T. rex’s jaw had sensors to make it an even more fearsome predator(newswise.com)
newswise.com
T. rex’s jaw had sensors to make it an even more fearsome predator
https://www.newswise.com/articles/t-rex-s-jaw-had-sensors-to-make-it-an-even-more-fearsome-predator-new-digital-study-finds?sc=dwhn
15 comments
>I mean, wouldn't sensitivity be the default assumption? Why were they otherwise convinced?
I don't know if it's a related assumption, but it was at one time thought that the t-rex had sacrificial/re-growing teeth like a shark ( I don't follow this stuff much, so I don't know how dated that premise is. )
Maybe the assumption goes something like "Hyper-carnivores lose and re-grow their teeth routinely, so let's assume that their physiology has done something to negate the pain associated with the process."
I don't know if it's a related assumption, but it was at one time thought that the t-rex had sacrificial/re-growing teeth like a shark ( I don't follow this stuff much, so I don't know how dated that premise is. )
Maybe the assumption goes something like "Hyper-carnivores lose and re-grow their teeth routinely, so let's assume that their physiology has done something to negate the pain associated with the process."
We don't have Rex DNA, but could it be possible to rediscover Rex DNA by studying prints? I'm not a biologist, but in the same way that footsteps leave prints in snow or sand, can decayed DNA leave biological imprints behind that would allow us to reconstruct it?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555
Dna doesn't last as long as Jurrasic Park would have us believe.
Dna doesn't last as long as Jurrasic Park would have us believe.
Maybe in some sort of way that is undiscovered, but the important thing to note is that DNA is a chemical signature and not a physical one.
[deleted]
we're calling Merkel cell nerve endings and tactile corpuscles "sensors" now?
I mean I guess they are, but it is weird to hear terms for artificial/technological apparati being applied to biological apparati
I mean I guess they are, but it is weird to hear terms for artificial/technological apparati being applied to biological apparati
I'm expecting to see more of such language as time goes on, as we come to terms with life itself being just another piece of technology.
I think it's the result of some people being more and more cut off and alienated from themselves and life around them, so that's why they view it as "just other piece of technology". It says everything about them and nothing about life.
On the contrary. Discovering that life is nothing but advanced molecular nanotechnology - even if not designed by us, and too complex for us to completely grok - is one of the most profound achievements of the last century. Magical thinking is preventing us from growing as people.
But it is not designed, period. It just is. It has no purpose, no goal, no intent -- which is good, too, since the final destination of any and all of it might the heat death of the universe.
I mean it's popular science writing, so they have to make it understandable to people not educated in the underlying science.
Wait until you hear that the T-rex had FSD fully installed upon hatching.
Reminds me of an ongoing & heated debate about T. rex -- Did the T. rex have lips?
or a better scavenger
I mean, wouldn't sensitivity be the default assumption? Why were they otherwise convinced?