Ask a paleontologist!

[Beowulf47]

If people aren't too exhausted from all the Ask a... threads, I think this could be really interesting.

Flipping around through the Athenaeum, it occurred to me that paleontology was a decidedly underrepresented topic, and I couldn't resist starting up a thread. Seeing as paleontology is not particularly controversial (exempt among creationists, perhaps), I was not sure were to start so the ball's in your guys court!

BTW - although, yes, I am only 18 may massive brain power has allowed me to acquire an M.S. in general paleontology from the University of Alberta. I basically did two credits every summer since I was 10, it wasn't that hard, you just have to REALLY like dinosaurs.

So, any questions? Evolution, paleontological methods, prehistoric organisms, the origins of life, early humans, dinosaurs, anything.

[Chaigidel]

good for you pursuing a scientific career beowulf it is really the only noble thing to do ---

but mainly do you know anything about the development of fungi?-- I have been curious for some time as to where they appeared in our history and how long have they remained static in evolution.

[Beowulf47]

do you know anything about the development of fungi?-- I have been curious for some time as to where they appeared in our history and how long have they remained static in evolution.

Yes actually. Fungi are descended from some of the earliest sexually reproducing organisms (as are we all, really) and were aquatic. Originally it was thought that Fungi were related closest to plants, for obvious reasons, but in reality they are more closely related to animals. When life first bloomed, about 3.8 billion years ago, most organisms (we think) fed on digestible chemicals, such as modern chemosynthetic bacteria, found in undersea vents. This changed about 200 million yeas later though, as photosynthetic organisms, early plants, took advantage of the vast energy supply that is sunlight. This worked great for a while, because the early atmosefeare was very CO₂ rich, but the plants steadly depleated the carbon, giveing rise to the O₂ rich atmosphere we know and love today.

Because the the plant bloom was so extensive, there evolved organisms which fed off the single celled plants. But as a die-off occurred thanks to the lowered carbon levels, the "parasitic" organisms had to become more specialized. It is no coincidence then that as the atmosphere became more oxidized (about 2 billion years ago), that complex, single celled organisms began to appear. Of these were the predecessors to the animals, as well as the first fungi. The split occurred because some organisms fed on dead and dying cells (fungi), were as pre-animals fed on live ones. Because attacking and killing other cells takes more energy, the proto-animals needed increasingly novel approaches to stay alive, resulting in the plethora of evolutionary inventions that continue to this day among animals. Fungi on the other hand simply became multi-cellular, and still rarely show any interest in doing otherwise.

That is not to say that they have become "stagnant", only that they have found a niche that works or them, and have no need to do anything fancy (some would say "more advanced", but I would argue that is a bit racist ). Cool fungi fact of the day: there have been periods of earth's history that Fungi were the most common form of life, some amazingly recent, like just after the Permian-Triassic extinction event. This always tends to be after large extinctions, which is kind of gross if you think about it, but not particularly surprising.

I was a "dinosaur kid" from the age of 4-11. I read every friggin book I could get my hands on, and have a fairly good grasp on the Mesozioc (sp?) Era. Since I've absorbed all I could of that era, I find myself increasingly interested in times before that, like the permian extinction, huge carbiniforous bugs, those huge sea scorpions from the Ordivician period (sp?), etc.

As of late, I find myself very interested in Pre-Cambrian Life. What was around in those extremely ancient times? Was it just things like octopi and arachnids, or were there fish and such?

What sort of life existed 1,000,000,000 years ago? By this point life was likely 2,000,000,000 years old....surely some advanced organisms must have existed at this time, besides worms. Any insights into these realms of time would be read with earnest. I've rambled enough now.

Whoo boy! That's a toughie. The difficulty with all Paleontology is that we have a very limited window to see through, as fossils are, in reality, a very sparse piking of the biological activity of any given era. This problem is exemplified a thousand fold for Pre-Cambrian life, as ROCKS from parts of the Pre-Cambrian can be difficult to find. As such, debate over the complexity of life during the late Pre-Cambrian is far from settled, but the reality is that complex life is not represented for really any of the Precambrian. Actually 1 billion years ago you would be lucky to find jellyfish, much less arthropods, mollusks or fish.*

But at the tail end of the Pre-Cambrian things get much more hazy. 642 million years ago, the very beginning of the Pre-Cambrian, strange new fossils begin to turn up like sponges and corrals, but the first critters with something resembling a backbone as well, although nothing like fish, the first of which appeared about 510 to 350 million years ago ,and resembled hagfish or lampreys.

*it should be noted that fish are not really any "more evolved" then octopi or bugs. We just tend to think so because they eventually led to us. Actually I would say that although they are invertebrates, animals like octopi and cuttlefish are much more advanced then most fish.

Crazy Pre-Cambrian fact: it was really, really, REALLY long.

Does that blow your mind!?!

Why do I associate you with Ross from Friends?

I prefer to think of myself as the monkey.

[Bootsiuv]

I was a "dinosaur kid" from the age of 4-11. I read every friggin book I could get my hands on, and have a fairly good grasp on the Mesozioc (sp?) Era. Since I've absorbed all I could of that era, I find myself increasingly interested in times before that, like the permian extinction, huge carbiniforous bugs, those huge sea scorpions from the Ordivician period (sp?), etc.

As of late, I find myself very interested in Pre-Cambrian Life. What was around in those extremely ancient times? Was it just things like octopi and arachnids, or were there fish and such?

What sort of life existed 1,000,000,000 years ago? By this point life was likely 2,000,000,000 years old....surely some advanced organisms must have existed at this time, besides worms. Any insights into these realms of time would be read with earnest. I've rambled enough now.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Why do I associate you with Ross from Friends?

[Bootsiuv]

Wow, I had no idea the Pre-Cambrian period was known as a Supereon....So, the earth actually formed in the Pre-Cambrian period? That makes it what ~4 Billion years in length? That's a long friggin time! And here I thought the time periods covered by the Phanerozoic were immense.

Thanks for the response. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and look forward to hearing more.

[Bootsiuv]

BTW, you're only 18? Very impressive, to say the least. You really did like dinosaurs.

[Daovonnaex]

BTW - although, yes, I am only 18 may massive brain power has allowed me to acquire an M.S. in general paleontology from the University of Alberta. I basically did two credits every summer since I was 10, it wasn't that hard, you just have to REALLY like dinosaurs.

So in between studying at the University of Alberta you found time to acquire a Kurdish-Iraqi girlfriend fluent in five languages who studies at MIT?

I couldn't find the requirements for an M.S. in paleontology, but I did notice that there is no B.S. in paleontology. There is an honors program in paleontology which is a shared program between the Department of Biological Science and the Deparment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. The honors program required at least 34 courses by my count. I imagine a masters requires quite a bit more on top of this.

Additionally, the University of Alberta is in Edmonton. You have stated you are American. Edmonton is nine hours from the US border (thanks for the correction Wild Bill!), maybe more. Are we to believe that your parents shipped you to Edmonton every summer since the age of 10? As for correspondence or distance learning, many of the courses in that program are simply not available as correspondence courses.

It is also highly dubious that a 10 year old would have the mathematical and scientific background to complete even any of the first year courses.

In between these busy summers, you also have apparently found time to visit the middle east twice, one time with your multilingual, MIT-based Kurdish girlfriend. I suppose you just used the internet connection at the alleged Marine Corps base in Kurdistan (ignoring the fact that there is no Marine Corps base in Kurdistan--correct me if I'm wrong)?

Do you fight terrorism at night too?

[Wild Bill Kelso]

well I am sitting right now in the very building that houses the paleontology dept at the U of A. I am sure if he PMs me the title of his thesis I can run down stairs and find it

(Edmonton is actually more like 9 hours from the US border btw- though 4 could be correct the way some people drive here!)

[Grand Inquisitor]

Here's a question I have: Several documentaries present T-Rex as a scavenger rather than a hunter. What is the final verdict regarding the T-rex? Is the lizard a scavenger or a hunter?!

[Bootsiuv]

Here's a question I have: Several documentaries present T-Rex as a scavenger rather than a hunter. What is the final verdict regarding the T-rex? Is the lizard a scavenger or a hunter?!

Well, given my rather amateurish knowledge of dinosaurs, I can tell you that T-Rex was no lizard. If I'm not mistaken, dinosaurs have recently been put in a class all their own. They're reptiles, but many may have been warm-blooded. The raptors from Jurassic Park come to mind. Seeing as how they're so closely related to birds, and so extremely active (with cheetah like speeds), some scientists even speculate some species of "raptor" such as Dinonychus (sp?) (the big boy on the block, as far as raptors were concerned) and the infamous Velociraptor may have had feathers!

As for your question, I do believe the general consensus is that T-Rex was simply an oppurtunistic hunter/scavenger. He would do both. If he could kill it and eat it, that would be fine. If he could steal it and eat it, that would also likely be fine. So I'm of the opinion that he was quite likely one of the greatest hunter/scavengers that has ever walked the earth. It didn't matter to him, as long as his stomach was full.

As to the inquisition on the guys educational merits....regardless if he's being truthful, he's obviously well-versed in the subject of paleontology....give the kid a break. What the hell do you care anyway? I know he answered my question quite thoroughly.

[Daovonnaex]

As to the inquisition on the guys educational merits....regardless if he's being truthful, he's obviously well-versed in the subject of paleontology....give the kid a break. What the hell do you care anyway? I know he answered my question quite thoroughly.

Hey, I'm glad he has an interest in paleontology and is well versed in it--good for him. There is, however, no need to lie about yourself.

[Daovonnaex]

well I am sitting right now in the very building that houses the paleontology dept at the U of A. I am sure if he PMs me the title of his thesis I can run down stairs and find it

I'm sure it was destroyed in a tragic fire you somehow didn't hear about!

(Edmonton is actually more like 9 hours from the US border btw- though 4 could be correct the way some people drive here!)

Yeah I wasn't quite sure and didn't feel like looking it up (unlike how Beowulf looked up paleontology on wikipedia). I was in Alberta last August and it took me three hours to drive from Calgary to Edmonton, so I kind of vaguely fudged the distance to the US.

Also, just noticed your Space Moose avatar buddy--there's a U of Alberta classic.

[Bootsiuv]

Fair enough.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Some of the stuff ive read speculate that due to the small size of the T-Rex's arms he would have a lot of difficulty getting up if he ever fell down. That's why he is presented as a scavenger.

[Bootsiuv]

I find it hard to believe that he couldn't get up. Surely he must have found some way around this....I mean, if he tripped and fell, he would be dead? If it's true, not a very good evolutionary design if you ask me.

I do know he couldn't even reach his own mouth though. I've always wondered why they were so freakishly small. I guess only he knows, and he's dead, so unless we build a time machine, I'm unsure if that mystery will ever be solved.

On the other hand, if those jaws bit into something, it would most assuredly die. I fail to believe that T-Rex never killed anything. I assume he did whatever he could.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I do know he couldn't even reach his own mouth though. I've always wondered why they were so freakishly small. I guess only he knows, and he's dead, so unless we build a time machine, I'm unsure if that mystery will ever be solved.

No idea either, my guess would be that there was some competitive advantage for small arms. Perhaps members of that family of dinosaurs with larger arms would become injured while attacking prey and subsequently die and not pass on thier DNA to future generations.

case in point this article: http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8452

T. rex's neck power was similarly staggering. For instance, in a split second, a T. rex could toss its head at a 45 degree angle and throw a 50-kg person five metres in the air. And that's with conservative estimates of the creature's muscle force, says Snively.

"We kept the muscle numbers down because we thought they couldn't possibly be that powerful, but Tyrrell museum colleagues showed that a T. rex's lower jaw could apply 200,000 newtons of force - that's like lifting a semi-trailer," he said. "All of the T. rex's features came together to give it the strongest bite of any land animal. The T. rex just blows everyone out of the water when it comes to strength."

If T-Rex was a scavenger, would it have needed such powerful biting force?

[Bootsiuv]

Agreed, which is why I think it was both. It was definitely big enough to steal from any animal it wanted to, but it was also strong enough to probably bring down some sauropods, although perhaps not the biggies like brachiosaurs and diplodocus (sp?), it could definitely have taken out some of the smaller ones.

[Gary88]

Hey, I'm glad he has an interest in paleontology and is well versed in it--good for him. There is, however, no need to lie about yourself.

the only evidence for him 'lying; is that you think he isnt prepared to drive for long enough to get their, i'm sure if he was going to lie he wouldnt make up one so extraordinary, he could have said any uni in the world why would he say one so close yet far away?

[Chaigidel]

interesting stuff beowulf, thanks for your fungnosis? har har

fungi rock