Fossilised beasts

As for fossils, the likelihood of any creature currently on the planet or indeed any creature that has ever lived on the planet being fossilised is slim to none. this is because they usually decay and are not preserved to the extent that they will be able to survive being compressed over thousands of years. thats why fossils we have are so priceless and are amazing finds.

to prove this point ask anyone from any museum in the world, that houses within it a full skeleton of a prehistoric creature, whether it truly is 100million year old bone, and they will inform you that it is just a fibreglass model of what they estimate the creature to look like based on the finds of their teeth or femur or vertebraes etc

What point are you trying to make?

Some fossils are based on complete skeletons, some are "fill in the gap" fossils. Are you just trying to point out that fossils are always rock solid evidence and some times are just closest to fact?

You mean like the complete skeleton of the gorgonopsid:
www.washington.edu...

Or Australopithecus:
www.cnn.com...

Or Liopleurodon:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Or the discovery in the 1800's of the first complete skeleton of an ichytheosaur:
www.wordiq.com...

Or the famous Archaeopteryx?

Or Thylacleo?
www.abc.net.au...


It's true that many museums display partial skeletons because it is unusual to find a complete skeleton. However, many such specemins ARE known.

Or the famous Archaeopteryx?


Err... where's the link?
Unless your trying to show me that liek Fossils links also come with the fill in the gap method?


Anywho excellent sites Byrd!


[edit on 5-10-2004 by Xabora]

Yeh in my excitement i forgot to say (following on from what i first wrote), so the likelehood of people discovering fossilised remains of weird and wonderful ancient creatures are minimal so im not saying that they never existed, just that they may not ever be found, in 100million years time people might be saying "yes, there are depictions in ancient civilizations of a giant beast that lived in the seas called a blue whale but we cant find any fossilised specimens so it might just be an overblown myth"

Originally posted by Xabora
Or the famous Archaeopteryx?


Err... where's the link?
Unless your trying to show me that liek Fossils links also come with the fill in the gap method?

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Xabora]

Nah. I was chatting and too busy to look up the links. Lazy Birdie!!

Many dinosaurs fossil found are not complete. I think when a paleontologist finds like 30% percent of a skeleton they are happy. Its rare to find complete or near complete skeletons but it does happen. Alot of the smaller bones are washed away or taken away by scavengers.

They try to make a intelligent guess to fill in the gaps and like most sciences they dont always get it right. But when new bones come to light they will change with the new information.

A example of a dino we have very little of is the Spinosaurous from Jurassic Park III. We used to have very few bones a lower jaw some of its spine bones that give it its name and a few other small bones. These were unfortunately lost in I think WW2, They were in a German Museum during the war that was bombed. Right now I think all we have is some teeth and pictures of the bones that were lost.

So what we saw in Jurassic park might not have been exactly what it looked like but I bet its pretty close.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

yeh i think most people are familiar with the iguanadon story, but if you don't here it is!

in 1800's, i believe, people found fossils of a large new creature which they believed to walk on all fours, looking like an iguana (hence the name) with a 6 inch spike on its nose, however later it was discovered that the spike was not indeed on its nose but on its "thumb" and it actually walk on its hind legs

so yeh when new evidence comes to light a reasonable estimate is made and then updated as and when new information is found