[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
"Dinosaurs don't count"
I don't mean to flame, but...
I recently got the boo "1001 things everyone should know about
science" by James trefil from the library..while browsing through it,
I found the dinosaur section...
"From the viewpoint of science dinosaurs do not count"...
"There were never more than a few species of the large dinosaurs
around at any one time...they were angolous to modern elephants and
rhinos: beautiful and interesting, but carying little information....
Add to this the fact that dinosaurs, because they were land animals
rarely left fossils, and you have a situation where the kind of fossil
that is most interesting to the public is probably least interesting
For some odd reason while reading this I had a gut reaction to want to
throw the book away, and say "WHAT A CREEP!"--(I get defensive about
my favorite topics!)...
Anyway, what I gleaned from the above was that in the author's
opinion, dinosaurs are rather unimportant because they lived on land,
rarely fossilised...and he believes that scientificly dinosaurs are of
I don't think this is so!
So, I'm asking list members your opinions:
Why would dinosaurs be or not be scientificly "important" or
noteworthy? and do dinosaur fossils have "little scientific value"?,
if so, what is their value?
"My room is full of dinosaurs, as far as I can see,
There's spinosaurs, and tarbosaurs,as pretty as can be.
There's duck-bills, croc-jaws, and other fearsome freaks,
Some are covered in scales, feathers or have beaks.
My room is full of dinosaurs, just as stuffed as can be--
there's only one problem...there's no room left for me!"
Poem by ME!(j. wagar)
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com