Newfound T. rex relative was an even bigger apex predator, remarkable skull discovery suggests

[admin]

The newly identified tyrannosaur species is the closest known relative of T. rex and could have been even larger than the famous dinosaur king.

Newfound T. rex relative was an even bigger apex predator, remarkable skull discovery suggests : Read more

 

[akiprev]

"the team revealed that the skull dates to between 73 million and 71 million years ago during the Cretaceous period (145 million to 66 million years ago)."
I'm risking to be boring, but for goodness sake, Harry, before writing such an absurd article will you please explain me how we can find a discernable snout of t. rex sticking from ground after 70 million years? If your nose were sticking from ground just a couple of thousand years, it would certainly be obliterated, even if you're Cyrano's descendant.
I also beg Live Science to edit such nonsensical articles, if there's any sense in visiting it.

 

[bolide]

"the team revealed that the skull dates to between 73 million and 71 million years ago during the Cretaceous period (145 million to 66 million years ago)."
I'm risking to be boring, but for goodness sake, Harry, before writing such an absurd article will you please explain me how we can find a discernable snout of t. rex sticking from ground after 70 million years? If your nose were sticking from ground just a couple of thousand years, it would certainly be obliterated, even if you're Cyrano's descendant.
I also beg Live Science to edit such nonsensical articles, if there's any sense in visiting it.

The article does not say this fossil was found "sticking from ground." But fossils thousands or millions of years old are sometimes found at or near the surface of the ground. That doesn't mean they've been right there all that time!

Over geological time spans, the Earth is constantly moving, rising, falling, shifting, eroding. A piece of the Earth containing a fossil may be brought into a position where it's subject to erosion. Over time, wind or water wear it away, until the fossil is exposed. Then, as you said, it probably will not last long. But it is in that comparatively short window of time, after it has been exposed, that it may be discovered right there at the surface.

 

[akiprev]

The article does not say this fossil was found "sticking from ground." But fossils thousands or millions of years old are sometimes found at or near the surface of the ground. That doesn't mean they've been right there all that time!

Over geological time spans, the Earth is constantly moving, rising, falling, shifting, eroding. A piece of the Earth containing a fossil may be brought into a position where it's subject to erosion. Over time, wind or water wear it away, until the fossil is exposed. Then, as you said, it probably will not last long. But it is in that comparatively short window of time, after it has been exposed, that it may be discovered right there at the surface.

But I saw numberless fossils quite well preserved, without a trace of anything ever been on them, Even a snout sticking from a cliff, like in Scotland, or fossilized wings of dragonflies on the surface,, let alone bird tracks No way they could retain their shape after so much geological tumbling you talk about.
I'm sure you had math in the school to plot the erosion rate and the damage on these superficial fossils. Just don't be afraid of Nat Geo.

 

[bolide]

But I saw numberless fossils quite well preserved, without a trace of anything ever been on them, Even a snout sticking from a cliff, like in Scotland, or fossilized wings of dragonflies on the surface,, let alone bird tracks No way they could retain their shape after so much geological tumbling you talk about.
I'm sure you had math in the school to plot the erosion rate and the damage on these superficial fossils. Just don't be afraid of Nat Geo.

Delicate fossils, like your dragonflies or bird tracks, will typically have been preserved in mud, which gradually is overlaid and hardens into rock. If the small volume of rock that contains them remains intact, the fossil does too. Researchers have sophisticated techniques to expose them fully and let them be seen in situ without damaging them.

 

[akiprev]

Delicate fossils, like your dragonflies or bird tracks, will typically have been preserved in mud, which gradually is overlaid and hardens into rock. If the small volume of rock that contains them remains intact, the fossil does too. Researchers have sophisticated techniques to expose them fully and let them be seen in situ without damaging them.

How you think that "delicate" fossils remain "intact" for million years on the surface, is beyond me. I cited the rock erosion rate many times in this forum. Remind you, ca 40ft/my.
Anyway, I mentioned numberless sticking recognizable dinos' fossils (even lying on ground!) and their perfectly preserved tracks, so if you use a bit of logic can't claim they could stand in that state any time even near dozens thousands years.

 

[bolide]

How you think that "delicate" fossils remain "intact" for million years on the surface, is beyond me. I cited the rock erosion rate many times in this forum. Remind you, ca 40ft/my.
Anyway, I mentioned numberless sticking recognizable dinos' fossils (even lying on ground!) and their perfectly preserved tracks, so if you use a bit of logic can't claim they could stand in that state any time even near dozens thousands years.

Reading comprehension? I think I stated pretty clearly that ancient fossils found at ground level had only been exposed at ground level for a relatively very short time.

 

[akiprev]

You obviously misread me. I said "recognizable". If they ever were under some other layers they would be clearly melted with the surroundings. There are numberless snonts, legs, tails and even whole well fossils on the ground. Or take perfectly preserve tracks. How could they have been under anything to be so preserved? Just turn on some logic, as I've said.

 

[bolide]

You obviously misread me. I said "recognizable". If they ever were under some other layers they would be clearly melted with the surroundings. There are numberless snonts, legs, tails and even whole well fossils on the ground. Or take perfectly preserve tracks. How could they have been under anything to be so preserved? Just turn on some logic, as I've said.

Bones (among other things) don't "melt." Softer body parts may be preserved by the chemical makeup of the surrounding soil, burial in ice, lack of oxygen, etc. Tracks may be preserved by being encased in mud, while the material the tracks were made in hardens into rock. There are numberless examples of these types of preservation for intervals ranging from hundreds to millions of years.

How do you think we know about dinosaurs? Where did all those bones in our natural history museums come from?

 

[akiprev]

Melt or fused or whatever, if fossilizaion takes place mused nust be involved, so they had to be mashed with the surroundings. After hardening, who could separate them after any longer tract of time? Nonsense.
As to dinos' tracks, google for them (finally) and just look at them better, You'll see they were never filled or covered by anything, being empty and of sharp edges.
If I made a track and it fossilized, I'd be mad to think the footprints would be recognizable even in a 5000 years, let alone millions, blllions or whatever years. Just use common sense.

 

[bolide]

Melt or fused or whatever, if fossilizaion takes place mused nust be involved, so they had to be mashed with the surroundings. After hardening, who could separate them after any longer tract of time? Nonsense.
As to dinos' tracks, google for them (finally) and just look at them better, You'll see they were never filled or covered by anything, being empty and of sharp edges.
If I made a track and it fossilized, I'd be mad to think the footprints would be recognizable even in a 5000 years, let alone millions, blllions or whatever years. Just use common sense.

"After hardening, who could separate them ... ?" Palaeontologists could. They do it all the time. They have imaging techniques to identify fossils in rock before they are exposed, and ways to then cut away the rock to reveal the intact fossil. The items they find are those that were not buried so deeply that they would be crushed by the pressure.

The dino/bird/human tracks are brought (close) to the surface by the erosion processes that you keep referring to. They are clean because the dirt that filled them was washed away, or cleaned off by the paleontologists who found them. (If I showed you a perfectly clean and unmarked bucket, would you say that proves that there was never anything in that bucket?)

I say again, How do you think we know about dinosaurs? Where did all those bones in our natural history museums come from?

 

[akiprev]

"After hardening, who could separate them ... ?" Palaeontologists could. They do it all the time. They have imaging techniques to identify fossils in rock before they are exposed, and ways to then cut away the rock to reveal the intact fossil. The items they find are those that were not buried so deeply that they would be crushed by the pressure.:::

The dino/bird/human tracks are brought (close) to the surface by the erosion processes that you keep referring to. They are clean because the dirt that filled them was washed away, or cleaned off by the paleontologists who found them. (If I showed you a perfectly clean and unmarked bucket, would you say that proves that there was never anything in that bucket?)

I say again, How do you think we know about dinosaurs? Where did all those bones in our natural history museums come from?

I'm a bit tired of all repeating the same.
First, I'm talking about discernible dinos' fosils sticking from ground. See my prevous posts.
Second, "the dirt was being washed" from the footprints? For 70 million years? Nothing deposited on them all the time? And the rubs of the footprints were carefully maintained to be clear-cut all the time? By whom?
As to the dinos' bones, we are talking about fossils, not about bones they contain. I said, "who could separate them after any longer tract of time?" Ok, perhaps I should have said "what" instead of "who". In any case, they couldn't travel at will up and down through the stratum, and pop up on the surface in their original form, with horns, snouts and all, as you proposed.

 

[bolide]

And I am more than a bit tired of your apparently willful misinterpretations of what I've said. This goes beyond plausible ignorance--I think you're just playing games here. I've continued for the sake of other possible sincerely curious readers, but by now the picture is obvious. That's all.

 

[akiprev]

Which misinterpretations?
1. It's clear that the tracks in Google/)Dinosaur tracks/Images weren't covered by any other geological strata, and/or broken out by any geological upheaval, or otherwise wouldn't be unbroken and in the level..
2. Therefore should have been eroded away completely in any period near the alleged 70 million (or were they billion? But all the same.) years.
3. They haven't at all.
Even a child could draw conclusions.