The Paleontology Thread

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Great thread guys with a few exceptions

(there is no Magical universe raid, its just basic physics and atoms and random things happen, no magic no gods no conspiracies no dictators)
But yeah some of you have some cool ideas and thoughts on things,
specially the open minded part to this thread i like, hope its "cleaned up" and kept alive.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

I work with a lot of snakes (caring for and feeding 23 pythons, 4 bearded dragons and a Gippsland Water Dragon)
One of you brought up Dinosaur mating and i was wondering could it have maybe been more like Snakes?

Snakes are not like lizards who show high intelligence and ability to solves problems or have personality like lizards who still have to learn after they are born how to hunt properly.
Snakes live very much on instinct the day they are born while still in the egg, they know how to hunt / thermoregulate / and stay safe and mate to reproduce "Genetic memory" 
there is no seeking of better sexual partners or a preference, if they smell the other sex and its time to mate they go for it.

(so maybe with dinos they did not care about how they looked if they needed to mate they simply did it. and went their own way, even tho hollywood is nice there is no evidence showing that male dino's cared for their young also)

But i just woke up at 6am because my dog farted so i dont know maybe im just gassed ?

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by =TBAS=Sshadow14

[Leaf]

If you find any papers out there (google scholar has a few open-use pdf's, as does researchgate),  this might help a little bit with the terminology and broad classification:

 

 

 

Put into a broader context:

 

 

 

 

Source: Milsom, C. & Rigby, S., 2009. Fossils at a Glance. 2nd ed. s.l.:Wiley-Blackwell.

 

A really good introductory text. Technical, but very clear and well-explained.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Leaf

[angus26]

raaaid had to screw up this forum. 

[angus26]

On 6/30/2018 at 12:48 PM, raaaid said:

i dont want to be taken seriously i want to be taken humorously

I’m just going to leave this here... raaaid, no one thinks the way you do, and no one will ever try to. If you want to be taken seriously I advise you to strengthen your grasp on reality. That being said, this thread will probably be locked due to my absolute roast on raaaid. 

[angus26]

22 minutes ago, raaaid said:

as a matter of fact any intelligent guy knows if we are here its because of alien tampering, evolution is just a recent big brother invention to keep the masses thinking they have the answers

Get your bs out of this thread please.

23 minutes ago, raaaid said:

notice i thought all this my self, im an intelligent person

No, you just spew random crap.

 

raaaid just for once can you not de-rail a topic. 

 

[TheBlackPenguin]

Raaaid, sorry for going off topic and something personal, but weren't you involved in a motorcycle accident some years ago? I recall you mentioning that, and if so I am hoping people will see things from your angle.

 

Now, about those feathered dino's and how we're surrounded by their descendendants; birds.

[Gambit21]

I'm just going to leave this right here

 

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm

[Leaf]

33 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I'm just going to leave this right here

 

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm

 

An incredibly misleading title. Like, seriously misleading. 

I will quote S Joshua Swamidass, assistant professor at Washington University: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-all-species-arise-about-200-000-years-ago/285/9

 

1. They equivocate TMRCA with species age. That is just false. To map to other conversations we have, they are essentially reproducing the well known results that Mito-Eve appears to arise between 200 kya and 100 kya, but this in itself tells us precisely zero information about when Homo sapiens arise.
2. Mitochondrial clocks require a great deal of effort to calibrate and different species will have different rates. This is very difficult to do, and they have not done so adequately (or at all?). This means that they are equivocating “diversity” for “TMRCA”. They should have instead reported the substitution rate distance, not the TMRCAs, as the TMRCAs are certainly not definitive. The fact of the matter is that we do not have good estimates of mitochondrial mutation rates in most species.
3. They appear to be using extant population size instead of historical population size. That is not warranted. The fact that humans have a few billion people in recent history, does not mean anything regarding our ancient history. The fact of the matter is that we do not have good estimates for past populations sizes.
4. To get a TMRCA we also need to account for the degree of selection at this locus, because it is clearly not neutral. This was not adequately accounted for, and once again, will affect the results.
5. They wildley over interpret measurements from a single loci. Such an effort is deeply flawed. For example, by mitochondria, Neandertals and Sapiens are different (but not more different than two chimps!) but when we look at autosomal genome, we see evidence of interbreeding. This directly contradicts the conclusions and reasoning of the paper.

So, to be clear, this seems to be very problematic study, with results that are wildly overstated. They have a provocative title, but are no way able to justify it.

 

 

On a side note, whenever popular websites/outlets (especially ones with a religious agenda) hop on board with sensationalist paper titles it always makes me very, very wary.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Leaf

[Gambit21]

I tend not to refute just because this or that site/outlet hops on board, since that's indication of nothing at all.

That said, not my area of expertise in any case.

 

I do have enough time in observing academia however to know that someone will refute anything, no matter what what, especially when it messes with their current paradigm.

That's not a commentary on my part regarding the linked study...just something I see over and over again.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Gambit21

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I tend not to refute just because this or that site/outlet hops on board, since that's indication of nothing at all.

That said, not my area of expertise in any case.

 

I do have enough time in observing academia however to know that someone will refute anything, no matter what what, especially when it messes with their current paradigm.

That's not a commentary on my part regarding the linked study...just something I see over and over again.

 

"someone will refute anything, no matter what what," - that is how science works.

 

"especially when it messes with their current paradigm" - that is how people work: including scientists!

[Leaf]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I do have enough time in observing academia however to know that someone will refute anything, no matter what what, especially when it messes with their current paradigm.

That's not a commentary on my part regarding the linked study...just something I see over and over again.

 

Yeah, that's very much human nature -- no one likes to be wrong. We like knowing things for certain, as it helps us make efficient decisions.

 

I think what annoys me with this paper is that it claims to be some major upset to a theory (evolution in this case), without providing sufficient evidence. Not only that, but the paper ignores the plethora of evidence that suggests 90% of species did not evolve over the past 100-200000 years.

 

I mean, just the claim should ring some alarm bells. If it were true, that would mean that fossils older than 200000 years make up only 10% of all species that ever existed on this planet.

Current estimates suggest that 99% of life that has ever existed on this planet is extinct. So.. are they claiming fossil evidence to be incorrect?

In terms of recorded fossil species I seem to vaguely remember  a figure in the 100's of thousands (can't be more specific than that, sorry). And that's only the fossils already found. That's not including the species that have yet to be found, or species that cannot be found at all (soft-bodied organisms like worms decay completely, leaving no trace whatsoever except under unusual circumstances). So the idea that the first 4.56 billion years of Earth's evolution only harbour 10% of life, and the final 200000 years contain 90% of all species diversity is ludicrous.

 

The reasoning of an evolutionary bottleneck causing this is also completely flawed, as there have been many evolutionary bottlenecks over Earth's history. Why did only the last one at 200Ka (debateable) trigger such a rapid increase in diversity? Why didn't the others? Considering that vast majority, if not all but one or two evolutionary bottlenecks occurred prior to 200Ka, wouldn't they all result in a corresponding diversity increase? If so, that refutes their proposals entirely.

 

If we assume current species diversity on Earth to be 2-10 million species, then the 10% figure would suggest that there should only have been 200000 to 1000000 fossil species in 4.5 billion years. Given the amount of fossil species already discovered, and the amount yet to be discovered, or lost to time, the author's claim just cannot hold true.

Now this topic is back on track, this is really interesting! Thanks for bringing it up Gambit!

Edited July 25, 2018 by Leaf

[Gambit21]

Well this again is something that I don't have time to delve into here.

Some 'science' is on shaky ground though, with science that followed it for decades built on what were basically suppositions about how it takes for

something to fossilize for one. It's been accepted as fact and off to the races, for decades.

Also, one problem with the fossil record - transitional species...there don't seem to be any, or at best very few that can be interpreted as transitional.

 

Now I have always been, in years past, a subscriber of punctuated equilibrium, but the more I've looked at the actual science (not just mainline science that's accepted by the academic community) the more I'm convinced that  "punc inc" is just a feeble way to account for these missing transitional species/fossils. Indeed, the fossil record seems to be comprises only of "complete" species, whereas you'd expect to be able to trace thousands of transitional forms across different taxa. It just doesn't happen.

 

There's also a problem with strata, that supposedly has "millions" of years between layers, yet the layers show no sign of localized erosion.

The Grand Canyon is a prime example of this, with strata having a laser line boundary for hundreds of miles, across multiple states.

Doesn't follow with the accepted "millions and millions of years" main line science.

So you see Leaf, this is why I read something like the link posted and I don't dismiss out of hand...because I have other background information that it actually jives with.

Again, not making any declarations, just saying...interesting...

 

Anyway, might be a fun conversation in a pub over a beer, but not over the internet.

Peace

Edited July 26, 2018 by Gambit21

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Hahaha yeah that last article is called a joke or Religious propaganda trying to deny evolution i dont think its meant to be serious. 

[Gambit21]

...and exhibit A, why discussion over the internet is a bad idea.

[Leaf]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Also, one problem with the fossil record - transitional species...there don't seem to be any, or at best very few that can be interpreted as transitional.

 

Now I have always been, in years past, a subscriber of punctuated equilibrium, but the more I've looked at the actual science (not just mainline science that's accepted by the academic community) the more I'm convinced that  "punc inc" is just a feeble way to account for these missing transitional species/fossils. Indeed, the fossil record seems to be comprises only of "complete" species, whereas you'd expect to be able to trace thousands of transitional forms across different taxa. It just doesn't happen.

 

There's also a problem with strata, that supposedly has "millions" of years between layers, yet the layers show no sign of localized erosion.

The Grand Canyon is a prime example of this, with strata having a laser line boundary for hundreds of miles, across multiple states.

Doesn't follow with the accepted "millions and millions of years" main line science.

So you see Leaf, this is why I read something like the link posted and I don't dismiss out of hand...because I have other background information that it actually jives with.

Again, not making any declarations, just saying...interesting...

 

Anyway, might be a fun conversation in a pub over a beer, but not over the internet.

Peace

 

Well, unfortunately we're too far away for a pub and a beer, so I'll happily settle for an internet discussion (no need to reply, just giving my thoughts):

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but -- regardless of your opinion on him -- Richard Dawkins is, so I'll let him explain transitional fossils. As far as I understand, there are more than enough. The fossil record doesn't just comprise of complete specimen, in fact, "death assemblages" as they're known, are ubiquitous (death assemblages being broken, essentially non-whole fossils). The problem is that geological time and  plate tectonics simply don't get on well with fossil preservation. 

 

 

Regarding stratigraphy, there's plenty of evidence for localised erosion, both in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere. Most sedimentary units I've seen contain some evidence for erosion. Erosional surfaces (unconformities) are evident both on small and large scales. Here's an example of rip-up clasts from the Bass Formation in the Grand Canyon (turbulence-induced ripping-up of material at the base of a bed):

 

 

 

Viewed from long distances, the "laser-cut" beds of rock appear much more uniform and consistent than up-close. All the layers represent millions of years of deposition and erosion. The basement rocks in the Grand Canyon are over are nearly 2 billion years old, the uppermost units only about 200 million. The Grand Canyon really is a fantastic example of geological time, spanning over a billion years, showcasing both relatively steady-state deposition of sediments, erosion of said sediments and re-deposition of eroded sediment. The basement these sedimentary sequences are deposited on (the oldest rocks exposed in the region) are metamorphosed sediments: the result of mountain-building. 

 

So you've got a significant part of the rock cycle conveniently exposed in a small region for everyone to see!

Edited July 26, 2018 by Leaf

[Gambit21]

Now see, I can if I had the time, play "devil's advocate" and refute all of that very easily/offer up another scientific explanation.

For instance that turbulence occuring at the moment of deposition....BUT...no time to delve....

Anyhoo, non of these are things I'm not taking into account or aware of, but I can only do so much typing.

 

Richard Dawkins isn't the best source, but no matter what.

That dude reaches, kicks and scratches and has the most closed mind of anyone I can think of.

I've seen him dig in his heels and try to define "nothing" in a feeble attempt to keep from getting cornered.

 

Side note, I discovered a nice fossilized bone chunk on one of our local beaches the other day.

It's a grapefruit sized chunk, part of a large bone, hip or something, from something big.

 

A mammoth molar was found in the same immediate area some years ago, so might belong to him.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Gambit21

[CUJO_1970]

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Some 'science' is on shaky ground though, with science that followed it for decades built on what were basically suppositions

 

Because for a large section of people, science became an ideology.

 

I would hold them in the same regard as flat earthers, but they are much more disruptive and wasteful.

[Garven]

On 7/21/2018 at 11:17 AM, ITAF_Rani said:

IL2 Battle of Jurassic 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[Leaf]

13 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Now see, I can if I had the time, play "devil's advocate" and refute all of that very easily/offer up another scientific explanation.

For instance that turbulence occuring at the moment of deposition....BUT...no time to delve....

Anyhoo, non of these are things I'm not taking into account or aware of, but I can only do so much typing.

 

No offense Gambit, but I'm a geologist, and as far as I'm aware, you're not. Not to be inflammatory, but I wouldn't claim to be able to refute anything "easily" if I didn't have any expertise in a field. I don't critique pilots for their flying, or surgeons for their surgery; I don't critique firemen for their work, nor do I criticise structural engineers for theirs. Why? Because I know virtually nothing about their respective fields. It would be impertinent and wrong of me to pretend to know more about a field than someone who specialises in it. But I'd love to know what the problems with current depositional models and fluid dynamics are, genuinely.

Playing devils advocate can be fun when there is a debate to be had. But there is no argument to be had when it comes to geological time, depositional processes and fluid dynamics. Refinements, certainly, but it's pointless to call all previous research into question out of mere scepticism alone. 

It's a bit like arguing about gravity; yes, there's plenty of research to still be done, but the basic premise is irrefutable. The laws of Physics aren't to be argued with. 

 

I think there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the rip-up clasts: turbulence and energy of the flow are responsible for the bedrock to be "ripped up", whilst a corresponding reduction in those two variables leads to the deposition of rip up clasts. There is some turbulence during deposition, but it is insufficient for continued entrainment of the clasts. That's backed up by countless flume experiments.

 

Quote

Richard Dawkins isn't the best source, but no matter what.

 

He is a professor of evolutionary biology, give him some credit.

 

Quote

 

Side note, I discovered a nice fossilized bone chunk on one of our local beaches the other day.

It's a grapefruit sized chunk, part of a large bone, hip or something, from something big.

 

A mammoth molar was found in the same immediate area some years ago, so might belong to him.

 

I'd love to live in an area where such finds can be made, or where the geology is at least somewhat interesting. The endless sedimentary sequences in SE England can get dull extremely quickly.

 

38 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Because for a large section of people, science became an ideology.

 

I would hold them in the same regard as flat earthers, but they are much more disruptive and wasteful.

 

Ehm.. are you seriously saying that people who place their faith in science are more disruptive and wasteful that those who do the exact opposite? 
Considering how much science has helped us achieve in the last 150 years (you know, huge advances in medicine, moon landings, the internet, genetics etc.) I don't understand the scepticism. The claims against science are often shouted loudest by those who understand it the least (creationists, flat earthers etc.).

Science isn't infallible, but I think it's served us pretty well so far. The evidence for that is all around us. So if a population wants to "follow science" (as if science were an ideology, which it of course isn't), then I think that's far preferable to a population placing their faith in a magical invisible friend, say. (I hope that last sentence won't derail the thread...)

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Leaf

[Gambit21]

While I’m not a geologist, I did quite a bit of course work in that area back in college - thus I’m hardly ignorant on the subject.

 

That said - I’m out as I can see where this is (predictably) going.

No disrespect

Edited July 26, 2018 by Gambit21

[Leaf]

46 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

While I’m not a geologist, I did quite a bit of course work in that area back in college - thus I’m hardly ignorant on the subject.

 

That said - I’m out as I can see where this is (predictably) going.

No disrespect

 

That's cool, I appreciate we're straddling a fine line here. Someone post a dinosaur picture or something.

[unreasonable]

20 minutes ago, Leaf said:

 

That's cool, I appreciate we're straddling a fine line here. Someone post a dinosaur picture or something.

 

Be careful what you wish for....  

 

 

[Gambit21]

Hehe...

 

By the way Jurassic World sucked - and the poor edit team had quite a job trying to hide Bryce Dallas Howard’s substantial umm ‘back yard’

 

 

  

That was insensitive - bad, bad Gambit.

[Leaf]

31 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Be careful what you wish for....  

 

 

 

Oh my. Now that's something I didn't see in my textbook.. Lemme just grab some lube.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Leaf

[Vig]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 2:02 PM, Leaf said:

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

You bet I do.  Scroll to the top of this screen; you will see your user name on the upper right.  There is a small down arrow just to the right of your user name.  Click on that.  Select "ignored users."  Fill the box up with names.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Vig
To make the text more better.

[angus26]

11 hours ago, US103_Furlow said:

 

Wasn’t this in Calvin and Hobbes?

 

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Hehe...

 

By the way Jurassic World sucked - and the poor edit team had quite a job trying to hide Bryce Dallas Howard’s substantial umm ‘back yard’

 

 

  

That was insensitive - bad, bad Gambit.

I thought it looked like crap. Atleast I know now. 

[DetCord12B]

On 7/20/2018 at 11:00 PM, FFS_Cybermat47 said:

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.

 

Tad OT but this should be right up your alley, mate.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/666150/Prehistoric_Kingdom/

 

[Garven]

1 hour ago, angus26 said:

Wasn’t this in Calvin and Hobbes?

Yes.

[Vig]

I know little about paleontology, but one thing that stuck in my head is the idea that whales descended from a very large land predator with alligator-like jaws and hooves.  Andrewsarchus, I think.  But it seems that they deduced the details from a partial skull.  How can a skull allow one to infer hooves with a reasonable degree of reliability?

[BOO]

35 minutes ago, Vig said:

I know little about paleontology, but one thing that stuck in my head is the idea that whales descended from a very large land predator with alligator-like jaws and hooves.  Andrewsarchus, I think.  But it seems that they deduced the details from a partial skull.  How can a skull allow one to infer hooves with a reasonable degree of reliability?

I was always under the impression (from one show back in my teens) that sheep, cows, goats, hippos and Whales (the list goes on) have a common ancestor and that link relates to the remnant of a pelvis (?) that still exists as a redundant bone in whales today.  So I guess its a case of going backward and forward along those varuous evolutionary lines. 

 

As for the teeth - hmm - I guess everything has something with lots of teeth and a bad attitude somewhere in is family closet. My uncle Stan for instance (although in fairness I don't think the teeth he had were actually his own)

[Leaf]

5 hours ago, Vig said:

I know little about paleontology, but one thing that stuck in my head is the idea that whales descended from a very large land predator with alligator-like jaws and hooves.  Andrewsarchus, I think.  But it seems that they deduced the details from a partial skull.  How can a skull allow one to infer hooves with a reasonable degree of reliability?

 

A skull is not enough by itself, but molecular/genetic evidence support this line of descendance. 
Regarding the whale, I'll just repost this, because I think it explains it really well (sorry Gambit!)
 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Leaf

[DD_Arthur]

On 7/26/2018 at 4:19 PM, Leaf said:

I'd love to live in an area where such finds can be made, or where the geology is at least somewhat interesting. The endless sedimentary sequences in SE England can get dull extremely quickly.

 

I'm lucky enough to live here;

 

on the western end of the Jurassic coast.  As an added bonus, my middle son graduated from Sussex last month so I no longer have to do the nine hour freakin' round trip to bloody awful Brighton in the car! 

 

Whilst I would imagine the whole of the south-west peninsular is geologically fascinating, having a world heritage site on your doorstep is very nice indeed.  At the eastern end we have Studland Bay - Lulworth Cove - Durdle Door

 

 

 

Then we can by-pass Weymouth and carry on for a stroll along the beach at West Bexington

 

Before arriving at Charmouth and Lyme Regis for some fossil action!

 

 

 To be continued......

[unreasonable]

You are indeed a lucky fellow.  I have my eyes on that part of the country in case I need to run from rapacious relatives.  

 

Nice snaps BTW.  I am sure you must have taken them since Goggle thinks the last one is of the Dead Sea!

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by unreasonable

[Cybermat47]

On 7/27/2018 at 12:33 PM, DetCord12B said:

 

Tad OT but this should be right up your alley, mate.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/666150/Prehistoric_Kingdom/

 

 

Cheers, looks great! Downloaded the demo, but it seems they haven't added the Dinosaurs in just yet.

[DetCord12B]

7 hours ago, FFS_Cybermat47 said:

 

Cheers, looks great! Downloaded the demo, but it seems they haven't added the Dinosaurs in just yet.

 

Nah, they're in there. You just need to build an Animal Nursery.