What Scientists Don’t Know 3

“Could Dinosaurs Have Been Warm-Blooded?”

The above-linked video is from one of my favorite YouTube channels, SciShow. This post is a follow up to this one, about the uncertainty among scientists whether dinosaurs were warmblooded or coldblooded. What I wanted to highlight in this video is disagreement among scientists in the reliability of the methods themselves that some scientists are using to reach their conclusions. My point here is only that so-called scientific conclusions should always be regarded as tentative (until advancements in knowledge replace the old conclusions with newer ones), and taken with a grain of salt.

I may as well note here that the presenter makes casual mention of the recent discovery of dinosaur soft tissue (see related post here), without at all bothering to mention that scientists are baffled at how organic tissue could have survived millions of years without degrading. (Even Schweitzer’s “iron-rich blood” hypothesis, while a start, is far from sufficient to explain how such tissue could have been preserved for even thousands of years, let alone millions. On that note, if anyone out there does know of a scientific explanation that can account for this, I’m definitely interested to know about it.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s