Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Vorpal Rabbit-o-Saurus 80

Posted by michael from the that-rabbit's-got-a-vicious-streak-a-mile-wide dept.
guacamolefoo writes "CNN reports that a rabbit-o-saurus fossil was discovered in China. Apparently it lived about 128 million years ago and was related to the T-rex. It had feathers and large, buck teeth. Paleontologists are finding more and more bizarre things. Some seem so strange that they must appear to some to be made up. When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus, they'll put it right next to their moon landing hoax books and their creationism propaganda."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vorpal Rabbit-o-Saurus More

Vorpal Rabbit-o-Saurus

Comments Filter:
  • April 1st was 171 days ago, by my count. Or it's 194 days ahead.

    So that means this article is nearly as far off the mark as it can be - it should have come about 11 days later.

  • Name Change? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by greenhide ( 597777 ) <jordanslashdot.cvilleweekly@com> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @02:57PM (#4291368)
    When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus, they'll put it right next to their moon landing hoax books and their creationism propaganda

    According to the article, the technical name for this dinosaur is Incisivosaurus. Calling it a "rabbit-o-saurus" instead will only encourage the skeptics. The picture in the article depicts something that, aside from the buck teeth, is very different from a rabbit--it looks much more like an emu or an ostrich. This is, to my understanding, consistent with recent research that suggests that dinosaurs were the antecedents of birds. And buck teeth would, no doubt, be useful in digging up plant roots or whatever, suggesting that it was a herbivore.

    Granted, it's one funny looking mother.
    • I agree with you on the comparison to emu or other flightless bird... and to further that I would say that the small to overly large teeth arrangement really looks to me like a first step to the formation of a beak. ... just think what would happen if the teeth stayed the way they are and began to fuse together and were slowly overlaid with keratin/cilia... then lose the last vestigial teeth... and you have a beak.

      They even mention that others in the family do have a beak and that this is the oldest family member they've found to date... looks like an obvious evolution to me.

      • the only thing rabbit-like about it is the buck teeth. the fact that it is an older member of the theropod group should make it obvious that it evolved into the rest. what kills me is that cnn calls it "rabbit-like" suggesting that the whole thing is rabbit-like. the artist's rendition of it makes it look like a primitive bird with a rabbit head. even in the article itself, they say it lacks a lot of the bird-like features that other dinosaurs have, but if it's older, of course it will lack more of those features, they haven't evolved yet. seems to me like cnn needs some better evolutionary biologists and paleontologists working for them.
  • I soiled my armor I was so scared......

  • Requisite Monty Python homage... (Score:3, Funny)

    by oracleofbargth ( 16602 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @03:03PM (#4291429) Homepage
    Rabbit-o-Saurus?

    Where's a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch when you need one?

  • Quick question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thewheeze ( 466050 )
    How many scientific discoveries are mistakes? I just have to wonder how many animals may have died side by side or next to one another. I'm dreading the day they find a "two-headed" sloth.
  • Not all creationists are trolls who go into science forums and talk about non-science. Your average creationist is usually a meek person who keeps to themself. If people want to believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or that a new drug can dramatically increase the size of their genitals; let them.

    I used to think I was a creationist because I believed that the hand of God was behind the big bang . Then I met "creationists" who thought the earth was only 4000 years old. After wondering whether I was a true creationist for a while, I decided that these people aren't creationists but are luddites who attend churches.

    • Asides from more traditional creationists (the ones who believe the 6000 year old earth theorem) are referred to more as fundamentalists. However, I'm not sure of the stance of protestant faiths, but the Vatican declared that it is acceptable for a Catholic to believe in the Big Bang Theory, as long as they accept that the Hand of God was behind it - a theory called 'Intelligent Design.' So it is entirely possible to be a creationist without being a 'luddite who attends church.'


    • > Not all creationists are trolls who go into science forums and talk about non-science.

      Yeah, we really need some more precise terminology. There seem to be concentric rings of belief, from those who think God set up the system to obtain the desired result, such that cosmology and evolution are the divine mechanism of creation, through those who believe in a 6000 year old universe because they learned it in Sunday School as a child and never had that belief challenged, down to those who aggressively push a very narrow literalist interpretation of Genesis I in front of legislatures and school boards, spewing all manner of bullshit in support of their claims. Recent comments in talk.origins indicate that even the former consider themselves "creationists".

      The reason we need more precise terminology is because a statement to the effect that "All creationists are idiots" would be true if "creationists" refered only to the latter group, but quite false if if referred to the former. By the former definition, certain "creationists" rank among the most sensible posters to talk.origins.

  • Could be a freak? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @04:22PM (#4292251) Journal
    For arguments sake: isn't there just a chance that it could be a freak. Some genetic defect or something. I mean we've only got one example right?

    There's this guy who collects unusual farm animals - extra legs, two heads etc.

    Would be interesting if future bone diggers stumble on those ;). Would be even funnier if they try to use the popular belief (IMO fallacy) that "evolution produces optimum solutions" to explain them (e.g. selfish gene, and all those popular explanations for animal/human behaviour using evolution/genes).

    "This cowlike animal has two heads - it evolved this to allows it to chew grass and look out for enemies at the same time".

    "The extra limb could serve as a decoy, much like a gecko's detachable tail". Or could help chasing away flies.

    It's funny, then it's sad when you find out that everyone seems to believe those scientists.

    In a less harsh environments, lots more silliness can survive or even thrive. So the reason why an animal looks or acts in a particular way could just be because it's cool (and there's no reason why it's cool, except that just a bunch decided it is). If you can afford it and the environment is kind, why not have a bit of fun in your life eh?

    Real example: the panda is crap at digesting bamboo (has carnivore's digestive system), but it still eats it. Why? Probably coz it thinks it tastes great.

    So another reason for the buck teeth could be - "Hey it's fun. And we can whistle the top hits really loud too". Not to mention our granddads and moms were kicked out from the tribe coz they had slightly different teeth (and whistled loud whilst sleeping), so we're gonna show em we're better and cooler.

    Cheerio,
    Link.
    • China is still pretty much virgin fossil country. I have read in the past that expeditions have a hard time getting in. There have been great fossil discoveries in China in the past 15 years and I only hope that we find more interesting fossils like this in the future.
    • Not very high, uh? Not, this is unlikely to be a freak. The Darwinian explanation for it is of course suspect. Fossils are not so much the ones to be suspect, the Darwinian school is. There is no proof whatever for evolution being caused by natural selection. No proof. Zilch. Nil. Lots of proof for *evolution*, but none for the Darwinian explanation for it. Not a tiny scrap of evidence that the cause of evolution is natural selection, and not, say, the self-organization of negaentropic dissipative machines. Of course, saying that makes you into a Creationist. Or so Darwinians say... The fact is, animals can do *whatever they want*, as long as they get away with it (that is, survive). Just like the stupid giant panda eating bamboo. There is no need to explain features as *advantages*. That's the way the critters are, and if they live, they live, if they don't, they don't. That's why freaks are that; freaks. They mostly don't live long, unless you create for them a special environment. But this dinosaurs with rodent-like dentition... they were successfull enough at being like that to leva fossil remains. Very unlikely that this was a freak.
  • I've always wondered if the earth was "created" with these fossils in place. IOW, these things never lived, that would explaing the dinasaurs that seem to defy the laws of physics and common sense. I can just se the Supreme Being up there laughing his ass off at us trying to imagine how these ceatures lived.
    • In other news: not only did God decide to play a practical joke by burying fossils, He decided to bury them in order of complexity, i.e., the simpler the fossil, the deeper He buried it. A grinning God was quoted as saying: "If this doesn't make them believe in something silly like evolution, nothing will!".
      • Not only that-- He buried them out of order almost as often! And let environmental factors (pollution, heat changes, etc) change carbon decay so that century old books appear to be millenial! I can hear Him chuckling.

        D'oh! Now what?

        I am glad He has a sense of humor (He created us all, after all)

        • And let environmental factors (pollution, heat changes, etc) change carbon decay so that century old books appear to be millenial!

          What? Carbon-14 decays at the same rate no matter what enviromental conditions it is in. It will *always* have the same half life.

        • I am glad He has a sense of humor (He created us all, after all)

          Or is that the other way around? It's true either way, you see.


    • > I've always wondered if the earth was "created" with these fossils in place.

      Some creationists actually invoke that argument in a last-ditch attempt to preserve their beliefs in the face of the masses of contrary evidence. Unfortunately they end up binding themselves to a theology that requires a Divine Deceiver as the creator of the universe, with a result that divine revelation is no more trustworthy than the faked physical evidence, so they end up without a leg to stand on anyway.

      > IOW, these things never lived, that would explaing the dinasaurs that seem to defy the laws of physics and common sense.

      This seeming is presumably in the eye of the beholder. Think how incredibly strange a turtle, a penguin, an elephant, or any of a thousand other species would seem, if we had never seen the like before.

      > I can just se the Supreme Being up there laughing his ass off at us trying to imagine how these ceatures lived.

      Yeah, me too.

    • Im sceptical.I recall "constructed" fossils being "found" in china.this sounds as rare as hens teeth.

  • Creationism crashed my system too often, so I switched to evolution, and have been pretty happy ever since.

    Still has some annoying and outstanding bugs (Mostly "Missing Link"-type bugs), the documentation is only partially finished, and the interface is more complex then Creationism, but it still works pretty well...

    • Makes more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.

      It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. There is no multi-millon marketing for it, and there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix---Free Science, you know.

    • Makes so much more sense, and the code is so elegant! Less than 1% of the size compiled! All the internals are open to examination. And no spaghetti linking of libraries. It has a unified explanation engine, and a simple but powerful interface. It explains a lot more. And it can even define ``life''.

      It is binary incompatible with M$-Darwinism 2.0 and Creationism 6.66, though. Also, there is no multi-millon marketing for it, so you won't find it in Orwell-santioned Stores of Knowledge. And there are a couple of rough edges and minor bugs to fix. Free Science, you know.

  • Skepticism and science (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foobar104 ( 206452 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @05:54PM (#4293035) Journal
    When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus....

    Is anybody else enjoying the irony here? Although they derive from different roots, "skeptic" and "science" are startlingly close in meaning. "Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai ("to look carefully"). "Science" came from the Latin "scire" ("to know").

    Sounds to me like skepticism and science go hand in hand. They're not opposites like you seem to want to imply they are. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully next time, guacamolefoo.


    • > "Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai ("to look carefully"). "Science" came from the Latin "scire" ("to know").

      And underlying "scire" is a root meaning of "divide" or "split", with a suggestion that "scire" originally had the semantics of "careful examination", somewhat similar to our modern "dig in to".

      > Sounds to me like skepticism and science go hand in hand. They're not opposites like you seem to want to imply they are.

      Yes, skepticism is normally considered a part of the scientific worldview. A scientist's first responsibility is to be skeptical of his/her own findings.

      And that whole "peer review" thingy is just a formalization of skepticism toward one another's claims. That's why science is self-correcting, and things like Piltdown Man and the fake dino-bird brought out of China a few years ago, which creationists are so fond of harping on, are actually exposed by scientists rather than by creationists. Skepticism is very important to science.

      In fact, if you visit the sci.skeptic you'll find that it's the people who support "normal science" who are called skeptics, not the loonies, and the crowd of loonies there use "skeptic" as if it were a dirty word. What michael refered to are normally called "deniers" rather than "skeptics". There is still a taint of critical thought associated with the word "skeptic".

      • And that whole "peer review" thingy is just a formalization of skepticism toward one another's claims. That's why science is self-correcting, and things like Piltdown Man and the fake dino-bird brought out of China a few years ago, which creationists are so fond of harping on, are actually exposed by scientists rather than by creationists. Skepticism is very important to science.

        Oh my, how I'd like that to be true! Unfortunately, ``peer review'' (which is neither) only guarantees that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years or so, and by then those who actually thougth of it, the true scientists, are retired or even dead, and the looters of science `rediscover' those findings and become the new high priests of the departed genious. Then, this new generation of looters and fakers block the new ideas for another 30 years... and so it goes on and on generation of looters following generation of looters that feed on the work of real scientists. The so-called ``peer-review'' also means that skeptics in science never get published. Only those that `get along with the program' are not silenced. Don't you belive me? Good, be skeptic, don't believe, verify. So verify: check the history of science, find out about the new ideas in science that are being suppressed, and see by yourself.

        And answer this: why is the review done on things we never get to see. We have had the Inet for a couple of decades now... why is science not published first and reviewed later? To do it that way costs less than 10%, and science would be transparent to us all.

        Yes, fakes---read non-officially santioned fakes---are found out. But others, like Darwinism, are not. Go and ask for any evidence that supports Darwinism... you get called ``Creationist''. The fact that you accept the fact of evolution, the fact that you want evidence, the fact that you may find Creationism ridiculous, is not relevant to these looters that call themselves scientists. Be a skeptic, be a scientist, and get labeled as ``Creationist''.


        • > Oh my, how I'd like that to be true! Unfortunately, ``peer review'' (which is neither) only guarantees that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years or so, and by then those who actually thougth of it, the true scientists, are retired or even dead, and the looters of science `rediscover' those findings and become the new high priests of the departed genious. Then, this new generation of looters and fakers block the new ideas for another 30 years... and so it goes on and on generation of looters following generation of looters that feed on the work of real scientists.

          You seem to portray this as the norm for the field. How many examples can you cite?

          > The so-called ``peer-review'' also means that skeptics in science never get published. Only those that `get along with the program' are not silenced.

          This, along with your earlier assertion that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years, is a sure indication that you've never read much peer-reviewed literature.

          Peer review isn't about ensuring orthodoxy; it's about ensuring that you support your claims. We get revolutionary and/or contrarian views expressed in peer-reviewed literature all the time; what we don't get (when the system works) is grandiose claims based on sloppy work and/or handwaving arguments. There's a reason cold nuclear fusion was announced in the news press rather than in a peer-reviewed publication, and it ain't because CNF would have rocked the boat.

          > And answer this: why is the review done on things we never get to see.

          Actually, almost all of it is plainly visible if you care enough about it to study up in the field and go to conferences where you can talk to people about what they're doing.

          > We have had the Inet for a couple of decades now... why is science not published first and reviewed later?

          To a certain extent that is in fact happening. Many prominent researchers have non-peer-reviewed articles available at their Web or FTP sites, or at some other centralized repository. The entire "tech report" mechanism uses only lightweight review, i.e. is usually only a grad student's work reviewed by that student's advisor, which is not generally considered a detached enough reviewer or a broad enough review for this to count as peer review proper. Yet huge masses of this stuff is available over the internet. (Hint: google for "university of <state>" and "tech report", and spend the next few years reading the papers you find.)

          Unfortunately, this arrangement is not altogether satisfactory. There's just too darn much material out there to allow reading everything written even for a sub-sub-sub-field of some major discipline. Peer review is nice because it filters out most of the stuff that is just text without a point, or without any tangible contribution to the field, or that "discovers" something the experts already knew, or that doesn't follow good experimental procedures, or that makes claims that aren't actually supported, etc. Peer review is ultimately a spam filter; the internet makes peer review more important rather than less important.

          > To do it that way costs less than 10%

          Yes, several major disciplines are trying to move away from the traditional print journals, partly due to cost issues and partly because the internet will give wider access and thus make science more open.

          > and science would be transparent to us all.

          Other than weapons research and the direct applications research going on in big companies, science is remarkably transparent. For peer reviewed science all you really need is a library card.

          > Yes, fakes---read non-officially santioned fakes---are found out. But others, like Darwinism, are not. Go and ask for any evidence that supports Darwinism... you get called ``Creationist''.

          That's because with six nines' accuracy only creationists are asking for evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Scientists realize that in the big picture a theory isn't something you dream up and then try to dredge up evidence to prove. In fact it's almost the reverse of that process: faced with a big pile of evidence, you generate a theory as a model that explains it.

          If you have a better model for biology than the theory of evolution, you should write it up and submit it to Nature for publication. But sitting around and asking "where's the evidence" merely makes you look ignorant, not only of the evidence but of what science is all about.

          > Be a skeptic, be a scientist, and get labeled as ``Creationist''.

          Sorry, but your post indicates that you don't even know what science is. Spend a few years of intense study learning what observations the theory of evolution was created to explain, then come back and post your alternative model and explain why it is better - then, and only then, will I acknowledge you as a scientist. Meanwhile you differ from creationists only in the details, not in the important dimension, cluelessness.

          Sorry to sound so harsh, but you need to think things out a bit. Try going to a construction site and convincing everyone that there aren't enough anchor bolts in the steel columns, or go to an operating room and try convincing everyone that the incisions should be made elsewhere, or go to a racetrack and convince the drivers to swing wider on the curves, or any of a million other examples. You can't just sit in your armchair and proclaim "I don't believe the experts, let them prove me wrong!", and expect to be labeled a scientist for your trouble. Science isn't in the business of convincing recalcitrant deniers; science is in the business of understanding nature. For that we observe nature and construct models; the rhetoric of denial is irrelevant.

          • From your post, I see that you have a very superficial understanding of how science actually works. Some inside info could open your eyes.

            This, along with your earlier assertion that revolutionary findings are suppressed for 30 years, is a sure indication that you've never read much peer-reviewed literature.

            How can you tell? Reading your crystall ball?

            Actually, I've read a lot of it. The quality of a lot of what I read just proves that `peer review' does not stop poor science from being published. I've also learn not to expect anything revolutionary---it's just not published there.

            Peer review isn't about ensuring orthodoxy; it's about ensuring that you support your claims.

            All too true. Real peer review, that is. I've never seen such a thing in science. It could save science, though.

            Other than weapons research and the direct applications research going on in big companies, science is remarkably transparent.

            ROTFL. Yeah, right. Again, you've read too much of Science Inc. PR realeases.

            For peer reviewed science all you really need is a library card.

            To a library that happens to carry the journal you need. Chances are, it's not there. Not even in university science libraries. Too expensive. Go figure. The Inet is there for almost free to half a billion people and growing. Again, a library card to a well-stocked hemerotheque only grants you access to the officially-sanctioned science. The revolutionary science you don't find in those journals.

            with six nines' accuracy only >creationists are asking for evidence that supports >the theory of evolution

            How you show your ignorance! Darwininsm is not the theory of evolution! Just one of them. The theory of biological evolution predates Darwin by millenia. And in the last decades quite a few evolutionists have been asking for evidence that support Neoarwinism, the Neodarwinian explanation for evolution. There is no evidence to be found. You just never here about this---science's transparency! See how any skeptic is labelled as ``Creationist''? You just did it, you labeled quite a few of evolutionary biologists---including me---as Creationists, and without a quark of evidence. Thanks for proving my point.

            Now, if you do care about evidence, there are some very interesting papers that demolish Neodarwinism, and no, there is not a trace of Creationism in them, they are just better biology. You might find them an interesting read. Go find, them, if you dare. And if you can penetrate the Great Wall Of Silence.

  • if I can even spell it... How about Jabberwockysaurus? ;)
  • This thing looks a lot like a jabberwock [pantheon.org]
  • "Night of the Lepus" [imdb.com]. Giant, mutant bunny rabbits terrorize the southwest. Unfortunately, despite the silly premise, this one wasn't quite bad enough to be good.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close