User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures  (Read 198151 times)


Greedo
Mar 08, 2014, 09:15:04 AM
Reply #931 on: Mar 08, 2014, 09:15:04 AM
Q
How do we know though ?

Theres nothing in that story which claims its true or it isnt ?

If theres evidence thats its fake then fair enough.


Vertigo
Mar 08, 2014, 12:52:27 PM
Reply #932 on: Mar 08, 2014, 12:52:27 PM
Q
Okay, for starters, the most obvious point is that a chunk of actual biological non-avian dinosaur preserved in the present day would instantly be the headline for news outlets around the world. When a researcher discovered trace amounts of protein in a Tyrannosaurus bone, it was reported all over the place. But if you do a quick search for "Gasosaurus egg Berlin", you don't see any results from BBC News, New Scientist, National Geographic, Huffington Post, etc. The fifth result is HumourOrTruth. Given that the "news" article dates from a fortnight ago, that should tell you all you need to know right there.

Anyway, why it couldn't be true.
As one of the comments of the article says, an egg starts to go rotten after just a few days, let alone millions of years. Bacteria within the egg start to decay the contents, and that should occur to some degree even if the egg was buried in quicksand or some other substance capable of petrifying it.
Furthermore, even if organic material is petrified, it's still subject to fossilisation. It's still being buried under layers of rock for a colossal span of time, replacing the biological matter with minerals. The survival of any organic substance - a scattering of proteins, invisible to the naked eye - is miraculous and rare.

The article describes the egg as hatching when warmed - suggesting the egg contained living contents. There is no animal on the planet, no matter how embryonic, that can survive for over a hundred million years. An egg's occupant dies very quickly if not kept in proper conditions.

Finally, the article's full of scientific inaccuracy. Gasosaurus' family didn't exist 200 million years ago, and the last non-avian dinosaur was born 66 million years ago, not 100.


DoomRulz
Mar 08, 2014, 02:13:56 PM
Reply #933 on: Mar 08, 2014, 02:13:56 PM
Q
Not to mention, the headline has a spelling mistake:
Quote
200 Million Years

That should've been "year" so there's your giveaway :P



DoomRulz
Mar 08, 2014, 05:31:00 PM
Reply #935 on: Mar 08, 2014, 05:31:00 PM
Q
Quote
I can't speak for the book itself, but the way it's being reported here makes the mistake of blurring the line between science and art. It criticizes the way artists draw dinosaurs as if that is a reflection on the imagination of scientists. But science is tentative; it tries not to make claims it can't support. So until there is evidence that Leaellynasaura was a fat cottonball, there is no reason to assume it was. Scientists can make reasonable estimates of the musculature of an animal based on its skeleton, but they aren't going to create fanciful reconstructions based on a dissatisfaction with other people's artwork. I suspect that the book is aimed more at criticizing artists more than scientists, but either way this article should make a better distinction. Don't mistake the map for the road

This sums up my thoughts well; this guy hit it on the head. The book looks more like neo-modern paleoartists wanting to express wacky ideas than something that would be realistic. 


Xenodog
Mar 08, 2014, 05:45:45 PM
Reply #936 on: Mar 08, 2014, 05:45:45 PM
Q
Quote
I can't speak for the book itself, but the way it's being reported here makes the mistake of blurring the line between science and art. It criticizes the way artists draw dinosaurs as if that is a reflection on the imagination of scientists. But science is tentative; it tries not to make claims it can't support. So until there is evidence that Leaellynasaura was a fat cottonball, there is no reason to assume it was. Scientists can make reasonable estimates of the musculature of an animal based on its skeleton, but they aren't going to create fanciful reconstructions based on a dissatisfaction with other people's artwork. I suspect that the book is aimed more at criticizing artists more than scientists, but either way this article should make a better distinction. Don't mistake the map for the road

This sums up my thoughts well; this guy hit it on the head. The book looks more like neo-modern paleoartists wanting to express wacky ideas than something that would be realistic.

I agree with a lot of that, but I don't think a 'carpet plesiosaur' is too hard to imagine ecologically.
I've read some more stuff from the authors - often Darren Naish's stuff - and it seems to focus more on the wacky and 'cool' than citations following them.



SiL
Mar 09, 2014, 07:17:35 AM
Reply #938 on: Mar 09, 2014, 07:17:35 AM
Q
The book doesn't really criticize anything, it's just saying "What if?". It illustrates our ignorance, rather than anyone saying "Naw, I don't like the common view, this is what I think it was really like."



Vertigo
Mar 10, 2014, 10:59:28 PM
Reply #940 on: Mar 10, 2014, 10:59:28 PM
Q
Atopodentatus has been causing a bit of a stir. Aside from being a ridiculously well-preserved fossil and occupying a highly specialised ecological niche, it's thought to be basal to the group that led to plesiosaurs and pliosaurs (not ichthyosaurs or mosasaurs though, which aren't closely related). Their ancester would have been something like this guy, probably without the freaky dentition though.



judge death
Mar 12, 2014, 08:53:13 AM
Reply #942 on: Mar 12, 2014, 08:53:13 AM
Q
Obviously a fake.

Hmm may I ask you experts for some advices:
I have started to read 3 books about prehistoric life and dinos but when reading in this thread your knowledge is far beyond what i have at the moment, how did you guys and girls manage to learn so much about these time eras and wildlife? Working with it or studied it or just personal interest which lead you to read all books and documentaries you could find?
Advices you have for someone like me who want to learn and become a mini pro at this? :)


DoomRulz
Mar 12, 2014, 11:16:50 AM
Reply #943 on: Mar 12, 2014, 11:16:50 AM
Q
Obviously a fake.

Hmm may I ask you experts for some advices:
I have started to read 3 books about prehistoric life and dinos but when reading in this thread your knowledge is far beyond what i have at the moment, how did you guys and girls manage to learn so much about these time eras and wildlife? Working with it or studied it or just personal interest which lead you to read all books and documentaries you could find?
Advices you have for someone like me who want to learn and become a mini pro at this? :)

That's my response to your first question and really, the full sentence there answers your second question. You have to want to learn all about it. There's a whole universe of knowledge out there on prehistoric life, not just dinosaurs. Hell, I'm learning a lot from Vertigo because he clearly knows much more than I do. The only way to learn is just to keep seeking information and always be cross-referencing it with other sources because no two paleontologists always believe the same things.


Sabby
Mar 12, 2014, 09:29:50 PM
Reply #944 on: Mar 12, 2014, 09:29:50 PM
Q
I'm more interested in early sea life, before land based life was even a thing.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed