BBC Focus Magazine

[Lateralman]

I say! Mr Beige Avenger, steady on!

A zealot indeed! Just because you don't think that there is any merit in my suggestion, doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the world is of the same opinion.

I may not be a scientist but that doesn't mean that i don't have the capacity to think, to reason, to remain curious, about this wonderful world of ours. Just like I would imagine everyone else on the planet.

Being a scientist doesn't give you the right to automatically condemn idea's because they don't conform to your way of thinking! For as you are no doubt aware, it is idea's that have led to the advancement of the whole of mankind!

There is no way that I would profess myself as to being some sort of genius and have never done so or ever mentioned anything of the sort! Read the whole blog. So that phrase is just a complete figment of your imagination!

This is a discussion site and I placed some thoughts on it for you and your other educated friends or whoever to discuss.

You are simply getting frustrated because you cannot disprove what I have suggested. But that doesn't mean that the suggestion is wrong! That only means that it needs to be substantiated with proof!

I have read all the comments from all of the chaps and not all of them are negative.

The latest piece of information I placed on this site was about the recent discovery that the sub continent of Pangaea became significantly hotter during the Carboniferous period, turning rain-forests into islands surrounded by arid deserts.

I don't recall mentioning anything about Dino-birds flapping their wings just to cool their legs down??

You obviously did not read this before posting your last posts because it relates to the hotter ground surface discussion we all have being having through out this blog.

If you are indeed a scientist then you of all people should know about investigating, experimenting, staying focused and discovering!

For this 'discussion' is one that may be shaped more over time with the advent of new discoveries by qualified ornithologists and paleontologists.

Chill.

[The Beige Avenger]

I'm quite chilled. This is only an internet forum and tone is not conveyed well; I am directing no hostility towards you.

A zealot is a person with a fervor or "fanatical enthusiasm" for a cause... As you are demonstrating.

I'm -slightly- frustrated not at the inability to disprove your idea but at your own complete disregard for this "discussion".

If your whole point has been that a change in climate may have contributed to the evolution of birds then you've got no argument from me... I must have missed when you decided against your hot ground idea.

[Lateralman]

Cool,

But once again we have our wires crossed?

I have not now decided against the hot ground idea! I was only highlighting the recent discovery of climate change and islands of rain forests being surrounded by arid deserts ie: Hot ground!
Dino birds 'may' have nested near the rainforests edges like modern birds do today and glided down to hot ground in search for food? If the ground was hot they would hop, flap and fly over a period of time.

Please read the other posts. I do get enthusiastic that is true but when I know that I'm wrong I will always admit it!

Please bear in mind that I have had a fair number of questions to answer and sometimes get a little frustrated too. Because I have to think about them before discussing.

Che

[Shadowwolf]

A zealot indeed! Just because you don't think that there is any merit in my suggestion, doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the world is of the same opinion.

And just because you would like to imagine merit in your idea, it does not necessarily mean that anyone is of the same opinion. In fact, given the complete lack of evidence for your idea, well you are at a poor position. You must provide evidence and not appeals to absence of evidence. Btw a zealot is someone who enthusiastically and incessantly insists on the validity of their position, exactly what you do.

I may not be a scientist but that doesn't mean that i don't have the capacity to think, to reason, to remain curious, about this wonderful world of ours. Just like I would imagine everyone else on the planet.

You have curiosity, but in this and other topics you honestly demonstrate a singular lack of reason, thinking and knowledge. Sorry, but you're not reasoning in the slightest. Your appeals to other people are of no consequence.

Being a scientist doesn't give you the right to automatically condemn idea's because they don't conform to your way of thinking!

No it does not, but it may suggest that the individual might be far better educated and informed than you are on certain subjects. Also, if your ideas are in total opposition to reality then they may be summarily dismissed / condemned, not because they don't jibe with anyones world view but because they are inherently wrong and incompatible with reality. That's where the opposition to your ideas stem from, not a challenge to our world view but because you are ignorant of reality.

For as you are no doubt aware, it is idea's that have led to the advancement of the whole of mankind!

Gibberish.

There is no way that I would profess myself as to being some sort of genius and have never done so or ever mentioned anything of the sort! Read the whole blog. So that phrase is just a complete figment of your imagination!

You rail against that which was never uttered, just whose imagination is at work?

This is a discussion site and I placed some thoughts on it for you and your other educated friends or whoever to discuss.

And your point is?

You are simply getting frustrated because you cannot disprove what I have suggested. But that doesn't mean that the suggestion is wrong! That only means that it needs to be substantiated with proof!

No. The frustration stems from your current unfailing capacity to misunderstand simple English and carry on your idea as though nothing was ever put to it. Your notions have been conclusively shown to be wrong, but given your devotion to your own ideas, you choose to conveniently ignore problematic issues repeatedly. You have also completely failed to appreciate that it is not incumbent upon us to disprove your idea, it is you, the one who claimed it who must prove your idea. You need to substantiate it and thus far you have provide nothing but stunning misunderstanding, it is wrong until you demonstrate otherwise.

The latest piece of information I placed on this site was about the recent discovery that the sub continent of Pangaea became significantly hotter during the Carboniferous period, turning rain-forests into islands surrounded by arid deserts.

And?

Completely meaningless. You show that you have no understanding of what this actually means, instead preferring to fantasise a slow climate change as an instant ground temperature change so as to dovetail with your conflation - look up that word btw - of the reaction to hot surfaces with hopping actions.

You obviously did not read this before posting your last posts because it relates to the hotter ground surface discussion we all have being having through out this blog.

Gibberish.

If you are indeed a scientist then you of all people should know about investigating, experimenting, staying focused and discovering!

Given that you know nothing of any of this, you are in no position to bemoan anyone else.

For this 'discussion' is one that may be shaped more over time with the advent of new discoveries by qualified ornithologists and paleontologists.

Gibberish.

[Shadowwolf]

I have not now decided against the hot ground idea!

No, to turn against your initial premise seems impossible so far. Any point that any problem appears you supply the most absurd excuses to maintain the initial premise as though it is self evidently true and may only be proven, never, ever disproved. You cling to possibility but never the possibility that you are wrong.

Please read the other posts. I do get enthusiastic that is true but when I know that I'm wrong I will always admit it!

Yes, but demonstrating that you are wrong appears to be impossible, your enthusiasm for a premise appears to be paramount with contrary evidence - regardless of how compelling - seen as a challenge to be overcome as opposed to a strike against. There never are any strikes against just obstacles to be explained away by you, by any means necessary which include your declarations of not being swayed on a topic.

[Nails]

I fiund this clip on youtube, maybe this might help.

It is discussing the evidence of microraptor, a four-winged dinosaur, and whether it could fly (or not).

Note it lived in forest areas, and may not actually have been an accumplished runner (its wings may have inhibited its running ability) but lacked the strength for a standing vertical take off - although it did have true flight feathers.
It was certainly an accumplished glider if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0UIzU0EEc

[Lateralman]

Mr Nails,

I checked out the four winged Dino-bird. The Micro-raptor.

I thought at first that it was a mutation created in the early days of flight. From what I read they reckon it sort of parachuted down on it's prey?

There are some chickens that sport many feathers on their legs but they are not flight feathers.

By comparison it is interesting that we have insects that hover with four wings such as the dragonfly. And with avians we have humming birds and kestrels that hover!

Hey! Perhaps this Dino-bird, the Micro-raptor could hover like a dragonfly!! It's a new classification, "Micro-raptor the Hovering Dino-bird!"

Now what makes me think that I will regret saying that?

[Lateralman]

I have just been looking at some images of Humming birds and I think that Micro-raptor could have been related? Hovering would have made it easier to move around dense tropical jungle. And easier for the Dino-bird to nest in trees.

[Shadowwolf]

Face, meet palm.

You see an artists impression of micro-raptor, reckon that this - rather bizarrely if you ask me - looks akin to a humming bird and et voila you magically stick the two together!? With all due respect and seriousness, that's just a whole lotta wrong lad.

Here are a few links to the errors in reason / logic you are currently making here, take some time and carefully read em up. After doing so you might appreciate why you cannot say what you just did and be correct.
Affirming the consequent - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent.
Conflation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation#Communication_and_reasoning.
And in general, square logic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_logic.

[Viking]

An even beter example of this logic


BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEMIR: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether
she is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
BEDEMIR: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!

[Lateralman]

Hello Mr Shadowwolf,

I read up on affirming the consequent, square logic etc. I completely understand what you are getting at.

The thing is, you have to have an idea. A spark of inspiration. To make people think, reason, question. In order to change or influence anything.

Inference to the best explanation. Yes, with an idea! Until you illicit conversion or dismissal, through proof or logic!

But you still have to have an idea, a flash to start anything.

For most of what we have been talking about on a number of these blogs are "Holes, gaps in science?" That scientists haven't been able to plug. They don't have the answers!" They are still looking for solutions? They can't think of everything!

We as non scientists may, ( from the outside looking in) be able to lend assistance!
Or not? But not even scientists can put their idea's out, without them being subjected to question. As you have already hammered home to me.

Which is good?

Piltdown man is not the missing link! The earth is not flat! The moon is not made of cheese!

My own enjoyment is derived from looking at the facts, the problem and trying to think of a logical solution. I may not be always right, I may be controversial, I may be ridiculed, but to be quite frank with you, I really don't care. One has to try to achieve anything.

Mr Nails bounced me in one direction with the four winged Micro-raptor and from reading about it, I bounced him an idea back.

Now if Mr Nails wants to fall over laughing or alternatively rush to the Amazon with his books to check out the diversity of the humming bird, it's range, it's size, it's feeding habit's, the unanswered problems that still exist in the gaps in it's ancient linage, it's splayed tail feathers, it's habitat, examine it's skeleton and make x-ray comparisons to the Micro raptor, sequence it's DNA and then build a model to test it in a wind tunnel before announcing his findings.

Drum roll..."The Micro-raptor Gui hovered like a Humming bird!"

I say good luck to him!

For me it's the thought that counts.

I did read a fair bit of information first about Micro-raptor and the Humming bird before I 'glued' the two together and replied to Mr Nails.

Of course it is just a guess but I don't think its a bad one if you read the information they have currently available. Did the micro raptor fly by hovering?? Some Dino-bird had to kick start that way of flying?

It would take any qualified ornithologist paleontologist five minutes to dismiss it on the grounds of shoulder blade structure or whatever.

Then again, who knows perhaps 'Hovering' like hopping over hot ground, was something that scientists never took into consideration!

There are times when you just have to let nature take it's course.

Square logic or out-of-the-box thinking. Which one is better?

Lateralman

PS: I see Mr Viking has at last responded with something that I don't understand? It must be written in Norse Code?

[Lateralman]

Hello chaps,

To add to this. The illustrations that I have seen of the Micro-raptor flying look ridiculous!

Once again, to take a look at how the flight feathers on it's legs may have been used in flight.

I would be inclined to think that they looked and where used more like the back of the fighter jets we have around today eg; The Russian F-117, The Mi635, The Tornado ADV or the aptly named 'Lockheed martin F-22 Raptor!'

With the bird flying with it's legs tucked 'in' like any average bird and it's leg flight feathers pointing upwards V shaped like the back of a jet fighter. It's long tail feathers hanging in the middle behind, adding to stability and display purposes.

Check it out for yourselves!

[Shadowwolf]

I read up on affirming the consequent, square logic etc. I completely understand what you are getting at.

Ahhh now you see the issue, this will be of great help in any further discussion except...

The thing is, you have to have an idea. A spark of inspiration.

Oh right, you understand what I'm getting at but it just does not apply to you because you have these great excuses which magically make your illogical reasoning disappear. Sigh, I doubt you even read them, that would present too much of a challenge to your world view.

For most of what we have been talking about on a number of these blogs are "Holes, gaps in science?" That scientists haven't been able to plug. They don't have the answers!" They are still looking for solutions? They can't think of everything!

Of course there are gaps, we don't know everything yet. However there is a particular method for filling these gaps, one you are not utilising, it's science. Your method of random invention explains nothing, plugs no gaps and you won't see that. Besides, most of what you come up with is alternate versions for what we already know.

My own enjoyment is derived from looking at the facts, the problem and trying to think of a logical solution.

But logic, you're doing it wrong. Thinking it does not make it real and when you are light on the facts or what they actually mean, when you impose erroneous self serving interpretations on texts and terms, then all you get is stunning error. If you like making up fantasy worlds then good for you, but if you are going to bring them here then have the decency to follow the discussion and amend those ideas in the face of reality, allow yourself to be swayed. Watching you essentially stick your fingers in your ears and go, "nah, nah, nah I can't hear you" in your efforts to place your ideas beyond question is getting old.

I may not be always right, I may be controversial, I may be ridiculed,

Tossing out random fantasy without any heed of reality is bound to lead to making incorrect claims. Making wild, unsubstantiated claims does not make you controversial, you are not positing a daring new paradigm, your doing what any creationist does and they are not controversial either, they are simply wrong. As for ridicule, well exasperation and such is the likely reward for those who upon being shown their errors repeatedly, blithely dismiss reality to protect whatever hobby horse it is they are whipping and you let almost nothing go.

One has to try to achieve anything.

One has to be mindful of reality, it matters not how much you want to fly, if you jump off a building then you will fall; of course it would be better to try and take off from the ground instead, less risk that way.

Square logic or out-of-the-box thinking. Which one is better?

It is not a question of which is better, the former is what you do and the latter is what you imagine you are doing, as does every other imaginary visionary. Free energy folks, bio-photonic water peeps or timecube guy all think that they are "thinking outside of the box."

There are times when you just have to let nature take it's course.

Thought terminating cliche, scroll down the page a bit to get to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

I see Mr Viking has at last responded with something that I don't understand? It must be written in Norse Code?

Oh I found it rather easy to follow but you would need a familiarity with Monty Pythons Holy Grail. The scene illustrates your form of logic rather well, you can watch it at yon link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

[Nails]

The illustrations that I have seen of the Micro-raptor flying look ridiculous!

Once again, to take a look at how the flight feathers on it's legs may have been used in flight.

Yes, that is the whole point.
It lacked the powerful pectoral muscles of true flying birds, so the logical conclusion is that it was a glider.
That is why they built a model of it in a wind tunnel and its wings were fixed.
No matter how hard it flapped, it would struggle to fly.
Its foot feathers were the only thing to give it stability when gliding, like the flaps on an aircraft wing.

The thing is, you have to have an idea. A spark of inspiration. To make people think, reason, question. In order to change or influence anything.

Inference to the best explanation. Yes, with an idea! Until you illicit conversion or dismissal, through proof or logic!

But you still have to have an idea, a flash to start anything.

For most of what we have been talking about on a number of these blogs are "Holes, gaps in science?" That scientists haven't been able to plug. They don't have the answers!" They are still looking for solutions? They can't think of everything!

We as non scientists may, ( from the outside looking in) be able to lend assistance!
Or not? But not even scientists can put their idea's out, without them being subjected to question. As you have already hammered home to me.

Which is good?

Scientific knowledge is based on evidence, not inspired guesswork.
Evidence trumps logic every time.

Piltdown man is not the missing link! The earth is not flat! The moon is not made of cheese!

All these ideas have one thing in common - they were dismissed by evidence.

My own enjoyment is derived from looking at the facts, the problem and trying to think of a logical solution. I may not be always right, I may be controversial, I may be ridiculed, but to be quite frank with you, I really don't care. One has to try to achieve anything.

Mr Nails bounced me in one direction with the four winged Micro-raptor and from reading about it, I bounced him an idea back.

And you have bounced off at a tangent.

Now if Mr Nails wants to fall over laughing or alternatively rush to the Amazon with his books to check out the diversity of the humming bird, it's range, it's size, it's feeding habit's, the unanswered problems that still exist in the gaps in it's ancient linage, it's splayed tail feathers, it's habitat, examine it's skeleton and make x-ray comparisons to the Micro raptor, sequence it's DNA and then build a model to test it in a wind tunnel before announcing his findings.

I did read a fair bit of information first about Micro-raptor and the Humming bird before I 'glued' the two together and replied to Mr Nails.

Of course it is just a guess but I don't think its a bad one if you read the information they have currently available. Did the micro raptor fly by hovering?? Some Dino-bird had to kick start that way of flying?

As a raptor could not acheive powered flight, it is nothing like a hummingbird. I would have hoped you would have extracted this information from the video.

It would take any qualified ornithologist paleontologist five minutes to dismiss it on the grounds of shoulder blade structure or whatever.

Or someone who watched the video....

Then again, who knows perhaps 'Hovering' like hopping over hot ground, was something that scientists never took into consideration!

There are times when you just have to let nature take it's course.

Square logic or out-of-the-box thinking. Which one is better?

Logic is fine, but it can take you quickly in the wrong direction.
Evidence is better.

You need to look carefully at what the evidence is telling us, it should always be your starting point.

[BrIDo]

Will someone just lock this thread and be done with it!

Infact...

I think that dinosaurs are put in place by the Almighty himself to test our faith. Discuss.

[Shadowwolf]

Let's see who believes in me now!

Nice comment Mr Brido, made me laugh out loud

[Lateralman]

Nice comment Mr Brido? Who is he? Lock this thread and be done with it? Who is this silent spectator? This is the first I have heared of him!

This thread will be locked when you all have Dino-bird egg on on your faces! Research is taking place in my back garden right now!

Mr Shadowwolfs hooded laughter, soon to be silenced.

[M Paul Lloyd]

All in good time Brido, all in good time.

Meanwhile I'm starting to enjoy watching Lateralman squirm.

[Lateralman]

There is no squirming going on here. I intend to get the turkey to confess by turning up the heat!
My published results will appear on this thread in the new year!

[Shadowwolf]

This is the first I have heared of him!

Well, it might surprise you to learn that other users do actually exist outside of those that have already posted in your topics.

Mr Shadowwolfs hooded laughter, soon to be silenced.

That also causes me much mirth

My published results will appear on this thread in the new year!

You mean you're going to post again in the New Year, why so long?