Originally posted by Omega Vision
Source?
"Adding muscles is the next step in fleshing out a dinosaur skeleton. Fossil bones often contain muscle attachment scars that provide evidence about muscle location and size."
http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/reconstructing-animals.cfm
This is the first thing I found on Google. I learned what I know from college. It is common knowledge.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Source?
He probably meant "muscle" not "musical." Could be an autocorrect issue.
Additionally, it is theorized that many different dinosaurs probably sang songs or made calls to do various things like attract mates. The attachments, "pipes", and resonance chambers are there to make sounds in some species.
And, yes, I do consider this to be common knowledge....but most people do not know about ossification at muscular attachment sites which are used to determine the loads the muscles put on the bones, how large the muscles were, and where they attached. So I guess it is not common knowledge?
I should note that I'm not a paleontologist, medical doctor, biomedical engineer, medical forensic specialist, or pathologist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"muscle"
Are you an idiot? Now leave me alone!
I'm taking time to respond to you, so I very well might be.
I do seriously wonder how someone who has your kind of trouble can be certain they've actually read and comprehended what the author of any given book actually had to say to their audience. A single word can vastly change the meaning of an entire passage, and you, by your own admission, have problems with a great many words in common usage.
For the record, though, I asked for clarification because I thought there was a chance you were merely badly relaying some section on voice production or noise transmission in animals. I'm not aware the human skeleton today, let alone one preserved as a fossil, would provide true evidence that we were speakers and singers, for instance, still less so what we use to determine that for animals.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm taking time to respond to you, so I very well might be.I [b]do
seriously wonder how someone who has your kind of trouble can be certain they've actually read and comprehended what the author of any given book actually had to say to their audience. A single word can vastly change the meaning of an entire passage, and you, by your own admission, have problems with a great many words in common usage.For the record, though, I asked for clarification because I thought there was a chance you were merely badly relaying some section on voice production or noise transmission in animals. I'm not aware the human skeleton today, let alone one preserved as a fossil, would provide true evidence that we were speakers and singers, for instance, still less so what we use to determine that for animals. [/B]
It's call an autocorrect. The word was muscle, just like the quote that you seem to have missed. Maybe you couldn't understand it or didn't notice it because all the words were spelled correctly.
Try reading the articular below (BTW that was a joke). But maybe I am asking to much, as that you may have never read anything scientific in your life.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Adding muscles is the next step in fleshing out a dinosaur skeleton. Fossil bones often contain muscle attachment scars that provide evidence about muscle location and size."http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/reconstructing-animals.cfm
This is the first thing I found on Google. I learned what I know from college. It is common knowledge.
I'm srory taht yuo cna't flolwo ctenxo, adn hvea ot tkea eevry wrod sdelep cerotcly to usndaertnd.
Originally posted by dadudemon
He probably meant "muscle" not "musical." Could be an autocorrect issue.Additionally, it is theorized that many different dinosaurs probably sang songs or made calls to do various things like attract mates. The attachments, "pipes", and resonance chambers are there to make sounds in some species.
And, yes, I do consider this to be common knowledge....but most people do not know about ossification at muscular attachment sites which are used to determine the loads the muscles put on the bones, how large the muscles were, and where they attached. So I guess it is not common knowledge?
I should note that I'm not a paleontologist, medical doctor, biomedical engineer, medical forensic specialist, or pathologist.