Skip to main content

They Hunted the Night

It seems likely now that at least some dinosaurs were able to hunt at night. Several paleontologists have developed a model based on a number of factors, including the scleral ring, a bone that reinforces the eye in a number of birds and reptiles. Taking into account evolutionary relationships, this model was tested on living animals species and was demonstrated to be accurate; given that knowledge it was then applied to extinct animals, whose habits are, rather understandably, harder to figure out.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/14/dinosaurs-around-the-clock-or-how-we-know-velociraptor-hunted-by-night/

It seems that, like modern animals, the predators largely hunted at night. This new information, exciting and fascinating new information, is a demonstration that, while we know so much more than we once did about the dinosaurs, there always remains work to be done. While many seem to think that the great age of learning about dinosaurs belonged to Marsh and Cope in the 19th Century and that we know all there is to know, we are currently in the middle of a renaissance on dinosaurs. New species are turning up with astonishing rapidity and new technologies allow us more insight into these wonderful creatures from our past. The picture we have of dinosaurs is not only different than the one that we had a hundred years ago, it is different than the one we had fifty years ago, twenty years ago. It is even slightly different than the one we had ten years ago! That is the wonder and majesty of science.

If anything, this is a beautiful picture of the great continuity of life, how species fill the same ecological roles that other, now extinct, species once did. It is truly amazing to contemplate this great tree of life and all its branches.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...