Is this reconstruction just a buncha hooey? Just look at how fragmented it was.
>>8131665
Another example.
>>8131670
The evolution of a myth.
>>8131665
It's pretty normal for bones to come out the ground like that.
if the fragments were raked up over an area of 20 square feet and then glued back together in that shape then, yes, that would be a buncha hooey.
in reality they're found in a lump having that shape and they're glued together in the ground. You brush or scrape off some soil to expose the fragmented bone, then you immediately soak that bone in superglue or some equivalent so the fragments stay in place. Then you scrape off a bit more, glue it again, repeat until the whole thing is out of the dirt or rock in roughly the same shape it went in.
>>8131665
if you're instead asking, as this guy seems to be: >>8131670 ,
whether or not the bones preserve diagnostic information in such a fragmented state,
then the answer is, probably. Diagnostic traits are an interesting mix of very large and very small morphologies, so there's a strong chance that either the overall shape or some tiny detail or both will be preserved that allows us to classify the animal.
As to which diagnostic traits in particular were found in any particular bone I'd just refer you to the author's text. They'll tell you what the bones indicated to them, and you're free to agree or disagree or have no clue what the fuck they're talking about.
as is traditional in science.
>>8131665
Evolutionary biologists know what they are looking for, they're just trying to fit their data to the trend. It's an endless task, there will always be one more "missing link" between each collected sample until they have a full family tree. It's pretty pointless.
>>8131736
>It's pretty pointless.
it's mostly just pokemon collecting, but every time an intermediate form is found you've got another test of theory of evolution that it has passed.
Which doesn't matter to the scientific community because nobody seriously doubts evolution.
Might be useful with fundamentalist muslims and christinas that deny evolution though. They are a threat to human growth, and it's good to provide knowledge that destroys their silly and dangerous ideas.
>>8131750
Same with the feminists. Also, I found this.
http://slideplayer.com/slide/3613197/
There are a few more pics after this.
>>8131757
>>8131762
>>8131774
Nah, /pol/ wouldn't be necessary unless I said that evolution was racist.
>>8131786
Then there's this.
>>8131866
And this.
Bump.
I don't have any reason to be here I just want to try something.
[math] \displaystyle \usepackage{slashed} \slashed{partial} [/math]
>>8132455
>>8131665
Honestly i can't even tell what you asking. The reconstructions looks plausible. It would be helpful to see the source and understand the assumptions being made to create it. A picture alone doesn't mean much.
>>8131872
Also not sure what those slides are trying to prove? Most of that stuff actually supports Darwin's theories of evolution. His books are worth the read. The history of the biology/Ecology is really interesting actually.
>>8132650
I just wondered if it was found in its current condition, or if they had to put it together piece by piece.
These might help understand the two sides.
http://www.evoanth.net/2015/10/15/the-chimp-human-missing-link-wasnt-that-chimp-like/
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/hominids/did-ardi-head-up-human-evolution-before-lucy/
>>8132658
The presentation itself is trying to say that evolution is very wobbly and that the Bible is a firm foundation, ergo forsake evolutionary biology and turn to the Bible.
>>8132661
*help you understand
>>8132663
Evolutionary biology isn't shown to be wobbly in those slides. The fact that there are ape like creatures similar to humans but not directly related to their ancestry is further proof of darwins theory. I would guess that the author of those slides never actually read any of the literature on evolutionary biology.
>>8132678
The funny part is that the presentation that these slides come from is still being used by him.
>>8132694
Its true, I found a clip of him presenting actually
>>8132709
I think this is him. David Prentice
>>8132509
Here's a bit of an antithesis to that proposition.
>>8131750
>it's good to provide knowledge that destroys their silly and dangerous ideas.
Don't kid yourself. Their ideas are totally immune to this.
>>8133492
I guess you could say they "evolved."
>>8133492
their kids aren't immune.
I was raised a creationist (Jehovah's Witness), I grew up to be a paleontologist.
>>8133969
So is it a lot of hands-on work or mainly studying?
>>8133976
either. both.
huge amounts of dissection in school. Lots of digging and fossil prep as a grad student. Lots more digging or screenwashing or sorting collections as an intern. I didn't move past that part, so I can't really tell you what it's like running digs or curating or teaching for decades on end.
the usual academia bullshit as far as I could tell.
>>8133990
Interesting. I'm somewhat surprised, though I didn't know what to expect.
>>8134005
It really depends on where you go to school and what curriculum you pursue.
but it's a huge discipline with lots of little niches to specialize in so you can wind up doing nothing but research or more field work or even running a museum or teaching.
Basically there's a lot of geology and anatomy though. Then a bit of waiting for someone to die so you can have their position.
>>8134024
So does paleoanthropology fall under a certain feild of study, or do you have to learn paleontology in general to do so?
>>8134032
I don't know of any schools that have a specific 4 year paleo-anthro program, but I haven't really checked. When I was in school a million years ago nobody was teaching a vert-paleo program and now there's a handful of colleges that have it.
But yeah, my guess would be a BS in paleontology and then specialize. Paleontology isn't strict about credentials though, pretty much anyone with any degree or even without a degree can get published. A lot of interdisciplinary stuff gets done.
>>8134041
I think I'll leave this stuff to the professionals, but if I find a fossil somewhere by accident, you bet your sweet ass I'm gonna tell people. I need something that my children can tell their children about.
I think an North American great ape would get people excited, considering little to no evidence has been found.
>>8134050
Also, I know that's an Asian great ape.
>>8134050
A lot of the actual finding gets done by amateurs hunting on private property. Identifying a vertebrate and determining if it's a new species or unknown elements of a previously known animal takes a lot of education and research though.
>>8134056
Could you make a believable fossil hoax at this time? I think it'd be more fun to be the huxter than the amatuer.
>>8134052
I'm not really an expert on apes or mammals even. You probably know more about that guy than I do.
I just look at it and see a huge sagittal crest, beefy zygomatic arches and surprisingly short canines. An unusually robust jaw.
I'm more of an archosaur guy myself, and even then I mostly just know my theropod crania.
>>8134060
no. the best you could probably do now is mixing up different species and making a chimaera. Even that would be figured out really quickly.
That's what happened with "Archaeoraptor." It took less than a week for that one to be discovered.
>>8134062
I just didn't want to seem like an idiot for putting an Asian ape when I was talking about an American one. So what would you define as the best transitional form, Yi Qi or Archaeopteryx?
>>8134067
Perhaps a phony cryptid fossil would get people's attention. That "American Ape" idea could fool bigfoot enthusiasts.
>>8134075
>Yi Qi or Archaeopteryx?
Archaeopteryx is closer but neither of them is ancestral to modern birds. Presumably birds evolved several millions of years before either of those guys showed up.
>That "American Ape" idea could fool bigfoot enthusiasts.
yeah, but then so can a good fursuit. Not a very high bar.
>>8134098
I need to make some kind of dent in the collective interest. What do you think could work (besides a chimaera)?
>>8134106
Forgot the pic.
>>8134106
Finding a new species will get your name in the papers for five minutes.
other than that any legit fame will come from either decades of serious study and publication or one fabulous discovery that everyone else is currently overlooking (Alvarez and Alvarez).
If all you want is fame with fanboys write a children's book. Or maybe fantasy fiction about speculative alternate realities.
Or make billions of dollars off of oil, chemicals and paper and then buy new buildings for famous museums and universities while also underwriting tens of millions of dollars in science.
>>8134128
I just want my discovery to live on in my absence, like Johansen with Lucy or the Leakys with their multiple finds.
Even something like the word "dinosaur" becoming a colloquial term would be enough for me.
>>8134144
well from 1840-1960 there was never more than ten vertebrate paleontologists publishing at any one time.
Now there's probably over a thousand.
every little contribution moves science forward, but the odds of making a name for yourself are pretty fucking slim.
>>8134153
That's why I think I should be a huxter. I mean look at half the shit the crazies come up with. It's bound to get someone's attention.
>>8134163
Also, nice gif.
>>8134167
it makes me smile cuz I used to work for the guy when he was at DMNS.
Regarding hoaxes, we had this discussion on /an/ a few months back. I was trying to figure out how you'd make a convincing fake. You'd have to start with real bone and then I guess sculpt it into new shapes. But then you'd have to come up with a convincing fake periosteum, I'm not even sure how you'd do that.
>>8134174
You're very most welcome, sir. May the Lord shine brightly upon your harvest (if you're fine with that).
Also, could using acidic liquids on it and blaming the environment work?
>>8134184
yeah, it's possible.
some bones are missing periosteum either because they were eaten and partially digested or because they were tumbled in a river, but both cases will wear the bone down to the point where it's probably useless for identifying a new species.
also residue from the acid as well as microscopic etching marks will show up. Those aren't normal things to find in most dinosaur-bearing sediments.
did you make that gif?
>>8134192
Nah, I'm not even sure how to do those.
>>8134202
I got it off here years ago.
was curious since I see you're posting a few pics I also have.
>>8134206
I'm just a fan of the times of old, that's all.
ITT
Of course. All 'fossils' are merely red herrings placed there by G-d to test our faith. If you disagree you're a fat autistic fedora.
>>8135326
I just found this weird site that tries to tie religion, hominid fossils, and bigfoot all together.
http://www.studyofoahspe.com/id43.html
>>8135333
Kindly to this board a favour and piss the fuck off to /pol/
>>8135773
I was just pointing out that he uses the "G-d" thing, which I've heard it a primarily Jewish tradition.
Also
>kindly do
>>8135779
Except you know many people use it ironically unless you're a complete mong.
Well, are you a complete mong anon?
>>8135790
Yes
>>8135790
Primarily Cauc, some Neg, and the tiniest bit of Aus.
>>8135799
You've just been awarded honorary status then, congratulations.
>>8135750
Asu! My ancestor!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mt6dl-IvNk8
