I doubt it was "modern zoologists" on their own who found issue with the biological species concept. This has always been a problem for paleontologists, as how do you determine things like this with fossils? All we have to go on is morphology, and the skeletal structure of a polar bear and a grizzly bear are very different, especially in the face. Morphologically, they are separate species, and are typically reproductively isolated by latitude/environment. A few hundred/thousand more years and they may have diverged enough to not be able to reproduce at all.
When species diverge, how do you determine when they become separate enough to be determined separate species? Significant morphological changes AND reproductive isolation don't happen at exactly the same time, and that gradation appears to be what we have here.
People who swear by the biological species concept are always going to have difficulty defining species. As easy as it seems, quite often, the distinctions make no sense at all. The truth is, the term "species" is losing favor, and diversity counts, etc. are now most reliably done at the level of genera in the field of paleontology. It is seeming more and more arbitrary to differentiate species, and one definition isn't going to work for everything.
Jeez, I'm not reading all these, though a lot of you seem spot-on, with the fact that Americans don't get as much vacation time. However, I have another speculation which a) may have been mentioned by someone already, and b) is entirely speculation based on my place as an American, and I have no clue how this relates to countries in Europe, so argue about it all you want but don't pick on me for acting like I know something about countries I have never even visited, b/c I'm so not.
Do you think we try to live in a more sterile environment than other nations? We sterilize every damn thing that even comes close to us or our children, we hardly let our kids play outside anymore (at least not as much as we used to - kids don't even get recess anymore, right?) I've seen my cousins freak out that their kids touched a worm or mud or something (and not just b/c they'd bring it into the house), but b/c it's "full of germs". Moms may also say the same things about why they won't let their kids have pets. Isn't this how people become allergic to things (generally?) By not being exposed to it in childhood? We take those stupid pills that are supposed to keep us from getting a cold, b/c God forbid we miss a day of work. For a nation that gets sick all the damn time, we sure think that getting a little cold is a horrible thing.
I had also read that there are cancer-causing agents in everything we have - from our sheets, clothes, anything plastic, not to mention housecleaners and those horrible sprays that people spray in every room of the house (jeez that drives me nuts.) We want a sterile, artificial environment in which to live, but b/c this is impossible, we are lowering our ability to fight sickness (but not necessarily cancer) when we do get sick. I wonder how large the housecleaner aisle has gotten in recent years. They have a spray for everything.
I'm sorry, but what did you think geologists did? Sit around and make up stories? I think flipping through a couple books titled things like Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, or Historical Geology would help make this a reality to you, or this site from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentology. This is really not so difficult to imagine with a little knowledge. Determining depositional environments of ancient places is a huge part of geology. For one thing, erosion might make 200 Ma deposits visible to us. Without erosion and tectonics, we wouldn't be able to see a hell of a lot besides recent deposits. And there's so much more...
Oh, for real. Good point. I think I meant geologists. My friend works for Exxon and has her MS in geology, and they research the rock formations and stuff. That was a mistake I won't be repeating.:c )
I don't know of any scientist that is atheist because they are a scientist. Atheism is a belief, and has as little to do with science as does theism. No one I know asserts that God doesn't exist, unless they personally feel that he doesn't. Most scientists that I know consider themselves agnostic, or simply don't care, but more importantly, they know science has nothing to do with this. Science is just a process, and scientists are simply people just like anyone else who also have beliefs. I really don't know the people about whom you are talking, and if they indeed exist, then they unfortunately do not know the limits of science and are asserting something outside of that realm, though not outside the realm of their personal belief system (it's easy to get the 2 confused).
Personally, I don't know. I know the flood in the Middle East is well-documented (that would have been the "entire world" to the author(s), though of coursse didn't cover the entire world. But even though the Bible has some stories of historical importance, most of what science deals with, or at least paleontology, occurred before people were ever around. We can't use the Bible as a science textbook, though it can carry good accounts regarding human history and civilization.
Maybe you should reread what I wrote. You didn't say anything that's news to me or to other scientists. Scientists don't discount the existence of those things, b/c they cannot. You're not saying anything that scientists don't already know. But the fact that God cannot be scientifically disproven means that we don't bother about it at all, in our formulations of testable hypotheses. Plenty of scientists believe in God, though the point is to try not to let that faith interfere with their work. You can't prove that God does exist anymore than you can prove that he doesn't, and all scientists I know already know this.
I think hubris isn't really the issue, since apparently I admitted that I didn't know what the theory of relativity entailed. I also seriously doubt that you or anyone else knows about "all things under the ocean," if you want to talk about hubris. I would also think that being an oil rig driller would require some geological knowledge, and so none of this would be news to you.
I think it is clear that NO ONE was around back then. Does that mean we should stop studying fossils, and stop acquiring evidence as is possible? Should we forget about studying things that we cannot see firsthand, but we can still find data about? Should we stop making experiments to try to replicate the environments that existed back then and from that get ideas on how bones are transported?
Though I am not Norwegian nor was I around 200 mya, I read that Norway was covered by a fluvial system during the time from which they are approximating the age of the bone. Based on my knowledge of fluvial systems to transport and deposit bone (this is the topic of my Master's thesis), I know that it is LIKELY that this is what occurred, and according to a later comment, this is indeed what had happened according to the geologists studying it.
The biased way in which you presented your "data," as well as the ridiculous off-topic remarks about Tom Cruise (WTF?), the Grand Canyon, and the entire field of paleontology tell me that you are taking this personally, that you may have some deep-seated issues with scientists, and that you really know extraordinarily little about how science is done.
While fixing cars is important, some of us must indeed go to college, as a civilization is judged based on the science, art, and philosophy that comes out of it, and not only that but also to make important discoveries regarding these, not to mention medicine. Not all of us can be car-fixers. Not to mention the fact that geologists play an important part in finding oil, a fact I'm sure you are familiar with. I hope you someday get over your problems with scientists. But I won't waste any more time with someone who refers to me as a "fool." Good day to you.
I want to know who the hell modded this person as Insightful. This is as much ID talk as I've ever read, though somehow without using those words... Things like flight, electric light, and space travel, while perhaps at one time seeming impossible, are not nor have ever been supernatural! Science is a process by which we learn about the world around us, it's not magic! We're doing the best we can with what we got, and making up sh** isn't going to get us anywhere. I think the fact that we figured out how to travel to space, fly, and utilize electricity shows what science CAN do, and all without having to deal with the supernatural. You're talking about human ingenuity and persistence rather than the supernatural, and science is full of stories about that.
Well, sediment is deposited over time. Soil is something a little different. (This is called relative dating). From having a friend who is an oil geologist, they know a lot about the formation into which they are drilling - it costs way too much to just go drilling anywhere, the geologists do craploads of research first. So I feel safe about their 200 million years old figure. Also, the carbon you need to date things with only lasts about 15,000 years or so, and would be useless here, though other radioisotopes can be and likely have been used (Uranium - Lead, for instance.) (This is called absolute dating). Carbon is used for more recent things, such as human remains and pottery or whatever.
Wow, if that's the only part of it you read than you are much worse than just a coward. I'm a geologist and a biologist, am I to become a physicist in my spare time? Argue against everything else I said then, if you know anything at all. Go ahead.
Whales have extremely dense bones, and they also didn't evolve until about 30 ma. Judging from the approximate age of the bone (oil drillers know all this stuff), as well as any diagnostic features, it would be easy to designate it as a Plateosaurus, which is an extremely common dinosaur in western Europe, and is from the Late Triassic (about 200 ma). Even if crushed, a Plateosaurus is the most parsimonious explanation. As I said in another comment, the prosauropods were going from bipedal to quadrupedal and, correct me if I'm wrong prosauropod people, I bet the "knucklebones" were unique, and perhaps easy to ID. I also bet that this bone was washed out to the ocean from a river, as Norway was covered in rivers during this time. You're assuming much less once you actually have a bit of background on the time period and the region.
The purpose of philosophy is to seek truth, but the purpose of science is to explain how things work. "Truisms" and "facts" are not good words to use in the natural sciences, where several hypotheses may be working at once.
The problem is that supernatural phenomena is untestable. Whether things like God or goblins exist are interesting questions, but without physical evidence, it remains speculation and is not within the realm of science. Fortunately, we don't need physical evidence to believe in God (or goblins)- this requires faith which by definition is NOT something we can see/hear/etc. Science can only deal with things that are testable. I do not know anything about the theory of relativity, except that my understanding is that it is largely based on mathematical modeling as well as physical laws, which again, are testable and completely within the realm of science - I think people will respond to you, offended that you believe that this scientific theory is "supernatural." Sometimes indirect testing is in order, but it still works. An open mind is required as you suggest, but to put forward an untestable hypothesis will get you nowhere, as no one can either agree or disagree with you, and therefore the answer will not be found.
I also call your bluff on you owning a time machine.
He he, I'd mod you as Funny if I had points currently. But really, this part of the world has been pretty tectonically active recently, at least as recent as the opening of the Atlantic ocean along a spreading ridge. Jeez, almost anything could've happened - except a flood. Flood deposits are terrestrial, and don't affect the ocean floor (at least not to a depth of 2000 m). Some washing out could have occurred instead perhaps, but this would be impossible to distinguish from the bone(s) being washed out by a river, tide, or just plain ol' waves. As Norway was once a fluvial plain (rivers), and rivers are common deposits in which to find bone (Hell Creek and Two Medicine Fms. in Montana, for instance, preserve almost all fossils in what are interpreted to be fluvial deposits), then it's easy to imagine a river washing a fossil out to sea here as well. Knucklebones (do they mean phalanges?) are relatively round and small, and so could travel far and without significant abrasion or breakage - even as far as the continental shelf, apparently. Washing out by a river is the most parsimonious, and most likely, explanation.
ID of the bone as that of a Plateosaurus isn't so difficult either - prosauropods have certain very distinguishable bones (well, like anything I guess), and as they were in the process of going from bipedal to quadrupedal I bet their knucklebones were unique, and diagnostic. Much of western Europe is full of Plateosaurus specifically, and so this is also the most likely.
I disagree. It's much easier for geeky females to get normal men than for geeky men to get normal women, in my experience. We geeky women can, in mens' minds, secretly be sex fiends. Kind of like a porn star dressing up as a strict librarian or something. It doesn't really go the other way for men, unfortunately, though I don't know why. Sorry fellas.:c (
I also take offense to the statement that wives don't have sex. So not true.
There's a little field of science called "taphonomy." You with me so far? It's the study of what happens to things after they die. We can do actualistic studies of what happens to skeletons in certain environments under certain conditions, such as placing bones in a water flume tank and seeing which ones travel furthest, which ones are abraded most easily, etc. and come up with surprising and helpful results that help us to interpret fossils. Taphonomy also deals with behavioral interpretations of critters by using fossil assemblages, a skeleton, or as in the situation quoted by Mr. Febtober above, possibly even a single bone. There is a lot it can tell us, and if you're interested, I bet there's even a book or two on the subject. Of course there are limitations, but this is a field of paleontology in which "real" data can be gathered from actual experiments, inside a lab and with controls and all that jazz, and it can lead to some very powerful interpretations of the fossil record.
You're right that the two feeding styles aren't exclusive; however, in order to have a testable hypothesis you need to take a stance. Anyone can say "it's both." I doubt anyone really "believes" that T. rex was either one or the other, even this Horner fellow, but how do you test that?
The binocular vision is also highly debated, and most scavengers need very formidable jaws for cracking bones. Today's hypercarnivores (though I shudder to compare dinos to mammals) tend to have short jaws - felids are the "most true" hypercarnivores we have, and almost never crack bones, while canids and other carnivores scavenge or are somewhat omnivorous, and their longer (more generalist) jaws suit them well. Tyrannosaurs also tend to have jaws that are well-suited for bone-cracking (yum...marrow).
With the tremendous amount of prey biomass laying around, it is difficult to say that there were many obligate predators at all during the Mesozoic. Scavenging is likely to have been more common then than it is now. Even though sauropods were largely gone by the time T. rex came onto the picture, there were still some huge prey animals wandering around, and huge amounts of them.
Unfortunately we think of scavengers as not nearly as cool as predators, and until that bias is dispelled it will be difficult for us to view the evidence fairly. I have no "opinions" one way or the other (I don't even study theropods), but in arenas such as Slashdot, or yes, in science, it is easy to forget what are opinions and desires and what is based on evidence.
I know people say -iday, but I learned recently (actually in a class outlining the ICZN, which I admit, I own) that it's incorrect.
I agree that it is nice to organize organisms like that, and it makes it a lot easier for me, but there are many problems with that system. I do have experience with invertebrates as well as vertebrates, and I also teach about them. We use terminology such as "Chondrichthyes" and things like that, but referring to those as classes becomes kind of complicated. Are Chondrichthyes equivalent on some level to Osteichthyes? What about the lungfish, are they a separate class, or part of Osteichthyes? We have phylum Craniata, but what do we call actual vertebrates? Is that an order or superorder, or what? It seems that a lot of scientists are getting weary of differentiating everything based on supposedly "equivalent" levels, and simply saying "Hadrosauridae" or "Hadrosaurinae" works fine, without mentioning the level (though from the suffix in this case the original perception is apparent.) Nesting groups will always be around, like you said, but the types of hierarchical levels appear to be losing favor in many of the readings I'm familiar with. Hell, when it gets down to an argument between, "is it an infra-order or a super-order?" you know things are going too far. Can you name all the levels for any one species of insect (presumably what you're working on?) And I mean all the sub-, infra-, and super- of every level possible. They don't all have those, and that's where it gets weird. These levels are losing their meaning, though very generally, perhaps they do get the point across to a lot of introductory students.
/. writing this after a pitcher of honey rye. Pretty good beer. Can't wait to try the Porter I'm currently bottle-fermenting.
Well, maybe they say "family" for simplicity but perhaps it's a subfamily or who knows. Besides, they're not using the Linnaean system so much anymore so even using words like "family" and whatnot is on its way out. Most families end in -idae (pronounced -idee), but there are exceptions and with the different hierarchical levels becoming less and less distinct (are orders, etc. equivalent across taxa?) and recognized, that "rule" is also losing favor. The hierarchy doesn't make much sense nowadays, and there are so damn many nomenclatural rules to follow that some of the less important ones eventually fade from use.
No, science isn't perfect - anyone would readily admit that - but it has changed a bit since Barton's time. The cool thing (or extremely frustrating thing) is that no one can publish something without it being critiqued, sometimes quite harshly, by the scientific community. Maybe there are more scientists now than there used to be or something, but crap doesn't often slip by unnoticed. It's usually supported by the best available evidence, by the best available researchers, though of course this changes. The field is always changing, especially with new technologies, especially in my field of vertebrate paleo where I do bone histology. Wouldn't be possible without petrographic microscopes, SEMs, and materials like synthetic epoxies. And new things are being discovered all the time. I think your point is that why do science if we can't be sure of things? using Barton as an example, but I say why do science if we are?
Also, I doubt anything was "decided." It was probably just the best answer they had at the time, and they may have known that, but what do you do? Apparently when new methods were discovered scientists realized that there were more accurate ways to judge the speed of light. Geologic dating has been through a similar past, relying on different methods, each one becoming more reliable and based on more facts and knowledge than the previous, and each one showing us an older Earth.
Science also has no bearing on spirituality or the supernatural, because it can only explain things that are physical, by definition. Sasquatch and Nessie were admitted by the people behind the cameras to be hoaxes (though of course there are plenty of undiscovered species, though I'm sorry to say extinction is a reality) and as far as ghosts and things like that, I have no clue and am personally not that interested, as I can't even watch a scary movie. Science doesn't explain everything, but neither does something that simply states "God did it." Anyone can say that, and it doesn't make it true - it's a personal belief, and should never be used to convince someone that science may be flawed, because it is not evidence. People have for centuries used God as a way to explain things for which there is currently a lack of evidence, and science often seems to eventually fill in those gaps, so then what do the creationists do? Say that it's crap on principle, because it goes against their beliefs, even without understanding (or caring about) the methods behind it? Construct silly experiments with rocks to show that the Earth is 6000 years old, when they don't even understand the first thing about geology? This is why the T-shirt says "Creationism: it's just easier" because the movement appears to be made up of people who are too lazy to find out what's really going on, and want to hide behind their wall of "God did it," because it makes them feel spiritual. I know plenty of devout scientists, and they understand the difference between faith guiding them in their lives and physical evidence pointing to how the world works. The Bible is not a textbook.
It's been said that the Bible is the most misunderstood book of all time, and On The Origin of Species by Darwin might be second. People love to act like they know what's in these books, however, most people have never read nor understood either, and creationism is my case in point. Evolution is hard - there's a reason why it's usually a 400 or 500 level course, but using God as a reason for everything we can't quite explain, or as a substitute for science that offends us, doesn't help, and in fact doesn't sound like something a true, unwavering, faithful person would do.
But apparently it's not that obvious that humans were prey, because several people in the comments have argued against the study and its results, and many people like to think that humans were always at the top, hunting even things bigger than themselves. I think that's obvious from the other comments. But regardless of its obviousness anyway, you still need evidence for it. If science worked by people just saying shit and then other scientists believing it, then creationism or FSM (haha - joke) might as well be science. But it works because people gather hard data, test it (somehow - this is difficult when dealing with paleo or anthro topics), interpret it, and publish it so other scientists can scrutinize it and accept it, test it themselves, or say that its biased crap.
I really can't say anything different than I did before, I just wish that had been understood better. I'm also not going to get into politics, because while we likely disagree, I know I don't know a whole lot about it. I also will mention that medical studies (your eggs/carbs/etc. point) can be different from that of other sciences, though there are still many unknown things that lead to inconsistencies. Why would we even do science if everything was known? There might very well be a study that shows that humans were predators and became sociable because of pack-hunting (wolves, hyenas, lions, Velociraptor - not all predators are solitary, and not all prey are herding (rhinos, jungle deer, Stegosaurus), and some people will say that was obvious all along.
You can believe whatever you want, as long as ID people acknowledge that it is a belief and has no place being taught as science in the classroom. Science has no bearing on what people choose to believe - indeed, I often argue that accepting human evolution has no bearing on one's spirituality, even if we are "just primates." Science certainly cannot say that God didn't start the Big Bang or whatever, and many devout people choose to believe He did, which is fine. Just don't try to teach it to people as science, and IDers are doing just that, I'm afraid. I like science because it is uncertain, and we're always finding new things and I think it's exciting to be proven wrong, and therefore I personally don't find a reason to explain things with God because it's exciting to admit I don't know everything, because maybe someday we'll learn some more of what we don't know today. Science certainly would have no reason to be done if we did know everything, or hide behind the banner of God doing everything. Indeed, we would progress very little at all.
/To say that the Bible is a geology, biology, or physics textbook is to at the same time give it too much credit, and also far too little. People who believe this know little about science but even less about faith.
...when people present their findings at a meeting rather than in a journal. Well, forget about reading it then, but it'll be published at some point; they usually present at meetings first and then publish. I'll be waiting to read it to see what they actually say. Like I said to someone else, scientists often hate it when their stuff is written about in a newspaper or whatever, because it's usually butchered past the point of recognition, so don't blame the simplicity on the researchers. However, I usually love the BBC for this... but it's still not a fair assessment, just a lazy judgement call.
OK, but the key is assimilating enough evidence to be sure rather than just making up a "just so" story, and publishing it. Can you do that? You're probably right, there is a pattern, but it takes more than that. The problem with people is they think that scientists just say shit, and make everyone else believe it, when actually they often pool together loads of data in order to say something that may not be revolutionary, but is likely a good explanation. Read the actual paper before you critique the study too harshly - as I commented above, there's probably a lot more info in it than you realize. This article has been dumbed-down immensely, and probably been written by a journalist attempting to disseminate info to the general public. Please keep that in mind whenever "science" is reported. Many of us get really embarrassed by what newspapers and the like write about our research, for the reason you illustrated - it is obviously grossly misunderstood by the general public:c (
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it was "modern zoologists" on their own who found issue with the biological species concept. This has always been a problem for paleontologists, as how do you determine things like this with fossils? All we have to go on is morphology, and the skeletal structure of a polar bear and a grizzly bear are very different, especially in the face. Morphologically, they are separate species, and are typically reproductively isolated by latitude/environment. A few hundred/thousand more years and they may have diverged enough to not be able to reproduce at all.
When species diverge, how do you determine when they become separate enough to be determined separate species? Significant morphological changes AND reproductive isolation don't happen at exactly the same time, and that gradation appears to be what we have here.
People who swear by the biological species concept are always going to have difficulty defining species. As easy as it seems, quite often, the distinctions make no sense at all. The truth is, the term "species" is losing favor, and diversity counts, etc. are now most reliably done at the level of genera in the field of paleontology. It is seeming more and more arbitrary to differentiate species, and one definition isn't going to work for everything.
Jeez, I'm not reading all these, though a lot of you seem spot-on, with the fact that Americans don't get as much vacation time. However, I have another speculation which a) may have been mentioned by someone already, and b) is entirely speculation based on my place as an American, and I have no clue how this relates to countries in Europe, so argue about it all you want but don't pick on me for acting like I know something about countries I have never even visited, b/c I'm so not.
Do you think we try to live in a more sterile environment than other nations? We sterilize every damn thing that even comes close to us or our children, we hardly let our kids play outside anymore (at least not as much as we used to - kids don't even get recess anymore, right?) I've seen my cousins freak out that their kids touched a worm or mud or something (and not just b/c they'd bring it into the house), but b/c it's "full of germs". Moms may also say the same things about why they won't let their kids have pets. Isn't this how people become allergic to things (generally?) By not being exposed to it in childhood? We take those stupid pills that are supposed to keep us from getting a cold, b/c God forbid we miss a day of work. For a nation that gets sick all the damn time, we sure think that getting a little cold is a horrible thing.
I had also read that there are cancer-causing agents in everything we have - from our sheets, clothes, anything plastic, not to mention housecleaners and those horrible sprays that people spray in every room of the house (jeez that drives me nuts.) We want a sterile, artificial environment in which to live, but b/c this is impossible, we are lowering our ability to fight sickness (but not necessarily cancer) when we do get sick. I wonder how large the housecleaner aisle has gotten in recent years. They have a spray for everything.
I'm sorry, but what did you think geologists did? Sit around and make up stories? I think flipping through a couple books titled things like Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, or Historical Geology would help make this a reality to you, or this site from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentology. This is really not so difficult to imagine with a little knowledge. Determining depositional environments of ancient places is a huge part of geology. For one thing, erosion might make 200 Ma deposits visible to us. Without erosion and tectonics, we wouldn't be able to see a hell of a lot besides recent deposits. And there's so much more...
Oh, for real. Good point. I think I meant geologists. My friend works for Exxon and has her MS in geology, and they research the rock formations and stuff. That was a mistake I won't be repeating. :c )
I don't know of any scientist that is atheist because they are a scientist. Atheism is a belief, and has as little to do with science as does theism. No one I know asserts that God doesn't exist, unless they personally feel that he doesn't. Most scientists that I know consider themselves agnostic, or simply don't care, but more importantly, they know science has nothing to do with this. Science is just a process, and scientists are simply people just like anyone else who also have beliefs. I really don't know the people about whom you are talking, and if they indeed exist, then they unfortunately do not know the limits of science and are asserting something outside of that realm, though not outside the realm of their personal belief system (it's easy to get the 2 confused).
Personally, I don't know. I know the flood in the Middle East is well-documented (that would have been the "entire world" to the author(s), though of coursse didn't cover the entire world. But even though the Bible has some stories of historical importance, most of what science deals with, or at least paleontology, occurred before people were ever around. We can't use the Bible as a science textbook, though it can carry good accounts regarding human history and civilization.
Maybe you should reread what I wrote. You didn't say anything that's news to me or to other scientists. Scientists don't discount the existence of those things, b/c they cannot. You're not saying anything that scientists don't already know. But the fact that God cannot be scientifically disproven means that we don't bother about it at all, in our formulations of testable hypotheses. Plenty of scientists believe in God, though the point is to try not to let that faith interfere with their work. You can't prove that God does exist anymore than you can prove that he doesn't, and all scientists I know already know this.
I think hubris isn't really the issue, since apparently I admitted that I didn't know what the theory of relativity entailed. I also seriously doubt that you or anyone else knows about "all things under the ocean," if you want to talk about hubris. I would also think that being an oil rig driller would require some geological knowledge, and so none of this would be news to you.
I think it is clear that NO ONE was around back then. Does that mean we should stop studying fossils, and stop acquiring evidence as is possible? Should we forget about studying things that we cannot see firsthand, but we can still find data about? Should we stop making experiments to try to replicate the environments that existed back then and from that get ideas on how bones are transported?
Though I am not Norwegian nor was I around 200 mya, I read that Norway was covered by a fluvial system during the time from which they are approximating the age of the bone. Based on my knowledge of fluvial systems to transport and deposit bone (this is the topic of my Master's thesis), I know that it is LIKELY that this is what occurred, and according to a later comment, this is indeed what had happened according to the geologists studying it.
The biased way in which you presented your "data," as well as the ridiculous off-topic remarks about Tom Cruise (WTF?), the Grand Canyon, and the entire field of paleontology tell me that you are taking this personally, that you may have some deep-seated issues with scientists, and that you really know extraordinarily little about how science is done.
While fixing cars is important, some of us must indeed go to college, as a civilization is judged based on the science, art, and philosophy that comes out of it, and not only that but also to make important discoveries regarding these, not to mention medicine. Not all of us can be car-fixers. Not to mention the fact that geologists play an important part in finding oil, a fact I'm sure you are familiar with. I hope you someday get over your problems with scientists. But I won't waste any more time with someone who refers to me as a "fool." Good day to you.
I want to know who the hell modded this person as Insightful. This is as much ID talk as I've ever read, though somehow without using those words... Things like flight, electric light, and space travel, while perhaps at one time seeming impossible, are not nor have ever been supernatural! Science is a process by which we learn about the world around us, it's not magic! We're doing the best we can with what we got, and making up sh** isn't going to get us anywhere. I think the fact that we figured out how to travel to space, fly, and utilize electricity shows what science CAN do, and all without having to deal with the supernatural. You're talking about human ingenuity and persistence rather than the supernatural, and science is full of stories about that.
Well, sediment is deposited over time. Soil is something a little different. (This is called relative dating). From having a friend who is an oil geologist, they know a lot about the formation into which they are drilling - it costs way too much to just go drilling anywhere, the geologists do craploads of research first. So I feel safe about their 200 million years old figure. Also, the carbon you need to date things with only lasts about 15,000 years or so, and would be useless here, though other radioisotopes can be and likely have been used (Uranium - Lead, for instance.) (This is called absolute dating). Carbon is used for more recent things, such as human remains and pottery or whatever.
Wow, if that's the only part of it you read than you are much worse than just a coward. I'm a geologist and a biologist, am I to become a physicist in my spare time? Argue against everything else I said then, if you know anything at all. Go ahead.
You should call yourself GoodAnalogyGuy for that one
:c )
But don't call the former one a theory
--
Better go now, running out of room.
Whales have extremely dense bones, and they also didn't evolve until about 30 ma. Judging from the approximate age of the bone (oil drillers know all this stuff), as well as any diagnostic features, it would be easy to designate it as a Plateosaurus, which is an extremely common dinosaur in western Europe, and is from the Late Triassic (about 200 ma). Even if crushed, a Plateosaurus is the most parsimonious explanation. As I said in another comment, the prosauropods were going from bipedal to quadrupedal and, correct me if I'm wrong prosauropod people, I bet the "knucklebones" were unique, and perhaps easy to ID. I also bet that this bone was washed out to the ocean from a river, as Norway was covered in rivers during this time. You're assuming much less once you actually have a bit of background on the time period and the region.
The purpose of philosophy is to seek truth, but the purpose of science is to explain how things work. "Truisms" and "facts" are not good words to use in the natural sciences, where several hypotheses may be working at once.
The problem is that supernatural phenomena is untestable. Whether things like God or goblins exist are interesting questions, but without physical evidence, it remains speculation and is not within the realm of science. Fortunately, we don't need physical evidence to believe in God (or goblins)- this requires faith which by definition is NOT something we can see/hear/etc. Science can only deal with things that are testable. I do not know anything about the theory of relativity, except that my understanding is that it is largely based on mathematical modeling as well as physical laws, which again, are testable and completely within the realm of science - I think people will respond to you, offended that you believe that this scientific theory is "supernatural." Sometimes indirect testing is in order, but it still works. An open mind is required as you suggest, but to put forward an untestable hypothesis will get you nowhere, as no one can either agree or disagree with you, and therefore the answer will not be found.
I also call your bluff on you owning a time machine.
--
Better go now, running out of room.
He he, I'd mod you as Funny if I had points currently. But really, this part of the world has been pretty tectonically active recently, at least as recent as the opening of the Atlantic ocean along a spreading ridge. Jeez, almost anything could've happened - except a flood. Flood deposits are terrestrial, and don't affect the ocean floor (at least not to a depth of 2000 m). Some washing out could have occurred instead perhaps, but this would be impossible to distinguish from the bone(s) being washed out by a river, tide, or just plain ol' waves. As Norway was once a fluvial plain (rivers), and rivers are common deposits in which to find bone (Hell Creek and Two Medicine Fms. in Montana, for instance, preserve almost all fossils in what are interpreted to be fluvial deposits), then it's easy to imagine a river washing a fossil out to sea here as well. Knucklebones (do they mean phalanges?) are relatively round and small, and so could travel far and without significant abrasion or breakage - even as far as the continental shelf, apparently. Washing out by a river is the most parsimonious, and most likely, explanation.
ID of the bone as that of a Plateosaurus isn't so difficult either - prosauropods have certain very distinguishable bones (well, like anything I guess), and as they were in the process of going from bipedal to quadrupedal I bet their knucklebones were unique, and diagnostic. Much of western Europe is full of Plateosaurus specifically, and so this is also the most likely.
--
Better go now, running out of room.
I disagree. It's much easier for geeky females to get normal men than for geeky men to get normal women, in my experience. We geeky women can, in mens' minds, secretly be sex fiends. Kind of like a porn star dressing up as a strict librarian or something. It doesn't really go the other way for men, unfortunately, though I don't know why. Sorry fellas. :c (
I also take offense to the statement that wives don't have sex. So not true.
--
Better go now, running out of room
There's a little field of science called "taphonomy." You with me so far? It's the study of what happens to things after they die. We can do actualistic studies of what happens to skeletons in certain environments under certain conditions, such as placing bones in a water flume tank and seeing which ones travel furthest, which ones are abraded most easily, etc. and come up with surprising and helpful results that help us to interpret fossils. Taphonomy also deals with behavioral interpretations of critters by using fossil assemblages, a skeleton, or as in the situation quoted by Mr. Febtober above, possibly even a single bone. There is a lot it can tell us, and if you're interested, I bet there's even a book or two on the subject. Of course there are limitations, but this is a field of paleontology in which "real" data can be gathered from actual experiments, inside a lab and with controls and all that jazz, and it can lead to some very powerful interpretations of the fossil record.
You're right that the two feeding styles aren't exclusive; however, in order to have a testable hypothesis you need to take a stance. Anyone can say "it's both." I doubt anyone really "believes" that T. rex was either one or the other, even this Horner fellow, but how do you test that?
The binocular vision is also highly debated, and most scavengers need very formidable jaws for cracking bones. Today's hypercarnivores (though I shudder to compare dinos to mammals) tend to have short jaws - felids are the "most true" hypercarnivores we have, and almost never crack bones, while canids and other carnivores scavenge or are somewhat omnivorous, and their longer (more generalist) jaws suit them well. Tyrannosaurs also tend to have jaws that are well-suited for bone-cracking (yum...marrow).
With the tremendous amount of prey biomass laying around, it is difficult to say that there were many obligate predators at all during the Mesozoic. Scavenging is likely to have been more common then than it is now. Even though sauropods were largely gone by the time T. rex came onto the picture, there were still some huge prey animals wandering around, and huge amounts of them.
Unfortunately we think of scavengers as not nearly as cool as predators, and until that bias is dispelled it will be difficult for us to view the evidence fairly. I have no "opinions" one way or the other (I don't even study theropods), but in arenas such as Slashdot, or yes, in science, it is easy to forget what are opinions and desires and what is based on evidence.
I know people say -iday, but I learned recently (actually in a class outlining the ICZN, which I admit, I own) that it's incorrect.
/. writing this after a pitcher of honey rye. Pretty good beer. Can't wait to try the Porter I'm currently bottle-fermenting.
I agree that it is nice to organize organisms like that, and it makes it a lot easier for me, but there are many problems with that system. I do have experience with invertebrates as well as vertebrates, and I also teach about them. We use terminology such as "Chondrichthyes" and things like that, but referring to those as classes becomes kind of complicated. Are Chondrichthyes equivalent on some level to Osteichthyes? What about the lungfish, are they a separate class, or part of Osteichthyes? We have phylum Craniata, but what do we call actual vertebrates? Is that an order or superorder, or what? It seems that a lot of scientists are getting weary of differentiating everything based on supposedly "equivalent" levels, and simply saying "Hadrosauridae" or "Hadrosaurinae" works fine, without mentioning the level (though from the suffix in this case the original perception is apparent.) Nesting groups will always be around, like you said, but the types of hierarchical levels appear to be losing favor in many of the readings I'm familiar with. Hell, when it gets down to an argument between, "is it an infra-order or a super-order?" you know things are going too far. Can you name all the levels for any one species of insect (presumably what you're working on?) And I mean all the sub-, infra-, and super- of every level possible. They don't all have those, and that's where it gets weird. These levels are losing their meaning, though very generally, perhaps they do get the point across to a lot of introductory students.
Well, maybe they say "family" for simplicity but perhaps it's a subfamily or who knows. Besides, they're not using the Linnaean system so much anymore so even using words like "family" and whatnot is on its way out. Most families end in -idae (pronounced -idee), but there are exceptions and with the different hierarchical levels becoming less and less distinct (are orders, etc. equivalent across taxa?) and recognized, that "rule" is also losing favor. The hierarchy doesn't make much sense nowadays, and there are so damn many nomenclatural rules to follow that some of the less important ones eventually fade from use.
Or it may be a mispelling.
Except that your email address doesn't work...
/not an atheist
No, science isn't perfect - anyone would readily admit that - but it has changed a bit since Barton's time. The cool thing (or extremely frustrating thing) is that no one can publish something without it being critiqued, sometimes quite harshly, by the scientific community. Maybe there are more scientists now than there used to be or something, but crap doesn't often slip by unnoticed. It's usually supported by the best available evidence, by the best available researchers, though of course this changes. The field is always changing, especially with new technologies, especially in my field of vertebrate paleo where I do bone histology. Wouldn't be possible without petrographic microscopes, SEMs, and materials like synthetic epoxies. And new things are being discovered all the time. I think your point is that why do science if we can't be sure of things? using Barton as an example, but I say why do science if we are?
Also, I doubt anything was "decided." It was probably just the best answer they had at the time, and they may have known that, but what do you do? Apparently when new methods were discovered scientists realized that there were more accurate ways to judge the speed of light. Geologic dating has been through a similar past, relying on different methods, each one becoming more reliable and based on more facts and knowledge than the previous, and each one showing us an older Earth.
Science also has no bearing on spirituality or the supernatural, because it can only explain things that are physical, by definition. Sasquatch and Nessie were admitted by the people behind the cameras to be hoaxes (though of course there are plenty of undiscovered species, though I'm sorry to say extinction is a reality) and as far as ghosts and things like that, I have no clue and am personally not that interested, as I can't even watch a scary movie. Science doesn't explain everything, but neither does something that simply states "God did it." Anyone can say that, and it doesn't make it true - it's a personal belief, and should never be used to convince someone that science may be flawed, because it is not evidence. People have for centuries used God as a way to explain things for which there is currently a lack of evidence, and science often seems to eventually fill in those gaps, so then what do the creationists do? Say that it's crap on principle, because it goes against their beliefs, even without understanding (or caring about) the methods behind it? Construct silly experiments with rocks to show that the Earth is 6000 years old, when they don't even understand the first thing about geology? This is why the T-shirt says "Creationism: it's just easier" because the movement appears to be made up of people who are too lazy to find out what's really going on, and want to hide behind their wall of "God did it," because it makes them feel spiritual. I know plenty of devout scientists, and they understand the difference between faith guiding them in their lives and physical evidence pointing to how the world works. The Bible is not a textbook.
It's been said that the Bible is the most misunderstood book of all time, and On The Origin of Species by Darwin might be second. People love to act like they know what's in these books, however, most people have never read nor understood either, and creationism is my case in point. Evolution is hard - there's a reason why it's usually a 400 or 500 level course, but using God as a reason for everything we can't quite explain, or as a substitute for science that offends us, doesn't help, and in fact doesn't sound like something a true, unwavering, faithful person would do.
But apparently it's not that obvious that humans were prey, because several people in the comments have argued against the study and its results, and many people like to think that humans were always at the top, hunting even things bigger than themselves. I think that's obvious from the other comments. But regardless of its obviousness anyway, you still need evidence for it. If science worked by people just saying shit and then other scientists believing it, then creationism or FSM (haha - joke) might as well be science. But it works because people gather hard data, test it (somehow - this is difficult when dealing with paleo or anthro topics), interpret it, and publish it so other scientists can scrutinize it and accept it, test it themselves, or say that its biased crap.
I really can't say anything different than I did before, I just wish that had been understood better. I'm also not going to get into politics, because while we likely disagree, I know I don't know a whole lot about it. I also will mention that medical studies (your eggs/carbs/etc. point) can be different from that of other sciences, though there are still many unknown things that lead to inconsistencies. Why would we even do science if everything was known? There might very well be a study that shows that humans were predators and became sociable because of pack-hunting (wolves, hyenas, lions, Velociraptor - not all predators are solitary, and not all prey are herding (rhinos, jungle deer, Stegosaurus), and some people will say that was obvious all along.
You can believe whatever you want, as long as ID people acknowledge that it is a belief and has no place being taught as science in the classroom. Science has no bearing on what people choose to believe - indeed, I often argue that accepting human evolution has no bearing on one's spirituality, even if we are "just primates." Science certainly cannot say that God didn't start the Big Bang or whatever, and many devout people choose to believe He did, which is fine. Just don't try to teach it to people as science, and IDers are doing just that, I'm afraid. I like science because it is uncertain, and we're always finding new things and I think it's exciting to be proven wrong, and therefore I personally don't find a reason to explain things with God because it's exciting to admit I don't know everything, because maybe someday we'll learn some more of what we don't know today. Science certainly would have no reason to be done if we did know everything, or hide behind the banner of God doing everything. Indeed, we would progress very little at all.
/To say that the Bible is a geology, biology, or physics textbook is to at the same time give it too much credit, and also far too little. People who believe this know little about science but even less about faith.
...when people present their findings at a meeting rather than in a journal. Well, forget about reading it then, but it'll be published at some point; they usually present at meetings first and then publish. I'll be waiting to read it to see what they actually say. Like I said to someone else, scientists often hate it when their stuff is written about in a newspaper or whatever, because it's usually butchered past the point of recognition, so don't blame the simplicity on the researchers. However, I usually love the BBC for this... but it's still not a fair assessment, just a lazy judgement call.
OK, but the key is assimilating enough evidence to be sure rather than just making up a "just so" story, and publishing it. Can you do that? You're probably right, there is a pattern, but it takes more than that. The problem with people is they think that scientists just say shit, and make everyone else believe it, when actually they often pool together loads of data in order to say something that may not be revolutionary, but is likely a good explanation. Read the actual paper before you critique the study too harshly - as I commented above, there's probably a lot more info in it than you realize. This article has been dumbed-down immensely, and probably been written by a journalist attempting to disseminate info to the general public. Please keep that in mind whenever "science" is reported. Many of us get really embarrassed by what newspapers and the like write about our research, for the reason you illustrated - it is obviously grossly misunderstood by the general public :c (