*Edit* I've been seeing all of the criticisms and corrections you all have put out. I do apologize for all of the incorrections and will do better for future episodes of the series. 2 videos in under a week?! Oh, how I spoil you guys! All jokes aside, this was something that had been in the works for a while now. Will get to the tier 2 as soon as I can, but I hope you guys enjoyed this first episode of the Paleontology Fringe Theory Iceberg! Also, I'm trying to reach 20k subs by the end of the year, so for those of you that aren't subscribed, but watch the channel regularly, consider subscribing😁. It'll be worth your time! Thanks for reading and have a nice day!
This is the first of your videos I watched, and I really like it! 👌 There's only one minor point of criticism: In my opinion parallel usage of the term "theory" in both its academic as well as colloquial sense within the same video should be avoided. Maybe it's best to get rid of the colloquial variant - it is unnecessary and furthered misconceptions, especially when it is about legitimate science and fringe stuff at the same time: To use the academic "theory" for legitimate scientific research just to use the colloquial "theory" for fringe ideas a few seconds later accidentally invokes an equal value. I'm sure you know the difference and it's not against you personally - I myself struggle with the problem because it's simply how people are speaking, and although I activly try to minimize it sometimes a "colloquial theory" slips by.. Lately I'm simply shocked how many people don't know the difference and instead equating both meanings - appearently school did a shitty job in teaching the absolute basics, and this lead to dangerous misconceptions more than once.
Your statement on planet density being the cause of gravity is factually incorrect. Fact is, we don't even know what gravity is much less what's causing it. Density, electromagnetism, these are all just theories. A factual statement supported by Neil deGrasse Tyson. So since we don't know what causes gravity, Pierre Bouguer's experiments remain, TO THIS DAY, a fraud on the scientific community. Being that he measured gravitational pull and linked them to PRESUMED density. Keeping in mind he died in 1758, and lacked the technology to drill an appropriate rock core sample in the deep bedrock to confirm his density hypothesis. Bouguer's "experiment" is nothing more than circular reasoning.
devolution is stupid. People often think that evolution means an organism becomes "better" or "smarter" but all evolution means is that an organism changed to better suit it's lifestyle. Whether a creature gains or looses something that is still evolution.
My brain wants that to make sense but I feel like some stuff def gets worse as it evolves so maybe a broader term is needed as devolution implies going backwards, maybe positive and negative evolution. I get that things do stuff to survive but a chicken is def not as badass as a raptor lol
@@wnrr2696 there is no such thing as worse, it's all subjective. People assume evolution has a positive connotation but it's really a neutral connotation. The world evolution only describes the change in an organism to better suit it's environment. Who am I or anyone else to say is it worse? Silly scenario but if humans became aquatic animals, it wouldn't be devolution when we loose our legs in favor of a giant fish like tale. Just evolution. Then what if they get back on land? Again it's not devolution to loose the tail in favor of legs, just evolution. I hope that sorta clears it up
@@nutman3698 I get it, it just doesn’t always benefit them. Pretty sure dinos would’ve hunted a fox type rather than the fox raiding the chicken coup, my point is as much as evolution can help them adapt to new threats or habitats it sometimes comes at an ‘evolutionary’ disappointment. Also with past cousins of species most bigger extinct versions of tigers mammoths etc would prob fair well against their modern relatives, but not be suited to the climates being how they are where they are. The chicken may have ended up perfect for that environment but when i hear the terms evolution and devolution I think the dinos took a step down the pecking order (pun intended) to be our farm animals, more interesting would be in another couple of extinction events if we ‘evolved’ to live underground then tried to return to surface blindly to be farmed by huge mutated Dino chickens..
I see a InCel Dinosaur frantically attempting to write an angry post on 8chan ranting about how Chad and Feminism has lead to lack of unused Sex Lakes and virgin Dinosaurs willing to mate - and then go on to start the mass murder just in time to be done before the planet got hit with a giant asteroid!
"Everything is a fish" isn't entirely a joke. If you do cladistics you have a serious issue with how to classify "fish" in the common sense without including every vertebrate inside it. Same with whether birds are reptiles.
It was my understanding that birds are under eureptilia. But cladiatics are like shifting sands. It’s almost as if all life was interconnected and transcended simple categorization.
Or the fact that mammals are considered to have appeared in the jurassic era but the allotherians which are also considered to be mammals appeared during the triassic era .
There's a very simple solution to this however: "fish" and other categories are not taxonomical, rather they just describe similar traits. It's just like how "plankton" has jack-all to do with evolution, it's just a term for organisms in the water that are teensy-weensy and can't move against the currents.
@@generalgrievous2202 I'm talking about the mammal class specifically , not the older clades like prozostrodontia . Allotherians are considered to be part of the mammal class which originates from the prozostrodontia clade that appeared during the triassic .
@@danielhooper502 That's not how phylogeny works. If proto-birds were dinosaurs, then birds themselves are also still dinosaurs. A subgroup never stops belonging to its parent group.
I'm a petroleum engineer and crude comes from (mostly) planktons and algaes. Natural death for these organisms causes them to create layers on the ocean floor, but big deposits of oil result from oceanic anoxic events that kill masses of these little critters, and they build up at the bottom of the ocean, add in millions of years, bunch of pressure and heat (natural pyrolysis ) and boom you've got fossil fuel. And as for dragon myths wouldn't these myths have come from people seeing Dino bones and thinking "hey dragon!!"
@@MeGrimlock55 No, reread that first sentence again. Plankton and algae. These are tiny organisms that float freely in ocean currents and get their energy through photosynthesis.
Statistically they still most likely contain bits of dinosaurs, but so does everything else. You probably have a few carbon atoms or water molecules that were once in a dinosaur inside you right now :)
im not a creationist or even a christian and im certainly not a palaeontologist but you have no idea how much i want to believe in the fire-breathing parasaurolophus
For those who don’t know, the character of Dr. Grant character from Jurrasic Park is actually based on Jack Horner, which makes the whole chickenasaurus thing that much more absurd and ironic.
Another fun fact: This is because Jack Horner was a technical advisor on the first film as well as the second. Hence, Grant in the film is something of a self-insert. It's also why, in the sequel, you have the character Robert Burke, who is clearly a pastiche of Robert Bakker. Horner and Bakker were in a pretty public feud regarding several dinosaur theories, most prominently the idea that Tyrannosaurus was a dedicated scavenger. Little wonder then that Burke dies a pretty gruesome death at the hands of a Tyrannosaurus and is generally portrayed as a bit of a prick. Best part though: Reportedly, when Bakker saw the film, when next he saw Horner, Bakker responded to the caricature and the character's death in the film by going "See, Jack? I told you they were predators!"
I know you didn't make this iceberg chart, but it's still weird that Mary Schweitzer's findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is in the same tier as actual conspiracy theories and hoaxes
The finding isn't, but the creationist spin is the conspiracy theory. The creationists think they found a dinosaur BONE and cracked it open and found fresh soft tissue in it. They argue that because this was found that dinosaurs are not that old. The reality is that Schweitzer found microscopic amounts of fossilized soft tissue in the interior matrix of a leg bone, and she had to demineralize it in acid to get it to be pliable again so it looked and acted like soft tissue. The fact that this discovery falsifies the concept of old ages is the ridiculous thing because rare fossilized soft tissue doesn't overturn radiometric dating. The better theory is superior preservation but creationist pretend there is a conspiracy to hide all these fresh dinosaur bones (including lots in Alaska they claim are unfossilized)
OH MY GOD, my grandfather knew the people involved with the chickenasauris situation and I distinctly remember him talking about how they were trying to do it. This is the first time I’ve heard someone other than me talk about it.
An issue with Cope's rule and sloths. The cute little sloths we have today are descended from similarly sized arboreal sloths that coexisted with the giant sloths. It's not a case of little sloths being descended from larger ones. Animal lineages tend to produce larger groups over time for a couple of reasons. One is that, to be larger, specific adaptations are needed. Compare the leg of sauropod dinosaur with that of a chicken or an elephant's leg to one of it's closest relatives, the hyrax. What happens time and again is that smaller, more generalist groups spawn lineages of larger or more specialized ones. More versatile and smaller organisms are more likely to survive extinction events both because of their generalization and also because they will have larger population sizes.
Omphalos hypothesis is basically "ok what if the Earth was in a simulation for 4.5 billion years, but the last like 10000 years or so are totally for real"
8:25 As someone who has actually read the book, Too Big to Walk, I can say that it is an absolute can of worms. There were multiple times when I literally burst out laughing at how amazingly insane I thought the theories presented are. Probably what I find most hilarious about the book, however, is that it isn’t even mainly about Ford’s ideas! The first half is a recount of the early history of palaeontology, with only two or three references to the aquatic dinosaur theory. Even in the half which is about the aquatic dinosaur theory, he does not even properly focus on it! One half of one of the chapters in the second part is about how life originated for some reason, and it is never called back to; in fact it does not even get referenced again in the second half of that chapter! Also, Ford gets rather aggressive about palaeontologists reasonably denying his flawed theories (like Darren Naish), and often says inflammatory remarks about them. Then there is a geologist who was collaborating with him on a scientific paper, and he goes out of his way to praise him throughout the second half of the book. Ford claims that mainstream palaeontology is dogmatic, even though his approach to his theories is too. Anyways, good video! This channel is one of my favourites and I really enjoy all of your content. I cannot wait for the next episode!
Yes, any notion that goes against what is preached by the colleges is utter nonsense. Don't these nuts know that the hivemind is always right and should not be challenged?
@@xbfalcon83 They're doing a sarcastic comment about how everyone Who studies believes what they've studied without question, because they seem to not know how education changes and reforms over the years, because they hadn't had any.
instereting,can you say the "argument"of that book,because i don't have it,also i'm sad i have to give you a like because it not 105 anymore(only 1% of peoples will understand the reference)
@@alvaronavarro4895 Our education system doesn't make people smart. It tests information retention. You recite what you are told and you pass. Wether that information is true or false is irrelevant. It teaches you what to think not how to think.
Actually the idea that Sauropods inhabited lakes etc., because of their huge size is actually a old one that emerged in the late 19th century and was promoted well into the 20th century. You can still find painting dating from the 1930s and 40sw showing Sauropods in swamps and lakes.
"Dinosaurs made of dinosaurs" Personally I'd put this one as "true but only very technically" in the same way that the KISS comics were "printed with their blood" (a few drops in the giant thing of ink).
Besides fringe theories, there are MANY often-accepted (in academia) hypotheses that are poorly supported or even outright contradicted by the fossil record, but continue to persist simply because nobody has bothered to publish a paper pointing out these claims are baseless.
Went in expecting creationist bullshit, went out more than satisfied with actual good talking points. You have restored my faith in humanity, if only temporarily.
I love “mainstream scientists” type conspiracy theorists. None of them are actual academics and they either have no clue about how peer review and academics work, or they lie on purpose. Literally every academic’s dream in life is to upset the status quo, bring about a total paradigm shift and have their names etched into the halls of history along with Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Watson either for discovering something completely new or turning a widely accepted scientific theory on its head.
Science has actually been unable to provide accurate answers in some fields, though. If science were being done correctly, papers would not pass peer review simply to be withdrawn later when they are shown to be unreproducible. That line of logic is based on pre-scientific reasoning. I.e. you are making an argument that sounds clever on paper, but contradicts how the real world works. And, it also has the added benefit of hand-waving away the underlying problem. In actually, science always tends toward degeneration, because speculation is easier than the work of observation, and much easier than addressing the methodological difficulties in the soft sciences. Likewise, scientists don't like being proven in their old age, when their mental decline means they barely understand new theories, much less advance them.
@Shinobi-No-Bueno You might check out Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It serves as a genealogy of scientific thought and explains how it works in a descriptive way as opposed to the prescriptive ideal of the scientific method which, much like any introductory model we teach, is missing quite a bit of detail. Kuhn attempts to rectify that. He also has a PhD in physics for whatever that might be worth in this context.
i would like to say that a theory in science is an idea backed by sufficient evidence, one without is called a hypothesis seems minor but saying theory as if its just an idea puts the two as equal, which isnt too kind to argument on these subjects example the theory of evolution, it is extraordinarily backed by evidence, but yet many arguing against it keep falling back to calling it "just a theory" even though it being a theory actually gives it huge credibility, as per the definition given before
Yeah, everytime he said "it's just a theory" I cringed a little because it's just a fundamental thing that a science communicator needs to know. It made the video less reliable in my opinion
27:28 Does abiogenesis count as a fringe theory? It's more just an extrapolation from the fact there is life now but there wasn't life at the start of the universe. So clearly unless we assume divine intervention, abiogenesis had to happen at some stage in some form or another.
Im assuming the person who made the iceberg was loose with their rules of what counted as a fringe theory, because there are more things like that on the iceberg.
I think abiogenesis is just on here because it ties into some of the lower entries on the list. At the beginning of the video when the full tier list appeared on screen, I noticed that the lowest tier had an entry called "Soviet Abiogenesis" not too far away from "Fossils are from the future" & "Oil is made from humans".
It might be the "THE ADVENT OF LIFE ON EARTH IS AN ALIEN SCIENCE EXPERIMENT AND EARTH IS AN ALIEN PETRI DISH" thing. I've seen a lot of UFO chasers and ancient alien conspiracy guys use that and they probably latched on to abiogenesis to sound pseudoscientific instead of crackpot-y.
@@neoqwerty okay so no, the theory of life coming from space is called panspermia BUT panspermia generally refers to life on an astroid or a comet crashing onto earth, the idea of it being intelligent aliens is called directed panspermia, and is incredibly fringe
The theory that people from medieval times discovered dinosaur bones and then classifying them as dragons is a very cool and very plausible concept of how the mythos of dragons came to be
Dragons were probably originally Nile water monitors drawings with one tongue with later people drawing them with multiple tongues and still later people assuming the three tongues were flames. I don't know how Asian Dragons came along... But they were water animals and sinuous like snakes... So maybe classic lake monsters.
@@fluffyone1882 ever hear the fun theory about dragons? Dragons were 100% real but had porous bones just like birds and hence made it insanely hard for them to fossilize, since most of any of the actual dragon fossils would have been found and misidentified, destroyed by ancient peoples, or hoarded into private collections dragons have become myth even in the fossil record too us. So basically the theory posits that cultures all around the world have depictions of dragons because there were flying lizards in that time, but like birds they can only fossilize in very specific circumstances and that's why we see no dragon fossils
@@IVibratorz Sounds like a lot of nonsense. If dragon existed, a long chain of earlier species that would eventually evolve into dragons would also have to exist. They're as real as hydras or werewolves
In Polish medieval capital Cracow, over the entrance to cathedra there are two hanged Fossils of bones of Mammoth. They hang there for hundreds of years and when they were hanged there, people where thinking that those are the bones of giants, so yes, people thought that.
Great video, but minor nitpick at around 41:07 Megatherium went extinct and its closest relative, the modern sloth, was from a somewhat separate lineage, not a direct descendant of the ground sloth. A better counter-example would be the dromaeosaurs, which steadily shrunk throughout the cretaceous, from the imposing Utahraptor to the much smaller Velociraptor.
Was gonna comment this but then saw your’s also the way he uses the word theory is flawed as well saying something in science “ is just a theory “ is something science denier’s say all the time but I know he’s not using it Maliciously he just didn’t know
It's been ages since I've read Forbidden Archeology, but from what I remember, it doesn't spend all that much time proposing any actual alternative theories on human history, but spends most of it pointing out how archaeologists are often quick to jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence and gives many examples of things that are (or were at the time) assumed by the scientific community to be true based on very little actual findings that could very well be interpreted differently.
Btw, fun fact about the piltdown man: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, was at the second dig and helped to popularize the discovery.
Can already tell that this is gonna be my favourite series from you so far. Nuts that all of that was only the first tier, Sustained_disgust must have had a lot of free time, which is something you're gonna need if you plan on doing the whole thing lmao
About the "dinosaurs are dragons" theory: the definition for dragon is pretty loose. If you define them as giant winged reptiles that breathe deadly stuff like fire, then that would exclude creatures like Ouroboros or Jörmungandr. I'm pretty sure most dragon lovers can agree that those two _are_ dragons. I thought about it for a bit and figured a decent way to define dragons in a manner loose enough that it includes anything we commonly think of as a dragon, but also not too loose that we don't know what a dragon is anymore, is to say: *Dragon= reptile + giant/flying/breathes or spits deadly shit/greedy/highly intelligent/mindless beast/godlike/demonic* . This way, you could say frogs are reptiles, but no frog can fly (gliding =/= flying), they don't spit stuff that kills (launching their tongues =/= spitting), they're small and attributing qualities like "highly intelligent" or "greedy" to a real life animal is pretty unfair, so those only count for mythological dragons. But for example, spitting cobras can count as dragons because they are reptile + spits deadly shit. Similarly, Komodo Dragons would also count thanks to their saliva. Even the wikipedia definition states that dragons are "large, serpentine, legendary creatures". Aside from the "legendary" part, it pretty much apples to dinosaurs as well. Dinosaurs = reptile + giant therefore Dinosaurs=Dragons. They're also kaiju. You cannot deny. Anyway, this is just my opinion. No, I'm not saying dinosaurs could breathe fire or anything like that. I'd like to read the thoughts of others as well.
A lot of early depictions of dragons were more snake-like than the lizard-like ones we usually see nowadays. Maybe some of the larger prehistoric snakes could count if we're going by sheer size.
You're right in some aspects, but wrong in others... First and foremost... I don't think most people would argue Jormungandr is a dragon. Its a massive sea serpent and shares no real similarities with traditional depictions of dragons, not in European or Western depictions. And being of Norse origins, kind of hard to use Chinese or Eastern dragons as evidence to the contrary. Ouroboros as well doesn't follow traditional depictions of dragons either, not usually, being a snake eating its own tail. But that's where things get tricky, because being Greek, it would have literally been called a dragon. So it doesn't look at all like a common depiction of dragons, a flying lizard (even disregarding the fire), but... Its more of a dragon than those dragons. Now, what I just said is contradicted by the etymology of the word "dragon". Its Latin origin means "huge serpent" and its Greek origin is even less specific, just "serpent" or "giant seafish", and actually described more than just mythical creatures. By this origin, even a boa constrictor would be a "dragon". So yes, Jormungandr would be a dragon, as would Ouroboros. But that doesn't fit the traditional depictions. Serpents, after all, do not have any limbs, and even granting wings an exception, traditional dragon depictions at least have legs. So now comes the issue of what defines a dragon. The ancient Greek and Roman version would be any massive serpent. Jormungandr would then be a dragon, as would Ouroboros. But not dinosaurs, because they do no even look like serpents. With the Norse, its a little more confusing, as the Prose Edda states lists dragon as a name for serpents, as well as Jormungand, Fafnir, Nidhogg, snake, and viper, among others. But artistic depictions of Nidhogg give it two legs and no wings, despite the Poetic Edda saying it flies and calling it a snake. Then in the Middle Ages came the more well known depictions of dragons. Two or four legs, and two wings, with some areas listing the two legged variants as Wyverns specifically, though most just called them dragons. There are also lindwurms, runic carvings of serpents with arms, and amphipteres, or "winged snakes". The Bible also has mentions of dragons, but I can't find anything about limbs, as well as "fiery flying serpents", but... No real depictions I can find, at least none with limbs. If you want to consider dragons as "giant serpents", as the etymology suggests, then no, dinosaurs are not dragons. If you want to consider dragons as the more commonly depicted "reptile with two or four legs and wings", then... Well, pterosaurs are dragons, but not proper dinosaurs, and only ignoring feathers. And if you want to define dragons as "any big reptile that may or may not fly and may or may not breathe something deadly" then... Well, define "big", because that would make a boa constrictor a dragon and make some smaller dinosaurs not dragons still, even disregarding the feather issue again. But kaiju? There's no doubt you're wrong there. Kaiju means "strange beast", so if you want to go by direct translation, then yes. But that's no fun because then literally all mythical creatures would be kaiju as well. And originally it was just for just that. But if you want to use it to refer to the giant monsters of kaiju movies, then no. Dinosaurs and even (most) dragons are not kaiju. They're too small. Their size needs to be comparable to Godzilla to qualify as real kaiju. In this case, yes, Ouroboros and Jormungandr are kaiju, considering they wrap around the entire planet. Nidhogg too, being able to eat the roots of Yggdrasill. But dinosaurs? Godzilla, in his smallest depiction, in the original movie, is 50 m or 164 ft tall. By comparison, the largest dinosaur discovered with a reliably calculated size, the Dreadnoughtus, one of the "Titanosaurs", is only half that at 26 m or 85 ft. If you want to call dinosaurs kaiju, you'd have to call blue whales kaiju too, being the largest animals ever known to have existed at 29.9 m at maximum. Dinosaurs are dragons? Depends on how you want to define a dragon, but ignoring feathers, a loose definition of "dragon" would work. Dinosaurs are kaiju? That's not even close to arguable. Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to be rude or anything and apologize if I came across as such. I enjoy debates on mythological topics and love mythology in general and more just wanted to share than anything. Feel I should clarify, knowing how hostile the internet can be.
@@Kahadi Thanks for your reply! Was definitely not expecting any answers, just another comment in the sea of comments, so I'm glad you gave such a thorough answer :D You made a lot of very good points, I will still say that Dinosaurs are kinda the closest thing we have to real life "kaiju", even if they're still pretty far from actually being kaiju. I also like talking mythology and such (though my knowledge is more limited than yours seems to be) and I also like thinking about what real life things are the closest to mythological creatures and such, but I guess sometimes I get a bit too excited about the topic haha. Anyway, wish all the best!
Well for most people this idea means that Dinosaur fossils are what inspired the Dragon myths around the world and not that Dinosaurs literally were Dragons. I mean its not hard to see how. Some people dig up a skeleton filled with giant teeth and since humans find reptiles naturally scarier then mammals we are going to create the idea of giant lizards. And the whole idea of them flying and breathing fire came later cause, well why not?
I love fringe theories so much, especially the absolutely outlandish ones as they are excellent material for fictional worldbuilding. Firebreathing Parasaurolophuses? You just *know* that I’m adding that. That's cool as all hell.
24:35 No, "all vertebrates are fish" is a valid point of view. It relates to defining group names based on ancestry (whether they share a common ancestor) rather than general similarities in anatomy and life history. The conventional meaning of the word fish from a phylogenetic point of view excludes tetrapods (e.g. amphibians and amniotes) because they don't look or act like (other) fish.
Exactly! It just points out that our way of classifying animals is kinda arbitrary. It's like the different models of atoms, you use the one you need. While it is good to learn all the models if you really want to understand something, it's fine to simplify sometimes to better explain/understand other concepts of scince.
I cant remember what bioligist it was, but they were discussing the potential for alien life on earth and he said that IF there were aliens on Earth, his money would have been on the family of starfish and sea cucumbers because of how their body symmetry works and it's pretty much alien to any other family of life on the planet. Was pretty interesting.
When I meant a joke entry, I meant it as it's an obvious statement that's commonly used in a jokingly way in science from time to time. But that's my bad, should've chosen my words better XD
I love how you go into actual detail to the point that the gist of each theory is fully explained and the for and against arguments for each, most other iceberg videos I've watched are really interesting but I always end up having to Google each topic to find out more on it
I think fossil finds in ancient mining, from before the copper age to antiquity, may have lead to the ancient stories of dragons and other mythical creatures. I'm sure they discovered large skulls or other bones during ancient mining to make bronze, copper, etc. and had no way to contextualize what they discovered other than making myths. Even Mammoth skulls could be confused for cyclops skulls, when you see them especially without tusks
Dragons were a big part of Chinese mythology. I think people saw dinosaur fossils in the Gobi desert and instead of calling them "dinosaurs" (since the word hadn't been invented yet), they called them "dragons". Ideas like them breathing fire were just imagined embellishments.
You do know that dinosaur fossils are usually very fragmentary right? I don't believe that a person from ancient times would even be able to identify a dinosaur fossil unless it is actually sufficiently complete. We can also trace the true origin of the dragon myth through mythology, revealing that it all started with snake's. Pretty obvious if you ask me.
Fossils may have influenced old tales, but I think we should always take care to never de-contextualize old myths and look at them superficially, without their cultural significance. Dragons are culturally more than giant reptilian animals, and reducing some myths to people mistaking real life fossils can be dangerous.
@@scotth6814 No, our dragons are crocodiles, specifically Chinese alligators, salties and an extinct species. The earliest dragon found in China looks exactly like a crocodile, Chinese dragons and crocs have the same exact abilities and there are multiple records of people rearing dragons. Most importantly, our dragons almost never breathe fire.
“Devolution” is just evolution, possibly as the environment changes, then changes back. There are many examples of animals evolving bigger, then smaller again.
Nuralagus rex is a good example of this, it was a rabbit species that got stranded on an island and no longer had predators. It quickly evolved to become three times larger and it's ears shrunk down because hearing predators no longer became an optimal use of energy. They evolved to fit a new environment through new genetic mutations, nothing went backwards even though they became less specialized then their ancestors.
I feel like I've been inoculated with science! You talked about so much theories that I have read and "believed" for so long. Thank you for sharing and I'll wait for the next parts! You have a new subscriber now!
The moment i saw that term and listening him saying 24/7 the word theory isntead of hypothesis made me realize that this guy has no fucking idea what he's talking about xd
@@olserknam we are talking about synapsids xd, like dimetrodon, the video said that these animals were mammal-like reptiles, and its false. Synapsids arent reptiles.
11:10 I've witnessed creationists bullshit their way out of transitional forms by saying "it's just a {insert whichever part of the transition will make their claim seem valid, ex. bird and fish with Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik respectively}." They'll do anything they can to protect their beliefs.
24:31 i mean yes. this is true in the systematic way. All terrestrial vertebrates come from the fish, which means that clad every descendant of this fish is also a fish in cladistic way. just like ceatecans are artiodactyls, beacuse thier ancestors were artiodactyls.
To explain 6:09 afaik, In the gravitational force formula, The mass of one of the bodies is one of the crucial factors contributing to the force applied on the body. In this context we use the earth as one of the bodies. So let's say that if the earth is hollow, it's mass(density) is significantly less than it should be, reducing it's gravitational force upon everything on the earth's surface massively, So what happen is that everything on earth will be either weigh less or floating. correct me if I'm wrong. EDIT: density*
44:09 Simple. All they had to do was [DATA REDACTED] after which they could [DATA REDACTED] and then that lasts for anywhere between 5 and 90 minutes, and the [DATA REDACTED] will [DATA REDACTED] and eventually it all grows back by next mating season.
i randomly came across this video while searching for paleontology iceberg charts and it took me around three fucking days to go through this whole thing, 10/10 would recommend it's awesome
So never did any research into it, but I always thought panspermia was where life evolved from. Thank you for giving me a name to the theory, I'm excited to do more research
Honestly I dont think its that big of a mystery how they mated, the cloacal kiss method makes it easy if rather impersonal, they would simply lift their tails and buttsmack each other safely away from any spikes and other defenses
24:09 Dude, chill. Plenty of people don't know birds are dinosaurs that's why people often make sure to say non avian. The anger came out of nowhere and changed the mood from "chill iceberg vid" to "Just another hair trigger tempered youtuber"
All I have to contribute is that they go inside the earth and find prehistoric life in ice age, one of the later sequels. Anyway, great content, super comforting watch!
I think a more correct generalization of Cope's rule is that surviving lineages tend to slowly cover all unfilled niche space near them. And there's usually niche space immediately above their current size range. But for example, seed a planet with elephants as the only vertabrate and you'd probably get species of elephant the size of rats eventually.
And of course, mass extinctions and competition from below heavily favor small size and fast reproduction, meaning that anything that's kicked into the super big size range usually dies out after awhile due to competition for niche space or some cataclysmic event.
If we want to be philogenetically consistent with cartilaginous and bony fish both being fish, then we are fish as well. So not only is the fish theory not a joke, it's just basically true - depending on what we define as fish.
Abiogenesis shows proof of organic matter/life forming from inorganic matter. Ice is considered a rock in geology, so water is a form of lava. Humans are mostly water, making them lava creatures.
15:21 I work in a museum (HMNS) and my bosses there seem to believe in this pretty strongly. A lot of us are told that fossilized creatures likely inspired many mythological creatures. I suppose that can still count as a theory though, since sometimes it can be hard to pin down how/where/when a myth began. Edit: honestly, I'm never a fan of people lying to the public about science and all, but I do kind of like the aesthetic of the Ica Stones. The guy had talent, I'll give him that.
just a note on orthogenesis, i grew up in a religious group where we believe in reincarnation and its believed souls start out on a planet as single-cell organisms and the same soul travels through all forms of life on the planet that would be progressively more conscious so the soul matures and gains experience so you can try and not fuck up as a human and then move on to further realms. idk if that makes more sense to you than what you had before but thats how i could interpret orthogenesis to make some sense of it
But, what then determines what counts as complex consciousness - and what about life forms that by most standards are considered more complex, but not necessarily as having higher levels of consciousness?
Great video! My only criticism is that the Thunderbird and Windeigo are beings from some Native American religious stories and aren’t actually cryptids.
Lots of cryptids have their origin in religion/mythology. If some people believe theg actually exist but there's no evidence for them, they're cryptids
I think the reason we depict volcanos with dinosaurs is because during the mass extinction event thay took them out, there were lots of eruptions and geothermal activity and stuff.
Stegosauruses probably went for the turtle solution, having very long penises. Either that or they could somehow twist their tails up or sideways in order for copulation to happen from the base of the tail.
I was taught in highschool that embryos going through their evolutionary history during development was true, it was one of my favourite facts I learned from that class 😭😭😭
As someone whose loved dinosaurs even since I was young, it amazes me what kind of whacked-out theories people come up with. Though I bet a fire-breathing _Parasaurolophus_ would make an awesome Pokemon.
Don't be ridiculous -- all the latest scientific evidence shows the universe was created last **Friday** -- Lastthursdayism is a laughably out-dated concept...
Agreed only fundamentalist zealots think so simply. Those that were raised to be Christians and never have the ability to discuss it without a conflict usually have this thought process. because a ton of those people believed in the "Children are meant to be seen not heard" type of shit and never have a nuanced opinion on their very religion."either you believe it all or you believe none of it. A lot of younger Christians are doing away with that thinking while some Boomer Christians remain. It's a definite grey area except for fundamentalist thinking in my opinion.
26:00 I thought it was pretty widely accepted that they came from India from when India and Madagascar were connected, basically the continental drift version of the land bridge theory?
10:05 Funny how he is talking about them not having any special "powers" but he shows up a Para skeleton (There was a depiction of Para that suggested it could spit fire)
Lemurs were in India and Australia from plate tectonics! ~100 MYA the land masses were joined together as part of Gondwana (the southern supercontinent)
okay about the snake / reptile worship one … humans are naturally wired to fear snakes , so it makes sense that maybe people back in the day thought they were divine because of the natural fear and emotion that came with the thought of snakes . this would especially make sense for cultures where snakes represented things like death , evil & fear
There are thresholds though where even (proto) mammals are actualy reptiles and dinosaurs too or stay crocodilians. At some point we humans have to decide what we call what and when. Nevertheless the classifications makes sense, because they mark crucial changes in the building plans of life, we call species.
@@craigstephenson7676 The argument is, that at some point one has to decide when it is still called synapsid, already reptile, or even mammal. In the permian and triassic all these species where so close together, the transistions are fluid.
@@nyoodmono4681 synapsids have a hard definition which is any amniote that has one low temporal fenestra on each side of the skull. This is true for all synapsids, including mammals. No sauropsids have this. They either have 2, none, or 1 at the top of each side of the skull. Also, they separated in the Carboniferous, by the Permian they were already distinct. I get that most people don’t know the distinction between synapsids and reptiles, but they are actually quite distinct from each other and it’s important to know the differences.
@@jamesflames6987because they are important and delicate fossils that have to be studied and thus kept behind the scenes for safe keeping. The lack of common sense by you Dinosaur deniers is almost adorably pathetic.💀
I really don't get creationism and peoole rejecting evolution due to their "faith". I'm personally a deeply religious christian, and I believe in evolution being the biggest actus dei (the act of God).
Exactly, I'm a Catholic Christian and we have no problem whatsoever with science or evolution. It looks like creationists and others like them are just a vocal American cult that stains the good name of Christians. They need to learn that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, must be interpreted, not to be taken literally.
It really makes no sense. If God created everything, then he also created the fossils in the Earth, and current evolutionary processes. You have to accept that as part of creation, otherwise you presume to know it better than God. But I can’t say I’m surprised by the arrogance of Protestants.
Well..... as I see it, since the beginning of time man has always figured out ways to use religion as a catalyst to start wars over individuals beliefs. Time and time again, if its a war, its either been started because of religion, women, or money (from fossil fuels) and occasionally the whole bottomless fries at Red Robin battle thats been brewing for years! Honestly maybe everyone needs to stroll over to the Red Robin as a group and have a calm conversation about why people get their panties in a bunch over nothing and share some "bottomless fries" and a strawberry lemonade. I myself will be having a Guinness and a shot of Jack... its my creative juice or is it creation juices.....🤔 I have no clue what I'm saying or why I even started typing..... well, thank you Dr. Shelton Cooper - BAZINGA!
Is is because genesis clearly says God did not use evolutionary theory but created Adam and Eve on day 6. Of Adam was not real and did not sin, there is no reason for Jesus to come. You cannot be a follower of Jesus without a literal Genesis.
4:00 most oil actually comes from early trees, one specific tree species that i forgot the name of. These tall skinny trees would be knocked over in storms and grow in large batches.
That is so funny. Michael Cramo's devotional name, Drutakarma dasa when translated from the Vedic language actually means: "I'm definitely going to butcher this"
With self domestication (according to wikipedia so maybe not the highest authority) we share some physical features that animals often get when becoming domesticated like smaller heads and brains compared to our ancestors.
Pterosaurs are one of many dinomorphs and not dinosaurs themselves but they are archosaurs like dinosaurs such as birds. Crocodiles are also archosaurs.
Even though the chickenosaurus is considered controversial, I think it could work if the genetic engineering is successful in the future, and I would like it if the cloned animals are content and healthy with no negative genetic side effects. If that's the case, I'd like to have a pet chickenosaurus. :) But where did you get that lemurs once inhabited India source from? I can't find that source anywhere.
The Great Chain of Being is actually based on the works of Aristotle and especially Platon and while it was further developed in the medieval age (they connected it with theology and added the ranks of angels above humans), the specific theory you talked about was more a 17th/18th century thing. And the picture you used is from the 16th century, so it's not medieval. I don't mean it in a mean way, just want to mention it for those who are interested in that stuff.
*Edit*
I've been seeing all of the criticisms and corrections you all have put out. I do apologize for all of the incorrections and will do better for future episodes of the series.
2 videos in under a week?! Oh, how I spoil you guys! All jokes aside, this was something that had been in the works for a while now. Will get to the tier 2 as soon as I can, but I hope you guys enjoyed this first episode of the Paleontology Fringe Theory Iceberg!
Also, I'm trying to reach 20k subs by the end of the year, so for those of you that aren't subscribed, but watch the channel regularly, consider subscribing😁. It'll be worth your time!
Thanks for reading and have a nice day!
I don't want to ruin your day but... now there is an updated version of this iceberg
When’s the rest of the iceberg
This is the first of your videos I watched, and I really like it! 👌
There's only one minor point of criticism:
In my opinion parallel usage of the term "theory" in both its academic as well as colloquial sense within the same video should be avoided.
Maybe it's best to get rid of the colloquial variant - it is unnecessary and furthered misconceptions, especially when it is about legitimate science and fringe stuff at the same time:
To use the academic "theory" for legitimate scientific research just to use the colloquial "theory" for fringe ideas a few seconds later accidentally invokes an equal value.
I'm sure you know the difference and it's not against you personally - I myself struggle with the problem because it's simply how people are speaking, and although I activly try to minimize it sometimes a "colloquial theory" slips by..
Lately I'm simply shocked how many people don't know the difference and instead equating both meanings - appearently school did a shitty job in teaching the absolute basics, and this lead to dangerous misconceptions more than once.
Oi mate, this is overall a wonderful video, but just for future reference, it's pronounced "vayduh" and not "veeduh" when you read the word "Veda."
Your statement on planet density being the cause of gravity is factually incorrect. Fact is, we don't even know what gravity is much less what's causing it. Density, electromagnetism, these are all just theories. A factual statement supported by Neil deGrasse Tyson. So since we don't know what causes gravity, Pierre Bouguer's experiments remain, TO THIS DAY, a fraud on the scientific community. Being that he measured gravitational pull and linked them to PRESUMED density.
Keeping in mind he died in 1758, and lacked the technology to drill an appropriate rock core sample in the deep bedrock to confirm his density hypothesis. Bouguer's "experiment" is nothing more than circular reasoning.
devolution is stupid. People often think that evolution means an organism becomes "better" or "smarter" but all evolution means is that an organism changed to better suit it's lifestyle. Whether a creature gains or looses something that is still evolution.
My brain wants that to make sense but I feel like some stuff def gets worse as it evolves so maybe a broader term is needed as devolution implies going backwards, maybe positive and negative evolution. I get that things do stuff to survive but a chicken is def not as badass as a raptor lol
@@wnrr2696 there is no such thing as worse, it's all subjective. People assume evolution has a positive connotation but it's really a neutral connotation. The world evolution only describes the change in an organism to better suit it's environment. Who am I or anyone else to say is it worse? Silly scenario but if humans became aquatic animals, it wouldn't be devolution when we loose our legs in favor of a giant fish like tale. Just evolution. Then what if they get back on land? Again it's not devolution to loose the tail in favor of legs, just evolution. I hope that sorta clears it up
@@wnrr2696 a chicken is more suited to survive in its current environment
@@nutman3698 I get it, it just doesn’t always benefit them. Pretty sure dinos would’ve hunted a fox type rather than the fox raiding the chicken coup, my point is as much as evolution can help them adapt to new threats or habitats it sometimes comes at an ‘evolutionary’ disappointment. Also with past cousins of species most bigger extinct versions of tigers mammoths etc would prob fair well against their modern relatives, but not be suited to the climates being how they are where they are. The chicken may have ended up perfect for that environment but when i hear the terms evolution and devolution I think the dinos took a step down the pecking order (pun intended) to be our farm animals, more interesting would be in another couple of extinction events if we ‘evolved’ to live underground then tried to return to surface blindly to be farmed by huge mutated Dino chickens..
The virus may of been a cellular lifeform at one time. One can say it devolved to a simple RNA or DNA strand with a protein coat.
“The shortage of sex lakes is actually what led to the dinosaurs’ extinction” is not a sentence I ever expected to hear, but here I am.
I see a InCel Dinosaur frantically attempting to write an angry post on 8chan ranting about how Chad and Feminism has lead to lack of unused Sex Lakes and virgin Dinosaurs willing to mate - and then go on to start the mass murder just in time to be done before the planet got hit with a giant asteroid!
Nor an entry on a palinentology iceberg to talk about lizard cults and "Dinosaur mating mystery"
"Everything is a fish" isn't entirely a joke. If you do cladistics you have a serious issue with how to classify "fish" in the common sense without including every vertebrate inside it. Same with whether birds are reptiles.
It was my understanding that birds are under eureptilia. But cladiatics are like shifting sands. It’s almost as if all life was interconnected and transcended simple categorization.
Or the fact that mammals are considered to have appeared in the jurassic era but the allotherians which are also considered to be mammals appeared during the triassic era .
@@leoleboss9414 the mammal lineage can be traced to the permian, i think they mean modern mammals in jurrasic
There's a very simple solution to this however: "fish" and other categories are not taxonomical, rather they just describe similar traits.
It's just like how "plankton" has jack-all to do with evolution, it's just a term for organisms in the water that are teensy-weensy and can't move against the currents.
@@generalgrievous2202 I'm talking about the mammal class specifically , not the older clades like prozostrodontia . Allotherians are considered to be part of the mammal class which originates from the prozostrodontia clade that appeared during the triassic .
Unlike toy dinosaurs, dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets ARE in fact made from actual dinosaur.
Mind=blown
I hate that you're right 😑
Not actually true, birds are not dinosaurs, but dinosaurs were proto birds, not entirely birds
@@danielhooper502 That's not how phylogeny works. If proto-birds were dinosaurs, then birds themselves are also still dinosaurs.
A subgroup never stops belonging to its parent group.
Oh no!
I'm a petroleum engineer and crude comes from (mostly) planktons and algaes. Natural death for these organisms causes them to create layers on the ocean floor, but big deposits of oil result from oceanic anoxic events that kill masses of these little critters, and they build up at the bottom of the ocean, add in millions of years, bunch of pressure and heat (natural pyrolysis ) and boom you've got fossil fuel.
And as for dragon myths wouldn't these myths have come from people seeing Dino bones and thinking "hey dragon!!"
So technically oil is still dinosaurs but marine
Pls don't r/woosh me
@@MeGrimlock55 no because there aren’t that many aquatic dinosaurs
@@MeGrimlock55 No, reread that first sentence again. Plankton and algae. These are tiny organisms that float freely in ocean currents and get their energy through photosynthesis.
Statistically they still most likely contain bits of dinosaurs, but so does everything else. You probably have a few carbon atoms or water molecules that were once in a dinosaur inside you right now :)
im not a creationist or even a christian and im certainly not a palaeontologist but you have no idea how much i want to believe in the fire-breathing parasaurolophus
Paleontologist*
As far as pre-paleontology peoples are concerned dinosaur ones may as well have been fire breathing dragon bones, makes no difference
For those who don’t know, the character of Dr. Grant character from Jurrasic Park is actually based on Jack Horner, which makes the whole chickenasaurus thing that much more absurd and ironic.
No joke ?? Didn't know that lol cool.have to check that out
Thats cool, I saw Jack Horer's hat and made that connection, funny that it's actually the case.
Another fun fact: This is because Jack Horner was a technical advisor on the first film as well as the second. Hence, Grant in the film is something of a self-insert.
It's also why, in the sequel, you have the character Robert Burke, who is clearly a pastiche of Robert Bakker. Horner and Bakker were in a pretty public feud regarding several dinosaur theories, most prominently the idea that Tyrannosaurus was a dedicated scavenger. Little wonder then that Burke dies a pretty gruesome death at the hands of a Tyrannosaurus and is generally portrayed as a bit of a prick.
Best part though: Reportedly, when Bakker saw the film, when next he saw Horner, Bakker responded to the caricature and the character's death in the film by going "See, Jack? I told you they were predators!"
00:00 - Intro
02:57 - Plastic Dinosaur Toys Made From Dinosaurs
05:18 - Hollow Earth
06:54 - Too Big to Walk
08:57 - Dinosaurs Are Dragons
10:26 - Creationism
12:15 - Devolution
13:58 - Orthogenesis/Chain of Being
15:22 - Mythical Beasts Based on Early Fossil Finds
15:59 - Ica Stones
17:15 - Piltdown Man
19:27 - Chickenosaurus
20:07 - Neodinosaurs
21:08 - Paluxy Tracks
22:14 - Human Self-Domestication
23:41 - Cavemen Coexisted with Dinosaurs
24:32 - All Vertebrates Are Fish
25:17 - Lemuria
26:11 - Baramins
27:27 - Abiogenesis
29:04 - Prehistoric Volcanism
29:31 - Microchips in Fossils
30:31 - Panspermia
31:09 - Smithsonian Suppression
31:51 - Mitochondrial Eve
32:30 - Dinosauroid
34:05 - Geofacts
34:34 - Marsupial/Monotreme Pterosaurs
37:00 - Japanese Paleolithic Hoax
38:23 - Omphalos Hypothesis
39:12 - Dinosaur Tissue Claims
40:12 - Cope's Rule
41:12 - Reptoids/Serpent Cult
42:26 - Michael Cremo
43:33 - Dinosaur Mating Mystery
44:32 - Giant Spiders in Carboniferous
46:08 - Fire-Breathing Parasaurolophus
47:51 - Oort Cloud
48:54 - Haeckel
50:10 - Pseudofossils
50:36 - Conclusion
Thank you for your service, sir! 🥲🫡
I know you didn't make this iceberg chart, but it's still weird that Mary Schweitzer's findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is in the same tier as actual conspiracy theories and hoaxes
Oh hey, Rickman Raptor
I read this out loud in your voice
@@Cool_Kid95 Mhm, minus the swearing...
The finding isn't, but the creationist spin is the conspiracy theory. The creationists think they found a dinosaur BONE and cracked it open and found fresh soft tissue in it. They argue that because this was found that dinosaurs are not that old. The reality is that Schweitzer found microscopic amounts of fossilized soft tissue in the interior matrix of a leg bone, and she had to demineralize it in acid to get it to be pliable again so it looked and acted like soft tissue. The fact that this discovery falsifies the concept of old ages is the ridiculous thing because rare fossilized soft tissue doesn't overturn radiometric dating. The better theory is superior preservation but creationist pretend there is a conspiracy to hide all these fresh dinosaur bones (including lots in Alaska they claim are unfossilized)
@@Rayrard Wait, are these "unfossilized Dinosaur bones in Alaska" real at all?
OH MY GOD, my grandfather knew the people involved with the chickenasauris situation and I distinctly remember him talking about how they were trying to do it. This is the first time I’ve heard someone other than me talk about it.
An issue with Cope's rule and sloths. The cute little sloths we have today are descended from similarly sized arboreal sloths that coexisted with the giant sloths. It's not a case of little sloths being descended from larger ones.
Animal lineages tend to produce larger groups over time for a couple of reasons. One is that, to be larger, specific adaptations are needed. Compare the leg of sauropod dinosaur with that of a chicken or an elephant's leg to one of it's closest relatives, the hyrax. What happens time and again is that smaller, more generalist groups spawn lineages of larger or more specialized ones. More versatile and smaller organisms are more likely to survive extinction events both because of their generalization and also because they will have larger population sizes.
Omphalos hypothesis is basically "ok what if the Earth was in a simulation for 4.5 billion years, but the last like 10000 years or so are totally for real"
8:25
As someone who has actually read the book, Too Big to Walk, I can say that it is an absolute can of worms. There were multiple times when I literally burst out laughing at how amazingly insane I thought the theories presented are. Probably what I find most hilarious about the book, however, is that it isn’t even mainly about Ford’s ideas! The first half is a recount of the early history of palaeontology, with only two or three references to the aquatic dinosaur theory. Even in the half which is about the aquatic dinosaur theory, he does not even properly focus on it! One half of one of the chapters in the second part is about how life originated for some reason, and it is never called back to; in fact it does not even get referenced again in the second half of that chapter! Also, Ford gets rather aggressive about palaeontologists reasonably denying his flawed theories (like Darren Naish), and often says inflammatory remarks about them. Then there is a geologist who was collaborating with him on a scientific paper, and he goes out of his way to praise him throughout the second half of the book. Ford claims that mainstream palaeontology is dogmatic, even though his approach to his theories is too.
Anyways, good video! This channel is one of my favourites and I really enjoy all of your content. I cannot wait for the next episode!
Yes, any notion that goes against what is preached by the colleges is utter nonsense.
Don't these nuts know that the hivemind is always right and should not be challenged?
@@slipstream7324 umm... wot?
@@xbfalcon83 They're doing a sarcastic comment about how everyone Who studies believes what they've studied without question, because they seem to not know how education changes and reforms over the years, because they hadn't had any.
instereting,can you say the "argument"of that book,because i don't have it,also i'm sad i have to give you a like because it not 105 anymore(only 1% of peoples will understand the reference)
@@alvaronavarro4895 Our education system doesn't make people smart. It tests information retention. You recite what you are told and you pass. Wether that information is true or false is irrelevant. It teaches you what to think not how to think.
Actually the idea that Sauropods inhabited lakes etc., because of their huge size is actually a old one that emerged in the late 19th century and was promoted well into the 20th century. You can still find painting dating from the 1930s and 40sw showing Sauropods in swamps and lakes.
"Dinosaurs made of dinosaurs"
Personally I'd put this one as "true but only very technically" in the same way that the KISS comics were "printed with their blood" (a few drops in the giant thing of ink).
Yeah, extremely slim chance but still possible
sea dinosaurs
glad someone else is saying this lol
im sure some dinosaurs made it in, most didnt but its definitely not a "they all are oil vs none are oil"
@@RoninDavethere are no sea dinosaurs. The closest thing you have to that is spinosaurus. But even then, somehow that's being debated 🙄
Besides fringe theories, there are MANY often-accepted (in academia) hypotheses that are poorly supported or even outright contradicted by the fossil record, but continue to persist simply because nobody has bothered to publish a paper pointing out these claims are baseless.
Such as?
Like?
@@manospondylus
The majority of hypotheses involving clade-level competitive displacement come to mind.
@@bkjeong4302 Huh, with that I actually agree
Went in expecting creationist bullshit, went out more than satisfied with actual good talking points.
You have restored my faith in humanity, if only temporarily.
I love “mainstream scientists” type conspiracy theorists. None of them are actual academics and they either have no clue about how peer review and academics work, or they lie on purpose. Literally every academic’s dream in life is to upset the status quo, bring about a total paradigm shift and have their names etched into the halls of history along with Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Watson either for discovering something completely new or turning a widely accepted scientific theory on its head.
Science has actually been unable to provide accurate answers in some fields, though. If science were being done correctly, papers would not pass peer review simply to be withdrawn later when they are shown to be unreproducible.
That line of logic is based on pre-scientific reasoning. I.e. you are making an argument that sounds clever on paper, but contradicts how the real world works. And, it also has the added benefit of hand-waving away the underlying problem.
In actually, science always tends toward degeneration, because speculation is easier than the work of observation, and much easier than addressing the methodological difficulties in the soft sciences. Likewise, scientists don't like being proven in their old age, when their mental decline means they barely understand new theories, much less advance them.
@@blkgardner what the hell are you even trying to say
@Shinobi-No-Bueno You might check out Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It serves as a genealogy of scientific thought and explains how it works in a descriptive way as opposed to the prescriptive ideal of the scientific method which, much like any introductory model we teach, is missing quite a bit of detail. Kuhn attempts to rectify that. He also has a PhD in physics for whatever that might be worth in this context.
@@blkgardner look at this guy straight up saying ageism discrimination
@@alynames7171 where did that come from? Lol
i would like to say that a theory in science is an idea backed by sufficient evidence, one without is called a hypothesis
seems minor but saying theory as if its just an idea puts the two as equal, which isnt too kind to argument on these subjects
example the theory of evolution, it is extraordinarily backed by evidence, but yet many arguing against it keep falling back to calling it "just a theory" even though it being a theory actually gives it huge credibility, as per the definition given before
Yeah, everytime he said "it's just a theory" I cringed a little because it's just a fundamental thing that a science communicator needs to know. It made the video less reliable in my opinion
Trans rights.
@@sarahnade8663 I'm all for it, but this seems very random
@@sarahnade8663 why can't people see a pride flag without being triggered lol
@@gerrardjones28 Dude, I'm being supportive. Calm down.
27:28 Does abiogenesis count as a fringe theory? It's more just an extrapolation from the fact there is life now but there wasn't life at the start of the universe. So clearly unless we assume divine intervention, abiogenesis had to happen at some stage in some form or another.
Im assuming the person who made the iceberg was loose with their rules of what counted as a fringe theory, because there are more things like that on the iceberg.
I think abiogenesis is just on here because it ties into some of the lower entries on the list. At the beginning of the video when the full tier list appeared on screen, I noticed that the lowest tier had an entry called "Soviet Abiogenesis" not too far away from "Fossils are from the future" & "Oil is made from humans".
@@DinoDiego16 yeah abiogenesis is far from fringe, its literally an entire feild of science
It might be the "THE ADVENT OF LIFE ON EARTH IS AN ALIEN SCIENCE EXPERIMENT AND EARTH IS AN ALIEN PETRI DISH" thing. I've seen a lot of UFO chasers and ancient alien conspiracy guys use that and they probably latched on to abiogenesis to sound pseudoscientific instead of crackpot-y.
@@neoqwerty okay so no, the theory of life coming from space is called panspermia BUT panspermia generally refers to life on an astroid or a comet crashing onto earth, the idea of it being intelligent aliens is called directed panspermia, and is incredibly fringe
For me, this video is one of those random recommendations where you say "eh, fuck it, why not" and end up having a great time
The theory that people from medieval times discovered dinosaur bones and then classifying them as dragons is a very cool and very plausible concept of how the mythos of dragons came to be
Dragons were probably originally Nile water monitors drawings with one tongue with later people drawing them with multiple tongues and still later people assuming the three tongues were flames. I don't know how Asian Dragons came along... But they were water animals and sinuous like snakes... So maybe classic lake monsters.
@@fluffyone1882 ever hear the fun theory about dragons? Dragons were 100% real but had porous bones just like birds and hence made it insanely hard for them to fossilize, since most of any of the actual dragon fossils would have been found and misidentified, destroyed by ancient peoples, or hoarded into private collections dragons have become myth even in the fossil record too us. So basically the theory posits that cultures all around the world have depictions of dragons because there were flying lizards in that time, but like birds they can only fossilize in very specific circumstances and that's why we see no dragon fossils
@@IVibratorz Sounds like a lot of nonsense. If dragon existed, a long chain of earlier species that would eventually evolve into dragons would also have to exist. They're as real as hydras or werewolves
In Polish medieval capital Cracow, over the entrance to cathedra there are two hanged Fossils of bones of Mammoth. They hang there for hundreds of years and when they were hanged there, people where thinking that those are the bones of giants, so yes, people thought that.
@@prkp7248they are the bones of giants. Have you ever seen a small mammoth?
Really great iceberg. Crazy this is only tier 1. Good work!
Honestly though, if it does turn out we’re being ruled by a race of shapeshifting geckos, would that be so bad?
*eyes suspiciously*
want a cricket?
@@griffinhunter3206 yes I mean yes I mean yea I mean yes I mean yes
What do you mean it’s not normal to sunbathe for 12 hours and have your air conditioner above 80°F?
@@Nico-me6ux UwU
@@griffinhunter3206 i will in fact take that cricket thank you very much
Great video, but minor nitpick at around 41:07
Megatherium went extinct and its closest relative, the modern sloth, was from a somewhat separate lineage, not a direct descendant of the ground sloth. A better counter-example would be the dromaeosaurs, which steadily shrunk throughout the cretaceous, from the imposing Utahraptor to the much smaller Velociraptor.
Utahraptor!!!
Was gonna comment this but then saw your’s also the way he uses the word theory is flawed as well saying something in science “ is just a theory “ is something science denier’s say all the time but I know he’s not using it Maliciously he just didn’t know
I'm pretty sure "alternative archeologist" is just a fancy term for an "amateur grave robber"
yeah p much
Aww Dino grave. Now I want to paint two velociraptor fossils in “the lovers” grave pose!
Or someone, who knows next to nothing about any kind of biology, confuses role-playing as archeologist to being real archeologist...
It's been ages since I've read Forbidden Archeology, but from what I remember, it doesn't spend all that much time proposing any actual alternative theories on human history, but spends most of it pointing out how archaeologists are often quick to jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence and gives many examples of things that are (or were at the time) assumed by the scientific community to be true based on very little actual findings that could very well be interpreted differently.
@@olserknam sounds like it says "others are wrong so I'm right!"
Btw, fun fact about the piltdown man: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, was at the second dig and helped to popularize the discovery.
I love learning about these fringe, debunked theories! A lot of these are good ideas for speculative evolution stories.
Can already tell that this is gonna be my favourite series from you so far. Nuts that all of that was only the first tier, Sustained_disgust must have had a lot of free time, which is something you're gonna need if you plan on doing the whole thing lmao
About the "dinosaurs are dragons" theory: the definition for dragon is pretty loose. If you define them as giant winged reptiles that breathe deadly stuff like fire, then that would exclude creatures like Ouroboros or Jörmungandr. I'm pretty sure most dragon lovers can agree that those two _are_ dragons.
I thought about it for a bit and figured a decent way to define dragons in a manner loose enough that it includes anything we commonly think of as a dragon, but also not too loose that we don't know what a dragon is anymore, is to say: *Dragon= reptile + giant/flying/breathes or spits deadly shit/greedy/highly intelligent/mindless beast/godlike/demonic* . This way, you could say frogs are reptiles, but no frog can fly (gliding =/= flying), they don't spit stuff that kills (launching their tongues =/= spitting), they're small and attributing qualities like "highly intelligent" or "greedy" to a real life animal is pretty unfair, so those only count for mythological dragons. But for example, spitting cobras can count as dragons because they are reptile + spits deadly shit. Similarly, Komodo Dragons would also count thanks to their saliva.
Even the wikipedia definition states that dragons are "large, serpentine, legendary creatures". Aside from the "legendary" part, it pretty much apples to dinosaurs as well.
Dinosaurs = reptile + giant therefore Dinosaurs=Dragons.
They're also kaiju. You cannot deny.
Anyway, this is just my opinion. No, I'm not saying dinosaurs could breathe fire or anything like that. I'd like to read the thoughts of others as well.
A lot of early depictions of dragons were more snake-like than the lizard-like ones we usually see nowadays. Maybe some of the larger prehistoric snakes could count if we're going by sheer size.
You're right in some aspects, but wrong in others...
First and foremost... I don't think most people would argue Jormungandr is a dragon. Its a massive sea serpent and shares no real similarities with traditional depictions of dragons, not in European or Western depictions. And being of Norse origins, kind of hard to use Chinese or Eastern dragons as evidence to the contrary. Ouroboros as well doesn't follow traditional depictions of dragons either, not usually, being a snake eating its own tail. But that's where things get tricky, because being Greek, it would have literally been called a dragon. So it doesn't look at all like a common depiction of dragons, a flying lizard (even disregarding the fire), but... Its more of a dragon than those dragons.
Now, what I just said is contradicted by the etymology of the word "dragon". Its Latin origin means "huge serpent" and its Greek origin is even less specific, just "serpent" or "giant seafish", and actually described more than just mythical creatures. By this origin, even a boa constrictor would be a "dragon". So yes, Jormungandr would be a dragon, as would Ouroboros. But that doesn't fit the traditional depictions. Serpents, after all, do not have any limbs, and even granting wings an exception, traditional dragon depictions at least have legs.
So now comes the issue of what defines a dragon. The ancient Greek and Roman version would be any massive serpent. Jormungandr would then be a dragon, as would Ouroboros. But not dinosaurs, because they do no even look like serpents. With the Norse, its a little more confusing, as the Prose Edda states lists dragon as a name for serpents, as well as Jormungand, Fafnir, Nidhogg, snake, and viper, among others. But artistic depictions of Nidhogg give it two legs and no wings, despite the Poetic Edda saying it flies and calling it a snake. Then in the Middle Ages came the more well known depictions of dragons. Two or four legs, and two wings, with some areas listing the two legged variants as Wyverns specifically, though most just called them dragons. There are also lindwurms, runic carvings of serpents with arms, and amphipteres, or "winged snakes". The Bible also has mentions of dragons, but I can't find anything about limbs, as well as "fiery flying serpents", but... No real depictions I can find, at least none with limbs.
If you want to consider dragons as "giant serpents", as the etymology suggests, then no, dinosaurs are not dragons. If you want to consider dragons as the more commonly depicted "reptile with two or four legs and wings", then... Well, pterosaurs are dragons, but not proper dinosaurs, and only ignoring feathers. And if you want to define dragons as "any big reptile that may or may not fly and may or may not breathe something deadly" then... Well, define "big", because that would make a boa constrictor a dragon and make some smaller dinosaurs not dragons still, even disregarding the feather issue again.
But kaiju? There's no doubt you're wrong there. Kaiju means "strange beast", so if you want to go by direct translation, then yes. But that's no fun because then literally all mythical creatures would be kaiju as well. And originally it was just for just that. But if you want to use it to refer to the giant monsters of kaiju movies, then no. Dinosaurs and even (most) dragons are not kaiju. They're too small. Their size needs to be comparable to Godzilla to qualify as real kaiju. In this case, yes, Ouroboros and Jormungandr are kaiju, considering they wrap around the entire planet. Nidhogg too, being able to eat the roots of Yggdrasill. But dinosaurs? Godzilla, in his smallest depiction, in the original movie, is 50 m or 164 ft tall. By comparison, the largest dinosaur discovered with a reliably calculated size, the Dreadnoughtus, one of the "Titanosaurs", is only half that at 26 m or 85 ft. If you want to call dinosaurs kaiju, you'd have to call blue whales kaiju too, being the largest animals ever known to have existed at 29.9 m at maximum.
Dinosaurs are dragons? Depends on how you want to define a dragon, but ignoring feathers, a loose definition of "dragon" would work. Dinosaurs are kaiju? That's not even close to arguable.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to be rude or anything and apologize if I came across as such. I enjoy debates on mythological topics and love mythology in general and more just wanted to share than anything. Feel I should clarify, knowing how hostile the internet can be.
@@Kahadi Thanks for your reply! Was definitely not expecting any answers, just another comment in the sea of comments, so I'm glad you gave such a thorough answer :D You made a lot of very good points, I will still say that Dinosaurs are kinda the closest thing we have to real life "kaiju", even if they're still pretty far from actually being kaiju. I also like talking mythology and such (though my knowledge is more limited than yours seems to be) and I also like thinking about what real life things are the closest to mythological creatures and such, but I guess sometimes I get a bit too excited about the topic haha. Anyway, wish all the best!
Well for most people this idea means that Dinosaur fossils are what inspired the Dragon myths around the world and not that Dinosaurs literally were Dragons.
I mean its not hard to see how. Some people dig up a skeleton filled with giant teeth and since humans find reptiles naturally scarier then mammals we are going to create the idea of giant lizards. And the whole idea of them flying and breathing fire came later cause, well why not?
When it comes to dinosaurs being called dragons it is important to read eyewitness accounts instead of what scientists sit around speculating on.
I love fringe theories so much, especially the absolutely outlandish ones as they are excellent material for fictional worldbuilding.
Firebreathing Parasaurolophuses? You just *know* that I’m adding that. That's cool as all hell.
a sauropod with lungs being crushed under the weight of an entire lake: "I can't walk"
24:35 No, "all vertebrates are fish" is a valid point of view. It relates to defining group names based on ancestry (whether they share a common ancestor) rather than general similarities in anatomy and life history. The conventional meaning of the word fish from a phylogenetic point of view excludes tetrapods (e.g. amphibians and amniotes) because they don't look or act like (other) fish.
all vertebrates will always be fish for me im glad someone aggrees
@@TheHortoman high five! ✋
Exactly! It just points out that our way of classifying animals is kinda arbitrary. It's like the different models of atoms, you use the one you need. While it is good to learn all the models if you really want to understand something, it's fine to simplify sometimes to better explain/understand other concepts of scince.
@@pappanalab it's almost as if, when one is inclined to do so, similarities can be found between any two things in our universe
@@shinobi-no-bueno Even if they are meaningless.
I cant remember what bioligist it was, but they were discussing the potential for alien life on earth and he said that IF there were aliens on Earth, his money would have been on the family of starfish and sea cucumbers because of how their body symmetry works and it's pretty much alien to any other family of life on the planet. Was pretty interesting.
I feel like such an idiot for never realizing why Sinclair's mascot was a dinosaur. It has literally bothered me since I was a kid
I’m surprised the new Jurassic World movies haven’t done anything with the crazy idea of a fire breathing Hadrosaur.
"Saying all vertebrates are fish is clearly a joke entry."
Me, an evolutionary biologist: *TRIGGERED*
When I meant a joke entry, I meant it as it's an obvious statement that's commonly used in a jokingly way in science from time to time. But that's my bad, should've chosen my words better XD
I love how you go into actual detail to the point that the gist of each theory is fully explained and the for and against arguments for each, most other iceberg videos I've watched are really interesting but I always end up having to Google each topic to find out more on it
The "oil as liquid dinosaurs" thing has REALLY puzzled me for a long time.
Unless algae are now dinosaurs, somehow
Me either, but I did find it quite absurd
I think fossil finds in ancient mining, from before the copper age to antiquity, may have lead to the ancient stories of dragons and other mythical creatures.
I'm sure they discovered large skulls or other bones during ancient mining to make bronze, copper, etc. and had no way to contextualize what they discovered other than making myths.
Even Mammoth skulls could be confused for cyclops skulls, when you see them especially without tusks
Dragons were a big part of Chinese mythology. I think people saw dinosaur fossils in the Gobi desert and instead of calling them "dinosaurs" (since the word hadn't been invented yet), they called them "dragons". Ideas like them breathing fire were just imagined embellishments.
You do know that dinosaur fossils are usually very fragmentary right?
I don't believe that a person from ancient times would even be able to identify a dinosaur fossil unless it is actually sufficiently complete.
We can also trace the true origin of the dragon myth through mythology, revealing that it all started with snake's.
Pretty obvious if you ask me.
Fossils may have influenced old tales, but I think we should always take care to never de-contextualize old myths and look at them superficially, without their cultural significance. Dragons are culturally more than giant reptilian animals, and reducing some myths to people mistaking real life fossils can be dangerous.
@@scotth6814 No, our dragons are crocodiles, specifically Chinese alligators, salties and an extinct species. The earliest dragon found in China looks exactly like a crocodile, Chinese dragons and crocs have the same exact abilities and there are multiple records of people rearing dragons. Most importantly, our dragons almost never breathe fire.
“Devolution” is just evolution, possibly as the environment changes, then changes back. There are many examples of animals evolving bigger, then smaller again.
Nuralagus rex is a good example of this, it was a rabbit species that got stranded on an island and no longer had predators. It quickly evolved to become three times larger and it's ears shrunk down because hearing predators no longer became an optimal use of energy. They evolved to fit a new environment through new genetic mutations, nothing went backwards even though they became less specialized then their ancestors.
I feel like I've been inoculated with science! You talked about so much theories that I have read and "believed" for so long. Thank you for sharing and I'll wait for the next parts! You have a new subscriber now!
Iceberg completed, it is now time to binge. Let's go!!!
“mammal like reptiles” is a catastrophically outdated term, they werent reptiles to start with lol
The moment i saw that term and listening him saying 24/7 the word theory isntead of hypothesis made me realize that this guy has no fucking idea what he's talking about xd
But pterosaurs *were* reptiles...
@@olserknam but we are not talking about pterosaurs xddd
@@wcados800 Then who?
@@olserknam we are talking about synapsids xd, like dimetrodon, the video said that these animals were mammal-like reptiles, and its false. Synapsids arent reptiles.
11:10 I've witnessed creationists bullshit their way out of transitional forms by saying "it's just a {insert whichever part of the transition will make their claim seem valid, ex. bird and fish with Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik respectively}." They'll do anything they can to protect their beliefs.
24:31 i mean yes. this is true in the systematic way. All terrestrial vertebrates come from the fish, which means that clad every descendant of this fish is also a fish in cladistic way. just like ceatecans are artiodactyls, beacuse thier ancestors were artiodactyls.
OK, fish.
To explain 6:09 afaik,
In the gravitational force formula, The mass of one of the bodies is one of the crucial factors contributing to the force applied on the body. In this context we use the earth as one of the bodies.
So let's say that if the earth is hollow, it's mass(density) is significantly less than it should be, reducing it's gravitational force upon everything on the earth's surface massively,
So what happen is that everything on earth will be either weigh less or floating.
correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: density*
Can’t wait to see the other tiers, excited to hear about some crazy theories!
44:09
Simple. All they had to do was [DATA REDACTED] after which they could [DATA REDACTED] and then that lasts for anywhere between 5 and 90 minutes, and the [DATA REDACTED] will [DATA REDACTED] and eventually it all grows back by next mating season.
What
i randomly came across this video while searching for paleontology iceberg charts and it took me around three fucking days to go through this whole thing, 10/10 would recommend it's awesome
Glad you enjoyed it! And yeah, these icebergs take a long time to get through. And this is only tier 1!
So never did any research into it, but I always thought panspermia was where life evolved from. Thank you for giving me a name to the theory, I'm excited to do more research
i’ve been watching this video throughout the week. i’m not finished yet but i just want to thank you for covering this iceberg! ^^
Honestly I dont think its that big of a mystery how they mated, the cloacal kiss method makes it easy if rather impersonal, they would simply lift their tails and buttsmack each other safely away from any spikes and other defenses
Not gonna lie the plastic Dino theory sounds like it could be a kids movie waiting to happen
That reminds me of that one old dinosaur toy movie. I think it was called Prehysteria
Or a horror movie
24:09 Dude, chill. Plenty of people don't know birds are dinosaurs that's why people often make sure to say non avian. The anger came out of nowhere and changed the mood from "chill iceberg vid" to "Just another hair trigger tempered youtuber"
All I have to contribute is that they go inside the earth and find prehistoric life in ice age, one of the later sequels. Anyway, great content, super comforting watch!
I think a more correct generalization of Cope's rule is that surviving lineages tend to slowly cover all unfilled niche space near them. And there's usually niche space immediately above their current size range. But for example, seed a planet with elephants as the only vertabrate and you'd probably get species of elephant the size of rats eventually.
And of course, mass extinctions and competition from below heavily favor small size and fast reproduction, meaning that anything that's kicked into the super big size range usually dies out after awhile due to competition for niche space or some cataclysmic event.
If we want to be philogenetically consistent with cartilaginous and bony fish both being fish, then we are fish as well. So not only is the fish theory not a joke, it's just basically true - depending on what we define as fish.
Abiogenesis shows proof of organic matter/life forming from inorganic matter. Ice is considered a rock in geology, so water is a form of lava. Humans are mostly water, making them lava creatures.
Ice is NOT considered a rock? It's considered water just like a river...
15:21 I work in a museum (HMNS) and my bosses there seem to believe in this pretty strongly. A lot of us are told that fossilized creatures likely inspired many mythological creatures. I suppose that can still count as a theory though, since sometimes it can be hard to pin down how/where/when a myth began.
Edit: honestly, I'm never a fan of people lying to the public about science and all, but I do kind of like the aesthetic of the Ica Stones. The guy had talent, I'll give him that.
just a note on orthogenesis, i grew up in a religious group where we believe in reincarnation and its believed souls start out on a planet as single-cell organisms and the same soul travels through all forms of life on the planet that would be progressively more conscious so the soul matures and gains experience so you can try and not fuck up as a human and then move on to further realms. idk if that makes more sense to you than what you had before but thats how i could interpret orthogenesis to make some sense of it
I understand exactly what you mean
But, what then determines what counts as complex consciousness - and what about life forms that by most standards are considered more complex, but not necessarily as having higher levels of consciousness?
Trey the explainer has individual videos on a few of these theories and goes more in depth with them
This series is gonna be awesome,and I love this video.
Great video! My only criticism is that the Thunderbird and Windeigo are beings from some Native American religious stories and aren’t actually cryptids.
Lots of cryptids have their origin in religion/mythology. If some people believe theg actually exist but there's no evidence for them, they're cryptids
Yeah, I'd still count it as a cryptid, since it follows the basic description of one
@@DinoDiego16 but you just admitted it wasn't one
That being said I think you have a good channel.
@@thatcomicdad1687 sorry, was responding to the other guy. Also, thank you, i appreciate that.
"Dinosaur mating mystery"
Possible answer: *It* was really long.
We can start with elephants, who are also huge, and have prehensile dicks to ease the mating process.
41:58 this is actually a fascinating conspiracy theory and if you want to hear more about it check out Trey the Explainer's video on it.
That's a rabbit hole no one should have to got down.
@@obsidianjane4413 indeed Trey inserts some agenda in his videos regardless of a few of his vids being quite good
I think the reason we depict volcanos with dinosaurs is because during the mass extinction event thay took them out, there were lots of eruptions and geothermal activity and stuff.
Stegosauruses probably went for the turtle solution, having very long penises. Either that or they could somehow twist their tails up or sideways in order for copulation to happen from the base of the tail.
Or just go back-to-back
I imagine their penises were prehensile, since there are examples of animals today that have their genitals like that
I was taught in highschool that embryos going through their evolutionary history during development was true, it was one of my favourite facts I learned from that class 😭😭😭
Loved those shots from the field museum my favorite place to go. Also these ice bergs seem to only get bigger and bigger
they really are, but its a fun challenge to take on
As someone whose loved dinosaurs even since I was young, it amazes me what kind of whacked-out theories people come up with.
Though I bet a fire-breathing _Parasaurolophus_ would make an awesome Pokemon.
Creationists are silly, they think the universe was created 6000 years ago when it was really created last Thursday!
Only Christians who misinterpret the Bible think that.
Don't be ridiculous -- all the latest scientific evidence shows the universe was created last **Friday** -- Lastthursdayism is a laughably out-dated concept...
Agreed only fundamentalist zealots think so simply. Those that were raised to be Christians and never have the ability to discuss it without a conflict usually have this thought process. because a ton of those people believed in the "Children are meant to be seen not heard" type of shit and never have a nuanced opinion on their very religion."either you believe it all or you believe none of it. A lot of younger Christians are doing away with that thinking while some Boomer Christians remain. It's a definite grey area except for fundamentalist thinking in my opinion.
26:00 I thought it was pretty widely accepted that they came from India from when India and Madagascar were connected, basically the continental drift version of the land bridge theory?
Note to self. Next time I have a story about seeding a barren planet with foreign life in a sci fi game, make sure of the term "baramin species."
10:05
Funny how he is talking about them not having any special "powers" but he shows up a Para skeleton
(There was a depiction of Para that suggested it could spit fire)
The thing is, EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, since everything is constantly evolving.
Lemurs were in India and Australia from plate tectonics! ~100 MYA the land masses were joined together as part of Gondwana (the southern supercontinent)
2nd layer please!! Love these longer videos
okay about the snake / reptile worship one … humans are naturally wired to fear snakes , so it makes sense that maybe people back in the day thought they were divine because of the natural fear and emotion that came with the thought of snakes . this would especially make sense for cultures where snakes represented things like death , evil & fear
Minor nitpick: synapsids technically aren’t reptiles because they are less closely related to modern reptiles than modern reptiles are to each otehr
There are thresholds though where even (proto) mammals are actualy reptiles and dinosaurs too or stay crocodilians. At some point we humans have to decide what we call what and when. Nevertheless the classifications makes sense, because they mark crucial changes in the building plans of life, we call species.
@@nyoodmono4681 non-mammalian synapsids are usually just called synapsids or stem-mammals they’re not actually reptiles
@@craigstephenson7676 The argument is, that at some point one has to decide when it is still called synapsid, already reptile, or even mammal. In the permian and triassic all these species where so close together, the transistions are fluid.
@@nyoodmono4681 synapsids have a hard definition which is any amniote that has one low temporal fenestra on each side of the skull. This is true for all synapsids, including mammals. No sauropsids have this. They either have 2, none, or 1 at the top of each side of the skull. Also, they separated in the Carboniferous, by the Permian they were already distinct. I get that most people don’t know the distinction between synapsids and reptiles, but they are actually quite distinct from each other and it’s important to know the differences.
@@craigstephenson7676 yeah, but one alternative theory is that Synapsids evolved from holeless reptiles, but I don’t agree with this
I've eye rolled so far at some of these theory's that my eyes stalks have gotten tangled
A friend of mine who works for the Smithsonian says they get a couple of letters each month from people who would like to see the giant's fossils.
Ask him why he won't show them.
@@jamesflames6987because they are important and delicate fossils that have to be studied and thus kept behind the scenes for safe keeping. The lack of common sense by you Dinosaur deniers is almost adorably pathetic.💀
I was always under the impression that "devolution" was just people misunderstanding what atavism is.
And this is just the top layer? I’m kinda scared what we will see in the depths. Lovecraftian level scared.
Excellent video man! Love your channel. Looking forward to the rest of the videos in this series.
I spent a solid 10 minutes laughing sex lakes; I didn’t expect to paleontology lecture to be this hilarious.
I really don't get creationism and peoole rejecting evolution due to their "faith". I'm personally a deeply religious christian, and I believe in evolution being the biggest actus dei (the act of God).
Exactly, I'm a Catholic Christian and we have no problem whatsoever with science or evolution.
It looks like creationists and others like them are just a vocal American cult that stains the good name of Christians.
They need to learn that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, must be interpreted, not to be taken literally.
It really makes no sense. If God created everything, then he also created the fossils in the Earth, and current evolutionary processes. You have to accept that as part of creation, otherwise you presume to know it better than God.
But I can’t say I’m surprised by the arrogance of Protestants.
Well..... as I see it, since the beginning of time man has always figured out ways to use religion as a catalyst to start wars over individuals beliefs. Time and time again, if its a war, its either been started because of religion, women, or money (from fossil fuels) and occasionally the whole bottomless fries at Red Robin battle thats been brewing for years! Honestly maybe everyone needs to stroll over to the Red Robin as a group and have a calm conversation about why people get their panties in a bunch over nothing and share some "bottomless fries" and a strawberry lemonade. I myself will be having a Guinness and a shot of Jack... its my creative juice or is it creation juices.....🤔 I have no clue what I'm saying or why I even started typing..... well, thank you Dr. Shelton Cooper - BAZINGA!
@@surprisedchar2458 As a protestant, I agree.
Is is because genesis clearly says God did not use evolutionary theory but created Adam and Eve on day 6. Of Adam was not real and did not sin, there is no reason for Jesus to come. You cannot be a follower of Jesus without a literal Genesis.
Extremely excited for the rest of this series 😀
4:00 most oil actually comes from early trees, one specific tree species that i forgot the name of. These tall skinny trees would be knocked over in storms and grow in large batches.
did not expect that fire-breathing parasauralophus
That Lakehub meme was fucking hilarious bruh I'm dead.
That is so funny. Michael Cramo's devotional name, Drutakarma dasa when translated from the Vedic language actually means: "I'm definitely going to butcher this"
Thays pretty metal
Amazing video, can't wait to come back for the next tiers
With self domestication (according to wikipedia so maybe not the highest authority) we share some physical features that animals often get when becoming domesticated like smaller heads and brains compared to our ancestors.
Except our cranial capacity (and therefore brain size) is actually larger than our ancestors
@@einstein951 no, no its not
Hollow Earth is tier one?! This is gonna be wild
Dino toys aren’t really made of dinosaurs but Dino nuggets are.
Pterosaurs are one of many dinomorphs and not dinosaurs themselves but they are archosaurs like dinosaurs such as birds. Crocodiles are also archosaurs.
Even though the chickenosaurus is considered controversial, I think it could work if the genetic engineering is successful in the future, and I would like it if the cloned animals are content and healthy with no negative genetic side effects. If that's the case, I'd like to have a pet chickenosaurus. :)
But where did you get that lemurs once inhabited India source from? I can't find that source anywhere.
The Great Chain of Being is actually based on the works of Aristotle and especially Platon and while it was further developed in the medieval age (they connected it with theology and added the ranks of angels above humans), the specific theory you talked about was more a 17th/18th century thing. And the picture you used is from the 16th century, so it's not medieval. I don't mean it in a mean way, just want to mention it for those who are interested in that stuff.
I enjoyed this alot, awesome channel!