Science
Related: About this forumMatching dinosaur footprints found on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-dinosaur-footprints-sides-atlantic-ocean.htmlMore than 260 footprints were discovered in Brazil and in Cameroon, showing where land-dwelling dinosaurs were last able to freely cross between South America and Africa millions of years ago before the two continents split apart.
"We determined that in terms of age, these footprints were similar," Jacobs said. "In their geological and plate tectonic contexts, they were also similar. In terms of their shapes, they are almost identical."
The footprints, impressed into mud and silt along ancient rivers and lakes, were found more than 3,700 miles, or 6,000 kilometers, away from each other. Dinosaurs made the tracks 120 million years ago on a single supercontinent known as Gondwanawhich broke off from the larger landmass of Pangea, Jacobs said.
Alternative version: The holy spirit was pretty damn busy 6,000 years ago.
PikaBlue
(262 posts)lastlib
(24,930 posts)I wonder if Jesus was riding it. Inquiring minds want to know.
erronis
(16,895 posts)eppur_se_muova
(37,450 posts)Dinosaurs cannot be identified from their tracks, except very broadly. Virtually all large carnivorous dinosaurs would leave similar tracks. Tentative ID of tracks is based on knowing what dinosaurs lived in or near that area at about that time, based on skeletal remains. "Ichnotaxa" are assigned to distinguishably different types of tracks, but may very well represent different species (or genera) at different times and locations, and there is no way of knowing if different ichnotaxa are actually the same species/genus in different stages of growth, or a result of sexual dimorphism. In short, don't read a whole lot into similarities in appearance, even close ones.
We know these two land masses were conjoined at the time -- that's how we know there *might* be a relationship between the creatures that made these tracks. It's hard to see that their similarity offers any new info, only room for supposition.
ShazzieB
(18,700 posts)...and state that I am not ready to reject these findings of an "international team of researchers led by SMU paleontologist Louis L. Jacobs" out of hand.
Besides Jacobs, co-authors of the study include:
- Diana P. Vineyard, research associate at SMU
- Lawrence J. Flynn, Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University
- Christopher R. Scotese, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Northwestern University
- Ismar de Souza Carvalho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro and Centro de Geociências
I think there's a very good chance that these experts know what they're talking about, and I'm sure that they know a metric ton more about their field than I do. I'm also sure that if there are significant holes in their work, their fellow paleontologists won't hesitate to point them out. In the meantime, I shall give them the benefit of a doubt.
eppur_se_muova
(37,450 posts)Which is not paleontology, admittedly.
At least it's not like I never read a couple of monographs on dinosaur tracks and traces.
sl8
(16,245 posts)It seems like pop science articles about studies often do a poor job of summarizing said studies.
I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'd sure like to see the actual study. I can't find it oniine anywhere yet.
Jim__
(14,464 posts)Red stars within this graphic mark the route once taken by dinosaurs when the South American and African continents were connected. (Southern Methodist University via CNN Newsource)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
...
Dinosaur tracks are not rare, but unlike the bones usually found, footprints are the proof of dinosaur behavior, how they walked, ran or otherwise, who they walked with, what environment they walked through, what direction they were going, and where they were when they were doing it, Jacobs said.
Its difficult to tell the specific species of dinosaurs that traveled along the basins, but they represent a larger portrait of the ancient climate and how different types of animals thrived in the environment that the continental rifting created.
If your dog and a coyote walk across the same mudflat, you might know that two dog critters walked there, that they are very similar, but you may not be able to know if they are different species. Ditto the dinosaur track situation, Jacobs said. All animals have home ranges. All animals expand their ranges. All animals exploit resources as necessary depending on availability, often related to seasonality. Herbivores follow nutritious plants; carnivores follow their herbivorous food.
...
As research into the basins in Africa and South America has continued in the following decades, Jacobs and Carvalho and their colleagues reviewed existing and new fieldwork and research to analyze the matching aspects. The new study is being published in tribute to Lockley, who devoted his career to studying dinosaur footprints.
...
sl8
(16,245 posts)I found a link to the study:
https://smu.box.com/s/e2ghm8ycjb1zf6hu9pooypdl4sosylbn
Jim__
(14,464 posts)Martin Eden
(13,483 posts)Way back in 1912 after seeing striking similarities in the geologic and fossil records in the land masses across the Atlantic ocean from each other, Wegener postulated the theory of Continental Drift.
His theory lacked the driving mechanism of what was later found to be tectonic plates, and his theory was mostly ridiculed by the scientific community of his day.
GiqueCee
(1,329 posts)... there seems to be a proportional inversion between the perceived truth of well-reasoned postulates and the prevailing prejudices of those who have built their careers on an opposing viewpoint, when accumulating evidence supports the newer idea. The more vehemently the Old Guard dismisses the newer idea, the more likely it is to prove true.
Back in the sixties, I recall Emmanuel Vilikovsky (sp?) being vilified for his support of the hypothesis of plate tectonics, even as evidence steadily mounted validating it as provable theory.
Funny how that works. Even funnier is how the powers that be continue to repeat their errors in judgement, while expecting different results. In some circles, that's considered the definition of insanity.
Martin Eden
(13,483 posts)But it's not good science.
By all means, considerable evidence and thorough scrutiny are necessary before abandoning long held consensus -- but the scientific method needs to be first and foremost.
GiqueCee
(1,329 posts)Jim__
(14,464 posts)He's famous for his book, World's in Collision. From wikipedia:
Velikovsky did also believe in catastrophism, again from wikipedia:
According to The New York Times, some of Velikovsky's claims were fairly accurate, but his reasoning is still not accepted:
When the Russian-American scholar Immanuel Velikovsky wrote Worlds in Collision in 1950, describing catastrophic near collisions and the wandering of planets, astronomers dismissed it as crank science. After all, how could anything push around the planets?
The particulars of Velikovskys suppositions, based on readings of mythology, are still crank science, but the history of the solar system is now widely accepted as much more chaotic.
The new model has the giant planets forming much closer together, with Uranus and Neptune bunched closer to where Jupiter and Saturn are today. Then their orbits became unstable and Uranus and Neptune were flung outward.
...
sl8
(16,245 posts)erronis
(16,895 posts)I have a relative who studied paleo-climatology and should be interested.