fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 3 days agoInsomniamander.xyzimagemessage-square43fedilinkarrow-up1435arrow-down14
arrow-up1431arrow-down1imageInsomniamander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square43fedilink
minus-squareRandomStickman@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up40·3 days agoI think it means we don’t know what the ancestors of those plants are/what they evolved from. They just kinda showed up in the fossil record.
minus-squareNurse_Robot@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up29arrow-down1·3 days agoWhich, tbf, it’s a miracle enough of the fossil record exists as is. I’m sure there was a LOT that was lost to the sands of time
minus-squareHonoraryMancunian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·3 days agoIirc it’s reckoned most species likely aren’t known about because most places weren’t conducive to fossilisation
minus-squaregandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down4·3 days agoehh, modern biology doesn’t construct evolutionary history from fossil records, but from genetic similarities.
minus-squareRandomStickman@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up11·3 days agoIt’s impossible to compare genetics from fossils and we can’t study ancient long dead species besides fossil records for the most part.
minus-squaregandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down5·3 days agoyeah that’s not what i meant. phylogenetic trees are constructed by considering the genetics of recent (living) species, not from fossils.
minus-squareRandomStickman@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up13·3 days agoAnd this post is about ancestors of ferns which are unknown so I’m not sure what are you suggesting
minus-squareF_State@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 days agoRelatively few lifeforms end up fossilizing and then some of those fossils later get eroded. The percentage that make it to the present is low.
minus-squaredudinax@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·3 days agoI’m no paleontologist but it seems like our total knowledge of certain eras comes from a few river banks collapsing on whatever lived there. That’s not going to be a great representation of all life at that time.
I think it means we don’t know what the ancestors of those plants are/what they evolved from. They just kinda showed up in the fossil record.
Which, tbf, it’s a miracle enough of the fossil record exists as is. I’m sure there was a LOT that was lost to the sands of time
Iirc it’s reckoned most species likely aren’t known about because most places weren’t conducive to fossilisation
ehh, modern biology doesn’t construct evolutionary history from fossil records, but from genetic similarities.
It’s impossible to compare genetics from fossils and we can’t study ancient long dead species besides fossil records for the most part.
yeah that’s not what i meant. phylogenetic trees are constructed by considering the genetics of recent (living) species, not from fossils.
And this post is about ancestors of ferns which are unknown so I’m not sure what are you suggesting
He’s Fern’s uncle.
Ah, my bad
Relatively few lifeforms end up fossilizing and then some of those fossils later get eroded. The percentage that make it to the present is low.
I’m no paleontologist but it seems like our total knowledge of certain eras comes from a few river banks collapsing on whatever lived there. That’s not going to be a great representation of all life at that time.