Comments on: Creationist Imagines Pterosaurs Soaring Over America

By: CryptoInformant 2.0

CryptoInformant 2.0 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:10:16 +0000

Caleb – Pterosaurs do vary greatly in size – the smallest were no bigger than sparrows, while some, like the behemoth Quetzalcoatlus, had wingspans approaching 40 feet. Pterosaurs are classified under the Archosauria, a subset of Reptilia that includes them, crocodilians, and, of course, the Dinosauria.

By: Fhqwhgads

Fhqwhgads — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:24:40 +0000

graybear: The “hair” on pterosaurs appears to be an artifact of convergent evolution that is not homologous with the hair on mammals. If you meant to imply that they might be mammals, no, they’re not. (Among other problems, the holes in the skull don’t match — mammals are synapsids, pterosaurs are diapsids. There are other differences involving the teeth and ears.) But if you mean that if they were alive today they’d have their own grouping, unrelated to snakes, lizards, and turtles, I completely agree. In fact, someone more than a century ago suggested referring to them as “arm griffins”. I think saying that basal “reptiles” evolved not only into modern “reptiles”, but also into birds, mammals, and griffins works just fine.

By: Fhqwhgads

Fhqwhgads — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:15:21 +0000

Cryptidsrus: Exactly! One of the constraints on the legal system is that it must reach a conclusion in a reasonable length of time. Determining today who Jack the Ripper was or whether or not Lizzie Borden was guilty may satisfy our curiosity, but it can have no legal consequences — all the parties are long since dead. But if we can’t determine whether there is life under the ice of Europa for another 300 years, well, we’ll just have to keep waiting.

In principle, science tries to be very exact. This takes time. Law, on the other hand, can generally only be approximate even under the best of circumstances — think how difficult it may be to determine what the “reasonable” weight is to be given to the testimony of an interested witness, or to determine the “reasonable” sentences for a variety of crimes committed by people with a wide range of characters and personalities. AND it has to be (relatively) fast. So the methods and standards of science and law are very different. A jury of 12 can decide a man’s fate. I wouldn’t want a jury of 12 voting on whether or not the HIV virus causes AIDS.

By: graybear

graybear — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:28:02 +0000

CK: As a group the pterosaurs ranged in size from about the size of a starling (8 to 10 inch wingspan) to the size of a small airplane (49 foot wingspan). There were many different species of them which thrived and died out over the 200 million years of their existence and they filled just about every flying group imaginable. For a very very long time if it flew and wasn’t an insect, then it was a pterosaur.
Technically they are still considered to have been reptiles, but they are also known to have been furred, which seems contradictory; fur is first of all an insulator. Maybe the scientists will make up their minds about it THIS century.
Interesting side fact: the iconic pteranodon, the big one with the head crests and long beak which has become what most people think of when they think pterosaur, was toothless and probably had a lifestyle similar to that of today’s pelicans. Without the stealing food from tourists part, of course.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:23:56 +0000

Caleb- it is my understanding that they are currently still classified as reptiles.

One note about evolution- It says nothing, and cannot say anything, about the ORIGIN of life. It deals with how life changes over time.

By: norman-uk

norman-uk — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:17:43 +0000

Well science depends absolutely on eyewitness reports but only if it is comfirmed by other eyewitness reports. In that case pterosaurs existence seems to have a pretty good chance doesnt it? The eyewitness reports may be recorded in any form which can be understood. By this means I believe in Brazil, the Antarctic, the Arctic etc. etc. etc. All because of eyewitness reports. At the very least eyewitness reports have a fundamental role in any scientific endeavor and deserve great respect as a useful tool, much like science itself. Clearly like looking through stones in a diamond mine, sorting and discretion is needed.
I liked Carl Sagan (via the media) but he really was one sided in his quotations and I never saw it but he really was in need of hearing the other side of the argument.

By: norman-uk

norman-uk — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:45:30 +0000

CK - There's some interesting new information about pterosaurs, including wings of about 3 feet across, here.

By: CalebKitson

CalebKitson — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:21:53 +0000

“Wingspan estimates showed a statistical peak at 8-10 feet, but 27% of the estimates were over 18 feet: *too big to be birds”.

*I would say too big to be birds known to modern science.

I was recently at the field museum in Chicago, and was spending some time in the Young Earth exhibit (my personal favourite) and I noticed that the pterosaur skeletons on display (I think there were about 4) only had wingspans of about 6 or 7 feet. Do different species of pterosaur vary greatly in size (from wingspans of 8 feet to 18 feet), or were the pterosaurs on display a younger age group?

Also, are pterosaurs considered to fall under the class of Reptilia, or are they considered to be transitional animals? What is the common modern acceptance of its place in the animal kingdom?

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:55:45 +0000

Fhqwhgads:

I get what you are saying.
Like I said above, there’s different standards of “Truth” for Law Courts and for “Science” courts. That ultimately is what it comes down to.

I’m still not sure in an subjective level if I’m Ok or even agree with it, but like I said, I’m not trying to get into a drawn-out discussion. Just pointing to something interesting that a fellow poster said.

One thing though—
IF we were to apply the scientific testing method to contemporary
trials—particularly crinminal ones—I’m not sure you would get a whole lot of resolutions, convictions, or acquittals either way.
If eyewitnesses are the “lowest form of evidence” in a “Court of Science” then I’d think we’d agree than that would not be very “practical” in a Court of Law either, wouldn’t it???

IF we use the “standard” that eyewitnesses tend to be unrealible scientifically, of course.
That’s probably why there’s different “necessary” levels for both courts, I’d say.

By: Fhqwhgads

Fhqwhgads — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:08:53 +0000

cryptidsrus: Even in a law case, it depends on what the witnesses claim. It wouldn’t have helped Plaxico Burress much if he had claimed a pterosaur swooped over and dropped the pistol, which landed in his pants before accidentally discharging. Not to mention the fact that a jury of scientists just might have come to a different conclusion in OJ’s murder trial.

Let’s face it, though: saying that if evidence is good enough for the law it should be good enough for science is like saying that if touching the ball with your hands is good enough for baseball, it should be for soccer as well. Science and the law may both pursue the truth but be required to do so through very different avenues because of the things that make them different, such as the motive for witnesses to lie and the degree of patience that can reasonably be indulged.