Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wikipedia and the evil Peters
Topic Started: Apr 22 2009, 03:33 PM (1,218 Views)
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
To those that have no idea of what this has to do with biology, this is mainly a critique to both Wikipedia (which is so out-dated on many prehistoric animal articles that it makes me wonder if the retards just want to annoy me, because every other article that isn't about non-dinosaurian prehistoric animals is updated). and to both David Peters and Peter Mihalda, two amateurs that study archosaurs and simply seem to be mad. To see more about these two idiots, see my critique on both these issues:


Also, note that Dougal Dixon is a cunt because he is a geologist that thinks that knows anything about biology, when he always ends up commiting at least 30 inaccuracies in all of his books, even those that aren't about speculative evolution but about dinosaurs.
Edited by Carlos, Nov 4 2017, 03:29 PM.
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Giant Blue Anteater
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Yeah, you'll have to admit that you cannot rely too much on Wikipedia, which is why while editing it, I listened to other people (Matt Martyniuk being one of them), and viewing other, more credible sources. But as a general reference, it is fairly reliable. The problem is may be that those articles do not have much attention payed to them, or that people are too lazy to update them. Britannica has some useful information too, but it isn't always up to date as well. But in terms of being up to date, Wikipedia generally beats Britannica. Yet some people insist that Wikipedia is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia, due to the fact that it is editable by everyone, and that it is easily vandalized, yet such edits are quickly reverted. I say those people are wrong.

As for David Peters, I know that guy, who made such wildly unscientific reconstructions using a photomanipulation program (wether it be Photoshop, GIMP, or whatever program he used). I have actually have a book of his called "Strange Creatures", which introduced me to many species of prehistoric life when I was younger. But I first learned about his crazy reconstructions from a picture Nemo Ramjet made, which featured a Peterized Pteranodon.
Ichthyostega

Posted Image

cdk007
 
Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance. Think about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Indeed, Wikipedia could be a reliable source if there constant updates. But there aren't.

Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Viergacht
Member Avatar
faceless fiend
 *  *  *  *  *
I have "Strange Creatures" too, and one on human evolution which is actually pretty good except for mentioning the aquatic theory. Got a link to those photo manips? I'm curious.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The actual manipulated photos I don't have, but I do know his reconstructions. Just to give an idea how they are, take a look at this:

http://nemo-ramjet.deviantart.com/art/David-Peters-Pteranodon-79375032

The poor animal would hardly ever fly. And the bipedal gait is also impossible on Pteranodon
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Viergacht
Member Avatar
faceless fiend
 *  *  *  *  *
Yeah, I remember seeing that a while back and thinking how crazy it looked. I didn't know Peters had lost his mind, that's rather sad.
Edited by Viergacht, Apr 22 2009, 05:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I wouldn't say he [simply] lost his mind; "becoming completly and totally insane to the point one might wonder if it is safe to keep him out of an asylum" is a better term.

And don't forget the other evil Peter, Peter Mihalda (true name Jean Pierre D'Amour; his last name is ironic, because, knowing him as I do via his two posts on Tetrapod Zoology, he seems more prown to hate than to love), who believes that Megalosaurus is a prosauropod, for example. That guy makes David Peters look sane, but both just deserve to be euthanised
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Viergacht
Member Avatar
faceless fiend
 *  *  *  *  *
If Megalosaurus is a prosauropod then I'm a tasmanian devil.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Giant Blue Anteater
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I have decided to bring up the updatedness issue to WikiProject Paleontology, and here is an excerpt.

Quote:
 

A friend of mine is complaining about how some of the articles for prehistoric non-dinosaur animals are outdated. This is from his mouth:

"If it wasn't for me, you'd still see marsupial sparassodonts (when they were non-marsupial metatherians) and fish eating istyodactylids (when they were scavengers). In fact, the information on dinosaurs also gets old; until VERY recently, heterodontosaurs were still the closest relatives to ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurs on Wikipedia, while everyone else already knew they weren't since, like, 2007! It kinda of reminds me of an actual encyclopedia, which is always outdated."

So I have decided to bring it to your guy's attention that you might need to get editing. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad your friend has done something to reduce the problem. --Philcha (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The non-dino paleo articles are pretty terrible and badly sourced. If I had sources to update them I'd help but it would take a major initiative to really get them up to WP:Dino type standards. On the other hand your friend seems a little too sure of some things... The placement of heterodontosaurs is controversial, with many people online pointing out that Tianyulong, contrary to whats said in the paper, actually is very similar to marginocephalians in several characters and might add support to that hypothesis. As for Istiodactylids, the source he added is from Mark Witton's blog and the only published statement was a "suggestion" that they "may" b scavengers. Like it or not encyclopedias, even Wiki, is NOT supposed to be bleeding edge, but err on the conservative side. Including "research" that is years away from even hitting print is really pushing it. That's what blogs are for! ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, now that I check on it, even the sparassodont thing is based on differences in definition (crown vs branch definition for marsupials) rather than differences in phylogeny. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that blogs such as Darren Naish's and PZ Meyers' should not be cited as sources on Wikipedia? Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, no. Not for science articles at least. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ichthyostega

Posted Image

cdk007
 
Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance. Think about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I kinda forgive them on sparassodonts and heterodontosaurs, but did they ever looked at the teeth of Istyodactylus!? They are like a tiger shark's, which are like knives, not the typical fish spearing things present in other pterosaurs! Honestly, do some research wikipedians!

Also, I didn't got it why blogs can't be used a sources. If they are written by experts, like Darren Naish, then they are usefull, and they contain a lot more information than the wikipedians contain in their brains anyway
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Science Central · Next Topic »
Add Reply