GSP back in his bag

Oddmonster said:
I agree 100% on space -and still people will say exactly the same thing about space science as you say about dinosaurs.

I believe the tectonic plates thing is about where dinosaurs were found, why they migrated, how, and when. But this is more advanced then what I have knowledge of.

"Paleontology is highly relevant to the modern and future world. We can learn how climate change has effected past organisms as well as how organisms have changed the physical world. We can also better understand the principles of extinction, evolutionary change, and biodiversity."


And I think it is important to point out that paleontologists don't just study dinosaurs -


"What is the point of paleontology?


Paleontology


Paleontology is the study of the history of life on Earth as based on fossils. Fossils are the remains of plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and single-celled living things that have been replaced by rock material or impressions of organisms preserved in rock."


Edit: You have some good questions though, and if I was you, I would ask them to someone who knows about the subject - like here https://www.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/
Click to expand...

I'm not sold. I think to understand better the principles of extinction and biodiversity as you mentioned we should rather focus on what zoologists are actually doing, like studying recent animal species that got extinct.

A lot of them are du to over hunting (sorry if it's not the right word in English) like the Atlantic population of gray whales or the Dodo bird on Mauritius island.

Others it's because we foolishly introduced non indigenous species that ravaged the local ecosystem and threw it off balance (guam flycatcher was a beautiful bird went extinct because we introduced a non indigenous snake if I recall right).

Others it's because of pollution or the reduction of their natural territory like the Amazon forest which we have shrinked or when we took all the resources from said animals and they have to venture into human lands to find food like some wolves who had to prey on sheeps in Europe because all the deers had been hunted or monkeys that come and steal fruits in the market because the fruit trees in their areas have been cut.

Sorry I know I'm all over the place with my ideas here, but I do like science a lot I just think it's a very practical field and even studying the past is useful for the present and future. That's why I find studying dinosaurs extensively a weird thing because we learn close to nothing from them. Yeah the stegosaurus had plates that were used for sun warming or some say it was for defense or some say it was to attract females. Ok no one knows but hey let's write papers about this thing that we speculate about.

Just my opinion I might come across as extreme but it's rather watch some documentary about the ocean's deep or far space because there's more practicality to it I find.
 
Last edited:
SG123 said:
Who’s the ‘we’ that’s paying paleontologists?

You’re a stone cold retard
Click to expand...
The NSF has definitely funded many Paleontologist studies so that would be the tax payer, Universities have funded them so that would be the tax payer through government funded loans and anyone who ever went to the over priced schools... also if you ever went to a museum... you probably helped fund some studies.
 
IloveTHIS said:
We live in a time we're every single person has unlimited access to every single bit of information on everything and anything in their pocket. There's no excuse for a grown man being this dumb
Click to expand...

What is exactly stupid ? that I find paleontology not useful for practical applications contrary to other sciences like geology or astronomy or botanist science ? Yes I do think that, prove me it's as useful since you're pretending it's dumb.
 
Koya said:
I'm not sold. I think to understand better the principles of extinction and biodiversity as you mentioned we should rather focus on what zoologists are actually doing, like studying recent animal species that got extinct.

A lot of them are du to over hunting (sorry if it's not the right word in English) like the Atlantic population of gray whales or the Dodo bird on Mauritius island.

Others it's because we foolishly introduced non indigenous species that ravaged the local ecosystem and threw it off balance.

Others it's because of pollution or the reduction of their natural territory like the Amazon forest which we have shrinked or when we took all the resources from said animals and they have to venture into human lands to find food like some wolves who had to prey on sheeps in Europe because all the deers had been hunted or monkeys that come and steal fruits in the market because the fruit trees in their areas have been cut.

Sorry I know I'm all over the place with my ideas here, but I do like science a lot I just think it's a very practical field and even studying the past is useful for the present and future. That's why I find studying dinosaurs extensively a weird thing because we learn close to nothing from them. Yeah the stegosaurus had plates that were used for sun warming or some way it was for defense or some say it was to attract females. Ok no one knows but hey let's write papers about this thing that we speculate about.

Just my opinion I might come across as extreme but it's rather watch some documentary about the ocean's deep or far space because there's more practicality to it I find.
Click to expand...
You say we learn next to nothing from studying Dinosaurs, and that is just as true as saying we learn nothing from studying space. It is simply not true.
This is just one little tidbit -
" But together this means that if you want to look at a terrestrial fossil fauna that is not dominated by mammals, or the evolution of a non-mammalian group over time, or to examine a major extinction event and restructuring of a terrestrial ecosystem, or how terrestrial animals responded to the break up of the continents etc, the obvious place to turn to is the era of the dinosaurs. More recently it's pretty much all mammals. Further back the data is more patchy."

If you believe we will be able to terraform one day, this knowledge is invaluable. If you think we could have a catastrophe on earth like a big meteor hitting us, the knowledge of how it impacts earth will again be invaluable.


And science is speculation. Speculation, testing, verifying, rince, repeat.
 
Last edited:
Oddmonster said:
You say we learn next to nothing from studying Dinosaurs, and that is just as true as saying we learn nothing from studying space. It is simply not true.
This is just one little tidbit -
" But together this means that if you want to look at a terrestrial fossil fauna that is not dominated by mammals, or the evolution of a non-mammalian group over time, or to examine a major extinction event and restructuring of a terrestrial ecosystem, or how terrestrial animals responded to the break up of the continents etc, the obvious place to turn to is the era of the dinosaurs. More recently it's pretty much all mammals. Further back the data is more patchy."

If you believe we will be able to terraform one day, this knowledge is invaluable. If you think we could have a catastrophe on earth like a big meteor hitting us, the knowledge of how it impacts earth will again be invaluable.


And science is speculation. Speculation, testing, verifying, rince, repeat.
Click to expand...

I don't believe we will be able to terraform. And I think the next catastrophe will be man made likely from climate change or a nuclear war, not from a meteor. Hence why extensive study of dinosaurs extinction doesn't seem really applicable to me.

Also I disagree about the comparison with space. We have space sciences like astronomy, astrophysics, planet studies, cosmology and others that are still evolving and which we benefit from. Thanks to space technology satellite navigation systems and satellite television (it's niche but it exists) and some long-distance communications systems used for military purposes or other. We even have weather forecasting from it.

Plus just learning about the moon cycles and its influence on sea level and tides due to its gravitational pull on earth is something you do as a kid in school and is useful your whole life. Same for learning ultra basic stuff like the Polaris star always showing north and this helping navigation.

Now to be totally biased an subjective when you get into subjects like time distortion from observing something that is light-years away and the center of black holes and stuff it's - subjectively - infinitely more interesting to me than the fact that triceratops with the biggest horns were the ones that mated with females. I know it doesn't prove anything for this one and it's personal preference.

And lastly yes you're right science is speculation but with testing and verification as you layed out. No one is verifying if the brachiosaurus was really warm blooded as paleontologists now affirm because no it doesn't exist anymore.

Guess I'm just a practical person or just I'm wrong and stubborn in my bias maybe, I can admit as much lol
 
Koya said:
I never understood why it was important to study dinosaurs or why we should pay "paleontologist" for that. So ok the spinosaurus was a bit bigger than the T-Rex. Except buying toys for my kid what is the consequence ? Yawn
Click to expand...
Peak amerifat brain
 
Koya said:
I'm not american tho and layed out the reasons why I think that. Feel free to read and come back with an educated answer on my subjective opinion
Click to expand...
Thinking something should only be studied if there's economic or consumerist benefits, perfectly exemplifies amerifat thinking. You don't have to be American to be an amerifat.
 
Koya said:
I don't believe we will be able to terraform. And I think the next catastrophe will be man made likely from climate change or a nuclear war, not from a meteor. Hence why extensive study of dinosaurs extinction doesn't seem really applicable to me.

Also I disagree about the comparison with space. We have space sciences like astronomy, astrophysics, planet studies, cosmology and others that are still evolving and which we benefit from. Thanks to space technology satellite navigation systems and satellite television (it's niche but it exists) and some long-distance communications systems used for military purposes or other. We even have weather forecasting from it.

Plus just learning about the moon cycles and its influence on sea level and tides due to its gravitational pull on earth is something you do as a kid in school and is useful your whole life. Same for learning ultra basic stuff like the Polaris star always showing north and this helping navigation.

Now to be totally biased an subjective when you get into subjects like time distortion from observing something that is light-years away and the center of black holes and stuff it's - subjectively - infinitely more interesting to me than the fact that triceratops with the biggest horns were the ones that mated with females. I know it doesn't prove anything for this one and it's personal preference.

And lastly yes you're right science is speculation but with testing and verification as you layed out. No one is verifying if the brachiosaurus was really warm blooded as paleontologists now affirm because no it doesn't exist anymore.

Guess I'm just a practical person or just I'm wrong and stubborn in my bias maybe, I can admit as much lol
Click to expand...

Admitting one can be wrong is always the first step to learning.


I would say that because one subject is more interesting, does not mean it is more usefull (I do think space science is more useful then paleontology, but that is based on a laymans knowledge of both subjects.) And you can disagree with the comparison to space, but it is the same - laymen not understanding a specific science and its applications.

But yeah, we can agree to disagree.

Edit: Ohh and climate change is absolutely one of the subjects that has been hugely informed by paleontology.
 
Koya said:
I never understood why it was important to study dinosaurs or why we should pay "paleontologist" for that. So ok the spinosaurus was a bit bigger than the T-Rex. Except buying toys for my kid what is the consequence ? Yawn
Click to expand...

Lol at how you're getting shit on in this thread. I think you've got a point though. Even the above posts that make reference to the knowledge gained in evolutionary theory and plate tectonics. Bullshit. As if we wouldn't know about that without specifically studying dinosaurs.

I think its a good question. How much time and money has been spend on dinosaurs? Its probably an absolutely enormous number. What do we really gain from such specified research?

I suppose the real answer is the cool factor. Which is significant. When we can tell our children true stories about the nearly impossible to believe beasts that once lived on the planet, we can engender a sense of wonder and curiosity early in children and therefore encourage more people to pursue an interest or career in science.

There's also a pretty strong argument for the awareness of extinction level events that should underline for people how tentatively we cling to our position on earth. The dinosaurs dominated the earth for 165 million years and then went extinct. There's a lesson in humility there for us all.

But, I tend to agree with you. Its like we know enough about dinosaurs. Let's focus on what we can do yo protect our oceans and atmosphere instead. So we don't end up like the dinosaurs.
 
If Dinosaurs were actually Alpha, they wouldn’t of gone extinct
so I guess the only alphas are Crocs and Gators
 
Stump said:
Lol at how you're getting shit on in this thread. I think you've got a point though. Even the above posts that make reference to the knowledge gained in evolutionary theory and plate tectonics. Bullshit. As if we wouldn't know about that without specifically studying dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
No particular science exist in a vacuum, they are all dependant on each other and learn from each other. Often in science, you have no idea if the thing you are researching will end up being useless or not.

Your lack of understanding of why something is studied does not make it is bullshit. It just means you do not understand it.
 
Last edited:
Oddmonster said:
No particular science exist in a vacuum, they are all dependant on each other and learn from each other. Often in science, you have no idea if the thing you are researching will end up being useless or not.

Your lack of understanding of why something is studied does not make it bullshit. It just means you do not understand it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused by all the specific funding and public institutions specific to dinosaur research. I should have known to ask you first before drawing the conclusion that the study of dinosaurs is a specifically funded enterprise, when, clearly, its all far more murky than that and you can't separate the sciences.

It's not like there are specific educational credentials pertaining to dinosaurs. And also, just last week didn't a famous physicist studying neutrinos accidentally stumble upon a previously undiscovered dinosaur species?

How utterly stupid of me. You're right, I just don't understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,846
Messages
55,521,180
Members
174,808
Latest member
luciusaugustus

Share this page

Back
Top