Giant Snake Fossil Found

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

The boa part is pretty obvious' date=' that's just [b']physiognamy[/b]. They lack large portions of the snake (such as the most important part: the skull) but they can make a fairly educated, accurate guess based on the spine and some ribs.

 

Since they lack the skull, I don't see how they could determine much about its face.

 

(You were probably going for "physiology." Sorry, pet peeve plus I'm a teacher.)

[mayapuppies]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

I just am sick of scientists making bold, unsubstantiated guesses stated as absolute fact and then Discovery channel creating huge fantasies about how they lived and interacted and looked... all based on incomplete, squashed, and scattered fossils. That's just bad science, stick to what you know and can reasonably demonstrate, not what you guess, and by all means don't absolutely state the guesses as certain fact.

 

At least not in front of a reporter.

Psssh, this is all the science the world needs right here:

That right there is true and perfectly validated fact.

[Kristopher]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

The boa part is pretty obvious, that's just physiognamy. They lack large portions of the snake (such as the most important part: the skull) but they can make a fairly educated, accurate guess based on the spine and some ribs.

 

The "aquatic" part is just guess. Just because you find a snake skeleton or two in rock that was probably underwater doesn't mean that the snake lived or hunted there, any more than finding lots of skeletons in a tar pit means they lived and hunted there either.

 

I just am sick of scientists making bold, unsubstantiated guesses stated as absolute fact and then Discovery channel creating huge fantasies about how they lived and interacted and looked... all based on incomplete, squashed, and scattered fossils. That's just bad science, stick to what you know and can reasonably demonstrate, not what you guess, and by all means don't absolutely state the guesses as certain fact.

 

At least not in front of a reporter.

 

At least according to NPR's coverage, there are over 20 skeletons found so far. And it wasn't just found in a little spot that was wet when they were alive, it was found in deposits that would have been the middle of a vast swampy area.

 

That's a lot of snakes in the middle of a lot of water for it to have been anything other than a snake that spent a lot of time in the water.

 

Whatever you're sick of, this isn't actually an example of it.

[gewing]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

The boa part is pretty obvious, that's just physiognamy. They lack large portions of the snake (such as the most important part: the skull) but they can make a fairly educated, accurate guess based on the spine and some ribs.

 

The "aquatic" part is just guess. Just because you find a snake skeleton or two in rock that was probably underwater doesn't mean that the snake lived or hunted there, any more than finding lots of skeletons in a tar pit means they lived and hunted there either.

 

I just am sick of scientists making bold, unsubstantiated guesses stated as absolute fact and then Discovery channel creating huge fantasies about how they lived and interacted and looked... all based on incomplete, squashed, and scattered fossils. That's just bad science, stick to what you know and can reasonably demonstrate, not what you guess, and by all means don't absolutely state the guesses as certain fact.

 

At least not in front of a reporter.

 

 

Preach On BROTHER!

 

The tendency to phrase simplifications or guesses as absolutes drives me crazy. "It was the biggest ______ Ever!" or "It was the first _____ that ever lived"

 

Oh well, maybe not as "sexy" for the media to say "This is the biggest example of this species/family/whatever that we have found to date."

[Vulcan]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

Which, when you read the actual quotes from the scientists involved, is what they almost always actually say.

[gewing]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

Which' date=' when you read the actual quotes from the scientists involved, is what they almost always actually say.[/quote']

 

 

from what I can tell, it depends on what media source. It seems that some like to make their stories more exciting as much as the media do.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

They are journalists, first and foremost.

[Vulcan]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

A term which translates to "One who will do and say anything to sell the story."

[Susano]

Re: Giant Snake Fossil Found

 

And here's a photo of it swimming a river!

 

 

More:

Local villagers living along the Baleh river in Borneo believe the mythical Nabau (a terrifying snake more than 100ft in length with a dragon’s head and seven nostrils) has returned after this photo of a gigantic snake swimming along the remote waterways has emerged.

 

The picture, supposedly taken by a member of a disaster team monitoring flood regions by helicopter, has sparked a huge debate about whether the photos are genuine.

 

Well, let me just clear this up. The Baleh river is about 1500ft wide at it’s narrowest point. This would make this snake more like 5,000 ft long. So if it is real, I’d suggest getting far, far away from there.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1149743/Picture-100ft-long-snake-sparks-fears-mythical-monster-Borneo.html