The Paleontology Thread

[Cybermat47]

A recent thread became a great discussion about Dinosaurs, so I figured it would make sense to make a thread dedicated to Dinosaurs and other fossilised animals.

 

 

 

 

 

[unreasonable]

Someone is going to ask which forum members count as "fossilised animals" so better get it out of the way.

 

I rather like this one:

 

 

[Finkeren]

Oh great....

 

Does that mean, that I have to type out my lengthy rants about cladistic taxonomy all over again? 

 

Also, I am greatly disappointed, that not a single image of the raptor furry made it into this thread.

 

Nah, just kidding  Allow me to open with a nice little feathered Dilophosaurus:

 

(Also, I like the up-to-date image of a semi-aquatic, very croc-like Spinosaur)

[Finkeren]

Believe it or not raaaid, but you actually raise a very interesting question about gigantism (not the pathological condition - just the fact that some lifeforms grow to enormous size unattainable by other related lifeforms) - lets put the nonsense about multiverse reptiles aside for now.

 

It’s not that humans couldn’t theoreticallly evolve to grow much larger, it’s just that it would require significant alterations to our body plan and internal organs, which would mean, that they would look quite different from humans.

 

Trey The Explainer on Youtube has an interesting video about this exact topic, and why Game of Thrones has the best giants of any fantasy franchise.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by Finkeren

[angus26]

Theoretically wouldn’t it be an advantage to have darker, foliage colored feathers rather than bright feathers? I’m not too familiar with the feature of feathers on dinosaurs, but wouldn’t it make sense? 

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, angus26 said:

Theoretically wouldn’t it be an advantage to have darker, foliage colored feathers rather than bright feathers? I’m not too familiar with the feature of feathers on dinosaurs, but wouldn’t it make sense? 

 

Depends how dino-mating worked. See modern birds as an example. Once sexual selection sets in the benefits of catching the eye of whatever sex does the sexual selection outweighs camouflage considerations. All very well avoiding detection, but if you do not get a mate your genes are history.

[Finkeren]

1 minute ago, angus26 said:

Theoretically wouldn’t it be an advantage to have darker, foliage colored feathers rather than bright feathers? I’m not too familiar with the feature of feathers on dinosaurs, but wouldn’t it make sense? 

 

I imagine it’s much like birds today. Some use bright colors for display, others use drab patterns for camouflage, most do something in between or a combination. Though obviously with their effective powered flight fewer modern birds have use for extensive camouflage.

[angus26]

I figured it was a similar deal, with some possibly using bright colors for attraction, while others used darker, better camouflaged feathers. I guess it really depended on what helped you succeed in the dinosaur gene pool. I always find the traits that succeed, are always very interesting in regards to the environment, predators, prey, and a whole load of factors. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by angus26

[Finkeren]

6 hours ago, raaaid said:

i find amusing you can render evolution with simplistic bots that mate, the problem is that the outcome is indirectly chosen by the set conditions of advantage

 

Evolution is a deceptively simple concept. Very easy to understand and accept, yet the factors that govern selective pressure are so complex and constantly fluctuating, that it is next to impossible to predict, if the selective pressure is left to nature’s own devices. It can However very easily be controlled through selective breeding.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Finkeren

[unreasonable]

2 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

Evolution is a deceptively simple concept. Very easy to understand and accept, yet the factors that govern selectively pressure are so complex and constantly fluctuating, that it is next to impossible to predict, if the selective pressure is left to nature’s own devices. It can However very easily be controlled through selective breeding.

 

I was about to say something similar - even on selective breeding though, while you can control some specific attribute there are also - I think will always be - unanticipated consequences.  Breeding animals for tolerance to humans and lack of aggression can unintentionally change the colour of their fur, give them heart conditions and so on. Probably the simpler the organism the more targeted you can make your selective breeding without extraneous consequences, but the older idea of one gene = one protein = one characteristic is almost never true.

 

Which is why I personally do not think that opposition to GM foods is anti-scientific, as the agro-pharmaceutical complex would have us believe. No knowing what will happen when the GM organisms escape and interbreed with the wild ones, assuming that is that there are any wild ones left.

 

 

[Finkeren]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Which is why I personally do not think that opposition to GM foods is anti-scientific, as the agro-pharmaceutical complex would have us believe. No knowing what will happen when the GM organisms escape and interbreed with the wild ones, assuming that is that there are any wild ones left.

 

 

 

Couldn’t agree more. I am not knee-jerk opposed to GMOs, but I definitely think we need to exercise caution and be sceptical of our own actions. Unfortunately many rational humanists will attack and ridicule any opposition to the unrestricted use of GMO as anti-science nonsense (which some of it is, but not all)

[ITAF_Rani]

IL2 Battle of Jurassic 

I WANT THIS !!

 

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

IL2 Battle of Jurassic 

I WANT THIS !!

 

 

 

Oh if we are going for an Il-2 release surely it has to be this: (although dragons with bikini clad riders would be even better).

 

 

[BOO]

3 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

IL2 Battle of Jurassic 

I WANT THIS !!

 

annnnnnd..……….we're back on dinosaurs. All went a bit James and his GM Peach there for a moment.  

[Uufflakke]

27 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Oh if we are going for an Il-2 release surely it has to be this: (although dragons with bikini clad riders would be even better).

 

 

 

Before I throw my money to the team I will wait untill they show the final result of this bird in one of their DD's.

I mean, look at the low polygons on the fuselage and wings. Com'on it is 2018! Most of us have decent rigs now. Atari times are over.

And hopefully a 4096x4096 template will be released. I am not a rivet counter but some spots are really bad. Way too blurry.

With a good template some skinners can do miracles.

 

And I really hope that the flight model has a realistic 'feel'.

Not that you have the feeling you fly on rails. As in the other flight sim.

 

The positive thing though is that far distance bird does not look jaggy against clouds.

 

Taking in account what the team has achieved already I have good hope for IL2 BOJ.

 

 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Finkeren said:

 

It’s not that humans couldn’t theoreticallly evolve to grow much larger, it’s just that it would require significant alterations to our body plan and internal organs.

 

Old/conventional parroted notion - not the case.

I don’t have time to get into it here though:

 

[unreasonable]

Observations about the relationship between linear, cross sectional and volume measures may be old but they are not going to go away and have to be dealt with somehow.

 

At the very least you should provide a link or reference to someone who does have the time to make your argument:  saying something is a "parroted notion" but refusing to say why is objectionable.

Edited July 21, 2018 by unreasonable

[angus26]

 

We should move back to dinosaurs, maybe we ought to show our favorites, I guess I’ll start. Im a big fan of both the Ankylosaurus, and the Kronosaurus (which is a pilosaur NOT a dinosaur). 

Im going to be honest, I probably won’t be swimming for a while. 

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by angus26
Kronosaurus isn’t a dinosaur (thanks Finkeren)

[Finkeren]

Kronosaurus, while awesome and certainly worthy of this thread, is not a dinosaur, nor even an archosaur, it’s a pliosaur and as such more closely related to turtles than to either dinosaurs/crocodilians and lizards.

[AndyJWest]

14 hours ago, FFS_Cybermat47 said:

 

 

I must admit when I saw that I thought it was some sort of fantasy creature. I know better now:  Helicoprion. 

 

Sharks don't really seem to evolve much. They don't need to. Got it right a long time ago. Just keep churning out variations on the theme, and throw in the odd bit of extra scariness when things get dull.

 

Crocodilians seem to work the same way.

[Finkeren]

3 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I must admit when I saw that I thought it was some sort of fantasy creature. I know better now:  Helicoprion. 

 

Sharks don't really seem to evolve much. They don't need to. Got it right a long time ago. Just keep churning out variations on the theme, and throw in the odd bit of extra scariness when things get dull.

 

Crocodilians seem to work the same way.

 

True. The shark body plan and general life style has been incredibly successful for hundreds of millions of years. Same goes for crocodilians.

 

That doesn’t keep other types of animals from occasionally trying to copy their body plan and intrude on their niche. The role of the (generalized) shark has been played by both early Placoderms, Ichtyosaurs, Pliosaurs, Mosasaurs, dolphins and whales.

 

For the crocodilian form it’s even worse. The role and morphology of the crocodile has been adopted by virtually every major group within tetrapoda: amphibians, lizards, dinosaurs (Baryonyx and Spinosaurus), early ancestors of whales and a ton of different archosaurs that weren’t crocodiles.

[angus26]

40 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Kronosaurus, while awesome and certainly worthy of this thread, is not a dinosaur, nor even an archosaur, it’s a pliosaur and as such more closely related to turtles than to either dinosaurs/crocodilians and lizards.

Oops! My bad! Thanks for catching that. I’m not to good with animal classes and phylum stuff. I was absolutely horrendous in my biology class.

[CanadaOne]

I like rhinoceroses.

 

 

[Finkeren]

Another non-dinosaur (though Pterosaurs are the group of archosaurs most closely related to dinosaurs)

 

What is most likely the heaviest animal to ever achieve powered flight, Hatzegopteryx was as tall as a giraffe when standing on the ground and in flight its dimensions were approximately the same as a P-47. Its skull alone was 3 meters in length and it was most likely an active predator.

 

 

[angus26]

 

2 hours ago, Finkeren said:

in flight its dimensions were approximately the same as a P-47. Its skull alone was 3 meters in length and it was most likel

I’d better bring my pets and small children inside then. I can only imagine the size of that thing. I can stand next to a p-51 (it still feels big) and the p-47 is quite a bit bigger. Terror of the skies no doubt. 

 

[Cybermat47]

7 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Sharks don't really seem to evolve much. They don't need to. Got it right a long time ago. Just keep churning out variations on the theme, and throw in the odd bit of extra scariness when things get dull.

 

Helicoprion wasn't actually a shark, as it's closest living relatives are the rat fish - but it does look more like a shark in that reconstruction. In fact, I think it was thought to be a shark until very recently.

 

That aside, you're absolutely right about them throwing in some extra scariness when things get dull...

 

Goblin Shark

 

Frilled Shark

 

[Gambit21]

11 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Observations about the relationship between linear, cross sectional and volume measures may be old but they are not going to go away and have to be dealt with somehow.

 

At the very least you should provide a link or reference to someone who does have the time to make your argument:  saying something is a "parroted notion" but refusing to say why is objectionable.

 

Too bad - that’s what you get.

 

Been down this road before - no time or inclination these days - especially on the net. Even with someone as likable and reasonable as Fink. Not everything can be properly dealt with by posting a link. Too much stuff/academic baggage to wade through and refute where this subject is concerned - volumes. Good news is that you can simply decide I’m full of crap and move on. 

It’s all good - probably shouldn’t have commented, normally I wouldn’t. For whatever reason in that moment I did.

 

Anyhoo - always been a big Dino fan.

I illustrated the dinosaur T-shirts for the Universal Studios Jurassic Park attraction back in 97 or so. I still have a few laying around.

 

[unreasonable]

That is a pity, since I am genuinely interested in why the "conventional wisdom" is wrong. 

[Gambit21]

Sorry - I not trying to be jerk.

I should have resisted the impulse to type initially.

It's a rabbit hole.

 

[angus26]

47 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I illustrated the dinosaur T-shirts for the Universal Studios Jurassic Park attraction back in 97 or so. I still have a few laying around.

Pretty cool! 

[Finkeren]

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Even with someone as likable and reasonable as Fink. Not everything can be properly dealt with by posting a link. 

 

Aaaaaaaaaaw thanks ?

 

I’d actually very much like to see the argument for what you think is wrong with what I wrote. I totally understand, that you don’t want to start a long back-and-forth here, but if you can find the time, do slip me a link or very condensed argument in PM, I promise I won’t start argueing.

 

If I’m wrong I’d like to know.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Finkeren

[Leaf]

Ohhh yes, I've been waiting for a thread like this! 

Just finished my geology degree and am off to do a geoscience masters in October, so this is good timing. 

Never really got hooked by palaeontology that much, but I'd be lying if I said I don't love a trilobite: 

 

 

 

Proceratocephala terribilis

 

 

[Rolling_Thunder]

The tape is a trinket. However the "London Hammer" is quite an interesting relic.

[THERION]

7 hours ago, raaaid said:

i supposed but this is real:

 

 

 

You are right, Raaaid, Micheal Jackson IS (was) real...

[Rolling_Thunder]

16 hours ago, raaaid said:

i supposed but this is real:

 

That statue looked like Michael Jackson before Michael Jackson looked like that. Michael Jackson looked totaly different to that statue earlier in his career. It has more to do with identity crisis than time travel.

And that clearly isnt Trump. Patton was white not orange.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Rolling_Thunder

[THERION]

14 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

That statue looked like Michael Jackson before Michael Jackson looked like that. Michael Jackson looked totaly different to that statue earlier in his career. It has more to do with identity crisis than time travel.

And that clearly isnt Trump. Patton was white not orange.

 

Yes, he was not orange nor was he a... how do you say in English? Ah, I got it - retard?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

This could have been a cool thread... But then...

[angus26]

41 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

This could have been a cool thread... But then...

Yep.

[Leaf]

5 hours ago, raaaid said:

im just mentionin ooparts which is a part of paleonthology like it or not

 

No you f****** aren't. You're just derailing every single thread with your gibberish.

I used to think of you as someone who appears to have severe mental health issues, but didn't mind your drivel as long as you constrained it to a single thread (remember raaaid's art corner?). But now, this thread will invariably get lock at some point due to either you posting too much of your sh*t, or the thread derailing entirely because of it. It's so ludicrous and absurd that someone will invariably bite and reply. 

 

Instead of keeping to one section of the forum, or even more preferably, one thread, you keep spamming your nonsensical, paranoid idiocy wherever and whenever you can. It's annoying and tiring because it clutters up the forum with nonsense, gives the moderators needless work, and derails threads. 

 

If you have an opinion, and you seem to have many, restrict it to one thread like you used to. Or even better: go away.

 

 

Edit: does anyone know where the 'block' button is? 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Leaf

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

2 hours ago, Leaf said:

-snip-

 

gives the moderators needless work

 

-snip-

 

Actually, they seem to let it slide and don't mind giving him a platform for half of the completely asinine, unhealthy or dangerous things he says.