File: HB2x55DbgAAUWIf.jpg (377 KB, 1024x1536)

377 KB JPG

I fucking despise armchair paleontologists. I wouldn’t even care about their ramblings if it wasn’t for the fact that every time a new paper drops, they make a shitty idea off of it. And whether it’s by video, blog or Twitter post, if it picks up traction it somehow ends up being seen as fact by the general paleo community. Actual literal headcanons being made up with zero professional research or backing behind them.
>Nanotyrannus being dubious even though we already knew about its tooth count and fore arm difference a decade before the 2025 paper.
>Dakotaraptor being dubious because of some guy pointing out its sickle claw had a vague resemblance to a Nanotyrannus claw. (Yeah no shit they’re both theropods) It’s like they needed a new target to point the dubious finger at after the Nano paper dropped.
>Nanaimoteuthis being a shellfish specialist despite the very paper describing it pointing out wear patterns on its beak that prove the contrary.
>Carnotaurus being the “Cretaceous cheetah” because it ran fast, ignoring literally every other aspect of its anatomy.
>The average Edmontosaurus being a 15 ton monster that regularly raped Rex, because of a paper describing a superadult specimen that represented the smallest top percent of adults lucky enough to live that long.
>Titanoboa being an obligate piscivore because it had adaptations for hunting the most common prey source in its environment.
For years I have watched this endless cycle and it’s god damn exhausting. If you want your thought experiments to be seen as scientific, go get a degree, start researching, and publish an actual paper about it. You can't just make a hypothesis, stop there, and assume you're correct, it doesn't fucking work like that. Why does the science community that prides themselves on "Realistic portrayals" not know how to fully read through a published paper?