But about them getting selected or having advantages... does not follow. Natural selection cannot be neither the cause nor the process of biological evolution, it's the result of evolution. You got your causality backwards, sorry again.
I don't know why I'm bothering to talk to you.
Same here; I have a phylogeny to solve, and then I have to solve the species problem. Bye!
``L'imagination au povoir.''