NationStates Jolt Archive

my kid asked me a question I don't know the answer to, and I have been unable to find it.

this morning we were watching a show on the Discovery channel about pre-historic fish/amphibian/reptile evolution, and they showed this weird animal thing like a walk through his life or whatever....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?

I could explain how they might know what he ate (shape of teeth, maybe they found evidence of a last meal, etc.) or how fast he grew (looking at bone growth etc.) but I honestly don't know how they might begin to know how an animal from 3 Billion years ago or whatever attracted the female of the species.

I really am curious now, and she won't leave me alone about it either.....

help?

*oh, and the title is because I don't want the "evolution is stupid" people mucking up my thread, this is a serious inquiry.

Cavemen wrote about it on their cave walls! *nods*

Seriously though, I think they're guessing about a few things, or they look at the descendants of that animal today and seeing how they attract the opposite mate, and they probably conclude that the ancestors must've done the same thing.

It wasn't 3 billion years ago.

A lot of what they say on the Discovery Channel is mere speculation and extrapolation with little actual scientific backing. They had an entire special on what life might be like on another planet, with detailed analysis of the potential alien life forms there. Other than Mythbusters, itself of questionable scientific value, Discovery Channel isn't that faithful to science.

Oh, I think I saw that show, too. It was pretty neat! Love the CGI recreations. :) As for how the fossil record and all that works, I'm not sure - we probably just look at the animal and assume its behavior based on how modern analogs act.

Eating habits can be determined based upon jaw/tooth structure and configuration, growth based upon the organism's reproductive method and its skeletal structure (and possibly any young found), and mating habits based upon the knowledge about similar organisms.

It's a hypothesis based on known data.

they look at animals today and make an educated guess kind of like how dinosaurs could of been bright pink for all we know :D

Oh, I think I saw that show, too. It was pretty neat! Love the CGI recreations. :) As for how the fossil record and all that works, I'm not sure - we probably just look at the animal and assume its behavior based on how modern analogs act.

You stole my answer! *hits you with a big fish* Mine! :p

You stole my answer! *hits you with a big fish* Mine! :p

All I know is, as soon as the time machine's invented, I'm gonna be taking a trip back about 500 million years to dine on some 6-foot long lobster. :p Or at least paying someone else to go do it. It'll be scientific, *and* delicious! :)

my kid asked me a question I don't know the answer to, and I have been unable to find it.

this morning we were watching a show on the Discovery channel about pre-historic fish/amphibian/reptile evolution, and they showed this weird animal thing like a walk through his life or whatever....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?

I could explain how they might know what he ate (shape of teeth, maybe they found evidence of a last meal, etc.) or how fast he grew (looking at bone growth etc.) but I honestly don't know how they might begin to know how an animal from 3 Billion years ago or whatever attracted the female of the species.

I really am curious now, and she won't leave me alone about it either.....

help?

*oh, and the title is because I don't want the "evolution is stupid" people mucking up my thread, this is a serious inquiry.

They don't.

It works very similar to artist renditions of such extinct animals, though.

Basically, they looked at current similar animals, their mating rituals, and with a little imagination, they came up with something they thought *might* be the mating rituals.

Basically, they took an educated guess.

they look at animals today and make an educated guess kind of like how dinosaurs could of been bright pink for all we know :D

Eh, that's unlikely. Terrible camoflauge. I would honestly be amazed if there were a bunch of pink dinosaurs.

They probably wore leather chaps, though. And rank Espresso. And danced in nightclubs.

And had mustaches.

Alright, I'm done.

They probably wore leather chaps, though. And rank Espresso. And danced in nightclubs.

And had mustaches.

Alright, I'm done.

Dinosaurs are gay men from the 70s? :eek:

my kid asked me a question I don't know the answer to, and I have been unable to find it.

this morning we were watching a show on the Discovery channel about pre-historic fish/amphibian/reptile evolution, and they showed this weird animal thing like a walk through his life or whatever....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?

I could explain how they might know what he ate (shape of teeth, maybe they found evidence of a last meal, etc.) or how fast he grew (looking at bone growth etc.) but I honestly don't know how they might begin to know how an animal from 3 Billion years ago or whatever attracted the female of the species.

I really am curious now, and she won't leave me alone about it either.....

help?

*oh, and the title is because I don't want the "evolution is stupid" people mucking up my thread, this is a serious inquiry.

Simple, they can't know for sure but they just work off of its relative species of today and factors they know of the time period back then and guesstimate to a fairly close guess.

It wasn't 3 billion years ago.

A lot of what they say on the Discovery Channel is mere speculation and extrapolation with little actual scientific backing. They had an entire special on what life might be like on another planet, with detailed analysis of the potential alien life forms there. Other than Mythbusters, itself of questionable scientific value, Discovery Channel isn't that faithful to science.
What exactly makes Mythbusters of questionable scientific value? (Apart from the fact that they are forced to concentrate on the entertainment aspect of the series in what they fully show on screen versus the extensive testing of everything that goes on behind the scenes, as mentioned in the outtakes episode.) I am honestly curious, as though I don't take it for gospel I would like to know I've not actually been lied to by charletens who I thought knew what they were talking about this whole time.

What exactly makes Mythbusters of questionable scientific value? (Apart from the fact that they are forced to concentrate on the entertainment aspect of the series in what they fully show on screen versus the extensive testing of everything that goes on behind the scenes, as mentioned in the outtakes episode.) I am honestly curious, as though I don't take it for gospel I would like to know I've not actually been lied to by charletens who I thought knew what they were talking about this whole time.

Good question. I'm also kinda interested - Mythbusters has made mistakes and botched experiments, but it seems to me like they try to be accurate in what they do.

Good question. I'm also kinda interested - Mythbusters has made mistakes and botched experiments, but it seems to me like they try to be accurate in what they do.

Unlike some scientists if the fans tell them they stuffed it, they'll go redo the experiments again too.

What exactly makes Mythbusters of questionable scientific value? (Apart from the fact that they are forced to concentrate on the entertainment aspect of the series in what they fully show on screen versus the extensive testing of everything that goes on behind the scenes, as mentioned in the outtakes episode.) I am honestly curious, as though I don't take it for gospel I would like to know I've not actually been lied to by charletens who I thought knew what they were talking about this whole time.

They simply aren't very rigorous at times and tend to claim something's busted with out testing enough possibilities For example, the biologist they had on the "Toothbrush Surprise" episode pointed out that it was likely they contaminated the toothbrushes.

Good question. I'm also kinda interested - Mythbusters has made mistakes and botched experiments, but it seems to me like they try to be accurate in what they do.

Well they are trying to prove negatives...

Unlike some scientists if the fans tell them they stuffed it, they'll go redo the experiments again too.

Yeah, I remember the one where they shot the chicken through the airplane glass to test whether it could break the cockpit window on a 747 or something, but they goofed it terribly and used small airplane glass that was only rated for low-altitude. I can't recall if they re-did it, but at least they admitted the error. :p

my kid asked me a question I don't know the answer to, and I have been unable to find it.

this morning we were watching a show on the Discovery channel about pre-historic fish/amphibian/reptile evolution, and they showed this weird animal thing like a walk through his life or whatever....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?

There's a degree of speculation. Science documentaries and actual biology or paleontology are not the same thing, so ... they might be guessing. It might be a scientific guess, or it might be sheer fabrication.

There could be more information (links etc) mentioned in the credits of the show. If it was a BBC / Attenborough docu, check the BBC website.

I could explain how they might know what he ate (shape of teeth, maybe they found evidence of a last meal, etc.) or how fast he grew (looking at bone growth etc.)
Yeah, good.

but I honestly don't know how they might begin to know how an animal from 3 Billion years ago or whatever attracted the female of the species.

I really am curious now, and she won't leave me alone about it either.....



She asks good questions, and they deserve good answers.

You've told her you don't know, right? That you'll try to find out?
Tell her what you're doing to try to find out.

The Discovery channel isn't necessarily right. And nor are smart evolution-people on NSG.

:)

EDIT: I could perhaps give a more informative answer if I knew the name of the programme?

Well they are trying to prove negatives...

Sometimes. But even if they should be using the term "highly unlikely" or something, rather than the "busted" gimmick, the results seem well done in most cases, I think.

Sometimes. But even if they should be using the term "highly unlikely" or something, rather than the "busted" gimmick, the results seem well done in most cases, I think.

Go on! The show is a bunch of fun, and any viewer should be able to tell from the presenter's attitude that we aren't getting ANSI-quality advice on the urban myths.

I'd say they're 80% right. Sometimes they're doing totally the wrong experiment ... "to blow stuff up!"

Oh, and I'm going to keep microwaving my poodle. He likes it.

They didn't test that one very well, did they? :D

Well, it's been answered a few times...

...so naturally I'm going to answer it too! With the same basic answer!

Um, yeah. They look at what they can find (for that long ago, probably just bone structure), look at what they believe are the current descendants, look at similar structures esp. on current descendants, and say "this is probably what it did."
So they don't know either. But their guesses are the best we'll get.

I'm not completely comfortable with "Walking with Dinosaurs" and that sort.

(OK, no Discovery channel, I just watch the BBC docus that go free-to-air on Australian Broadcasting Commission TV)

Yeah, they base it on real science. But then they give it to the animation nerds who make it into alarmingly realistic graphics. And get Attenborough to voice it over. The voice-over is often more factual than the actual pictures.

But seeing is believing ... and we go away believing something which is only an hypothesis.

Cavemen wrote about it on their cave walls! *nods*


Caveman porn. *slobbers*

BTW - the new Caveman sitcom is gonna be modeled after Three's Company, i hear.
I'm wondering who Mr. Roper's character type will be, and how.

make an educated guess kind of like how dinosaurs could of been bright pink for all we know :DBright pink FEATHERS!



oh, zoiks. John Waters movie, Pink Archeoptyerx!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069089/
...erm...

http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/paleontology/717/Fossil-ruffles-feather-evolution-theory
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/15/unfeathered.dinosaur.ap/index.html

Fossil ruffles feather evolution theory

NEW YORK (AP) -- A 150 million-year-old fossil from southern Germany has
paleontologists ruffled over how feathers arose in the line of dinosaurs
that eventually produced birds.

The fossil is a juvenile carnivorous dinosaur about 2 1/2 feet long that
paleontologists have named Juravenator for the Jura mountains in southern
Germany where it was found.

It would have looked similar in life to the fleet-footed predators that
menaced a young girl on the beach during the opening scene of "The Lost
World," the second "Jurassic Park" movie.

The fossil's exceptionally well-preserved bone structure clearly puts it
among feathered kin on the dinosaur family tree. Because all of its close
relatives are feathered, paleontologists would expect Juravenator to follow
suit.

But a small patch of skin on Juravenator's tail shows no sign of feathers.
And the skin also doesn't have the follicles that are typical of feathered
dinosaurs, said Luis Chiappe, director of the Dinosaur Institute at the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

He and Ursula B. Gohlich of the University of Munich describe the fossil in
Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

"It has a typical scaly dinosaurian skin," Chiappe said.

The paleontologists believe Juravenator's closest known relative may have
been a fully feathered dinosaur from China, Sinosauropterix.

There are a number of possible explanations for Juravenator's nakedness.
Feathers could have been lost on the evolutionary line leading to
Juravenator after arising in an ancestor to both it and its feathered
relatives.

Or feathers could have evolved more than once in dinosaurs, cropping up in
sister species at different times and places. It is also possible that this
particular fossil of Juravenator, which appears to be a juvenile, only grew
feathers as an adult or lost its feathers for part of the year.

But there is another possibility as well, said Mark Norell, curator of
paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History: It is entirely
possible that Juravenator did have feathers, but they simply failed to
fossilize.

"Feathers are really just difficult things to preserve," Norell said.

To support his hypothesis he pointed out that several fossils of the oldest
known bird, archaeopteryx, lack feathers.

Whether or not the new specimen raises interesting questions about how
feathers -- and thus birds -- evolved, most experts do not see it as a
challenge to the widely accepted view that modern birds are descended from
dinosaurs.

They simply aren't very rigorous at times and tend to claim something's busted with out testing enough possibilities For example, the biologist they had on the "Toothbrush Surprise" episode pointed out that it was likely they contaminated the toothbrushes.

Actually they missed a few important points with the movie myths episode, but i'll just have to gloss over them for sake of Kari Byron. *drools again, for good reason*
http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/05/mythbuster-kari.jpg
And more on point:
http://img3091.imagevenue.com/images/loc289/32334_051306_KariByron_04_B.jpg
....and of course, my personal fav:
http://img.consumating.com/photos/15168/large/71823.jpg
...unfortunately cropped.

my kid asked me a question I don't know the answer to, and I have been unable to find it.

this morning we were watching a show on the Discovery channel about pre-historic fish/amphibian/reptile evolution, and they showed this weird animal thing like a walk through his life or whatever....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?

I could explain how they might know what he ate (shape of teeth, maybe they found evidence of a last meal, etc.) or how fast he grew (looking at bone growth etc.) but I honestly don't know how they might begin to know how an animal from 3 Billion years ago or whatever attracted the female of the species.

I really am curious now, and she won't leave me alone about it either.....

help?

*oh, and the title is because I don't want the "evolution is stupid" people mucking up my thread, this is a serious inquiry.

Okay, maybe you should explain to her first about the concept of "theory" and "speculation".

Then you should start about how current behavior mimics the past ancestry.

Those scientists are pretty damn old.

Okay, maybe you should explain to her first about the concept of "theory" and "speculation".

Then you should start about how current behavior mimics the past ancestry.

No. Totally wrong. While that may seem similar to what I suggested, it introduces four (4!) concepts which are difficult ... to explain how TV can be wrong.

Seeing is believing ... until you find yourself believing two things which contradict each other. Then the rational, word-based belief should trump the "but I saw it on TV" belief.

The kid is on the right track. Encourage her doubt of seeing. Channelling that into productive doubt (theory) is risky, and frankly even a lot of adults never do it right.

No. Totally wrong. While that may seem similar to what I suggested, it introduces four (4!) concepts which are difficult ... to explain how TV can be wrong.

Seeing is believing ... until you find yourself believing two things which contradict each other. Then the rational, word-based belief should trump the "but I saw it on TV" belief.

The kid is on the right track. Encourage her doubt of seeing. Channelling that into productive doubt (theory) is risky, and frankly even a lot of adults never do it right.

Well then, I guess Smunkee's got a real perceptive child there, good for her, and yes, I agree on encouraging doubt (never take information off of strangers, kids), but disagree on stunting the expansion of the child's perspective of the world. Okay, maybe I agree a little, too much information can be damaging as well.

It's up to Smunkee then.

Well then, I guess Smunkee's got a real perceptive child there, good for her, and yes, I agree on encouraging doubt (never take information off of strangers, kids), but disagree on stunting the expansion of the child's perspective of the world. Okay, maybe I agree a little, too much information can be damaging as well.

It's up to Smunkee then.

Holy crap! I half-persuaded someone!

You had the right idea, I just think you were pitching it at adults.

:)

Dinosaurs are gay men from the 70s? :eek:

Just Travolta.

I do like the Mythbusters
But Unlike Most Posters
I care what to say to kids
More than being right.

I disagree with the lumping of "everything on Discovery channel" into the class of "unscientific bumpf". From what I've seen, there are very decent documentaries on there.

And what the hell is wrong with watching the unspoiled natural world doing it's thing? Do you have to be there in person, with a PhD expert at your elbow, to believe that nature really is that beautiful and diverse?

Yeah, there's stupid propagandistic rubbish. Would Nicklodeon be more educational then?

Go Smunkee. Let us know what you come up with. Ya google "Paleontology"?

(I love to use the word "bumpf." In my short journalistic career, I am proud to say I got that word into glossy print.)

my kid asked me a question I don't know the answer to, and I have been unable to find it.

this morning we were watching a show on the Discovery channel about pre-historic fish/amphibian/reptile evolution, and they showed this weird animal thing like a walk through his life or whatever....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?

I could explain how they might know what he ate (shape of teeth, maybe they found evidence of a last meal, etc.) or how fast he grew (looking at bone growth etc.) but I honestly don't know how they might begin to know how an animal from 3 Billion years ago or whatever attracted the female of the species.

I really am curious now, and she won't leave me alone about it either.....

help?

*oh, and the title is because I don't want the "evolution is stupid" people mucking up my thread, this is a serious inquiry.


Umm I dunno,but if I were to guess! Then that guess would something along the lines of this:

Much like when archeologist find something that they cannot readliy deifine, it gets lumped into the sphere of 'ritual', then an animal biologist will see a ruff, or a brightly colour flap, or a protruding bone that is not defensive, and say 'ohh yeah mating ritual'

Ummm all of the unknown is ritual? Seems that says a lot for the human psyche.

Umm I dunno,but if I were to guess!

Nice way of saying: "Link?"

Much like when archeologist find something that they cannot readliy define, it gets lumped into the sphere of 'ritual', then an animal biologist will see a ruff, or a brightly colour flap, or a protruding bone that is not defensive, and say 'ohh yeah mating ritual'

Ummm all of the unknown is ritual? Seems that says a lot for the human psyche.

But ... um ... maybe ... perhaps.

I think it says something about the unknown. The unknown is a bunch of fun.

Perhaps the Pyramids and the Great Wall and the American flag on the moon are all just detritus left by the social displays of humans.

The human brain no more functional for survival than an elk's antlers or a rooster's comb?

That's a thread, right there. It will make the humans angry ;)

my kid asked me a question I don't know the answer to, and I have been unable to find it.

this morning we were watching a show on the Discovery channel about pre-historic fish/amphibian/reptile evolution, and they showed this weird animal thing like a walk through his life or whatever....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?

I could explain how they might know what he ate (shape of teeth, maybe they found evidence of a last meal, etc.) or how fast he grew (looking at bone growth etc.) but I honestly don't know how they might begin to know how an animal from 3 Billion years ago or whatever attracted the female of the species.

I really am curious now, and she won't leave me alone about it either.....

help?

*oh, and the title is because I don't want the "evolution is stupid" people mucking up my thread, this is a serious inquiry.

The only thing I can possibly think is that they guessed at it, extrapolating from the modern day bird/reptile mating displays of creatures they believe descended from this specimen.

Scientists can observe fossils dancing at the OAPs Christmas Party and extrapolate from that.

*nods*

I guess they did find enough information on the tooth forms... maybe even stomach contents to justify their guesses about nutrition. Now, there are only a few ways how a being which looks like this or that can get this or that food. By these thoughts, things can be reconstructed. The dance however is probably invented. I do not think an animal died while dancing and was found as fossil.

The only thing I can possibly think is that they guessed at it, extrapolating from the modern day bird/reptile mating displays of creatures they believe descended from this specimen.

okay, I tried that explanation, and she was like "so they are just making crap up for entertainment now?"

:rolleyes:

I guess they did find enough information on the tooth forms... maybe even stomach contents to justify their guesses about nutrition. Now, there are only a few ways how a being which looks like this or that can get this or that food. By these thoughts, things can be reconstructed. The dance however is probably invented. I do not think an animal died while dancing and was found as fossil.

....oohhh ohh unless of course the fossil was unearthed alongside the fossilised remains of a glitterball, stileto shoes, and a handbag?

okay, I tried that explanation, and she was like "so they are just making crap up for entertainment now?"

:rolleyes:

Partly. And partly, it's based on how we can study, say, wolf behavior and dog behavior. We know that dogs are descended from wolves, right? So we can look at wolf behavior and dog behavior and notice that the way their families interact with each other, and the way they communicate with each other are nearly the same.

We can surmise then that the immediate ancestor to wolves probably reacted in similar ways, and work our way back.

okay, I tried that explanation, and she was like "so they are just making crap up for entertainment now?"

:rolleyes:

tell her "shhh... actually, the women thought it up to make the men look stupid." :D


seriously tho. you might want to explain the process of how they extrapolated the mating dance thing by showing her how other creatures attract a mate.

the similarities between each speices of birds, reptiles, insects, etc...
and you can show her how species that are similar would have similar movements while those that are not similar would have more differences in their... dance.

The BBC series "Walking with Dinosaurs" is riddled with references to behaviour. It claims to be scientifically accurate. Some scenes seemed a bit far-fetched to me, too, though. Any explanations out there?

(btw: praise yourself lucky to have such a critically minded daughter)

they might have derived it from studies of similar modern species or its modern descendents, but most likely they just made it up to make the show more interesting. these kind of shows aren't really there to present facts, they're made to foster interest in the subjects they present. and to make money obviously, you make more money with a dancing amphibian than you make with an amphibian that doesn't have any flare to its mating rituals.

Admit defeat. Congratulate the kid for asking a question you can't answer.

The show is making shit up for entertainment. There might be some scientific basis, but the animated pictures are no more real than Mickey Mouse.

Kid v. Discovery Channel: 1-0

Er, and what IR said. "Dancing amphibians" indeed.

they might have derived it from studies of similar modern species or its modern descendents, but most likely they just made it up to make the show more interesting. these kind of shows aren't really there to present facts, they're made to foster interest in the subjects they present. and to make money obviously, you make more money with a dancing amphibian than you make with an amphibian that doesn't have any flare to its mating rituals.
http://dangerousarticles.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/frog_1.jpg

"Hello, my baby
Hello, my honey
Hello, my ragtime gal

Send me a kiss by wire
Baby, my hearts on fire

If you refuse me
Honey, you'll lose me
Then you'll be left alone

Oh baby, telephone
And tell me I'm your own"

Let her know that they've only been working on such theories for 150 years or so, and that short of traveling back in time, we can only extrapolate what we can observe against what has been found to be reasonably reliable evidence to date. There are no clear cut answers; which is what makes it fascinating to my kids -- that there's always something new to learn about. Take her to a natural history museum and let her ask a docent. That's what they're there for.

Get the book The Dinosaurs of Waterhouse Hawkins from your library. It's a children's book -- simple to be sure, but an interesting story about to learn about some of the early days of dinosaur study. The book is beautifully illustrated, and not a terribly advanced text, but the end notes about the research behind the book are quite interesting and a good jumping off point for more reading and research on the subject.

Let her know that they've only been working on such theories for 150 years or so, and that short of traveling back in time, we can only extrapolate what we can observe against what has been found to be reasonably reliable evidence to date. There are no clear cut answers; which is what makes it fascinating to my kids -- that there's always something new to learn about. Take her to a natural history museum and let her ask a docent. That's what they're there for.

Get the book The Dinosaurs of Waterhouse Hawkins from your library. It's a children's book -- simple to be sure, but an interesting story about to learn about some of the early days of dinosaur study. The book is beautifully illustrated, and not a terribly advanced text, but the end notes about the research behind the book are quite interesting and a good jumping off point for more reading and research on the subject.

Yay! we love books! I am going to the library soon and I called and they have that one! thanks!

The only thing I can possibly think is that they guessed at it, extrapolating from the modern day bird/reptile mating displays of creatures they believe descended from this specimen.
okay, I tried that explanation, and she was like "so they are just making crap up for entertainment now?"

Kids are great for catching adults BS, neh?

Yay! we love books! I am going to the library soon and I called and they have that one! thanks!

Excellent. Smunkee, keep showing folks how home schooling ought to be done! :D

how do they know that?


They don't.

http://dangerousarticles.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/frog_1.jpg
One Froggy Evening has to be the best Looney Tunes cartoon ever made. I love it. :D

....talked about what he ate, and how he grew and such, and at one point they talked about the mating dance he did to attract females.........

how do they know that?
I would guess that it is extrapolated from the behavior of present-day animals that have similar size and environmental conditions to those that this animal grew up in. For instance, while they live in the same place, the mating dance of two bird species might vary greatly because of body shape and plumage; and while they live in varied places, the mating dances of two bird species might be similar because they are sea creatures that have bills. That's just my guess about their method, though.

They have their ways. Like how can people make a full-length animated movie? They have their ways.

They have their ways. Like how can people make a full-length animated movie? They have their ways.

that would be what my four year old calls an "epic fail of an answer".


they don't buy the "because" and "they just can" crap......

oh, btw, we got like 25 books at the library, she is still searching for an acceptable answer, so far none has been found.


(and look at me I just accepted the "they study other animals and guess", I suppose she gets this from dad?)

oh, btw, we got like 25 books at the library, she is still searching for an acceptable answer, so far none has been found.Start with the present and move backwards, instead. Demonstrate with some of the many present day examples why extrapolating sometimes work, and why it sometimes misleads. That's where you two will find your acceptable answer.

It's a great opportunity to show her why critical thinking is important. And it's a great opportunity to show her the difference between making shit up, and having a reasonable basis for suggesting a possibility.

While you're at it, try introducing her to stuff like dark matter, string theory and the good old C-field. If you can present it in a digestible manner, it may just help.

Go on! The show is a bunch of fun, and any viewer should be able to tell from the presenter's attitude that we aren't getting ANSI-quality advice on the urban myths.

I'd say they're 80% right. Sometimes they're doing totally the wrong experiment ... "to blow stuff up!"

I find their behaviour to pig carcasses odd.

okay, I tried that explanation, and she was like "so they are just making crap up for entertainment now?"

:rolleyes:

I think she needs her mouth washed out with soap!

If no soap cakes are available soup will do just as well.

The BBC series "Walking with Dinosaurs" is riddled with references to behaviour. It claims to be scientifically accurate. Some scenes seemed a bit far-fetched to me, too, though. Any explanations out there?

Walking With Dinosaurs is utter dreck.

Walking With Dinosaurs is utter dreck.

I am like 40% sure that's what she was watching.....

They guess... they make it up as they go based on what similar creatures today do. They may not be right, they are probably wrong... but it makes for an interesting scene on thier TV show and ultimatly that is what the Discovery Channel cares about... ratings.

They guess... they make it up as they go based on what similar creatures today do. They may not be right, they are probably wrong... but it makes for an interesting scene on thier TV show and ultimatly that is what the Discovery Channel cares about... ratings.At least they don't claim that dinosaurs raised people from the dead or turned water to wine...

At least they don't claim that dinosaurs raised people from the dead or turned water to wine...

Never heard of Vinusaurus?