>Trust us, bros and sis. It was a shark-like ancient species.
>>5166669Nice feathers.
>>5166669okayi trust you
>>5166669Whats your proposal?
>>5166669It’s clearly the penis of a Nephilim. Duh.
>>5166669HAHAHA! YES! that's a real animal that existed MILLIONS of years ago! you must worship them instead of God! Science rules!
>>5166676It must not have been very wide. So a shark-like species which has a buzz saw teeth could not have eaten crustacean creatures. It would have been properly used against other bigger sea creatures. Which limits your diet heavily. Sharks today eat crusteceans all the time. It does not make any sense from a biological stand point for a predator. I was trying to think of another answer as to what these sharp bones might have been for but I can't. But it cannot be for a sea predator
>>5166801>Sharks today eat crusteceans all the timewhat, that would only be the benthic sharks that hang around the ocean floor, anything that is not that eat anything reallyi can see this being used for eating squids or octopus, similar to sperm whales
>>5166669Knowing they're vertebrate teeth because they're made of dentin and enameloid,The only possible animal they could be from is a cartilaginous fish, e.g. a sharkOtherwise the jaw bones would have fossilized
>>5166669OK, bit's over, go home>The best-preserved specimen is an H. davisii numbered as IMNH 37899 (nicknamed "Idaho 4"), discovered in 1950 in a mine near Montpelier, Idaho, and initially described as an H. ferrieri by Bendix-Almgreen in his 1966 monograph.>Preserving cartilaginous elements, the specimen later became the subject of a detailed study in 2013 by Tapanila and colleagues, who used CT scans to closely examine its anatomy. CT scanning revealed a nearly complete set of upper and lower jaws, still in articulation and preserved in three dimensions.
>>5166796The fuck kind of god do Americans even believe in. Retarded shit
>>5166904Sperg
>>5166673Kek
