this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
1070 points (99.4% liked)
Memes
45661 readers
1166 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
what about the giant saddle-shaped fossil
In order to be fossilized something has to be in specific conditions. It probably just gets destroyed
that is true, but its still possble for it to fossilize
Possible and very unlikely
I mean, in terms of preserving the timeline and not leaving the tiny chance of fossilised saddles. They brought it with them, why not just take it back too so it's not even there.
I feel like it's a lot more likely to be preserved than thin spongy dinoflesh. It's already somewhat preserved, actually, so when the layer of molten debris comes in from the direction of central America it's just going to get covered and leave a permanent imprint.
I don't have any experience burning leather but wouldn't "molten debris" be hot enough to completely destroy it?
Edit: Don't thing's like dinosaur skin only get preserved if they fell in tar pits or were encased in amber?
The main factor for preservation is a lack of biological activity to break down the creature's remains. If it's incased in anything hot that cools quickly, has any antibacterial qualities, or even just the right amount of soil alkalinity then it can be preserved. For hides, though, it's normally more of an imprint left behind than any recoverable bodymass.
In fact, some fossils found in swamps have been almost perfectly preserved due to the Saponification of the oils and lipids in the carcass.
In general, being covered by a wave of hot dirt like in my previous example would seal them up like a can of soup. All of the liquids and chunks would keep moving around until they settled, but any thick hides or bones might still leave recoverable fossils.
That might leave some archeologists very confused, especially when they try to date it and it turns out to be from the future.
it would probably be paleontologists since no human existed at the time and dating just doesnt work like that, since the saddle fossil still aged millions of years (also from stuff this old its hard to age things, so its more probable something around the same layer would be aged instead of the specific fossil)
well obviously I was making a joke about the dating part
yeah