This video is taking off faster than I ever could have imagined. I can't thank everyone enough! In the interest of scientific accuracy, as other people have pointed out, the animal I show at 9:05 isn't a true snake, but a 'legless lizard' (and the animal shown after is a sea krait)
When I saw the video I thought this was some large info channel like Kurzgesagt. Insane to see quality like this being produced by a small channel and I even checked the channels tab to see if their was a main channel and this was the small one. Keep doing good work
I absolutely love this kinda stuff, one of the reasons is because you can’t be wrong, because it’s supposed to be wrong. And making up these ecosystems, and theoretical niches and behaviors, I just love world building.
Now take that same idea and consider our own Present and how we view the past based on only a pathetic 6,000 years of known written history. Dinosaurs as we believe them are thought to have completely died out on Land 65,000,000 years ago, so when comparing that to only 6,000 years of written history, it’s easy to imagine just how little we ourselves actually even know about anything at all.
The elephant one is less surprising, because we as humans already made that mistake (at least humans who hadn't come into contact with elephants/mammoths). The ancient greeks made the mistake of misinterpeting elephants/mammoths in the past, and it's actually a direct reason why the cyclops was added to their mythology and stories.
@@SirKolass I'm comparing what an alien/scientist of the future (assuming humanity survives long enough) who's never seen an elephant would speculate when they see a fossil of an elephant and what the ancient greeks speculated when they saw a mammoth/elephant skulls for the first time. Which I also said helped create the myth of the cyclops.... If you wanna be a smart ass, at least learn to read first before you add your own cynical implications.
I think whether or not ancient scientists or modern scientists would interpret something differently isn't the point. The point is modern scientists still might be quite wrong about their recreations. This isn't HA! Science is all wrong though, it's "lets reevaluate our assumptions maybe."
On the whole "shrink-wrapping" thing. To be fair, if you were to pluck the feathers off a bird it would look surprisingly similar to the "shrink-wrapped" conception of it. The feathers do a lot to give it's appearance volume. You can't really use a meat hybrid chicken you buy from the market as a model because they are an anomaly, they aren't even examples of adult development in the species. However, except for the beak and fleshy crests, most birds looks similar to the "classic" model of dinosaurs if their feathers were missing and had scales on their skin.
Also to be fair, some animals like crocodiles definitely have a lot of "shrink wrapping" on them, a crocodile's skull and a crocodile's head is almost identical
@@ShwappaJ In my head, I imagine dinosaurs to have had skin similar to rhino skin or crested gecko skin (so, some very thin and soft and some very thick and tough)
What’s crazy is most snakes have vestigial appendages, they still have hip or pelvic bones so it makes total sense for them to assume they have limbs! This was really cool
they dont have a pelvis. its all ribs and snakes use their muscle to move in a verity of fascinating ways depending on the species I suggest looking into it if your bored and like animals
"The gruesome "Cat" had complex, retractable claws and large, nocturnal eyes. They were predominantly found around human settlements, where it is believed they fed on human children."
This is rather true except from their size, possession of fur and their diet. To the humans, the "cat" and it's antics brought laughter and mild annoyance, also being seen as "cute" and their presence genuinely appreciated by most.
*New Discovery: Cats Found in Human Homes It is now believe a subspecies of cats were klepto-parasites and somehow manage to manipulate their host in ignoring their presence while they fed on the their host's food storage.
5:06 - But looking at that skeleton, a paleontologist would see that the animal would have major problems feeding itself. The front tusks would block it from putting its teeth against a food source, and its front legs and front feet are ill-suited for grabbing food and putting it in its mouth. It would be clear that the animal had some kind of fleshy mouthpiece that protruded far from the front of its skull.
its still incredibly hard to imagine the skeleton having a long muscular trunk. Creativity and hypotheses is the only thing we can rely on. By no means can an accurate depiction of it be made though!
Scientists still have hard time about how saber tooth hunt with their large canines. Come to think of it, what if they have a fleshy part like elephants
On the subject of how we think about cows, for years I heard people speaking with genuine awe in their voices about Longhorn cattle. It really perplexed me. How could a cow, even with big horns, possibly be that impressive an animal? I saw them in photographs and movies. Still, I couldn't understand what the big deal was about Longhorns. Then I saw one in real life. Now I get it. It didn't even take the entirety of a single second to finally understand the awe I heard in all those voices. Truly amazing awe inspiring animals.
I visited my grandmother recently who has dementia, when she asked me what books I've been reading, I told her I was reading the Origin of Species and as soon as I said that it was like a light switch flipped in her mind and the dementia vanished. We had a nice long discussion about biology. After a while I went out to my truck and got a Cat skull and we talked about what you could infer about that animal if all you had was the skull. (she's a retired science teacher)
That's how dementia works most of the time. You'd expect that important memories, like the names and faces of one's children or the dates of pivotal events would remain the longest, but instead it's often the most unexpected but very entrenched memories that remain the most vivid. I have a patient who's suffering from an advanced case, and he can't even recognize his son, but if it's about their favorite football team, the two of them can talk for hours and the old guy can recall every important match, player, and score like an encyclopedia.
@@autovozo5725 I thought everyone had a Cat Skull in their car? Now you're going to say that you don't carry fruit flies around in a tupperware pot in your car, aren't you?
These are terrible misrepresentations of actual animals, but amazing creature designs in a vacuum. I would love to see things like these put into a science-fiction universe.
If I'm not mistaken the "grooves" on the teeth of the baboons are analogous to grooves found on most carnivore teeth and are referred to as "blood grooves." Essentially they prevent the teeth from getting stuck in penetrated muscle when biting deeply into their prey. This is similar to blood grooves placed on kitchen knives so that they don't get stuck in meat..
Those grooves were ground away after the sword was forged to help reduce the weight of the sword while using the same material and overall length. I'd guess in teeth they are either coinci-dental(lol) or may help with growing teeth/preventing buildup that may cause infection
@@self3x851 I don't think that is correct. The same thinking (with grooves) is applied to the indentations you see on small kitchen knives. I don't you'd argue they are for weight reduction. If you stick a kitchen knife with no grooves into a slab of beef it'll get stuck and you'll have a tougher time removing it. For stabbing weapons and carnivorous teeth it's critical to have those grooves be present. Otherwise you'll be stuck in your opponent or prey.
@JamesRansom the groove has nothing to do with preventing a vacuum. And an added benefit is that it creates a double-spine and increases integrity of a blade, on top of being a stylistic choice. There is nothing supporting that it does anything to prevent the blade from getting stuck
@@self3x851 OK fair, I'm no expert on swords so I'll defer to your knowledge on the matter. Kitchen knives and carnivore canines however do have grooves primarily to prevent them from sticking in meat/food.
So, this is like a spin-off of 'all tommorows' where the asteromorph scientists interpret these animals by bone alone? Thats actually really really neat.
Yeah really cool. But this got me thinking... what if the Author's interpitation of all post-human species is actually wrong? Fun to think about it, millions of years would be enough to change humans beyond recognition, clear of any homo sapiens traits.
@@DOSFS thats actually really interesting to think about, but since the asteromorphs and spacers already existed along with the flyers, lopsiders, temptors and all the others, it would be more logical since they observed the post-humans throughout the ages and probably didnt have to go from remains alone.
@@SealtonK.Skelaton You really aren't original with that comment, ive Seen the exact message you sent about 30 times. What is with people that when they see my comment, they feel like replying telling me i ruined their steelsoul runs?
@@dewlittle1211 is highly propable that in fact they had lips, because if you think about it, even in the most unique environments of Earth is easier to find big vertebrades with lips than without them, specially in land.
I think it might be actually true. The largest land predators today, the bears and big cats, are also seen as some of the cutest animals. At least to our current perceptions. I'm not saying they should be super cutiefied, but making them more appealing, as in looking as an actual animal and not an emaciated monster, should be the way to go. Although it is true that there's a lot of ugly animals out there too, we probably will never fully know how they actually looked. Especially more distinct features, like imagine parrots or peacocks without their bright colours, or tigers and zebras without their stripes.
In the context of this hypothetical situation, humanity is long gone, and all that is left are fossilized remains of present-day animals. Paper, books, movies, and the internet wouldn't exist. Even if the internet still existed, an alien species wouldn't necessarily be able to access it with their own machinery, and human technology would have rusted away.
The Manatee one is like the _Spinosaurus_ story. We once thought it was a fully land animal that looked like JP3's spino based in fragmentary remains, but it turns out to have really been semiaquatic with a paddle tail and short back legs.
"Hummingbirds are so innocent-looking, it's hard to imagine anyone interpreting them as something frightening" The Aztecs saw the hummingbird's hyper-aggressive nature and its incessant thirst, and made it an avatar of their deity Huitzilopochtli. You know. The one that they sacrificed prisoners of war to with the whole cutting-out-hearts thing because of his eternal thirst for blood.
yeah the aztecs were also bumbling savage idiots who slaughtered eachother constantly and for little to no reason. definition of getting everything wrong
@@sneauxday7002 "bumbling savage idiots who slaughtered each other constantly and for little to no reason" - yeah pretty much the story of humanity from 10,000 BCE to 2021 CE, are you making a point here? Anyway, hummingbirds are hyperaggressive little things.
@@sneauxday7002 "slaughtered eachother...for little to no reason" this is hyper reductionist; homie got it so easy he doesn't know that wars and lynchings still going on today. Get a squad of your smartest and most talented non-savage homies and try to build a pyramid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'll wait.
Honestly I love this video and I love this book, I think it's opening the eyes of the people who see dinosaurs of nothing but giant scaly monsters instead of something much more plausible, luckily with modern technology we're starting to really push back on the shrink wrapping, and hopefully generations from now dinosaurs being feathered will be commonly accepted, because as it stands now most people still keep pushing the idea of giant scaly monsters out of stubbornness, most tend to make the argument of "they're related to crocodilians" which technically is slightly true also isn't at the same time. Prehistoric crocodilians are not considered dinosaurs at all, that's because crocodilians are still alive and their ancestors are just prehistoric crocodilians such as Sarcosuchus, Deinosuchus, and Purussaurus, all of which modernly split off into alligators ,caiman, crocodiles, and many more, and the creature that prehistoric crocodilians stemmed from a more land based carnivore that adapted to water quite quickly, so overall prehistoric crocodilians were very distant from theropod dinosaurs and the closest they were related to were very crocodilian dinosaurs of which they were still very distantly related that we're known for being semi aquatic (which hint didn't include popular land based dinosaurs), and so it's inaccurate to say modern crocodilians are ancestors of dinosaurs because crocodilians are still alive and cannot be the direct descendant as they're just the ancestor of prehistoric crocodilians which again are no where close to dinosaurs and are very separate. It has been concluded overall that modern birds are the absolute closest to the direct ancestor of dinosaurs which is extinct, so whether people want to admit it or not basically every dinosaur you grew up knowing was partially or completely feathered/furred in some regard, whether it be quills or full on feathers they probably had it, and their would be few exceptions to this rule, I mean look at modern birds, they got their feathers from somewhere, look at all our large predators on modern earth, all of them are furred or feathered, hell even hippo's and elephants have light fur, the only real creatures we have that aren't are generally small like lizards or salt water crocodiles, and the big ones such as crocodiles are almost fully aquatic which provides the reason for the lack off feathers, the biggest lizard we have is the komodo dragon which still is much more distant to dinosaurs then birds. Lizards may be more related then say crocodilians but are still below birds, it doesn't take a genius to comprehend that dinosaurs may have been far less scaled then we depict them and may have looked drastically different then what media makes them out to be, it's also not too hard to predict colors on some, for example megalodon closest living relatives are mako sharks and the great white, and so therefor the colors would transfer down, as colors generally stay the same throughout a family tree, the only exception to this are birds that have many species and live within the same area so therefore have to have different colors to distinguish between one another, so for dinosaurs that didn't have many species that lived in the same area and time within their family tree would generally have their colors stay relatively the same throughout time. So as for dinosaurs we have the most information on it wouldn't be the hardest to predict colors that would follow throughout the tree with little variation, regardless I'd love to talk my mouth off about dinosaurs but I should probably stop here. The one take away that I want someone to have from reading this, especially if your the type to cling onto shrink wrapping is that dinosaurs, and overall animals don't fit our human expectations a lot, and it's okay for them not to, we can't bend reality to comfort ourselves from the truth, and we should take large steps forwards to strive for more accuracy with an open mind.
Wait until the alien discover that, that animal was the begging of the end of that mass extinction... After they find trillions of chicken, pig, and many more bones
This was such a cool video... it's crazy to think that animals that never got to live alongside humans, we may never be able to correctly see how they actually looked, like ever...
Speaking of misinterpreting animals, that first clip of a "snake" is actually a legless lizard. Also, while some of these make sense, we have to remember that bones tell more than we realize. Muscles attach to bone and leave their mark, so paleontologists can usually tell which bones supported dense muscles. Ones like the baboon wouldn't make sense -- the venom mistake is def plausible, but the hands/feet wouldn't be too useful for sprinting. For the cow, the bones are bulky for weight-bearing and wouldn't point towards a lithe, fast animal. It's a really cool idea, but some of the traits seem like they're only given for how crazy/different they would be. It's like if biologists only had skeletons, but also didn't know how skeletons interact with the rest of the body.
@Ivan Varela I recently came across a science article that mentioned our brains still have the neural architecture to support a 5th limb. The memory of our tailed past has not left our bodies.
@Ivan Varela It's happening. Humans are able to control more than five fingers on a hand. Some scientists connected a robotic sixth finger to someone's nerves and they learned to control it.
Thanks to them, I now realise the amount of authority bias in human knowledge. From young, we were taught about how things supposedly looked as fact. But even medieval artists who lived in the same time period as elephants, and had descriptions, drew them all skewed. We're definitely, DEFINITELY way off about something in quantum physics, and maybe a little history.
"and maybe a little history." we have so many accounts of dinosaurs and man together in history, but they get brushed aside due to needing to fit the narrative......its sad!!!
You could make his arms dadly if you aded whip like fethers to it, think about it, their arms are STILL stronger than ours despite their size, now imagen it whiping the eyes of its pray to disorient it beafore it goes in for the kill, not so funny now is it ?
@@lukeskywalker9016 You've travelled galaxies and even time and saw both of these dinosaur species, right? :p Scientists today can't even decide if the rex did have feathers or not. Some assume it did, because another tyrannosaur did.
@@hunormagyar1843 what? the thing about "other tyrannosaur did", i presume you're talking about Yutyrannus. Yutyrannus is very far away from Tyrannosaurus rex inside Tyrannosauroidea, being more basal while T. rex is more derived, and by phylogeny all proceratosaurids should have a filament covering. Yutyrannus needed those feathers to heat himself, since in the formation he lived in had a temperate-cold climate, and he weighted about 2.5t while tyrannosaurus inhabited warmer climates, without any need of feathers, also the fact that it was a 8.2t animal (largest individual weighting 10.6t), with a complete feather covering that thing would die of excessive heat also, pennaraptora is not a species, it's a clade of maniraptoran coelurosaurs
Na, likje an eliphant trunk, they where long trynks that shot out and greabbed food. Which was a soecific type of tough meat like plant only found on the toos of trees.
C.M. Koseman has truly blown my mind and made me question everything I thought I've ever known. Yes, it's all speculative, but it makes me wonder how much we really can be certain of and how limited our intelligence really is. Whatever he's smoking, I'll try a tenth of it.
@@tijanamilenkovic9442 they are still strong animals that you don't want to mess with. Herbivores are equipped to defend themselves against anything they think might harm them, or anything in their general vicinity. hippos are Deadly dude
@@tijanamilenkovic9442 They are, but they will also attack people and other animals, in fact they are one of the most dangerous megafauna in Africa and kill 500 humans per year (lions only kill around 22). They are belligerent, heavily muscled, and can run 30 miles per hour on land and in water.
@@tijanamilenkovic9442On top of what everyone else said, no animal is 100% herbivore. They will eat a munch of meat if the opportunity arises and their body tells them they need some specific nutrients. You can search videos of hippos munching on a gazelle and other animals
@Mike Seork we kind of have modern human fossils already from Pompeii. Various mummies. Between now and a million years from now there will surely be another natural disaster that preserves bodies with evidence of clothing and tools. They’ll probably guess we were at least semi hairless. If they happen to be my family’s descendants an assumption of fur wouldn’t be inaccurate 🤣
hmm maybe future alien / evolved human will probably thinks that we either a roam the world and made genius invention or left earth. Or either they are efficient hunters having claws and skin animal for food to get more meat from it. And they might misunderstood that human sprint really fast but we are just endurance hunters that chase the prey to the brink of losing breath to get food with limited technology such as spear/bows
@@okidokidraws there is this episode of Batman where all of our digital media is pretty much inaccessible but luckily enough Batman was smart enough to encode information on a plate of titanium to save the day. So it’s funny to imagine that some rich asshole encodes “incorrect” depictions of today’s animals on massive plates of metal just to screw with everyone today. 😂
this is some odd creatures you can meet in No Man's Sky or Subnautica in a alien planet, good concept art ideas of alternate paths organisms have evolved into something they adapt & survive in their homeworld.
Disunity Holy chaos Yeah, I've been playing Subnautica and it's so interesting the way the alien fauna have unusual base body plans but also at the same time have adaptations that seem vaguely familiar because they occupy a similar environment and niche as their real-life Earth counterparts.
Watching this makes me realize that there are probably countless species that we think we know what they look like but are so off it’s not even imaginable
that's the idea but the most recent science is a lot better, this book is mostly criticising the scaly dinosaurs of the 20th century, in the last 20 years new science has given us a much more accurate image, for example we draw them with fat now, we draw them with lips, with feathers and brighter colours. Yes there will still be errors, but now they begin to look like real animals and not movie monsters. Have a look at some old art of Sinosauropteryx and then some new art of Sinosauropteryx to see what i mean, since new methods have allowed us to determine its outer appearance much more accurately. However the popular conception has not caught up and is still stuck in the shrink wrapped monster stage.
@𝓼𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 𝓴𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 To be honest, it takes quite a different set of skills to be a scientist and to teach [science]. A good scientist isn't necessarily able to explain something to another person, for start.
@𝓼𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 𝓴𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 i never said that, dont put words in my mouth. i said that a teacher who has EXPERIENCE IN TEACHING would be more able to teach poetry to somebody who has never done it then a poet.
We know what the Irish Elk looked like because our ancestors drew pictures of them on cave walls that showed details the bones couldn't. You can't miss the giant pictures of hummingbirds the Aztecs made. There's even a greatly preserved armored dinosaur that shows a LOT of detail, it was practically mummified.
Just two small errors that I've noticed; the animal at 9:02 isn't a snake, it's a legless lizard known as a slow worm: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anguis At 9:08 that isn't a squamate at all; it's an eel: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_snake-eel
By their fossilised remains you would probably never know that spiders made webs, zebras and tigers have stripes, or that octupus produced ink and were able to changed color and texture.
@@The-Deadite yes, but arthropods have exoskeletons which do leave an "imprint" on stone, we even have fossils of spiders insects and even octupusses, which don't have hard parts besides their beaks . but other types of preservation like amber can preserve them better. soft tissue can also be fossilized on even more extremely rare ocasions, for examble if the body is naturally mumified and then fossilized, the result would be the fossilization of a mummy like the very few ones we have of dinosaurs. We only know the spiders tagt left the fossils we have had webs because we still have spiders today
This is AMAZING HAHAHA I love this thought experiment so much, speculative paleontology combined with these extremely detailed drawings and your hilarious commentary is something I ABSOLUTELY need more of LOL I'm impressed by how many different ways you found to say essentially the same thing for each animal-- that's great scriptwriting right there 😂 be honest, how many times did you Google synonyms
the animal at 9:05 isnt a snake tough, its a legless lizard. Its an easy mistake to make but legless lizards have stiffer bodies, non (or only slightly) slit tounges and eyelids. They also eat bugs and slugs as opposed to rodents or other snake prey.
we know a lot more about paleontology with new discoveries and better techniques regarding the placement of soft tissues. Velociraptor had wings, T. rex would be a chunky dinosaur, sauropods have air sacs etc.
Due to how only one author presented with a photo, and other ones with their avatars, I like to imagine, that this book was a collective effort of a feathered dinosaur from the past, modern human, and an alien creature from the future. Kind makes all the things from "All Yesterdays" weirdly fit together better
Before anyone gets the wrong idea about this, palaeontologists actually have a really good understanding of what dinosaurs looked like. A big misinterpretation people make with this All Todays section of the book is applying its depictions of modern animals to how palaeontologists today depict dinosaurs. Modern palaeontologists have much more to work with than just fragmentary fossils, such as living animals, soft tissue preservation etc. Their reconstructions may not be 100% accurate (that’s what the rest of All Yesterdays is about, exploring the few areas about dinosaurs which scientists wouldn’t know a whole lot about) but it is still very close to how dinosaurs would have actually looked.
I agree, but I would also say that it isn't a good representation of how paleontologists used to reconstruct them either. The whole idea of paleontologists supposedly shrink wrapping dinosaurs doesn't make any sense because dinosaurs in the past were almost always depicted as extremely dense, so much so that they couldn't move very fast at all. even after the dinosaur renaissance they were shown to have incredibly thick muscles.
But this story is based around the concept of an alien species discovering a completely dead earth, and trying to reconstruct from bones alone, there would be no living specimens on earth to even base the skeleton's functions on, as such they'd theoretically have to work from nothing, so shrink wrapping and the such is fully possible.
I love the concept. You need only look at drawings of animals from ye olde medieval times, where the artists only had skeletal remains or, most often, simple descriptions from others who had traveled abroad, and their interpretations of animals like leopards or elephants are absolutely wild.
One of my biology teachers says that this is precisely why there are different subjects that study archeology, biology and the like; precisely so that when reconstructing animals from their fossils we do not end up making a creature taken from the imagination.
9:04 the video you have there is not of a snake, but a legless lizard. Yeah there’s such things as them, I can tell because the tongue is not forked, and it has eyelids. Legless lizards are basically lizards that saw snakes and were like “oh cool I wanna do that too” so they evolved the lack of legs and sorta tried to be snakes. From what I understand, they don’t/can’t swallow their food whole though. Edit: they’re also really bad at moving. They still run like they got legs but they don’t so they just like shimmy like crazy and hope they move. They’re probably better at moving when they’re on debris and grass, but videos of them on concrete and chaotic
All around quite interesting, but I have to say, the future people or aliens would most likely realize swams for example are birds with wings. Birds have been so astronomically successful, so feathered creatures are unlikely to die out, and swans are common enough that their feathers will be preserved in at least one instance for them to find.
I have a few issues with these illustrations, mainly that it implies that there’s no possible way to tell what structures an animal might have from other structures. Especially with noses. As someone who’s worked with skulls, I can tell what type of nose an animal has from the skull alone. The extent that the nasal bone covers the sinuses is a huge indicator. The moose, for example, has very short nasal bones, which allows for more movement; a trait usually seen in animals with large noses (tapirs, elephants, saigas, etc.). There are some ways to extrapolate to a degree.
in the nature of c. m. köseman's type of writing, im sure the later depictions would have been made by a theoretical illustrator from another planet that could coincidentally just not know about this, or from a species that was very distant from the technology we have today :) it would definitely be awesome to see what depictions could have been made if the author was aware of fur/feathers/fat etc, they could have been much more unnerving to look at :)
They are representing mammals like they were dinosaurs, or reptiles. That's why they look ugly. That's just an stupid reconstruction. Obviously will be difficult figure out that long elephant nose but that skin.... It's like he is a crocodile, it have no sense
@@herni4713 i ment overall as in they dont know what we know about diffrent bone structures meaning diffrent types of noses as they do not have the study of those bones or those noses at all, just bones thats IT
Feathers are not always preserved but quill knobs are, mostly. It's only a matter of figuring out what those are. Even if feathers become extinct in the future there will be some available in the fossil records. From there on, it won't be so hard to recreate hornbills reasonably correctly.
Thank you! It will be understandable if all the authors of this book are just artists, but apparently one of them is a paleontologist and zoologist, he should know better.
8:55 i wouldn't be suprised if something similar actually exist since theres so many extinct animals we don't know But that snake interpretation is so cool
I think the Chicken is the best representation of a veloca raptor ! Ive seen mine hunt fight corner prey and even attack squirrels for fun ! They are kinda vicous and the way they move is amazing !
"Hummingbirds are so innocent looking, it's hard to imagine anyone interpreting this animal as anything frightening." Anyone who has done research on hummingbirds would know just how brutal these things are in the war for nectar.
This is really cool as a thought experiment. Makes you realize how easy it could be to misinterpret ancient fossils and skeletons based purely on bones and teeth found.
For the snake skeleton specifically: some modern snakes do have vestigial legs, i.e. leftover bones that don't serve a purpose, so those would show in the fossil record!
To be fair. Snakes have such a long evolution line. You would expect those hip bones to be gone by now. So maybe they're still there becausw they DO serve a purpose. Who knows really. They had millions of years to evolve. More then enough time to get rid of legs, so hip bones shudnt have been a problem too
Could you provide examples? I'm unaware of any snakes that have them or hip bones for that matter. From what I can tell their skeleton is basically a skull, long spine and ribs.
@@lazyrat6687 The "T Rex" we know today, probably isn't what it really looked like. They probably weren't even reptile. Maybe they had big jaws yet small mouths. Or they had furry droopy faces.
doomsdoor, at 07:56, ***"We know the curiously lengthy beaks of humming birds are for the purpose of accessing nectar, but this might not be easily discernible without context."*** But your correct in that they miss the fact of using it to fight off rival humming birds.
I love how thought experiments like this really highlight how much we still might be missing about animals we've never seen. How interesting the field of palaeontology and paleobiology really are.
I want to note that we know a lot more about paleontology with new discoveries, phylogenetic research and better techniques regarding the placement of soft tissues. Velociraptor had wings, T. rex would be a chunky dinosaur, sauropods have air sacs etc.
Cows are pretty cute, their massive size makes look scary up close but they are actually quite gentle as long as you don’t piss the off or irritate them
This reminded me a lot of a curious book I bought many years ago, "Barlow's Guide to Extraterrestrials", which featured many well known alien species from science fiction, like the Thing and the creatures from "A Wrinkle in Time". The illustrations were extremely detailed and featured theories on what functions certain body parts were for, as well as information on where these species originated and what their cultures were like, if they were sentient. I still have it and it's one of the more fascinating books I've read. I'd love to see these other books.
When we were at the natural history museum, and altough i wasnt there at that part but they drew a cat using the techniques they use to figure out the look of dinosaurs. The result: a fierce predator
People are overblowing this “feather” thing on hornbills. Saying they were COMPLETELY covered is ridiculous! Besides it makes them all look fluffy and cute, so inacurate too.
I know right? And they also say hummingbirds are completely covered by this "feather" thingy and they don't actually suck blood, that's ridiculous! Even more ridiculous is that they suggest instead that hummingbirds feed on this liquid called "nectar" which comes from flowers, like, how lame is that. So those sharp pointy beaks are all just for sucking flowery liquids? What is wrong with people, they always try to ruin things
Yeah, it makes hornbills and other birds out to be lame flying animals instead of cool and dangerous looking predatory creatures! There's no conclusive proof that birds had feathers and could actually fly, some scientists keep coming up with stupid theories as to what extinct really looked like!
@@seanodoi7149 Yeah, they were cool looking though I'm glad that the pro-feather group of scientists agree with the rest of us that the Avians were fairly intelligent and skilled predators.
Considering that we're hairless and relatively lean, they might not be far off, although their recreation might make us look a bit undernourished. However they would likely not be aware of fat people.
@@crodsbye As soon as organisms (at least as far as we understand them, needing a way to store excess nutrients, etc) develop agriculture, especially to the degree we have even as a non-spacefaring civilization, I feel it's likely that they can get "fat," or at the very least more varied in personal health. I'm no scientist, but it's something I just thought of.
The spider monkey: "looking like something right out of a nightmare." Me: that spider monkey probably WILL be in my next nightmare. At least I'll have a laugh in the morning.
This video is taking off faster than I ever could have imagined. I can't thank everyone enough!
In the interest of scientific accuracy, as other people have pointed out, the animal I show at 9:05 isn't a true snake, but a 'legless lizard' (and the animal shown after is a sea krait)
Congratulations on 1k!
@@kajolika417 Thank you!
The animal shown after is a type of eel called a Spotted Snake-Eel, not a Sea Krait. Sea Kraits have stripes, not spots.
you're channel is growing nicely
When I saw the video I thought this was some large info channel like Kurzgesagt. Insane to see quality like this being produced by a small channel and I even checked the channels tab to see if their was a main channel and this was the small one. Keep doing good work
I absolutely love this kinda stuff, one of the reasons is because you can’t be wrong, because it’s supposed to be wrong. And making up these ecosystems, and theoretical niches and behaviors, I just love world building.
It’s so fulfilling to make a world from scratch, or even just a community.
@@muckyesyesindisguise3854 The wonders of writing can really be something special
So basically, making worlds?
@@user-cv3dr4kt7j yeah, pretty much. building a world from scratch with all its own organisms and ecosystems. its really fun
Yup seems fun
Imagine future scientists in a post apocalyptic world finding this book and taking it as evidence for their renderings
Now take that same idea and consider our own Present and how we view the past based on only a pathetic 6,000 years of known written history.
Dinosaurs as we believe them are thought to have completely died out on Land 65,000,000 years ago, so when comparing that to only 6,000 years of written history, it’s easy to imagine just how little we ourselves actually even know about anything at all.
Now that would be f*cked
wow that's literally religion
@@Hakimgrr_ How?
@@stefanlaemers3053 I kinda get what he's trying to say but at the same time it makes no sense whatsoever
The elephant one is less surprising, because we as humans already made that mistake (at least humans who hadn't come into contact with elephants/mammoths). The ancient greeks made the mistake of misinterpeting elephants/mammoths in the past, and it's actually a direct reason why the cyclops was added to their mythology and stories.
You're comparing ancient science with modern science... Modern science would soon figure out something was attached to the elephant.
@@SirKolass I'm comparing what an alien/scientist of the future (assuming humanity survives long enough) who's never seen an elephant would speculate when they see a fossil of an elephant and what the ancient greeks speculated when they saw a mammoth/elephant skulls for the first time. Which I also said helped create the myth of the cyclops....
If you wanna be a smart ass, at least learn to read first before you add your own cynical implications.
@@SirKolass it wasnt even science some guys found some weird bones with a giant hole in the middle and through it was an eye
@Okabe Rintaro Valid argument mr knowledge 👍
I think whether or not ancient scientists or modern scientists would interpret something differently isn't the point. The point is modern scientists still might be quite wrong about their recreations. This isn't HA! Science is all wrong though, it's "lets reevaluate our assumptions maybe."
On the whole "shrink-wrapping" thing. To be fair, if you were to pluck the feathers off a bird it would look surprisingly similar to the "shrink-wrapped" conception of it. The feathers do a lot to give it's appearance volume. You can't really use a meat hybrid chicken you buy from the market as a model because they are an anomaly, they aren't even examples of adult development in the species. However, except for the beak and fleshy crests, most birds looks similar to the "classic" model of dinosaurs if their feathers were missing and had scales on their skin.
Also to be fair, some animals like crocodiles definitely have a lot of "shrink wrapping" on them, a crocodile's skull and a crocodile's head is almost identical
The dinosaurs may not have even had scales to begin with though.
@@ShwappaJ In my head, I imagine dinosaurs to have had skin similar to rhino skin or crested gecko skin (so, some very thin and soft and some very thick and tough)
@@ShwappaJ there is fossilized skin and imprints that show they had scales, yes
Yup
What’s crazy is most snakes have vestigial appendages, they still have hip or pelvic bones so it makes total sense for them to assume they have limbs! This was really cool
Yeah that makes sense, like whales as well. But to believe it would have an arched spine Is just absurd
@Mike Seork Oh that makes more sense lol.
they dont have a pelvis. its all ribs and snakes use their muscle to move in a verity of fascinating ways depending on the species I suggest looking into it if your bored and like animals
Yeah! Sort of how us humans still have a little tail bone.
well they did used to have limbs
"The gruesome "Cat" had complex, retractable claws and large, nocturnal eyes. They were predominantly found around human settlements, where it is believed they fed on human children."
I mean.. that describes a modern cat pretty well 😵💫
This is rather true except from their size, possession of fur and their diet. To the humans, the "cat" and it's antics brought laughter and mild annoyance, also being seen as "cute" and their presence genuinely appreciated by most.
*New Discovery: Cats Found in Human Homes
It is now believe a subspecies of cats were klepto-parasites and somehow manage to manipulate their host in ignoring their presence while they fed on the their host's food storage.
@@sapphirII woah
@@kwingle I went too weird?
5:06 - But looking at that skeleton, a paleontologist would see that the animal would have major problems feeding itself. The front tusks would block it from putting its teeth against a food source, and its front legs and front feet are ill-suited for grabbing food and putting it in its mouth. It would be clear that the animal had some kind of fleshy mouthpiece that protruded far from the front of its skull.
Could be a very specialised feeding strategy of half submerging in water and eating floating lily pads/seaweed, with the tusks used to uproot them.
Also with cows, zebras and hippos nobody would make the mistake of assuming they are carnivorous because of their teeth.
its still incredibly hard to imagine the skeleton having a long muscular trunk. Creativity and hypotheses is the only thing we can rely on. By no means can an accurate depiction of it be made though!
@@nk4j272 Hippos kind of are though, at least they're omnivorous.
Scientists still have hard time about how saber tooth hunt with their large canines.
Come to think of it, what if they have a fleshy part like elephants
On the subject of how we think about cows, for years I heard people speaking with genuine awe in their voices about Longhorn cattle.
It really perplexed me. How could a cow, even with big horns, possibly be that impressive an animal?
I saw them in photographs and movies. Still, I couldn't understand what the big deal was about Longhorns.
Then I saw one in real life. Now I get it. It didn't even take the entirety of a single second to finally understand the awe I heard in all those voices. Truly amazing awe inspiring animals.
It’s weird how we went from ‘slug lizard’ to ‘wait, they might be sleek and bird-like’, and now we’re at ‘wait, bring some of that chonk back.’
All hail the chonk
Motto motto effect
T rex could have looked cute
@@sketch-eee4165
*I like em big*
*I like em feathered*
@@sketch-eee4165 Or big chungus effect
I visited my grandmother recently who has dementia, when she asked me what books I've been reading, I told her I was reading the Origin of Species and as soon as I said that it was like a light switch flipped in her mind and the dementia vanished.
We had a nice long discussion about biology. After a while I went out to my truck and got a Cat skull and we talked about what you could infer about that animal if all you had was the skull.
(she's a retired science teacher)
Your grandmother sounds like a really cool person
You went out to your car and got a what?
That's how dementia works most of the time. You'd expect that important memories, like the names and faces of one's children or the dates of pivotal events would remain the longest, but instead it's often the most unexpected but very entrenched memories that remain the most vivid. I have a patient who's suffering from an advanced case, and he can't even recognize his son, but if it's about their favorite football team, the two of them can talk for hours and the old guy can recall every important match, player, and score like an encyclopedia.
@@autovozo5725 what, you don't conveniently have a cat skull stored in your car?
@@autovozo5725 I thought everyone had a Cat Skull in their car? Now you're going to say that you don't carry fruit flies around in a tupperware pot in your car, aren't you?
These are terrible misrepresentations of actual animals, but amazing creature designs in a vacuum. I would love to see things like these put into a science-fiction universe.
Of course you would.
Welcome to Mammalian Park
@@remcrimson2750
Holocene Park. ^^
If I'm not mistaken the "grooves" on the teeth of the baboons are analogous to grooves found on most carnivore teeth and are referred to as "blood grooves." Essentially they prevent the teeth from getting stuck in penetrated muscle when biting deeply into their prey. This is similar to blood grooves placed on kitchen knives so that they don't get stuck in meat..
Those grooves were ground away after the sword was forged to help reduce the weight of the sword while using the same material and overall length. I'd guess in teeth they are either coinci-dental(lol) or may help with growing teeth/preventing buildup that may cause infection
@@self3x851 I don't think that is correct. The same thinking (with grooves) is applied to the indentations you see on small kitchen knives. I don't you'd argue they are for weight reduction. If you stick a kitchen knife with no grooves into a slab of beef it'll get stuck and you'll have a tougher time removing it. For stabbing weapons and carnivorous teeth it's critical to have those grooves be present. Otherwise you'll be stuck in your opponent or prey.
@JamesRansom the groove has nothing to do with preventing a vacuum. And an added benefit is that it creates a double-spine and increases integrity of a blade, on top of being a stylistic choice. There is nothing supporting that it does anything to prevent the blade from getting stuck
@@self3x851 OK fair, I'm no expert on swords so I'll defer to your knowledge on the matter. Kitchen knives and carnivore canines however do have grooves primarily to prevent them from sticking in meat/food.
the person replying to you is right. blood grooves on swords are a myth
So, this is like a spin-off of 'all tommorows' where the asteromorph scientists interpret these animals by bone alone? Thats actually really really neat.
Yeah really cool.
But this got me thinking... what if the Author's interpitation of all post-human species is actually wrong? Fun to think about it, millions of years would be enough to change humans beyond recognition, clear of any homo sapiens traits.
@@DOSFS thats actually really interesting to think about, but since the asteromorphs and spacers already existed along with the flyers, lopsiders, temptors and all the others, it would be more logical since they observed the post-humans throughout the ages and probably didnt have to go from remains alone.
@@Primal_aspid. well hopefully they have some digital documentation surviving
Why is the primal aspid interested in speculative zoology?
@@SealtonK.Skelaton You really aren't original with that comment, ive Seen the exact message you sent about 30 times.
What is with people that when they see my comment, they feel like replying telling me i ruined their steelsoul runs?
So... to make accurate depictions forgotten animals... we gotta make them cuter
I'm calling it now, T rex actually looked like Barney.
no, chonky T-rex and penguin sauropod
@@dewlittle1211 is highly propable that in fact they had lips, because if you think about it, even in the most unique environments of Earth is easier to find big vertebrades with lips than without them, specially in land.
@@easytiger6570 You jerk of to dinosaurs? Never thought Ross Geller actually exists
I think it might be actually true. The largest land predators today, the bears and big cats, are also seen as some of the cutest animals. At least to our current perceptions.
I'm not saying they should be super cutiefied, but making them more appealing, as in looking as an actual animal and not an emaciated monster, should be the way to go. Although it is true that there's a lot of ugly animals out there too, we probably will never fully know how they actually looked.
Especially more distinct features, like imagine parrots or peacocks without their bright colours, or tigers and zebras without their stripes.
Its a good thing that all our current animals are well documented, from books to papers to movies and shows as well as on the internet
In the context of this hypothetical situation, humanity is long gone, and all that is left are fossilized remains of present-day animals. Paper, books, movies, and the internet wouldn't exist. Even if the internet still existed, an alien species wouldn't necessarily be able to access it with their own machinery, and human technology would have rusted away.
This makes me want to have a 'The future is wild' type of series with those so bad
All I’m gonna say as someone who has owned cows is they’re a lot faster and more agile than people think
These people think they could catch a cow
Austin Gilbert yeah like I thank god that when I did have cows they only got out once
Ya he you’re not going to catch one unless you get them to come to you. All ya really need is marshmallows or sweet grain😂
Carrie yeah otherwise prepare to be out all day trying to chase them back in
The majority of the big and medium sized 4 legged animals are faster than us, but we can run for longer.
Just think of how many prehistoric animals scientists haven’t actually figured out.
Almost everyone is figured dude
@@serhulk0737 sure kappa
@@serhulk0737 Sure dude
You’d be surprised how much scientists know. But the thought of how many species we possibly haven’t discovered is fascinating!
@@serhulk0737 sure buddy
The Manatee one is like the _Spinosaurus_ story. We once thought it was a fully land animal that looked like JP3's spino based in fragmentary remains, but it turns out to have really been semiaquatic with a paddle tail and short back legs.
Very insightful!
The illustrations in the style of 'all tomorrows' art really gave them a deep future feel.
"Hummingbirds are so innocent-looking, it's hard to imagine anyone interpreting them as something frightening"
The Aztecs saw the hummingbird's hyper-aggressive nature and its incessant thirst, and made it an avatar of their deity Huitzilopochtli. You know. The one that they sacrificed prisoners of war to with the whole cutting-out-hearts thing because of his eternal thirst for blood.
yeah the aztecs were also bumbling savage idiots who slaughtered eachother constantly and for little to no reason. definition of getting everything wrong
@@sneauxday7002 "bumbling savage idiots who slaughtered each other constantly and for little to no reason" - yeah pretty much the story of humanity from 10,000 BCE to 2021 CE, are you making a point here?
Anyway, hummingbirds are hyperaggressive little things.
@@sneauxday7002 "slaughtered eachother...for little to no reason" this is hyper reductionist; homie got it so easy he doesn't know that wars and lynchings still going on today.
Get a squad of your smartest and most talented non-savage homies and try to build a pyramid.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'll wait.
@@sneauxday7002 classic colonialist country education at play here
They also believed that great warriors reincarnated as jade hummingbirds.
Imagine the Asteromorphs just successfully clone a modern pre-stars human with memories and all and the human just goes "what the fuck is this"
@@chestnut4860 I think what you missed in that comment is the part where they intentionally added "with memories".
If i was brought back by the asteromorphs id simply say "WHERE AM I? EXPLAIN YOURSELF, FART-MAN!"
@@chestnut4860 your reading comprehension is pretty low, huh?
Edit:you're to your, autocorrect fucked me
@@jameswhite8133 wrong your
@Ethan Lin the question is, who's pants?
2:40 hey guys look, it’s King
Honestly I love this video and I love this book, I think it's opening the eyes of the people who see dinosaurs of nothing but giant scaly monsters instead of something much more plausible, luckily with modern technology we're starting to really push back on the shrink wrapping, and hopefully generations from now dinosaurs being feathered will be commonly accepted, because as it stands now most people still keep pushing the idea of giant scaly monsters out of stubbornness, most tend to make the argument of "they're related to crocodilians" which technically is slightly true also isn't at the same time.
Prehistoric crocodilians are not considered dinosaurs at all, that's because crocodilians are still alive and their ancestors are just prehistoric crocodilians such as Sarcosuchus, Deinosuchus, and Purussaurus, all of which modernly split off into alligators ,caiman, crocodiles, and many more, and the creature that prehistoric crocodilians stemmed from a more land based carnivore that adapted to water quite quickly, so overall prehistoric crocodilians were very distant from theropod dinosaurs and the closest they were related to were very crocodilian dinosaurs of which they were still very distantly related that we're known for being semi aquatic (which hint didn't include popular land based dinosaurs), and so it's inaccurate to say modern crocodilians are ancestors of dinosaurs because crocodilians are still alive and cannot be the direct descendant as they're just the ancestor of prehistoric crocodilians which again are no where close to dinosaurs and are very separate.
It has been concluded overall that modern birds are the absolute closest to the direct ancestor of dinosaurs which is extinct, so whether people want to admit it or not basically every dinosaur you grew up knowing was partially or completely feathered/furred in some regard, whether it be quills or full on feathers they probably had it, and their would be few exceptions to this rule, I mean look at modern birds, they got their feathers from somewhere, look at all our large predators on modern earth, all of them are furred or feathered, hell even hippo's and elephants have light fur, the only real creatures we have that aren't are generally small like lizards or salt water crocodiles, and the big ones such as crocodiles are almost fully aquatic which provides the reason for the lack off feathers, the biggest lizard we have is the komodo dragon which still is much more distant to dinosaurs then birds.
Lizards may be more related then say crocodilians but are still below birds, it doesn't take a genius to comprehend that dinosaurs may have been far less scaled then we depict them and may have looked drastically different then what media makes them out to be, it's also not too hard to predict colors on some, for example megalodon closest living relatives are mako sharks and the great white, and so therefor the colors would transfer down, as colors generally stay the same throughout a family tree, the only exception to this are birds that have many species and live within the same area so therefore have to have different colors to distinguish between one another, so for dinosaurs that didn't have many species that lived in the same area and time within their family tree would generally have their colors stay relatively the same throughout time.
So as for dinosaurs we have the most information on it wouldn't be the hardest to predict colors that would follow throughout the tree with little variation, regardless I'd love to talk my mouth off about dinosaurs but I should probably stop here.
The one take away that I want someone to have from reading this, especially if your the type to cling onto shrink wrapping is that dinosaurs, and overall animals don't fit our human expectations a lot, and it's okay for them not to, we can't bend reality to comfort ourselves from the truth, and we should take large steps forwards to strive for more accuracy with an open mind.
Sarcosuchus is technically not even a crocodile it is a crocodyliform whose closest ancestors are gharials
Love how manatees are still considered to be puppy-faced babies even to aliens and future civilizations.
Manatees are the essence of adorable and transcend the erosion of time.
I think they are hideous
@@gojewla That's okay, being wrong isn't a crime
@@GladiusTR neither is being hideous
manatee gang
The reconstructed cow looks like a gazelle IMO.
A really mangy one
Cows used to be agile too, they're still surprisingly fast and nimble for their size.
ngl when I first saw it, I thought it was an Okapi lmao
Wait until the alien discover that, that animal was the begging of the end of that mass extinction... After they find trillions of chicken, pig, and many more bones
I actually immediately recognized it as a cow from the horns. Like, a skinny cow. But a cow.
This was such a cool video... it's crazy to think that animals that never got to live alongside humans, we may never be able to correctly see how they actually looked, like ever...
I absolutely love kosemens works and was pleasantly surprised by this video being s9 centred around him!
Speaking of misinterpreting animals, that first clip of a "snake" is actually a legless lizard.
Also, while some of these make sense, we have to remember that bones tell more than we realize. Muscles attach to bone and leave their mark, so paleontologists can usually tell which bones supported dense muscles. Ones like the baboon wouldn't make sense -- the venom mistake is def plausible, but the hands/feet wouldn't be too useful for sprinting. For the cow, the bones are bulky for weight-bearing and wouldn't point towards a lithe, fast animal.
It's a really cool idea, but some of the traits seem like they're only given for how crazy/different they would be. It's like if biologists only had skeletons, but also didn't know how skeletons interact with the rest of the body.
@Ivan Varela - Some snakes (and whales) are born with vestigial limbs
@Ivan Varela I recently came across a science article that mentioned our brains still have the neural architecture to support a 5th limb. The memory of our tailed past has not left our bodies.
@Ivan Varela It's happening. Humans are able to control more than five fingers on a hand. Some scientists connected a robotic sixth finger to someone's nerves and they learned to control it.
Well the title says aliens, and from the start I guess they came when all life was already extinct
Are Tapirs really under appreciated?
All Tomorrow’s fans when a All Yesterday’s fan walks in:
@Scratchy
Vs giga chad All Days Before Yesterday’s fan
vs based all days of the week fan
The chad enjoyer of both
The Thad Dougal Dixon enthusiast:
The forgotten superior all afternoons.
The snake one might make sense, but once(if) they find snakes with vestigial limbs they might start to realize their mistake.
Thanks to them, I now realise the amount of authority bias in human knowledge.
From young, we were taught about how things supposedly looked as fact. But even medieval artists who lived in the same time period as elephants, and had descriptions, drew them all skewed. We're definitely, DEFINITELY way off about something in quantum physics, and maybe a little history.
"and maybe a little history."
we have so many accounts of dinosaurs and man together in history, but they get brushed aside due to needing to fit the narrative......its sad!!!
@@PeterParker-vq2cz Ikr! Fucking Flintstone is right in front of us?? Like come on, open your eyes, dammit!
Its rare to see a small channel put out content this high in quality. Keep up with it and you'll get to big numbers in no time. Great video!
Thank you, I'm a huge fan of your stuff and that means a lot coming from you!
Yoooooo
Yooooo
@@CuriousArchive you got this much subscribers very fast
This made me realise that the T-Rex's small arms could be Dodo like wings
You could make his arms dadly if you aded whip like fethers to it, think about it, their arms are STILL stronger than ours despite their size, now imagen it whiping the eyes of its pray to disorient it beafore it goes in for the kill, not so funny now is it ?
no, wings composed of pennaceous feathers are exclusive to Pennaraptora
@@lukeskywalker9016 You've travelled galaxies and even time and saw both of these dinosaur species, right? :p
Scientists today can't even decide if the rex did have feathers or not. Some assume it did, because another tyrannosaur did.
@@hunormagyar1843 what?
the thing about "other tyrannosaur did", i presume you're talking about Yutyrannus. Yutyrannus is very far away from Tyrannosaurus rex inside Tyrannosauroidea, being more basal while T. rex is more derived, and by phylogeny all proceratosaurids should have a filament covering.
Yutyrannus needed those feathers to heat himself, since in the formation he lived in had a temperate-cold climate, and he weighted about 2.5t
while tyrannosaurus inhabited warmer climates, without any need of feathers, also the fact that it was a 8.2t animal (largest individual weighting 10.6t), with a complete feather covering that thing would die of excessive heat
also, pennaraptora is not a species, it's a clade of maniraptoran coelurosaurs
Na, likje an eliphant trunk, they where long trynks that shot out and greabbed food. Which was a soecific type of tough meat like plant only found on the toos of trees.
C.M. Koseman has truly blown my mind and made me question everything I thought I've ever known. Yes, it's all speculative, but it makes me wonder how much we really can be certain of and how limited our intelligence really is. Whatever he's smoking, I'll try a tenth of it.
1:07 and john conway, pictured here.
"the predatory hippo, a behemoth with imposing fangs and deadly jaws." -
Yall ever seen a hippo in real life? this description is spot on
hippos are vegetarians if you didn't know
@@tijanamilenkovic9442 they are still strong animals that you don't want to mess with. Herbivores are equipped to defend themselves against anything they think might harm them, or anything in their general vicinity. hippos are Deadly dude
@@tijanamilenkovic9442 They are, but they will also attack people and other animals, in fact they are one of the most dangerous megafauna in Africa and kill 500 humans per year (lions only kill around 22). They are belligerent, heavily muscled, and can run 30 miles per hour on land and in water.
@@tijanamilenkovic9442and they spin their tail like a fan and spray their shit everywhere. Truly a terrifying beast!
@@tijanamilenkovic9442On top of what everyone else said, no animal is 100% herbivore. They will eat a munch of meat if the opportunity arises and their body tells them they need some specific nutrients. You can search videos of hippos munching on a gazelle and other animals
I'm very curious what an interpretation of a human skeleton would look like.
@Mike Seork wow, thats incredible! i love how you made it sound like we were very dumb animals, being herded by smaller, smarter ones.
@Mike Seork we kind of have modern human fossils already from Pompeii. Various mummies. Between now and a million years from now there will surely be another natural disaster that preserves bodies with evidence of clothing and tools. They’ll probably guess we were at least semi hairless. If they happen to be my family’s descendants an assumption of fur wouldn’t be inaccurate 🤣
Long monke
same
hmm maybe future alien / evolved human will probably thinks that we either a roam the world and made genius invention or left earth. Or either they are efficient hunters having claws and skin animal for food to get more meat from it. And they might misunderstood that human sprint really fast but we are just endurance hunters that chase the prey to the brink of losing breath to get food with limited technology such as spear/bows
I don't know why this is on my recommended, but I love it
Future generations: our ancestors must be living a hard life alongside these animals.
Meanwhile us, making cat memes videos everyday:
start drawing accurate depictions of animals in cave walls yall, that's gonna be essential material for the future
future scientists finding this book full of "real" engravings of ancient animals:
interesting
We already did like 20,000 years ago
@@Wanup_Vodka the system needs an update
Hopefully they don't hack into our computers with what some of us Arists draw lol
@@okidokidraws there is this episode of Batman where all of our digital media is pretty much inaccessible but luckily enough Batman was smart enough to encode information on a plate of titanium to save the day. So it’s funny to imagine that some rich asshole encodes “incorrect” depictions of today’s animals on massive plates of metal just to screw with everyone today. 😂
This is the best way to make a spec evolution alien.
this is some odd creatures you can meet in No Man's Sky or Subnautica in a alien planet, good concept art ideas of alternate paths organisms have evolved into something they adapt & survive in their homeworld.
@@disunityholychaos7523 i'm actually making my own alien project.
But its very unlikely that i will make a video about my creatures.
Disunity Holy chaos Yeah, I've been playing Subnautica and it's so interesting the way the alien fauna have unusual base body plans but also at the same time have adaptations that seem vaguely familiar because they occupy a similar environment and niche as their real-life Earth counterparts.
@@SacredDaturaa the blowing fish is wierd.
The funniest thing is that the description given to hippos isn't ACTUALLY that far off.
Watching this makes me realize that there are probably countless species that we think we know what they look like but are so off it’s not even imaginable
this really makes me think of how ACTUALLY the dinosaurs looked like.
That was the idea!
that's the idea but the most recent science is a lot better, this book is mostly criticising the scaly dinosaurs of the 20th century, in the last 20 years new science has given us a much more accurate image, for example we draw them with fat now, we draw them with lips, with feathers and brighter colours. Yes there will still be errors, but now they begin to look like real animals and not movie monsters. Have a look at some old art of Sinosauropteryx and then some new art of Sinosauropteryx to see what i mean, since new methods have allowed us to determine its outer appearance much more accurately. However the popular conception has not caught up and is still stuck in the shrink wrapped monster stage.
@@ElZilchoYo where can we see these new ideas about dinos
Yess! Dinosaurs probably not reptiles at all
I was finding this comment
I am also having same views
A bad scientist will never admit when he is wrong, a good one will always assume he might be.
''are you wrong?''
a good scientist: ''bitch I might be!''
@𝓼𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 𝓴𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 To be honest, it takes quite a different set of skills to be a scientist and to teach [science]. A good scientist isn't necessarily able to explain something to another person, for start.
@𝓼𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 𝓴𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 No it actually does take different skills
@𝓼𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 𝓴𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓳𝓫𝓮𝓻 i never said that, dont put words in my mouth. i said that a teacher who has EXPERIENCE IN TEACHING would be more able to teach poetry to somebody who has never done it then a poet.
a good one will try very hard to prove himself wrong
We know what the Irish Elk looked like because our ancestors drew pictures of them on cave walls that showed details the bones couldn't. You can't miss the giant pictures of hummingbirds the Aztecs made. There's even a greatly preserved armored dinosaur that shows a LOT of detail, it was practically mummified.
Just two small errors that I've noticed; the animal at 9:02 isn't a snake, it's a legless lizard known as a slow worm: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anguis
At 9:08 that isn't a squamate at all; it's an eel: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_snake-eel
🤓
Imagine if they found bat skeletons? They would be like “ah yes, nightmare demon! They were predators they fed of the flesh and depression of orphans!
Ah yes, the almighty Fingerboy
Hello sam o nella academy fan
@@zealotoftheorchard9853 My people!
"finger BOI"
What about the biggest bat in the world fruit bats they get up to 8 pounds
By their fossilised remains you would probably never know that spiders made webs, zebras and tigers have stripes, or that octupus produced ink and were able to changed color and texture.
Octopi and spiders have no bones tho
@@The-Deadite in my opinion I’d rather all records of spiders disappear forever
Humans would look like a species more primitive than it actually is.
Now imagine how many absolutely bonkers traits from hundreds of millions of years ago we're just completely missing out on...
@@The-Deadite yes, but arthropods have exoskeletons which do leave an "imprint" on stone, we even have fossils of spiders insects and even octupusses, which don't have hard parts besides their beaks . but other types of preservation like amber can preserve them better. soft tissue can also be fossilized on even more extremely rare ocasions, for examble if the body is naturally mumified and then fossilized, the result would be the fossilization of a mummy like the very few ones we have of dinosaurs. We only know the spiders tagt left the fossils we have had webs because we still have spiders today
It’s so shocking how 11months ago he had 1k subs now 11months later he has over 300k congratulations🥳
This is AMAZING HAHAHA I love this thought experiment so much, speculative paleontology combined with these extremely detailed drawings and your hilarious commentary is something I ABSOLUTELY need more of LOL
I'm impressed by how many different ways you found to say essentially the same thing for each animal-- that's great scriptwriting right there 😂 be honest, how many times did you Google synonyms
My favorite thing about this is that the manatee drawing is literally just a capybara
I can't unsee now.
they're not that much different anyway
with a mane
Chunky lion
@@karinaayala1777 he's a little chungus
the animal at 9:05 isnt a snake tough, its a legless lizard. Its an easy mistake to make but legless lizards have stiffer bodies, non (or only slightly) slit tounges and eyelids. They also eat bugs and slugs as opposed to rodents or other snake prey.
and the one he showed after was an eel
@@scotchtape_8713 No it was not.
And they also have external ears which snakes don’t have.
@@bilbobaggins5938 It actually was, you can see the fins. It's a snowflake eel.
@Safron It is an eel, but not a Snowflake Eel. It's a Spotted Snake-Eel.
This actually raises questions about how paleontologists represent dinosaurs.
search for paleaort, Jurassic Park is not paleontology
we know a lot more about paleontology with new discoveries and better techniques regarding the placement of soft tissues. Velociraptor had wings, T. rex would be a chunky dinosaur, sauropods have air sacs etc.
You are absolutely not wrong to say that, but compared to this book; paleontologist do know a lot more.
This book is criticising old paleoart
Due to how only one author presented with a photo, and other ones with their avatars, I like to imagine, that this book was a collective effort of a feathered dinosaur from the past, modern human, and an alien creature from the future. Kind makes all the things from "All Yesterdays" weirdly fit together better
Before anyone gets the wrong idea about this, palaeontologists actually have a really good understanding of what dinosaurs looked like. A big misinterpretation people make with this All Todays section of the book is applying its depictions of modern animals to how palaeontologists today depict dinosaurs. Modern palaeontologists have much more to work with than just fragmentary fossils, such as living animals, soft tissue preservation etc. Their reconstructions may not be 100% accurate (that’s what the rest of All Yesterdays is about, exploring the few areas about dinosaurs which scientists wouldn’t know a whole lot about) but it is still very close to how dinosaurs would have actually looked.
all todays with overly cheeked pigs
Yup, that's why is "How aliens would reconstruct an extant animal" rather than "How a paleontologist from future would reconstruct an extant animal"
I agree, but I would also say that it isn't a good representation of how paleontologists used to reconstruct them either. The whole idea of paleontologists supposedly shrink wrapping dinosaurs doesn't make any sense because dinosaurs in the past were almost always depicted as extremely dense, so much so that they couldn't move very fast at all. even after the dinosaur renaissance they were shown to have incredibly thick muscles.
But this story is based around the concept of an alien species discovering a completely dead earth, and trying to reconstruct from bones alone, there would be no living specimens on earth to even base the skeleton's functions on, as such they'd theoretically have to work from nothing, so shrink wrapping and the such is fully possible.
@@yuttor0013 It is, but thats taking it absolutely literally. Its not just about the most literal interpretation of the book.
It's incredible how many times i wanted to say "That's a dog!" in this video.
Same
@Scratchy woah I saw you on Richter's video about Badwatervideos2009
@@sweatnuts81 :C I was watching dat too wat
@Scratchy what video
@@sweatnuts81 commenting so I may also watch it
9:03 that ant really wants to know what that long creature is-
I love the concept. You need only look at drawings of animals from ye olde medieval times, where the artists only had skeletal remains or, most often, simple descriptions from others who had traveled abroad, and their interpretations of animals like leopards or elephants are absolutely wild.
One of my biology teachers says that this is precisely why there are different subjects that study archeology, biology and the like; precisely so that when reconstructing animals from their fossils we do not end up making a creature taken from the imagination.
9:04 the video you have there is not of a snake, but a legless lizard. Yeah there’s such things as them, I can tell because the tongue is not forked, and it has eyelids. Legless lizards are basically lizards that saw snakes and were like “oh cool I wanna do that too” so they evolved the lack of legs and sorta tried to be snakes. From what I understand, they don’t/can’t swallow their food whole though.
Edit: they’re also really bad at moving. They still run like they got legs but they don’t so they just like shimmy like crazy and hope they move. They’re probably better at moving when they’re on debris and grass, but videos of them on concrete and chaotic
not to mention the animal they showed afterwards was an eel-
After seeing it I was like “wait that’s a snake I thought that looked like a leg less lizard”. Glad to know my gut feeling was right
snakes are technically legless lizards
they were lizards that lost their limbs slowly and used other forms of locomotion
You forgot about finger boy where it is thought to eat fruits, insects, and dreams of young children. It is a speculative concept for the bat
9:03 Neither of those examples are snakes. The first is a glass lizard and the second is a spotted tiger-eel.
Anyone who's ever seen the horror that is a raccoon skeleton instinctively understands this issue
look up pufferfish skeleton
Look up a toocan skeleton (i misspelles that lol
Look at how much skeleton an octopus DOESN'T have.
Looks like xenomorph =)
it looks like it has shields on the side of its face
This needs more attention.
All around quite interesting, but I have to say, the future people or aliens would most likely realize swams for example are birds with wings. Birds have been so astronomically successful, so feathered creatures are unlikely to die out, and swans are common enough that their feathers will be preserved in at least one instance for them to find.
Imagine if they tried to bring these animals back especially the birds. They just created weird looking new animal rather than the actual thing.
I have a few issues with these illustrations, mainly that it implies that there’s no possible way to tell what structures an animal might have from other structures. Especially with noses. As someone who’s worked with skulls, I can tell what type of nose an animal has from the skull alone. The extent that the nasal bone covers the sinuses is a huge indicator. The moose, for example, has very short nasal bones, which allows for more movement; a trait usually seen in animals with large noses (tapirs, elephants, saigas, etc.). There are some ways to extrapolate to a degree.
in the nature of c. m. köseman's type of writing, im sure the later depictions would have been made by a theoretical illustrator from another planet that could coincidentally just not know about this, or from a species that was very distant from the technology we have today :) it would definitely be awesome to see what depictions could have been made if the author was aware of fur/feathers/fat etc, they could have been much more unnerving to look at :)
They are representing mammals like they were dinosaurs, or reptiles.
That's why they look ugly.
That's just an stupid reconstruction.
Obviously will be difficult figure out that long elephant nose but that skin.... It's like he is a crocodile, it have no sense
aliens dont know dat
@@HinaAyo lmao, in that case they doesn't know how do we represent reptiles and dinosaurs as well
@@herni4713 i ment overall as in they dont know what we know about diffrent bone structures meaning diffrent types of noses as they do not have the study of those bones or those noses at all, just bones thats IT
"Did you know dinosaurs had big ears, but everyone forgot because dinosaur ears don't have bones? It's a ROCK FACT!" --Greg
Nooo don’t make me nostalgic!
Brooooo, now i wanna see over the guarden wall again :")
5:55 I feel proud of myself for getting real the animal for this one before it was shown
The land manatee is absolutely adorable. 😊
Feathers are not always preserved but quill knobs are, mostly. It's only a matter of figuring out what those are. Even if feathers become extinct in the future there will be some available in the fossil records. From there on, it won't be so hard to recreate hornbills reasonably correctly.
Thank you! It will be understandable if all the authors of this book are just artists, but apparently one of them is a paleontologist and zoologist, he should know better.
@@MondeSerenaWilliams This not a book btw. "All Todays" is a section from the book "All Yesterdays".
@@MondeSerenaWilliams They are purposely trying to emulate older palentologists. Back when everything was scaley and scary
@@xcalium9346 exactly. And by the books own admission, it’s literally meant to be the WORST POSSIBLE recreation.
The 'misinterpretation guess' is ironically less correct than the real paleontology.
8:55 i wouldn't be suprised if something similar actually exist since theres so many extinct animals we don't know
But that snake interpretation is so cool
Despite some very obvious bone structures, it is drawn exaggeratedly, but overall it is impressive. Good job Cevdet Mehmet Kösemen.
I think the Chicken is the best representation of a veloca raptor ! Ive seen mine hunt fight corner prey and even attack squirrels for fun ! They are kinda vicous and the way they move is amazing !
The best representation is probably the roadrunner. Agile, cunning and solitary badassery.
@@sthui2866 Iv'e never spent any time with a road runner .
I washed a gopher out of its burrow once....my chickens ATTACKED! They tore that rodent to shreds in seconds. Little velociraptors indeed.
i have seen so many mice get beheaded by my moms chickens.
Friendly reminder that if you throw chicken nuggets into a chicken coop, they will not hesitate to quickly devour them.
"Hummingbirds are so innocent looking, it's hard to imagine anyone interpreting this animal as anything frightening."
Anyone who has done research on hummingbirds would know just how brutal these things are in the war for nectar.
The Aztecs agree
This is really cool as a thought experiment. Makes you realize how easy it could be to misinterpret ancient fossils and skeletons based purely on bones and teeth found.
we should probably keep real photos of animals in a time capsule so that people don't misinterpret these animals and actually get it right next time
For the snake skeleton specifically: some modern snakes do have vestigial legs, i.e. leftover bones that don't serve a purpose, so those would show in the fossil record!
like that one book about future dinos. we have snakes with just legs. XD
I think it’s the same with some whales.
To be fair. Snakes have such a long evolution line. You would expect those hip bones to be gone by now.
So maybe they're still there becausw they DO serve a purpose. Who knows really. They had millions of years to evolve. More then enough time to get rid of legs, so hip bones shudnt have been a problem too
@@cherrydragon3120 The vestigial hips in snakes could still provide an anchor for internal organs.
Could you provide examples? I'm unaware of any snakes that have them or hip bones for that matter. From what I can tell their skeleton is basically a skull, long spine and ribs.
It's scary that prehistoric animals that we have never seen may have looked completely unrecognizable to what we think they looked like
I mean.. maybe there's a chance their cute and fluffy/feathery?
@@lazyrat6687 "Aww, look at the giant chicken...OHMYGODIT'SEATIINGME!" -Last words of a time traveller.
@@eivind-falk 🤣🤣🤣
we know they wouldnt though we dont shrink wrap our representations of them
@@lazyrat6687 The "T Rex" we know today, probably isn't what it really looked like. They probably weren't even reptile. Maybe they had big jaws yet small mouths. Or they had furry droopy faces.
Imagine they make a series of movies called "Millennia park" and these are the monsters our heroes would fight in the films.
The snake rendering had me thinking it was going to be a ferret, lol.
The hummingbird part is missing a detail about how the beaks are used for gathering nectar, they are also used to fight off other hummingbirds
doomsdoor, at 07:56, ***"We know the curiously lengthy beaks of humming birds are for the purpose of accessing nectar, but this might not be easily discernible without context."*** But your correct in that they miss the fact of using it to fight off rival humming birds.
Y avispones
When plant life will decrease radically, then hummingbirds could evolve into bloodsucking ones. ^^
Literally have been thinking about this exact idea for months now.
Shuba
@@MohHD16 :)
@@MohHD16 shuba duck
@@MohHD16 Shubadubupmmdaddup!
Found a wild Subatomo
thanks to your video, no future scientist is going to miss interpret these animals.
Actually bones do provide signs and features allowing to figure out animals' mass, musculature size and strength and surely the ability to fly.
I love how thought experiments like this really highlight how much we still might be missing about animals we've never seen. How interesting the field of palaeontology and paleobiology really are.
The thing about the zebra ridiculously having single-toed feet in the artwork is itself ridiculous, since zebras do exactly have single-toed feet.
lmao
I want to note that we know a lot more about paleontology with new discoveries, phylogenetic research and better techniques regarding the placement of soft tissues. Velociraptor had wings, T. rex would be a chunky dinosaur, sauropods have air sacs etc.
Cows are pretty cute, their massive size makes look scary up close but they are actually quite gentle as long as you don’t piss the off or irritate them
Alien: *sees quills on a porcupine fossil* "these must have supported a membrane used in flight"
Yeah, pretty much
This reminded me a lot of a curious book I bought many years ago, "Barlow's Guide to Extraterrestrials", which featured many well known alien species from science fiction, like the Thing and the creatures from "A Wrinkle in Time". The illustrations were extremely detailed and featured theories on what functions certain body parts were for, as well as information on where these species originated and what their cultures were like, if they were sentient. I still have it and it's one of the more fascinating books I've read. I'd love to see these other books.
I wonder if it's in my small town library (that was sarcasm) That seems really interesting, I'm going to look it up
it's sapient not sentient, sentient is just the ability to experience emotion. Just a note so you won't get corrected to death by some random guy.
That’s so interesting, I loved reading a wrinkle in time when I was younger and was always fascinated by the idea of the Tesseract
When we were at the natural history museum, and altough i wasnt there at that part but they drew a cat using the techniques they use to figure out the look of dinosaurs. The result: a fierce predator
I like how of all the footage he had of 'snakes', the only one that was an actual snake was the last one.
People are overblowing this “feather” thing on hornbills. Saying they were COMPLETELY covered is ridiculous! Besides it makes them all look fluffy and cute, so inacurate too.
I know right? And they also say hummingbirds are completely covered by this "feather" thingy and they don't actually suck blood, that's ridiculous! Even more ridiculous is that they suggest instead that hummingbirds feed on this liquid called "nectar" which comes from flowers, like, how lame is that. So those sharp pointy beaks are all just for sucking flowery liquids? What is wrong with people, they always try to ruin things
Yeah, it makes hornbills and other birds out to be lame flying animals instead of cool and dangerous looking predatory creatures! There's no conclusive proof that birds had feathers and could actually fly, some scientists keep coming up with stupid theories as to what extinct really looked like!
Feather bad
Exactly. Wish we went back to the days of Avian Park, those birds were way cooler.
@@seanodoi7149 Yeah, they were cool looking though I'm glad that the pro-feather group of scientists agree with the rest of us that the Avians were fairly intelligent and skilled predators.
Am I the only one who was hoping to see these hypothetical future paleontologists' interpretation of how humans looked like?
Like SCP 096 but shorter
ofc they will see us as meat cube
Considering that we're hairless and relatively lean, they might not be far off, although their recreation might make us look a bit undernourished. However they would likely not be aware of fat people.
I though it was the spider monkey 🤣🤣
@@crodsbye As soon as organisms (at least as far as we understand them, needing a way to store excess nutrients, etc) develop agriculture, especially to the degree we have even as a non-spacefaring civilization, I feel it's likely that they can get "fat," or at the very least more varied in personal health.
I'm no scientist, but it's something I just thought of.
The spider monkey: "looking like something right out of a nightmare."
Me: that spider monkey probably WILL be in my next nightmare. At least I'll have a laugh in the morning.
Once you've seen a non-shrink-wrapped dinosaur, there's really no going back. 😲