this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16700 readers
238 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

All dinosaurs had beaver tails, got it!

[–] InvalidName2@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I don't think dinosaurs were taking x-rays of beaver tails, my dude. Go read a book sometime.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don't velociraptors have xray vision though?

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That's why they're called velociraptors.

I thought they were called like this because of their love of bicycles.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah, you're thinking of the much more dangerous "acceleraptors". Velociraptors were very different from how they are commonly portrayed.

[–] railwhale@lemmy.nz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So then distanceraptors are yet to be discoverd?

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No, much like how brontosaurus was later discovered to be a mix of bones from various individuals, "Distanceraptor" is actually a conflation of multiple Displacemosaurids.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Idiot, why do you think We can see all their bones?

[–] zip@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago

This may seem cheesy or pathetic, and I apologize for that, but I want to say: thank you for catching me off guard with your silly comment and giving me a badly-needed smile and laugh when I'm fucking miserable and in a lot of pain. It's been a while. Seriously, I appreciate it. You're a hoot :)

[–] Zugyuk@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago
[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I mean… you can see the processes (bony protrusions on the vertebrae) are long and flat and only transverse (sticking out the sides, not up/down) so… it would be pretty obvious it was a flat tail? Sure maybe they might not get that it wasn’t fuzzy without any fossils if it, and maybe they make it slightly less round, but they’re scientists not idiots. Yeah some has come a long way and some older models sucked sure but it ain’t like we are vibe coding their appearance.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It’s only obvious because you already know what a beaver looks like.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago

I mean, no?

You can see no vertical protrusions of the vertebrae so there’s going to be A: vertical movement as muscles can best attach to pull up/down. And B: a likely flat structural rail with how wide the horizontal protrusions are. C: nothing sharp or heavily weighted at the end so likely not a huge weaponised tail like a thagomizer. So… you’ve got a probably flat tail, than can slam down on stuff.

Now figuring out WHY it was like that would require being able to find fossils around rivers and being able to tell those rivers had dams or something cuz idk how they would figure out exactly how they use their tails but… yeah you can figure the general shape fine based on vertebrae anatomy which leads to (possible)muscle anatomy. Some bones don’t function the way they look and can throw stuff off. Someone else already mentioned stuff like air sacks in birds and such that would really throw off anatomy based on bone and assumed muscular structure from where bones could have attached muscles.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

Pretty much. You can factually tell that a lot of something was going on with all of those delicious muscle hooks on such a small frame, but a flat paddle mightn’t be their first thought. Really depends on who sees it first, but they'd eventually get at least close. Just give it a few years of screaming. Yes, both external and internal.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

So one of the biggest leaps they have made in reconstruction over the last few decades is matching similar bone structure that supports soft tissue. It doesn't work for all soft tissue, but if the beavers tail bones have bumps or other features that hint at supporting extra soft tissue there is a chance.

All the stuff birds have, like inflatable neck sacks and feathers that move with muscles are examples of things we absolutely wouldn't get with fossils that are even better than a beaver tail.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, now I want to see an artist's rendition of a T. rex doing this:

collapsed inline media

The Prehistoric Planet documentary series does it with sauropods, it’s pretty sick.

[–] sleen@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago

I always appreciate an enthusiastic and educational response to situations like this.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Also, in 40 million years, you can match the beaver fossils to the bones of their still living descendants and find similar features.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago

What a marvellous time for paleobootyology.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

Now I want to see some pics of dinosaurs with beaver tails

[–] sad_detective_man@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Do beavers enjoy..... Uppies??

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Sure but also there are some fossils that DO have skin, and some even have preserved organs. And some have feathers, which is a pretty good indicator that there wasn’t some large feature we’re missing.

No doubt we are wrong on lots of counts, but I think we have good evidence for a lot of it as well.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

No. This was created by someone who has no idea how any of this work. Soft tissues leave marks on bones.

[–] bytesonbike@discuss.online 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Don't ruin my dream of fluffy dinosaurs 😭

[–] hector@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago

It is thought now that dinosaurs had a sort of fluff. Like feathers but not evolved to fly with yet.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Smaller dinosaurs might have had fluff, bigger ones probably didn't, like most big mammals. Bigger body, more heat to dissipate, but less relative surface to do so; the square-cube law can be a bit of a bitch, for big (probably at least somewhat) endothermic critters.

Giraffes have hair, though, and woolly mammoths were a thing, so big fluffy dinosaurs might have been a thing, especially in colder climates.

Also, looking at bird behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if even mostly bald dinos had some colorful feathers on their arms, tail, or head for displaying...

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago

Too late, i already imagined a flat-tailed T-rex.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Soft tissues can also become fossils under the right conditions. For an example, here is the fossil used for the B. markmitchelli holotype:

collapsed inline media

It’s the single most detailed and complete soft tissue fossil ever discovered. It took the technician six years to extract and separate the fossil from the surrounding stone. The technician’s name is Mark Mitchell, and the species was named after him.

[–] volvoxvsmarla@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 days ago

The articles on that are a fascinating read, thank you!

[–] sleen@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Soft tissues leave marks on bones

Could you explain how they leave marks?

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your bones aren't just swimming around in a sea of muscles. They are attached to the muscles and sinews. So those places where they are attached are formed in specific ways depending on what is attached.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

One thing I wouldn't mind AI to do, train a model with standardised data like this, and have it match the reconstruction. After that it can use common and less common reconstructions. After that try to map as much info from a dinosaur fossil to said standardised data structure and generate possible reconstruction for said dinosaur

[–] echindod@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago

Oh. I like this idea. This is the kind of thing AI would be good for.

Fossils many times are more than bones and we get actual imprints of their whole tail or other parts of them

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They always use mammals for that kind of comparison. Show me a reptile with that kind of muscle/fat composition.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Dinosaurs were not reptiles. They were warm blooded, and birds descended from them.

[–] abir_v@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Birds are reptiles. Commonly, we wouldn't say so, but they're in the same clade. The avians are closer related to the crocadilians than the crocs are to other reptiles like the squamates - lizards and snakes.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] aramova@infosec.pub 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is some real RFK level science here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hector@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

We do now know that dinosaurs were the forbearers of birds. Those that told us they were reptiles still continue to push that however. They were warm blooded and it is now thought they had some sort of pre feathers.

I believe the same thing applies to archeology, The Experts claim to have an answer to every question and impute things on the ancient cultures that they have no way of knowing.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Experts claim to have an answer to every question

That's not my experience at all. "The Experts" are extraordinarily cautious to make assertions even when they're well supported. They talk about "models" and are happy to revise and update their positions when contrary evidence emerges.

Pseudo scientists have answers for everything.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

At every period of human history experts have claimed to have all of the answers to every question. They've never been right about that but people assume now they are. Dinosaurs are a case in point, as egypt, peru, et al are.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago

This is straight from the Pseudo Scientist playbook, well established Graham Hancock shtick.

[–] CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 day ago

you have no idea about how scientific method works. It's the furtherst thing from being dogmatic and claiming to know everything. When you look at modern science, you don't look at a "that was like this" statement, it's more of "that's what we discovered so far, it's weird, so we re-checked it with every method availeble to us, here's all the data we have and how we checked it".

I dare you to read at least one actual scientific article before you claim anything about modern science. It's easy to badmouth it and fentasize about your own reality when all you read are nothing more than rewrites and interpretations of said articles, made by journalists that want to write front-pagers, not to represent the data correctly and substantionally.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

That is one cute beaver pic on the left. PM more of your beavers.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I like to imagine T. rex arms were small because that's how they communicated with their octopus rider.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

now think about apple fossils

[–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Steve Jobs?

load more comments
view more: next ›