Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Argentinosaurus huinculensis
Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 10:39 PM (6,970 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Argentinosaurus huinculensis

Posted Image

Fossil range: Late Cretaceous, 95 Ma


Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Reptilia
Superorder: Dinosauria
Order: Saurischia
Suborder: Sauropodomorpha
Infraorder: Sauropoda
(unranked): Titanosauria
Genus: Argentinosaurus
Type Species: Argentinosaurus huinculensis

Posted Image

Argentinosaurus is a genus of titanosaur sauropod dinosaur first discovered by Guillermo Heredia in Argentina. The generic name means "silver lizard", in reference to the country in which it was discovered ("Argentina" is derived from the Latin argentum). The dinosaur lived on the then-island continent of South America somewhere between 97 and 94 million years ago, during the mid Cretaceous Period.

Posted Image

Description
Not much of Argentinosaurus has been recovered. The holotype included three anterior dorsal vertebrae, three posterior dorsal vertebrae, first to fifth sacrum vertebrae (only ventral sector the vertebral bodies), most of the sacral ribs of the right side, great part of a fragmented dorsal rib, and the right tibia. One vertebra had a length of 1.59 meters (spine to the ventral border) and the tibia was about 155 centimeters (58 inches). Besides these, an incomplete femur (MLP-DP 46-VIII-21-3) is assigned to Argentinosaurus; this incomplete femur shaft is about 1.18 meters. The proportions of these bones and comparisons with other sauropod relatives allow paleontologists to estimate the size of the animal.

An early reconstruction by Gregory S Paul estimated Argentinosaurus at between 30–35 metres (98–115 ft) in length and with a weight of up to 80–100 tonnes (88–110 short tons). Other estimates have compared the fragmentary material to relatively complete titanosaurs to help estimate the size of Argentinosaurus. In 2006 Carpenter used the more complete Saltasaurus as a guide and estimated Argentinosaurus at 30 metres (98 ft) in length. An unpublished estimate used published reconstructions of Saltasaurus , Opisthocoelicaudia , and Rapetosaurus as guides and gave shorter length estimates of between 22–26 metres (72–85 ft). Weight estimates are less common, but Mazzetta et al. (2004) provide a range of 60–88 tonnes (66–97 short tons), and consider 73 tonnes (80 short tons) to be the most likely, making it the heaviest sauropod known from good material.

Posted Image

Classification and history
The type species of Argentinosaurus, A. huinculensis, was described and published (by the Argentinian palaeontologists José F. Bonaparte and Rodolfo Coria) in 1993. Its more specific time-frame within the Cretaceous is the late Cenomanian faunal stage, ~96 to 94 million years ago. The fossil discovery site is in the Huincul Formation of the Río Limay Subgroup in Neuquén Province, Argentina (the Huincul Formation was a member of the Río Limay Formation according to the naming of the time).

Posted Image

Museum exhibits
Argentinosaurus is featured prominently in the permanent exhibition Giants of the Mesozoic at Fernbank Museum of Natural History in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. This display depicts a hypothetical encounter between Argentinosaurus and the carnivorous theropod dinosaur Giganotosaurus. Contemporary fossils of Cretaceous Period plants and animals are included in the exhibition, including two species of pterosaurs, providing a snapshot of a prehistoric ecosystem in what is now the modern Patagonia region of Argentina. At 37 m long, this skeletal reconstruction represents the largest dinosaur mount ever to be assembled.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Aug 30 2012, 11:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

palaeozoologist
 
This is a very speculative multiple-view skeletal restoration of Argentinosaurus, one of the larger titanosaurs. Argentinosaurus is only known from 6 described dorsal vertebrae (with an additional undescribed seventh dorsal vertebrae apparently known - left out from this reconstruction), a partial sacrum, fibula (originally described as a tibia) and referred femurs and partial ilium (neither of which have been properly described or figured) (Bonaparte and Coria, 1993). As such, only about 15% of its postcranial skeleton is known from fossil material (none of the cranial material is known). All described or photographed material is in white, while unknown or non-figured material is left dark gray. Because it was so incomplete, missing material is based off of relatives, this includes Alamosaurus for the neck and tail (modified slightly in the case of the tail vertebrae to accommodate taller neural spines in the dorsal vertebrae), Opisthocoelicaudia for the limbs and scapula, and (because I could only find oblique views of the ilium) Neuquensaurus and Isisaurus for the ilium. Also the skull is modified from Adam Yate's reconstruction of the skull of Antarctosaurus which can be seen here: [link] . All of these species have been found to phylogenetically bracket Argentinosaurus more closely than other tianosaur taxa, and this is why I used them to fill in the missing parts (Curry Rogers, 2005).

I would not normally do a multi-view skeletal for such an incomplete taxon, but I did one anyways because I wanted to do a GDI mass estimate, since Argentinosaurus is normally listed as one of the larger dinosaurs. More on that technique here.

As restored here, Argentinosaurus is about 28.89 meters (94.75 ft) long with the neck raised or about 29.65 (97.25 ft) meters long with the neck straightened out. [Edit: I should point out that this is the projection of the length of the silhouette onto the ground, instead of the length that we usually think of in living animals, where they are measured along the back or belly. See comments by dracontes below] So it turns out to be a bit shorter than I have previously estimated (I thought it would come out at about 35 meters or so). The aforementioned GDI mass estimate gave a total volume of about 87.82 m3 and a resultant mass of 64.17 tonnes (70.5 US (short) tons). I used specific density estimates of 0.3 (300 kg/m3) for the neck, 0.8 (800 kg/m3) for the torso and tail and 1.0 (1000 kg/m3) for the limbs. This is considerably lighter than many previous mass estimates with often gave mass estimates in the 75-100 tonne range, although it is heavier than Greg Paul's most recent (2010) mass estimate of 55 tonnes.

My reconstruction conservatively restored the length of the torso and the densities I used may be considered on the low-end of the range of plausible densities, so it may be possible to add a few more tonnes. For example, increasing the density of the limbs to between 1.2 and 1.4 (which are equally plausible in my opinion) would lead to a mass estimate of between ~66 and ~69 tonnes. Also, the length of the missing dorsal vertebrae are restored with an average of the known dorsal vertebrae in size. This could lead to an underestimate because in at least some titanosaurs, the anterior dorsal vertebrae get longer as they get closer to the neck.


http://palaeozoologist.deviantart.com/art/Argentinosaurus-skeletal-359353120
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Scientists Digitally Reconstruct Giant Steps Taken by Dinosaurs for the First Time

Posted Image
This is the 40-meter original skeleton, Argentinosaurus huinculensis reconstruction at Museo Municipal Carmen Funes, Plaza Huincul, Neuquén, Argentina.
Credit: Dr. Bill Sellers, The University of Manchester

Oct. 30, 2013 — The Manchester team, working with scientists in Argentina, were able to laser scan a 40 metre-long skeleton of the vast Cretaceous Argentinosaurus dinosaur. Then using an advanced computer modeling technique involving the equivalent of 30,000 desktop computers they recreated its walking and running movements and tested its locomotion ability tested for the very first time.
The study, published in PLOS ONE, provides the first ever 'virtual' trackway of the dinosaur and disproves previous suggestions that the animal was inflated in size and could not have walked.
Dr Bill Sellers, lead researcher on the project from the University's Faculty of Life Sciences, said: "If you want to work out how dinosaurs walked, the best approach is computer simulation. This is the only way of bringing together all the different strands of information we have on this dinosaur, so we can reconstruct how it once moved."
Dr Lee Margetts, who also worked on the project, said: "We used the equivalent of 30,000 desktop computers to allow Argentinosaurus to take its first steps in over 94 million years. "The new study clearly demonstrates the dinosaur was more than capable of strolling across the Cretaceous planes of what is now Patagonia, South America."
The team of scientists included Dr Rodolfo Coria from Carmen Funes Museum, Plaza Huincal, Argentina, who was behind the first physical reconstruction of this dinosaur that takes its name from the country where it was found. The dinosaur was so big it was named after a whole country.
Dr Phil Manning, from Manchester who contributed to the paper, said: "It is frustrating there was so little of the original dinosaur fossilized, making any reconstruction difficult. The digitization of such vast dinosaur skeletons using laser scanners brings Walking with Dinosaurs to life…this is science not just animation."
Dr Sellers uses his own software (Gaitsym) to investigate locomotion both living and extinct animals have to overcome.
"The important thing is that these animals are not like any animal alive today and so we can't just copy a modern animal," he explained. "Our machine learning system works purely from the information we have on the dinosaur and predicts the best possible movement patterns."
The dinosaur weighed 80 tonnes and the simulation shows that it would have reached just over 2 m/s -- about 5 mph.
Dr Sellers said the research was important for understanding more about musculoskeletal systems and for developing robots.
He added: "All vertebrates from humans to fish share the same basic muscles, bones and joints. To understand how these function we can compare how they are used in different animals, and the most interesting are often those at extremes. Argentinosaurus is the biggest animal that ever walked on the surface of the Earth and understanding how it did this will tell us a lot about the maximum performance of the vertebrate musculoskeletal system. We need to know more about this to help understand how it functions in ourselves.
"Similarly if we want to build better legged robots then we need to know more about the mechanics of legs in a whole range of animals and nothing has bigger, more powerful legs than Argentinosaurus."
The University of Manchester team now plans to use the method to recreate the steps of other dinosaurs including Triceratops, Brachiosaurus and T. rex.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131030125538.htm





Journal Reference:
William Irvin Sellers, Lee Margetts, Rodolfo Aníbal Coria, Phillip Lars Manning. March of the Titans: The Locomotor Capabilities of Sauropod Dinosaurs. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8 (10): e78733 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078733

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078733
Edited by Taipan, Oct 31 2017, 03:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JaM
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Seems like idiocy to me, since the "reconstructions" are nearly pure fantasy, and I believe they're viewed as highly dubious by some paleontologists, AFAIK. If they wanted to make an animation, they should've based in on a dinosaur with a much more complete skeleton. As it is now, it seems more like a populist fantasy project for kids, on the scientific level of the Transformers.

No small wonder that some religious people think that dinos are fake, because some of them really are. The creation of this fantasy object is not a good idea, since the fakeness of the mount is fuel to the creationist vehicle, since it's demonstrably fake. A true disservice to science.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What are you talking about?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
JaM
Apr 26 2015, 07:24 PM
Seems like idiocy to me, since the "reconstructions" are nearly pure fantasy, and I believe they're viewed as highly dubious by some paleontologists, AFAIK. If they wanted to make an animation, they should've based in on a dinosaur with a much more complete skeleton. As it is now, it seems more like a populist fantasy project for kids, on the scientific level of the Transformers.

No small wonder that some religious people think that dinos are fake, because some of them really are. The creation of this fantasy object is not a good idea, since the fakeness of the mount is fuel to the creationist vehicle, since it's demonstrably fake. A true disservice to science.
What did I just read?
From the dinosaur art thread.

Me
 
I just discovered that if I scale my Argentinosaurus from Dreadnoughtus it ends up having a mass of about 140 t.!

Posted Image
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Dec 8 2016, 01:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
https://paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/Argentinosaurus-huinculensis-Mk-II-708506050

Posted Image

Paleo-King
 
Location: Plaza Huincul, Argentina
Time: Cenomanian epoch (beginning of the Late Cretaceous)
Length: 37m (122ft.)
Probable mass: 90+ tons

Finally, an Argentinosaurus that's reasonably true to life! While the original paleo-king.deviantart.com/art/… was cutting-edge for its time, and inspired many tributes, it was long overdue for an update. Argentinosaurus is completely redone with the next-gen Paleo King treatment! Based on new material of closely related titanosaurs Patagotitan and Rukwatitan, and with the more distant Malawisaurus as the third gap-filler, this hi-fi skeletal completely rewrites the shape of Argentinosaurus. And with the revised proportions, the case is once again looking very good that this is still the biggest known dinosaur, at a whopping 37m. I am not going to do a life profile in case yet more complete relatives are found which force further revisions of the skeletal, which is far more easily updated. But this revision is probably the most radical relative to the old version, and makes all previous Argentinosaurus restorations - both mine and those of others, not to mention anything from Horizon and the BBC - obsolete.

The proportions of Puertasaurus shall also have to be updated based on recent lognkosaur discoveries (i.e. Patagotitan, Dreadnoughtus) so we can see how the two stack up: fav.me/d3lfqci). And then there's the Mexican Alamosaurus, as well as Patagotitan, which may still exceed it in mass. So far though, Argentinosaurus may at least top them in length.

As in all of the best rigorous skeletals, this one is a hybrid, with the most relevant species consulted first. Scaling up the hips and lower cervicals of Rukwatitan, we end up with a neck considerably longer than in previous Argentinosaurus reconstructions - and Rukwatitan does appear to be the closest relative of Argentinosaurus yet found, based on cladistics. The limbs are based on the type and referred material, along with Patagotitan and Rukwatitan for the shoulder, humerus and ulna, and Andesaurus and Dreadnoughtus for the manus and pes. The skull is modeled on the mysterious and never formally described skull (likely heavily restored) sometimes associated with Argentinosaurus on the web: 1.bp.blogspot.com/_u6CUqDWU5nw… The shape of this skull looks somewhere in between the skulls of Euhelopus and Malawisaurus, which cladistically also makes sense. The neck and tail are composites of Rukwatitan, Patagotitan and Malawisaurus, with some input from Ruyangosaurus on the problematic and heavily eroded final dorsal.

Argentinosaurus is a basal titanosaurian sauropod (sometimes classed in the dubious family Andesauridae, though it may form its own clade "Argentinosauridae" along with Rukwatitan), and probably reached a length of 122 ft (37m) - considerably larger than previous estimate which did not take the proportions of its smaller cousin Rukwatitan into account. It's known from two specimens - one consisting of some enormous dorsal and hip material plus a fibula (NOT a tibia as Bonaparte and Coria originally claimed in 1993), and the other being a femur shaft that is missing both ends. Its neck and tail are totally unknown, but based on related basal titanosaurs, it's likely that both were long, with the neck rivaling some euhelopodids in proportions, if Rukwatitan is any clue to its design. A more complete femur roughly 2.5m long was referred to Argentinosaurus by Bonaparte in 1996, though whether it's from the holotype individual or an altogether new specimen is unknown (and the book Bonaparte published it in is now long out of print and obscenely expensive).

Argentinosaurus had a long torso. Here I have restored it with 11 dorsal vertebrae (the standard count for most macronarians, including basal titanosaurs and most basal somphospondyli). The described dosrals are largely exposed without right-side ribs, so you can see their true shape. Salgado and Powell (2010) revised the order of the dorsals in comparison with other titanosaurs, reassigning the "first" dorsal described in 1993 by Bonaparte and Coria to the position of third dorsal, moving the supposed "third" dorsal to fourth dorsal position, and sorting out the placement of the posterior dorsals. I used this new ordering here. The final dorsal, heavily eroded and never figured in print, appears to be in the eleventh dorsal spot, the "dorso-sacral" which transitions to a sacral vertebra in lognkosaurs and other intermediate groups, reducing the dorsal count to 10 (and is caught midway through the act of this evolution in the colossal Ruyangosaurus).

References:

- Bonaparte, J.; Coria, R. (1993). A new and gigantic titanosaurian sauropod from the Rio Limay Formation (Albian-Cenomanian) of Neuquen Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 30 (3): 271–282

- Bonaparte, J.F. (1996b). Dinosaurios de America del Sur. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires.

- Carpenter, Kenneth (2006). Biggest of the Big: A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Mega-Sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus, Cope, 1878. In Foster, John R.; Lucas, Spencer G.. and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. 36. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. pp. 131–138.

- Mazzetta, Gerardo V.; Christiansen, Per; Fariña, Richard A. (2004). Giants and Bizarres: Body Size of Some Southern South American Cretaceous Dinosaurs (PDF). Historical Biology 65: 1–13. www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/pape…

- Salgado, L.; Powell, J. E., 2010. Reassessment of the vertebral laminae in some South American titanosaurian sauropods Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Vol. 30 , Iss. 6,2010
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JaM
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Spartan
Apr 26 2015, 10:50 PM
What are you talking about?
It should be understood exactly as it is written, no more, no less. There's a movement going on in the ever increasing number of religious fundamentalists who claim that dinosaur mounts are fake speculation, that it is not real skeletons. That is an attempt at disproving the notion that earth is older than a few thousand years, as the ultimate goal. When museums make up this kind of fake objects - if you don't believe me, then please look up the Argentinosaurus papers and see how much they have found of the animal - which is very, very little, especially compared with the later Argentinian fossils - then those people feel vindicated, especially when they speak to the converted (so to speak) and it makes the YEC fundamentalist anti-science movement stronger.

That's one aspect of creating a completely fake skeleton, which this IS. The other aspect is that they create a fantasy skeleton, based on no real evidence - the animal could've been completely different, the feet are way outsized etc. - and then they make biomechanical studies based on this made up skeleton. If you cannot see the problem with that, then you probably don't understand the point of "evidence" in science, or science at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
JaM
Nov 16 2017, 10:33 PM
Spartan
Apr 26 2015, 10:50 PM
What are you talking about?
It should be understood exactly as it is written, no more, no less. There's a movement going on in the ever increasing number of religious fundamentalists who claim that dinosaur mounts are fake speculation, that it is not real skeletons. That is an attempt at disproving the notion that earth is older than a few thousand years, as the ultimate goal. When museums make up this kind of fake objects - if you don't believe me, then please look up the Argentinosaurus papers and see how much they have found of the animal - which is very, very little, especially compared with the later Argentinian fossils - then those people feel vindicated, especially when they speak to the converted (so to speak) and it makes the YEC fundamentalist anti-science movement stronger.

That's one aspect of creating a completely fake skeleton, which this IS. The other aspect is that they create a fantasy skeleton, based on no real evidence - the animal could've been completely different, the feet are way outsized etc. - and then they make biomechanical studies based on this made up skeleton. If you cannot see the problem with that, then you probably don't understand the point of "evidence" in science, or science at all.
You speak, just like Christians Against Dinosaurs, with zero evidence that Argentinosaurus is fake. The purpose of that study was to find the biomechanical properties of giant sauropods and Argentinosaurus is one of the best examples they could choose. The exact appearance of the skeleton barely impacts the results, cause the structure of the body and the legs are determined.

Seriously, you sound exactly like CAD. You think that the speculative nature of the mounts of a dinosaur means that it is fake and a hoax and it was made "fur moneyyy". I cannot understand what the hell is your problem.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 17 2017, 01:35 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
JaM
Nov 16 2017, 10:33 PM
Spartan
Apr 26 2015, 10:50 PM
What are you talking about?
It should be understood exactly as it is written, no more, no less. There's a movement going on in the ever increasing number of religious fundamentalists who claim that dinosaur mounts are fake speculation, that it is not real skeletons. That is an attempt at disproving the notion that earth is older than a few thousand years, as the ultimate goal. When museums make up this kind of fake objects - if you don't believe me, then please look up the Argentinosaurus papers and see how much they have found of the animal - which is very, very little, especially compared with the later Argentinian fossils - then those people feel vindicated, especially when they speak to the converted (so to speak) and it makes the YEC fundamentalist anti-science movement stronger.

That's one aspect of creating a completely fake skeleton, which this IS. The other aspect is that they create a fantasy skeleton, based on no real evidence - the animal could've been completely different, the feet are way outsized etc. - and then they make biomechanical studies based on this made up skeleton. If you cannot see the problem with that, then you probably don't understand the point of "evidence" in science, or science at all.
It's definitely true that Argentinosaurus is largely incomplete and that, until more complete remains are found, that any attempts at reconstructing it are ultimately speculative (and that ultimately, the biomechanical model in Sellers et al. (2013) suffers from this). However, it's not like reconstructions of extinct animals known from incomplete remains are done by purely pulling things out of thin air. They're done by looking at the available material, trying to determine the phylogenetic affinities of the animal, looking at more complete remains of close relatives (if they exist), and then using that to try to fill in the blanks; more of a best guess than a complete fabrication as dinosaur deniers like to believe. Now, even at the first step interpretations can vary. But one of the properties of science is that the amount of stock we put into different ideas changes with our understanding, as well as that no one flat out claims that "so and so is absolutely correct".

So yeah, some skeletal restorations of fossil taxa are, at least in part, speculative (but as I've said above, there is some reasoning behind them). But then again, it's not like that fact is being hidden from people. They can see that fact for themselves (after all, you did) and they need to be smart enough to realize that scientists don't have the complete picture, only a best guess that a) they're not saying is definitive and b) is subject to change. If religious fundamentalists don't have the intelligence to understand even that, then that's on them.
Edited by Ausar, Nov 17 2017, 01:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carnoferox
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Thalassophoneus
Nov 17 2017, 01:35 AM
You speak, just like Christians Against Dinosaurs, with zero evidence that Argentinosaurus is fake. The purpose of that study was to find the biomechanical properties of giant sauropods and Argentinosaurus is one of the best examples they could choose. The exact appearance of the skeleton barely impacts the results, cause the structure of the body and the legs are determined.

Seriously, you sound exactly like CAD. You think that the speculative nature of the mounts of a dinosaur means that it is fake and a hoax and it was made "fur moneyyy". I cannot understand what the hell is your problem.
There is a good chance that CAD was just a publicity stunt for Kristen Auclair.

http://ozonesouthbridge.blogspot.com/2015/08/satire-or-smokescreen-councilor-auclair.html
https://www.skeptic.com/insight/poes-trolls-and-dinosaur-deniers/
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/christians-against-dinosaurs-is-a-hoax/


Edited by Carnoferox, Nov 17 2017, 02:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
JaM
Nov 16 2017, 10:33 PM
Spartan
Apr 26 2015, 10:50 PM
What are you talking about?
It should be understood exactly as it is written, no more, no less. There's a movement going on in the ever increasing number of religious fundamentalists who claim that dinosaur mounts are fake speculation, that it is not real skeletons. That is an attempt at disproving the notion that earth is older than a few thousand years, as the ultimate goal. When museums make up this kind of fake objects - if you don't believe me, then please look up the Argentinosaurus papers and see how much they have found of the animal - which is very, very little, especially compared with the later Argentinian fossils - then those people feel vindicated, especially when they speak to the converted (so to speak) and it makes the YEC fundamentalist anti-science movement stronger.

That's one aspect of creating a completely fake skeleton, which this IS. The other aspect is that they create a fantasy skeleton, based on no real evidence - the animal could've been completely different, the feet are way outsized etc. - and then they make biomechanical studies based on this made up skeleton. If you cannot see the problem with that, then you probably don't understand the point of "evidence" in science, or science at all.
Jesus, calm down.

Incorrectly reconstructed skeletons are certainly not the same as deliberately faked ones.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JaM
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Thalassophoneus
Nov 17 2017, 01:35 AM
JaM
Nov 16 2017, 10:33 PM
Spartan
Apr 26 2015, 10:50 PM
What are you talking about?
It should be understood exactly as it is written, no more, no less. There's a movement going on in the ever increasing number of religious fundamentalists who claim that dinosaur mounts are fake speculation, that it is not real skeletons. That is an attempt at disproving the notion that earth is older than a few thousand years, as the ultimate goal. When museums make up this kind of fake objects - if you don't believe me, then please look up the Argentinosaurus papers and see how much they have found of the animal - which is very, very little, especially compared with the later Argentinian fossils - then those people feel vindicated, especially when they speak to the converted (so to speak) and it makes the YEC fundamentalist anti-science movement stronger.

That's one aspect of creating a completely fake skeleton, which this IS. The other aspect is that they create a fantasy skeleton, based on no real evidence - the animal could've been completely different, the feet are way outsized etc. - and then they make biomechanical studies based on this made up skeleton. If you cannot see the problem with that, then you probably don't understand the point of "evidence" in science, or science at all.
You speak, just like Christians Against Dinosaurs, with zero evidence that Argentinosaurus is fake. The purpose of that study was to find the biomechanical properties of giant sauropods and Argentinosaurus is one of the best examples they could choose. The exact appearance of the skeleton barely impacts the results, cause the structure of the body and the legs are determined.

Seriously, you sound exactly like CAD. You think that the speculative nature of the mounts of a dinosaur means that it is fake and a hoax and it was made "fur moneyyy". I cannot understand what the hell is your problem.
Let me try to explain what I'm talking about.
There are Christian fanatics who believe the world is only 6 thousands years old (that is not me!!!!) Especially in the US where this reconstruction is.
A portion of THOSE Christian fanatics (again, not me) use the argument that all fossils and their interpretations are false, and that good Christians can go to museums and see that it is all fake.

Therefore, using a very obviously not real skeleton and then claim it is representative of the fossils supports their argument (in their mind, obviously).
In addition to that, people use this reconstruction - mostly based on no real fossil, and as such highly speculative, and potentially not very accurate anatomically, for basis of biomechanical study.

We have many other sauropods where we have almost the full skeletons represented, either by single or multiple specimens, they could have used those. Fact is, the biomechanical study is not based on real evidence, it's done the exact way those aforementioned fanatics claim that ALL Paleontology is done, fueling the idea that it's all false (again, THEIR belief). Maybe you have not seen this ongoing topic (I guess you have since you mention CAD), so you don't know what I'm talking about? Sure, a study of a real sauropod skeleton would likely have produced the exact same results, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

When you base a study on such a specifically speculative mount, it just becomes borderline science. There are many other sauropods with a similar build, so why exactly use THIS specimen, which is not real? We only have a few vertebrates and partial leg bones and a few other bones, that is all of Argentinosaurus there is. Some of the other Argentinian Titanosaurs are much more complete.

And finally, I don't claim that ALL mounts or studies of mounts are fake, only THIS PARTICULAR MOUNT, understand? This mount is a fantasy art object, trying to represent how big the animal was, but it is not an accurate representation suited for anatomical studies ESPECIALLY as there's this ongoing debate with doubters in science and fundamentalists who have political clout these days.
Ausar
Nov 17 2017, 01:53 AM
JaM
Nov 16 2017, 10:33 PM
Spartan
Apr 26 2015, 10:50 PM
What are you talking about?
It should be understood exactly as it is written, no more, no less. There's a movement going on in the ever increasing number of religious fundamentalists who claim that dinosaur mounts are fake speculation, that it is not real skeletons. That is an attempt at disproving the notion that earth is older than a few thousand years, as the ultimate goal. When museums make up this kind of fake objects - if you don't believe me, then please look up the Argentinosaurus papers and see how much they have found of the animal - which is very, very little, especially compared with the later Argentinian fossils - then those people feel vindicated, especially when they speak to the converted (so to speak) and it makes the YEC fundamentalist anti-science movement stronger.

That's one aspect of creating a completely fake skeleton, which this IS. The other aspect is that they create a fantasy skeleton, based on no real evidence - the animal could've been completely different, the feet are way outsized etc. - and then they make biomechanical studies based on this made up skeleton. If you cannot see the problem with that, then you probably don't understand the point of "evidence" in science, or science at all.
It's definitely true that Argentinosaurus is largely incomplete and that, until more complete remains are found, that any attempts at reconstructing it are ultimately speculative (and that ultimately, the biomechanical model in Sellers et al. (2013) suffers from this). However, it's not like reconstructions of extinct animals known from incomplete remains are done by purely pulling things out of thin air. They're done by looking at the available material, trying to determine the phylogenetic affinities of the animal, looking at more complete remains of close relatives (if they exist), and then using that to try to fill in the blanks; more of a best guess than a complete fabrication as dinosaur deniers like to believe. Now, even at the first step interpretations can vary. But one of the properties of science is that the amount of stock we put into different ideas changes with our understanding, as well as that no one flat out claims that "so and so is absolutely correct".

So yeah, some skeletal restorations of fossil taxa are, at least in part, speculative (but as I've said above, there is some reasoning behind them). But then again, it's not like that fact is being hidden from people. They can see that fact for themselves (after all, you did) and they need to be smart enough to realize that scientists don't have the complete picture, only a best guess that a) they're not saying is definitive and b) is subject to change. If religious fundamentalists don't have the intelligence to understand even that, then that's on them.
You're right about that, but you have to see it in the context I wrote about, see my original reply or the one I just wrote above.
In any case, this is not a real skeleton based on real fossil evidence. There's a lot of conjecture involved in making this mount, and it is just a representation of the great size of the dinosaur, but not at all an anatomically correct representation other than some kind of overall shape. When you study the biomechanics of a dinosaur you have (in my opinion) to use one which has a good representation of fossil. Why use one which does absolutely not? Do you know how much variation is possible in the morphology of Argentinosaurus just based on the actual fossil? IF this reconstruction is made by scaling up OTHER fossils from OTHER sauropods, the why not use one of those specimens instead? If that is the case, then this is a proxy of a completely different sauropod. However, I cannot prove that it is incorrect, but just ask any real paleontologist who have seen the mount. It's not like the old mounts which was put together in the wrong way, it's based on sculpted bones which does not exist.

As a single person, the religious fanatic means nothing, it is as a movement it becomes relevant, via people like Mike Pence, via people like him they get political clout and this is just a strong support of their argument that Paleontology is false. Via mounts like this, THEIR argument becomes stronger, their nonsense becomes more widely accepted, because they say like this "if this is false, then we assúme everything else is false as well", and the falseness of mounts has been a strong argument of theirs lately, in debates.
Don't worry, I've seen the mostly real Berlin mount, I understand that sometimes real bone is fragile and cannot be mounted, I don't ignore all the real mounts just because a single mount is mostly sculpted, but that does not mean that people with political clout and the people who believe them accept or understand this.
Edited by JaM, Nov 20 2017, 11:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
JaM
Nov 20 2017, 07:54 PM
Thalassophoneus
Nov 17 2017, 01:35 AM
JaM
Nov 16 2017, 10:33 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You speak, just like Christians Against Dinosaurs, with zero evidence that Argentinosaurus is fake. The purpose of that study was to find the biomechanical properties of giant sauropods and Argentinosaurus is one of the best examples they could choose. The exact appearance of the skeleton barely impacts the results, cause the structure of the body and the legs are determined.

Seriously, you sound exactly like CAD. You think that the speculative nature of the mounts of a dinosaur means that it is fake and a hoax and it was made "fur moneyyy". I cannot understand what the hell is your problem.
Let me try to explain what I'm talking about.
There are Christian fanatics who believe the world is only 6 thousands years old (that is not me!!!!) Especially in the US where this reconstruction is.
A portion of THOSE Christian fanatics (again, not me) use the argument that all fossils and their interpretations are false, and that good Christians can go to museums and see that it is all fake.

Therefore, using a very obviously not real skeleton and then claim it is representative of the fossils supports their argument (in their mind, obviously).
In addition to that, people use this reconstruction - mostly based on no real fossil, and as such highly speculative, and potentially not very accurate anatomically, for basis of biomechanical study.

We have many other sauropods where we have almost the full skeletons represented, either by single or multiple specimens, they could have used those. Fact is, the biomechanical study is not based on real evidence, it's done the exact way those aforementioned fanatics claim that ALL Paleontology is done, fueling the idea that it's all false (again, THEIR belief). Maybe you have not seen this ongoing topic (I guess you have since you mention CAD), so you don't know what I'm talking about? Sure, a study of a real sauropod skeleton would likely have produced the exact same results, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

When you base a study on such a specifically speculative mount, it just becomes borderline science. There are many other sauropods with a similar build, so why exactly use THIS specimen, which is not real? We only have a few vertebrates and partial leg bones and a few other bones, that is all of Argentinosaurus there is. Some of the other Argentinian Titanosaurs are much more complete.

And finally, I don't claim that ALL mounts or studies of mounts are fake, only THIS PARTICULAR MOUNT, understand? This mount is a fantasy art object, trying to represent how big the animal was, but it is not an accurate representation suited for anatomical studies ESPECIALLY as there's this ongoing debate with doubters in science and fundamentalists who have political clout these days.
Ausar
Nov 17 2017, 01:53 AM
JaM
Nov 16 2017, 10:33 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's definitely true that Argentinosaurus is largely incomplete and that, until more complete remains are found, that any attempts at reconstructing it are ultimately speculative (and that ultimately, the biomechanical model in Sellers et al. (2013) suffers from this). However, it's not like reconstructions of extinct animals known from incomplete remains are done by purely pulling things out of thin air. They're done by looking at the available material, trying to determine the phylogenetic affinities of the animal, looking at more complete remains of close relatives (if they exist), and then using that to try to fill in the blanks; more of a best guess than a complete fabrication as dinosaur deniers like to believe. Now, even at the first step interpretations can vary. But one of the properties of science is that the amount of stock we put into different ideas changes with our understanding, as well as that no one flat out claims that "so and so is absolutely correct".

So yeah, some skeletal restorations of fossil taxa are, at least in part, speculative (but as I've said above, there is some reasoning behind them). But then again, it's not like that fact is being hidden from people. They can see that fact for themselves (after all, you did) and they need to be smart enough to realize that scientists don't have the complete picture, only a best guess that a) they're not saying is definitive and b) is subject to change. If religious fundamentalists don't have the intelligence to understand even that, then that's on them.
You're right about that, but you have to see it in the context I wrote about, see my original reply or the one I just wrote above.
In any case, this is not a real skeleton based on real fossil evidence. There's a lot of conjecture involved in making this mount, and it is just a representation of the great size of the dinosaur, but not at all an anatomically correct representation other than some kind of overall shape. When you study the biomechanics of a dinosaur you have (in my opinion) to use one which has a good representation of fossil. Why use one which does absolutely not? Do you know how much variation is possible in the morphology of Argentinosaurus just based on the actual fossil? IF this reconstruction is made by scaling up OTHER fossils from OTHER sauropods, the why not use one of those specimens instead? If that is the case, then this is a proxy of a completely different sauropod. However, I cannot prove that it is incorrect, but just ask any real paleontologist who have seen the mount. It's not like the old mounts which was put together in the wrong way, it's based on sculpted bones which does not exist.

As a single person, the religious fanatic means nothing, it is as a movement it becomes relevant, via people like Mike Pence, via people like him they get political clout and this is just a strong support of their argument that Paleontology is false. Via mounts like this, THEIR argument becomes stronger, their nonsense becomes more widely accepted, because they say like this "if this is false, then we assúme everything else is false as well", and the falseness of mounts has been a strong argument of theirs lately, in debates.
Don't worry, I've seen the mostly real Berlin mount, I understand that sometimes real bone is fragile and cannot be mounted, I don't ignore all the real mounts just because a single mount is mostly sculpted, but that does not mean that people with political clout and the people who believe them accept or understand this.
And I repeat, their goal was to simulate the locomotion of a huge sauropod. The parts that are not known from Argentinosaurus are the neck and the tail. The body and the legs are the most important.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Species profiles · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.