Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Dinosaur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WikiProject Science guidelines

OK, I just attempted a basic restructuring of this article following the guidelines above. I'm not sure I agree 100% with these guidelines but at least it's a start toward creating a more logically organized article. Edit away! The Singing Badger 19:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Warm and cold blooded dinosaurs

We have that, though there is evidence of warm-blooded dinosaurs, that need not mean this is valid for all dinosaurs. How can that be? To me this would be like:
If some of the dinosaurs are warm-blooded and others are not, then the divergence must have occured within the dinosaurs. That would mean either all warm-blooded creatures descended from the warm-blooded dinosaurs, or all cold-blooded from the cold-blooded dinosaurs (or both). If neither humans nor lizards are dinosaurs, then the divergence did not occur in the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs and warm-blooded, so if the divergence did not occur in the dinosaurs, then all dinosaurs are warm blooded.
What am I missing? Aliter 20:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The evidence lies in things like the distribution of blood-vessel channels within various dinosaur bones and estimated growth rates of dinosaurs. If as you say the divergence occurred within the dinosaurs then maybe the old blanket term Dinosauria is not as useful as Saurischia and Ornithischia. Tuna keep a steady heat above ambient water temperatures. In fact all muscle activity creates heat. Warm-bloodedness in mammals seems to have developed, quite separately, in mammal ancestors, the Synapsids. Color vision has also developed many times quite independently, for another example. Wetman 21:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're saying, I think, that warm-bloodedness is an effect of muscle-activity, and hence, even though reoccurence normally is impossible, in this case it can happen. OK, I can see that, though it would mean that these are effectively multiple versions of warm-bloodedness, eg. different in the way the preserve the heat. (Your claim about colour-vision would require each of those to be different as well, but I don't know enough about that.) If you know enough about these Saurischia and Ornithischia to add them to warm-bloodedness section, will you do so (if appropriate)? Aliter 00:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um, maybe I'm misreading, but it seems like you're saying that an evolutionary shift can only happen once...this doesn't seem reasonable; even something as complex as true flight evolved independently in bats and birds, and there's no reason why the same kind of warm-bloodedness couldn't evolve for creatures in the proto-mammal lineage and in one or more branches of the related dinosauria...right? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are homologous features (femur bones in crocodilians, dinosaurs and us) and analogous features (birdwings, batwings, insect wings). All mammals being warmblooded, this trait must have arisen before the monotremes split away from us eutheres, a long way back. Analogous warm-bloodedness arose separately in some dinosaurs and (if you count them) in tuna. But I don't know enough of the current thought on "hot" dinos to write that bit. Wetman 01:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm so used to this concept that I sometimes skip that stage: Yes, assuming variation is random, the chance of the same change reoccuring is very very small, indeed. However, since a lot of species encounter the same obstacles, parallel solutions are quite likely. This is how bird flight and bat flight both solve the problem of fighting gravity, but they are not the same! This is why I accepted that dinosaurs could be warm-blooded in a different way than mammals.

But all the dinosaurs and descendents that are warm-blooded in the same way, must have the same predecessor that developed that warm-bloodedness. Apparently Wetman is saying only one of the two main branches of dinosaurs is warm-blooded. Unfortunately none of us know enough to determine whether this holds for the entire branch. So the best we can do is an addendum like "The warmbloodedness of dinosaurs, however, is not the same as that of the mammals. It was instead developed somewhere within the fmily of dinosaurs, which caused one branch that was warmblooded while the rest remained cold-blooded." But then fromulated with all the right terms inserted. Aliter 00:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we really know enough about the warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs to say what it was or wasn't like, do we? And I guess I'm just not sure where to draw the line between "same" and "similar" in this conversation... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thus, returning to the opening thought, "though there is evidence of warm-blooded dinosaurs, that need not mean this is valid for all dinosaurs." Warm-bloodedness has been possibly detected in one branch of dinosaurs, though not in the other main branch. Birds are close cousins of the maybe warm-blooded branch for analogies unrelated to warm-bloodedness itself, more distant cousins of the other branch. Muscle heat always exists: the opportunity to use it has arisen more than one single time. Vision is useful: it has arisen many times in separate clades, even in unrelated phyla: fish, squid, trilobites... Wetman 02:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Aliter above, though, it should be kept in mind that all dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded, and that the adaptation appeared some time before they separated out. Crocodylians are definitely cold-blooded, but it's been suggested that pterosaurs weren't, and they are the dinosaurs' closest relatives. Josh

Maybe I can clarify some points. What makes a creature truly warmblooded is not the conservation of muscle heat but a high resting metabolism caused by a high number of mitochondrial organelles within the cell. However the average dinosaur would have had a rather constant high body temperature anyway because of its size alone. The relevant issue is whether they were very active or not. In many possible niches more active creatures outcompete less active ones. So the high energy expenditure which at first blush seems to impose a penalty still makes an organism more fit because it causes it to finish off the competition by simply eating most of the food. There is no diagnostic evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs lived like modern reptiles. They occupied the "active" niches. Moreover their archosaurian ancestors did the same. Crocodylians are most probably secondarily coldblooded as an adaptation to an aquatic style of life. The most elegant hypothesis is that dinosaurs were warmblooded like present mammals and birds. However there are many other valid possibilities. So although this hypothesis is more likely than any other we cannot state that it is more likely than not that it is true. There is however overwhelmingly strong evidence that the hypothesis is true for some small theropods (including birds). So in this case we can say that the hypothesis is more likely to be true than false. However the hypothesis that the Ornitischians were "truly" warmblooded also is still the best with the exception of its formal contradiction. So, though it is more likely than not that Ornitischians were not "truly" warmblooded, any concrete single alternative model is again less likely than the hypothesis that they were. So you see our "epistemic position" on this one is pretty poor indeed. But on pterosaurians it is even worse. Contrary to what the popular press would like us to believe, there never has been any serious cladistic analysis performed on their relationships with other groups. Whether they were most closely related to dinosaurs is simply unknown.

MWAK--217.122.44.226 20:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the name Ornithodira comes from the popular press, given that I've never seen it there. It might be very recent or not generally accepted, of course, but it does suggest that the relationships are slightly better than unknown. Are you certain of this last point? Josh

You're absolutely right: the nodeclade Ornithodira sensu Gauthier (1986) is perfectly valid. However, as any clade, it is so by definition. That definition being: the group of descendants of the last common ancestor of Neornithes, Triceratops, Herrerasaurus, Saltasaurus [thus probably "dinosaurs"] and Lagosuchus and Pterodactylus. This concept is valid and always will be. But this is so because it is a definition. It can't be falsified by new data because it contains no data itself. It has no factual content. It entails nothing about the actual relationships. To gain knowledge about them we have to make a cladistic analysis of the known data. But wasn't that done a long time ago? Indeed it was. In the Eighties some competent paleontologists performed some state-of-the-art analyses. Science however, progresses. By todays standards these same projects are seen as miserably inadequate by the consensus of informed paleontologists. That isn't a bad thing. It will ensure enough money and time will be invested in better future analyses. Which in turn will disgust the next generation. Science progresses...

Of course the relationships between dinosaurs and pterosaurians aren't completely unknown. We do understand they are more closly related to each other than to the vast majority of known species (e.g a butterfly or an oaktree). But that is trivial :o). We can state little with "certainty" beyond that the groups were both reptiles.

MWAK--217.122.44.226 08:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My personal view point in this, if I may have one, is that being ectotherm and endotherm metabolisms at great sizes indistinguishable, the only true way of discerning the metabolism of dinosaurs is using small ones (and those contrary to popular view were probably the most abundant). Being that big ones had to start small and that they do have the hallmark bone characteristics of young mammals and birds (highly vascularized fibro-lamellar bone) I can be pretty sure that dinosaurs were endotherms as a whole. And by phylogenetic bracketing so was Ornithodira. Crocodyles aren't much of a gauge in dinosaurian metabolism as they have developed their own particular characteristics to be riverine ambush predators. Suffice it to say that numerous times since the Triassic crocodylomorphans have developed (or maintained) erect gaits and an active predatorial lifestyle: Rauisuchians, notosuchids, sebecosuchids (may be the same as the former), and mekosuchines. Crocodyles themselves are part of a radiation from active and agile landbound predators to the Jurassic Talattosuchia (Geosaurus, Metriorhynchus, etc.). One can find a parallel in the evolution of whales (Ambulocetus). So don't think of crocodyles as that primitive you can find in them the primitive condition for Archosauria. It is truly lost, IMO.

Dracontes 12:43, 30 Mar 2005 (GMT)

'Playing God'

What place does "Some say (like cloning), it is playing God." have in this page? This isn't the place for philisophical discussions. Any objections to removing this edit? -- Crag 19:05, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the statement. The previous sentence adequately said the same thing in a significantly more NPOV manner. - UtherSRG 19:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second the move. "Scientists however, are still unsure about whether or not it would be wise to bring these extinct animals back to life." in the entry is misleading, like all sentences beginning "Scientists think..." or "Scientists say..." It's the fictional para-science of Jurassic Park that's naive from the geneticists' PoV, not the secondary ecological problem, which is in fact the specific theme of the fiction. There's a more useful point buried in this mis-statement, I think. Wanna tackle it, folks? (Wetman 19:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Ceratopia or Ceratopsia?

It seems extraordinary that "Ceratopia" could have been misformed from Ceratops, instead of Ceratopsia, which is the form I hear. Googling the hits votes for "Ceratopsia," but that means nothing. Many barbarisms are enshrined in orthodox Scientific Latin. Is "Ceratopia" barbarously correct? Wetman 21:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good question! :o) Let me adress the relevant points:

Yes, it is quite barbaric. CeratopSia that is - for Ceratopia shows the correct Greek/Latin ending (ops, face; opia, faces)!
So barbaric even, it is not enshrined in orthodox scientific Latin.
In itself though, this doesn't invalidate a given name. Professor Marsh (whose knowledge of Latin or Greek was quite limited - he wasn't an erudite by nature, but by necessity) named the group "Ceratopsia", so in principle this simply is the name, bad Latin though it is.
However, the rules of zoological nomenclature urge to correct such incorrect endings.
After the correction, the correct form is the official one; and Ceratopia has now been the official name for over a century.
Nevertheless, people keep on using "Ceratopsia", no doubt by analogy of Triceratops. Even paleontologists, though they know quite well it's incorrect. They probably feel it's too pedantic to use the correct form. It is e.g. amusing to read The Horned Dinosaurs by Peter Dodson: though many linguistic issues are adressed, he deftly dodges this question - but then he has openly stated that only a pedant would insist on Ceratopia.
An encyclopedia should, I feel, simply give the correct name and its derived names, such as "ceratopid" and "ceratopine", although the reader should of course be informed of the fact that the common usage is with a S.
The possible future Phylocode (a proposed system for cladistic taxonomy), has in its present proposed form very different rules: it orders to use the spelling in common usage (e.g. Ceratopsia) and forbids (art. 18.2) to change it afterwards, for reason of stability (or because nobody likes a ...). Even in operation though, this newer system would only complement, not replace, the older one; so then we would have two official spellings. Wise and diligent people therefore would like the Phylocode to simple conform to the older established official spellings ;<).

MWAK--217.122.44.226 09:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Where does the taxonomy on this page come from? I like treating Archosauria as a class, but it should include the birds, and so adopting it should only be done with support from the people writing about birds. Microphyla and Nanophyla are not especially standard, and at best we should only list them on the Archosauria page. This is something that should definitely be decided before we spread taxoboxes to all the individual dinosaur pages.

I would like to argue that the Linnean taxonomy should be replaced with a Cladistic taxonomy. Other than for a naming convention, the Linnean method is losing ground to cladistics. The Linnean ranks are poorly defined and the classifications are sometimes vague (as Reptilia).

Linnaean taxonomy is still the primary standard, and hasn't been losing ground in most cases - there aren't any notable problems in applying it to mammals or insects, for instance. The reptiles are almost unique in the difficulty the provide, and we probably don't want to switch just for them specifically. In any case, we don't have to choose one or the other for the article, we can present both options. The question is what sort of Linnaean ranks to present. I think simply giving the traditional paraphyletic groups, which are still widely recognized if not accepted, is better than giving nothing.

I concur with this. In fact so does the Dinosaur Mailing list [DML Archives] of which I am a subscriber (I apologize to the other subscribers here for this somewhat stupid remark, and for the subsequent rant). Some time ago it was discussed there the validity of this whole site and many agreed on it's inherent value as a free repository of knowledge, specially the Wikispecies spinoff, which should be specially attractive to scientists with a penchant for writing divulgation texts. What perhaps dismayed most was the use of the Linnaean Classification system as it is very outdated. I'd propose an overhaul of this site's taxonomical references in accordance to the cladistic paradigm (perhaps this is not the best place to state this but do spread the word) as it is less prone to confusions and eliminates unwanted information (ranks above family). Other than that I want to state that I disagree with the extinct conservation status for this group. Birds do still exist: it would be like saying Amniota is extinct (or fossil) just because Diadectidomorphs and basal sauropsids and synapsids are.

Dracontes 13:11 30 Mar 2005

Theory/practice

Thank you for restructuring the article according to the WikiProject:Science structure, but I'm not sure about the use of theory and practice here. There are numerous individuals that study dinosaurs, but does anybody actually practice them?

I'm not sure what to propose to replace the terms, but there must be something better. ClockworkTroll 19:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, that's one of the things I had my doubts about. I actually think a better division would simply be something likw "Basic information" and "Detailed information" since the purpose of this structure is to begin with something for the general public, then move on to more detailed info. Thoughts? The Singing Badger 19:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more appropriate to format according to the Scientific object / concept guidelines?

Thanks, that was a bit more helpful. I've done a second reorganization. The Singing Badger 20:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Expansion

I've reorganized this article (see discussion above) and created some new headers with very stubby intros beneath to show where this article needs expansion. Please fill in the blanks! The Singing Badger 20:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much nicer! ClockworkTroll 20:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wording problems

"These are set apart by having diapsid skulls with teeth that grow from sockets ..." - Which?
"All the evidence varies ..." - With what?
"a more accurate description is likely distant in the future" - Is this "You'll probably never see a better one." or "It's coming along slowly."?
"Even though dinosaurs were highly successful life forms ..." - This is not in contrast with them being considered "extinct".
"... the association of multiple skeletal features ..." - The what?
"... working visual peptide of a (theoretical) dinosaur has been inferred, using analytical phylogenetic reconstruction methods ..." - Wow?

(Also a nice image of Museum architecture, BTW.)) Aliter 01:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questionable content

Why are there references to things like the Lock Ness Monster as if it were a real creature related to dinosaurs? Even if real, Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs.

The reference to Dromaeosaurs evolving from birds can't be serious? No paleontologist (that I know) has considered such. The Chinese fossil record clearly shows early feather development on dinosaurs, not birds. At best it would be a parallel development. Nodosaurus

I agree, Nodosaurus. Additons to an encyclopedic must be able to cite a reliable source if it is not to degenerate into a compilation of speculation and hearsay. I reverted the last change by 204.107.82.89 that closed with the text "Who knows may be there is a flock of raptors still out there, but we just haven'yt found them yet." -- ClockworkSoul 02:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

agree. no place for idle flights of fancy. just the facts.Mackinaw 03:53, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

There are two very famous (or if you will, infamous) theories about non-flying dinosaurs being the descendants of flying forms. The "weak" version is from Gregory S. Paul who holds that dromaeosaurs (and probably other Maniraptora) are a sistergroup of Aves (or Avialae), rather than Aves being within dromaeosaurs (the mainstream theory). He already predicted this in 1988. Since then most new evidence confirmed his hypothesis, especially that from China: theropods did have feathers (and indeed the earlier they had feathers, the more likely his conjecture); some basal dromaeosaurs were small and could at least glide (Microraptor, Cryptovolans pauli (got it? ;o)). Nevertheless, cladistic analysis still shows that this alternative possibility is somewhat more unlikely, though not implausible. Perhaps the most elegant explanation of the facts would be that Maniraptora had a flying ancestor that wasn't a bird. This thought is taken to the extreme by the "strong" version by George Olshevsky that claims that all dinosaurs are decendants of small flying, or at least gliding, or certainly treeliving small forms in the Triassic. This version is called BCF (Birds Came First): the main engine of dinosaur evolution is supposed to be a hidden lineage of small arboreal forms. These wouldn't be birds of course, they would just be feathered, warmblooded, flying eh..."birds". The problem with this theory is that early dinosaurs don't show clear flight adaptations (but then do dromaeosaurs show these? Yes.) so real flight is unlikely before the node of Tetanurae. Arboreality though is not and more and more theories go in this direction in combination with a "trees-down" explanation of flight - although Olshevsky is rarely credited for it. Well, whoever said life is fair? If you would like to know more about these things, I heartily recommend Paul's Dinosaurs of the Air, being well worth its (not inconsiderable amount of) money. MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:56, 20 Nov 2004

(UTC)

It seems to me that this information is fully worth of inclusion in this article but, like most information, should be given appropriate citations, and assigned non-speculative caveats (that these ideas are hypotheses proposed to explain observations, and that they do not yet have a wide acceptance) ClockworkSoul 14:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This interesting conjecture belongs at Dromaeosauridae, where it is more directly relevant. I am copying our Anon. contributor's remarks to Talk:Dromaeosauridae for someone to take up there. Here at Dinosaur this side issue is confusing. --Wetman 17:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pop culture

"Dinosaurs in Popular Culture" moved to last pole postion, ie after "History of the Study of Dinosaurs".

Misleading photograph

The skull photographed is on the T. Rex "Sue" at the Field Museum in Chicago. The skull is in fact the only bone that is not included in the mount. Due to the weight thereof it would cause the mounted skeleton to collapse, and therefore the head is kept in a display case on the second floor of the Field Museum atrium. We ought to make this more clear on the caption -- or else change the picture. Though Sue is a good specimen of dinosaur, a full-body shot thereof (with proper caption change) or a picture of the actual skull (Anyone have a photo you are willing to donate? Regrettably my digital camera was misbehaving when I was in Chicago last summer) would not be a bad idea. Or we could just fix the caption to be more clear. Any thoughts? --Jeff Anonymous 06:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you'd fix the caption to be accurate, for now, JeffTL. And let's have several more illus. of details, mounted skeletons, reconstructions... --Wetman 06:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

does anybody have a wiki/legal opinion of whether photos of museum exhibits are "public domain" or "fair use" ... or do you need the museum's permission? Mackinaw 13:40, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

"Non-avian"

A recent edit just added "non-avian" in front of many instances of the word "dinosaur". While technically correct, I'm pretty sure it's not necessary... after all, replacing "fish" with "non-amphibian, non-reptilian, non-avian, non-mammalian fish" is a little awkward and more likely to confuse people than just using it in the paraphyletic sense. A line or two explaining it should be sufficient. Comments? 68.81.231.127 14:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right; yet, there is this difference that birds are the only extant dinosaurs, whereas "basal fish" are still very abundant: so in the context of extinction it is preferable to claim "non-avian dinosaurs are extinct".

MWAK--84.27.81.59 14:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. Perhaps once or twice. To tag most references to "dinosaur" as "non-avian" smacks of the polemics of the recently-converted. Let's keep the Wikipedeia reader and the primary thrust of the immediate contexts firmly in mind. Edits with those in mind rarely go far wrong. --Wetman 19:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

my vote is with wetman... the non-avian tag should apply when discussing exitinction, feathers and the bird-dino connection only, and not fill the whole article with needless clutter.Mackinaw 19:33, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I'm the guy that put in the "non-avian" inserts being discussed here, and I AGREE that "the non-avian tag should apply when discussing exitinction, feathers and the bird-dino connection only" (and the like). That was my intention. If it is gratuitously elsewhere, then I agree it should be edited out as simply redundant. But redundancy is in the mind of the beholder, so the editing will have to be done by one who finds it redundant. (And when you do, I'll probably see it and say to myself, "I can see that as reasonable". (Mr. Anonymous)

Oh, no; you didn't go overboard or anything. :). I do think it's redundant outside of a strict cladistic context, even when talking about birds or the K-T boundary. I expanded the explanation a bit in the "What is..?" section, and added a quick disclaimer... which might be a little too meta. 68.81.231.127 00:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaurs redirect

I noticed Dinosaurs, plural redirects here. Shouldn't that redirect to Dinosaurs (television series)? [jon] 14:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but of the 70 or so pages that link to the redirect[1], the majority seem to refer to this page. Are you volunteering to redirect them all here? :) 68.81.231.127 14:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have pity on the reader of Wikipedia. What is a reader who enters "Dinosaurs" actually looking for? is the question. If one accomodates to the reader's needs, one won't make a mistake. --Wetman 15:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, shush. Let jon look at the actual list of links and draw his own conclusion :) 68.81.231.127 16:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I was just going by standard Wikipedia policies, where the singular is the normally wikilinked, unless it is inherently plural, which the TV show Dinosaurs is. I realize most of the pages are (improperly) linked to Dinosaur, but I was going on what was correct and whether anyone had any objections. I just may redirect them...I've done it before ;) [jon] 18:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you're feeling that bored, there about a dozen at Dinosauria that could be pointed here, too. :p 68.81.231.127 19:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember Dinosauria being a title of a popular ABC sitcom with talking dinosaur puppets. :-P [jon] 19:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you were sitting inside a black box named "Wikipedia" and a slip of paper came down the chute that said on it "Dinosaurs?" would you route the question to "a popular ABC sitcom with talking dinosaur puppets"? --Wetman 20:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* I guess I'm just strange that way...--[jon] 22:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I may be even stranger, but I would expect Dinosaurs to be a disambiguation page. I would expect this anyway, to address the problem mentioned above, but I'm also not sure the title was used only once. Aliter 13:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But it's not the expectation of those making the links... of the 70 or so pages that link through Dinosaurs, I only found one that looks like it should be pointed somewhere else. If that redirect is changed to a dab, then all of a sudden there are about 70 misdirected links instead of 1, and that's not even counting future linkages. (I thought jon was kidding.) 68.81.231.127 18:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was sort of kidding. I am still strange. [jon] 14:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A more common expectation would be expect Dinosaur (disambiguation) to be a disambiguation page. Perhaps I have to set it up myself... Nope. There it is already...--Wetman 15:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those Belgian dinosaurs!

The article states: "The first evidence of herding behavior was the 1878 discovery of 31 Iguanodon that perished together in Bernissart, Belgium"

...Why? Did they take the train? Or was it food poisoning?(Wetman 01:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC))
- I don't know if the cause of death has ever been determined. The evidence is circumstantial. They were discovered at the bottom of a coal mine in close proximity, and some were almost fully articulated. It may just have been a fissure accumulation. 68.81.231.127 19:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My references say that the accumulation was progressive as the animals were deposited at different levels. The fossil find was made in a narrow and thick clay "lens" deposited in a canyon (ravine) among the older coal bearing strata that were subject to erosion at the time of deposition. Since the fossil strata also has goniopholids (basal crocodyles), turtles and fish (if my memory doesn't fail me), I'm more partial to assuming it was ravine where the animals found their death and where rapidly buried in some occasions, on other they were scavanged upon by the resident goniopholids. I could go on guessing why this happened (foiled predator pursuit, just dumb bad luck, etc.) but that is neither here nor there.

Dracontes 13:42 30 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Yeah - rapidly buried. Heard of Noah's flood? What would you expect to find if a world wide flood happened? Billions of dead things, in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

Fissure accumulation -falling in a crack- doesn't require divine intervention and is thus preferred. Phlebas 23:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaur soft tissue

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Apparenly Someone doesn't want the information below to see the light of day -- which is why they continue to alter it -- along with deleting or "redirecting" the Link to unfossilized dinosaur bones (also included below) -- with the appropriate Links to more detailed information.

Although this evidence appears to support the conclusion that the material is in fact soft tissue from the T. rex, it is not at all clear how such organic material could have remained intact for 68 million years. Similarly preserved material from Mammoth bones and frozen carcasses is about 10,000 to 30,000 years old. This evidence indicates that something is wrong with the 68 million year date assigned by evolutionists to the extinction of dinosaurs -- as there is no logical reason why dinosaur material could (or would) last 2500 -- 6800 times longer than (similarly preserved) mammoth material, without decaying back into inorganic matter. This evidence strongly suggests that dinosaurs became extinct in the very recent past (few thousand years). Further proof of this is in the fact that unfossilized dinosaur bones found in a number of locations in Canada and Alaska carbon date to the same (recent) age. -- Truthteller 00:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Lookit, "truthteller", your contribution is a) from a creationist point of view (POV),

What is wrong with that? As a former evolutionist, and someone who knows the Creator personally, I can say unequivocally that Creationism is not only TRUE, but, (even) from a scientific (i.e. logical) perspective, it is the only view that makes sense. In addition, it is also IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to have played anything more than a very minor role in how we (and every other species of life) got here. Also, I trust the opinion of Creationists more than the POV of evolutionists, for at least they are on the right track. I also say this from someone who used to believe what he had been TOLD to believe about 50,000 times -- even though it was (and still is) a LIE.

and b) unscientific, as in patent nonsense.

According to the FACTS of biology and LOGIC what you just said applies only to those who still (in spite of the FACTS against it) CLING to what they were told was true (i.e. evolution). I can say that because it is IMPOSSIBLE for that (purely hypothetical) first self-replicating organism to ever (by the power of nature) to (somehow) get itself going. It will simply NEVER happen by itself -- thus telling us that there MUST be a Creator. However, since I also know Him personally I can also say firsthand (from my own personal life) that this is true.

Below is a link that backs up what I just said. Many more links are available from within the text.

http://www.earthage.org/intro/intro.htm#The%20%22Facts%20of%20Life%22

Your belief represents a minority.

Another LIE that you were TOLD was true -- that isn't. In actuality 90% of the people in the United States believe in a Creator / God of some form (most of whom claim to be Christians).. Of these about half believe in Young Earth Creation, or at least that God made mankind about 6,000 -- 10,000 years ago (i.e. Adam and Eve) and placed them in the Garden... The other half believe that God Created the first living organisms about 3 billion years ago, but has since that time (slowly) Directed that process, and (slowly) programmed all of the different forms of life that we see today.

The last 10% of people in the United States (still) believe in evolution -- even though it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be true.

Below is a link that supports what I just said. I also have read one of the News stories (in a major Newspaper) that said the same thing. For example, San Francisco Chronicle (a liberal paper), 9/13/93, p. A5;

http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=3625

Don't answer that evolution is a system of belief, it is not and has never been.

Evolution CANNOT come even close to explaining (other than in VERY vague and unscientific terms) how that first self-replicating cell (such as a Mycoplasma -- which is itself a parasitic bacteria) got going apart from a LOT of programming by an INTELLIGENT BEING. Nor can it come close to explaining how 100,000 (or so) different flying insects (i.e. Butterflies and Moths and flying beetles and flies) spontaneously transformed themselves into flying creatures that are much more complex than their previous state -- especially when considering that their internal organs DISSOLVE into a liquid before they "morph" (in a matter of days) into other very complex structures (that are all very intricately DESIGNED.

You pick out one aspect of indirect dating, and neglect the overwhelming rest.

I hate to tell you this but you were LIED to in school. Radiometric Dating has so MANY HOLES in it that it is amazing that it is even used at all anymore. Here are a few links with a LOT more information on this.

The Radiometric Dating Game

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Stumping old-age dogma

The Case of the KBS Tuff

Is the Earth 4.5 Billion Years Old?

You present answersingenesis and incorrect news websites as sources.

As someone who used to be on your side of the fence, I understand your concerns, but disagree with your conclusions. In other words, I have looked up so much of the reference information (that Creationists list) myself that I can say firsthand that when they give a reference for something it is correct. I also trust Answers in Genesis and the Institute of Creation Research more than I trust Science or Nature -- even though, for the most part, Science and Nature are both reputable publications -- at least as far as empirical science goes.

Only publications in a PEER-REVIEWED journal add something to the discussion.

If all of the Peers are evolutionists then I am quite skeptical of anything they say, as I can say firsthand that they are deceived -- and that they have and AGENDA of promoting their own POV more than they do the objective and empirical facts of science. It also takes a LOT more faith to believe in the Power of Nature to Create us (over Mythions of years) than it does to simply believe in a Creator -- who wants to have a personal relationship with each one of us (but who will NOT FORCE us to accept Him, or His Spirit into our lives); however the consequences for rejecting Him will be our own (if that is the path we choose).

There are thousands of articles on wikipedia about evolution in general,

That is the Problem.

open your eyes

I have. Now I hope (for your sake) that you will do the same.

(Just as an aside, what do you think of the rest of the article?)!

As far as it being WELL written, I think it is a well-written article. I also was (somewhat) impressed with the Mammoth article as well. Did you write it all yourself???

If you would be consequent, you would have to edit 90 % of this article-heck even the taxobox (that pink thing on top) is based on evolutionary principles.

Yes, I admit, that there is a LOT of undoing that NEEDS to be done, and I am only one person. I also am working on two books myself at this time, and will only be here (on wikipedia) for a short time -- otherwise I would (very likely) never finish what I have started.

Of course, this proves you are totally ignorant of dinosaurs and biology in general.

Please Don't start using personal attacks. That is ONE thing I really DON'T like about evolutionists who have degrees from College... You also won't be earning ANY Brownie points with me by doing so.

Oh, and please provide a source for your Canadian and Alaskan "unfossilized dinosaur bones".

I am glad you asked: Journal of Paleontology, v. 61, no.1, January 1987, p.198 Note also that I have a copy of this article, and have read it for myself. Below is a Link with most of the information.

   http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/unfossilized_dinosaur_bones.htm

Here is another article on the Dinosaur Soft Tissue. Note also that Soft Tissue would only be preserved in specimens that were either NOT fossilized (i.e. mineralized) or in partially mineralized specimens (i.e. bones) http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-03-24-t-rex_x.htm?csp=34

Here is a link to Unfossilized Ammonites that were found in England a few years ago. Note also that the article is WELL REFERENCED. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp

McGowan, Christopher, Dinosaurs, Spitfires, and Sea Dragons, Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 15-16, 29. Below is a link to the book: http://www.bookfinder4u.com/IsbnSearch.aspx?

101 Questions About Dinosaurs, by Philip J. Currie and Eva B. Koppelhus, pp. 11-12. This can also be purchased for about $5.

Note also that I have personally checked out these references, and so I know firsthand that they are accurate. I do, however, DISAGREE with the evoutionist (i.e. Mythions of years) Slant that the authors impose on the reader.

OK gotta go. I'll check back in a few days when I have more time. -- --Truthteller 12:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 08:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The mammoth is mummified, the T. rex bones are fossilized.

You have got to be kidding me. I was talking about Mammoth carcasses in general -- whether it be the bones themselves that are dated, or the flesh (if it is still present -- in very rare instances these days), or its hair. By the way, anything that is buried is a fossil -- whether it is mineralized (or permineralized) or not. Some "fossils" are mineralized (turned to stone) and some are not (and are therefore "unfossilized" or not mineralized -- meaning that they look very fresh, like the 1000's of Dinosaur Bones that were found on the North slope of the Brooks range in Alaska).

the bones have been demineralized, after which they found the spectacular soft tissue.

I am aware that in many cases where bones or wood appear to be totally Mineralized, that (in actuality) the organic material is still present, and all that is needed is to use something like Hydrochloric acid to remove the minerals and "Vwalla" you now have an "unfossilized" piece of bone or wood. Dawson did this will (purportedly) 320 m.y.o. wood from Nova Scotia. But the Bones from Alaska and Canada are, in many instances, NOT Mineralized at all -- meaning that they are "unfossilized". This was the case with a previous T-Rex from Montana in which Mary Schweitzer first saw the red blood cells (and reported her findings in Science mag) back in the 1990's.

Your argument is as stupid as: the bones of the chicken I ate last week also have some soft tissue left, which makes dinosaurs contemporary to us.

Please stop the insults or I will not respond anymore.

And it's very strange you accept the mammoth to be 30,000 years old, while I thought you can't see further than 6,000 years. I normally don't engage on creationists because they're stubborn as a donkey. Phlebas 14:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please provide a reference for the carbon dating study. I'd like to make a note of which organisation was stupid enough to use an isotope with a half-life of 5,730 years to date something millions of years old (or if they weren't being stupid, why they were doing it). I know "Truthteller" is aware that carbon dating is useless for things over 50,000 years old, that he is still making claims about carbon dating just further lowers my opinion of him. Joe D (t) 14:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are a couple of Links. Note that one is for the Totally Unfossized Wood from Axel Heiberg (or Ellesmere) Island in Northern Canada (wood that also thaws out every year) that can be sawed or burned, and that is (said to be) 45-60 m.y.o. -- yet Similar Wood from Unfossilized Trees in Northern Siberia is only 7,000 years old. See (earthage.org) Link Below for more info.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/arctic/treering.jpg

http://worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#Axel%20Heiberg%20and%20Ellsemere%20Islands: --Truthteller 12:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfossilized dinosaur bones

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Unfossilized (or unmineralized) dinosauar bones have been found at various locations in Canada and Northern Alaska. Unfossilized or carbonized wood has also been found at various other locations in strata that is associated with Dinosaurs, or other similarly-dated strata. Both the dinosaur and woody materials have been dated by Carbon 14, and dates obtained are between 9,800 and 50,000 years. The following Links provide more information and documentation.

Surprising Dinosaurs This article is about the partially mineralized T-Rex from Montana in which Mary Schweitzer first saw what looked like red blood cells in a “slice of modern bone.” Here is Another Link with more information on this discovery that was reported in Science and Earth magazines in the 1990’s.

Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones

Still Soft and Stretchy

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/unfossilized_dinosaur_bones.htm Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones from Alaska] These are excerpts from an article titled "Duck-Bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) From The North Slope Of Alaska," by Kyle L. Davies in the Journal of Paleontology, v. 61, no.1, January 1987, p.198-200.

More on the Soft Tissues from the T-Rex from Montana

Another article on the Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Note also that Soft Tissue would only be preserved in specimens that were either NOT fossilized (i.e. mineralized), NOT completely fossilized, or in those that are only partially mineralized specimens (i.e. bones). In other words, in some cases where bones or wood appear to be completely fossilized, if the minerals are leached out of the wood or bones, what is left is the unfossilized organic remains. John W. Dawson, himself, did this with wood that is said to be over 300 million years old, and what was left behind was a piece of wood that could (now) be flexed or burnt in a fire. See This Link for more on this instance.

Proposal to withdraw "dinosaur" term from modern usage

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose that the Word "Dinosaur" be withdrawn from modern Usage, and that the Word "Dragon" (which preceeded it for 1000+ years) be reinstated to its original meaning as the correct Scientific term for these Creatures that have only recently become extinct. --Truthteller 14:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When "dragon" has supplanted "Dinosaur" in general usage, that fact will be duly noted in Wikipedia. Good luck with your original research. --Wetman 19:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is completely false. There was no word that referred to dinosaurs before the discovery of their fossils, because simply, the dinosaurs did not live with anybody in ancient times. They died out 65 million years ago, and your empty fundamentalist brain is too stupid to realize that. The word "Dragon" refers to a type of mythical creature, traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion's claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin. None of the dinosaurs have all those features. But even in archaic times, a dragon meant a large serpent or snake, that's the origin of the word, Greek drakon which means "serpent". The term "dinosaur" is completely accurate, and means "terrible lizard". And look, there is no evidence that dragons really existed anyway! Revolución 01:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Links above show clearly that Dinosaurs (formerly Dragons), were walking around on this earth during the same time as men. The Danish King, named Beowulf was famous for Killing them. Old maps were drawn with areas labeled "Dragons be here." Viking Ships had shapes of their heads on the masts of their Ships. The Chinese even named one of their 12 (recurring) years after them. The Indian Word "Thunderbird" had its origination in a huge flying reptile (that they saw with their own eyes). Then there all of those South American stones that show very clear Drawings of them -- that were Verified as authentic by an American Skeptic paleontologist who went down there to study them for over 10 years, and who told the native workers where to dig, so that he, himself, could see them with his own eyes, being dug out of the ground -- and subsequently became a believer. Then there are the two very clear Descriptions of them in the Old Testament Book of Job (Chapters 40 and 41) -- desriptions that do not fit any known living cretures, but that Do FIT the descriptions of Dragons. Then there is the fact that they are now being found to contain organic material (that is still flexible) -- including red blood cells, collagen, and protein and DNA fragments. There are also reports coming out of China that some of their Eggs smell like "rotten eggs." Then there is the fact that completely unfossilized Dinosaur Bones have been found by the 1000's on the North Slopes of the Brooks Range in Alaska, and many others in (not as well preserved) in Canada and the lower 48 states. They have also been carbon dated -- and they date the same as "frozen" (and non frozen) mammoth bones (i.e. from 9,800 to 40,000 years old). In other words, the 65 Mythion year "date" that you were told was a "fact" in school isn't, but is rather a LIE that has been propagated in order to prop up the already DEAD theory of Evolution -- a theory that is based more on wishfull thinking and imagination, that on empirical science. And anyone who is vaguely familiar with the complexity of the cell, and of self-replicating organisms, if they are honest, knows that I am telling the truth -- for such things simply do not, and CANNOT arise by TIME and CHANCE (for they are FAR TOO Complicated). --Truthteller 08:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! Now we just have to wait for it to become popularly accepted, then it can be included in Wikipedia. --brian0918  14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained to you abiogenesis (not evolution) does not propose life arose by time and chance alone. That's some facinating selective memory you have; so much better to discredit you with. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't Hold Your Breath! And, So much for Wikipedia being in on, or Credited with leading the New Paradigm shift in thinking (about Dinosaurs and LOTS more) that is going to take place. In other words, the shift WILL TAKE place, but not until a more people have the courage to go against the flow (of lies) that they were told to believe --Truthteller 05:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh gracious. This has made my day. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, all I can say is "..." --Whimemsz 19:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Home schooling. --Wetman 20:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of Christians maintaining Jesus' second coming will be "soon". They've been saying that for quite some time now; don't let geological layers and dragon descriptions get in the way of understanding Earth's past and differentiating mythology and science... or as you might assert, scientology. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller, the term "dinosaur" also applies to people who liberally sprinkle their writing with Capital Letters in some fifteenth century style. Gene Nygaard 06:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To the 'Truthteller'. I would recommend behaving less like you are fighting those you speak to as if they are your enemies. Same goes for religoiusly atheistic folks like "Revolucion". If we are to understand anything sensibly we cannot get caught up in ridiculous battles over 'I am right, you are wrong' fits. If you ask me about my personal opinion on the matter, I find that both the 'evolutionists' on this discussion, as well as the 'creationists', have rather distorted views of reality as a result of their increasing polarity from one another. Ironically, as they become more polar, they become more and more...identical. Both religious, both closed-minded, and both totally shut out from reality. Let us point out a few basic logical flaws in both arguments:

1) "Creationists" here appear to claim that everything was created in an instant by some 'force' or 'God'. Many say that this was a few thousand years ago. This does not explain the expansion of the universe, the observations by Einstein and Von Neumann, among others, that time is quite possibly an endless 5-dimensional loop; nor does it explain why billions of years worth of electromagnetic radiation (including visible light) continue to bombard the earth.

2) "Evolutionists" insist that, based upon rather spotty and outdated geological theories, "dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago", despite the fact that various methods show that the 'catastrophe' occured any time between 200 million and 150,000 years ago, and many pieces of evidence indicate multiple catastrophes, and not one at all! They also somehow maintain straight faces when making statements to the effect that random accidents and genetic mutations brought about the infinitesimal and ultra-negentropically ordered mathematical perfection that is organic biological life.

Clearly, all that we can say is, NEITHER CAMP REALLY KNOW THE TRUTH, but...BOTH HAVE SOME OF THE TRUTH. Some things are undeniably true, such as the fact that dinosaurs did exist at some point, and that they were basically 'reptilian' (but this term is an overgeneralisation of several different types of animals with some similar characteristics, more on this later). However, other things, such as the idea that "God made it all, the Bible tells us so", or "dinosaurs lived for 100 million years", are very flimsy extrapolations of information, and are by no means scientific, or to be treated as facts!

Life isn't "infinitesimal" nor is it mathematically perfect; certainly the golden ratio etc. does show up; but natural selection (not mutations and random accidents alone) would go toward what works. If a "perfect" golden spiral is the strongest for a shell, then that will have an advantage over other shells and will stand the test of time better than "unperfect" shells. And to compare Biblical creation, which has no supporting evidence; to the dinosaur timeline which has fossil, geological, genetic (from crocodiles) evidence; is laughable. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well Royboy, I see you've found your way over to the Dinosaur Talk Page. Wellcome aboard:

You said above:

Reminds me of Christians maintaining Jesus' second coming will be "soon". They've been saying that for quite some time now; don't let geological layers and dragon descriptions get in the way of understanding Earth's past and differentiating mythology and science... or as you might assert, scientology. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that Jesus' Second Coming will be soon. How soon is anybody's guess. I think that there is a good chance it will be in the next 2-10 years. There are reasons for this, and I could be wrong about this timeline, but I don't think I am wrong about His coming -- nor judgment of all mankind (including you) -- which He will have a videotape of. That's right, God will have our Whole Life on Videotape (or something similar), and will show us to our faces what we deserve from Him.

As far as Geological Layers goes, I actually spent several years of my spare time studying upright trees that are buried in them (them = more than one layer at a time). My conclusions and reasoning are given in detail in a paper titled "The 'Fossil Forests' of Nova Scotia."

As far as "mythology" goes, that would be the debunked theory of evolution -- which is not based on observable science, but rather on Wild Speculation about fossils -- that were all buried because of a great Flood. For observable science tells us that things become less complex over time -- unless an outside intelligence were involved. For example, there is no way evolution can come close to explaining how 1000's of insects are able to transform themsleves into Winged Creatures, with Jointed Legs and wings that work, with Antennae, with blood vessels in their wings -- and a pump whereby they can pump blood into them (so that they open up), and with new, highly compound (and vastly more complex) eyes, and some even with Navigation equipment -- that allows them to fly a thousand miles or more to the exact same places every year (places that they have NEVER EVEN BEEN to before). All within a few days (while there internal organs dissolve into a Liquid, before the Morph into Butterflies and Moths and Flying Beetlees and Flies). Such thing speak clearly of a Creator, who pre-programmed the DNA of each of them. But even more amazing is how your own Body maintains itself -- via replacing all sorts of dying protein molecules on a continual basis. For more on this see: The Facts of Life and Evidence of Creation or Extremely Rapid Change. Much more information is provided via the links in the text.

And to whomever said the following:

1) "Creationists" here appear to claim that everything was created in an instant by some 'force' or 'God'. Many say that this was a few thousand years ago. This does not explain the expansion of the universe, the observations by Einstein and Von Neumann, among others, that time is quite possibly an endless 5-dimensional loop; nor does it explain why billions of years worth of electromagnetic radiation (including visible light) continue to bombard the earth.

Yes I do believe that God Created the Unviverse and Earth and all life upon it in a very short time period, just Like He said. But, I wasn't there to observe it and neither were you. So I can't Prove it in a scientific sense, but Neither Can You prove that dinosaurs roamed the earth "mythions of years" ago.

As far as the Expansion of the Universe Goes, There is a LOT that our Scientists DON'T know, and also a LOT that they don't well publicise. For example, there are some fairly LARGE HOLES in the Theory of the Big Bang. Some of these are Problems with the Red Shift (some Galaxies have stars in them with Very Different Red Shifts). Then there is the Problem of Quasars (with Large Red Shifts) being located "in front of" Galaxies that are not all that far away. Then there is the Problem of the (still) "Missing Mass" -- which we are almost Never told the Full Implications of. That's all for today Folks, except that the Bible also tells us that God "Stretched Out" the Heavens, after He first made them (in at least 7 different places in the Old Testament. This alone could explain why it is that their Light Beams are all in place (if the Universe turns out to be as large as we think it is). --Truthteller 17:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller, god himself may have personally delivered the absolute truth to you on stone tablets, but unfortunately that's quite irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum, and as such we report the prevailing view and do not try to advocate the acceptance of ideas which are overwhelmingly rejected. If evolution turns out to be wrong and the existence of an omnipotent deity is proven, an encyclopaedia would reflect that, but there's no place here for your advocacy of viewpoints which fly in the face of commonly accepted scientific theories. Worldtraveller 18:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate to break the news to you, but the "overwhelming rejected" view that you speak of, is actually not overwhelmingly rejected at all, but rather is by far the most popular view. This can be seen by Poll after Poll after Poll of People in the US. For example, in the United States, approximately 10% believe that there is no God, and that we got here purely by Natural processes; however 45% believe that God had a hand in that process, and another 45% believe that God did it very rapidly. In other words, the whole scientific community is "behind the curve" and has not yet realized that the people don't believe their theories (for good reasons). Now all they need to do is to wake up and realize this: something that they seem determined not to do -- in spite of all the evidence against their religion. This has also been well documented, for example Here --Truthteller 00:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller, please move this discussion to your talk page. It is about YEC not dinosaurs. Many people would probably like to chime in on this, but they have the decency not to hijack this talk page for their opinions.--Phlebas 19:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Since when should we put any faith in the intelligence of the American people??? --brian0918 28 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)
Brian0918:

I have removed your <big> element as it was the Wikipedia equivalent of shouting in one's ear.

That said, how does your comment fit into the current thread at all? Nobody brought up the intelligence of the American people. Admittedly, the intelligence of certain individuals who may or may not be from that set does seem to be under question here, but the average reader's general reaction to your posting is probably going to be "WTF?!"
— DLJessup 28 June 2005 23:27 (UTC)
- He cites polls of Americans, I do the same. --brian0918  28 June 2005 23:31 (UTC)
  Sorry, I missed the polling stats in the last paragraph. I don't exactly read Truthteller terribly closely (if at all).
  
  — DLJessup 28 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Dear Truthteller, You have no business adding the suggestions you have. Save this for discussion pages, is anyone is willing to engage in it with someone clearly fanatic (the dinoaur-to-dragon" demand I mistook as some parody made in response to you!), or head for some chat page. NPOV would seem to indicate the currently prevailing view and evidence among experts in the field, along with discussions about alterante interpretations of those views. You would be within your rights to enter a "dinsaur soft tissue" page, or as part of some other clearly labelled "Creationist" entry, if you were to allow the evidence AGAINST this complete twisting of the original research to be presented. Truth isn't always up for a majority vote any more than it is the property of those currently in power. Certainly you abuse the Wiki ideals very badly in pursueing this in this manner. Please find other ways to express yourself.

Personally I think truth's idea is cool, and the discussion regarding it rather crass (altho funny). Anyhow, the best idea is to find an expert who sez what you think, and then cite him. Or, alternatly, you could give up on encyclopedias and focus on personal protest at your local museum ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Altering some of the problems

I created these edits as part of what will eventually be a rehashing of some of the unscientific nonsense being promoted as 'fact' in this article and others. The Lemuria article and others like it are simply to bring to the forefront some major questions and issues that have not been answered by either the mainstream scientific academia, nor the Christian theologians and historians. There is a very bad trend in science these days to turn everything into 'fact', regardless of how hypothetical, simply to establish religions with some 'scientists' crowned as priests, and all others forced to either conform, or see their career ruined. This is getting out of hand, and I am merely trying to bridge the gap, with facts, with evidence, between what in this instance can be called "Creationists and Evolutionists". User: Atun

There are many other gaps in need of bridging, between all the compartmentalised sciences and thought-forms, memes and groups of people. User: Atun

If you wish, I will allow that edit to be permanently reverted until I develop a very detailed set of references and analyses of the information in this article, and present it as a revised edit, which will be far superior to the mere comments previously entered. I will not bother this article until that time, if you wish. However, I will comment on this discussion occassionally.

Excellent! Now we just have to wait for your original research to become accepted into the mainstream, and it can be added to Wikipedia! --brian0918  28 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)

After giving it a few days to settle, I have re-clipped the openly creationist POV inclusion that gives the overblown and highly abused "soft-tissue" claims equal billing with literally all of the other accepted evidence. I find it very presumptuous but unsurprising that the YEC element here wishes its POV given equal standing with that of the entire scientific community. After reading the comments of the Creationists above, I don't see that they have any interest in the subject of "dinosaur" at all, but see it as an excuse to pursue their own agenda. I am very likely, after consulting current popular references on the subject in Japanese as well as standard refence books in English and through the invaluable talkorigins site, to soon greatly reduce the entire "soft tissue" section (how are THREE photos justified?), as it is not included to increase the reader's knowledge of dinosaurs, nor has proven to be of much import, and that import in dispute, in the field. A mention of the "possible" discovery, and a link to the ill-informed press rush that boosted it (and now ignores it) is more than fair under these circumstances. For a much better article on the initial claims made about this, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm 7/3/05 User: Oldshonen

So within an hour a creationist reverts to suit his own completely biased views, without even jotting down how my changes have damaged the value of the article! And there in the history is a series of such attacks ("editing" is clearl NOT the word to use!). Please discuss this with your opponents HERE and be satisfied with some compromise that allows your claims mention, which is all they are worthy of receiving by any non-fanatic interested in "dinosaur" rather than "creationism." User: Oldshonen

I've decided to clean up the "soft tissues" section, although I came close to simply deleting it and including the discovery in another section. I do not see how it warrants any special place, except as a stalking horse for YEC views NOT related to "dinosaur." I believe my revision presents this single, still-disputed, discovery in NPOV fashion, allowing someone interested in "dinosaur" to know of the issue and seek further information as they wish. If any of the YECs who watch this disagree, would they PLEASE have the coourtesy to discuss it here and hammer out a compromise? I'm quite stubborn myself in the face of what I believe is unreasonable bullying. User: Oldshonen

Wow, dude, in trying to fight the creationists, you're becoming almost as bad as they are. You removed a fair amount of well-sourced material. The discovery of "soft tissue" was a huge story, and should be in this article, not for the reasons that the creationists give, but because it was a surprising discovery that may add significantly to our knowledge of the dinosaur. In any case, I'm restoring the "soft tissues" section to its former state. — DLJessup 2 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

Enough is left in the article, including three pics, about this. As even you say, it "may" add significantly to our knowledge of dinosaurs, or may not. It is very greatly overplayed here, and I will revert your reversions until someone wants to hammer out a compromise.

What is your own position, besides a claim about the recent splash it made? How is this discovery worth an entire section, while other major discoveries about dinosaurs receive a passing mention at best? You are not seeing the aim of my revisions, which is to focus the article on "dinosaur." User: Oldshonen

I've read in some recent archaeological news sites that the whole soft tissue thing was fake, or at most highly speculative. --brian0918  3 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Oldshonen that this section is overblown, especially considering possible further results. But, let's slow down a bit and not get into a revert war over it - discuss more here. What news sites Brian? And what do dino fossils have to do with archaeology? Also, I have noted on Image talk:Dino tissue.jpg that the images are not credited. I think that fair use images should be credited to the original source or deleted. Vsmith 3 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

That's exactly why I made revisions, and what I am requesting of those who have simply reverted because of non-article agendas, geenerally w/o explanations.

The site listed archaeology and paleontology news. It was a while back, I'll have to check the history. Do a google search for archaeology news and it's one of the links on the first page. --brian0918  3 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)

When to allow minority views

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On July 1st, I added "Young Earth Creationists see this as evidence that the dinosaurs lived less than 10,000 years ago; and that the dating methods commonly accepted in science are deeply and fatally flawed." Note that this does NOT say that this IS evidence! It just stated the fact of a minority opinion. So it was a true statement! SUBSEQUENT to this, I was advised that this information was unanimously decided to "not be allowable" - on the Talk page. Until then, I had NEVER looked at the Talk page, as this was my first visit to Dinosaur. On checking the Talk page, I find that this was not unanimous after all. My edit was in "good faith", but was removed without an edit comment. Then an 'edit war' started. I put up a re-edited version, which should have been more acceptable - but no - this was reverted without discussion also. I am just a little confused here, as to when minority views are allowed, as I see them frequently in other articles. If there is a Wikipedia page that explains the policy, please advise, thanks. RossNixon 3 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Your "more acceptable" version referred to YECers as "scientists". Until Earth discusses the views of the modern Flat Earth believers, and Time discusses Gene Ray's Time Cube hypothesis, a random topic like Dinosaur shouldn't discuss a topic as "catch-all" as Young Earth Creationism. --brian0918  3 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

I don't think there's an official policy, but a good rule of thumb is not to include a minority view unless it has something specific to say about the topic in question. Young-earth creationists do think dinosaurs are 10 000 years old, and doubtless some have argued the soft tissues prove it. However, that's because they think everything is that young. It doesn't tell you anything about dinosaurs in particular, so doesn't really belong here. Josh

YE Creationists misuse the public notoriety and subsequent news coverage of dinosaurs as a means to disseminate their views on evolution, while at the same time ignoring 90% of the evidence for evolution. As for the soft-tissue, the only first-hand source is Science magazine (sadly it's too technical). As much as I deplore the existence of the creation wiki, let the YECs wallow in their ignorance there, not here. Phlebas 00:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

YEC beliefs are irrelevent until they have some facts to back it up with. Since they do not have acceptable alternative theories(remeber, god is not a valid scientific theory), all they are doing is saying "um... your wrong!!!! cuz um, yeah!!" and don't really add much. IreverentReverend 12:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Soft tissues

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Good sources exist in the article saying soft tiisues have been found. NO SUCH SOURCES exist in the article saying otherwise. We can all speculate, but deletion of "and "soft tissues, including blood vessels and cells lining them [2]"." is unwarrented as it is sourced and relevant and no reputable source says "no thats not true". EVERYTHING in science is up for further study and possible disproof in the future. That's what makes it science and not a religion. 4.250.198.204 14:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The above is a very deceitful excuse that misuses ONE article to promote a YEC viewpoint. Would the author above please at least openly disavow their belief in YEC? You of course can believe whatever you wish, but not abuse the facts in this article for your own purposes. This "discovery" has gone exactly nowhere since the article was published, while it is presented here as revolutionary.

Enough of Creationists trying to use the subject for their deceits. This should be taken out, as I long ago did.

(added by anon User:60.34.168.50 on 3 Sept. 2005)

Would RossNixon and others at least back up his continued attempts to subvert this entry with ANY post NYT's proof of a very poorly done, much exploited/exaggertaed/flat-out lied about by Creationists article with ANY follow-up by a science magazine or detailed piece of journalism BEFORE trimming facts to suit their prejudices? :TheCryingofLot49

It's easy to find other cases of dinosaur soft tissue finds. Here is another, reported in Nature, 1998. www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/scipionyx.html RossNixon 10:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I am an atheist. I believe in the process of science. Until EVIDENCE is found and provided by a reliable source, the EVIDENCE as it now stands is reflected in the quote I put back in. Finding soft tissues doesn't mean the world is 6,000 years old anymore than the age of the oldest tree does. Get a grip. WAS 4.250 17:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Check the actually well-written report on this possibly very, very interesting, but abused and overblown discovery from BBC world news 24 March, 2005. Some important quotes from this: --"The US researchers tell Science magazine that the organic components resemble cells and fine blood vessels." RESEMBLE, not ARE. -- "There were also traces of what look like red blood cells; and others that look like osteocytes, cells that build and maintain bone." That is the Professor herself being quoted, and she says LOOK LIKE, not ARE. -- "This is fossilised bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil," she told the BBC's Science In Action programme. 'It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything." Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance." "But if there are fragments, at least, of the original dinosaur molecules, their details could provide new clues to the relationship between T. rex and living species, such as birds." IF there are FRAGMENTS of MOLECULES, not tissues.

The inclusion at the beginning of the article is unwarrented given the tentative nature of the research. I will again remove it until someone shows a follow-up report done by something resembling a respectable science journalist or better.

And watch the insults: I'm anry myself, but clearly have a decent grip on the facts as well as myself. :TheCryingofLot49 -- Sept. 4, 2005

"Get a grip" is slang. Means no more than "calm down". Not an insult. So calm dowm and don't see an insult in every request to CALM DOWN. You apparently believe soft tissue was found ONCE. Wrong. Find a quote from a reliable source that says no soft tissues were every found and we can delete it. WAS 4.250 22:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Not good enough, and you continue to sound funny in your efforts to be "reasonable". You have been presented with an article that sets the discovery in the CORRECT context. I have given you the article date and source, which is as "reliable" as anything other than a standard science journal can be. Present me with your superior source, and stop reverting until you do. I will agree to keep the "soft tissues as I have now revised it, in line with the tone of the article, but it may be time to go to a moderator, given what I believe to be wanton disingenuousness by the parties that have continued to use the to WEDGE the article for purposes not at all related to informing the reader about the topic of "dinosaurs." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm :TheCryingofLot49 -- Sept. 4, 2005

I bothered to do some backtracking of this passage, and they were inserted by RossNixon, someone avowedly promoting a YEC, AIG-"sourced" view of dinosaurs and everything else possible (as NPOV as something can be) and initially inserted by someone who has no other interest in the topic other than to insert (and re-insert) the very flawed NYT's article (he/she is working on the "history of the USASC," and whose work also has a strongly right-wing political POV.) I therefore quite reasonable insist that this article be about the current definition and information known about DINOSAURS, and nothing else, and most especially not allow it abused by the party of AIS and "Dr." Dino. Would the person listed as WAS 4.250 of the 22:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC) post do me the favor of allaying my now natural suspicions by allowing me to link with other examples of your work. If they show an actual interest in presenting information according to the ideals of Wiki, it should be very easy to find language that satisfies us both. :TheCryingofLot49 -- Sept. 4, 2005

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).
I find and, in 2005, possibly "soft tissues." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm good enough until the next soft tissue evidence from a scientist. Just to be clear: I won't revert it. When newer better evidence exists; then a reassessment can occur.
Go to User talk:WAS 4.250. Look at the far left side. See the box labeled "toolbox"? See the item marked "User contributions"? Wikipedia is COMPLETELY open. People are encouraged to look around and get to know others by their behavior so the good prosper and the wicked are sent to heck. "Wikistalking" means using that tool for the purpose of making a series of inappropriate edits in order to harass someone. Verifying intentions is a very good use of that tool. In case of some kind of a navigation difficulty I provide you with this direct link [3]. Note that the URL can be directly typed into your browser location box at the top of your browser. Replacing "WAS_4.250" with a different user name can also be done. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/60.34.168.50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheCryingofLot49 Enjoy!! WAS 4.250 17:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

But I see RossNixon feels, whose seems to have no real interest in the actual topic other than his insistance on a YEC spin, feels free to change it anyway. The way the still unclear meaning and importance of the "soft tissues" discovery still grates with the facts known about dinosaurs, being equated the many other with very well-confirmed, well-evidenced facts about dinosaurs, but I am willing to leave it IN QUOTATION MARKS until I feel up to doing all the reading and research needed to polish up the entire article. I really think having a seperate section noting recent still-unclear discoveries and scientific controversies would serve the reader better. Until I start doing the work (and receiving input from others) it isn't right to make further piecemeal changes. Dear RossN: do stop spinning the facts on THIS article: they belong in the article on Creationism, where you will find I will offer compact and reasonable citiques of your views without altering your ideas to suit myself. I frankly find your behavior in editing this article almost dishonest. You have, for the moment, inclusion of a very up-in-the-air discovery, pray do not exaggerate it further here. TheCryingofLot49 08:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

YEC? What have I said that is YEC? We don't need a separate section for new discoveries if these are multiple similar ones. I agree that a single new facts should not go in until there has been discussion. RossNixon 09:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Every terrestrial animal more than 1m in length was a dinosaur."

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Not anymore. Repanomamus giganticus was a dog-sized mammal of the early Cretaceous that preyed on small dinosaurs. -National Geographic, August 2005, p94 --Rob117 22:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The exception that proves the rule, no? --Wetman 02:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I still changed it to "nearly every."--Rob117 17:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction image

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Isn't it better to put a picture of a "full" dinosaur in the infobox, rather than a fossilised skull? Or maybe a picture showing many dinosaurs. CG 19:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

The only accurate pictures we have of the exterior of dinosaurs is of birds. Shall we put an eagle picture there instead? WAS 4.250 20:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Does it have to be a picture of a living dinosaur? Why not a picture, or at least a photo of a dinosaur displayed in a museum? CG 20:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

All such pictures and reconstructions are completely guess work when it comes to the visual image aspect. Colors, textures, amount and type of feathers are all guesswork except for the known to be feathered dinosaurs which includes avian dinosaurs (birds). For the lead picture, less guesswork is better. WAS 4.250 07:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This article shows the problem with using an image other than birds or bones:

"The popular image of Tyrannosaurus rex and other killer dinosaurs may have to be changed as a scientific consensus emerges that many were covered with feathers. Most predatory dinosaurs such as tyrannosaurs and velociraptors have usually been depicted in museums, films and books as covered in a thick hide of dull brown or green skin. The impression was of a killer stripped of adornment in the name of hunting efficiency. This week, however, a leading expert on dinosaur evolution will tell the British Association, the principal conference of British scientists, that this image is wrong. Gareth Dyke, a palaeontologist of University College Dublin, will tell the BA Festival of Science being held in the city that most such creatures were coated with delicate feathery plumage that could even have been multi-coloured. Fossil evidence that such dinosaurs were feathered is now 'irrefutable'. 'The way these creatures are depicted can no longer be considered scientifically accurate, he said. 'All the evidence is that they looked more like birds than reptiles. Tyrannosaurs [sic] might have resembled giant chicks.' " [4] WAS 4.250 17:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

For a long time no one had a good idea what Tyrannosaurus rex' arms were for. They were too short to reach anything. Ahhh, but put long feathers on them and you have a scoop that is plenty long enough and grows back if damaged! WAS 4.250 17:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean that there's some kind of policy or guideline which states that images put in the infobox species should be real photos? CG 09:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean there is a great deal of current controversy over what animals like T. Rex looked like in terms of skin/feathers/scales/colors. T. Rex could have had bristle feathers around its mouth and eyes ... maybe on its forelimbs. Birds are avian dinosaurs and many have scales on their legs/feet. How much of T. Rex's skin had scales and how much had feathers? No one knows. And color? We are clueless. WAS 4.250 17:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree, but isn't there any more descriptive and beautiful photo of a fossilized dinosaur? at least a complete one? CG 19:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Truthteller" Analysis

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I followed Truthteller's pronouncements on the discussion page here and found myself disturbed both by them and the responses to them. Effectively countering ID-types in the public arena is difficult. Dismissive approaches and scientific critiques aren't enough in the long run.

Truthteller's isn't engaged in a scientific debate. Scientists, scientific jargon, research, facts, even the scientific method, only interest these people as stage setting and props for a passion play/presentation/sales message/frame designed for specific, long-term sociopolitical purposes. As a writer and life-long student of communication technique, I've been very frustrated watching this third resurrection of creationism in my lifetime because the scientific community seems like deer caught in headlights.

So I spent some time doing a detailed analysis of Truthteller's rhetorical argumentation and I've posted the results on my user page. There I deconstruct a couple of Truthteller's paragraphs to get beyond his ostensible subject matter and so take on intent and technique and hint at some approaches to countering them. My critique was written in July, before the recent flurry of media interest in the id-generated faux debate, which has only made my commentary more relevant.

There are three very large [for legibility] maps on the page, which at low-bandwidth will take several minutes to download. You can use that time to read the text, which is long [30KB]. Not verbose, I hope. -Skookumplanet 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Detailed classification

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to implement extra information into the taxobox (for all extinct animals), rather than each time have to enter standard information into the text of the article each time.

For example, in the page I created on Alectrosaurus, on an experimental basis, I included an extra section which I called "Age and Locality". Maybe this isn't the ideal wording but that's what I'm working with for now. What is the best way to proceed with this, and is it possible to create a new system or code to include a box not unlike the one in Late Cretaceous? --Bolesey 17:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Would this obviate the need for any discussion? No nuanced report concerning how secure the information is would "fit": it will just be there. How many localities will "fit"? just one? My own issues with taxoboxes are generic, not limited to this one, nor directed towards Bolesey. In my opinion, taxoboxes should be limited to containing tabulatable facts, ones that require no thoughtful context: "Moon: material: green cheese" —that sort of thing.. --Wetman 02:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

Lots of taxoboxes provide info on locality, via a range map - see for instance orca. You could use the same thing to mark fossil findings, without having to worry about how many places will fit on a list. As for listing when a particular group existed, I think it can often be expressed in point form, and is exactly the sort of thing that belongs in a taxobox. The place to discuss it would be this project page. Josh

A range map isn't a bad idea, but would be time-consuming for any less well known generas. I would just go ahead and do it the way I see fit, but at the moment I think a lot of pages are a bit of a hodge-podge of different people listing information in a variety of different ways, with no standardisation. I don't want to create a mess that someone else will have to clear up. It might also seem appropriate to put various other things into a taxobox, but presumably you stop at some point. There are also complications, like genera with multiple species, from different locations and different time periods. So its hard to see which is the best way to approach it. I shall see what they think over at the "Tree of Life" project. Bolesey 09:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're still interested, the time period is now part of the header; I've updated Alectrosaurus accordingly. Josh

Why would that way be better? Is there a precident for arranging things this way? I always assosiate the age with the locality; the reason being that you can then consider what animals it was a contemporary of. Also, in cases where a fossil is known from 2 locations, one location may be of a differant age. Bolesey 22:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's simply the standard I suggested, which nobody objected to. The idea of putting it in the header is that it goes with the conservation status in determining whether or not the group currently exists. That way it can be used for all groups - classes like ammonites as well as individual genera. Locality tables can't - as Wetman points out, some groups have too many locales to list, or need a map, or are universally distributed - so we need something to do with the stratigraphic range when that box isn't there. This is the best compromise I could think of. Josh

Creationism and dinosaurs

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Rather than inserting a single pithy sentence about Creationist views on dinosaurs, with a link to one specific Creationist organization (which is hardly representative of the many Creationist interpretations of dinosaurs), why doesn't one of our intrepid Creationists create a page on Creationist interpretations of dinosaurs? If written with honest and earnest NPOV as a goal, I don't see why it wouldn't be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. --Fastfission 00:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop adding unessesary POV pushing to the article, guess the 'scientific' method gets very nervous when challanged, a little insecure eh?--WwJd 05:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The scientific method can no more get nervous than can a stained glass window or your toenails. — ceejayoz ^★ 23:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need a separate article. The AIG link is "one of the best", but you were correct to link to Creationism instead. This still is an "area of debate" though, so I will think about rewording this and moving it from links back into the body. RossNixon 01:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you just write a separate article, however large or small? It makes more sense than trying to squeeze little bits of it in here, which will be an up-hill battle all the way. --Fastfission 01:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The section below called Making necessary assumptions is from the official policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I bolded the most relevant part. The sentence in the See also section follows this policy to the letter. WAS 4.250 10:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Making necessary assumptions

What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.