[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Response to Gould?
Eric Lurio wrote:
<Because "dinosaur" has a specific vernacular meaning. Dinosaurs are
giant extinct monsters from an impossibly long time ago. Okay, some
dinosaur fossils are quite small, but they are still from the lost
world of the Mesozoic. Dinosaurs are from a specific time period that
is not our own, they are the "terrible lizards" of the imagination that
haunt the dreams of children and those who remember being children.>
I'd like to see where it is written that dinosaurs have a specific
meaning that they are "giant," "extinct," or "monsters." Don Glut has
done a study and continues to do so that has shown that Hollywood has
had an incomparable effect in displaying to children in the early
decades of the last century [I can't wait till the year turns so that
it _will_ be the new millenium] that they were giant, lumbering, grey
"monsters", like brontosaurs that ate people.... Similarly, paintings
by Knight have also given our youth an inerasable series of ideas that
the scientist, who are so right and so smart and not to be questioned
(because who in their right mind would question Hawking or Einstein?),
got it right, and that it isn't a series of ideas and tests. Okay, off
the point, and perhaps I'm misstating it a little. Just had this
conversation with my little brother who with all of his intelligence
has proven the point of questioning what he sees to understand more.
And raised the point about source material and personal observation to
come to a conclusion.
<People are primates but are not australopithecine's, for
australopithecines are from a specific time only and are all gone.>
Ask Tim White, or Philip Tobias, or Clark: 1) ausrtalopithecines are
a whole different kettle of hominid from us hominines. Or at least
that's the prevalent theory. Of course, there's always a contender who
says that 2) australopithecines were polyphyletic and we stem from
_within_ one specific species or another, and so "australopithecines"
would be an antiquated idea that should be used only as a paraphyletic
term for ancient hominids that are ancestral to _Homo_ itself. Guess
which one is receiving more attention....
Jaime "James" A. Headden
Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.