We have been shown in the Jurassic Park movie franchise a view of the Veloci-Rapter where it is a land animal not unlike a highly intelligent form of mini T-Rex…but what if it didn’t look like that at all?
Whether or not one agrees with AIG views, this video is worth watching…the artist makes some very compelling arguments here
Adam, I don’t have time to watch a video. Don’t know what the implications of the claim are.
Would it rock my world to learn that somebody figured out something about veloci-raptors that wasn’t known before?
T-rex was walking upright, when I was a kid.
Researchers learned new stuff.
That’s cool.
As far as I know, the animals called velociraptor in the fictional horror films were Deinonychus. Which was larger than velociraptors. But the movie still made them bigger. Normal for creature features.
But outside of that we know that feathers are evolved from scales.
These episodes touch up a bit on birds and dinosaurs.
I’m not sure how familiar everyone is with clades.
So take humans. All humans are in the genus clade. Humans and chimps are in the Hominini clade. Humans, chimps, gorillas and old and new world monkeys are wein the Haplorhinickade which is a suborder.
But some animals look a lot like this but are still not part of this suborder. Such as the lemur. To get to where monkeys and great apes share a clade with lemurs we have to go to the order primates.
So with dinosaurs it’s the same. Dinosaurs are a clade called Dinosauria which includes avian and non avian. But it seems most of these has feathers. This group includes all modern birds, and things like Trex. So a chicken is more closely related to an Archaeopteryx than to a velociraptor. If we step back a clade we are in the Archosauria. This includes dinosaurs, Pterosaurs and Crocodylomorpha.
Now Pterosaurs were flying reptiles. Quite similar to birds. But are actually a different class. They also had pycnofibers instead of feathers.
Anyways in Jurassic park it was not velociraptors but beefed up Deinonychus. But we did still think many of these animals were featherless. Now we have more scientific data and know that many Dinosauria had feathers. It seems velociraptors, trex, and many other
Saurischia did too. Even some Ornithischian did which includes that they believe triceratops did too though most others in this clade did not. So proto-feathers most likely developed within an ancestor of all dinosaurs and done linages lost it with only avian dinosaurs retaining them.
When it wss first released Veloci-raptors were looked on as invented, especially their supposed intelligence. When Vicar of Dibley were discussing the animals for window depicting the ark, Veloci-raptor was used as a joke. Imagine the surprise when all of a sudden Veloci-raptors became a recognised dinosaur, complete with fossils.
Kudos to Michael Crichton
Richard
I guarantee AIG is not the right source to be digesting what researches learned though.
Definitely. I did not even try to watch the video.
Interesting, Adam…kinda long…but OK…Even wikipedia says velociraptors were the size of turkeys…and there is a website describing the various types of raptors used in the various Jurassic Park films…evidently it was not always the same variety…just depended on the film.
Yes it is a long video…the points about the types of raptors used --these are likely decent ones. Feathers or no? Turkey raptor or the size of a chicken… thanks for sharing…see below excerpt from one site on Jurassic Park critters’’
The Oviraptor is a unique-looking raptor as it has a beak instead of the usual teeth that other raptors have. However, the Oviraptor also has teeth in the roof of its mouth, making it a highly unusual feature, with scientists suspecting the creature was an omnivore. Despite other dinosaurs being exaggerated in size, such as the Velociraptors being much bigger in Jurassic Park, the Oviraptor is one of the few dinosaurs in the franchise whose size is consistent with its real-life counterpart .
True Velociraptor had a long, low snout. The original movie had oversized Deinonychus called velociraptors. Utahraptor, discovered after the first movie, was rather like an oversized Deinonychus. Oviraptor is in a different family from the “raptors” that have the big toe claw.
There is evidence that many of them had at least some fuzz. But many modern dinosaur illustrations are too influenced by flying birds. Flightless birds are a more plausible model. We don’t know for most of them just how covered they were.
At no time did any serious expert take the velociraptor depictions, which were really based on the less dramatic sounding Deinonychus, in Jurassic Park as accurate. It was a solid blockbuster popcorn movie based on a well crafted Michael Crichton novel, not a paleontology documentary. Even the title Jurassic Park was chosen for how it sounds; based on most of the animals present, it should be Cretaceous Park.
Thanks – that’s what I thought but wasn’t sure.
That point was, IIRC, made in a parody that was called Jackass Park.
Learning about dinosaurs from Jurassic Park is like learning about the physics of spaceflight from Star Wars.
you guarantee? Given you have no expertise in that area…how would you guarantee anything of the sort there?
Wouldnt it be better to actually provide some referencing that dissagrees with the premises in the video? I mean honestly, if one is going to critique someones work, then surely that means one needs to actually highlight the inconsistencies in said work?
I am not seeing that here and that is largely the entire problem with most individuals on these forums…one cannot simply take the view “ïm ANE” and not also consider that there are some very significant world view issues there…particularly given that the religious part is philosophical/historical and yet it does not align with the ANE view without serious inconsistencies within the model.
See when we purchase property, we would never buy property off the plan with those kinds of inconsistencies…we demonstrate within our daily lives a complete rejection of that kind of con…and yet thousand year old written historical evidence is ignored in order to attempt to foster credibility in the ANE world view there? (i dont think so)
what for fear of indoctrination or that it might challenge your current view?
I watched the video. What I found was an interpretation of a few skeletons that was only partly based on the skeletons. There were strong assumptions, focus on a few details but the story left out the big picture.
First, there was a comparison of fossils coming from different periods, with huge time intervals between. If there was such huge time gaps between the fossils, Earth must be very old.
The fossil species do not look like any living bird, which indicates that there have happened some evolution between the ancient and modern species. Such an evolution needs time, which supports the old Earth thinking.
Second, there are a relatively high number of fossils, some with relatively well preserved details, some with only few preserved bones. Reconstructing what these individuals looked like is partly based on assumptions and guesses. What the person did was just another guess of what the species might have looked, based on an assumption that it looked somewhat like a modern bird. Even if his guess would be close to the actual look of the species, it would not affect the big picture.
Third, some assumptions and interpretations had no connection to the actual evidence. The assumption of a global flood is purely based on the worldview of the person that was attempted to force on the fossils. He repeatedly claimed that ‘as a Christian …’. What he should have said is ‘as a supporter of YEC …’. Christians have different interpretations about Genesis, so his YEC interpretation is not a general Christian interpretation.
I have a faint memory of one Jurassic park movie where a person told that the species were a result of genetic manipulation. So, there was no claim that the species were like originals, rather that they were the result of genetic engineering. And in reality, imaginative beasts that were drawn so that they would make the story look scary and selling. Using that as an assumption of what the real species were looking is like using cartoon characters as a model of the reality.
[/quote]l
I would suggest learning how terms are used. Can you give me an all encompassing definition of what a scale is?
I think it’s safe to say that all real experts agree this is the only trustworthy movie that gets velociraptors and an evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and humans correct.
It’s not about the content of this specific video but the reliability of AIG as a source of information on science topics at all.
While China Daily News or the old Soviet Pravda or The Epoch Times may report or have reported some things accurately, there is so much propaganda and misinformation in them, I wouldn’t use them to find out what is or was really going on in China, the Soviet Union or the world.
AIG has a goal that has nothing to do with the accurate dissemination of science information. And so they regularly don’t. Using AIG sources anyone looking for good information on dinosaurs, for example, would already need to sift through and evaluate stuff that they are unequipped to evaluate.
Do they still promote the view that dinosaurs are evidence for the existence of dragons? Dear friends have the books and were attempting to use them to evangelize at the local high school.
Speaking for myself, I do not typically watch AiG videos because they are drawn out, smug, sanctimonious, and boring. I read articles from AiG regularly, as I can skim over the boilerplate and get quickly to the point. So far as fear of being challenged goes, rest assured that YEC videos are far too full of regurgitated fallacies, ignorance, and falsehoods to possibly rock my world.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
