Evolutionary news

[Digit]

Yes I was aware of that actually, I was being a bit sarcastic.
I think the cold blood idea pretty well died when feathers were found on some, I saw it suggested that feathers developed for mating displays. Insulation seems more likely to me though.
The next step I think will be to find that some were live bearers. On the basis of maximum egg size if the large Dinos laid eggs their young had a lot of growing to do. Live bearing would seem more logical there.

[marduk]

marine dinosaurs were viviparous
eggs dont do so well under water

[Beagle]

I saw it suggested that feathers developed for mating displays. Insulation seems more likely to me though.

I'm bettin' you're right on both counts.

[Forum Monk]

Yep, it seems many dinosaurs were migratory, iirc, FM.

I'm not talking migratory which is more seasonal. I'm talking about a range within a season. It seems obvious that a kind of equilibrium must emerge, i.e. population size vs. range. But can paleontology understand based on their evidence, and considering range, nutriental content, animal requirements, etc. how large of a herd could be sustained in a given range? This somehow seems important to me in establishing the yield expectations of a dig site, or extrapolating the prehistoric landscape based on the animal discovered. (excuse me for interrupting)

[Beagle]

Well, migration aside, I'm not sure how the experts would determine herd size. Much of what they do is speculation based on what is known from todays animals. A great deal of course, can be learned from bones.

[Digit]

I would like to think that the answers to that will be forthcoming Monk, but I see problems. First were they warm or cold blooded, this obviously affects the amount of foot they would require, nutritional value of various plants at that period is a little scant. Without that info I can't see how the answers can arise, a forward step would be a bone bed for each species, that would help with herd size of course.
And I don't think you were interrupting by the way.

[Forum Monk]

What of the cold/warm blood issue? I have lost touch with the latest.

First it was cold, lumbering, then it was warm, fast, then it was now we're not sure based on some skull studies and nasal passages etc. Then I lost touch, where are we now? Has the phylogeny tree been split and grafted anew showing a little of both?

[Charlie Hatchett]

What of the cold/warm blood issue? I have lost touch with the latest.

According to the flood strata, I would guess they were less mobile than mammals.

Sorry, Min, but I'm not Arch.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Marduk:

While UPN is just getting into the paranormal nonsense genre, NBC is making an art (certainly not a science) of it. On February 25, they showed a horrible program called, The Mysterious Origins of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston. Later in the week, they showed Ancient Prophecies 3 (at least I think that was the title). Frankly, I saw 1 and 2, and have no reason to believe 3 would be any better, so I skipped it. It was apparently Trash Week on NBC.

In many ways, the Mysterious Origins show was much worse than the Prophecies show could have been, in that it purported to put forth science, while only putting forth creationist rubbish (I’m using the thesaurus feature to try to find other appropriate adjectives besides "nonsense" for the rest of this article). Indeed, it was so bad that it even got a half-page story in Science, one of the top scientific journals in the world.

Blah, blah, blah...

Marduk:

How bad was the show? Well, they even put forth stuff that most creationists have agreed is bunk! The Paluxy River tracks (tracks purported to be those of humans walking at the same time period as dinosaurs) were brought out as the main proof that humans have been around much longer than the horrible scientific establishment has been telling us. But even the leaders of the Institute for Creation Research have admitted, in what may be one of the only times they’ve let the facts interfere with their beliefs, that the tracks are not human footprints (they are actually partial dinosaur prints) and should not be used to support creationist "theories."

“...Several uniformitarian scientists have been to Glen Rose to view the tracks. One made the following remarkable suggestion: "These man-like tracks couldn't be true man tracks, because man and dinosaur didn't live at the same time. Therefore, they must have been made by some undiscovered bipedal dinosaur with feet like human feet!" Another recognized that man must have made the tracks but explained the situation by an equally remarkable deduction: "This find doesn't disprove evolution; rather, it indicates that man appeared before dinosaurs became extinct and forces a revision of the geologic time scale..."

John Morris, President, ICR

Marduk:

Also cited was the "Burdick Print," so called because it was first publicized by creationist Clifford Burdick, which is almost universally agreed to be a fake, carved by somebody in the 1930’s.

Reference?

But none of these facts stopped the show’s creators. Indeed, the show claimed to present good evidence from "a new breed of scientific investigators." Baloney. All we saw was old garbage presented by debunked creationists, like Carl Baugh (I don’t have room to go into everything I know or have even forgotten about Baugh, but if you’re interested, contact me and I can dig through my files and send out copies of articles which debunk his claims, his supposed evidence, etc.). As one paleontologist told Science, "this is just reviving stuff that has already been debunked."

Several of the scientists interviewed by Science have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get a response from NBC. Science contacted NBC’s entertainment division (which is always the division that puts out these pseudo-documentaries that purport to be true), and a spokesperson said they had no statement because, as far as they knew, there haven’t been any complaints! A second spokesperson said the show was shown as an "alternative scenario" and not as fact. Uh huh. Sure. And that was made abundantly clear in the show, right? Wrong.

National Center for Science Education Executive Director Eugenie Scott said NBC’s decision to air this show "illustrates that the position of evolution is very spongy in the population outside of the academy" and noted that she has received numerous calls for help from teachers dealing with students who saw this drivel and believed it (hey, certainly NBC wouldn’t show it if it weren’t true, right?).

One scientist found the situation ironic. He noted, "I’m sure in a few months Tom Brokaw will have a special on the deplorable state of science knowledge among American school children." Indeed, I have noted the difference between the news division’s repeated attacks on balderdash, mostly via Dateline NBC, and the entertainment division, which airs whatever absurdity they think will make them some more money. Here’s an idea: Maybe we can get Dateline to do an exposé the entertainment division!

Blah, blah, blah...

[Minimalist]

Burdick print.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilfig1.html

[Charlie Hatchett]

An alleged "giant man track" from Glen Rose, Texas, regarded by most researchers as a carved print and considered dubious even by most creationists. Photo (C) 1986, Glen J. Kuban

Cool. I'll read it, Bro.

[Minimalist]

Carl Baugh

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

The specific science degrees claimed by Baugh (or attributed to him) have varied somewhat from account to account[11,12,13,14]. In recent years Baugh has claimed a "Masters Degree in Archaeology from Pacific College" and a "Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Anthropology from College of Advanced Education."[15]

Baugh gave the location of the College of Advanced Education (CAE) as Irving, Texas; however, the Chamber of Commerce, and Department of Taxation, and phone directory in Irving have no record of the school.[16] When pressed by an assistant for the address of CAE, Baugh gave it as "2355 West Pioneer, Irving, TX, 75061" and indicated that its dean was Dr. Don Davis.[17]. The address appears on a small house in Irving, located next to Sherwood Baptist Church, whose pastor is Rev. Don Davis. Davis indicated that CAE is a "missions" school, with no science classes or facilities.[18] The school is not accredited by any national or regional agency, nor certified by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (which must be obtained to legally grant degrees in Texas). In fact, none of the educational organizations that I contacted had ever heard of the school.[19]

[Forum Monk]

Carl Baugh

oops...the emporer has no clothes...how shocking.

[Charlie Hatchett]

At least one man is known to have carved several "man tracks" in Glen Rose during the 1920's and 1930's. In 1970 a Glen Rose resident, Wayland Adams, stood before a group of creationists and described the technique his uncle George Adams used to carve such tracks. First, a suitable-sized stone slab would be found (preferably one that already had some depressions, to save carving time), and a shady spot under a tree would be selected as a workshop. Next, the footprint would be carved using hammer and chisel. A center punch was used to simulate raindrops, followed by an application of muriatic acid to dull the chisel and punch marks. For an aged appearance (p. 73) the slab would be covered with manure for a few days. Last, the edges of the slab were chipped to give the impression of a track chiseled from the riverbed (Morris, 1980, p. 111-12).

Reference?

“(Morris, 1980, p. 111-12)” is very vague? You sure it’s tied to the whole paragraph? And then Henry Morris goes on to thoroughly argue for the authenticity of the prints? Doesn’t add up. And then the claim of ICR debunking the dino/human tracks? Sounds like twisting of the truth by the authors. Of course the dino tracks were accepted as authentic.

Two of the "long toed slabs" were first publicized after being seen by Roland T. Bird in a trading post near Gallup, New Mexico in 1938. Bird immediately recognized the tracks as carvings, but wondered what prompted someone to make them. His curiosity was further piqued upon seeing four dinosaur track carvings in a nearby shop. After learning the tracks reportedly came from Glen Rose, Bird redirected his travel route to that location, leading to his now famous dinosaur track excavations there (Bird 1939, 1954)

Who the heck is Bird, a trading post employee? What are his qualifications for determining the authenticity of the slabs. What does he say about the in situ tracks?
Again, who is Bird?

Bird immediately recognized the tracks as carvings, but wondered what prompted someone to make them.

Reference? Blah, blah, blah...

Cross Sections
During the 1970's the track was sectioned longitudinally near the left edge, and diagonally through the ball. In 1990 the track was sectioned twice across the toes, and once through the heel. These five sections would expose 10 surfaces (figure 1).
Both surfaces of the ball section and one of the longitudinal surfaces (on the track side) were inspected and photographed by one of us (Kuban) at the ICC in 1986. Photographs of some of several recently exposed surfaces were examined by both authors at the 1990 ICC in Pittsburgh. Sketches of the two photographs available at the 1990 ICC are provided in Figures 2, 3 and 4. One of us (Wilkerson) requested from MIOS permission to examine photographs of the remaining surfaces, and was denied. The inspected sections show elongated semi-circular stromatolite (algal) structures. Some of the algal structures happen to partially overlap some the toe depressions, prompting Patton to claim that the structures are pressure lines. However, the structures are distributed through much of the subsurface without regard to the location of the toe marks or other print depressions. Further, wherever the structures meet the print depression, they are truncated by the depression and/or not in proper coincidence with it. The nature of these structures is further described below.

Huh? The mud hadn’t even set. Of course algae stuctures would be smashed into the indentations.
The author’s are assuming this stuff was rock to begin with.

The truncation of these structures indicates that complete structures once existed, but have been partly removed. The stromatolite morphology, with upward rather than downward curvature, indicates that the sedimentological "up" direction of the rock slab is opposite the "up" direction of the print; in other words, the print was carved on the bottom of the slab.

A couple of inches of strat, and someone can tell which way was up, and which way was down. I promise you, I know better. Striations don’t occur until the mud sets.

Coloration
Some of the stromatolitic structures have red-yellow discoloration. Algal organisms act as a mechanical trap for iron (magnetite) and other metals. They also act as an agent for chemical precipitation of metals because they provide the necessary reducing environment. Minute amounts of iron, upon oxidization and/or hydration form hematite and limonite, red and yellow-colored minerals respectively. These colorations are formed by the action of oxygenated ground waters subsequent to deposition and have nothing to do with formation or preservation of the track.

Very interesting. This site, in Glen Rose, is about 110 miles north of the site I’m researching. It’s also on the same river tributary system: The Brazos. Same with Gault, Black Water Draw, and Wilson-Leonard. I promise you, there was some wierd S**t going on down here in very Paleo times. Mike Collins has be releasing the info in digestable quantities.

Requirements of authenticity and a Prediction
Not all prints will show subsurface striations (depending on the nature of the host sediment). However, any bedding lines in the substrate should be consistently deformed by the track indentations, and should be similar for all the individual toe depressions. This clearly is not the case with the Burdick track. Besides showing poor consistency with the track depressions in general, there are dramatic differences in the features (or nonfeatures) under each of the toes.

Remember, the striations aren’t locked in until the sediment dries. These guy’s are a joke.

Conclusion
The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock. The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine.

The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors

No substantiation...grade: F

“...abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving...”

Unsubstantiated...in other words, B.S. Grade: F

...The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock.

Speculation, not science. Grade: F

The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine.

Unsubstantiated, and unwarranted specualtion. Again, Grade: F.
Overall grade: F
My overall grade for the club: F

[Charlie Hatchett]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

That's when you know people are worried...they start bashing characters.