|EvilHomer - 2016-12-15 |
Oh look, a feathered "dinosaur" tail discovered in amber, how curiously CONVENIENT for the dinosaur-industrial complex. And you say it was discovered at a public market, in a region noted for its fake fossil trade? Curioser and curioser!
Can't even tell if you're quoting YouTube comments or doing your EH thing. :-)
If by "doing my EH thing" you mean thinking critically and presenting sound arguments supported by reason and evidence, then yes, I am doing that.
One doesn't even have to speculate about potential nefarious activities here. *The story itself* admits that this "fossil" was found - not in the field, where it could be properly catalogued and dated - but in a public market, by a Chinese researcher, being sold as tourist jewelry. This reeks of classic Chinese paleontological-BS, and EVEN IF this so-called "fossil" is truly what it purports to be, the real story here wouldn't be "amazing scientific discovery made by Chinese researchers", it would be "modest scientific discovery ruined by the improper handling of finds".
But hey, if you guys want to trust Fox News and their shoddy reporting instead of trusting science, go right ahead.
Sorry EH didn't read.
|blase - 2016-12-15 |
...Yeah, they must've used a micro 3D printer to make it look like feather quills were growing out of a mouse tail. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216311939 Those sneaky Chinese.
Google Scholar is your friend. Unlike the Archaeoraptor fiasco, this fossil appears to have gone through the proper peer review process.
Yes, I looked up the paper already. While I appreciate it being peer-review, it doesn't actually go into any great detail about either the *provenance* or the *dating* of the alleged fossil. Dr Xing et al. state that the amber is from Kachin province and date it to the Cretaceous period - yet it is not clear how they determined that the amber came from Kachin specifically (did the street vendor whom Dr Xing purchased this from just happen to posses all the proper documentation?), and the reference which Dr Xing cited states right in its abstract that the dating of Kachin amber is "ambiguous".
I'm intrigued by your mouse-tail hypothesis, however, and would love to hear more!
Well, obviously I'm not the expert here. But a good skeptic, like someone who detects art forgeries, should also be able make an independent analysis based on familiarity with the subject matter - in this instance, the difference between birds and dinosaurs; authentic fossil vs. crafted forgery and so on.
In this particular example, a hypothesis is needed for how someone might manage the feat of forging microscopic feather details that do not resemble the structure of any living bird. That would be fascinating, indeed.
Interesting coincidence, I've been re-reading all my old National Geographics and just recently went through the whole Archaeoraptor saga. I will say this, when National Geographic makes a big mistake, they own it.
|Bort - 2016-12-15 |
Damn, I was hoping this was going to be another Amber 4 Ever chat log. "Oh I DO want you to be my boyfriend! But a feathered dinosaur has claimed my nethers for his nest, and he's left a tail feather to mark his territory!"
|The Mothership - 2016-12-16 |
The comments ARE amazing.
|Binro the Heretic - 2016-12-16 |
Toothed beak discovered in Narnia.
Wings with digits discovered in Earthsea.
Sternum with breastbone processes discovered in Shannara.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|