I don't want to ruin your day but... now there is an updated version of this iceberg

When’s the rest of the iceberg

This is the first of your videos I watched, and I really like it! 👌 There's only one minor point of criticism: In my opinion parallel usage of the term "theory" in both its academic as well as colloquial sense within the same video should be avoided. Maybe it's best to get rid of the colloquial variant - it is unnecessary and furthered misconceptions, especially when it is about legitimate science and fringe stuff at the same time: To use the academic "theory" for legitimate scientific research just to use the colloquial "theory" for fringe ideas a few seconds later accidentally invokes an equal value. I'm sure you know the difference and it's not against you personally - I myself struggle with the problem because it's simply how people are speaking, and although I activly try to minimize it sometimes a "colloquial theory" slips by.. Lately I'm simply shocked how many people don't know the difference and instead equating both meanings - appearently school did a shitty job in teaching the absolute basics, and this lead to dangerous misconceptions more than once.

Oi mate, this is overall a wonderful video, but just for future reference, it's pronounced "vayduh" and not "veeduh" when you read the word "Veda."

Your statement on planet density being the cause of gravity is factually incorrect. Fact is, we don't even know what gravity is much less what's causing it. Density, electromagnetism, these are all just theories. A factual statement supported by Neil deGrasse Tyson. So since we don't know what causes gravity, Pierre Bouguer's experiments remain, TO THIS DAY, a fraud on the scientific community. Being that he measured gravitational pull and linked them to PRESUMED density. Keeping in mind he died in 1758, and lacked the technology to drill an appropriate rock core sample in the deep bedrock to confirm his density hypothesis. Bouguer's "experiment" is nothing more than circular reasoning.

My brain wants that to make sense but I feel like some stuff def gets worse as it evolves so maybe a broader term is needed as devolution implies going backwards, maybe positive and negative evolution. I get that things do stuff to survive but a chicken is def not as badass as a raptor lol

@@wnrr2696 there is no such thing as worse, it's all subjective. People assume evolution has a positive connotation but it's really a neutral connotation. The world evolution only describes the change in an organism to better suit it's environment. Who am I or anyone else to say is it worse? Silly scenario but if humans became aquatic animals, it wouldn't be devolution when we loose our legs in favor of a giant fish like tale. Just evolution. Then what if they get back on land? Again it's not devolution to loose the tail in favor of legs, just evolution. I hope that sorta clears it up

@@wnrr2696 a chicken is more suited to survive in its current environment

@@nutman3698 I get it, it just doesn’t always benefit them. Pretty sure dinos would’ve hunted a fox type rather than the fox raiding the chicken coup, my point is as much as evolution can help them adapt to new threats or habitats it sometimes comes at an ‘evolutionary’ disappointment. Also with past cousins of species most bigger extinct versions of tigers mammoths etc would prob fair well against their modern relatives, but not be suited to the climates being how they are where they are. The chicken may have ended up perfect for that environment but when i hear the terms evolution and devolution I think the dinos took a step down the pecking order (pun intended) to be our farm animals, more interesting would be in another couple of extinction events if we ‘evolved’ to live underground then tried to return to surface blindly to be farmed by huge mutated Dino chickens..

The virus may of been a cellular lifeform at one time. One can say it devolved to a simple RNA or DNA strand with a protein coat.

I see a InCel Dinosaur frantically attempting to write an angry post on 8chan ranting about how Chad and Feminism has lead to lack of unused Sex Lakes and virgin Dinosaurs willing to mate - and then go on to start the mass murder just in time to be done before the planet got hit with a giant asteroid!

Nor an entry on a palinentology iceberg to talk about lizard cults and "Dinosaur mating mystery"

It was my understanding that birds are under eureptilia. But cladiatics are like shifting sands. It’s almost as if all life was interconnected and transcended simple categorization.

Or the fact that mammals are considered to have appeared in the jurassic era but the allotherians which are also considered to be mammals appeared during the triassic era .

@@leoleboss9414 the mammal lineage can be traced to the permian, i think they mean modern mammals in jurrasic

There's a very simple solution to this however: "fish" and other categories are not taxonomical, rather they just describe similar traits. It's just like how "plankton" has jack-all to do with evolution, it's just a term for organisms in the water that are teensy-weensy and can't move against the currents.

@@generalgrievous2202 I'm talking about the mammal class specifically , not the older clades like prozostrodontia . Allotherians are considered to be part of the mammal class which originates from the prozostrodontia clade that appeared during the triassic .

Mind=blown

I hate that you're right 😑

Not actually true, birds are not dinosaurs, but dinosaurs were proto birds, not entirely birds

@@danielhooper502 That's not how phylogeny works. If proto-birds were dinosaurs, then birds themselves are also still dinosaurs. A subgroup never stops belonging to its parent group.

Oh no!

So technically oil is still dinosaurs but marine

Pls don't r/woosh me

@@MeGrimlock55 no because there aren’t that many aquatic dinosaurs

@@MeGrimlock55 No, reread that first sentence again. Plankton and algae. These are tiny organisms that float freely in ocean currents and get their energy through photosynthesis.

Statistically they still most likely contain bits of dinosaurs, but so does everything else. You probably have a few carbon atoms or water molecules that were once in a dinosaur inside you right now :)

Paleontologist*

As far as pre-paleontology peoples are concerned dinosaur ones may as well have been fire breathing dragon bones, makes no difference

No joke ?? Didn't know that lol cool.have to check that out

Thats cool, I saw Jack Horer's hat and made that connection, funny that it's actually the case.

Another fun fact: This is because Jack Horner was a technical advisor on the first film as well as the second. Hence, Grant in the film is something of a self-insert. It's also why, in the sequel, you have the character Robert Burke, who is clearly a pastiche of Robert Bakker. Horner and Bakker were in a pretty public feud regarding several dinosaur theories, most prominently the idea that Tyrannosaurus was a dedicated scavenger. Little wonder then that Burke dies a pretty gruesome death at the hands of a Tyrannosaurus and is generally portrayed as a bit of a prick. Best part though: Reportedly, when Bakker saw the film, when next he saw Horner, Bakker responded to the caricature and the character's death in the film by going "See, Jack? I told you they were predators!"

Oh hey, Rickman Raptor

I read this out loud in your voice

@@Cool_Kid95 Mhm, minus the swearing...

The finding isn't, but the creationist spin is the conspiracy theory. The creationists think they found a dinosaur BONE and cracked it open and found fresh soft tissue in it. They argue that because this was found that dinosaurs are not that old. The reality is that Schweitzer found microscopic amounts of fossilized soft tissue in the interior matrix of a leg bone, and she had to demineralize it in acid to get it to be pliable again so it looked and acted like soft tissue. The fact that this discovery falsifies the concept of old ages is the ridiculous thing because rare fossilized soft tissue doesn't overturn radiometric dating. The better theory is superior preservation but creationist pretend there is a conspiracy to hide all these fresh dinosaur bones (including lots in Alaska they claim are unfossilized)

@@Rayrard Wait, are these "unfossilized Dinosaur bones in Alaska" real at all?

Thank you for your service, sir! 🥲🫡

Such as?

Like?

@@manospondylus4896 The majority of hypotheses involving clade-level competitive displacement come to mind.

@@bkjeong4302 Huh, with that I actually agree

Went in expecting creationist bullshit, went out more than satisfied with actual good talking points. You have restored my faith in humanity, if only temporarily.

Yes, any notion that goes against what is preached by the colleges is utter nonsense. Don't these nuts know that the hivemind is always right and should not be challenged?

@@slipstream7324 umm... wot?

@@xbfalcon83 They're doing a sarcastic comment about how everyone Who studies believes what they've studied without question, because they seem to not know how education changes and reforms over the years, because they hadn't had any.

instereting,can you say the "argument"of that book,because i don't have it,also i'm sad i have to give you a like because it not 105 anymore(only 1% of peoples will understand the reference)

@@alvaronavarro4895 Our education system doesn't make people smart. It tests information retention. You recite what you are told and you pass. Wether that information is true or false is irrelevant. It teaches you what to think not how to think.

Yeah, extremely slim chance but still possible

sea dinosaurs

glad someone else is saying this lol im sure some dinosaurs made it in, most didnt but its definitely not a "they all are oil vs none are oil"

Yeah, everytime he said "it's just a theory" I cringed a little because it's just a fundamental thing that a science communicator needs to know. It made the video less reliable in my opinion

Trans rights.

@@sarahnade8663 I'm all for it, but this seems very random

@@sarahnade8663 why can't people see a pride flag without being triggered lol

@@gerrardjones28 Dude, I'm being supportive. Calm down.

Science has actually been unable to provide accurate answers in some fields, though. If science were being done correctly, papers would not pass peer review simply to be withdrawn later when they are shown to be unreproducible. That line of logic is based on pre-scientific reasoning. I.e. you are making an argument that sounds clever on paper, but contradicts how the real world works. And, it also has the added benefit of hand-waving away the underlying problem. In actually, science always tends toward degeneration, because speculation is easier than the work of observation, and much easier than addressing the methodological difficulties in the soft sciences. Likewise, scientists don't like being proven in their old age, when their mental decline means they barely understand new theories, much less advance them.

@@blkgardner what the hell are you even trying to say

@Shinobi-No-Bueno You might check out Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It serves as a genealogy of scientific thought and explains how it works in a descriptive way as opposed to the prescriptive ideal of the scientific method which, much like any introductory model we teach, is missing quite a bit of detail. Kuhn attempts to rectify that. He also has a PhD in physics for whatever that might be worth in this context.

@@blkgardner look at this guy straight up saying ageism discrimination

@@alynames7171 where did that come from? Lol

Dragons were probably originally Nile water monitors drawings with one tongue with later people drawing them with multiple tongues and still later people assuming the three tongues were flames. I don't know how Asian Dragons came along... But they were water animals and sinuous like snakes... So maybe classic lake monsters.

@@fluffyone1882 ever hear the fun theory about dragons? Dragons were 100% real but had porous bones just like birds and hence made it insanely hard for them to fossilize, since most of any of the actual dragon fossils would have been found and misidentified, destroyed by ancient peoples, or hoarded into private collections dragons have become myth even in the fossil record too us. So basically the theory posits that cultures all around the world have depictions of dragons because there were flying lizards in that time, but like birds they can only fossilize in very specific circumstances and that's why we see no dragon fossils

​@@asalwak315 Sounds like a lot of nonsense. If dragon existed, a long chain of earlier species that would eventually evolve into dragons would also have to exist. They're as real as hydras or werewolves

In Polish medieval capital Cracow, over the entrance to cathedra there are two hanged Fossils of bones of Mammoth. They hang there for hundreds of years and when they were hanged there, people where thinking that those are the bones of giants, so yes, people thought that.

​@@prkp7248they are the bones of giants. Have you ever seen a small mammoth?

Utahraptor!!!

Was gonna comment this but then saw your’s also the way he uses the word theory is flawed as well saying something in science “ is just a theory “ is something science denier’s say all the time but I know he’s not using it Maliciously he just didn’t know

*eyes suspiciously* want a cricket?

@@griffinhunter3206 yes I mean yes I mean yea I mean yes I mean yes

What do you mean it’s not normal to sunbathe for 12 hours and have your air conditioner above 80°F?

@@Nico-me6ux UwU

@@griffinhunter3206 i will in fact take that cricket thank you very much

yeah p much

Aww Dino grave. Now I want to paint two velociraptor fossils in “the lovers” grave pose!

Or someone, who knows next to nothing about any kind of biology, confuses role-playing as archeologist to being real archeologist...

It's been ages since I've read Forbidden Archeology, but from what I remember, it doesn't spend all that much time proposing any actual alternative theories on human history, but spends most of it pointing out how archaeologists are often quick to jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence and gives many examples of things that are (or were at the time) assumed by the scientific community to be true based on very little actual findings that could very well be interpreted differently.

@@olserknam sounds like it says "others are wrong so I'm right!"

When I meant a joke entry, I meant it as it's an obvious statement that's commonly used in a jokingly way in science from time to time. But that's my bad, should've chosen my words better XD

Im assuming the person who made the iceberg was loose with their rules of what counted as a fringe theory, because there are more things like that on the iceberg.

I think abiogenesis is just on here because it ties into some of the lower entries on the list. At the beginning of the video when the full tier list appeared on screen, I noticed that the lowest tier had an entry called "Soviet Abiogenesis" not too far away from "Fossils are from the future" & "Oil is made from humans".

@@DinoDiego16 yeah abiogenesis is far from fringe, its literally an entire feild of science

It might be the "THE ADVENT OF LIFE ON EARTH IS AN ALIEN SCIENCE EXPERIMENT AND EARTH IS AN ALIEN PETRI DISH" thing. I've seen a lot of UFO chasers and ancient alien conspiracy guys use that and they probably latched on to abiogenesis to sound pseudoscientific instead of crackpot-y.

@@neoqwerty okay so no, the theory of life coming from space is called panspermia BUT panspermia generally refers to life on an astroid or a comet crashing onto earth, the idea of it being intelligent aliens is called directed panspermia, and is incredibly fringe

Thanks!

A lot of early depictions of dragons were more snake-like than the lizard-like ones we usually see nowadays. Maybe some of the larger prehistoric snakes could count if we're going by sheer size.

You're right in some aspects, but wrong in others... First and foremost... I don't think most people would argue Jormungandr is a dragon. Its a massive sea serpent and shares no real similarities with traditional depictions of dragons, not in European or Western depictions. And being of Norse origins, kind of hard to use Chinese or Eastern dragons as evidence to the contrary. Ouroboros as well doesn't follow traditional depictions of dragons either, not usually, being a snake eating its own tail. But that's where things get tricky, because being Greek, it would have literally been called a dragon. So it doesn't look at all like a common depiction of dragons, a flying lizard (even disregarding the fire), but... Its more of a dragon than those dragons. Now, what I just said is contradicted by the etymology of the word "dragon". Its Latin origin means "huge serpent" and its Greek origin is even less specific, just "serpent" or "giant seafish", and actually described more than just mythical creatures. By this origin, even a boa constrictor would be a "dragon". So yes, Jormungandr would be a dragon, as would Ouroboros. But that doesn't fit the traditional depictions. Serpents, after all, do not have any limbs, and even granting wings an exception, traditional dragon depictions at least have legs. So now comes the issue of what defines a dragon. The ancient Greek and Roman version would be any massive serpent. Jormungandr would then be a dragon, as would Ouroboros. But not dinosaurs, because they do no even look like serpents. With the Norse, its a little more confusing, as the Prose Edda states lists dragon as a name for serpents, as well as Jormungand, Fafnir, Nidhogg, snake, and viper, among others. But artistic depictions of Nidhogg give it two legs and no wings, despite the Poetic Edda saying it flies and calling it a snake. Then in the Middle Ages came the more well known depictions of dragons. Two or four legs, and two wings, with some areas listing the two legged variants as Wyverns specifically, though most just called them dragons. There are also lindwurms, runic carvings of serpents with arms, and amphipteres, or "winged snakes". The Bible also has mentions of dragons, but I can't find anything about limbs, as well as "fiery flying serpents", but... No real depictions I can find, at least none with limbs. If you want to consider dragons as "giant serpents", as the etymology suggests, then no, dinosaurs are not dragons. If you want to consider dragons as the more commonly depicted "reptile with two or four legs and wings", then... Well, pterosaurs are dragons, but not proper dinosaurs, and only ignoring feathers. And if you want to define dragons as "any big reptile that may or may not fly and may or may not breathe something deadly" then... Well, define "big", because that would make a boa constrictor a dragon and make some smaller dinosaurs not dragons still, even disregarding the feather issue again. But kaiju? There's no doubt you're wrong there. Kaiju means "strange beast", so if you want to go by direct translation, then yes. But that's no fun because then literally all mythical creatures would be kaiju as well. And originally it was just for just that. But if you want to use it to refer to the giant monsters of kaiju movies, then no. Dinosaurs and even (most) dragons are not kaiju. They're too small. Their size needs to be comparable to Godzilla to qualify as real kaiju. In this case, yes, Ouroboros and Jormungandr are kaiju, considering they wrap around the entire planet. Nidhogg too, being able to eat the roots of Yggdrasill. But dinosaurs? Godzilla, in his smallest depiction, in the original movie, is 50 m or 164 ft tall. By comparison, the largest dinosaur discovered with a reliably calculated size, the Dreadnoughtus, one of the "Titanosaurs", is only half that at 26 m or 85 ft. If you want to call dinosaurs kaiju, you'd have to call blue whales kaiju too, being the largest animals ever known to have existed at 29.9 m at maximum. Dinosaurs are dragons? Depends on how you want to define a dragon, but ignoring feathers, a loose definition of "dragon" would work. Dinosaurs are kaiju? That's not even close to arguable. Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to be rude or anything and apologize if I came across as such. I enjoy debates on mythological topics and love mythology in general and more just wanted to share than anything. Feel I should clarify, knowing how hostile the internet can be.

@@Kahadi Thanks for your reply! Was definitely not expecting any answers, just another comment in the sea of comments, so I'm glad you gave such a thorough answer :D You made a lot of very good points, I will still say that Dinosaurs are kinda the closest thing we have to real life "kaiju", even if they're still pretty far from actually being kaiju. I also like talking mythology and such (though my knowledge is more limited than yours seems to be) and I also like thinking about what real life things are the closest to mythological creatures and such, but I guess sometimes I get a bit too excited about the topic haha. Anyway, wish all the best!

Well for most people this idea means that Dinosaur fossils are what inspired the Dragon myths around the world and not that Dinosaurs literally were Dragons. I mean its not hard to see how. Some people dig up a skeleton filled with giant teeth and since humans find reptiles naturally scarier then mammals we are going to create the idea of giant lizards. And the whole idea of them flying and breathing fire came later cause, well why not?

When it comes to dinosaurs being called dragons it is important to read eyewitness accounts instead of what scientists sit around speculating on.

The moment i saw that term and listening him saying 24/7 the word theory isntead of hypothesis made me realize that this guy has no fucking idea what he's talking about xd

But pterosaurs *were* reptiles...

@@olserknam but we are not talking about pterosaurs xddd

@@wcados800 Then who?

@@olserknam we are talking about synapsids xd, like dimetrodon, the video said that these animals were mammal-like reptiles, and its false. Synapsids arent reptiles.

Nuralagus rex is a good example of this, it was a rabbit species that got stranded on an island and no longer had predators. It quickly evolved to become three times larger and it's ears shrunk down because hearing predators no longer became an optimal use of energy. They evolved to fit a new environment through new genetic mutations, nothing went backwards even though they became less specialized then their ancestors.

Unless algae are now dinosaurs, somehow

Me either, but I did find it quite absurd

That reminds me of that one old dinosaur toy movie. I think it was called Prehysteria

Or a horror movie

We can start with elephants, who are also huge, and have prehensile dicks to ease the mating process.

Dragons were a big part of Chinese mythology. I think people saw dinosaur fossils in the Gobi desert and instead of calling them "dinosaurs" (since the word hadn't been invented yet), they called them "dragons". Ideas like them breathing fire were just imagined embellishments.

You do know that dinosaur fossils are usually very fragmentary right? I don't believe that a person from ancient times would even be able to identify a dinosaur fossil unless it is actually sufficiently complete. We can also trace the true origin of the dragon myth through mythology, revealing that it all started with snake's. Pretty obvious if you ask me.

Fossils may have influenced old tales, but I think we should always take care to never de-contextualize old myths and look at them superficially, without their cultural significance. Dragons are culturally more than giant reptilian animals, and reducing some myths to people mistaking real life fossils can be dangerous.

@@scotth6814 No, our dragons are crocodiles, specifically Chinese alligators, salties and an extinct species. The earliest dragon found in China looks exactly like a crocodile, Chinese dragons and crocs have the same exact abilities and there are multiple records of people rearing dragons. Most importantly, our dragons almost never breathe fire.

all vertebrates will always be fish for me im glad someone aggrees

@@TheHortoman high five! ✋

Exactly! It just points out that our way of classifying animals is kinda arbitrary. It's like the different models of atoms, you use the one you need. While it is good to learn all the models if you really want to understand something, it's fine to simplify sometimes to better explain/understand other concepts of scince.

@@pappanalab it's almost as if, when one is inclined to do so, similarities can be found between any two things in our universe

@@shinobi-no-bueno Even if they are meaningless.

Thank you so much! Glad you enjoy the content

Glad you enjoyed it! And yeah, these icebergs take a long time to get through. And this is only tier 1!

Ice is NOT considered a rock? It's considered water just like a river...

What

OK, fish.

I understand exactly what you mean

But, what then determines what counts as complex consciousness - and what about life forms that by most standards are considered more complex, but not necessarily as having higher levels of consciousness?

Ask him why he won't show them.

And of course, mass extinctions and competition from below heavily favor small size and fast reproduction, meaning that anything that's kicked into the super big size range usually dies out after awhile due to competition for niche space or some cataclysmic event.

Lots of cryptids have their origin in religion/mythology. If some people believe theg actually exist but there's no evidence for them, they're cryptids

Yeah, I'd still count it as a cryptid, since it follows the basic description of one

@@DinoDiego16 but you just admitted it wasn't one

That being said I think you have a good channel.

@@thatcomicdad1687 sorry, was responding to the other guy. Also, thank you, i appreciate that.

Or just go back-to-back

I imagine their penises were prehensile, since there are examples of animals today that have their genitals like that

they really are, but its a fun challenge to take on

Only Christians who misinterpret the Bible think that.

Don't be ridiculous -- all the latest scientific evidence shows the universe was created last **Friday** -- Lastthursdayism is a laughably out-dated concept...

Agreed only fundamentalist zealots think so simply. Those that were raised to be Christians and never have the ability to discuss it without a conflict usually have this thought process. because a ton of those people believed in the "Children are meant to be seen not heard" type of shit and never have a nuanced opinion on their very religion."either you believe it all or you believe none of it. A lot of younger Christians are doing away with that thinking while some Boomer Christians remain. It's a definite grey area except for fundamentalist thinking in my opinion.

Devolution is just the evolution you don't like

@@juanausensi499 No, they're right. Anything that evolves, simpler or more complex, is still evolution. Calling it devolution is just a twisting of words

@@_gorillazfreakinc._2 I completely agree. 'Evolution' simply means 'change'.

That's a rabbit hole no one should have to got down.

@@obsidianjane4413 indeed Trey inserts some agenda in his videos regardless of a few of his vids being quite good

There are thresholds though where even (proto) mammals are actualy reptiles and dinosaurs too or stay crocodilians. At some point we humans have to decide what we call what and when. Nevertheless the classifications makes sense, because they mark crucial changes in the building plans of life, we call species.

@@nyoodmono4681 non-mammalian synapsids are usually just called synapsids or stem-mammals they’re not actually reptiles

@@craigstephenson7676 The argument is, that at some point one has to decide when it is still called synapsid, already reptile, or even mammal. In the permian and triassic all these species where so close together, the transistions are fluid.

@@nyoodmono4681 synapsids have a hard definition which is any amniote that has one low temporal fenestra on each side of the skull. This is true for all synapsids, including mammals. No sauropsids have this. They either have 2, none, or 1 at the top of each side of the skull. Also, they separated in the Carboniferous, by the Permian they were already distinct. I get that most people don’t know the distinction between synapsids and reptiles, but they are actually quite distinct from each other and it’s important to know the differences.

@@craigstephenson7676 yeah, but one alternative theory is that Synapsids evolved from holeless reptiles, but I don’t agree with this

glad you enjoyed it!

Oh FFS, 3 months from now and Brontosaurus-Dong will be trending on PornHub