Silly, the site above said that Archaeopteryx lived 150 million years ago. Thats at least 6 million years before the newly discovered Anchiornis huxleyi, which lived 144 to 65 million years ago. It contradicts the fact that Anchiornis is more primitive than Archaeopteryx. Humans overlook a lot of things.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Palaeontology! Mark 2
- Thread starter Morm
- Start date
Silly, the site above said that Archaeopteryx lived 150 million years ago. Thats at least 6 million years before the newly discovered Anchiornis huxleyi, which lived 144 to 65 million years ago. It contradicts the fact that Anchiornis is more primitive than Archaeopteryx. Humans overlook a lot of things.
I can tell you're looking for a fight here...
By your logic, the hoatzin shouldn't exist with non-clawed birds, but look at that! It surely does. Also, Ratites shouldn't exist with passeriformes either. Your logic extended further, coelacanths shouldn't exist etc etc. I could go on and on with ancient lineages that exist now but shouldn't by the logic that something more derived exists too. Humans and Alligators? Horses and Geckos?
Having plesiomorphic characters is not an indicator of anything other than a lag in evolution (or rapid evolution in one group vs another) or a character reversal. Evolution isn't unilinear and it certainly doesn't always move in the same direction. Just because one group possesses more derived characters it doesn't follow that another group necessarily will. There is absolutely no contradiction in this at all.
You just made one of the most critical errors typical to people who don't understand evolution. One thing I would urge you to do is learn the mechanics of an idea, especially one that has more seperate evidences than any other single idea ever, before you make statements like you just did.
You have made a total strawman- you have made a claim based on something you invented or heard but you don't actually know the mechanics of what you are arguing. You are also arguing from ignorance, which is not really cool. I am going to again urge you to get an education on the topic before you even consider doing stuff like this.
By your logic, the hoatzin shouldn't exist with non-clawed birds, but look at that! It surely does. Also, Ratites shouldn't exist with passeriformes either. Your logic extended further, coelacanths shouldn't exist etc etc. I could go on and on with ancient lineages that exist now but shouldn't by the logic that something more derived exists too. Humans and Alligators? Horses and Geckos?
Having plesiomorphic characters is not an indicator of anything other than a lag in evolution (or rapid evolution in one group vs another) or a character reversal. Evolution isn't unilinear and it certainly doesn't always move in the same direction. Just because one group possesses more derived characters it doesn't follow that another group necessarily will. There is absolutely no contradiction in this at all.
You just made one of the most critical errors typical to people who don't understand evolution. One thing I would urge you to do is learn the mechanics of an idea, especially one that has more seperate evidences than any other single idea ever, before you make statements like you just did.
You have made a total strawman- you have made a claim based on something you invented or heard but you don't actually know the mechanics of what you are arguing. You are also arguing from ignorance, which is not really cool. I am going to again urge you to get an education on the topic before you even consider doing stuff like this.
I'm just saying, stuff like that seems awfully odd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin#Taxonomy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratites#Evolution_and_systematics, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelecanth#Fossil_record imply that evolution can't fully explain their existance.
I was never arguing about anything, just pointing out something. If I was, my post was not a strawman. I used your own link anyway, and seeing as how a strawman ignores the original person's position and presents a new, easily attacked situation, my argument was completely fine. Archaeopteryx definitely existed.
The toothed bird was also said to have been found in the early, not late Cretaceous as stated in the second sentence of the website. You might want to edit your post.
I was never arguing about anything, just pointing out something. If I was, my post was not a strawman. I used your own link anyway, and seeing as how a strawman ignores the original person's position and presents a new, easily attacked situation, my argument was completely fine. Archaeopteryx definitely existed.
The toothed bird was also said to have been found in the early, not late Cretaceous as stated in the second sentence of the website. You might want to edit your post.
No, the theory of evolution actually perfectly allows for animals to exist with minimal (= next to none) evolution. So you saying that plesiomorphic forms imply that evolution can't happen is again an arguement from ignorace.
Do me a huge favor. Educate yourself on evolution before 'pointing out' things designed to obviously get a reaction. I know you're not an idiot, so read up and learn a bit about what it is you dismiss in such a cavalier way.
The strawman came from you assuming something about evolution and making a point based on that. You did ignore my original position, which would be the mechanics of evolution, and imposed your own faulty thoughts about it upon it. No matter what you wanna call it you do not understand the theory you are trying to refute and that is unacceptable.
Do me a huge favor. Educate yourself on evolution before 'pointing out' things designed to obviously get a reaction. I know you're not an idiot, so read up and learn a bit about what it is you dismiss in such a cavalier way.
The strawman came from you assuming something about evolution and making a point based on that. You did ignore my original position, which would be the mechanics of evolution, and imposed your own faulty thoughts about it upon it. No matter what you wanna call it you do not understand the theory you are trying to refute and that is unacceptable.
The "current" theory of evolution has changed a lot from Darwin's original theory. Although the main idea is apparent, changes were made after new evidence contradicted some of Darwin's beliefs.
here is a great example of a strawman. It completely ignores statements in the bible. The bible said that people back then could live way past 100 years, and therefore, have more children. As sin continued to permeate the world, the average lifespan decreased. However, the only thing keeping it up is medicine and personal hygiene. Now, with the amount of overweight people in America, the average lifespan will start to go back down.
here is a great example of a strawman. It completely ignores statements in the bible. The bible said that people back then could live way past 100 years, and therefore, have more children. As sin continued to permeate the world, the average lifespan decreased. However, the only thing keeping it up is medicine and personal hygiene. Now, with the amount of overweight people in America, the average lifespan will start to go back down.
Pardon my intrusion, but how is this at all relevant? No one is defending Darwin's theory in its original inception. This is like randomly saying "psychoanalysis has changed a lot since Freud" or "Biology has changed a lot since Aristotle"; what is the point?
Freud's "science" being expanded, as opposed to being changed like Darwin's? Dude was an important man and wrote with great eloquence, but ultimately Freud was a psychoanalyst (recognized as pseudo-science) who pulled theories out of his ass. Very little of what Freud said has any contemporary relevance. Same goes for Aristotle--much of his philosophy is obsolete.
Should have knocked on wood before you typed that last sentence.
Thanks for illustrating the point that science progresses and changes as evidence is found, Crynts. That is precisely why it is a successful method for finding things like the cure to polio, because it can adapt to what is actually there.
The bible isn't a reliable historical document no matter how you wanna slice it and this certainly isn't the right thread to discuss it, since I'd prefer this thread kept to the topic content thus far and not have it boil down to a debate between you and the christian wonder twins versus everyone else and have it ultimately being closed.
Please don't shit up this thread with creationist babble. If you wish to discuss it in earnest, I'd like you to make a thread about it and I will take the fight to your doorstep; I doubt I'd get far though, as a baseline in education to understand what is being said to you is required and you do not have it. That is why I keep asking you to get an education.
I really don't want you to not contribute to the thread, Crynts; you should be using it as a resource to learn, rather than just blindly questioning and trying to counter what you are being told by a professional when you are a self admitted 'kid' who clearly hasn't finished his primary education yet.
The bible isn't a reliable historical document no matter how you wanna slice it and this certainly isn't the right thread to discuss it, since I'd prefer this thread kept to the topic content thus far and not have it boil down to a debate between you and the christian wonder twins versus everyone else and have it ultimately being closed.
Please don't shit up this thread with creationist babble. If you wish to discuss it in earnest, I'd like you to make a thread about it and I will take the fight to your doorstep; I doubt I'd get far though, as a baseline in education to understand what is being said to you is required and you do not have it. That is why I keep asking you to get an education.
I really don't want you to not contribute to the thread, Crynts; you should be using it as a resource to learn, rather than just blindly questioning and trying to counter what you are being told by a professional when you are a self admitted 'kid' who clearly hasn't finished his primary education yet.
I don't know much about the specifics of genetics, unfortunately. It's actually not hard to move DNA around and change characters though; I was having beer with my old palaeo prof last night (and of course the night ended with an exchange of genetics...just kidding) and he tells us that corn, in times of dought, has certain genes that can jump switch around seemingly at random to hope to come up with a quick fix that will save them from the drought. Of course, most are probably fatal but on a species level it makes alot of sense.
I think this is the study that is trying to remake a dinosaur out of an Emu. It'll be nothing more than genetic parlour tricks and kind of look like a dinosaur if they take it that far, but it's still badass. I guess it's more of a genetic study in the realm of "what can we get away with?" The answer is...anything we damn well please.
I think this is the study that is trying to remake a dinosaur out of an Emu. It'll be nothing more than genetic parlour tricks and kind of look like a dinosaur if they take it that far, but it's still badass. I guess it's more of a genetic study in the realm of "what can we get away with?" The answer is...anything we damn well please.
Oh so I have a question rather than "you are awesome bro"
I'm looking into archaeology, and I was wondering if you had any tips for getting into the field (it's kind of related to what you do: mad digging, mad bitches, fighting bears). I've already volunteered for a local dig, and it's mostly the romanticism of it all that makes me interested in it, but something just clicked for me, in the "hey i want to do this forever" way.
I'm looking into archaeology, and I was wondering if you had any tips for getting into the field (it's kind of related to what you do: mad digging, mad bitches, fighting bears). I've already volunteered for a local dig, and it's mostly the romanticism of it all that makes me interested in it, but something just clicked for me, in the "hey i want to do this forever" way.
My main advice to you would be to get to know your profs on a personal level. I still see some of my profs and get sloshed with them sometimes. They brought me to the Burgess Shale and are a huge reference for me; both things are basically a 1 2 punch that allow me to get into awesome palaeo jobs. You should also try to deviate from the standard. With your options, you should definately consider branching out; for example, some of my options were entomology and I skipped botany all together. This rare education in palaeo gave me yet another edge in the hiring market. Also, spam the volunteering. Because I got on two world heritage sites just by volunteering, I was once invited to africa to do an archaeology dig that is a site that (once published) will be one of the most siginificant tool sites EVER. I had to decline, as it was volunteering and I didn't have money. Had I had the money and time, I woulda done it in a heartbeat though. So the more experience you have the better chance you have of getting into one of the showstopping sites that will ultimately lead you to more important sites.
You should also consider what state/province you are in, because certain ones have different laws protecting various historical resources. If you get a good state or province, you can make a shit ton of money being a consultant. If protecting natural resources doesn't float your boat, you can always do research for a much humbler salary, but the jobs are tenured pretty damn fast.
You should also consider what state/province you are in, because certain ones have different laws protecting various historical resources. If you get a good state or province, you can make a shit ton of money being a consultant. If protecting natural resources doesn't float your boat, you can always do research for a much humbler salary, but the jobs are tenured pretty damn fast.
The area I live in pretty much requires archaeological "scans" before any property is put up (actually this volunteer job is such a dig), so if I wanted to work close to home it might be doable.
I would like to travel though. Just hearing some of my prof's stories made me want to go out and find shit.
I would like to travel though. Just hearing some of my prof's stories made me want to go out and find shit.
Then I would suggest making friends and offering at every chance to go ANYWHERE, even if it is some shitty place. Offer at your local museums, you'll make friends with the curators :D.
What you can do is use consulting to gain experience and help pay for a masters/phd, then you'll be golden for arky. The problem is most of the cool areas are hard to get into- egypt is basically shut down right now and europe iirc is saved for europeans. Still, there are ways around that shit.
What you can do is use consulting to gain experience and help pay for a masters/phd, then you'll be golden for arky. The problem is most of the cool areas are hard to get into- egypt is basically shut down right now and europe iirc is saved for europeans. Still, there are ways around that shit.
It appears as if there is going to be some Drama in this thread rather rapidly.
I'm abusing my lieu time as best I can in conjunction with WCB, but WCB might have a conniption fit at me for being so clever. I basically will get 3 weeks off with pay.
Once that is done, I will be quitting my job that pays an insultingly low wage for consulting and abuses/overworks the shit out of me. From there, I have a few leads on places that would like me to work for them for a reasonable consulting fee- 3X what I make now for 3X less work = exactly the same pay but with me slacking off and not being undervalued.
If all goes according to plan, I'll have saved myself a hideous laying off experience this fall at the very least. If nothing works out at all, at least I'll be away from that shitty place to work.
I'm very optimistic about this, because my training in consulting and palaeo for what I'm offering to be paid is virtually unmatched, especially for someone who is only 23.
Also, at my old university, the smallest north american dinosaur was discovered in the collections
I'm abusing my lieu time as best I can in conjunction with WCB, but WCB might have a conniption fit at me for being so clever. I basically will get 3 weeks off with pay.
Once that is done, I will be quitting my job that pays an insultingly low wage for consulting and abuses/overworks the shit out of me. From there, I have a few leads on places that would like me to work for them for a reasonable consulting fee- 3X what I make now for 3X less work = exactly the same pay but with me slacking off and not being undervalued.
If all goes according to plan, I'll have saved myself a hideous laying off experience this fall at the very least. If nothing works out at all, at least I'll be away from that shitty place to work.
I'm very optimistic about this, because my training in consulting and palaeo for what I'm offering to be paid is virtually unmatched, especially for someone who is only 23.
Also, at my old university, the smallest north american dinosaur was discovered in the collections
big day in palaeo
another mystery of the burgess shale solved
octopus with preserved ink holy shit
and from another day
Protofeathers in an ornithiscian!
another mystery of the burgess shale solved
octopus with preserved ink holy shit
and from another day
Protofeathers in an ornithiscian!
man that is some freaky shit
i love how some of these old creatures we've been unearthing look like something out of a science fiction novel
i love how some of these old creatures we've been unearthing look like something out of a science fiction novel
I've read an article that has some great information on sabertooth cats (and how they compare to large modern cats and bears).
A basic background of the first part:
They gathered a large amount of data on various features of the anatomy of a variety of animals species, including cranial and post-cranial. I can also post this data, but I was told not to post gargantuan charts, as I guess most here aren't enthusiastic to analyze it themselves (but I did notice some things I found interesting, such as cats having similar mechanical advantage in their biceps as bears-something I didn't expect considering the rock flipping prowess of bears, which I assumed came from leverage, rather then muscle).
They then did some fancy processes, including calculating two principal components based off of all of the statistics.
The first chart here shows categorization based on the overall morphology of the animals (not phylogeny, but, unsurprisingly, phylogeny is of course strongly correlated), and the categories also organized into sub levels.
The marsupial lion (which is a marsupial, of course, and very distantly related from all these placentals) was very similar to the Smilodons (sabertooth cats). In the next sublevel, the sabertooths grouped with the group of bears (who were extremely similar in PC1 as you see later-and I'm guessing PC1 is postcranial based off of the discussion-and different in PC2). They seem overall quite seperated from the large cats, suggesting that the "sabertooth tiger", while both were members of the feline family, weren't very similar morphologicaly.
The other chart:
And now for parts of the analysis/conclusion that may be of interest (and probably easier/nicer to read then my strings of uncoordinated thought):
Personally, I found the entire article very interesting. I hope some people enjoy it; I needed to post something I liked to bring this back to the first page.
A basic background of the first part:
They gathered a large amount of data on various features of the anatomy of a variety of animals species, including cranial and post-cranial. I can also post this data, but I was told not to post gargantuan charts, as I guess most here aren't enthusiastic to analyze it themselves (but I did notice some things I found interesting, such as cats having similar mechanical advantage in their biceps as bears-something I didn't expect considering the rock flipping prowess of bears, which I assumed came from leverage, rather then muscle).
They then did some fancy processes, including calculating two principal components based off of all of the statistics.
The first chart here shows categorization based on the overall morphology of the animals (not phylogeny, but, unsurprisingly, phylogeny is of course strongly correlated), and the categories also organized into sub levels.
The marsupial lion (which is a marsupial, of course, and very distantly related from all these placentals) was very similar to the Smilodons (sabertooth cats). In the next sublevel, the sabertooths grouped with the group of bears (who were extremely similar in PC1 as you see later-and I'm guessing PC1 is postcranial based off of the discussion-and different in PC2). They seem overall quite seperated from the large cats, suggesting that the "sabertooth tiger", while both were members of the feline family, weren't very similar morphologicaly.
The other chart:
And now for parts of the analysis/conclusion that may be of interest (and probably easier/nicer to read then my strings of uncoordinated thought):
Personally, I found the entire article very interesting. I hope some people enjoy it; I needed to post something I liked to bring this back to the first page.
It isn't surprising in the least to see the bicep functionality be similar; I'd almost expect it to be close across most of Carnivora (okay mustelidae notwithstanding).
The only reason Thylacoleo was considered I'd imagine is to see if it's more of a phylogentic linkage rather than a functionality one. Big shock it's a functionality one. I assume that's the conclusion of the article, but I won't read it anytime soon.
This seems like one of those nothing studies, like seeing what angle a Tyrannosaur could flex its tail to.
The only reason Thylacoleo was considered I'd imagine is to see if it's more of a phylogentic linkage rather than a functionality one. Big shock it's a functionality one. I assume that's the conclusion of the article, but I won't read it anytime soon.
This seems like one of those nothing studies, like seeing what angle a Tyrannosaur could flex its tail to.
I wouldn't say it was a "nothing study".
People have long wondered about the habits of Smilodon and the marsupial lion.
Particularly how they hunted.
Heres the abstract if that helps:
I don't know how much you know about these things, but at least for others, here are pictures to give an idea of uniqueness compared to modern predators:
Smilodon:
Marsupial lion:
Weird teeth (compared to most other predators).
There were much better skull pictures posted on a forum, although, I'd have to do some digging before I can find them, and somehow I doubt the effort is worth the reward, with no one being overwhelmingly interested.
They were well aware that T.carnifex-the marsupial lion-was not at all a phylogenetic linkage between any of these animals. It was a marsupial. The rest are placentals. Marsupials diverged from placentals long before the dinosaurs died out, back when the elephant's ancestors were tiny mole-like critters.
Why would you expect mustilidae to be different? None were included within the study, but from other studies that included olecranon relative to ulna lengths (mechanical advantage of forearm extention) they performed just as anyone would expect: average considering their lifestyle. Brown bears (who dig regularly) came out similar to the fossorial badgers. The likes of predatory fishers similarly to lynxes.
Mechanical advantage comes at the cost of reducing speed. Being simple levers, the trade off is directly proportionate.
I just figured bears could sacrafice some speed so that they could more efficiently (as in, need less muscle mass, and expend less energy) flip rocks.
...back to the question of the marsupial lion and Smilodon, their method of predation has long been one of great interest. The study demonstrated that the Smilodon and marsupial lion were built much more like the omnivorous, foraging, bears then they were any of the modern predatory animals.
This suggests that there must have been a great difference (along with their unusual cranial morphology).
There are a lot more studies on this subject that I've read.
The study concluded that the heavy build-apparently much more robust then modern predators, was so that the Smilodon and marsupial lion could predate and grapple with large and powerful prey animals.
-I'd basically be summarising the discussion, so I could stop.
If you simply aren't interested, there is no point trying to convince you to read it. =)
People have long wondered about the habits of Smilodon and the marsupial lion.
Particularly how they hunted.
Heres the abstract if that helps:
I don't know how much you know about these things, but at least for others, here are pictures to give an idea of uniqueness compared to modern predators:
Smilodon:
Marsupial lion:
Weird teeth (compared to most other predators).
There were much better skull pictures posted on a forum, although, I'd have to do some digging before I can find them, and somehow I doubt the effort is worth the reward, with no one being overwhelmingly interested.
They were well aware that T.carnifex-the marsupial lion-was not at all a phylogenetic linkage between any of these animals. It was a marsupial. The rest are placentals. Marsupials diverged from placentals long before the dinosaurs died out, back when the elephant's ancestors were tiny mole-like critters.
Why would you expect mustilidae to be different? None were included within the study, but from other studies that included olecranon relative to ulna lengths (mechanical advantage of forearm extention) they performed just as anyone would expect: average considering their lifestyle. Brown bears (who dig regularly) came out similar to the fossorial badgers. The likes of predatory fishers similarly to lynxes.
Mechanical advantage comes at the cost of reducing speed. Being simple levers, the trade off is directly proportionate.
I just figured bears could sacrafice some speed so that they could more efficiently (as in, need less muscle mass, and expend less energy) flip rocks.
...back to the question of the marsupial lion and Smilodon, their method of predation has long been one of great interest. The study demonstrated that the Smilodon and marsupial lion were built much more like the omnivorous, foraging, bears then they were any of the modern predatory animals.
This suggests that there must have been a great difference (along with their unusual cranial morphology).
There are a lot more studies on this subject that I've read.
The study concluded that the heavy build-apparently much more robust then modern predators, was so that the Smilodon and marsupial lion could predate and grapple with large and powerful prey animals.
-I'd basically be summarising the discussion, so I could stop.
If you simply aren't interested, there is no point trying to convince you to read it. =)
They are fucked up skeletally compared to their carnivoran friends
So what they concluded was the exact same thing as I concluded by common sense without doing a study? I really wish people wouldn't waste time and hog up grant money on this kind of shit. It should be readily apparent to anyone in a position to do this kind of research that large bodied hunters that have converged so obviously hunted and lived in a similar way.
Honestly you don't see people doing studies on ichthyosaurs versus dolphins and sharks to determine that the did infact swim efficiently in the water at high speeds, so why bother with this? It's completely trivial for one and it's completely obvious before any research is done.