Well, the other day, I saw THIS article: “Dinosaur experts bust up prehistoric party theory” Dudes! It’s just like them comin’ and bustin’ up my party.

Seems like some scientists went to check out the dinosaur footprints, and they said they weren’t footprints AT ALL! Like, they’re potholes, these new scientists say. So, you’ve got one group of scientists saying “Dino footprints!” and another group saying, “Naw, just potholes.” How’s anyone s’posed to know anything?

Seriously, I wanna talk about this, cuz it’s got me thinking. That article calls the dinosaur gathering ground idea a ‘theory,’ and I think it’s a good idea to get to know that word. The word ‘theory’ in science don’t just mean someone’s idea of what’s true… it’s gotta be an idea with evidence behind it. Some scientists thought there was evidence for dinosaurs gathering there, but that was only one group of scientists’ analysis of the rocks there. Now, another group of scientists says somethin’ different. That means, they got to go back and do more work, and maybe the first idea was totally wrong.

There’s lots of studies that scientists do all the time, and any one study could be totally wrong. Maybe the study design is bad. Maybe somethin’ wacky happened. Maybe the scientists are misinterpreting all the info they’ve got. Who knows! That’s why Science (with a big, capital S) isn’t about one study or one person’s idea. It’s about a lot of studies, over time, by different scientists, and what all of them show. The more information is gathered together and talked about and thought about and written about, the more sure scientists are about what they know. That’s how the big Theories (with a big, capital T) with lots of evidence get made, theories like evolution, the Big Bang, and gravity.

Okay. That’s what I got to say! An’ it’s important for your GED, too. I mean, you gotta know how scientists figure stuff out, right? And what they do when they have conflicting ideas. So, onward into more science! The truth is out there… and science is the way to find it!!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

Well, some scientists found a place with lots and lots and LOTS of dinosaur footprints in the ground, and they’re calling it a “dinosaur dance floor“! Kewl. That rocks. They say that dinosaurs came there from all around, and they even thing they found marks of dino-tails dragging on the ground

So, here’s your GED question… scientists found an area with hundreds and hundreds of dinosaur footprints! What is the most likely reason dinosaurs all came to that area?

1) They came to dance!

2) There was a water source there.

3) The dinosaurs were just passing by the area.

4) The dinosaurs came there for sunlight.

5) The dinosaurs came there to make footprints.

D’ya get it? Come on! Dancing dinosaurs! That’s not really why the dinosaurs came there, dudes… but it looks like a dance floor, right? With all the footprints. So why would they really go there? What do animals want? Why do animals all get together in one place? It’s prolly� not for sun, cuz there’s sun in lots of places… and it’s prolly not just to make footprints. And just passing by… that’s not a reason. The most likely answer is a watering hole! Cuz animals come to water, it’s something they all need, and it’s not always easy to find. I’d go with that, answer 2.

Have fun with your GED!

And don’t forget to do a dinosaur dance when you pass!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

We all know it’s kewl… but how come scientists care that this dinosaur’s a mummy? I guess the answer’s gotta be in this paragraph:

The fossilized remains, discovered in 1999, included not just bones, but fossilized soft tissues like skin, tendons and ligaments. Most importantly, it was the first-ever find of a dinosaur where the skin “envelope” had not collapsed onto the skeleton. This has allowed scientists to calculate muscle volume and mass for the first time. The fact that the skin is mostly intact allows for the exciting possibility that some of its original chemistry is still present.

Did you make anything out of all this science mumbo-jumbo? I know what “not just bones” means! There’s all sorts of icky dinosaur bits sticking to it… like skin and stuff. “Tendons,” “ligaments,” those are other gooey stuff inside your body, right? Can’t see that stuff if all you got is bones.

And it says the skin didn’t collapse, so they can see how much muscle those dinosaurs had… like how big around they were. More stuff you can’t see just from bones.

What about that part about “original chemistry”? What’s that? I bet it means dino DNA…. yeah, Jurassic Park time, dudes! They can get that mummy dino’s DNA and then make a whole army of mummy dinosaurs… hey, maybe being a scientist would be pretty kewl…

Well, maybe it’s not exactly like that. But look at this article:

Dinosaur Mummy Found with Fossilized Skin and Soft Tissues

Doesn’t that make you think of giant T-rexes wrapped in bandages rampaging around New York? Kewl.

This dinosaur thing isn’t really an Egyptian-type mummy, it just got mummified like on accident. It’s kinda kewl that a 16-year-old discovered it (wish I’d done that!), but what’s science-kewl about it? I mean, why do scientists care? Isn’t it just another dinosaur they found? What’s the big deal that it’s got skin and tissue?

See if you can figure it out… and I’ll do the same thing, and I’ll let you know what I figured out in my next post.

The earliest known use of cacao—the source of our modern day chocolate—has been pushed back more than 500 years, to somewhere between 1400 and 1100 B.C.E., thanks to new chemical analyses of residues extracted from pottery excavated at an archaeological site at Puerto Escondido in Honduras. The new evidence also indicates that, long before the flavor of the cacao seed (or bean) became popular, it was the sweet pulp of the chocolate fruit, used in making a fermented (5% alcohol) beverage, which first drew attention to the plant in the Americas.

The “new evidence” mentioned in the second sentence is…

1) A recipe for chocolate liquor

2) Chemical analyses of stuff from old pots

3) Sweet pulp of chocolate fruit (mmm….chocolate fruit…)

4) None of the above

See that “new evidence” phrase there? What’s it mean? That’s the real question… so I look at the sentence, and it says the evidence shows that people drank fermented chocolate fruit… mmmm… chocolate wine!! I bet everyone’d buy that…

Anyways, so I look at the answers. I gotta think all logically, like Curtis or someone. Which one of these things would show that people drank chocolate wine? D’oh! They all would… a recipe, or leftover stuff, or maybe they found some chocolate pulp? So, I gotta read again.

First, I think about the recipe. Nowhere does the paragraph say anything about finding a recipe! Whatever the answer is, it gotta be in the article!

Then, I think about the second thing… a chemical analysis, like with a mad scientist in his laboratory, no doubt. Talks about that in the first sentence… “thanks to new chemical analyses of residues extracted from pottery.” Then, in the second sentence, it says the new evidence ALSO says… so it must be the evidence they talked about before. Who knew? There’s like scientists, who go around figuring out what the icky stuff on the bottom of old pots is. Man, they’d like to see my kitchen.

Yeah, the answer’s gotta be B. Did you get it?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119103540.htm

Here’s the first paragraph:

The earliest known use of cacao––the source of our modern day chocolate––has been pushed back more than 500 years, to somewhere between 1400 and 1100 B.C.E., thanks to new chemical analyses of residues extracted from pottery excavated at an archaeological site at Puerto Escondido in Honduras. The new evidence also indicates that, long before the flavor of the cacao seed (or bean) became popular, it was the sweet pulp of the chocolate fruit, used in making a fermented (5% alcohol) beverage, which first drew attention to the plant in the Americas.

Yeah, it’s all about chocolate, but isn’t that just the kind of thing that would be on the GED? That’s right, I said it! Chocolate covered GED! So I thought I’d make up a practice question… like this one…

The “new evidence” mentioned in the second sentence is…

1) A recipe for chocolate liquor

2) Chemical analyses of stuff from old pots

3) Sweet pulp of chocolate fruit (mmm….chocolate fruit…)

4) None of the above

What do you think? I’ll clue you in next time…now, I gotta get me some CHOCOLATE!!!1!!1!!!!111!