Editing Talk:2630: Shuttle Skeleton

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
Well, I know what "paint job" I'm putting on the pirate shuttle, in my next TTRPG session. <br/>
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

TaxOnomy.

The joke here is about a recent California court case (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/us/california-bees-fish-court-ruling-scn-trnd/index.html) which declared bumblebees to be considered fish under the California Endangered Species Act. The definition of "fish" listed in the act included invertebrates, which is why skeletons are relevant. [[User:Clam|Clam]] ([[User talk:Clam|talk]]) 14:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:I don't know if this comic is related to the bee/fish ruling or not. There have been many earlier works where the skeleton of a fictional person or creature has been shown (the Simpsons, Lego man, etc). [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is a mammal skeleton and not say, something related to a crocodile or a bird? Currently there's only a hint what makes it look like one. Which doesn't say that much to someone who doesn't know mammal skeletons too well. TIA! [[User:Chichak|Chichak]] ([[User talk:Chichak|talk]]) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:That's a good question, since there are lots of skeletal analogues among all the vertebrates. Crocodiles and birds only have 4 toes on their rear legs, so that could be part of it. It may just be an overall resemblance to whales, which we already know are mammals. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
::Well it definitely wouldn't be fish. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
::I'm actually confused about this. Mammals do not have ribs going all the way to the hips. Those look more like reptile ribs. 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:::The head of this shuttle looks a lot more like a whale's head, specifically a toothed whale like a sperm whale.  The arms are closer to the paddle-like structure of whale arms, but much longer, to be able to form the wings and control surfaces at the back.  Having the ribs continue all the way to the pelvis, like a snake, would be an adaptation to give structure to the cargo doors, but that would likely impede their ability to open. Also, I do not know of any mammal that have ribs above the shoulder blades.  The clavicles should be there [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Those are extended transverse processes of the cervical ribs, or at least that's how I interpreted them. Note that the transverse processes are evolutionary descendants of what were ribs in an ancestor. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::To me, there's definite impression of a bat skeleton, most notably that the fingers are hugely elongated to become the formers for the wings and the legs/feet are small enough to be nearly useless for anything more than basic gripping.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.215|108.162.245.215]] 16:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

These "citation needed" tags are getting ridiculous, but I do wonder about whether any space craft had plastic parts. Metal, yes. Carbon fiber, yes. Plastic? I doubt it. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:They SHOULD be ridiculous, so good job. Regarding the question, I guess space craft may have plastic cup holder for example. The plastic parts are unlikely to be on outside, but inside, why not? In Apollo 13, they were using plastic bags for something at least. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:: I was just thinking about the skeleton, you're right. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 22:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This comic was unexpectedly terrifying. Not sure what I expected, but it wasn't this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.62|108.162.246.62]] 20:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just reading D'Arcy Thompson's "On Growth and Form".  (John Tyler Bonner's 1969 abridgement of the 1942 edition.)  At the end of the book, Thompson draws skulls on a grid, such as an early ancestor of the horse, Hyracotherium, and then distorts the grid in a uniform way to produce a new sketch that resembles a related species.  He then used the same technique to demonstrate that other species were not "missing links" between those two species, because he could not distort the grid to make them fit. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 02:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:I'd be very wary of someone using a form of personal incredulity to demonstrate something (c.f. the "junkyard+tornado->jumbo jet" 'counter-'argument). I'm not aware of the book, but it sounds like it's anti-evolution, by your telling of it, and picking a case where you can 'find' a simple distortion that works across two examples doesn't then invalidate the intermediate stages for which there's no reason to believe a consistent evolutionary pressure would create similarly smooth transitions at all stages you get to observe. It's observing the end-points of a random-walk and then being surprised at where the walker has managed to visit along the way. The term "missing link" is also outdated (those who use it these days tend to then require additional missing links be found betwixt any now-found 'links' and their neighbours, rather than ever be usefully satisfied) but I suppose might have still been a bit more mainstream back in 1942.
:So sounds like a fun book to read (I like a good cryptozoology/gods-were-aliens book, too!) but I'd be wary about it not having aged well (as I would with bits of the Origin Of Species, though it has held up surpisingly well), and I hope you're also reading it in a suitable frame of mind and not taking it (or passing it on) at face-value. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the book (On Growth and Form) is certainly dated in places (first edition was in 1917).  But I wouldn't characterize his arguments as being completely anti-evolutionary.  It's just that he notices many instances where the physical forces on organisms seem to be directing the form of the organisms. He doesn't explain the exact mechanism of change.  (At least in the abridged edition.) He's pretty searchable with Google Images. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 20:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:Maybe search when I can spare time. Sounds a bit Lamarckian, too... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
By way of explanation, I think I thought of D'Arcy Thompson because of his strong emphasis on how physics and mechanics (could) contribute to biological forms.  Mr. Munroe seems to be playing with some of the same ideas. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 03:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)  

Well that's horrifying. [[User:TheLonelySandPerson|TheLonelySandPerson]] ([[User talk:TheLonelySandPerson|talk]]) 01:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, the Apollo Lunar Module was a completely different design early on, but slowly evolved into its familiar crab-like shape through convergent evolution. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.59|172.71.26.59]] 03:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:Carcinization strikes again.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.73|172.71.94.73]] 07:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What’s up with the “type of fish or shark”? Sharks are a type of fish, the “or shark” doesn’t make sense?
:Presumably Randall was thinking "bony fish". Maybe that was too technical to be funny. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:((Edit conflict, and I'm really just expanding upon Nit's summary, but having written it now, here you are...)) It's messy, but often sharks are (paraphyletically) kept out of the "fish" category. Similarly to how mammals, amphibians, etc of the ''tetrapoda'' are actually descended from the "fish" superclass (under its classical branch name, of course). Thus to separate from the bony-fish (and possibly other subtrees, across which the common term "fish" might alply), sharks may be deemed not-fish for classification purposes and it is often good practice to do so.
:Common names confuse matters: a dogfish (shark) is very far related from a starfish, at least as much as a seahorse is more fish (very so, in fact!) than equine. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:: If bees can be classified as fish, then so can sharks! But wouldn't be easier to just expand the definition of endangered species to include invertebrates, rather than lumping things clearly where they do not belong?  But, hey, what do I know?  I am just a scientist, not a lawyer.  [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Just for clarification, a California court has not ruled that bees are a type of fish. They ruled that when a law specifically states "for the purposes of this law, X includes Y," it means that for the purposes of that law X includes Y. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.151|172.71.26.151]] 16:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:It's very like the old "Beavers are fish, for the purpose of eating at Lent/etc" from the Catholic church. Except that I presume they ''aren't'' effectively encouraging the eating of bees/fish, in lieu of anything else... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.43|162.158.159.43]] 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::Yep, Catholics can now eat beaver, capybara, or bees on Friday. But not Space Shuttles.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.21|172.71.22.21]] 20:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've replaced the CNN video with an NBC archive video because the CNN video is georestricted to US only (You can check restrictions using https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi, checking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfnvFnzs91s returns a nearly-red map except for the US). - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.61|172.68.253.61]] 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gotta say this is the most confusing skeleton I've seen. It's certainly a vertebrate (spine? check. skull? check), and it's certainly at least a tetrapod (girdles? check. 1 proximal limb bone, two distal limb bones per limbs? check.), and definitely at least a basal reptile. However, it is correct that mammals (modern synapsids) don't have ribs going down to their hips. Additionally, if those holes in the top of the skull are supposed to be the temporal fenestrae, those are the highest-placed temporal fenestrae I've seen on a synapsid. Usually they're much lower (as an example: in a human, our temporal fenestrae are the space under our zygomatic arch - our "cheekbone," though in all fairness humans are actually poor examples of many things in synapsids). Also, the lack of a third phalanx on any of the digits is throwing me for a loop; I'm sure there are mammals that lose some phalanges on all digits, but for the life of me I can't think of one (even a horse has all three phalanges on the one digit they keep). TL;DR: this skeleton looks more like that of a diapsid reptile than a mammal, in my opinion. (My only qualification is that I have a masters in biology, and, for a year or so, I studied under a paleontologist who specialized in the split between diapsids and synapsids) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.248.143|172.69.248.143]] 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I provided the requested citation concerning Georg Steller's extinction, so I removed the "Citation Needed". [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:I would have linked to {{w|Georg Wilhelm Steller|his Wikipedia page}}, myself, for general wikisolidarity/not-having-the-padlock-icon, but probably a matter of taste... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 10:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)