I knew this was coming. There was an interesting taxonomic consolidation recently: Torosaurus is accused of being simply an older Triceratops, so those two taxa are being lumped into one, Triceratops. Jack Horner is suggesting that Nanotyrannus was simply a juvenile T. rex. These kinds of adjustments of the taxonomy happen all the time, both as more data becomes available, and as lumpers make more noise than splitters (a process that can be reversed, of course). It is not a big deal.
Except to creationists, who are overjoyed that combining two species into one means that "the Ark cargo was even lighter than previously thought". There's also some crowing about those arrogant scientists being wrong wrong wrongity-wrong wrong ding-dong! Gloating over an occasional error would be much more impressive if they also ever acknowledged the many times scientists have been right, and the creationists wrong.
Like this time: a little taxonomical shuffling does not salvage the story of God and the big boat. Triceratops/Torosaurus are still 70 million years old, and the fact that dinosaurs underwent morphological changes as they matured deep in the Cretaceous does not suddenly make the idea that they were living in the Middle East 6000 years ago and taking a year long cruise any more plausible.
Maybe they're just hoping that if the paleontologists keep consolidating taxa they'll eventually get to the point where all the dinosaurs are lumped into one species called Behemoth. That's not going to happen either.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
@ Iain Walker # 243
Sometimes conversations are just better if you focus on one topic.
Actually, thatâs spot on. From http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/theropoda.html:
ââ¦three main (weight-bearing) toes on the pes (foot); the first and fifth digits are reduced.â
So, they did have five toes, its just that two of them were âreducedâ.
Not so, as I said above, in that time they would have been said to show the âbrontosaurusâ with the wrong head.
Doesnât seem that way to me. If this oneâs head werenât turned: http://tinyurl.com/2cht2jl , itâd be even more hunched.
Which do you think show them with unrealistic flexibility?
Not here: http://tinyurl.com/2bnjkp2
On which stones have you found the tail position to be troubling?
Whatâs with the obsession over this guy? Somebody says heâs made some fakes and you guys act like all the stones have got a âMade in Taiwanâ sticker.
Iâd hate to have a dicussion about baseball card collecting hereâ¦
It might be possible the center stone shows a stylized raptor: http://members.cox.net/ancient-sites/inca/03Ica_stones_we_examined.JPG
But, even if Iâm unable to find any that definitely show a raptor, and none are found, the exclusion of a certain type of dinosaur doesnât show the stones are fake. Whatâs important are the dinosaurs that are on the stones that the lab has confirmed are authentic.
Those lived in Africa, didnât they?
Regardless, there actually are quite a few carnivorous dinosaurs shown with sails, such as the center one here: http://www.omniology.com/IcaPeruBurialStones3.jpg and the ones on the left-center stone.
A lot of dinosaurs look like triceratops, but arenât necessarily that species.
And, even though theyâre rare, cerotopsids from the Soutern Hemisphere are known, such as notoceratops.
Plenty of dinosaurs on the stones could easily be seen as those. See the two-legged one in the middle here, for example: http://tinyurl.com/273q66k
Wait, Iâm confused: first you complain that the stones show sauropods with necks that are too flexible, now youâre saying they donât show any sauropodsâ¦?
Not because I believe my position on it is indefensible, bear in mind, but because Iâd really like to focus on the stones, bear in mind.