Watch paleontologist critique dinosaur toys


#1

[Read the post]


#2

What a hoot. My 5 year-old son has the squishy skeleton-o-saurus among many other plastic dinosaurs. The skeleton-o-saurus is probably his favorite though, 'cause he can old onto the tail and bounce it around kind of like how a yo-yo goes up and down. I suppose that’s not particularly accurate either.


#3

Why does this man hate fun? Was he bullied?


#4

if you watch to the end…he says if kids notice the inaccuracies they can learn, but if the just have fun that is cool too, either way it is a win. :slight_smile:


#5


#6

I’m glad he came around at the end and had, actually, a very good point about children comparing the toys to real dinosaur anatomy.

Using these toys to learn about “real” dinosaurs is kinda like using a Matchbox car to learn about engine design.


#7

I like dinosaurs


#8

I think the bullshitosaurus was actually a Japanese movie monster.


#9

Which one’s your favorite?

Mine’s a three way tossup between Pachycephalosaurus (dome-headed, once thought to headbutt, but likely didn’t), Ankylosaurus (the doom turtle with the club tail), and the Nigersaurus (called the “lawn mower dinosaur” for its broad squared-off mouth with hundreds of needle shaped incisors at the front arranged like a set of 2 foot wide front cutters)


ETA Photo of Nigersaurus skull

The type specimen had five hundred teeth, with up to 10 teeth stacked up behind a single eruption, ready to grow forward to replace a lost tooth.


#10

More Scientaticians raining on the dino parade…
Jurassic World, David Peters, and how to rile up paleontologists

This new movie, Jurassic World, is stirring up a fascinating love/hate reaction from paleontologists. We all love to imagine dinosaurs resurrected, and the movies give us an image of what they’d be like, so everyone is happy to see that…and it also inspires new enthusiasm for fossils, so it helps lead to better support for good science. But at the same time, couldn’t they at least get the science right?

#11

Heh, what I don’t get is that from Trailer 1, the big gimmick was “the world’s first genetically engineered dinosaur”

Oooh, exciting… Except we know from the first Jurassic Park movie that all the dinosaurs were genetically engineered by filling in gaps with additional DNA from a completely different class. They could only have gotten it more wrong if they filled it in with DNA from a damn invertebrate.


ETA: Seriously, what Jack Horner is trying to do with making a Chickensaurus would have more original Dinosaur DNA in it in barnyard variety chicken form than Jurassic Park dinos, for the simple fact that the half-life of DNA is about 521 years in tough bone cells. By 65 million years the amount of DNA left would be utterly undetectable, although the carbon and nitrogen would still be around.


#12

#(Not an actual dinosaur)


#13

This exactly! It was in the bloody informational cartoon in the first one! Blah blah frog DNA…

Also, since every Jurassic Park movie is based on containment systems going “boop” and dinosaurs crunching on people, you think that by movie #3 someone would have bloody well figured out that this whole concept didn’t work, and that they should have listened to Jeff Goldblum all along…


#14

…or built a containment system that’s foolproof. Like a big pit.


#15

…you mean dinosaur train isn’t real? :sob:


…but it has a time tunnel and everything! ~crushed dreams~


#16

Team Anklyosaur 4LYFE.


#17

Because life… ah, ah… finds a way.


#18

In a lot of cases, a really accurate dinosaur toy would consist of five vertebrae, half a skull, and a femur.


#19

My favorite is Deinonychus, since before Jurassic Park came out.

It’s always bothered me how they were misnamed in that movie (not to mention probably covered in feathers…).

(edited for grammar)


#20

Yeah.

If I remember correctly, Gregory S. Paul argued that similar species should usually be classified as the same genus, and Deinonychus antirrhopus probably belonged in Velociraptor. Legit view. He also argued that all dromeosaurs were feathered and likely to be neoflightless. Legit view, and this was before the discovery of feathered and at-least-gliding basal dromeosaurs. But the old movie gets his personal opinion on how to do classification, while neglecting his theories on how they looked…