Uhh dunkin-sisters, what happened?

Uhh dunkin-sisters, what happened?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    did it swim into the side of the tank?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Wait, is there anything to say that dunks were pelagic or is that just something that people assume because the big apex aquatic predators are associated with being pelagic?
    Asking because the scrunched up body plan paired with having the heavy head reminds me more of a grouper or something more benthic focused.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm no expert but maybe shorty Dunk could've had a warmer reception if the reconstruction used in the paper didn't look like complete ass and everyone and their grandma copied that instead of thinking.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      finally someone with decent sense
      looks like its still a bit small compared to the largest specimens, so more than likely it would reach 5 - 7 meters... still a reduction from the 8 - 10 meters we're used to being thrown around nowadays, but still bigger than a Great White, AND actually is roughly the original estimates for the size Dunk used to have for the longest time iirc
      I still think this paper does NOT seem likely, but for the moment I feel more at ease now that someone finally did a more accurate reconstruction

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What I also don’t get is why they went for the old skull face look in their restoration rather than something similar to the newer ones like this

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It isn't a complete restoration, just a rough sketch to highlight the general shape. The one you posted looks wrong, it is like they glued the skull of dunkleosteus on the body of a tiger shark.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah I more just meant with the facial tissue rather than the tiger shark copy paste

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Fossil evidence suggests that Dunkleosteus had broad pectoral fins

            https://i.imgur.com/tWtDBNX.png

            Dunkleosteus back to kino

            >the nu-paper depicts Dunkleosteus with a sharp blade-like pectoral fin

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              This version corrects that.

              https://i.imgur.com/sK9H1Yz.jpg

              I'm no expert but maybe shorty Dunk could've had a warmer reception if the reconstruction used in the paper didn't look like complete ass and everyone and their grandma copied that instead of thinking.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Unconvinced about the tail fin part. Those took a while to appear, IIRC. And if its prey didn't have them, Dunkleosteus wouldn't need them to catch its prey, either.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/5Mb7dRW.jpg

        I won't discuss it too much, mostly because I still barely understand what happened, but the story behind the artist's disappearance is kinda funny. At least from my understanding of it.
        They always kinda acted like a c**t before when they weren't pumping out cool placoderm illustrations but then someone found out that they were a Kiwifarms user, they used a lot of slurs, was a fascist, I think, they stalked and b***hed about their ex and numerous other things. After all that, they basically just disappeared for good.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >that they were a Kiwifarms user, they used a lot of slurs, was a fascist, I think, they stalked and b***hed about their ex and numerous other things
          Based as frick, even if they really should have used a different email account and proxy, so people could not have linked their main online persona to their autists stalking other autists and perverts on social media (and occasionally IRL too) forum persona.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          For frick sake, morons really don't know how to fricking keep it to themselves don't they?

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dunkleosteus back to kino

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I really hope the assumed weight got different too.
      Because these two are roughly the same weight if we go by the old measuring.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > Its been over 3 years since Trey posted a proper Paleontology video on his channel and this board is still seething about him.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So what is he up to nowadays? The last time I saw anything from him was when Youtube recommended me a video about how Medjed was Amogus couple years ago.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dunkleosteus was an awesome huge terrifying top predator and there's nothing you can say to change that. Simple as.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Meh, I would rate most modern sharks above it in scariness. Mostly because I find a jaw filled with dozens of teeth far nastier than a bone guillotine mouth..

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        To me my arm being crushed is viscerally scarier than it being pierced many times over

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >IT'S NOT AL ANYMORE

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >REMEMBER THIS COOL PREHISTORIC ANIMAL?
    >WELL IT'S GAY NOW.
    tired of this israeli bullshit tbqfhwyf

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It makes me feel schizo, but it genuinely seems subversive.
      >UH OH DID YOU FIND SOMETHING COOL IN HISTORY AGAIN! THATS NOT PROGRESS!
      IDK, see crazy. But not any crazier than these random fricking moronic changes.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's not a change, just another hypothesis.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly, it doesn't change anything. The animal was what it was.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          exactly, the problem is that any hypothesis is taken as fact now out of the gate, just because "OOH ITS CUTER THAN WE THOUGH LOOK HOW IT SWIMMY WIMMIES"
          they dont care about accuracy they just want to fricking meme them into becoming fact like those schizos who tried to put feathers on every single dinosaur and not just primarily theropods, because "lmao cope seethe you just like prehistoric stuff for JP"
          b***h if i liked it for JP then why the frick is my favorite era the Paleozoic instead of the Mesozoic? Because the shit that evolved was more different due to the environment much less similar to ours today. Hell we still don't know how some HUNTED despite knowing their general body plan. Pic related.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They're literally required to write a white paper as if it were fact. You don't get to question your own work. If you doubt it, you don't publish it.

            god you're fricking stupid.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              found the person who takes the papers that treat themselves as fact, and ignores the ones that show any evidence of doubt because they want to believe paleontology isn't being fricked by sell outs who want to get rich by coming up with new absurd theories every year to keep the autists interested
              wouldnt surprise me if you believed the rex scavenger theory at some point and still kick yourself for your gullibility.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                frick off moron

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >They're literally required to write a white paper as if it were fact.
              Required by who? Themselves?
              So self-fulfilling prophecy then?
              >You don't get to question your own work. If you doubt it, you don't publish it
              Not questioning your own work is the complete opposite of how science is supposed to work. There's a whole scientific method in place that's supposed to be used to challenge and break down ideas, including your own, like a lawyer cross-examining their own case to see if it will hold up in a court of law. The whole fricking POINT of science is questioning.
              A scientific paper should be saying "hey we found evidence for xyz, so here is xyz and the proof" and not "hey wouldn't it be cool if xyz is the case? who is to say it wasn't?!"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Not questioning your own work is the complete opposite of how science is supposed to work
                Yes, modern academia is the complete opposite of science.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I hate to break it to you anon, but there is no grand conspiracy, there is no evil plan. We're a bunch of monkies that learned how to make fire, living on the outer crust of a giant ball of rock hurling through an unfathomably endless void. Nobody is in control, we're just a bunch of morons making it up as we go. Except chemtrails. That shit is 100% real.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Who are you quoting

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    gravity is a lie

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    That's weird. They shrank his body, made him look soft...

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If the orbit theory is to be believed, then the Frilled Shark should not exist by this same logic

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/lFKDMp4.jpg

      Uhh dunkin-sisters, what happened?

      Everyone in this thread is so insane, it's literally just proposing a new way of measuring the size of the fish based on an existing correlation - not that there's no way a fish can be big cause its eyes are X size.

      The report goes "there is a common connection between certain proportions of the head in fish, both extant and extinct, and that sizing method has not been used on this species we dont know the size of but have the head of, so I made a report to estimate the size using this methodology".

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Well yeah a speculation got replaced with another or more exactly i think we got one plus one

        The problem starts when instead of another possibility we start to interpret this as the universal truth.

        In short instead of looking it as another perspective to a speculative problem it is THE ONE true evidence.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Checkout my cool open ocean apex predator bro!

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >A lot of open ocean fishes like tunas and certain sharks just tend to be chubby.
    No they are not, this dunkleosteus is shaped like a compressed potato and all extant pelagic fishs looks like missiles. Titanichthys would probably looks like this shadow because it is a slow moving filter feeder.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair

      https://i.imgur.com/eVgxHBS.png

      I’m sure it’s possible it could be smaller and have a shorter body than previously imagine, but what’s with the hunchback? Wouldn’t something like picrel be more likely

      is pretty tuna shaped, though dunkleosteus has a blunter face and wider frame than any modern pelagic fish I can think of

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    “After” is built like the aquatic monster from the first Half-Life game where you have to hunt it with harpoons.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      hehehe yeah it is

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        is that a itchosaurus from half life?

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I’m sure it’s possible it could be smaller and have a shorter body than previously imagine, but what’s with the hunchback? Wouldn’t something like picrel be more likely

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can't wait until they undo all the progress we made on figuring out what Helicoprion and its relatives looked like just to "defy expectations"

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    doesnt take a scientist to realize this is bullshit, but it only takes one "scientist"o convince the jr. Trey the Explainer watchers that "yes, this is F A C T"
    they're upset that they can't have their "ALL CARNIVOROUS DINOSAURS HAD DINOFUZZ" wankfest anymore so they're trying to target our paleozoic boys now with shit like this
    probably because they're same homosexuals who still think megalodon was just a boring supersized great white and yet think that makes it worthy to jizz entire jars over and milk it for shitty videos

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >probably because they're same homosexuals who still think megalodon was just a boring supersized great white
      Not really, I think it's more the homosexuals who tried to say that we now "know" that it was a supersized fat sand tiger instead because...uh...well who is to say it WASN'T?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        GWS megalodon was deboonked a long time ago.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I knew the recent 20 metre, 100 tonne megalodon was bullshit

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That estimate comes from a single tooth scaled up. The largest estimate in the size comparison comes from a complete set of fossilized teeth.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Tooth scaling is my favourite totally accurate method

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Actually, no GHC-1 (from Gordon Hubbel private collection) was the largest tooth used in the 2020 paper, the paper extrapolated the total tooth row size for this specimen based on complete set of teeth from a smaller specimen.

              IDK how compatible is with Cooper's MegaEELodon, though.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That's a big diver.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This is a nice depiction, especially the whale shark caudal fin, but it should have a blunt/rounded snout to ram into cetaceans. Now it looks like an oversized odontaspis. Lebanese odontaspids used to be confused with Cretalamna, they looks similar.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >it should have a blunt/rounded snout
            We actually have fossil proof of this but restorations never seem to depict it that way.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Uh you realize that backs up my point more than it does yours right? That restoration clearly still makes it a mackerel shark (which it is), which means it's clearly still a lot more great white adjacent than a fricking sand tiger.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sand tigers are mackerel sharks.
            The fossil itself resembles a requiem shark which it isn't even related to.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sandtigers are also lamniforms (what you plebs call "budget canned fish shark"), megatard.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              They're lamniformes but not actual lamnids which is what people mean when they say mackerel sharks (great whites, makos, porbeagles, etc). Don't be coy, homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What's your point? Otodontids aren't lamnids either.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                They're still a sister family to lamnids dumbass, which means they're lot closer to them than fricking sand tigers are.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >They're still a sister family to lamnid
                That is a proposition made by a recent study. The sand tiger hypothesis was much older than that.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Trey the Explainer
      God why did you remind me of the existence of that massive homosexual? He’s pretty much the embodiment of “autistic kid who likes dinosaurs thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, proceeds to become the most pretentious asswipe online”.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That's not Dino Diego.
        All the guy's videos are "official scientific estimations GOOD everything questioning them BAD"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Trey the Explainer
        >Bigger homosexual than E.D.G.E.
        That is incorrect.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's a close race.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the jr. Trey the Explainer watchers that "yes, this is F A C T"
      they're dumb but so are you
      these people aren't deliberately working as part of a conspiracy to to piss you off, they just wanna trust what the science says with no critical thinking.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >they just wanna trust what the science says with no critical thinking.
        Trey himself is obviously no conspirator (just another moron on the internet) but this attitude you just said here would make a lot of real would-be conspirators very happy to hear.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This body plan doesn't work for an fast swimming pelagic fish, it isn't a carp, it is supposed to be at the top of the devonian food chain. It would have been outsped by all the open water primitive sharks that are in similar in shape as modern lamnids.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why does this keep happening? Why is T.rex the only one that didn't get downsized?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Americ**ts will call me schizo but pay attention, T-rex? Triceratops? Ankylosaur? Utahraptor? All lies by the goverment. They were all created in the 1800's by government officials to say America has the biggest dinosaurs to claim superiority over other countries. It's also a money laundry scheme by university's and museums to receive more funding for housing the biggest species of dinosaurs in the world.

      Don't believe me? Look at WW2 at Munich, spinosaurus was discovered and it was speculated to bigger than t-rex. What happened next? Allies bombed the museum on purpose where spinosaurus was housed to eliminate a t-rex competitor. And now? Spinosaur is constantly modified to be this weird baby leg freak, ridiculed to not threat T-rex dominion.

      Believe me Anon, the glowies are behind this, they claim chinese dinos are fake, shit on Argentina and Brazil economies so they can't fund research on their fossils beds, fund unregulated mining in third world countries to destroy potential discoveries that would make t-rex obsolete.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Good shitpost

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Might be some sliver of truth to that.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Spinosaur is still considered to have been larger than a T-Rex. As well as Giganotosaur and Carcharodontosaur. The compromise with Mutts is that T-Rex still has the biggest dick (bite force) though and is therefore still le strongest predator.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't T. Rex heavier than those three (which is what really counts), though?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and by like 1.5 tonnes

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              No arms lizard hyena was one fat boi. Then again, I've seen fairly recent theories claiming that Spinosaurus was also in the 7-ton and higher range, but given how reconstructions of how that thing looked and lived change every other week, I wouldn't be surprised if they've decided that it was now an aerial predator that glided around using its sail.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why was Jurassic Park 3 allowed then?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It did though. I remember when I was a kid most of my books said T. rex was around 50 feet long. Turns out, this is because paleontologists just assumed it had a longer tail than it did because...reasons, I guess.
      I understand how giving size estimates for long extinct animals depends on often incomplete remains and is not an exact science, but seriously. It's hard to have a lot of faith in these guys when they're constantly making mistakes like this. Cue up one of the local paleo-autists to show up soon and basically say
      >haha it's not our fault for being wrong, it's your fault for believing us!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        8-10 feet is a fair nerf though.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It got fatter, like americans in general

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/15/3/318?fbclid=IwAR24bEs9MpOZgQNqb6z_wuahNoeInHzItB7qIPsa3b9Ajf2CdyYIavqpUjI

    Link to article

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Paleontologists are morons who can't measure. Many such cases.

      From the abstract:
      >Here, I estimate the body size of D. terrelli using a new metric, orbit-opercular length, and a large dataset of arthrodires and extant fishes
      He hasn't proven anything though. He's trying a new method for measuring based on modern unrelated fish species because he wants to get his name out there for downsizing a popular prehistoric animal aka "ruining your childhood because these are REAL ANIMALS™".
      You'd have to be a complete cuck to just read this and say "hurr durr le science man said something so he must be right". That's not how science is supposed to work.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I am more annoyed by how he downsized even the head when it was pretty much perfectly preserved in multiple specimens.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yes but that's part of "le epic subversion".
          It's like something I read not long ago about Stegosaurus actually looked very different from the old restorations (which we've known for some time now already, but...) with smaller dorsal plates. Like, ok it's all well and good to say it had less of humpback and held its neck higher off the ground, but how does that magically downsize the plates on its back that we already have?

          >He hasn't proven anything though. He's trying a new method for measuring based on modern unrelated fish species because he wants to get his name out there for downsizing a popular prehistoric animal aka "ruining your childhood because these are REAL ANIMALS™".
          Sounds equally gay as that article couple weeks ago that went
          >uuuh the largest t-rex* could had been more than 50% larger than the biggest one we have found so far
          >*if it had exceptional genetics, suffered from gigantism, and had access to enough food to support that bulk
          Like, couldn't that same logic be applied to basically every other dinosaur and prehistoric creature out there? I doubt that we've found the remnants of the biggest individual allosaurus, the biggest homosexual erectus, the biggest amanalocaris, etc. that lived.

          >uuuh the largest t-rex* could had been more than 50% larger than the biggest one we have found so far
          I missed that one but yes equally gay in the opposite direction. And you're right, it's incredibly arrogant to assume we've found the largest size of any fossil (maybe even living) species

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Meds now homosexual

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >He hasn't proven anything though. He's trying a new method for measuring based on modern unrelated fish species because he wants to get his name out there for downsizing a popular prehistoric animal aka "ruining your childhood because these are REAL ANIMALS™".
        Sounds equally gay as that article couple weeks ago that went
        >uuuh the largest t-rex* could had been more than 50% larger than the biggest one we have found so far
        >*if it had exceptional genetics, suffered from gigantism, and had access to enough food to support that bulk
        Like, couldn't that same logic be applied to basically every other dinosaur and prehistoric creature out there? I doubt that we've found the remnants of the biggest individual allosaurus, the biggest homosexual erectus, the biggest amanalocaris, etc. that lived.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This. Paleontologists now have nothing better to do but undermine previous research.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why are paleontologists making increasingly moronic claims as time goes on? Is it just systematic contrarianism at work?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Is it just systematic contrarianism at work?
        literally the definition of science

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          but it doesn't mean trying to turn prehistoric animals into fricking OC cancer because you want them to be cuter

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >but it doesn't mean trying to turn prehistoric animals into fricking OC cancer because you want them to be cuter
            no, it means trying to turn prehistoric animals into fricking OC cancer because questioning the existing idea is literally what you get paid for.

            science is about making money and making waves, not about you or your delicate feelings.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              no shit sherlock everyone knows its about money, look at spinosaurus getting papers on things discovered at the exact same time being drip fed to us since 2014, because EVERYONE has heard of spinosaurus
              the difference is no one looks at prehistoric fish besides megalodon because "muh super shark" and anything else is up for grabs to personalize while getting paid to make up bullshit like dunkleosteus with lips or this "shortstack dunk" that furries are going to inevitably fetishize, wouldnt surprise me if the researcher was one of those homosexuals

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No, science is supposed to be about finding out the TRUTH.
          Not just going "haha u mad bro" with a veneer of academia painted over it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      After arguing with some amateur-paleontologists, this new dunkleosteus might be one of the worst "revisioned" reconstruction to date not due to how it's shrunk but how much it weighs. Despite now being a measly 3 to barely 4 meters long, it is for some reason, OVER A TON IN WEIGHT. This would make it one of the most dense fish to ever live which would practically make dunkleosteus a bottom feeder. This is a huge red flag as we have placederms who were bottom feeders and suction feeders but they have a whole different completely different jaw structure to that of dunkleosteus who I'll remind you has jaw structure of dunkleosteus is meant for pursuit hunting and crushing and shearing other placoderms.

      The author of this article failed to consider body morphology, the niche it filled, the cons of this designs, etc.
      What pisses me off the absolute WORST is how the author is taking his article as absolute facts and truth when his paper is literally a fricking hypothesis equally on foot if not less, than those with the previous reconstructions.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >What pisses me off the absolute WORST is how the author is taking his article as absolute facts and truth
        I see you don't read science

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          There he is

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The author of this article failed to consider body morphology, the niche it filled, the cons of this designs, etc.
        Sounds a lot like the T. rex scavenger thing and ignoring a lot about the animal's design to force a pet theory.
        To me what's really damning about all these revisions is that the attempt is always to downsize, make something a scavenger, make something a herbivore, etc. You'll never hear them say "oh yeah we fricked up before, this animal was actually bigger/more dangerous/cooler than we originally thought!"
        It seems to me that if these were all just honest mistakes (which of course there are plenty of in paleontology) then you'd see just as many of these "revisions" trending in the opposite direction also. Really says a thing or two about the underlying motivation at work here.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >You'll never hear them say "oh yeah we fricked up before, this animal was actually bigger/more dangerous/cooler than we originally thought!"

          That is literally what the author is saying in this paper though. They seem to be arguing Dunkleosteus was some kind of hyperactive death-tuna rather than the slow and sluggish animal depicted before. That's an idea that was floated in a couple of other studies but didn't have a whole lot of teeth until this study noticed the deeper body shape.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            its not cooler if it is smaller

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The irony of it all is that these same frickers who worship this new Dunk are the same ones who complained about it having a "shark body" for it being "boring and too modern."
        Motherfrickers didn't take the time to stop and realize that maybe its fricking cool as shit that not only did a placoderm's evolution figure out the best body plan for a pelagic apex predator, but also figured out a skull design that allowed for insane bite force AND absolutely ridiculous suction to bring prey in the fraction of a second.
        If it wasn't for the Hangenberg event not only suffocating them, but weakening their body structures due to how much oxygen they required for healthy plate development, we'd still probably have had them for millions of years afterwards, (though this would be highly unlikely due to the anoxic event being inevitable with the runaway growth of plants on land) due to their perfection.
        This shit right here though? This takes no consideration as to how they were able to even survive so long in a time where extinction rates were high on average for fish species, and thats NOT including the ones from the big extinction events.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The new study literally agrees with you on all this. It argues arthrodires were highly successful, highly varied animals that were well-adapted to their environment. A lot of open ocean fishes like tunas and certain sharks just tend to be chubby. And Dunk gets a double dose of this because its ancestors were already chubby, so it looks extra thicc as a consequence of evolution. The paper is free on the Internet, it's right there.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You'll never hear them say "oh yeah we fricked up before, this animal was actually bigger/more dangerous/cooler than we originally thought!"

            That is literally what the author is saying in this paper though. They seem to be arguing Dunkleosteus was some kind of hyperactive death-tuna rather than the slow and sluggish animal depicted before. That's an idea that was floated in a couple of other studies but didn't have a whole lot of teeth until this study noticed the deeper body shape.

            based anon for reading the article and not jumping on the seethe bandwagon itt

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              You don't have to read the words of a moron to know a moron

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        searched the weight of the new dunkly and holy frick, It's goddamn """1.7 tons"""

        That's straight up heavier than a great white and Allosaurus despite them being physically larger than dunkly.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *