Still Waters Posted June 13, 2014 #1 Share Posted June 13, 2014 It's generally believed that Earth's earliest animals were not very big, but discovery of a huge new fish that lived around 423 million years ago has scientists rethinking what life was like close to 200 million years before the first dinosaurs emerged. http://news.discover...aurs-140612.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissJatti Posted June 13, 2014 #2 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) That huge fish is not of this planet.... ET brought that fish from their planet 424 millions years ago Edited June 13, 2014 by ThesillyfunnyguyIDK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousRey Posted June 13, 2014 #3 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Awesome discovery, thanks for posting it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloudshill Posted June 13, 2014 #4 Share Posted June 13, 2014 >IIIII)> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SameerPrehistorica Posted June 15, 2014 #5 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I don't know why, sometimes i see news which is about some discovery of a large animal and when i check it,the animal is very small.. When i saw the title "Super-Sized Animals Lived Before Dinosaurs",i thought this time they found something bigger.This fish is only 3.3 feet long.I don't know if i should laugh or.....Here after i am not going to get thrilled when reading title names. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundew Posted June 15, 2014 #6 Share Posted June 15, 2014 This "super sized fish" is about one meter long? Maybe big for its day, but it would only make a snack for a medium sized predatory dinosaur. A rather misleading article. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted June 15, 2014 #7 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I agree with Sameer that the article's title is misleading. While it is huge for that time period (Silurian), it's simply an "early large body" and not "biggest thing around." There'd be 6 foot long ocean-going relatives of the scorpions coming along fairly soon and lots of other large things. Largest Silurian apex-predator vertebrate, yes. But that's a mouthful and people might not read the article. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SameerPrehistorica Posted June 15, 2014 #8 Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Even though there were some large animals lived before Dinosaurs like Giant Orthocones and Dunkleosteus. They were avoided ? Edited June 15, 2014 by SameerPrehistorica 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteHoratio Posted June 15, 2014 #9 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Not really a big fish, and I'm sure their was animals bigger than that. Kind of a misleading title. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBeliever Posted June 15, 2014 #10 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Mayb its a guppy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted June 15, 2014 #11 Share Posted June 15, 2014 There are super-sized humans on the prowl today. Whole families of them. Only time they're not eating is when they have a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted June 15, 2014 #12 Share Posted June 15, 2014 For Silurian (and pre-Silurian) bigness, see eurypterids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurypterid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6.6.6 Posted June 16, 2014 #13 Share Posted June 16, 2014 At no point should we assume that our current understanding of earths history is correct! Every day is a school day! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratbiter Posted June 17, 2014 #14 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Unless the title has changed I don't think it was misleading at all, It doesn't mention any sized animal. It asked a question "how large" which is why I read the artical as I came looking for the answer, although I was hoping for info on land animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Trinity Posted June 17, 2014 #15 Share Posted June 17, 2014 We had a large pond into which we put a small Ghost Koi Carp some years ago... that thing ended up not much smaller than that lol....ate all our other fish too I was kind of hoping that '1m' meant 1 mile ...... now that would be a S H I T SCARY fish!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted June 17, 2014 #16 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I don't call a fish an animal. I was expecting something larger than a dino. One meter log is a good-sized fish, but nothing extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximusnow Posted June 17, 2014 #17 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I bet that the Big Mouth Blunt Tooth fish was photographed closer to the camera than the scientist, to make it look 1-M long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidElement Posted June 18, 2014 #18 Share Posted June 18, 2014 How do scientists even know where to go looking for a fossil like this? That's the big question to me lol. Or how is it they even knew where to look for a 400 million year old fossil. It's not like they accidently stumbled over it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMan Posted June 18, 2014 #19 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I don't call a fish an animal. Why not? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted July 7, 2014 #20 Share Posted July 7, 2014 You gotta love these estimations.... 400 millions years ago... Wow my bones will turn into sand in just 50 year after i die, but the precious fish bones survived this, much ..trust the scientist ! Lol gotta love the carbon isotope dating formula.... So much scientifically prone to be wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted July 7, 2014 #21 Share Posted July 7, 2014 You gotta love these estimations.... 400 millions years ago... Wow my bones will turn into sand in just 50 year after i die... No, they wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 7, 2014 #22 Share Posted July 7, 2014 You gotta love these estimations.... 400 millions years ago... Wow my bones will turn into sand in just 50 year after i die, but the precious fish bones survived this, much ..trust the scientist ! Lol gotta love the carbon isotope dating formula.... So much scientifically prone to be wrong... You can...feel...the willful ignorance just radiating off of you. It's not even the utter lack of knowledge in concept, let alone detail. It's the utter disdain for even the idea that anything you don't personally known must be derisively laughed at. Like you are setting up to mock anyone who would consider learning more about the scientific world around them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted July 7, 2014 #23 Share Posted July 7, 2014 One finds fossils from any given period by looking for geological formations that formed during that period that are now on the surface weathering away. This gives one the general time frame and there are a variety of dating methods available now that puts you within a million years or so of the actual date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now