• iheartneopets@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    13 hours ago

    So tired of this meme, especially in a science themed sub. It’s just wrong and thusly promotes disinformation because it takes seconds to read a meme like this and move on without question. Meanwhile it takes (comparitavely) ages to actually research how fossils are reconstructed. If people even think to research it in the first place, because, hey, it’s in a science-based sub, right??

    Remember kids, the best memes are those based on truth 😎

    • profgrumpypants@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 minutes ago

      I was wondering this very thing. As some fossils were preserved whole, as others were not. I believe though, the whole ones, or even the ones that captured large contiguous chunks of tail could disprove this. Not sure, just was having a guess.

      *Not due to soft tissue being found but more so signs of trapped decay of some sort.

    • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      ok, but can we make fun of old “skin wrapping” reconstructions?

      because for most people, Jurassic park are still their standard version of dinosaur reconstitution.

      • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Right, and that’s why most people would believe this meme and take it as 100% truthful. The meme doesn’t specify that that’s the way we USED to do it, it says that’s how it would be done

        • Lazhward@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Prehistoric Planet, I say as an amateur. But from what little I read about it it’s pretty alright apparently, and most of the ‘wrong/we’re not sure about this bit’ things are listed on the wiki afaik.

          Of course there’s much more scientific depth possible than a TV show, but it’s a start towards recreating the common notion of what dinosaurs may have looked like.

        • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          feathers, more chonky, appropriate colours…

          not just reptile dragon monsters

            • multifariace@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Something that stands out to me is how the most colorful creatures are good at evasion. Birds and bugs flying or reef creatures have hiding holes. Other colorful life tends to be toxic.

              For this reason I doubt the huge species had color that stood out from their environment.

            • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              you say it as a joke, but look at the non extinct dinosaurs we have today,

              most birds are indeed much more flamboyant than Jurassic park dinosaurs

      • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        How do you mean? Dinosaurs? They were warmblooded, so no, not just lizards. Usually in the rock around the fossilized bones are imprints of other features of the animal, like skin texture or the presence of feathers.

        We can also tell a lot from the points where muscles attach to the bones.

        That’s not even accounting for the behavior we can interpret based on fossilized footprints! We’re actually learning that T-Rex were pretty good parents for instance.

        It’s a very complex field, and it’s amazing how much we can learn from so few clues.