Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed(npr.org)
npr.org
Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed?ft=1&f=1007
13 comments
Religion has no use for evidence in creating or revising any idea. But I still get your point.
To be fair, at least the Catholic church seems to accept evolution and such things and priests used to be the top scientists back in medieval times.
The Catholic church is a pragmatic institution. You can be sure that if the tide of public opinion started flowing against evolution they'd drop their support in a heart-beat.
I personally have little love for the Catholic church but I do believe a previous pope offered to make the theory of evolution the dogma.
(on a side note: Do you make something the dogma? I never really used the word in that sense before)
(on a side note: Do you make something the dogma? I never really used the word in that sense before)
Let's try to be more tolerant then /r/atheism.
It's not intolerance, it's an airgap. Religion is a supernatural matter, not a tool by which one can gather objective evidence. To judge one by the standards of the other would be unfair (no matter whether a theist or atheist is trying to conflate one with the other.)
Regardless, religion wasn't part of the article, and it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. These two guys brought it up for no other reason than open mocking. That's not tolerance, that's Reddit.
Sadly, at least for Americans it's not irrelevant. In the USA paleontology, especially dinosaur paleontology, plays a huge role in the continuing political struggle over whether evolution should be taught in science classes. As a result the sources from which people learn about paleontology can often be quite partisan. A very large number of Americans learn their paleontology from sources whose approach to the subject is markedly different, which does play a part in the perpetuation of scientifically discredited ideas such as this one.
So while many of us would agree that the comparison ideally shouldn't be relevant, certain cultural realities mean that it is. Though it's definitely still tangential in this case.
So while many of us would agree that the comparison ideally shouldn't be relevant, certain cultural realities mean that it is. Though it's definitely still tangential in this case.
I tolerate religion, I just don't respect it.
[deleted]
Except that the main "mistake" had to do with naming conventions, as opposed to actual science.
We've refined our view of other dinos over the years, but we don't say that T-Rex never existed just because we know he stood differently than we first imagined.
We've refined our view of other dinos over the years, but we don't say that T-Rex never existed just because we know he stood differently than we first imagined.
It wasn't really just naming conventions. Having a second name for something that already existed - not to mention having the 'brontosaurus' being made from some bogus parts, eg. a skull of another dinosaur - is more than a simple naming error.
>Had this been a religious idea, I'm afraid the new evidence would have been buried and we'd still have the old, wrong idea.
Historically, religions have been found to be very adapting, incorporating new and existing ideas, and even elements from other religions. Christianity, for one, has incorporated many foreign elements and have changed over the years adapting to every era.
Sure, people have also been burned as a consequence of religion. Then again, people have been killed as a consequence of science too. 240.000 men, women, children and elderly died in Hiroshima and Nagashaki from the direct results of several years of work by the top physicists of the time. Or the people had followed psychiatric treatments such as lobotomy we now consider BS. Or the tens of thousands sterilised (in Western Europe) by eugenics programs that run until the '70s. Those are consequences of science too -- one cannot separate it from politics arbitrarily, else we can say the same about religion "oh, but a TRUE believer would never harm anyone", etc. Well, many very true scientists are working on biological weapons and other scary things, and a lot of true scientists amongst them hate other people or nations with a passion.
Historically, religions have been found to be very adapting, incorporating new and existing ideas, and even elements from other religions. Christianity, for one, has incorporated many foreign elements and have changed over the years adapting to every era.
Sure, people have also been burned as a consequence of religion. Then again, people have been killed as a consequence of science too. 240.000 men, women, children and elderly died in Hiroshima and Nagashaki from the direct results of several years of work by the top physicists of the time. Or the people had followed psychiatric treatments such as lobotomy we now consider BS. Or the tens of thousands sterilised (in Western Europe) by eugenics programs that run until the '70s. Those are consequences of science too -- one cannot separate it from politics arbitrarily, else we can say the same about religion "oh, but a TRUE believer would never harm anyone", etc. Well, many very true scientists are working on biological weapons and other scary things, and a lot of true scientists amongst them hate other people or nations with a passion.
"Historically, religions have been found to be very adapting"
You're talking about syncretism. As new religions are generated, they draw from previous ritual and myth. This is not the sort of adaptation to eliminate falsehoods referenced here. The bible includes elements cribbed from other religions, it is not rewritten to be factual.
You're talking about syncretism. As new religions are generated, they draw from previous ritual and myth. This is not the sort of adaptation to eliminate falsehoods referenced here. The bible includes elements cribbed from other religions, it is not rewritten to be factual.
>This is not the sort of adaptation to eliminate falsehoods referenced here. The bible includes elements cribbed from other religions, it is not rewritten to be factual.
Both things happen.
Religions also take things out of their "canon" as the society evolves, precisely to take out old mistakes.
The way the Catholic church does not endorse slavery or the "Spanish Inquisition" as it once did, for example.
Both things happen.
Religions also take things out of their "canon" as the society evolves, precisely to take out old mistakes.
The way the Catholic church does not endorse slavery or the "Spanish Inquisition" as it once did, for example.
The article appears to be somewhat mistaken, judging by http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=5fc8615c-3e1a-48a..., http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatosaurus#History (the latter two which are barely more reputable). The artificial head wasn't put on the body of the Apatosaurus (the first skeleton), which apparently was never put on display as a full skeleton at all. It was the second skeleton, which he named Brontosaurus and mounted in the Yale Peabody Museum with the wrong head.
This story is also more consistent with saying the Brontosaurus "never existed", since it was the Brontosaurus that got given the wrong head. (Though one could well argue that Brontosaurus was just another name for Apatosaurus with the whole head thing just being an error in the visual representation of the dinosaur referred to by Brontosaurus.)
This story is also more consistent with saying the Brontosaurus "never existed", since it was the Brontosaurus that got given the wrong head. (Though one could well argue that Brontosaurus was just another name for Apatosaurus with the whole head thing just being an error in the visual representation of the dinosaur referred to by Brontosaurus.)
Let's rename the thing a Plutosaurus. After the brontosauroid kicked out of the planets.
This isn't remotely new information. I knew the brontosaurus was never a real thing as a kid.
I enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould's books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_for_Brontosaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_for_Brontosaurus
"It was missing a skull, so in 1883 when Marsh published a reconstruction of his Apatosaurus, Lamanna says he used the head of another dinosaur — thought to be a Camarasaurus — to complete the skeleton."
Since the first Apatosaurus featured the skull of another dinosaur, meaning Marsh named a non-existent animal, couldn't you argue that the Brontosaurus was the right name since it was applied to a more accurate reconstruction?
Since the first Apatosaurus featured the skull of another dinosaur, meaning Marsh named a non-existent animal, couldn't you argue that the Brontosaurus was the right name since it was applied to a more accurate reconstruction?
I prefer the Peppa Pig version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfMYw33jph0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfMYw33jph0
Here's an interesting article about the production side Peppa Pig that people reading this might be interested in:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b7bcd9b6-9ab1-11df-87e6-00144...
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b7bcd9b6-9ab1-11df-87e6-00144...
Brian Blessed, awesome.
What I enjoy about dinosaurs is how simultaneously we know so much about them, and yet so very little.
Sure it existed. It just had two names.
One of the points of the article is the head/skull usually associated with the Brontosaurus was incorrect, as well as the body being a duplicate.
So with the usual headline sensationalism, it is fair to say "it never existed". More accurately, one could say something like "the dinosaur popularly known as brontosaurus, is actually a aptosaurus with a different head..." But as a headline, it lacks punch.
So with the usual headline sensationalism, it is fair to say "it never existed". More accurately, one could say something like "the dinosaur popularly known as brontosaurus, is actually a aptosaurus with a different head..." But as a headline, it lacks punch.
I was pretty dino crazy (as most kids are, I suppose), and to me, Brontosaurus denotes the animal with the short, massive head that the camarasaurus skull implies, rather than the slender head that the actual Apatosaurus had.
That chimera certainly never existed.
That chimera certainly never existed.
This isn't actually news. I think I knew about Apatosaurus (vs. Brontosaurus) in the 1970s.
Heh, I remember learning about it and thinking, oh, I wonder when they figured this out.
I was pretty ticked off when I learned it was the 70's, and yet I still was taught about the brontosaurus in school a decade later. Makes me wonder if kids today still get taught about the ninth planet Pluto.
I was pretty ticked off when I learned it was the 70's, and yet I still was taught about the brontosaurus in school a decade later. Makes me wonder if kids today still get taught about the ninth planet Pluto.
I think Pluto got a whole lot more press in pop culture. Arguably a good thing - pop culture has really improved in science coverage since the 70s.
"pop culture has really improved in science coverage since the 70s"
Increased the amount, but has the quality really improved that much? We've still got the latest free-energy, supplement/alt-med, cancer cure, and diet quacks making the rounds under the guise of "science" reporting.
Increased the amount, but has the quality really improved that much? We've still got the latest free-energy, supplement/alt-med, cancer cure, and diet quacks making the rounds under the guise of "science" reporting.
Granted.
Related: There's apparently a similar thing happening with the triceratops/toroceratops. It's likely that the former is just an young version of the latter, not a different species.
http://www.newser.com/story/97112/triceratops-never-existed....
http://www.newser.com/story/97112/triceratops-never-existed....
My entire childhood is being retconned out of existence. First brontosaurs, then Pluto, now Triceratops - what's next, Count Chocula will turn out to have been a miscategorized lemur?
Had this been a religious idea, I'm afraid the new evidence would have been buried and we'd still have the old, wrong idea.