Reconstructing soft anatomy

[stargatedalek]

It's never been about hate--it's about fear. Things change, and instead of being inspiring about the nature of our world and discovery (science, in other words) people can react with hostility because the changes are 'too much' or they haven't yet adapted (note science!).

One question scanning through this thread (it's a little long...) and was never made obviously clear--is anyone who is taking major part in the discussions of this thread, a professional paleontologist/morphologist/biologist/anatomist, etc? Because that actually matters.

the problem I have is not about people not knowing these things, its about people refusing to acknowledge them even after being given credible source material

I don't believe so, however 90% of whats been argued falls under artistic license anyway, and the rest we can give reference sources if requested

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I have been staying out of this fray mostly because I dont really have a dog in the race, but I would like to offer this concept at least from my own viewpoint. Often the inability or refusal to accept more updated reconstructions is based on cynicism and an understanding of how real science works.There is nothing we understand or know about dinosaurs that is set in stone, and as we find new evidence we have to constantly keep re-evaluating our thoughts and ideas based on that. Many of the ideas and theories that todays dinosaur fans are so totally certain of will be proven wrong given time and the right fossil discoveries. This is how paleontology as a science works. So many of us older people are reluctant to part with our ideas about dinosaurs for new and often not well proven ones that will in turn be cast aside with enough time and new discovery.
   A solid example of this would be many of the ideas that were presented in the "Dinosaur Heresies" which have since proven to be unlikely. While the concepts and ideas at the time had nearly every dinosaur fan chanting them from every blog and web site, once the actual science was given a thorough test it failed to meet the burden of proof.
   Naturally many people will say.....like what? What theories? The idea that all dinosaurs had to be warm blooded is a perfect example. We now know that approach creates as many problems as it solves. Were some dinosaurs warm blooded? That is almost a certainty, but not all were likely to have employed the same warm blooded stratgey as was initially considered likely. The science does not back the argument, however in the early nineties the idea was as popular as everyone trying to place feathers on everything from fish to ferns, today.
  I have had many people ask why Jurassic Park as a franchise annoys me so badly. i went to the first movie with high expectations and thinking I would see a dinosaur movie with incredibly accurate dinosaurs. Halfway through the film it began to be obvious the film was propaganda designed to support the warm blooded argument entirely in almost every scene. We were served up Tyrannosaurs hunting at night, and in pouring rain no less to underline the argument. We were given mist breathing, nose scenting raptors to further underline the argument. And if you still do not understand the point being driven home time after time, we are then served up rearing sneezing Brachiosaurus. In at least half the scenes of the first movie there is a double entendre being delivered to underline that argument. When I watch the film today it comes off very snarky and silly because of that ...given the place where we have taken the science since.
  A year or so ago i was part of a thread questioning how Stromer had reconstructed spinosaurus and I offered quite a few arguments against his reconstruction, and suggested he got it wrong. I was basically tarred and feathered for even suggesting that .
Sometimes it is good to question the evidence and gain a better understanding of what is and is not accurate. For myself anymore, rather than accept every cladogram or implied relationship, I try to find information within the fossils and the papers that supports the science or makes any other argument unlikely.

[DinoToyForum]

Edit: I wont even bother to let that stay up, basically, I do not think the title should have been changed, it was not straight up insulting, in fact, it perfectly summed up his opinion. Sure, it was blunt, but that does not change the truth in it. I have changed it again, but this time to something which I hope is not quite as controversial, mainly because it is not directed at anybody specifically.

Someone can disagree with something without hating something. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it's not for you to decide in the topic title, otherwise it comes off as an accusatory and negatively charged rant , and that can be construed as a personal attack. I, as the admin, see it that way. So, please change the title back, thanks! I'm being patient here, please don't push it.   

[Trisdino]

Then please do lock the thread. The entire point of it is to attempt to continue the conversation from the previous thread, which was all about attempting to educate him.


Yes, there is certainly a level of frustration expressed in the title, but on the other hand, I am not straight up insulting anyone, in fact, the way it is worded, it is not targeted at one specific person. Whatever the case, there is a level of hostility present no matter what, and I really do not think that this is the correct forum to even bother trying to argue with anybody on this subject when the rules of conduct are so tight.

Now, mind you, I am not saying it is an overtly bad thing that they are tight, for the forums purpose, that makes perfect sense, but this thread belongs somewhere else, maybe on the ZT roundtable forum, not here anyway.

[Patrx]

Halfway through the film it began to be obvious the film was propaganda designed to support the warm blooded argument entirely in almost every scene.

Personally, I'm just glad Jurassic Park had a scientific agenda at all. Even if it came on a bit strong, it was proof that the people behind the film were paying attention to the science and trying to convey it to people. I prefer that approach to the usual entertaining but useless dinosaur stuff.

Sometimes it is good to question the evidence and gain a better understanding of what is and is not accurate. For myself anymore, rather than accept every cladogram or implied relationship, I try to find information within the fossils and the papers that supports the science or makes any other argument unlikely.

I think I see what you mean, and it makes sense. I guess I'm just more inclined to accept the new ideas I read about on paleo-blogs with minimal hesitation, as I am no proper researcher. I can look at evidence and read arguments and form my own opinions - but I can't read a fossil the way a real paleontologist can.
The real trick, I think, is to be willing to adapt. If it turns out your favorite dinosaur probably looked silly, so be it. You can still keep your old images, models, toys - just accept that they aren't "accurate" anymore.

I don't see why the discussion can't continue so long as it is significantly more civil than it has been. The new title is a vast improvement in that regard.

[Trisdino]

How is the fact that jurassic park tried pushing the idea of active warm blooded animals bad?


Also, it is not propoganda:

propaganda
prɒpəˈgandə/Submit
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

[DinoToyForum]

Then please do lock the thread. The entire point of it is to attempt to continue the conversation from the previous thread, which was all about attempting to educate him.


Yes, there is certainly a level of frustration expressed in the title, but on the other hand, I am not straight up insulting anyone, in fact, the way it is worded, it is not targeted at one specific person. Whatever the case, there is a level of hostility present no matter what, and I really do not think that this is the correct forum to even bother trying to argue with anybody on this subject when the rules of conduct are so tight.

Now, mind you, I am not saying it is an overtly bad thing that they are tight, for the forums purpose, that makes perfect sense, but this thread belongs somewhere else, maybe on the ZT roundtable forum, not here anyway.

I asked you kindly to change back the title and I asked you to please not push it. You didn't change the title, and you pushed it. Hardly a terrible offence, but what option do I have in the face of such disobedience other than to ban you? I won't delete your account or posts, but I will ban you from posting. We aren't tight, we just maintain an environment for healthy discussion and debate, as opposed to argument. There doesn't have to be hostility in this topic, or anywhere on the forum for that matter, and I'm sorry you couldn't respect that, or respect the wishes of the forum admin. I'll change back the title myself.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

How is the fact that jurassic park tried pushing the idea of active warm blooded animals bad?


Also, it is not propoganda:

propaganda
prɒpəˈgandə/Submit
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

The information was in fact misleading, so yes propaganda. Defintely biased, yes. A point of view, yes. It fits every tenent of the definition you posted completely.
On the other point you twisted what I said. I find nothing wrong with suggesting an active warm blooded lifestyle for some dinosaurs. I do not wish it shoved at me in every scene, for every dinosaur, and in every possible way. It becomes dull and intrusive to the point of being an agenda.Further I did not object to portraying warm blooded animals , I objected to portraying raptors that scented like using their noses, and sneezing brachiosaurus, because such things are likely incorrect and were placed there to falsely suggest an idea that is not particularly defensible. I dont mind seeing avian type dinosaurs portrayed as warm blooded, but that is hardly all that was done in the movie .

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Halfway through the film it began to be obvious the film was propaganda designed to support the warm blooded argument entirely in almost every scene.

Personally, I'm just glad Jurassic Park had a scientific agenda at all. Even if it came on a bit strong, it was proof that the people behind the film were paying attention to the science and trying to convey it to people. I prefer that approach to the usual entertaining but useless dinosaur stuff.

Sometimes it is good to question the evidence and gain a better understanding of what is and is not accurate. For myself anymore, rather than accept every cladogram or implied relationship, I try to find information within the fossils and the papers that supports the science or makes any other argument unlikely.

I think I see what you mean, and it makes sense. I guess I'm just more inclined to accept the new ideas I read about on paleo-blogs with minimal hesitation, as I am no proper researcher. I can look at evidence and read arguments and form my own opinions - but I can't read a fossil the way a real paleontologist can.
The real trick, I think, is to be willing to adapt. If it turns out your favorite dinosaur probably looked silly, so be it. You can still keep your old images, models, toys - just accept that they aren't "accurate" anymore.

I don't see why the discussion can't continue so long as it is significantly more civil than it has been. The new title is a vast improvement in that regard.

I wish I agreed with you about the Jurassic park science thing, but when it is mixed with idiocy that does not wash, general people tend to swallow the entire pile......spitting dilophosaurus, etc. It makes re-educating them correctly almost impossible because they saw it in Jurasic park. On the other hand I do agree that the movie offers a far more compelling plot and concept than most lost world, cloned dinosaurs, movies of late. Agreed there.

I like reading several opinions before forming an opinion, but one that gives papers and fossils as references I accept much more quickly than one that is hypothesized based on theories or cladograms.

[Ultimatedinoking]

You know, i feel so left out now. 

Are we discussing jp accuracy now?

[Ultimatedinoking]

How is the fact that jurassic park tried pushing the idea of active warm blooded animals bad?


Also, it is not propoganda:

propaganda
prɒpəˈgandə/Submit
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

The information was in fact misleading, so yes propaganda. Defintely biased, yes. A point of view, yes. It fits every tenent of the definition you posted completely.
On the other point you twisted what I said. I find nothing wrong with suggesting an active warm blooded lifestyle for some dinosaurs. I do not wish it shoved at me in every scene, for every dinosaur, and in every possible way. It becomes dull and intrusive to the point of being an agenda.Further I did not object to portraying warm blooded animals , I objected to portraying raptors that scented like using their noses, and sneezing brachiosaurus, because such things are likely incorrect and were placed there to falsely suggest an idea that is not particularly defensible. I dont mind seeing avian type dinosaurs portrayed as warm blooded, but that is hardly all that was done in the movie .

How are brachiosaurus sneezes inaccurate? Or raptors that used their smelling organ to, well, smell?

[Ultimatedinoking]

I have been staying out of this fray mostly because I dont really have a dog in the race, but I would like to offer this concept at least from my own viewpoint. Often the inability or refusal to accept more updated reconstructions is based on cynicism and an understanding of how real science works.There is nothing we understand or know about dinosaurs that is set in stone, and as we find new evidence we have to constantly keep re-evaluating our thoughts and ideas based on that. Many of the ideas and theories that todays dinosaur fans are so totally certain of will be proven wrong given time and the right fossil discoveries. This is how paleontology as a science works. So many of us older people are reluctant to part with our ideas about dinosaurs for new and often not well proven ones that will in turn be cast aside with enough time and new discovery.
   A solid example of this would be many of the ideas that were presented in the "Dinosaur Heresies" which have since proven to be unlikely. While the concepts and ideas at the time had nearly every dinosaur fan chanting them from every blog and web site, once the actual science was given a thorough test it failed to meet the burden of proof.
   Naturally many people will say.....like what? What theories? The idea that all dinosaurs had to be warm blooded is a perfect example. We now know that approach creates as many problems as it solves. Were some dinosaurs warm blooded? That is almost a certainty, but not all were likely to have employed the same warm blooded stratgey as was initially considered likely. The science does not back the argument, however in the early nineties the idea was as popular as everyone trying to place feathers on everything from fish to ferns, today.
  I have had many people ask why Jurassic Park as a franchise annoys me so badly. i went to the first movie with high expectations and thinking I would see a dinosaur movie with incredibly accurate dinosaurs. Halfway through the film it began to be obvious the film was propaganda designed to support the warm blooded argument entirely in almost every scene. We were served up Tyrannosaurs hunting at night, and in pouring rain no less to underline the argument. We were given mist breathing, nose scenting raptors to further underline the argument. And if you still do not understand the point being driven home time after time, we are then served up rearing sneezing Brachiosaurus. In at least half the scenes of the first movie there is a double entendre being delivered to underline that argument. When I watch the film today it comes off very snarky and silly because of that ...given the place where we have taken the science since.
  A year or so ago i was part of a thread questioning how Stromer had reconstructed spinosaurus and I offered quite a few arguments against his reconstruction, and suggested he got it wrong. I was basically tarred and feathered for even suggesting that .
Sometimes it is good to question the evidence and gain a better understanding of what is and is not accurate. For myself anymore, rather than accept every cladogram or implied relationship, I try to find information within the fossils and the papers that supports the science or makes any other argument unlikely.

So, basically, your saying that tyrannosaurus shouldn't be shown as warm blooded? That it should move in slow motion out of its nest to bask in the sun, and never hunt in cool weather? That raptors having nasal spray is inaccurate, because they shouldn't be warm blooded?

Your saying that the whole point of jp is to drive home the idea that dinosaurs are warm blooded? 

[tyrantqueen]

So, basically, your saying that tyrannosaurus shouldn't be shown as warm blooded? That it should move in slow motion out of its nest to bask in the sun, and never hunt in cool weather? That raptors having nasal spray is inaccurate, because they shouldn't be warm blooded?

Did you actually read what he wrote? He didn't say that at all.

[Yutyrannus]

You know, i feel so left out now. 

Are we discussing jp accuracy now?

I honestly have no idea what just happened here, I was discussing lips in theropods and then somehow, someone got to discussing Jurassic Park. I'm quite confused . Also, did I misunderstand or has Trisdino actually been banned from the forum?

[tyrantqueen]

Looks like he was banned to me.

[Yutyrannus]

Hmm, okay. So how exactly did this get to Jurassic Park? This is supposed to be a thread for discussing issues such as shrink-wrapping and reconstructing the soft anatomy of prehistoric life.

[Ultimatedinoking]

You know, i feel so left out now. 

Are we discussing jp accuracy now?

I honestly have no idea what just happened here, I was discussing lips in theropods and then somehow, someone got to discussing Jurassic Park. I'm quite confused . Also, did I misunderstand or has Trisdino actually been banned from the forum?

Ya, I saw the pic of the sad spino, then someone brought up jp, and it went on from there...

[Ultimatedinoking]

So, basically, your saying that tyrannosaurus shouldn't be shown as warm blooded? That it should move in slow motion out of its nest to bask in the sun, and never hunt in cool weather? That raptors having nasal spray is inaccurate, because they shouldn't be warm blooded?

Did you actually read what he wrote? He didn't say that at all.

He says that some dinosaurs arnt warm blooded, then goes on about the jp tyrant hunting at night.

[Yutyrannus]

You know, i feel so left out now. 

Are we discussing jp accuracy now?

I honestly have no idea what just happened here, I was discussing lips in theropods and then somehow, someone got to discussing Jurassic Park. I'm quite confused . Also, did I misunderstand or has Trisdino actually been banned from the forum?

Ya, I saw the pic of the sad spino, then someone brought up jp, and it went on from there...

Okay, could this whole JP argument be moved somewhere else?

[Ultimatedinoking]

Nostrils in wrong place, Giraffititan head, and elephant feet. It is better as not being shrink-wrapped though.

NOTE: You should not trust Jurassic Park's depictions of any species.

What's wrong with jps T. rex?