Watch Life on Our Planet on @Netflix: www.netflix.com/title/80213846 Life on Our Planet trailer: ruclips.net/video/55p6rVO0vMQ/видео.html The Art of Scientific Storytelling: ruclips.net/video/AB58JNBojcI/видео.html Subscribe for more videos (and click the bell for notifications): ruclips.net/user/testedcom
you are such an amazing interviewer. Your mirroring excitment levels and have excelent questions! these are so fun to watch, and its more like a conversatio than an interview please more!
I watched it twice and the 8 hour documentary was mostly accurate. I debate during the Pre Cambrian period that the story did not start with Cyanobacteria/Stromatalites were the first single cell species on earth.
Honestly this interview is _the_ best possible advertisement for the show, far better than any trailer... to see just how passionate they were to get it actually right, or as right as possible right now, that's what made the show actually enticing to me at least.
It's fascinating just how outside the wheelhouse TV execs are with us, the watchers. They are on a completely different world, clueless. This made me want to watch the show more than the actual ad (and/or NetFlix's pathetic way of working).
Yeah if I had just seen a trailer for some dinosaur show I would've assumed it was going to be a scientific disaster and would make me not want to watch it. Much more desire to see it seeing how hard they tried to be scientifically accurate.
This was a really wholesome interview. The bit about the producers wanting to show the T. rex's teeth intrigued me, because they're absolutely right that that is what everyone wants to see when shown a T. rex, but the final product still looked like they gave it too many teeth. My understanding was that it only had about 48 or so and that larger Tyrannosaurids had less teeth than smaller species. Great interview, though.
You have the best guests. One question that I would have loved to see you ask was, knowing now how difficult it is to get something to screen (with all of the scientific accuracy possible) if Tom would consider doing another series. There's always some degree of exhaustion after a massive enterprise, and I imagine that this is probably a "once in a lifetime" gig, but - when someone shows this amount of skill at articulation - I really hope he's not soured on the process in any way. And yes, multi-disciplinarians tend to offer far more information, in easier-to-digest chunks, than strict specialists. Also, they often know of weird edge cases that they will highlight, while others might dismiss the stranger information as being too far outside the norm to consider as anything other than a footnote. All of the very best information is "uncomfortable" for one expert or another.
I’ve yet to watch life on our planet but it and Apple’s prehistoric planet are an interesting case study in how the science and public’s view can interact. I remember seeing how people were upset that these animals were behaving as animals and how the t-rex was now “woke” casue it had lips and was taking care of its young and like I just can’t understand that! We should always love to see the most accurate representation of these animals
I get the feeling that family and taking care of your children is about as far from 'woke' as it gets, I'm pretty sure it was some south African warlord thing about some dictator knows better than some history thing about the brutality of dictatorships and the government raising kids to be better peasants instead of family values taught by parents. ah, yeah, nothing to do whatsoever with prehistoric life, lol.
There were like 2 people on a twitter comment section who used woke, you are making it a problem were there is none, those were nobodies..... I have a bigger problem with LOOP having many innacuracies.
Fabulous chat, I loved seeing the convergent evolution between very practical skills like modelling and kinematics and the very theoretical stuff thrown up from many decades of distilled research. "Elephants can swim, peacocks can fly...there are all sorts of things in nature which are bonkers...but also happen! But when we're dealing with the FX of extinct creatures you can't get away with as much of that because it stretches the credulity of the thing...but there's definitely a middle ground."
I don't like that comparison he made because it shouldn't be so surprising. After all, most animals know how to swim, but they might not be built for moving swiftly or they simply don't enjoy it. Birds fly, period. The exception to the rule are fascinating but a peacock is nowhere near the physical limits of flight, just a bit cumbersome. What breaks credulity for me is the scene of T. rex hunting Triceratops. Firstly, because it doesn't change the popular image of dinosaurs always hunting and eating. Secondly, because it prioritises a movie script and then scientists have to argue how it can be made more plausible. The problem with that scene is: why are the rexes not hunting a juvenile or subadult which would have been less fast, smart, or dangerous; why is the Triceratops turning its vulnerable back on the adult rex, running away; why would the younger rexes so eagerly get into the hunt when they're at a massive risk of being gored, stomped or smashed?
Please keep this format Adam, I love the questions you ask because they are from someone who actually KNOWS something and not just some professional host.
These are the sorts of conversations that I miss from the Still Untitled podcast. I love Adam interviewing people he knows about what they are doing. Thanks!
I would like to see Permian life on our planet. The animals there are different and strange. However most documentaries concentrate on the Permian extinction more than the animal diversity or the animals themselves. You had dinocephalians, amphibians, theracephalions, reptiles,etc. I really want to see those creatures brought to life.
I definitely appreciate the emphasis on following the best evidence rather than the media hype for paleontology. The "latest study by 2 college students that hasn't been reviewed by anyone yet disproves everything!" media nonsense irks me to no end. And it's made worse by medical professionals listening to them. A former GP nearly killed me listening to one on diets. (PSA from that, your GP is not a nutritionist or dietician. And some fad diets they fall for do serious harm and can even kill. Whenever possible, talk to an actual dietician.)
Great interview.. I watched Jurassic Park again just four days ago (with a live orchestra performing the score, chef's kiss) and with the exception of maybe one CGI scene it totally holds up. Film making how it should be done.
This is a pretty cool interview but doesn't respond to some of the criticisms other paleontologists have, arguing this series is more of a SHOW and less of a documentary. Artistic liberty is one thing but putting certain animals together that didn't creates a distorted view of how they lived and interacted. It's disappointing how the scientific researchers didn't have more say in proposing speculative behaviour and other myths that paleontologists want to debunk. First example, we see a Smilodon pair hunt a terror bird. The only terror bird contemporary to Smilodon was Titanis walleri. But the species of Sabre-toothed cat it lived with was Smilodon gracilis, which was about jaguar sized, and not S. populator as shown in the series, that was heavier than modern lions and tigers. The smaller species would not have hunted a large predatory bird with a beak as long as its body, even if it was sharing the niche of macropredator. Conclusion, this scene is not accurate and highly speculative, which should be addressed. Second example, living along the Triceratops we see several sauropods. This second group of dinosaurs was in strong decline across the world and was long though absent from North America (the Laramidia continent as it was called back then) until fossils of Alamosaurus were found in the southern US. The scene however, seems to depict the more northern Hell Creek formation where numerous unequivocal Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops fossils were found. But when you organise all the fossils found in that formation the most numerous appear to be hadrosaurs (after ceratopsids). The typical Edmontosaurus annectens was so large it would have taken over the niche of largest herbivore. So it appears again that the production wanted to show off another stereotypical Rex vs. Trike confrontation instead of showing off other less common but spectacular interactions. For instance, we know modern mega-herbivores can be prickly even amongst themselves: I would have loved to see a scene of Edmontosaurus pissing of Triceratops, escalating into fatal conflict, after which a T. rex leads its young to the carcass for a free meal.
I know of at least one paleontology program that can't afford even alginate to make a cast of their specimens for research. We need to put more money into paleontology!
I've been enjoying Life on Our Planet. I've seen a few comments about how some of the facts are a bit dodgy which is coloring my viewing a little, so I'm interested to see how this video plays out. Also, when Freeman says Kephalopods it threw me a little.
I like how he makes the point over and over that dinosaurs were animals not monsters that's something I think modern Jurassic world movies failed to convey
I think that's an intentional difference. A blockbuster movie doesn't need to have the same scientific accuracy as a nature documentary tv show to be successful. Monster movies sell so well there's an entire horror genre dedicated to them.
@@bobjoefred777But in people mind it do not work like that. Almost nobody cared about shark before the movies that show them as monsters. It's the same for dinosaures. Thoses movies and documentary generally show a completly false idea of the behaviors of thoses animals... And it's sad imo.
Movies are for entertainment rather educational media content, plus this guy and it's coproduction team were constantly saying that this or that should look scarier and by the final results of the documentary you can see that they didn't listen much of there scientific advisors
Dinosaur evidence on integument only show feathers or scales depending on the species not a leathery skin but some dinosaurs like trex have very tiny scales that are just millimeters wide so from far away you would not be able to see them
Adam: "You have a doctorate, but you still had to do all this research?" Vysogota of Corvo: "You know what learning gives you? The ability to make use of sources."
Dr Fletcher, as palaeontology PhD student in Bristol, working at a non-academic job opposite to Silverback Studios, I really ENVY you. Congratulations.
What is the time crunch like as a science advisor? They need to turn around the CGI pretty quick to hit deadlines, so how fast do you have to research if a creature should have eyelashes!
Great question! Yes it can get quite crunchy time wise certainly but we had years to work on these stories and assets and get them right. We’d all done a lot of reading and taken lots of consultation so that process got easier the more we learned. It was genuinely really fun and fascinating.
Who would think that peacocks can't fly? There are places in South Florida with wild peacocks I used to see in trees all the time driving through the right areas. Unless you think someone put them up there like people put turtles on top of fence posts :-).
whoever got mad and angry amd offended at Adam for sinply being smart enough and well rounded enough for being able to ask a question about something that is not his area of expertise should be ashamed of themselves for taking out their jealousy on such a bright mind and well respected, very capable person. They say a mark of intelligence is how you behave towards someone who is not in a position of power equal to yours and well, that supposed intelligent person behaved in a very stupid and disgraceful manner.
I think of a T-Rex as a giant chicken, maybe one or two males to protect the pack and then just females but also I dont know anything about geology so im purely speculating based on modern chickens.
on a sincere note, to start with: geology would only be tangentially related (as it pertains to the substrate a fossil is found in, which can be used to ascertain probable environmental conditions for example). the broad field term that u might have meant to refer to is paleontology!
Here is the thing about TV science: they do the best they can with what they know, and that is often shockingly little. Astrophysics for example relies on a ton of speculation and guesswork. Someone like a Stephen Hawking may say, "Maybe black holes are hairy!" to explain how information could escape the gravity well of a singularity. Or someone might say, "Maybe matter consists of tiny strings!" It is astounding how much of science is based on what ifs and maybes. There is very little in the way of new physics ideas with any real meat. Even areas like geology have massive amounts of guess work. But geology has more hard data than quantum mechanics. So in sumary, TV science does what it can with what it has.
Yes but physic, geology, and most other "hard" science are easy to refute. The black holes, particles, atoms, speed of light, boson,... All thoses things got teorized before they got observed, meaning that you can prove or disprove by experimentation. Thoses tehories all say: "look here and you will find that, proving me right" But here, how can you prove or disprove the behavior of a T-rex ? It will always be impossible, so we will never know for sure.
They did a terrible job, I’m sorry. You should’ve made more of an effort to actually get the science right instead of making a plot out of it. Terrible show.
Definitely will log that consensus away for Mad-Day. Fletcher highlights an anecdotal perspective to show how dangerously influential science is to the general public (almost like an atheistic religion.) But then he doubles down by agreeing with the _Tyrannosaurus Rex_ having teeth covering lips. Sure, it's highly plausible, since these muscles would protect the teeth and moisturize them, some of today's mammals contradict this idea--mind you, this is based on individualistic traits that don't represent the whole genus. But the scale of whether or not T. rex showed its teeth, there's good chance--like with some cats or dogs--a Tyrannosaurus might have had its larger teeth jutting from the side. An ironic twist from what science want you to believe. (10:50-11:25)
It’s only the beginning. They only recently learned how to use the social media algorithms and data to do it (this decade). Now they’ll start using A.I. in their campaigns.
Context? "this production" "the production"... WHICH production? Oh, there it is, on a text flash that I'm not looking at because somebody is talking and I'm paying attention to that. And I already forget what it is. And knowing the title wouldn't help anyway, as it wasn't anything I've ever heard of.
let me tell you there are zero filters before an article goes up. people sit at home and repost someone else's post and just rewords it with a juicy title. Its called clickbait. quite disgusting really.
I like to think about a human walking along a trail and coming across a baby T-Rex stuck in a hole and after they helped it out they fed it something then walked away and months and months later the same person was walking along the same trail and crosses pathes w/ the same T-Rex, but it's much bigger, and it just sniffs them and walks away.... One of those situations ancient humans did not think was possible and nobody would believe. 😂
T-rex were surely only scavengers, meaning they do not hunt. They would not run after humains as we see in the movies. In addition, they were surely looking more like giant chicken with teeths that a giant lezard.
Translation: People didn't like the fact dinosaurs had feathers and fur so let's make them look like Jurassic Park because we don't want to upset expectations. It's really disappointing they are making excuses for this. It's been 30 years since that damn movie. We HAVE learned not just controversial information but confirmed evidence.
No evidence for feathering in tyrannosaurids, there are fossil impressions that say otherwise, best to adhere to the scientific evidence, not trends, but what is known in the fossil record until proven otherwise. To much speculation like the balloon sauropod necks. The papers, and actual fossil evidence is were it’s at.
Let me find the clause where I am legally obligated to do your own damn research. I mean Jesus, it took me all of 30 seconds to find one@@PaleoEntertainmenthow about make an effort rather than bait me.
Not sure if you are aware but your(Adam Savage) likeness has been used in several random adverts m advertisements. The way you popped up randomly with similar photos for several random products over the coarse of only one or two days made me think this might not be with your permission
I get really disappointed when people with a higher level of education, with English as a first language, who completely ignore the fact that the plural of fish... Is fish....
Imagine you have a tiger skeleton. You've never seen a tiger, they haven't existed for a million years. You reconstruct what you think it looked like, animate it's assumed behavior. It is never more than educated guesswork, and we could never know the reality of the tiger. One should never assume it is anything more than a fantasy.
In addition to what the other poster said, we also often have descendent species to help figure stuff out like how teeth set with lips, or how muscles attached. Also, they now also collect and analyze rock or material around collections and can see what chemicals are around it. It could indicate pigments. I suggest the channel "Your Dinosaurs are Wrong". Lots of this stuff is covered.
@greenatom it's not controversial, it's nonsense. It's based on a horrible lack of understanding of how any of this works. That you think a "thinking person" could agree makes this really clear.
Interesting perspective, would have been good that the docu series actually followed all the evidence and not spew many innacuracies and long time debunked hipotesis. Most of the non dinosaurs look good but looks like Spielberg can't abandon jurassic park with many designs being altered innacurate jp models.
Cool! Also Regarding claims about Tyrannosaurus rex and other tyrannosaurid integument, just to clarify, there is No current evidence for feathering in tyrannosaurids, there are fossil impressions that say otherwise, best to adhere to the scientific evidence, not trends, but what is known in the fossil record at the time until proven otherwise. To much speculation like the balloon sauropod necks in some newer tv show. The papers, and actual fossil evidence is were it’s at.
9:00 mitacondria 👾and phosphor lipids didn't escape into the soil. They became us👷🏻♂️.. colonies of cells clumping together to make complex orgonisms 👩🏻👩🏼
I’ll never subscribe to then trend of giving all dinosaurs feathers just because they were obsessed with birds being related to them. A few, sure they were definitely feathered like the one fossil with wings. But feathered t-rex is just stupid.
Being absolutist about something that absolutely could change with newly discovered evidence is a little bit short sighted. Instead of saying you'll "never" believe something, the question should be: what level of evidence would it require for you to change your mind?
@@tested c'mon, I watched all of your MB episodes and binged this entire channel... entertainment is your forte, in every format I've seen. But science? C'mon dude ;)
Watch Life on Our Planet on @Netflix: www.netflix.com/title/80213846
Life on Our Planet trailer: ruclips.net/video/55p6rVO0vMQ/видео.html
The Art of Scientific Storytelling: ruclips.net/video/AB58JNBojcI/видео.html
Subscribe for more videos (and click the bell for notifications): ruclips.net/user/testedcom
you are such an amazing interviewer. Your mirroring excitment levels and have excelent questions! these are so fun to watch, and its more like a conversatio than an interview please more!
I watched it twice and the 8 hour documentary was mostly accurate. I debate during the Pre Cambrian period that the story did not start with Cyanobacteria/Stromatalites were the first single cell species on earth.
Honestly this interview is _the_ best possible advertisement for the show, far better than any trailer... to see just how passionate they were to get it actually right, or as right as possible right now, that's what made the show actually enticing to me at least.
Agreed!
It's fascinating just how outside the wheelhouse TV execs are with us, the watchers. They are on a completely different world, clueless. This made me want to watch the show more than the actual ad (and/or NetFlix's pathetic way of working).
Yeah if I had just seen a trailer for some dinosaur show I would've assumed it was going to be a scientific disaster and would make me not want to watch it. Much more desire to see it seeing how hard they tried to be scientifically accurate.
After watching the show, it appears the producers mostly ignored the consultants…..
@@bkjeong4302agree
This was a really wholesome interview. The bit about the producers wanting to show the T. rex's teeth intrigued me, because they're absolutely right that that is what everyone wants to see when shown a T. rex, but the final product still looked like they gave it too many teeth. My understanding was that it only had about 48 or so and that larger Tyrannosaurids had less teeth than smaller species. Great interview, though.
Absolutely lovely interview, thanks so much for asking solid, fearless questions, and thanks to Tom for providing such solid, fearless answers!
You have the best guests.
One question that I would have loved to see you ask was, knowing now how difficult it is to get something to screen (with all of the scientific accuracy possible) if Tom would consider doing another series. There's always some degree of exhaustion after a massive enterprise, and I imagine that this is probably a "once in a lifetime" gig, but - when someone shows this amount of skill at articulation - I really hope he's not soured on the process in any way.
And yes, multi-disciplinarians tend to offer far more information, in easier-to-digest chunks, than strict specialists. Also, they often know of weird edge cases that they will highlight, while others might dismiss the stranger information as being too far outside the norm to consider as anything other than a footnote. All of the very best information is "uncomfortable" for one expert or another.
I’ve yet to watch life on our planet but it and Apple’s prehistoric planet are an interesting case study in how the science and public’s view can interact. I remember seeing how people were upset that these animals were behaving as animals and how the t-rex was now “woke” casue it had lips and was taking care of its young and like I just can’t understand that! We should always love to see the most accurate representation of these animals
eugh
calling 'DINOSAURS' woke?
oh I wouldn't value that opinion 1 cent
literally millions of years out of touch
I get the feeling that family and taking care of your children is about as far from 'woke' as it gets, I'm pretty sure it was some south African warlord thing about some dictator knows better than some history thing about the brutality of dictatorships and the government raising kids to be better peasants instead of family values taught by parents. ah, yeah, nothing to do whatsoever with prehistoric life, lol.
There were like 2 people on a twitter comment section who used woke, you are making it a problem were there is none, those were nobodies..... I have a bigger problem with LOOP having many innacuracies.
Fabulous chat, I loved seeing the convergent evolution between very practical skills like modelling and kinematics and the very theoretical stuff thrown up from many decades of distilled research.
"Elephants can swim, peacocks can fly...there are all sorts of things in nature which are bonkers...but also happen! But when we're dealing with the FX of extinct creatures you can't get away with as much of that because it stretches the credulity of the thing...but there's definitely a middle ground."
I don't like that comparison he made because it shouldn't be so surprising. After all, most animals know how to swim, but they might not be built for moving swiftly or they simply don't enjoy it.
Birds fly, period. The exception to the rule are fascinating but a peacock is nowhere near the physical limits of flight, just a bit cumbersome.
What breaks credulity for me is the scene of T. rex hunting Triceratops. Firstly, because it doesn't change the popular image of dinosaurs always hunting and eating. Secondly, because it prioritises a movie script and then scientists have to argue how it can be made more plausible.
The problem with that scene is: why are the rexes not hunting a juvenile or subadult which would have been less fast, smart, or dangerous; why is the Triceratops turning its vulnerable back on the adult rex, running away; why would the younger rexes so eagerly get into the hunt when they're at a massive risk of being gored, stomped or smashed?
@@NewAge374not only that but the trike hops and gallops
Please keep this format Adam, I love the questions you ask because they are from someone who actually KNOWS something and not just some professional host.
Prehistoric Planet is the far superior doco. Better science, better speculation, better CGI
I agree but it focuses only on dinosaurs so there is that key difference about the 2 documentaries
These are the sorts of conversations that I miss from the Still Untitled podcast. I love Adam interviewing people he knows about what they are doing. Thanks!
Can't wait to see this it starts tomorrow (Wednesday) in the UK
We’re excited too.
wow great interview, Tom really knows his stuff!! you should get him back one day!
I would like to see Permian life on our planet. The animals there are different and strange. However most documentaries concentrate on the Permian extinction more than the animal diversity or the animals themselves. You had dinocephalians, amphibians, theracephalions, reptiles,etc. I really want to see those creatures brought to life.
Fascinating. More interviews of this caliber, please. Thank you.
I definitely appreciate the emphasis on following the best evidence rather than the media hype for paleontology. The "latest study by 2 college students that hasn't been reviewed by anyone yet disproves everything!" media nonsense irks me to no end. And it's made worse by medical professionals listening to them. A former GP nearly killed me listening to one on diets. (PSA from that, your GP is not a nutritionist or dietician. And some fad diets they fall for do serious harm and can even kill. Whenever possible, talk to an actual dietician.)
Great interview.. I watched Jurassic Park again just four days ago (with a live orchestra performing the score, chef's kiss) and with the exception of maybe one CGI scene it totally holds up. Film making how it should be done.
This is a pretty cool interview but doesn't respond to some of the criticisms other paleontologists have, arguing this series is more of a SHOW and less of a documentary. Artistic liberty is one thing but putting certain animals together that didn't creates a distorted view of how they lived and interacted. It's disappointing how the scientific researchers didn't have more say in proposing speculative behaviour and other myths that paleontologists want to debunk.
First example, we see a Smilodon pair hunt a terror bird. The only terror bird contemporary to Smilodon was Titanis walleri. But the species of Sabre-toothed cat it lived with was Smilodon gracilis, which was about jaguar sized, and not S. populator as shown in the series, that was heavier than modern lions and tigers. The smaller species would not have hunted a large predatory bird with a beak as long as its body, even if it was sharing the niche of macropredator. Conclusion, this scene is not accurate and highly speculative, which should be addressed.
Second example, living along the Triceratops we see several sauropods. This second group of dinosaurs was in strong decline across the world and was long though absent from North America (the Laramidia continent as it was called back then) until fossils of Alamosaurus were found in the southern US. The scene however, seems to depict the more northern Hell Creek formation where numerous unequivocal Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops fossils were found. But when you organise all the fossils found in that formation the most numerous appear to be hadrosaurs (after ceratopsids). The typical Edmontosaurus annectens was so large it would have taken over the niche of largest herbivore.
So it appears again that the production wanted to show off another stereotypical Rex vs. Trike confrontation instead of showing off other less common but spectacular interactions. For instance, we know modern mega-herbivores can be prickly even amongst themselves: I would have loved to see a scene of Edmontosaurus pissing of Triceratops, escalating into fatal conflict, after which a T. rex leads its young to the carcass for a free meal.
The show is incredible. It's really great at portraying the time scale of life on earth.
I know of at least one paleontology program that can't afford even alginate to make a cast of their specimens for research. We need to put more money into paleontology!
Just watched Life on our Planet with my husband. Glad to know it was carefully monitored for good science. It was so beautiful.
On a side note, are you doing an episode on the jewellers lathe in the background?
The tiny milk crates are particularly intriguing.
Yes!
This was a great interview to listen to
Appreciate that!
ah yes, scientific researcher. the one that permitted them using an inaccurate allosaurus, an actual apatosaurus from jurassic park as a diplodocus
I can't wait to watch the show, it's all so fascinating.
I've been enjoying Life on Our Planet. I've seen a few comments about how some of the facts are a bit dodgy which is coloring my viewing a little, so I'm interested to see how this video plays out. Also, when Freeman says Kephalopods it threw me a little.
I like how he makes the point over and over that dinosaurs were animals not monsters that's something I think modern Jurassic world movies failed to convey
I think that's an intentional difference.
A blockbuster movie doesn't need to have the same scientific accuracy as a nature documentary tv show to be successful.
Monster movies sell so well there's an entire horror genre dedicated to them.
@@bobjoefred777But in people mind it do not work like that.
Almost nobody cared about shark before the movies that show them as monsters.
It's the same for dinosaures.
Thoses movies and documentary generally show a completly false idea of the behaviors of thoses animals... And it's sad imo.
JW is a reboot so I'm sadly not surprised that it lacks the attention to detail that the Park films had.
Movies are for entertainment rather educational media content, plus this guy and it's coproduction team were constantly saying that this or that should look scarier and by the final results of the documentary you can see that they didn't listen much of there scientific advisors
7:00 I always like "can you explain this to me like I'm an admittedly precocious fifth grader"?
I love the ironic juxtaposition that high speed cameras can be useful in understanding and communicating about creatures from millions of years ago.
That was a great talk, and a really nice denim ripper @7m56
I've always liked the idea that dinosaurs had fur/feathers, it's so much more interesting than leathery skin lol
Dinosaurs are s big group, some will hsvr and some don't
That’s what birds are, modern dinosaurs.
Dinosaur evidence on integument only show feathers or scales depending on the species not a leathery skin but some dinosaurs like trex have very tiny scales that are just millimeters wide so from far away you would not be able to see them
This was fascinating!
Adam: "You have a doctorate, but you still had to do all this research?"
Vysogota of Corvo: "You know what learning gives you? The ability to make use of sources."
Dicynodonts AND adam savage!?
What a lovely interview!
Yes, I'm a nerd, but I do love when someone references a Venn Diagram as a way to sort out thoughts.
Great episode.
Awesome guest and fantastic topic 🤩
No lips Trex!
Dr Fletcher, as palaeontology PhD student in Bristol, working at a non-academic job opposite to Silverback Studios, I really ENVY you.
Congratulations.
you are literally a life saver Adam
What is the time crunch like as a science advisor? They need to turn around the CGI pretty quick to hit deadlines, so how fast do you have to research if a creature should have eyelashes!
Great question! Yes it can get quite crunchy time wise certainly but we had years to work on these stories and assets and get them right. We’d all done a lot of reading and taken lots of consultation so that process got easier the more we learned. It was genuinely really fun and fascinating.
@@fossilguytom4977 looks like they needed more time seeing the finsl product.
Nice video sir
The tortoise in the thumbnail looks like he’s being interviewed about what it was like to storm Juno Beach.
Not a tortoise. It’s some kind of dicynodont - a prehistoric animal from before the dinosaurs.
Who would think that peacocks can't fly? There are places in South Florida with wild peacocks I used to see in trees all the time driving through the right areas. Unless you think someone put them up there like people put turtles on top of fence posts :-).
Can’t say I’ve seen one fly, but I’ve seen one leap and flutter up to the top of a small building, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
That's strange peafowl roost in trees, so must be able to fly....as far as I am aware they can fly
whoever got mad and angry amd offended at Adam for sinply being smart enough and well rounded enough for being able to ask a question about something that is not his area of expertise should be ashamed of themselves for taking out their jealousy on such a bright mind and well respected, very capable person. They say a mark of intelligence is how you behave towards someone who is not in a position of power equal to yours and well, that supposed intelligent person behaved in a very stupid and disgraceful manner.
Good night Tom, Good Work, Sleep Well, I'll most likely fire you in the morning...
"...and then Homer Simpson stomps on it!"
Top nerd moment right there! 😂😂😁😁😂😂
Thanks.
I think of a T-Rex as a giant chicken, maybe one or two males to protect the pack and then just females but also I dont know anything about geology so im purely speculating based on modern chickens.
on a sincere note, to start with: geology would only be tangentially related (as it pertains to the substrate a fossil is found in, which can be used to ascertain probable environmental conditions for example). the broad field term that u might have meant to refer to is paleontology!
Chickens are not a good comparison they are a lot smaller so each individual requires less resources and chickens are not apex predators
Thank you.
so, hes the right guy to design a Megalodon spoiler, ok..
Lystrosaurus gang rise up!
Less then 30 likes on this video?? How???
Here is the thing about TV science: they do the best they can with what they know, and that is often shockingly little. Astrophysics for example relies on a ton of speculation and guesswork. Someone like a Stephen Hawking may say, "Maybe black holes are hairy!" to explain how information could escape the gravity well of a singularity. Or someone might say, "Maybe matter consists of tiny strings!" It is astounding how much of science is based on what ifs and maybes. There is very little in the way of new physics ideas with any real meat. Even areas like geology have massive amounts of guess work. But geology has more hard data than quantum mechanics. So in sumary, TV science does what it can with what it has.
Yes but physic, geology, and most other "hard" science are easy to refute.
The black holes, particles, atoms, speed of light, boson,... All thoses things got teorized before they got observed, meaning that you can prove or disprove by experimentation.
Thoses tehories all say: "look here and you will find that, proving me right"
But here, how can you prove or disprove the behavior of a T-rex ?
It will always be impossible, so we will never know for sure.
They did a terrible job, I’m sorry. You should’ve made more of an effort to actually get the science right instead of making a plot out of it. Terrible show.
Hey, Adam. 👋
❤
Definitely will log that consensus away for Mad-Day. Fletcher highlights an anecdotal perspective to show how dangerously influential science is to the general public (almost like an atheistic religion.) But then he doubles down by agreeing with the _Tyrannosaurus Rex_ having teeth covering lips. Sure, it's highly plausible, since these muscles would protect the teeth and moisturize them, some of today's mammals contradict this idea--mind you, this is based on individualistic traits that don't represent the whole genus. But the scale of whether or not T. rex showed its teeth, there's good chance--like with some cats or dogs--a Tyrannosaurus might have had its larger teeth jutting from the side. An ironic twist from what science want you to believe. (10:50-11:25)
Hopefully the attack on facts by politicians stops soon. Thanks Adam!
It’s only the beginning. They only recently learned how to use the social media algorithms and data to do it (this decade). Now they’ll start using A.I. in their campaigns.
Don't hold your breath
All politicians, no matter the party, bend the facts to fit their campaign.
@@Paul_______ Agreed
@@LeoMastroTVbut he is right, we have seen many times how cnn and fox news bend the facts to create outrage to support them at the cost of innocents.
Context? "this production" "the production"... WHICH production?
Oh, there it is, on a text flash that I'm not looking at because somebody is talking and I'm paying attention to that. And I already forget what it is. And knowing the title wouldn't help anyway, as it wasn't anything I've ever heard of.
It is a brand new Netflix series called Life on Our Planet.
let me tell you there are zero filters before an article goes up. people sit at home and repost someone else's post and just rewords it with a juicy title. Its called clickbait. quite disgusting really.
I like to think about a human walking along a trail and coming across a baby T-Rex stuck in a hole and after they helped it out they fed it something then walked away and months and months later the same person was walking along the same trail and crosses pathes w/ the same T-Rex, but it's much bigger, and it just sniffs them and walks away.... One of those situations ancient humans did not think was possible and nobody would believe. 😂
Yeah I'm pretty sure no one thinks that's possible, for obvious reasons
T-rex were surely only scavengers, meaning they do not hunt.
They would not run after humains as we see in the movies.
In addition, they were surely looking more like giant chicken with teeths that a giant lezard.
@@pierrotAt rex was mainly a hunter, a cresture thst big has fast metabolism that can't be solved by just carrion
Translation: People didn't like the fact dinosaurs had feathers and fur so let's make them look like Jurassic Park because we don't want to upset expectations. It's really disappointing they are making excuses for this. It's been 30 years since that damn movie. We HAVE learned not just controversial information but confirmed evidence.
Not all dinosaurs did though.
And your point? T-REX did. The closer you are to the present the greater the chance they had fur or feathers. @@Theduckwebcomics
@@PrinceGastronome Please show me a singular scientific paper state claims Tyrannosaurus was likely to have had feathers. I am genuinely interested.
No evidence for feathering in tyrannosaurids, there are fossil impressions that say otherwise, best to adhere to the scientific evidence, not trends, but what is known in the fossil record until proven otherwise. To much speculation like the balloon sauropod necks. The papers, and actual fossil evidence is were it’s at.
Let me find the clause where I am legally obligated to do your own damn research. I mean Jesus, it took me all of 30 seconds to find one@@PaleoEntertainmenthow about make an effort rather than bait me.
Nerds are so cool.
Not sure if you are aware but your(Adam Savage) likeness has been used in several random adverts m advertisements. The way you popped up randomly with similar photos for several random products over the coarse of only one or two days made me think this might not be with your permission
These were adverts on You Tube of which I took screenshots of needed.
I get really disappointed when people with a higher level of education, with English as a first language, who completely ignore the fact that the plural of fish... Is fish....
Hello! the plural of one species of fish is fish. But the plural of a number of fish species is fishes. Odd but true!
@@fossilguytom4977 Go figure. I sit corrected 😂🤣😂🤣
given how they're all half-dead looking superficially, probably highly inaccurate lol
Imagine you have a tiger skeleton. You've never seen a tiger, they haven't existed for a million years. You reconstruct what you think it looked like, animate it's assumed behavior. It is never more than educated guesswork, and we could never know the reality of the tiger. One should never assume it is anything more than a fantasy.
In addition to what the other poster said, we also often have descendent species to help figure stuff out like how teeth set with lips, or how muscles attached. Also, they now also collect and analyze rock or material around collections and can see what chemicals are around it. It could indicate pigments.
I suggest the channel "Your Dinosaurs are Wrong". Lots of this stuff is covered.
Your comment only works if we were on the 40's
I can't believe my comment is the least bit controversial to any thinking person.
@greenatom it's not controversial, it's nonsense. It's based on a horrible lack of understanding of how any of this works.
That you think a "thinking person" could agree makes this really clear.
@@greenatom is not controverdial, you are just wrong, we are many years appart from only having bones.
Interesting perspective, would have been good that the docu series actually followed all the evidence and not spew many innacuracies and long time debunked hipotesis.
Most of the non dinosaurs look good but looks like Spielberg can't abandon jurassic park with many designs being altered innacurate jp models.
Cool! Also Regarding claims about Tyrannosaurus rex and other tyrannosaurid integument, just to clarify, there is No current evidence for feathering in tyrannosaurids, there are fossil impressions that say otherwise, best to adhere to the scientific evidence, not trends, but what is known in the fossil record at the time until proven otherwise. To much speculation like the balloon sauropod necks in some newer tv show. The papers, and actual fossil evidence is were it’s at.
9:00 mitacondria 👾and phosphor lipids didn't escape into the soil. They became us👷🏻♂️.. colonies of cells clumping together to make complex orgonisms 👩🏻👩🏼
Nope, whole different branch in the phylogenetic tree
as accurate as all the diplomas taped together end-to-end of the interns being not-paid to collect other people's research and buy b-roll online.
I’ll never subscribe to then trend of giving all dinosaurs feathers just because they were obsessed with birds being related to them. A few, sure they were definitely feathered like the one fossil with wings. But feathered t-rex is just stupid.
Being absolutist about something that absolutely could change with newly discovered evidence is a little bit short sighted.
Instead of saying you'll "never" believe something, the question should be: what level of evidence would it require for you to change your mind?
Does it matter if you subscribe?
"Science". Right.
Okay peter
Right! Science.
@@tested you are a treasure
@@LeoMastroTV scientism is more like it.
@@tested c'mon, I watched all of your MB episodes and binged this entire channel... entertainment is your forte, in every format I've seen. But science? C'mon dude ;)
U can tell that Adam doesnt have a degree in physical science. He doesnt quite understand the theory behind evolution