Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
<div style="background-color: none transparent;"><a href="http://www.rsspump.com/?web_widget/rss_ticker/news_widget" title="News Widget">News Widget</a></div>
Hello, we here at Speculative Evolution have noticed a recent increase in the number of guests visiting our community. While being a guest does allow you to browse the forum at a basic level, it does not give you access to everything. There are many things that guests cannot see, and therefore we urge you to join our us so that you may contribute to our community and the projects we are undertaking. If you would like to register, please click the link below. If you are already a member, please ignore this message and log in. Thank you for your cooperation.


Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
No Toraceratops!; It finally happened.
Topic Started: Feb 16 2012, 08:34 AM (3,626 Views)
Forbiddenparadise64
Member Avatar
Adult
 *  *  *  *  *  *
http://jabrosky.deviantart.com/art/Triceratops-vs-Torosaurus-284975547

Read the comments and look further into the truth behind torosaurus and crew. The idea that it is an older triceratops actually makes no sense whatsoever, and the assumpitions for pachycephalosaurus are as bad as, if not worse than saying that a white tailed deer is a juvenile moose because it lives in the same area at the same time. Also, nanotyrannus DOES seem to be a valid genus; it has fully fused bones, a different number of teeth and a different brain structure to a juvenile t rex. This is all part of Horner's scheme to reduce the number of dinosaurs by a third (A HUGE AMOUNT!) to prove that dinosaurs are the most rubbish animals ever or something. Heck, it gets worse, Denver Fowler believes that HALF of all dinosaur genera should be lumped together-thats not science, thats madness. Not just dinosaurs ever, he still believes that other groups like pterosaurs, mososaurs, notosuchians, testudines, more primitive mammals etc were all declining too. Mainstream paleontology is turning into garbage people. We need to do something about it ASAP!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Russwallac
Member Avatar
"Ta-da!"
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Horner's gone a little crazy in the last few years... That tends to happen when scientists get too much media attention. They'll start coming up with all sorts of insane theories just to stay in the spotlight.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Forbiddenparadise64
Member Avatar
Adult
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Exactly. While mainstream media is becoming more and more eratic and divided in every way other than the realistic way, we and PROPER paleontologists are always here to show the real facts. SV-POW, Paleoking, and the like are what I now listen to, not the rubbish on wikipedia.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
While capital letters DO have a certain impact, I don't think they're actually NECESSARY to STRENGTHEN your point. It really makes it sound more like a rant than anything.

Okay nevermind, I finally read the whole post. It IS a rant.

Edit: I also love how "we armchair scientists are way better and more professional than those evil mainstream scientists" is a reoccuring theme on this forum. We're like the hipsters of science.
Edited by Flisch, Feb 16 2012, 11:52 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
dialforthedevil
Member Avatar
Frumentarii Administrator

Yeah boi!!! I would describe myself more a pikey of science. Using complex terminology such as 'bitchin' adaptations' and 'gases and shit'.

There is another camp of evolutionary biologists who actually want to completely change the 5 groups of vetebrates to= Mammals, Archosaurs, Reptiles, Fish and Amphibeans. I prefer this method of classification.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Russwallac
Member Avatar
"Ta-da!"
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
You should classify fish as two or more different groups; a salmon is more closely related to a human than it is to a shark, after all.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
JohnFaa
Member Avatar
Adveho in mihi Lucifer
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The idea that several dinosaur taxa just represent younger versions of other taxa actually does make more sense than assuming they were very diverse. Dinosaurs had slow growth rates, hence they occupied many ecological niches as they grew.

Bone fusions =/= adult animals. Nemicolopterus has fully fused bones, yet most people agree that it's a juvenile of a larger pterosaur species.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
JohnFaa
Member Avatar
Adveho in mihi Lucifer
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Flisch
Feb 16 2012, 11:50 AM
While capital letters DO have a certain impact, I don't think they're actually NECESSARY to STRENGTHEN your point. It really makes it sound more like a rant than anything.

Okay nevermind, I finally read the whole post. It IS a rant.

Edit: I also love how "we armchair scientists are way better and more professional than those evil mainstream scientists" is a reoccuring theme on this forum. We're like the hipsters of science.
Agreed. While I do think Bakker and Horner are bumbling idiots who should die in a pit, we most certainly aren't wielders of the truth. To say that we know more than the average paleontologist is humbris at it's purest.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
colddigger
Member Avatar
Joke's over! Love, Parasky
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Hipsters of science. I like that.

Anyway, I do hesitate to say that just because a skeleton is larger or smaller than another makes it another species, sauropods had very small young after all but we don't go around saying there were cat sized sauropods.
IN B 4 CAT SIZED SAUROPODS.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Zorcuspine
Member Avatar
You never cease to suprise me blue hedgehog

JohnFaa
Feb 16 2012, 12:39 PM
The idea that several dinosaur taxa just represent younger versions of other taxa actually does make more sense than assuming they were very diverse. Dinosaurs had slow growth rates, hence they occupied many ecological niches as they grew.

Bone fusions =/= adult animals. Nemicolopterus has fully fused bones, yet most people agree that it's a juvenile of a larger pterosaur species.
As far as I understand tyranosaurs were the exception. Even If I am wrong I think Horner has taken it to far...
Edited by Zorcuspine, Feb 16 2012, 03:58 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Fleeshster
Member Avatar
Not Flisch
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Lumping is a bad idea, especially in extinct animals. If big cats weren't around now, or rorqual whales if you want something more Dino-size, We'd have them all clumped together, and probably only half as many species as there really are.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
speculative flish
Feb 16 2012, 07:13 PM
Lumping is a bad idea, especially in extinct animals. If big cats weren't around now, or rorqual whales if you want something more Dino-size, We'd have them all clumped together, and probably only half as many species as there really are.
Well, that's probably the case because a genus isn't a species, and dinosaurs, as well as bascially all extinct animals, are grouped together in genuses.

To exemplify using big cats, the genus Panthera consists of: Lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards and snow leopards. Each of those species lives in very different habitats and displays very different social behaviour. I would imagine the variance within dinosaur genuses to be equally big.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
truteal
Member Avatar
forum bigfoot
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The main reason why I'm sceptical about this was the fact that Triceratops was bigger than Torosaurus
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Forbiddenparadise64
Member Avatar
Adult
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Sorry if I sounded a bit stupid for making a rant. I'm trying to get a point across. Horner is going way too far. I never said that making a skeleton smaller makes it a seperate species, and I'm aware that T rex juveniles were lighter in build than adults. But t rex juveniles bones aren't fused, while nanotyrannus's are-nanotyrannus's brain, jaw line and arm proportions are also significantly different to that of a juvenile T rex. there's probably more difference between the two than between a tiger and a leopard, which seems enough. In torasaurus/triceratops, the differences are even greater; the horns, frill (it seems Horner deliberately tried to make the reconstruction of that old triceratops look like torasaurus even though it most liekly was'nt, not to mention no such absorbing of holes is seen anywhere else in ceratopsians or in dinosaurs in general) the strongly different snouts of the animals among other things. The silliest idea by far of course is the pachycephalosaur one, saying that an animal will start out a peaceful little herbivore normally, grow a really strange crown, longer limbs, different beak etc later and than reabsorb horns and develop some really thick head for display makes no sense at all. The new ceratopsian finds show at least they were more diverse in america than previously thought, and even with this, that america was a hurt ecosystem at the end of the cretaceous-that does'nt mean the rest of the world was too. But the worst and most infamous case of lumping however was by Greg Paul lumped together deinonychus and velociraptor, and we all know where that lead ;).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
colddigger
Feb 16 2012, 03:54 PM
Hipsters of science. I like that.

I was totally into dinosaurs before they became mainstream.

colddigger
Feb 16 2012, 03:54 PM
Anyway, I do hesitate to say that just because a skeleton is larger or smaller than another makes it another species, sauropods had very small young after all but we don't go around saying there were cat sized sauropods.
IN B 4 CAT SIZED SAUROPODS.

A little offtopic, but I recently had a conversation about that. What's actually the smallest known sauropod?

Forbiddenparadise64
Feb 17 2012, 06:29 AM
The silliest idea by far of course is the pachycephalosaur one, saying that an animal will start out a peaceful little herbivore normally, grow a really strange crown, longer limbs, different beak etc later and than reabsorb horns and develop some really thick head for display makes no sense at all.

In all fairness, let's assume arthropods go extinct. People would never draw the conclusion that those legless worm-like creatures without carapace are actually the juveniles of those winged segmented and haired/armored creatures with long legs and feelers. Add that to the fact that there are arthropods that don't have a distinct larval form. Also let's not forget that caterpillars grow into several distinct-looking instars. Additionally some larval stages are bigger than their adult form. So unless they'd find a fossilized anthill, odds are they'd assign every larval stage their own genus apart from the adult. And even if they do, ants are known to form close symbiosis with other species like lice and caterpillars. So who's to say those small worms aren't just symbionts of the ants? I mean that sounds 50 times more likely than assuming these creatures went through such a radical change in body shapes throughout their life, especially when there isn't a fossil that shows the transition between stages.

Of course, the burden of proof is on the one who challenges the status quo, and as I see it, not enough evidence has been brought up that can outcompete the evidence that confirms the status quo, so...

By the way, I had a similar idea to JohnFAA. What if dinosaurs went through different "larval" stages, where each stage occupies a different niche? However, I decided against posting it. It just seemed even more alien than just assuming that Torosaurus is nothing but the mature form of a species within the Triceratops genus.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science Central · Next Topic »
Locked Topic