Problems in palaeontology and my problems with it

Palaeontology is a historical science. It has developed from moderate beginnings when educated citizens started to be interested in evidence of the great flood and deposited their findings in natural history collections. At that time belief entered the new science of extinct living organisms, and there it is up to now. Apparently, palaeontologists are allowed to state their confessions of faith without any contradiction. The one scientist believes in his papers in one idea, the other one in another. Although serious palaeontologists use speculative expressions of opinion rarely and cautiously, others do not have the slightest scruples. This behaviour is unchanged since I began to be interested in palaeontogy about thirty years ago, the situation appears even to have  become worse.                  If results of exact evaluations are presented, as it is the normal procedure for the work of an engineer, one is confronted with an opposition which I would never have regarded as possible, even by people I would have considered as modern and enlightened. Palaeontologists are incompetent to judge with certainty, since this ability was not part of their education. They are unable to distin- guish between right or wrong. Erroneous ideas that are known already for more than hundred years are still propagated nowadays, and if they have gone out of fashion for a while they certainly will be warmed up again later. In this manner progress in palaeontology is hardly possible. Poor excuses are quoted such as it is extremely difficult to offer positive or negative proof because these animals have become extinct long ago and relatives are missing or hardly qualified for comparisons. However, such problems are caused by the narrowly restricted means and methods available in palaeontology. In order to avoid discussions it is usual to cite only papers supporting the own ideas. Counter-evidence is neglected or considered unimportant. It is plainly unserious. Apparently, palaeontolo- gy is a science without burden of proof.

The starting point of my investigations concerning a project was the recognition that a previously proposed explanation of a so far mysterious lifestyle was in sharp contrast to physical laws. Therefore, the actual solution had to be completely different. Only then I reflected about alternatives which had to be plausible, provable, and in addition justifiable under historical-developmental aspects. The search was considerably simplified by the exclusion of alternatives which were not tenable under physical criteria, and then not much more imagination was necessary. The supporters of former ideas have shown much fantasy, but they did not find true ans- wers. It is much more important to search for the correct starting point and to judge results critically as well as self-critically concer- ning the plausibility. This method does not necessarily require great experiments or an outstanding knowledge of details. For com- parison, Watson & Crick in finding the famous double-helix have demonstrated that first of all the correct idea is important. Results obtained in this manner cannot be called speculative, although I am unable to reanimate and present extinct animals. For compari- son, one might ask about the present position of astrophysics and cosmology, if exact methods had not been introduced in these fields?! A black hole cannot be demonstrated either, but without any doubt a black hole is present in the centre of any galaxis or accumulation of stars.  

I have started my palaeontological activities by collecting ammonites as a mere fan of fossils. Soon, I tried to gather more informa- tions about these fossils and the mode of life of the former animal. The informations I found were contradictory, and I recognized that all ideas were based on mere speculation. Several years later, following an experiment I arrived at the conclusion that ammonites had been bottom-dwellers. By the calculation of intrinsic parameters I have demonstrated that the shells of ammonites possess a completely different hydrostatic behaviour compared to the modern Nautilus. They were too heavy for a nectic lifestyle. The percep- tion of a bottom-related lifestyle allows the explanation of any ammonitic shape by its individual growth. A prognosis as to the onto- geny of certain gastropod shells derived from my statements about the ontogenetic development of heteromorph ammonites has been confirmed by experiments carried out by Checa & Jiménez-Jiménez (1997) who attached small weights to one flank of planor- bid gastropods causing deformations, as I had predicted. Thus, the shell growth of heteromorph ammonites can be traced back to similar conditions, i.e. to variably acting external forces. Nevertheless, there is still some unjustified resistance to my results as to ammonites (and to further subjects). An engineer, a layman in palaeontology, cannot be right! But many things I can certainly do better than a palaeontological professional.                                                                                                                                 I must admit that I received much pleasure by the fact that I could base my ammonite calculations on measurements of shell thick- ness carried out just by G.E.G. Westermann, the undefatigable herald of swimming ammonites and inexorable opponent of diverging ideas. Though without any doubt he is an excellent expert of Jurassic stratigraphy and ammonitic forms, unfortunately, this know- ledge is not suitable to make him automatically a guru as to the lifestyle of ammonites. The problem of unknown lifestyles has not at all been tackled with all scientific methods available, on the contrary palaeontologists have relied on a pretended close relationship with modern representatives of cephalopods only. Concerning fossil forms they have guessed, speculated, and attempted to achieve a consensus among the ‘top-ranking experts’ in this field, by vote so to say.

My further research dealt with the origin of flight, with the generation of propulsion in fast swimming vertebrates, and with the shape and functional morphology of different vertebral columns in dinosaurs. A draft of  the latter paper was characterized by one reviewer as a kind of armchair reasoning. Although he was right, nevertheless in contrast to the opinion of certain palaeontologists who use to draw their conclusions, correct ones as well as false ones, exclusively from fossil remainders and believe this is the only viable way, a reasonable application of physical principles will lead to better and in particular to consistent results. For this purpose it is actually not necessary to have had any fossil bone in hands. Fortunately, important informations are stored in the skeletal shape and must only be deciphered from a surely reliable drawing. So, why should a good idea not be born in an armchair?!

By the application of physical principles I have been enabled to arrive at several in part very different results which are entirely inde- pendent of previously propagated ideas. To be able to create new ideas you must be capable of separating correct and false ideas from each other. Otherwise the result is another speculative attempt, as so many previous ones. Presumably, missing successes so far were caused by a fundamental deficit of palaeontology. Although the great importance of functional morphology has been recognized several decades ago, however, one tries to approach the difficulties from various directions using roundabout ways, instead of doing the decisive step, namely to apply physics directly. By exclusively confining to morphological comparisons with modern animals and their properties in reconstructing shape and capabilities of extinct ones other promising starting points are precluded from the very beginning. Moreover, such a procedure seems to deny evolution. Although, of course, this is not intended, it is nevertheless an inevitable consequence, since animals living several hundred million years earlier cannot (and must not) have had the same evolutionary level as modern ones. Homologies are correct, however analogies of this kind deserve extreme caution. Morphological comparisons must be only one method among several others, if reliable results are strived for. Frequently, new ideas of palaeontologists are thought too short, insufficiently checked, and hastily thrown as fodder to the media. Many of such new hypo- theses have simply a ludicrous effect by their obvious weaknesses. This applies predominantly to the new findings of certain experts in God’s Own Country - just remember the cold hydrogen fusion (‘discovered’ by Fleischmann & Pons) some years ago, with much excitement and even willing supporters.

It is to be hoped that palaeontology can get disentangled from its lethargy and develop towards a generally acceptable science, which can suffice modern demands. This would, however, need a broad willingness for reformation and an extension of the physical fields required for interested students. The old historical view must be overcome and replaced by a scientifically investigative one. Otherwise, I am afraid, the increasing decline cannot be stopped and palaeontology remains simply a pool of professional fossil hunters. At present palaeontology is a soft science -  a very soft one.