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

RE: Who says dromaeosaurs can't fly?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:50 AM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: jlipps@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Who says dromaeosaurs can't fly?

Posted for Jere Lipps.

>From a recent correspondent:  (dino.hunter@cox.net wrote:)

"Welcome to the world of Paleontology."

"To me paleontology is more like philosophy than other sciences. Unlike
molecular science in paleo you don't have the chance of discounting theories
with cold hard physical evidence. We have to relay on theories and beliefs,
whether it's our own or a computers (i.e. cladistics). That's the way it is
in paleo."
I hope you will rethink this. <<

If I don't then what? I'm nuts?

 >>What you have rephrased is that paleo is only
a bit more difficult (only sometimes) than other "hard" sciences. <<

Actually, if  you think about it, Paleontology is more of a 'fluid' science,
in that it's always in flux. New theories, new finds, constantly changing.

>> I've been
doing paleo for a few decades and this is not what I do or what I teach. <<

You know what, so have I in my own way.

>> I teach hypothesis development based on evidence and testing with further
evidence.   That is exactly what our "hard" science friends advocate.  They
use experiments, but those are merely a form of observation, and we make
of observations in paleo that are hard.<<

>>Paleo uses evidence, not beliefs nor is it a philosophy. <<

I disagree, it is based on beliefs and a kind of philosophy.

>> It is an accumulation of evidence that needs to be
framed into viable hypotheses for testing.<<

Tested the best way they can, but not the same way in other sciences, it's

>>  Just like any other science!  If you find a "believer" in paleo out
there, shun him/her until they present

Well, then you'd better shun me.

"And if you can't prove cladisically when or if some animals could fly, why
to cladist argue about it so much? Sure, some say, it's possible that some
dinosaurs could fly or climb trees, then argue completely against it (see
Holtz and Haedden's posts). This is one of the things that bothers me which
makes me not believe what they are trying to say."
Of course, you don't "prove anything in science", you only develop
hypotheses, support them with evidence and logic or disprove them with the

Cladistics proves nothing.  It does, however, provide very explicit
hypotheses, which are extremely useful.  Since these hypotheses are very
clearly laid out with this methodology, you know exactly what it would take
to disprove them.<<

Yea, another cladist :)

>>  Usually other character sets.<<

Each clasdist uses their own set of sets. There is virtually, (but not
entirely) no concession on what is  set or what sets to use.

>>  You also know exactly what it will take to provide good alternative

 If you think some
cladistic hypothesis is incorrect (not believable, in your vocabulary), then
all you have to do is formulate another one using evidence that the other
guys can then test.<<

I'm all for the old Linnaean system.

>> If they yell and shout, be careful.  Demand alternatives
supported by at least some evidence, and clear disproofs.   I don't worry
about the those who yell, shout, rant or rave--I cheer on those who are
clever enough to come up with other viable hypotheses to mine--then I and
they have advanced science and understanding.  The others have only confused
and clouded the issues with emotion--theirs and yours!  Forget them.  If
are wrong, they will disappear under the weight of the evidence, and if they
are right, wonderful!   We should be glad that we understand a bit more
our world.

There is no belief in the way we do good paleontology, although there can be
a lot of ranting and raving--but that is not science.  If you are worried
about when or how birds or dinos started flying, take all the hypotheses out
there plus your own and subject them to the evidence.<<

How can we 'prove' Cryptovolas (sic) flew without that kind of animal living
today? Just look at the old posts on this subject. I, Greg, Stepehen, etc
believe (theorize) it can, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove without a living
animal, so because we know how modern birds fly others can say Crypto
couldn't because it doesn't have the flight system as a modern bird. But how
can we know that's true or that it could fly with (to some degree) with its
fossilized evidence? You can't, so were stuck.  Sorry, but that is just the
way it is.

>>  This is not
philosophy, this boils down to a good way to cut through the diatribes,
immovable stances, and get to be a good scientist.  Try it.  It works.
Believers have nothing to offer.  Scientists have hypotheses and  evidence.

And misconceptions, misinterpretations, if your at the SVP see my poster on
the misconception of the skull of Tanystropheues.

Check it out--it works.


Jere H. Lipps, Professor and Curator
Department of Integrative Biology
Museum of Paleontology
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074