this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
474 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

10905 readers
2019 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 79 points 7 months ago
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Inb4 the t rex is agreed to have had long, fleshy, limp whip arms that were far longer than the tiny bones.

[–] Cube6392@beehaw.org 42 points 7 months ago

They used the long tentacle arms to quickly thwip through the jungle

[–] weariedfae@lemmy.world 49 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh for sure, without a doubt. Hell it took forever for people to figure out feathers.

Then again, on rare occasion we do get some cool skin/soft tissue evidence like that Nodosaurus in Canada. Sometimes they're strikingly similar to what we thought (or not?). I am not a paleontologist and I am speaking out of my ass.

That Nodosaurus is super cool though, y'all should see it.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] onion@feddit.de 7 points 7 months ago
[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

and with the beaver tail ?

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago

Buckee the beaver

Behold, the common ancestor between the deadly T-Rex and the common beaver. You can tell they’re related due to the tiny arms, upright stance, and fierce demeanor.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 43 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What if there was a dinosaur that literally was just a walking skeleton? 🤔

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 53 points 7 months ago (3 children)
[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 7 months ago

Disgusting! Why have I followed the link. My entire day is ruined

[–] yoshi@lemmy.today 11 points 7 months ago

In October, he was one of nine senators to vote against legislation intended to outlaw flag burning and other forms of flag defacement and joined Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch, the other two Republicans to vote against the bill,

That's awesome. At least he stood for free speech..

in voicing a preference for a constitutional amendment.

..Jesus Christ

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Fucking coffin dodger.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

What’s the current consensus, did dinosaurs look more like chickens?

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 28 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Some definitely had feathers, and some likely were brightly colored

[–] Wiggle_Hard@hilariouschaos.com 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In my mind, I picture of Sasquatch riding a dinosaur chicken

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Mods, why was this piece of absolute poetry removed?

[–] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

From what I know, most raptors had feathers and that's where birds came from.

The broader group of theropods, including the T-Rex, had a precursor to feathers literally called "Dinofuzz".

All other kinds of dinosaurs I believe are actually scaly like we thought.

[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is still not something we can answer with certainty. For a couple of years there, paleontology thought that psittacosaurus had feathers on its tail - and as a ceratopsian, on the complete other side of the dinosaur 'tree', that would suggest the base form for dinosaurs must have feathers and any that didn't have them lost them at some point in their lineage (and thus could potentially regain them if the DNA was deactivated rather than lost). Now the feathers are disputed again, as "something else" - spines of some sort unrelated to feathers.

No doubt lots of dinosaurs were scaly, but I don't think anyone would say with certainty that feathers were limited to late theropods.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

I've also heard some contention over the ground up evolutionary theory for birds. Mainly that you don't evolve flight from jumping up, but rather from jumping tree to tree and gliding. I'm certainly not an expert in this but as a layman it does make sense to me, if you jump to escape a predator on the ground you inevitably come back down, but if you can make it to the next tree and your predator can't, that would indeed be a significant enough advantage to be passed down to your children. Seems easier to convert lizardy gliders like on the yi qi to wings too, rather than lizardy arms to wings.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 4 points 7 months ago

Check out Prehistoric Planet, they say they used the latest research to make the dinos, feathers and all

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 3 points 7 months ago

... some of them.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 16 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Mammals are different than reptiles. A better comparison would be today's reptiles.

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mammals only got yeeted to their own evolutionary tree branch 40 million years prior to those that would be considered reptilian (sorta dinos too) which was somewhere in the realm of 250 million years ago.

Meaninng the reptiles of today are ~5x further apart in time from dinosaurs, than dinosaurs are from their common ancestors to mammals.

I think we really should just not bother thinking in terms of current speciation concepts. They could have had jellyfish like tentacles dangling allover their skin and we'd never know.

[–] Zoop@beehaw.org 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mammals only got yeeted to their own evolutionary tree branch 40 million years prior to those that would be considered reptilian (sorta dinos too) which was somewhere in the realm of 250 million years ago.

As someone who was raised and taught to believe that the earth was only a few thousand years old (by 'that kind' of Christians/churches,) this still blows my mind to read! I've known what I was taught was bullshit for at least around fifteen years, but it's like my little pea brain still just cannot compute it. Wild stuff!!

I grew up with a mix of some who shared that view. Its remarkable the box they place their God in to fit their worldview innit? Lol

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

A better comparison would be today’s birds, which descended from theropods and are the only remaining members of the clade Dinosauria.

[–] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Dinosaurs aren’t reptiles, they’re birds.

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 15 points 7 months ago

Birds aren't real

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago

And birds and dinos are crocs (unlike most other reptiles)

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castorocauda

This beaver guy lived during the Jurassic period.

Imprints for the win!

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 months ago