Skip to comments.Scientists had fossil backbone backwards
Posted on 01/13/2013 7:16:14 PM PST by BenLurkin
Dr Stephanie Pierce from the Royal Veterinary College and Professor Jennifer Clack from the University of Cambridge, who led the international team in the NERC-funded investigation, have been studying a 360 million year old extinct animal, Ichthyostega; thought to be the first species to have made brief excursions onto land.
They had previously built up a 3D digital model of Ichthyostega's skeleton but on examination of the vertebral column, it became clear that something strange was happening. The researchers then scanned three fossil specimens using high energy X-rays, produced by the ESRF synchrotron in Grenoble , in order to build extremely detailed 3D images of the spine. What they found was unexpected.
Until now, it was thought that early tetrapod's vertebrae were made up of four separate bones one at the front, one above and a pair at the back. But, the images showed that in Ichthyostega's vertebrae the bones at the back have become fused to the one in front.
This discovery meant that what was previously thought to be the first bone in the series of each vertebra was, in reality, the last
(Excerpt) Read more at chem.info ...
Schematics were in Chinese.
That’s alright. At least they know what it ate; when it lived; what its social structure was like and the answer to every other question that informed supposition can conceive.
That’s nothing - they had the wrong head on the Apatosaur for nearly fifty years.
I wonder how many more mistakes like this have been made from trying to put an ancient set of bones together without the assembly manual?
ok, so this should give us great comfort in accepting all the other scientific theories regarding evolution, right? (sarc)
Just goes to show that they don’t know what they don’t know, and they’re trying to fool us all as they try to act like they do.
I’d say they have a great con game going...
It’s settled science, Man! Do not question it!
If they dug up a chihuahua, and they dug up a great dane, would they declare them to be breeds of canis lupus familiaris? Or would they declare them to be entirely different species? Which would be the ancestor species — the chihuahua or the great dane? How many millions of years older would that ancestor be?
It’s all fantasy and make believe.
Was that the brontosaurus?
They got it scientifically wrong so it’s cool...kinda like global warming...HA!
I kill me. Many would like to...
No wonder it chased its tail.
Yup. There is no such thing as a brontosaurus. Never existed. Just like the unicorn.
Yes it was.
This end up...
“Never existed. Just like the unicorn.”
I tale it you don’t watch “My little Pony”. There are several. A couple Pegasus/Pegasi/Pegawhatever too.
I saw it on TV and TV does not lie. EVER.
The funny thing is that the unicorn did exist. The classical unicorn was supposed to have a horn on its nose, have incredibly powerful legs, a super-tough hide and broad feet instead of hooves. Consider, also, that the word translated as horse was so broad, that “hippopatamus” means “river horse.” Yup, “hippo” was the word translated as horse.
Now, what’s like a “hippo” or a horse, has a horn on its nose, incredibly powerful legs, and broad feet?
Does any animal sound like that to you?
Yeah, once the animal is stripped of the medieval romanticization (influenced by the graceful horn of the Narwhal), and the nonsensical new-agre crap, to its early descriptions, it’s quite plain that unicorns actually do exist.
They’re called rhinos. And they run the Republican party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.