Oldest Live-Birth Fossil Found; Fish Had Umblical Cord

mpgt · #1 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 04:07 AM

This is amazing...
Oldest Live-Birth Fossil Found; Fish Had Umblical Cord

blondemafia26 · #2 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 04:45 AM

Thanks for shareing . That was neat .

razeraze · #3 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 12:24 AM

Amazing as always.

BlackLava · #4 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 11:19 PM

wow thats pretty cool

i would love to see some of those prehistoric animals alive today, that would be insane!!

ChelsyC · #5 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 06:12 AM

That is very cool!

Hartsock · #6 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 02:47 PM

no offense, but I am just not totally sold on that. I think it is cool to see the embryonic fish fossilized with the mother's skeleton, but maybe the whole umbilical cord isn't quite what they think it is. Now granted I am not a scientist, but I just always wonder at the whole theory thing when dealing with species that we cannot observe first hand.

For example, this dinosaur is aggressive and hunted in packs. This one was docile and ate plants. Well, maybe they did eat plants, but how do we know they were docile? There are things that I believe we can discern due to physical evidence, but too much of the behavior stuff really can only be an educated guess.

How do we know that was an umblical cord and they birthed live with the cord like that? maybe that served some other pre-birth function. After all if we looked at a human fetus that would be developing in the early stages, there would parts that we wouldn't be able to discern what was going on, relying completely on fossils to determine that just makes me wonder a little. Now realize I am not trying to poke holes in this or be critical, just my opinion and things I have wondered about different times.

X-Factor · #7 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

For example, this dinosaur is aggressive and hunted in packs. This one was docile and ate plants. Well, maybe they did eat plants, but how do we know they were docile? There are things that I believe we can discern due to physical evidence, but too much of the behavior stuff really can only be an educated guess.

They can when they have skeletal remains; you can tell alot about how they looked just from that. Combine that with several other of the same skeletons in the same area....it becomes pretty clear (at least to me). LOL....aggressive plant eaters...ever hear of Mad Cow Disease? Now THERE'S an angry vegetarian!

Quote:

How do we know that was an umblical cord and they birthed live with the cord like that? maybe that served some other pre-birth function. After all if we looked at a human fetus that would be developing in the early stages, there would parts that we wouldn't be able to discern what was going on, relying completely on fossils to determine that just makes me wonder a little. Now realize I am not trying to poke holes in this or be critical, just my opinion and things I have wondered about different times.

Valid point, this could very well be a jumping of the gun to encourage people with deep pockets to shell out more research dollars. I don't know.

razeraze · #8 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

no offense, but I am just not totally sold on that. I think it is cool to see the embryonic fish fossilized with the mother's skeleton, but maybe the whole umbilical cord isn't quite what they think it is. Now granted I am not a scientist, but I just always wonder at the whole theory thing when dealing with species that we cannot observe first hand.
For example, this dinosaur is aggressive and hunted in packs. This one was docile and ate plants. Well, maybe they did eat plants, but how do we know they were docile? There are things that I believe we can discern due to physical evidence, but too much of the behavior stuff really can only be an educated guess.
How do we know that was an umblical cord and they birthed live with the cord like that? maybe that served some other pre-birth function. After all if we looked at a human fetus that would be developing in the early stages, there would parts that we wouldn't be able to discern what was going on, relying completely on fossils to determine that just makes me wonder a little. Now realize I am not trying to poke holes in this or be critical, just my opinion and things I have wondered about different times.

Scott the beauty of science is they don't bank on always being correct. For decades they thought dinosaurs were all giant lizards but now we find many of them were probably closer to birds.
New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers
Hypothesis on behavior and anatomy are never written in stone "no pun intended" How ever if we never researched or acted on these hypothesis we would never get anywhere in the fields of science.
Also many of the behaviors and anatomy are compared to close relatives or animals we still can study. Make no mistake some things like "fierce predator" are made to make headlines and Spielberg films, but understanding motion, reproduction, and other behaviors can be unlocked with certain clues like hollow bones, tiny forearms, organ mapping, CGM, Animal behaviors of today and many other methods.
Then again I am no scientist either, so start a debate topic on this and if we are lucky perhaps some scientist will answer.
Can scientist accurately predict behavior or reproduction in dinosaurs?

X-Factor · #9 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:19 PM

Also, Tom, true scientists are totally fine with being proved wrong...PROVED wrong. They can hypothesize and postulate and test for decades their favorite theory but if it doesn't pan out, oh well; at least they have the answer.

Advertisement