Vadasaurus and the assumption phenomena

[pshun2404]

Fossilized ancient lizard shows how dinos evolved to live in the oceans

NOVEMBER 8TH, 2017, by Alexander Micu

Scientists have discovered a beautifully preserved, almost complete fossil of a new reptile species. Dubbed Vadasaurus herzogi, the discovery offers a snapshot of evolution at work bridging life on land and in the water.

(no it does not do this at all...it merely shows a hitherto unknown variety of reptile that also spent some of it’s time in the water like many living examples today also do) All parentheses mine

Image credits Gabriel Bever, Mark Norell, 2017, Nature.

The fossil was recovered from Kimmeridgian-aged (a subdivision of the Late Jurrasic) marine limestones in the Solnhofen municipality of Bavaria, Germany. They belong to an up until now unknown species dubbed Vadasaurus herzogi, and belongs to the Rhynchocephalia lizard order, a close relative of a small group of ancient reptiles called pleourosaurs.

Long family history

Calling Rhynchocephalia a modern success story… would be a bit of a stretch. (noe that is the truth) It’s currently represented by a single species, the Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus,) whose range encompasses 32 islands off the coast of New Zealand. But from an evolutionary point of view, the order has a deep and rich history, spanning over 240 million years and more than 40 known fossil taxa. An evolutionary history that only grows richer with the discovery of this species.

What’s striking about Vadasaurus (latin for “wading lizard”) is that its fossilization captured an ongoing transition from one habitat to another.

(no it did not...capture any such “transition” from then to either habitat)

Its anatomical features aren’t fully tailored to life in the water but were adapted enough to enable an aquatic lifestyle and suggest ongoing adaptation away from life on dry land.

(another totally hypothesis motivated opinion being imposed on innocently inquiring minds)

“The early steps in this transition are distributed throughout the skeleton and appear to increase hydrodynamic efficiency for both swimming and aquatic feeding,” the authors note.

For example, the authors report that this 155 million-years-old animal didn’t have the long trunk and short (relative to body size) limbs of later aquatic pleurosaurs. This less-streamlined frame would make it a poorer swimmer compared to latter pleurosaurs, but would give Vadasaurus the upper claw on dry land — longer limbs make for a faster runner, for example.

However, it did have features that point to an ongoing adaptation process for life in the water, such as the shape of its skull and nostril position.

(another assumption)

Its bones were also found to be less mineralized than other land-locked animals. Lower levels of mineralization translate to less weight, an adaptation that could aid buoyancy and reduce energy expenditure needed to stay afloat and breathing.

(true this feature makes it more apt for floatation but speaks NOTHING about it coming about by some process leading it to become an aquatic creature over time)

 

[pshun2404]

(Now see from the original article...much more honest...phrases like it suggests to these scientists and might have been of done this or that does not equal actually was, became, or actually did any of these things) All parentheses mine

Ancient lizardlike creature bridged gap between land and sea (Science News)

By Sid Perkins, Nov. 7, 2017

This beautifully preserved, nearly complete fossil is shedding new light on the evolution of the aquatic members of a small, enigmatic group of ancient reptiles called pleurosaurs. The bones belong to a new species of pleurosaur whose anatomical features weren’t fully adapted to water, but were on the way to enabling an aquatic lifestyle. The creature (which the scientists dubbed Vadasaurus, Latin for “wading lizard”) lived 155 million years ago and didn’t have the elongated trunk or relatively shorter limbs that later aquatic species of pleurosaurs did, the researchers report today in Royal Society Open Science. So, Vadasaurus would have been less streamlined overall than its aquatic kin, they suggest. But other features, such as the shape of its skull and the shape and placement of its nostrils, hint that some aspects of the creature were indeed becoming more adapted to an aquatic lifestyle. Also, bones throughout its body were less mineralized and thus lighter than those of its landlubber kin—a shift that possibly aided buoyancy and reduced the energy needed to stay afloat when foraging. Overall, comparing Vadasaurus’s features with those of earlier and later pleurosaurs may provide scientists with insights about how evolution might have progressed among other, totally separate lineages of ancient creatures that also undertook the land-to-sea transition, including ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs, marine reptiles that swam the seas worldwide during large portions of the dinosaur era.

(Finally, CREATURES LIKE THIS (ex. Sphenodon punctatus) are still around today and unchanged over time...some new varieties have arisen but essentially they are no different from their ancient ancestors, yet somehow with this new version of an even more ancient variety SOME (not the original authors) are already spinning the evolution narrative into the data such as claiming that this creature is indicative of how land walking reptiles returned to the water becoming aquatic creatures (LOL!) as opposed to suggesting it may. Whether it is, is a fact they simply cannot know from the fossils.

What we can know is only that this reptile enjoyed or required land and aquatic skills to survive for as long as it did. That’s it...nothing more (and many reptiles do this now without ever BECOMIING aquatic creatures as opposed to land walkers). There is absolutely NOTING to imply they represent a transition of any kind other than the narrative spin being systematically imposed on the fossil. It is simply science fiction at best and/or an assumption based conclusion.)

As to buoyancy and reducing energy expenditure needed to stay afloat and breathing...

(It is true this feature makes it more apt for floatation but speaks NOTHING about it coming about by some process leading it to become an aquatic creature over time)

What do you all think?

(wait for it.....here comes the TAS-ian personal attack strategy....it will come I assure you...)

 

[Ophiolite]

What do you all think?

I wanted to do astronomy at university, but I decided that my grasp of mathematics was inadequate. What then to study? The largest thing after the universe was geology, so I thought that might be a good choice. I had always been fascinated by paleogeography and here would be an opportunity to learn about the landscapes of bygone eras. I wanted to know what was known.

I'm not sure when in my undergaduate career I grasped in my gut, not just at an intellectual level, that science was much more about what we don't know than what we know, but it happened. I realised then that gaps in our knowledge were not a frustration, but an opportunity to make new discoveries; that the statement "that's odd" held much more promise than a self-satisfied "Eureka!".

Scientists welcome the uncertainy, they embrace the unknown, they are not phased by ambiguity, or contradictions. Over the years I have observed that not all people are that way inclined. Many look for predictability, certainty, stasis, answers now, not later. Many creationists and, to some extent, religious people in general seem to fit in this category.

I detect something of the same approach in your posts. In the your two opening posts here you appear to be critiquing scientists for being cautious in their conclusions. More than that, you seem to be refuting the conclusions, in part, based upon that caution. It's as if you don't like change, or unaswered questions and that, more than the evidence, lies at the heart of your objections.

You asked me what I thought. I told you. Of course, its only an incomplete, partly contradictory opinion, subject to change. I suspect you may not like it.

Edit: changed science to scientist in paragraph 4 for greater accuracy.

 

[Jimmy D]

So many “assumptions”! The only obvious conclusion we can draw is that it was specially created by a mysterious deity, just one in a long line of the millions of useless and unsuccessful designs. Didn’t quite work out? Back to the drawing board!

 

[Speedwell]

(wait for it.....here comes the TAS-ian personal attack strategy....it will come I assure you...)

Sometimes all we've got are "might haves." On the other hand, you've got nothing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dude, I've psyched myself out of being certain when I do basic math problems. My lack of certainty doesn't mean I'm any less correct that 13 X 9= 117. It doesn't make it any less likely that I did the math problem incorrectly, either. Being assured of myself wouldn't make me right, either.

 

[pshun2404]

I wanted to do astronomy at university, but I decided that my grasp of mathematics was inadequate. What then to study? The largest thing after the universe was geology, so I thought that might be a good choice. I had always been fascinated by paleogeography and here would be an opportunity to learn about the landscapes of bygone eras. I wanted to know what was known.

I'm not sure when in my undergaduate career I grasped in my gut, not just at an intellectual level, that science was much more about what we don't know than what we know, but it happened. I realised then that gaps in our knowledge were not a frustration, but an opportunity to make new discoveries; that the statement "that's odd" held much more promise than a self-satisfied "Eureka!".

Scientists welcome the uncertainy, they embrace the unknown, they are not phased by ambiguity, or contradictions. Over the years I have observed that not all people are that way inclined. Many look for predictability, certainty, stasis, answers now, not later. Many creationists and, to some extent, religious people in general seem to fit in this category.

I detect something of the same approach in your posts. In the your two opening posts here you appear to be critiquing scientists for being cautious in their conclusions. More than that, you seem to be refuting the conclusions, in part, based upon that caution. It's as if you don't like change, or unaswered questions and that, more than the evidence, lies at the heart of your objections.

You asked me what I thought. I told you. Of course, its only an incomplete, partly contradictory opinion, subject to change. I suspect you may not like it.

Edit: changed science to scientist in paragraph 4 for greater accuracy.

In the your two opening posts here you appear to be critiquing scientists for being cautious in their conclusions

Not at all. Those are the one's I respect because they separate the data from the dogma and speak in the subjunctive mood. The one I think is spreading the narrative is the first, declaring these things as if they are obvious or true.

 

[pitabread]

Scientists welcome the uncertainy, they embrace the unknown, they are not phased by ambiguity, or contradictions. Over the years I have observed that not all people are that way inclined.

I've noticed this is a common feature among creationists. I've termed it "intolerance to uncertainty".

Which is why I think fundamentalist religious beliefs are so appealing; they offer an unwavering "answer" with little to no ambiguity.

 

[pshun2404]

So many “assumptions”! The only obvious conclusion we can draw is that it was specially created by a mysterious deity, just one in a long line of the millions of useless and unsuccessful designs. Didn’t quite work out? Back to the drawing board!

Nah...God of the gaps...Ancestor of the gaps...Nah!!! Could be? Might be? But IS? Nah...that was clearly not my statement. Mine again was to hopefully get people to distinguish the narrative and not accept it as anything else ( one of my issues with YEC creationists AND dogmatic evolutionists).

 

[pshun2404]

I've noticed this is a common feature among creationists. I've termed it "intolerance to uncertainty".

Which is why I think fundamentalist religious beliefs are so appealing; they offer an unwavering "answer" with little to no ambiguity.

Well that is certainly not me. I say celebrate the uncertainty and I say admit it and do not try and convince us all it is truth. It is true that we are uncertain, not certainly true!

 

[USincognito]

Ummm, I'm confused as to the point of this thread. The OP is from a popular press news article on zmescience dot com and obviously has a clickbait headline and is written for a general audience.

 

[Ophiolite]

In the your two opening posts here you appear to be critiquing scientists for being cautious in their conclusions

Not at all. Those are the one's I respect because they separate the data from the dogma and speak in the subjunctive mood. The one I think is spreading the narrative is the first, declaring these things as if they are obvious or true.

Utterly ridiculous and fatuous, deceptive rhetoric! You are using the well known propensity of much (most) popularised science that grossly exagerates almost, everything in order to attract an audience (because its ultimately about entertainment), as a way of attacking the findings of actual science. You could have cut the OP down to these words:

"I think many articles and documentaries about science take liberties with the truth. Here is an example."

And then we could have all agreed and gone onto something novel and important.

 

[Jimmy D]

Nah...God of the gaps...Ancestor of the gaps...Nah!!! Could be? Might be? But IS? Nah...that was clearly not my statement. Mine again was to hopefully get people to distinguish the narrative and not accept it as anything else ( one of my issues with YEC creationists AND dogmatic evolutionists).

Sorry Pshun, I must have been in a sarcastic mood last night, a certain poster got under my skin. Glad you took it in good humour.

 

[pshun2404]

Utterly ridiculous and fatuous, deceptive rhetoric! You are using the well known propensity of much (most) popularised science that grossly exagerates almost, everything in order to attract an audience (because its ultimately about entertainment), as a way of attacking the findings of actual science. You could have cut the OP down to these words:

"I think many articles and documentaries about science take liberties with the truth. Here is an example."

And then we could have all agreed and gone onto something novel and important.

Well put. You should start a thread or two that will stir up conversation...

 

[pshun2404]

Sometimes all we've got are "might haves." On the other hand, you've got nothing.

Really? Sadly when such exaggeration is popularized it is what the masses tend to believe as truth and the professionals (like the AAAS, PLOS, and other respected scientific media organizations) offer no rebuttal or correction to guide them to the reality.

These mythifications (that fit or support the already accepted theoretical paradigm) start when the undoubtedly more honest researchers hint that behind it all they believe the exact same mythification. Even in the real article we hear phrasing in the affirmative (as if it should be obvious or is true) like:

anatomical features...on the way to enabling (they do not KNOW this but speak it as a fact...they could have always looked exactly the same, and always had the exact anatomical characteristics)...OR

some aspects...were indeed becoming (surely you can admit that the hypothesis is being stated as a fact when ZERO process has been indicated by the actual data)

Here is a question I hope you will answer?

Why speak the untrue or possible as if it is THE true (certainly you have been convinced this sci fi addition is accurate) and then criticize others who do the same thing though disagrees or makes people reason logically away from the pre-supposed conclusion?

Seriously!

Why make the masses (especially children and students) make the narrative appear to be THE fact? Don’t they realize this causes a certain cognitive dissonance and is a tool used to “shape” (engineer) public opinion? For many years now so many walk around believing the untrue or merely one possibility as actually an established reality!

IF it is true THEN why do this over and over, generation after generation, in presentations and textbooks? Shouldn’t the truth that it is suggested to some scientists or might have indicated be emphasized instead (for the sake of objectivity and intellectual integrity)?

 

[Ophiolite]

Well put. You should start a thread or two that will stir up conversation...

I just want to be clear: the "Utterly ridiculous and fatuous, deceptive rhetoric!" was yours. You attack science, by equivocating science with sub-standard popularisations. You are right to criticise the latter, you are pusillanimous and deceptive when you use such criticism to implicitly attack sound conclusions by science. I mention this since your response could indicate:

• You thought I was agreeing with you.
• You were being sarcastic
• You meant something else that went over my head

The first is troubling, the second acceptable, the third unknown.

Edit: corrected spelling of implicitly

 

[tas8831]

Over the years I have observed that not all people are that way inclined. Many look for predictability, certainty, stasis, answers now, not later. Many creationists and, to some extent, religious people in general seem to fit in this category.

I detect something of the same approach in your posts. In the your two opening posts here you appear to be critiquing scientists for being cautious in their conclusions. More than that, you seem to be refuting the conclusions, in part, based upon that caution. It's as if you don't like change, or unaswered questions and that, more than the evidence, lies at the heart of your objections.

Excellent summary/conclusion.

I have noticed the fairly common 'if you don't have all the answers right now, you never will, science is a failure, creationism is true!' line of 'reasoning' among many creationists for some time - you very eloquently nailed it.

 

[tas8831]

(wait for it.....here comes the TAS-ian personal attack strategy....it will come I assure you...)

Awesome - setting up your usual 'poor me pity me' strategy.

Odd that you engage in the very things you accuse me of doing, albeit less directly (more cowardly).

Simply defining everything as assumptions to justify your unwarranted rejection of things is a non-starter among adults.

As is nearly always the case, we see attacks on evolution, never any actual support for your own actual position.

There is a good reason that creationists almost never provide 'support' for creationism - the same general reason that conservatives almost never run on their record of helping the middle class and instead engage in the usual 'the libs are coming for your guns! They hate Jesus! America #1!' rhetoric.

 

[tas8831]

Ummm, I'm confused as to the point of this thread. The OP is from a popular press news article on zmescience dot com and obviously has a clickbait headline and is written for a general audience.

So pshun is dismantling straw science?

Amazing.

 

[pshun2404]

I just want to be clear: the "Utterly ridiculous and fatuous, deceptive rhetoric!" was yours. You attack science, by equivocating science with sub-standard popularisations. You are right to criticise the latter, you are pusillanimous and deceptive when you use such criticism to implicitly attack sound conclusions by science. I mention this since your response could indicate:

• You thought I was agreeing with you.
• You were being sarcastic
• You meant something else that went over my head

The first is troubling, the second acceptable, the third unknown.

Edit: corrected spelling of implicitly

You attack science, by equivocating science with sub-standard popularisations.

No I showed the difference (but I know you cannot admit this)