I recently watch on National Geographic a documentory "Dinosaurs Decoded." Come on! Who else watched it?! The revolutionary paleontologist had some very good points. His theory was the development of smaller dinosaurs to the much more larger ones through the periods (as evolution goes) were actually dinosuars through different stages of their life. Isn't that incredible! I think that makes a whole lot more sense then bones that date back billions and billions of years ago. After all, carbon dating has already been debunked but why they're still using it to date I have no clue.
It all started with a little triceratops that he believes was a baby. Then another fossil that shows a larger but slightly different "teen" triceratops, then a full grown adult. But in between the stages there are little features that made other paleontologists catagorize them as another species or an earlier development of that species evolution-wise. There were slight variations in the baby that showed ridges on their neck frill thing and small stuby horns. Similiar to a baby rhinosaurus. Cute. But the next stage is the "teen" this one has prominent arrow shaped spicked bones along the ridge of the frill and longer horns but they face upward. The adult has a smooth frill and longer straight forward horns.
These thing I would think were common sense took years to decode. Funny.
Scientist keep saying that humans did not exist when dinosaurs roamed the earth but evidence has surfaced contradicting that. Stories past down from generation to generation, from my tribe's elders, that we have had a history of battling these creatures. Now in the form of tradtional stories, such as the twins and their many battles with monsters, the dinosaurs are put into legend.
You would think stories that share characteristics throughout cultures all over the world would be enough evidence. But no, they retain that Anglo mentality that they have to experience it themselves and have actual material objects. I say that they no longer know what they're doing and it's all just guess work.
Dinosaurs, far from you childhood days
By nativechick - Posted on October 15th, 2009
nativechick's blog
• Login or register to add your review
• 448 reads
• by nativechick
• Email this page
... you misunderstood a few points.
I recently watch on National Geographic a documentory "Dinosaurs Decoded." Come on! Who else watched it?! The revolutionary paleontologist had some very good points. His theory was the development of smaller dinosaurs to the much more larger ones through the periods (as evolution goes) were actually dinosuars through different stages of their life. Isn't that incredible! I think that makes a whole lot more sense then bones that date back billions and billions of years ago. After all, carbon dating has already been debunked but why they're still using it to date I have no clue.
(1) That revolutionary paleontologist was Jack Horner of the University of Montana - Bozeman.
(2) His theory is that juvenile dinosaurs of some species may not look like the adults. Thus, some dinosaurs which have been classified as one species may in actuality be juveniles of another species. This is a testable hypothesis and we will soon know. I suspect that Horner is right in that we have some misclassifications. However, I am very skeptical of the extent. Horner thinks that perhaps as much as 1/3 of all dinosaur species will turn out to be misclassifications. I doubt that.
(3) Ther are no bones that date back "billions and billions of years ago". The first bones date back to the Silurian, about 1/2 billion years ago. And they were fish bones. Dinosaur bones date between about 210 million years ago and 65 million years ago.
(4) Carbon dating is very very accurate. It always has been. ... But not for dinosaur bones. The half life of a 14C atom is about 5,300 years. Radio-dating for any isotope is good for about 10 half lives. So carbon dating only dates things back about 50,000 years ago. All dinosaurs are at least a thousand times older than that.
Radio nuclide dating of dinosaurs involves K/Ar, U/Pb, or one of the other long half lived isotopes.
It all started with a little triceratops that he believes was a baby. Then another fossil that shows a larger but slightly different "teen" triceratops, then a full grown adult. But in between the stages there are little features that made other paleontologists catagorize them as another species or an earlier development of that species evolution-wise. There were slight variations in the baby that showed ridges on their neck frill thing and small stuby horns. Similiar to a baby rhinosaurus. Cute. But the next stage is the "teen" this one has prominent arrow shaped spicked bones along the ridge of the frill and longer horns but they face upward. The adult has a smooth frill and longer straight forward horns.
Here is where you need some skepticism. Horner is making an argument. His argument may be right ... BUT, it also may be wrong. Monoceratops are smaller dinosaurs with less well developed horns. So it looks like they could be the young of adult Triceratops. Possible ... BUT Monceratops are primarily found in Asia. Triceratops are primarily found in North America. Monoceratops typically date older than do Triceratops. This data strongly suggest that they are different species. So the case isn't yet settled by any means.
These thing I would think were common sense took years to decode. Funny.
But they aren't common sense. There is a lot of data that one must assemble into a coherent theory. And some of the data is going to be contradictory. The contradictions result from sampling errors (only certain areas of the earth have the right geological strata exposed for finding dinosaur remains, and some of those areas are better searched than are others), size bias (larger fossils are better studied than are smaller ones), and personal biases of the investigators.
Eventually testable hypotheses like Horner's will be worked out. That is how science progresses. But keep a healthy skepticism about any new controversial idea you hear about in the media concerning science. The truth or falsity of anything controversial in science has not yet been worked out. Also the media loves controversy. Some ideas are just crackpot ideas. Virtually no one in science takes them seriously. However, the media can manufacture a controversy in the eyes of the public where there is none. Besides it makes a good underdog story as well.
Scientist keep saying that humans did not exist when dinosaurs roamed the earth but evidence has surfaced contradicting that. Stories past down from generation to generation, from my tribe's elders, that we have had a history of battling these creatures. Now in the form of tradtional stories, such as the twins and their many battles with monsters, the dinosaurs are put into legend.
You would think stories that share characteristics throughout cultures all over the world would be enough evidence. But no, they retain that Anglo mentality that they have to experience it themselves and have actual material objects. I say that they no longer know what they're doing and it's all just guess work.
One thing that is abundantly clear ... dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. All dinosaur bones are found in strata dating between about 210 million years ago and 65 million years ago. NO DINOSAUR BONE HAS EVER BEEN FOUND MORE RECENT THAN THAT. Humans (Homo sapiens) didn't come into existence until about 200,000 years ago. So, rounding to the nearest million year ... there is a gap of 65 million years between the last dinosaur and the earliest human.
It is safe to say that your human ancestors never battled a dinosaur. However, there have been dinosaur skeletons that erode from rocks. Perhaps your ancestors saw these giant skeletons, noticed that they and their kind were dead so they made up stories about their ancestors killing them.
Monoceratops skulls have sort of a parrot-like beak:
It is thought that these skulls inspired stories of the legendary monster, the Roc:
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I get where your coming from. A firm believer in all things scientific. Well I'll tell you right now that I do not have a good perspective of science, specifically medical whether that's related or not. I appreciate the new perspective but when you start talking bout shit you don't know about. I say you back up and analyze yourself before you insult a culture. Which you already did! Sorry for the informality but sometimes normal words don't do it. Cultures all over the world have similiarities in their tradtional stories. But of course Western civilization is still too good for that. Of course. I'm not saying your racist by no means. Just culturally ignorant. Gosh. There I go again with bashing you. It's just something some people cannot grasp. I'm saying, if i told you your grandparents were full of shit I'm sure you'd take offense too. See! Goes round and round.
... when culture becomes an unthinking, unchallengeable dogma it becomes dangerous.
I assume that I insulted your culture when I said that your ancestors did not battle dinosaurs. If that is the case, then too bad. They didn't. There is no reasonable doubt about that. Millions of dinosaur fossils have been found in strata dated to between 210 million years ago and 65 million years ago. Absolutely zero dinosaur fossils have been found after that ... not a one ... zip ... zilch. No Homo sapiens fossils have been found older than 200,000 years ago. That is a 65 million year gap and it leaves no room for reasonable doubt. Your human ancestors did not battle dinosaurs. Trying to make a claim that they did without addressing this elephant in the room is as ridiculous as young-earth Creationists claims that the bible mentions dinosaus so the Earth is really only 6000 years old. If you are serious in that claim even after the facts have been pointed out ... then you are taking your cultural myths too seriously (as are young-earth Creationists) and you not only deserve all the ridicule you get you may NEED it.
Now if your culture gets insulted by verifiable facts, that is too bad. My grandparents believed a lot of things that I think are ludicrous. They lived in a different time in which the known facts are not as they are now. My grandchildren will probably think I believed a lot bullshit too. The known facts will be different then. Judging the character of people of the past by what is known today is a mistake. They should be judged by what they knew then. If the stories of your ancestors battling monsters derived from seeing eroded dinosaur bones (as many people think the legend of the Roc did) then it is understandable. They are still alive, these huge creatures are not. It would make sense from their perspective to think that their ancestors killed them, especially since there will undoubtedly be true stories in which some of your ancestors did battle large and dangerous beasts like bears, and possibly even huge ground sloths, mammoths, mastodons, hairy rhinoceroses, saber-toothed tigers, and other members of the Megafauna that was around in the New World as recently as 10,000 years ago.
But judging whether or not a belief is correct SHOULD be done based on what is known today. We know more ... especially scientific things ... than we did then.
As for being culturally ignorant especially of Native American cultures ... GUILTY. I don't know much about their cultures, even though I do have some distant Cherokee ancestors. Cultural anthropology is not a field that I know a lot about. Nor is it a field that holds more than a passing interest for me. That is why my criticism focused on the science not the culture.
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I appreciate the new perspective but when you start talking bout shit you don't know about. I say you back up and analyze yourself before you insult a culture.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to create a blog (or even a blog series) about your culture? I know many people here would find it fascinating.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge