Comments on: A Feathered Tyrannosauroid

By: Mlema

Mlema — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:56:35 +0000

“I can’t help feeling that every new feathered dinosaur discovery is like a dagger straight into the heart of creationist denialism of evolution. I have to wonder if it makes them squirm, even just a little. Probably not, the power of rationalization is just too great, but it’s fun to think about.”

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster….”

— Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

By: DS1000

DS1000 — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:21:25 +0000

@ Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, per your question about falsifiability. I think maybe your confusing the concept that it’s impossible to prove a negative with the idea of unfalsifiability. Like etatro said, there are several ways to test that T-Rex had feathers, regardless of whether you frame the hypothesis in the positive or the negative. If we never find evidence that it had feathers, that would be ok; we’ll simply stick to the conclusion that it probably didn’t have feathers until we find out proven otherwise.

The idea of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is that it is unfalsifiable in principle. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is that the T Rex had a special kind of feathers that by their nature leave absolutely no evidence in the ground, and there are no other methods that can ever exist to find out about them

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:01:51 +0000

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi: “Tyrannus, I think, means tyrant. Rex means king.”

You are correct.
I will take the correction back to my source (Jerry Coyne!)

etatro: “I kind of think that anyone who puts an actual percentage to that “most” is blowing smoke….I kind of think there isn’t enough space in this text field to put all the 99.99999…’s to come up with a number that would not actually round up to 100.”

Could we agree, then – without putting an actual figure on it – that it is at least 99.9%

By: etatro

etatro — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:37:50 +0000

@BillyJoe7: I think given that life has been around for 3.8 billion years and that all current species are descendent of extinct species and that we know there are many, many, countless species that went extinct that have no descendants, I kind of think that anyone who puts an actual percentage to that “most” is blowing smoke. Probably well meaning to indicate “a whole heckuva lot,” but I wouldn’t believe any figure without some evidence (which might exist but I haven’t read it). I kind of think there isn’t enough space in this text field to put all the 99.99999…’s to come up with a number that would not actually round up to 100. I might be wrong, of course. In fact, I think a paper that deduces this figure would be an interesting read.

@Rikki-Tikki-Tavi: I think that the hypothesis that T Rex had feathers is falsifiable. Finding a preserved T Rex specimen with skin in-tact with no feathers would falsify it. Genetics might work too. If we sequenced all the known to be feathered dinosaurs (particularly closely related to T Rex) and found a sequence or gene that all feathered’s had but no non-feathereds had, which T. Rex also lacked, would be strong evidence against T. Rex having feathers. Those’re a few ideas. Probably others.

By: Rikki-Tikki-Tavi

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:50:24 +0000

@Billy: Tyrannus, I think, means tyrant. Rex means king.

I have a bit of academic question about this:

Is it even a valid scientific theory/hypothesis, that T.Rex had feathers? In my mind it doesn’t seem falsifiable. Sure, we might find an imprint to prove it, so my gut tells me it is a valid hypothesis, but isn’t falsifiability equally important? Where am I wrong here?

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:08:17 +0000

“most species to have ever lived are extinct”

I have read in various places that the figure is 99% (some even claim 99.9%)
Does anyone know if this figure is correct?

——————————————————————————

BTW, the full name for this therapod dinosaur is:
Yutyrannus huali
“Yu” is Mandarin for “feathers”, “tyrannus” is Latin for “king”, “huali” is Mandarin for “beautiful”.
The beautiful feathered king

By: Jared Olsen

Jared Olsen — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:00:53 +0000

Beautiful plumage…

By: jre

jre — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:45:04 +0000

In Willy Ley’s excellent Exotic Zoology, there is a boyhood reminiscence of visiting the Berlin museum where the eponymous specimen was housed — at that time in a dark, dusty back room, mixed in with the other fossils. Even without any signs to flag its importance for him, young Willy knew this bird was magical.

I particularly like your point about how fossil discoveries continue to vindicate Darwin. Whenever multiple independent lines of evidence tend to support the same theory, and especially when the evidence becomes stronger with every new discovery, scientists are justified in calling that theory robust — no matter what they call it in Tennessee.

By: kikyo

kikyo — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:11:51 +0000

I am in love with these dinosaurs. I know in reality they were gigantic and scary, but in the picture they look so … adorable.

By: vanderleun

vanderleun — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:57:48 +0000

I’m so disappointed you didn’t use this opportunity to title it: “Love is the Tyrannosauroid with feathers.”