Before reading about Crystal Palace I had no idea it existed. It must of been a time of great fascination for the people involved in its inception and it had to of been exciting to see in person. One thing that stood out about the Crystal Palace dinosaurs is that they didn't look much like the dinosaurs that we know today. Though it was a step in the right direction, the dinosaurs that Benjamin Hawkins depicted were not very accurate. Most of that probably has to do with the lack evidence that Hawkins had at the time rather than incompetency. Charles Knight would correct some of these mistakes with his depictions of dinosaurs in the early 20th century.
My first experience with dinosaurs that I remember was through the Land Before Time movies. The films center around the adventures of an Apatosaurus named Littlefoot and his band of friends. I think most people my age would be familiar with this film franchise. My next encounter with dinosaurs had to of been via the Jurassic Park films, which still are some of my favorite movies. I've always been fascinated with dinosaurs since childhood and still am to this day. A common sentiment that most people share today and most likely did back in the 1800's is that dinosaurs lived far before humans ever existed. This is an idea that I do not hold to as I have done some reading on the subject and have found information to the contrary. I won't go too deep into the subject (maybe a blog post for another time) but I will leave you with a few tidbits.
Paleontologist Mary H. Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in the bones of a Tyrannosaurus Rex in 2005. Most scientists would tell you that it is impossible for soft tissue to survive in bones after thousands of years let alone millions. Schweitzer has concluded from this discovery that soft tissue can indeed survive for millions of years under the right conditions. I conclude from this, that dinosaurs were probably around much more recently than 65 million years ago. A renegade thought indeed. The last thing I will leave you with is a resource. Dragons Or Dinosaurs by Darek Isaacs is a book that tackles this idea that dinosaurs and humans are separated by millions of years. A great read if you're interested in this subject as Isaacs can explain his stance more eloquently than I could.
That's a really interesting hypothesis! I had never heard of that before. It would be interesting to see if someone could come up with the exact science behind why the soft tissue survived so long, although it could be difficult to test this as waiting millions of years for results doesn't really work...
ReplyDeleteSeems an interesting theory would need more than one outlier case to really make an issue of this. The fossil records seem pretty clear on what are called terminus lines for the extinction or end of certain eras, with the dinosaurs only being one of many species eventually wiped out by an extinction level event. Still an interesting theory, though not one I could support as a dapper dog.
ReplyDeleteI am very interested about the biology behind this hypothesis. I have never heard about this but it has definitely caught my eye. Bioengineering and development of synthetic tissues would probably benefit from this type of research!
ReplyDeleteMy first experience with dinosaurs was the same as yours. Land Before Time followed by Jurassic Park. it seems that their are many different things that captivate the attention of kids, seeing that these movies are very very different. It's news to me that soft tissue was pulled from a skeleton. That is really cool and indeed seems to possible point to us being incorrect in dating dinosaur extinction.
ReplyDeletei do recall the discovery of the soft tissues as that lead to the fantastic rumor of recreating them in labs for a while after. however i to would need more conclusive evidence in order to support the the argument presented on age.
ReplyDeletebut i dont know if i agree withe the argument that it was believed that it has always been thought these creatures lived before us, as what little looking into i have done (and trust me its been years) suggested they believed at one point they co-existed and it was more or less a survival of the fittest kinda thing that we won out.
how anyone could believe that givent he size of them is beyond me but then we were just learning
I'd missed the Schweitzer research -- what a fascinating turn of events. Here's an article from Smithsonian magazine about it: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1 and this wikipedia article lists some links to some recent scientific research that dissents from her view and also supports it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer. Thanks for the lead on this in your post.
ReplyDeleteThe Smithsonian article talks about how Schweitzer, a committed Christian, is angry that creationists have taken her research to argue for a young earth (this is Isaacs' angle, perhaps?). An excellent study that carefully traces how ancient peoples likely drew on their puzzlement about fossilized bones to argue for the existence of mythic creatures as part of their folklore is Adrienne Mayor's "The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth." It's one of the most exciting books I've read!