Talk:2630: Shuttle Skeleton - Revision history

DL Draco Rex at 18:04, 12 June 2022

2022-06-12T18:04:27Z

172.70.162.5 at 10:46, 12 June 2022

2022-06-12T10:46:51Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: Explained my edit of the Explanation.

2022-06-12T02:59:47Z

Explained my edit of the Explanation.

108.162.245.215 at 16:08, 11 June 2022

2022-06-11T16:08:13Z

172.69.248.143 at 18:45, 10 June 2022

2022-06-10T18:45:51Z

Tanana at 03:50, 10 June 2022

2022-06-10T03:50:31Z

172.70.162.77 at 23:04, 9 June 2022

2022-06-09T23:04:25Z

Tanana at 20:36, 9 June 2022

2022-06-09T20:36:10Z

172.71.22.21: I forgot how to spell capybara

2022-06-09T20:14:52Z

I forgot how to spell capybara

172.71.22.21 at 20:13, 9 June 2022

2022-06-09T20:13:41Z

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:46, 12 June 2022
Line 48:		Line 48:

	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 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 12 June 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:

	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'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)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :::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)
 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 10 June 2022
Line 42:		Line 42:

	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)		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)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :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)
 Well that's horrifying. [[User:TheLonelySandPerson|TheLonelySandPerson]] ([[User talk:TheLonelySandPerson|talk]]) 01:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 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, capibara, or bees on Friday. But not Space Shuttles.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.21|172.71.22.21]] 20:13, 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)