Well, you kinda can't know what fossils looked like based on the skeleton. What everyone thinks dinosaurs look like is vastly different from what they most likely looked like.
I mean, we can't know everything, but in the last couple of decades we've learned how to derive quite a bit about an animal from a fossil. Things like where muscles attach let us figure out the muscle structure, the size and structure of bones yields hints to what and where an organism's weight was, and from the little nubs on the bones we can tell where feathers are. And all of that can come together and form a decent picture of what that animal's behavior was. That's just the stuff I'm aware of as a casual, I'm sure there's tons more clues in fossils that I'm not aware of.
Sure, but in the same way we don't know anything. We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, but with our current really good models we can't see a way it wouldn't
Yes and no. Its not uncommon to make extreme predictions just for the sake of "What if?". Sometimes it actually helps us find stuff out, sense this is all guess and check anyway.
Ok but has this actually been proposed by an archeologist in accordance with the evidence we have? Is this a possible recreation or has it in effect already been disproven with what we know?
There's a big difference between "in 2024 an archeologist asked an artist to paint this" and "someone on ticktock ai generated this".
Well, its literally signed by the author for starters, and this is a very common thing in paleo-art. ESPECIALLY with something as controversial as spinosaurus. What spinosaurus looked like and how it behaved has been the subject of intense debate and multiple revisions over the last 2 decades.
There is also an unreadable (due to compression) watermark under to it, how would I know it is actually an artists signature?
I assume then it is, and of an artist you recognize to be credible?
from what i know of spinosaurus this has to be one of those semi-tongue-in-cheek depictions that show something clearly made up yet way more sensible than early paleoart, to make a point about how we should keep an open mind and that these animals PROBABLY ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE ANIMALS
like the fluffy sparrow-looking T.rex, it almost certainly didn't look like this but it's a much better assumption than featherless scaly monsters.
Look how they massacred my boy
Wait is this real lol
Well, you kinda can't know what fossils looked like based on the skeleton. What everyone thinks dinosaurs look like is vastly different from what they most likely looked like.
Relevant meme:
I mean, we can't know everything, but in the last couple of decades we've learned how to derive quite a bit about an animal from a fossil. Things like where muscles attach let us figure out the muscle structure, the size and structure of bones yields hints to what and where an organism's weight was, and from the little nubs on the bones we can tell where feathers are. And all of that can come together and form a decent picture of what that animal's behavior was. That's just the stuff I'm aware of as a casual, I'm sure there's tons more clues in fossils that I'm not aware of.
I wouldn't say we know. It's an educated guess, but it's incomplete.
Sure, but in the same way we don't know anything. We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, but with our current really good models we can't see a way it wouldn't
Yes and no. Its not uncommon to make extreme predictions just for the sake of "What if?". Sometimes it actually helps us find stuff out, sense this is all guess and check anyway.
Ok but has this actually been proposed by an archeologist in accordance with the evidence we have? Is this a possible recreation or has it in effect already been disproven with what we know?
There's a big difference between "in 2024 an archeologist asked an artist to paint this" and "someone on ticktock ai generated this".
Well, its literally signed by the author for starters, and this is a very common thing in paleo-art. ESPECIALLY with something as controversial as spinosaurus. What spinosaurus looked like and how it behaved has been the subject of intense debate and multiple revisions over the last 2 decades.
There is also an unreadable (due to compression) watermark under to it, how would I know it is actually an artists signature?
I assume then it is, and of an artist you recognize to be credible?
The signature is clear, it might be CY. The social media link below it unreadable
The hind legs? No way.
Yeah that part seems hard to believe.
from what i know of spinosaurus this has to be one of those semi-tongue-in-cheek depictions that show something clearly made up yet way more sensible than early paleoart, to make a point about how we should keep an open mind and that these animals PROBABLY ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE ANIMALS
like the fluffy sparrow-looking T.rex, it almost certainly didn't look like this but it's a much better assumption than featherless scaly monsters.
How is this nerfed? It looks like if an elephant seal was even more gigantic and a carnivore, which is to say absolutely terrifying
So just more gigantic? It's a terrifying carnivore anyway, right?
Wait what do elephant seals eat? I was thinking they were like elephants and ate kelp &etc
They eat elephants, it's in the name
God help us all
Wiki says: skates, rays, squid, octopuses, eels, SMALL SHARKS and large fish. Emphasis mine.
i mean some sharks are the size of your leg, we eat larger fish than that (tuna are enormous)
Let's exclude humans from the comparison, it's not fair. I mean, humans eat whales.
Well tbh those things were hugely overpowered and due a nerf. We'll see what the next update brings.
Looks like something out of All Yesterdays or All Tomorrows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Yesterdays?wprov=sfla1
All other bits are now DLC.