[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

"Dinosaurs don't count"



Arghhh...
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...
and read
205
"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 
to scientists"....
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 
little value.
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?



Jessica Wagar 
Amateur Paleontologist/Paleoartist 
Michigan,USA 
 
"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