Dinosaurs edition, seems to be a popular topic
>>16271393whe whern when I grow up I ;will be a Tre 1!x
How do we know extinction periods aren't just periods with life that couldn't fossilize well? Maybe there was an era where some slimy dominated the world but it didn't fossilize.
>>16271406>How do we know extinction periods aren't just periods with life that couldn't fossilize well?Because the extinctions happened all over the globe and not only in some region.It is true that a population of a certain species might be reduced in numbers to such an extent that the likelihood of fossilization is decreased to such an extent that its fossil remains are nonexistent or nearly impossible to find, appearing to have gone extinct, only to reappear again. AKA Lazarus Effect.The coelacanth is a great example.Check out these similar concepts:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon#Related_but_distinct_concepts
I'm no structural engineer, but how much leverage is on that neck? Also, if his head is drinking from a stream, then lifted 100ft in the air to eat leaves, how could the heart keep blood pressure without dinosaur passing out?
>>16271823>how much leverage is on that neck?The cervical vertebrae were all highly pneumatized with airsacks, like birds', so not as much as one would first assume. No one is yet completely sure how they moved or hels their necks and how far up. >how could the heart keep blood pressure without dinosaur passing out? We don't know yet, no circulatory system soft tissues found fossilized so far.
>>16271892I'm skeptical as to whether there will be any "soft-tissue" found outside of the bones.The surrounding bone and rock was enough to preserve some of the more hardy proteins, like elastin and collegian, but outside? They'd be food for decay very quickly.
>>16271823>>16271892It is presumed that the soft tissue structures of the neck shared some functional similarities with giraffes - a giraffe's neck acts as a sort of blood pressure cuffhttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/cardiovascular-secrets-giraffes-180977785/>When a giraffe raises its head after bending down for a drink, blood pressure to the brain should drop precipitately — a more severe version of the dizziness that many people experience when they stand up suddenly. Why don’t giraffes faint?>At least part of the answer seems to be that giraffes can buffer these sudden changes in blood pressure. In anesthetized giraffes whose heads could be raised and lowered with ropes and pulleys, Aalkjær has found that blood pools in the big veins of the neck when the head is down. This stores more than a liter of blood, temporarily reducing the amount of blood returning to the heart. With less blood available, the heart generates less pressure with each beat while the head’s down. As the head is raised again, the stored blood rushes suddenly back to the heart, which responds with a vigorous, high-pressure stroke that helps pump blood up to the brain.
>>16271914yes, soft-tissue preservation is very rare. we can only hope it'll be found someday
>>16271823All that weight concentrated on 4 feet. Why don't they sink on soft dirt?
>>16271980
>>16271985Argentinosaurus weighed 220,000lbs. One wrong step and it's stuck.
>>16271823Probably had very slow metabolism and moved very slowly like a sloth.
>>16272010>lbsanon, this is /sci/, we use the International System of Units
>>16272035Gravy is universal.
>>16271823>how could the heart keep blood pressure without dinosaur passing out?If you want some minor blackpill about just how unintelligent humanity and how little we actually know is: no one knows and no one can come up with an answer that is satisfactory.
>>16271927Giraffes have cool camo paint jobs
>>16271980They did. On wet mud their footprints could be so deep that small animals would fall in and become trapped
>>16271393What is the consensus on T.rex lips?
I find it interesting that is was the saurischians that led to birds and not the ornisthichians.They should change the name "ornisthichians" to something else, it's quite confusing to laypeople.
THIS IS NOW A FUCKING DINOSAUR THREAD.
>>16272588I don't think it's that big of a deal.Keep in mind that you're discussing the classification of "terrible lizards" which are not only not lizards, but which are all farther from lizards on the evolutionary tree than any ornithiscian is from a bird.
>>16272723>I don't think it's that big of a dealYes, it's not a big deal but it is confusing. I like paleontology myself and for decades I erroneously thought birds came from ornisthichians by the name itself. What to call them though?
>>16272010They might have floated too. I think I'd have enjoyed much floating had I been so heavy
>>16272010It's foot is also like 10x the size of an elephants. Let's call it 1.5m2Copied from Reddit>Pressure is defined as the force per unit area, the average cross sectional area of a women’s heel is 2.71 sq inch = 0.00175 m2>The average elephant foot cross sectional area is 452 sq in = 0.292 m2>The force exerted by a 4000kg elephant on the ground would be 4000 * 9.81 = 39240 N distributed among four feet would be 9810 N>The pressure of a single elephant’s foot would be 9810/0.292 = 33367 PascalsLet's make some assumptions. Let's assume the Argentinosaurus foot cross sectional is around 2m2 - see picrel, it's over 1.5m across even without soft tissue. Let's assume the animal's mass is 75,000kg (estimates are 60,000-90,000)9.81*75,000 gives us a force exerted on the ground of 735,750N, divided by 4 feet is 183,937N per foot. 183,937/2 = 91,968 pascals per foot. So around 3x more pressure exerted per area unit than an elephant, but significantly less pressure than is exerted by say, a woman wearing high heels. I think they would be fine.
>>16272588>They should change the name "ornisthichians" to something else, it's quite confusing to laypeople.Too many old textbooks to update.
>>16272995But, a woman in high heals would be stuck in deep mud. She could eject shies and crawl ti drier land. Big dinosaur doubles the pressure on one leg trying to unstuck other leg. No crawling to drier ground????
>>16273230>Big dinosaur doubles the pressure on one leg trying to unstuck other legArgentinosaurus has 4 legs, not 2.It takes much deeper mud to stuck big dinosaur because he is so big.
>>16273233You can't pull stuck leg out, without shifting pressure to other leg. That doubles load.
>>162733153 other legs to spread pressure out
>>16273315That's how some aninals die anon: they get stuck in mud, or even tar.Some do, but most don't, and life goes on.
COME HERE CREATIONISTS, DON'T BE AFRAID.COME
Anyone else have monkey guilt?Like, thinking about descending from the apes... that's just so gross. Apes are not cool at all, why couldn't we descended from wolves or predator cats or smth.Or maybe i don't find apes cool because they are humanlike without the human level of intelligence
>>16274282>Anyone else have monkey guilt?no, but other apes sure are a strange sort of animal, a cross between people and other furry animals
>>16271823what if it actually slithered and crawled?
>>16272995Now calculate how many Chinamen it took to make that plaster.
so what's the actual evidence for Darwinism/neo-Darwinism? evolution as in adaptation exists, no one denies that, microevolution exists, but where's the evidence that shows fishes evolved to antelopes or whatever?every argument Darwinists have given me is speculation or circular reasoning
Alright anons fuck them dinos tell me why the permian stem mammals had sailbacks> thermoregulation? Disproved, apparently, by anatomical findings> sexual selection? It arose across multiple genera, during nearly the same time period> structural stability? The physics is still out on this one, nobody knows for nowSo which is it? Or am I getting it wrong? Oh, and I don’t give a rat’s ass about spinosaurus or any sailbacked dino, I’m talking solely about the carboniferous-permian era animals
>>16275863Assuming you're posting in good faith, what form of evidence would you accept?
>>16275863Before, people didn't accept "micro" evolution because they rightly saw it was just evolution, which they rejected.Then the evidence for evolution became so strong, they accept descent with modifications and speciation, which is literally 100% of evolution. If you can make new species via successive modifications, what part exactly don't you believe in, evolutionist?
>>16275686>what if it actually slithered and crawled?no evidence for that so far>>16275781>Now calculate how many Chinamen it took to make that plaster.please watch:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhh8fqfqSTw
>>16275863>but where's the evidence that shows fishes evolved to antelopes or whatever?there's the fossil evidence, there's the anatomical evidence, and there's the embrionic development evidence, plus all the evidence which existed when Darwin proposed his theory and his ideas, and all the evidence that is far too extensive to list which has in the meantime accumulated, but... I second this anon's question:>>16275938Just what is it that you demand as evidence? Speciation in a lab? Get real, you'll probably win the lottery before that happens.
THUNDERPAWS
>>16276360Mother Nature would never approve this design.
>>16276541and yet, there it is.
>>16275863Dogs are getting pretty interesting in contrast to the wolves they share an ancestor with.
>>16275863Nah you are just a stupid and willfully ignorant fuckhead. The moment smart people wake up and realize you and your kind needs to be sterilized before you reproduce the better off the whole world will be.
>>16271393Dinosaurs were buried in the flood. That's why there isn't just one missing link in the fossils, but all the links are missing, the entire chain is missing; when a form appears it doesn't change. It's also why you can find soft tissue in fossils.>>16276907They're still dogs though. If you're going to claim that all life came from a common ancestor, you're going to need to prove large-scale transformations or changes of kind up to kingdom.Adding 2 more weeks doesn't do anything to introduce novel information to the genome, especially when natural selection is all you have to work with and mutations only scramble what's already present.>>16276936And this is the sort of violent hatred that the evolution religion produces when they can't prove their blind faith beliefs. You're clearly insane and belong in a padded room, but the looneys have been running the asylum. I bet you think boys can evolve into women.
>>16276957They also found living "dinosaurs" (term coined in 1841) in Africa, some guy wrote a book on it. They would've mostly been called dragons before and there are many dragon folkstores, many of which have true origins. People won't admit their ideology is founded upon hating God and rejecting him. But science cowards need censorship to keep their beliefs, so I'll probably get banned for posting evidence that shows both observationally with the soft tissue and historically with pic related, that the flood happened.
>>16276959It's just so obvious, the only way people can not know of the flood is by willing ignorance, censorship in academia, indoctrination in the schools, and heavy brainwashing in mass media mocking any ideas who don't conform to the indoctrination. These layers, they'd tell you are millions of years apart; well trees don't form fossils over millions of years polystrate.
>>16276957>the floodthis way please:>>>/x/
Sauromotherfuckingposeidon
>>16275629Haha. I thought it was pooping at first.
>Knowledge of Cambrian animal anatomy is limited by preservational processes that result in compaction, size bias, and incompleteness. We documented pristine three-dimensional (3D) anatomy of trilobites fossilized through rapid ash burial from a pyroclastic flow entering a shallow marine environment. Cambrian ellipsocephaloid trilobites from Morocco are articulated and undistorted, revealing exquisite details of the appendages and digestive system. Previously unknown anatomy includes a soft-tissue labrum attached to the hypostome, a slit-like mouth, and distinctive cephalic feeding appendages. Our findings resolve controversy over whether the trilobite hypostome is the labrum or incorporates it and establish crown-group euarthropod homologies in trilobites. This occurrence of moldic fossils with 3D soft parts highlights volcanic ash deposits in marine settings as an underexplored source for exceptionally preserved organisms.This is amazing, the anatomy detail preserved is extraordinary.
>>16271393>still no reasonable explanation for dinosaur tissue and proteins lasting supposed tens of millions of years above freezing temperatures whilst exposed to countless earthquakes and other environmental factors like groundwater and radiationand no, 2 years of preservation in a lab environment does not reasonably project to the claimed time scale in nature
>>16277046>Fig. S2. Stratigraphy and features of the fossiliferous pyroclastic layer of the Tatelt Formation at the Ait Youb section. (A) Stratigraphic log of the section through the upper Issafen and Tatelt formations (as shown in fig. S1D). (B to G) Detailed features of the studied fossil-bearing pyroclastic layer at the top of the Tatelt Formation. (B) Profile view of the pyroclastic layer showing the thick, coarse-grained lower part (1) rich in lapilli, grading upward to the thin, fine-grained upper part (2) comprised of ash; white dashed line indicates the contact with the underlying lithic sandstone. (C) Polished slab of lapillistone showing the soft deformation during welding around the volcanic clasts, including those composed of microlitic basalt, and alignment typical of eutaxitic texture. (D)Polished slab from the boundary between the lapilli-rich and ash-rich layers, the former showing clasts that are flattened and welded together; note the presence of chilled margins around the juvenile clasts (see arrows). (E)Trilobite specimen AY-TA-TB-03 found within the fine-grained ash layer. (F) Photomicrograph showing the petrographic and textural features of the lapilli-rich layer, including the eutaxitic texture; clasts are dominated by juvenile lithic clasts [V] of volcanic origin, aligned and exhibiting ductile deformation, and isolated feldspars [F]and subordinate sedimentary clasts [S] are also present. (G) Photomicrograph from the boundary of the lapillistone and the fine-grained ash layer; note the sharp transition, the lithic volcanic clasts [V] with microlitic texture, welded and flattened, and the remnant voids filled by fine ash matrix [m].
>>16277048
>>16277047>>still no reasonable explanation for dinosaur tissue and proteins lasting supposed tens of millions of years above freezing temperatures whilst exposed to countless earthquakes and other environmental factors like groundwater and radiationMany things we still don't know, anon. That's why science is fun.
>>16277051
>>16276957For the first point: I actually talked to the lady who discovered the "soft tissue," Mary Schweitzer (very nice btw), and she sent me a study which explained the actual structure preserved.None of it is living cells, it's all proteins. For example the main mass was collagen, a hardy protein found in bones commonly, and the more surprising stricture of veins was elastin, an elastic protein. Both of which were preserved for so long because they were: a, not alive; b: surrounded by bone and rock; c, most didn't actually survive and it have to be dissolved out with acid.Tissue is a misleading term here, but the one we're stuck with. Mary is a Christian but sees the truth of evolution.As for the information thing, please respond to you take on the existence of the evolution of a nylon-eating enzyme created by bacteria; remember nylon didn't even exist until the 1930s
>>16277047I didn't see this before, but here's a partial explanation: there was no tissue, only the most stable proteins we know of. See >>16277443
Preserved lacewing from the Cretaceous, its eyespot may have been mimicking a predatory dinosaur eye
>>16271393>is there a doctor here? This man's hurt!>I'm a doctor!>Oh thank God, this man isn't breathing!>no no, I've got a doctorate in paleontology.
>>16277804Most people with a doctorate in palaeontology have carried out years of comparitive zoology. They understand the anatomy incredibly diverse species. Other than an MD or a veterinarian, they are probably the best kind of doctor you could hope for in an emergency medical situation.
>>16277845Eh I'd rather have someone with a doctorate in biomedical science on hand than a paleontologist.
>>16277860>"someone help! this man has been bitten by a shark! I can't stop the bleeding!" >step aside, I've spent 4 years looking at things under a microscope.>... Uh, no, I'm not sure where the femoral artery is
>>16276957>Dinosaurs were buried in the floodLol>It's also why you can find soft tissue in fossils.None of that is soft tissue>They're still dogs thoughStill never seen a creationist who’s able to define what a “kind” is. You lot even say shit like “they’re still birds though, they’re still snakes though” even though those are both groups containing thousands of species>mutations only scramble what's already present.Except when they duplicate or entirely remove information
>>16277882It's almost like a biomedical science masters necessitates medical courses, like the name suggests. Can you elaborate at what point in your life you became a retard?
You'd think /sci/ would be a board where people wouldn't fall for some of the laziest bait imaginable
>>16277803oh, wow!amazing fossil
>>16277055
>>16277000What a cartoon animal, lolThat body looks so tiny, I wonder how much time such animals spent in the water, be it for cooling, weight-relieving, pressure-countering and giving the heart a break, etc.There are many sauropod trackways with hand (manus) impressions only, as if the animal tippi-toed along the bottom, but at the same time, why would they have not evolved a better tail for water propulsion? We don't see that in the fossil record, but then again, hippos are extremely aquatic and they too did not develop tails for propulsion.Sauropods, such fascinating creatures.
>>16275938I'm ok with empirical evidence>>16276353this is what I mean when I said all the evidence given is just speculation or circular reasoning. Phylogenetic trees, fossil records, vestigial traits all these hypotheses are started based on the assumption that Darwinism is true.>Darwinism is true>we line up the fossil records as per darwinism>they line up as predicted by Darwinism>therefore Darwinism is true On top of that why is it assumed that similarity = relatedness, this is a big assumption btw if 99% of species that ever existed went extinct, and we only have a fraction of a fraction of the fossils, yet we draw conclusions based on this small fraction, how is this not just speculation?>>16276146Not true, people have known about microevolution/adaptation for a while, even before Mendel people were artificially breeding animals and plants. this is the common response to the argument that microevolution is real but on a macro scale is not,>if you accept microevolution, then what prevents it on a longer time scale leading to greater changes and speciation?this is essentially massive cope from Darwinists, because the fundamental claim Darwinism makes is basically microevolution on a longer time scale leads to macroevolution. (YOU) are making that claim, so (YOU) must bring the evidence for the claim.
>>16278782>I'm ok with empirical evidenceEmpirical evidence like Endogenous retroviruses?Endogenous retroviruses are empirical evidence of evolution, that is, descent through a common ancestor for wildly different contemporary species.I'll be the first to admit that none of the best evidence "proves" evolution, in an abstract epistemolological sense, but much of the accumulated fossil and genetic evidence was certainly predicted by the theory of evolution.Moreover, no alternate theory I'm aware of explains why humans share most of our ERVs with chimps, a smaller proportion of them with the rest of the great apes, fewer still with monkeys, etc, and less again with all placental mammals, and so on.
>>16278782So, to be clear, you are unable ta actually define the boundary you claim exists?
>the evidence given is just speculation or circular reasoningNo, the evidence is physical and factual. What you may or not conclude from it is what could be, as you said, speculative and circular. However, the evidence I mentioned, together with geologic relative dating (which precedes Darwin), and geochronological dating through several methods, it all points to the same obvious conclusions:- the earth is very old- life is very old- life is progressive more and more simple and less diverse the further back and down into the geologic record you go- life clearly displays a progression of traits and characteristics, daisy-chained and traceable upwards along the fossil record, and flourishing in diversity and complexity- life has evolved>we line up the fossil records as per darwinismNo, we do not: Again, relative dating as geologic endeavor began in the late 1600s and early 1700s, it precedes Darwin, who was born in 1809. >>16278782>all these hypotheses are started based on the assumption that Darwinism is true.No, we don't really need Darwin to tell us anything at this point, it is self-evident. The data points to the obvious conclusions.It's so obvious that Darwin himself had to rush to finally publish his theory, lest others soon tie it all together themselves. He aslmost did not get the honor of claiming those ideas for himself.>btw if 99% of species that ever existed went extinct, and we only have a fraction of a fraction of the fossils, yet we draw conclusions based on this small fraction, how is this not just speculation?The fraction of fossils that we have already paint a sufficiently complete picture to determine the broad and general path of events. There are many details left to explain still, but the general strokes are well-understood.
>>16278947So, again, I ask you: what further evidence do you need to believe in:1) evolution?2) the Theory of Evolution?I'm serious, because for anyone who has looked at the evidence, and I mean all the different types of evidence, geological, paleontological, and biological, those are the only obvious and plausible conclusions excluding divine intervention (which isn't science).I'm waiting for you to tell us: what is the evidence you demand?Don't dodge the question.
>>16278380
>>16272576>What is the consensus on T.rex lips?I don't think there is quite one yet, but IMHO T. rex did have lips.https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo7877Some researchers, such as Thomas Carrdisagree.
>>16275916hey, we already talked about this last thread, why are you repeating?
>>16276963>the only way people can not know of the flood is by willing ignorancehey, you've been pestering threads about this, and you have already been countered several times by knowledgeable people on the matter.The fact that you're here again hammering this flood "idea" makes us all not care about you anymore, it proves to us that 1) you're stupid, and there's really nothing much we can do about you, or2) you're ignorant, still, by your own choice, which kinda backs up point 1, or3) you're lying/trolling, and at this point no one truly takes you seriously anymoreIf there is something you don't understand about geology, start your own thread and ask questions instead of false propositions to bait people.
>>16276963If it was a single flood then there wouldn’t be multiple layers and the tree wouldn’t be left standing dipshit
Bump
>>16279472
>>16271393>>16271393
Tell me again why finding and splicing dino DNA is impossible? Is it really just as simple as short half-life?
>>16280751>and splicing dino DNA is impossible? Is it really just as simwhy not just modify bird dna to make them flightless bony-tailed foreclawed and toothed? seems like the logical next step of understanding dna is to retrofit it we got ai etc
>>16271751Cool! A non-human sarcopterygian!
>>16271406Phylogeny. When you see a bunch of Stegosaurs in the fossil record, then none ever again, with other animals diversifying to take their place, that's a pretty good sign they're actually gone and it's not just hallucination. Similarly, when you see high diversity, then low diversity that is widespread (the same species cover entire continents), that's also a good indicator.
>>16272035Metric is inferior because base 12 is more easily divided than base 10. Base 10 is literally a caveman system because "me hab dis many fingies".
>>16272588It's an old understanding from back when dinosaurs were poorly known. It is true that most Ornithischians have reversed pubes, and most Saurischians don't, but the reversal of the pubis has occurred AT LEAST 3 times independently in Dinosaurs.
>>16273768I just realized the same artist that did this chart is the one that did the animation for the PBS The Dinosaurs miniseries.
>>16276360Uh-uh nope. Physics forbids it. That center of mass is far too high up on the animal.>>16276541Correct.
>>16276633Is it though? You got all this from one (1) cervical vertebra? Wait till you see just how fake Mamenchisaurs are. Where are those from again...?
>>16276957Germans have poisonous blood. As soon as jews invaded Europe, they bowed to them and helped them slaughter much of the native population. Mankind will pay for this idiocy with extinction in the next decade.You can't stop it!
>>16277000>>16278711Historically, Sauroposeidon reconstructions are even worse than Mamenchisaurs. It's clearly very, very wrong.
>>16277000
>>16277443I remain very skeptical of claims of protein surviving the fossilization process from the Mesozoic.
>>16277845I wouldn't count on that. They'd probably sew your hand back on backwards because they liked the trend of believing humans can't pronate their wrists.
>>16278155Sweaty, nobody gives a flying fuck about "bait" on 4chan. We talk about whatever the fuck we want. If you want controlled "debate", go to /tv/ (ad revenue general) or /pol/ (Eglin/reddit general).
>>16278782You're kind of a retard huh? I assume you think chronolineages are the devil's tricks? Do you even know what an anagenetic series is?
>>16279534>that mouthbreather pose>those tiny butthole eyesLOOOORDBut yeah, it makes sense for them to have lips, most reconstructions are just 100% pure, unrefined retard.
>>16280751It's BEYOND short half-life. You're never going to find DNA that old. Not even remotely close.
>>16280765Because you still have to fill in gaps. Birds aren't dinosaurs anymore than humans are fish. You can't just "push rewind" because birds, like humans, are fundamentally different animals from their ancestors. Birds no longer have the genes to BE dinosaurs. Many of them have been totally deleted with time.
>>16280901>That center of mass is far too high up on the animalNo it isn’t, you’re just looking at it solely from a 2D silhouette. Large sauropods, especially titanosaurs, had very wide rib cages. to top it off the pneumatization means that “giant” neck isn’t even a quarter the weight of the torso>>16280903That one specimen might be represented by a single vertebra, but that doesn’t make a difference when there are specimens of complete necks from related species that are that length
>>16280917Eh, pretty sure that another elephant bird-like creature can arise at some point, and then it’s only a matter of time before they develop sharp feathers that are basically claws. Then you have bird velociraptors. Diversify that and you suddenly got a lot of the late Cretaceous feathered+winged dinos, except they don’t have teeth on their beaks. We need to remember that we’ve only existed for a a little longer geologically than the Triassic era, and the Triassic was filled with weird shit. It could very well be that the current mammalian dominance is temporary and birds will take over after the next extinction event due to beaks being more versatile than mammalian teeth. The world may very well see “dinoavians”, they will never be dinosaurs again.Oh, and t-rex is gone, F.
>>16280946How did I know you were going to "muh airsax"? How? Are ostriches light enough for you to pick one up? Air sacs don't mean shit for making an animal lighter. Animals are mostly water and water is heavy as fuck.
>>16280985>Air sacs don't mean shit for making an animal lighter.The bones are like shells, rigid on the outside, like a structural shell, and empty on the inside. A bone that is hollow and filled with air is lighter than a bone that is solid.However, and obviously, a solid bone and a hollow bone of the same structural strength will not be the same size. The hollow bone must be bigger.
>>16281076Okay go lift a sauropod vertebra. You'll find out how light those are also. Stop living in a delusional fantasy land created by reddit and contrarian "paleontologists" who don't know basic shit about dinosaurs.
>>16280985>How did I know you were going to "muh airsax"? How?lol. The air sacs are only part of the story, the massive fucking torso weighing the animal down has more to do with the centre of balance. >Are ostriches light enough for you to pick one up? Air sacs don't mean shit for making an animal lighterPossibly one of the most retarded trains of thought I’ve seen in a while. An ostrich obviously isn’t light enough to pick up but it’s definitely light for its size. They weigh about half as much as a lion despite being well over half the size. The air sacs in an ostrich are also in no way comparable to the specialisation of a sauropod’s neck, the ostrich doesn’t have to worry about weight reduction in the first place.
>>16281087Is an ostrich or a sauropod heavier? Think real hard about this.
>>16281088Paleoschizo once again showing off the depth of his retardation
>>16280985>>16281084>>16281088>plane too heavy to lift must mean too heavy to fly bunga
>>16281097Sauropods had jet engines? TIL
>>16281114Sauropods are ostriches? TIL
>>16281169Isn't that your theory though?>Um acxhually dinosaurs were just birdsLive by the feather, die by the feather.
>>16281171No they weren't birds. Their genome became birds, but they were more likely our original depiction.
>>16281172TIL sauropods turned into birds.
>>16281178>>16281169If they were bird like, pigeons would have been around at that time and other birds.
>>16281171Nobody said they were. That argument was retarded and blew up in your face>>16281179Birds were around at the time. Birds existed almost a hundred million years before the asteroid hit
>>16281205Since you're probably a retard, none of what you said will be taken seriously. Fag.
So I ran some basic numbers for the "muh air sax" retard crowd. The C6 neck vertebra of Alamosaurus is about 50x50x25cm = 62,500 cc. Bone weighs about 1.85 g/cc = 115,625g = ~255lbs, but wait! Sauropod bones are about 40% air! That should lighten the load. Conservatively this still makes the C6 - one of the SMALLER neck vertebrae in Alamosaurus still about 100lbs. One vertebra. Just the bone. WITH muh air sacs. No blood. No muscle, no organs. JUST one "small" vertebra dry weight. Fully pneumatized.
>>16281218*40% bone (60% air). Calculations were done based on this, I just said it backwards.
>>16281207I accept your concession
>>16281218Which puts total at around 1300 lbs if we’re overly generous and assume the neck vertebrae are all that big which they obviously aren’t. Alamosaurus weighed over 66,000 lbs so thats a whopping ~2% of the animal’s weight. Hmm yes that’s far too heavy, it’ll shift the centre of gravity too far forwards. Hopefully this helps you understand just how retarded it is to go “but big number heavy” without considering how big the animal you’re talking about is
>>16281235>Which puts total at around 1300 lbs if we’re overly generous and assume the neck vertebrae are all that big which they obviously aren’t.Bitch are you retarded? I picked one of the smaller vertebrae.
>>16281237The C6 is one of the middle sized vertebrae. Even if you tripled the total weight it’s still negligible compared to the weight of the animal. Way to prove yourself wrong
>>16280909These are my new favorite dinosaurs. Gods perfect creations.
>>16281240TIL dinosaurs don't have blood or organs. Just very feather-light bone (except in the torso because that helps my ratshit brained nonargument).
>>16281245You’re the one who decided to calculate just the weight of the vertebrae with the intention of showing those bones as being too heavy, I’m just pointing out that’s not the case. It’s not my fault you tripped over your own proof. With such light bones even with the muscle added it won’t be enough to shift the animal’s centre of gravity too far forwards
>>16281248>clearly I can pick it up because my weight is superiorI long ago realized retardation can't be cured. No Sauropods didn't have "lightweight" necks. No there's no way for you to get around this. Yes, you have to deal with it.
>>16281267>I long ago realized retardation can't be curedWhy, did have a moment of self reflection?>No Sauropods didn't have "lightweight" necks. No there's no way for you to get around thisYes they did have lightweight necks compared to their body weight, you literally just proved so yourself by mistake. The neck being “heavy” from our perspective doesn’t mean it’s heavy compared to a 30 tonne animal, the same way a plane is heavy from your perspective but is still extremely lightweight for a hundred foot long metal machine
>>16271393Is there some good schizo book arguing against evolution?
>>16281305Bible, apparentlyOr maybe the angry rants of Kent Hovind or Ken Ham or any seething creationist compiled in text form
>>16281084>Okay go lift a sauropod vertebra.They're not vertebra anymore, they are rock. Obviously they are heavier now than they were originally, but the inner structure is still visible, it was fossilized.
>>16281218>>16281235>lbsanon, this is /sci/, we use the International System of Units.
just chillin'
>>16281745wat dis? early triassic crocodilian?
>>16281844>digitigrade feetyou're trying too hard
>>16281218>>16281267100 lbs is fucking nothing for a bone of that size. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?
>>16281092you've shit up /an/ enough already, don't bring your autism here too
Nom nom nom
if humanity ended up ending itself, would evolution interpret this as "intelligence was a mistake, let's not do that again" or would a new intelligent species have a hardwired instinct of "don't fuck it up this time?"
>>16284636Neither. That’s not what evolution does or how instincts work
>>16280917>Birds aren't dinosaurs anymore than humans are fish.Non-sequitur; unlike "fish", "dinosaur" refers to an evolutionary clade which birds are in fact members of as avian theropod dinosaurs.
>>16271393you're a boney guy, where's your funnybone?
RIP boney bis
bump
has anyone ever volunteered or participated in a professional/research paleontological dig?
Fuck dinosaurs. I want my lizard bone marrow soup now.
>Comptonatus chasei, a new iguanodontian dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Wessex Formation of the Isle of Wight, southern Englandhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772019.2024.2346573
>A new semi-fossorial thescelosaurine dinosaur from the Cenomanian-age Mussentuchit Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation, Utahhttps://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.25505
>The first troodontid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous Baruungoyot Formation of Mongoliahttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2024.2364746
>>16277803That is some of the coolest shit I have ever seen. It's like a window into the past.
>>16288499>semi-fossorialburrowing dinosaurs, how cute.
You don't actually believe the Megalodon weighs 100+ tons right?
>>16289198Wasn’t there a paper recently that showed it was longer and skinnier than previously believed?
>>16289198>>16289267>Wasn’t there a paper recently that showed it was longer and skinnier than previously believed?yes, video regarding it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6W2Ae7Xvo
>>16289344I keep seeing people saying it was 24 metres long and 160+ tonnes at maximum as of the 2024 paper but I haven’t seen a single GDI of the new proportions to back that up
>>16289198>>16289267>>16289344but no matter the estimates, they will all be absurd because the teeth are absurd. Unless you're imagining a shark with a few teeth only, which is unlike any other shark we know of with such similarly-shaped teeth, you will require a giant mouth to fit the dentition in, which will in turn require a giant fish behind that mouth.It was a formidable creature meant to eat formidable prey or bite off formidable chunks of carcasses.
>>16289352meh, for these reasons:>>16289354I personally really don't care about such a detail as to how long or massive it was EXACTLY anymore. It's was obviously huge, that's all that matters to me, I satisfied my curiosity.However, that's me. By all means keep investigating if it still sparks your curiosity, anon.
>>16289354>>16289357I’m more interested to see how big ichthyotitan and Aust turns out to be
>>16289386>how big ichthyotitan and Austfuck yes, now we're talkingand WTF did they need to be so big for and what exactly did such a huge carnivore eat.
>>16289403I can’t imagine they were eating anything but other ichthyosaurs. Their jaw shape isn’t quite like any other shastasaurid so hopefully they were truly whale sized and didn’t just have unusual proportions
>>16289354The soiladon was the bitch of the chad livyatan who bullied them with their echolocation abilities and superior brainpowers. soiladon fanboys are just butthurt and will keep making up shit about how their favorite shark was some 120+ beast. just look at our modern world, great white sharks are killed by orcas for their livers.
>>16289496>The soiladon was the bitch of the chad livyatanI never claimed otherwise, I was only stating the obvious.
>>16274282chimps are gross, but gorillas, orangs and especially gibbons are really cool.
>>16289742> soiladon gets cucked by orcas today regardless, always taking the L
>>16290736> bonobos> they fight, but when they want to make peace they fuck> they battlefuck as well when mating> imagine if early humans also battlefucked or had sexfights as mating rituals> laughs in /h/ making this into a game
44 600 000 USDholy shit
needs lotion
Great lecture regarding modern dinosaurs and how they compare and contrast to old dinosaurs:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEBkKgu-oA
>>16292493incredible, but to be fair, that is indeed worthy of such a value. What a rare, rare find!
>>16292493why does he look so eager to take a photo of a skeleton's asshole?
>>16294444I did so tookek
Is this a possible animal?
>>16294446might as well dump some more of this set of mine, not everyone has had the chance to see a t-rex in detailI'll drop the ones from unusual angles, things not seen in most common shots out there, like a skull seen from below and within
>>16294465cervicals in extension
>>16294466inside of cranium
>>16294468pelvis
>>16294469the unique metatarsals
>>16294471
>>16294472the end
>>16294471>outstams youNothing personal
>>16294473>paying to see literal plaster Paleopaypigs are a mess.
>>16294493>payingFree to visit, actually.Go fuck yourself and your shit-attitude.
>>16294493>praying to literal airngmi
classic painting this one, by Mark HallettCan't find the original image, with the twisted tail, without the book page break and with a decent sizebummer
Come here creationists, don't be COWARDS.
>>16280917Much like humans aren't monkeys
>>16295702Yes you are
>>16294451>when yo momma so fat she caused the great dying
>>16288165>has anyone ever volunteered or participated in a professional/research paleontological dig?really, nobody?
>>16296992There’s one old paleontologist dude who would have
Foots
>>16296992Not necessarily pro, but I found some fossil markings of footprints on rock surfaces in Newfoundland. Ofc, NFLD is full of geological formations, recommend going there in summer (July best) and going places, especially Gros Morne (which sadly I couldn't visit, tho I came mighty close)
>>16297928Fake and gay. 1-dimensional hop-scotch.
>>16295298Architectural engineers chime in about design please?
How did the dinos exist if there was no such thing as death before the fall of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden?
>>16298300>but I found some fossil markings of footprints on rock surfaces in NewfoundlandNice! I too found a dinosaur trackway:https://imgur.com/a/trilha-da-teresa-2024-01-26-GlzVYapbut haven't participated in a dig so far...
