Rough Notes:

 

Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Moderators: MGmirkinbboyer

 

Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby MGmirkin » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:03 pm

Though the old thread may be lost, or slow to be reconstructed, new stories keep coming in...

(Workers Uncovering Mummified Dinosaur)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG29400.html

("Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mummy.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 29053.html

----------

Older articles (compiled):

(Dinosaur mummies)
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/ ... nosaur.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/ ... osaur2.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/ ... osaur3.htm

('Mummified dino' fossil unearthed in Japan)
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.as ... 0429073854

(Meet Leonardo, the Mummy Dinosaur)
http://www.mrvideo.com/Dinosaur%20Programs.htm
http://www.formontana.net/leonardo.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mummy.html
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/dinosaur ... prehistory
http://www.meta-religion.com/Zoology/Ex ... saurus.htm

(Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex Bone)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... 2/Trex.htm

(Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ssues.html

(T. rex Bone Tissue Reveals Creature's Gender)
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technolog ... isgirl.htm

(Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery)
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna/

(T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/science/25dino.html
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/science/25dino.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 100541.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technolog ... tissue.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

(Agonized pose tells of dinosaur death throes)
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... roes.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news100445045.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280760,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stor ... 947725.htm

('Monster' fossil find in Arctic)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5403570.stm

(New Picture of Dinosaurs Is Emerging)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... osaur.html

(How-To Mummify / Fossilize A Dinosaur.)
http://www.aaps-journal.org/pdf/How+to+ ... nosaur.pdf
http://www.aaps-journal.org/submission% ... Fossil.pdf

(Electric fossilization?? That's the clinker! [Clincher])
http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm#Clinker

----------

Other scientific oddities from the "Electric Fossils?" thread (not to be confused with the "Electric Fossilization" thread). Perhaps someone can reconstruct the 3 pages of "Electric Fossilization" and then the 1 page of "Electric Fossils?" at the end of this post? So it's all in the same place... No sense splitting related topics, right?

(Ancient Amphibians Left Full-Body Imprints)
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancie ... s_999.html

(Animals Sealed in Stone)
http://paranormal.about.com/od/earthmys ... 011704.htm

(Frogs in Stones)
http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... tones.html

(Toad in the Hole)
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/ar ... _hole.html

(Rock Frogs)
http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfacto ... ckfrog.htm

(Another note on the same item)
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Frog.html

(Scientist: Frog could be 25 million years old - Tiny amphibian was found completely preserved in amber)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168489/

(Tiny Frog in Amber Might Be 25 Million Years Old)
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0702 ... _frog.html

----------

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

P.S. Cached pages here:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:GZ ... cd=1&gl=us
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:54 ... cd=1&gl=us
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:eu ... cd=2&gl=us

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:H- ... cd=1&gl=us

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Dinosaurs in the Golden Age

Postby Lloyd » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:14 pm

- At http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=317&p=6537&hilit=dinosaur#p6537 I gave links to sites showing evidence of dinosaurs in the time of later humans. The bone bed in Alaska is most interesting as it is said to contain both fossilized and unfossilized dinosaur bones. The idea of electrical fossilization is intriguing, but how would some bones in a pit be fossilized and some not, even by electricity? And, if dinosaur bones exist that are unfossilized, doesn't that mean they're very young? Like 5 to 10 thousand or so years old? Apparently, the reason the unfossilized bones did not disintegrate is because they were frozen.
- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4095
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Dinosaurs in the Golden Age

Postby Tzunamii » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:27 pm

Lloyd wrote:- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.

Speaking for myself, I believe both these scenarios are more than plausible.
I'm sure there are others as well.
The Gazillions of years necessary to uphold various earth & astronomical theories just aren't substantiated by a Long shot.
On a side note, I have stopped eating beans as My way to contribute to lowering CO2 here, and on Jupiter.

User avatar
Tzunamii
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby Osmosis » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:59 am

It seems reasonable to think that some dragons were terrestrial dinosaurs and some were plasma discharges-the flying-fire breathing ones. :shock: :shock:
Osmosis
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby MGmirkin » Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:21 am

Or, at least, that there has been conflation of the two ideas in an attempt to make some kind of sense of archaic traditions...

~Michael

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby nick c » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:03 pm

Osmosis wrote:
It seems reasonable to think that some dragons were terrestrial dinosaurs and some were plasma discharges-the flying-fire breathing ones. 

In my opinion there is not much reason to cite dinosaurs as the inspiration for the celestial dragon/serpent. Even if humans had experienced living dinosaurs, they were probably in no way perceived as snakelike, serpent like, or any way reptillian. The dragon/reptillian appearance of dinosaurs is a left over from past paleontological misconceptions and misinterpretations. Dinosaurs were large warm blooded animals and in no way reptillian or dragonlike in appearance. 
The cosmic dragon is of course an interpretation of an appearance in the sky, it is associated with Venus and/or comets, it is likened to a serpent or snake in cultures, but also beasts of an impossible composite character, such as the oxymoronical feathered serpent. Cold blooded reptiles do not have hair or feathers which are characteristic of a warm blooded animal. Another unreal characteristic is it's ability to breathe fire or hurl destructive bolts, also there is the associations with flowing or braided hair, terrible goddess, sword, etc. For these reasons I don't put much stock in dinosaurs as inspiration for the dragon. The ancients saw an awe inspiring, doomsday comet in the sky and likened the phantasmogorical images projected on that big screen to things familiar to them, one of them being the snake/serpent, an interpretation of the writhing plasma tail of Typhon, aka Comet-Venus. 
IMHOP :) 

Nick

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby nick c » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:53 pm

Lloyd wrote
- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.

I personally don't have any bias against dinosaurs living into the time of man. Layers of strata in the ground that are interpreted as indicative of millions of years of deposition could have been made in one catastrophic day. 
Pictographs of dinosaurs, tales describing dinosaur like animals, human (?) footprints in Mesozoic strata, unfossilized dinosaur tissue, etc are anomalies that send up the red flag.
In light of the EU we should question everything.
As far as the 'young' Earth goes, what is young? Following the EU lead and assuming that the Earth originated in a fissioning of the core of a brown dwarf or gas giant, how long would it take to reach its' present state? or put another way, what is the minimum possible age of the Earth? and if Venus is a new planet, how long would it take to evolve into something like Earth, taking their positions in the solar system into consideration? Lose its' massive atmosphere, cool down, etc.
As I see it, we just don't know all that much about the history of our planet, we are only just learning about its' recent catastrophic past.
There are many possibilities and scenarios.

Nick

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby Krackonis » Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:56 pm

The bone bed in Alaska is most interesting as it is said to contain both fossilized and unfossilized dinosaur bones. The idea of electrical fossilization is intriguing, but how would some bones in a pit be fossilized and some not, even by electricity? And, if dinosaur bones exist that are unfossilized, doesn't that mean they're very young? Like 5 to 10 thousand or so years old? Apparently, the reason the unfossilized bones did not disintegrate is because they were frozen.
- The bias against a young Earth and against dinosaurs living into the age of humans is amazing to me for a forum like this one. It shows how far conventional dogma has brainwashed even many of the people here, who are otherwise seemingly more open-minded than average. It's a wonder more of you don't believe in CO2 causing global warming.

Well in Alaska there was something special that occured. The Northern Hemisphere was holding up quite an amount of Water when Saturn was affecting our tides, pulling water towards the poles.

When it left, the water flowed down over Canada and into the US. The mudslide retreated back towards the north, carrying debris and bone with it. Fossils would be things that were hit (by electricity) and fossilized and the bones are things that died and got backwashed to the sea.

When they found a 'fossilized' shark with a fossilized embryo and a fossilized umbilical cord turned up, I mocked the idea of 'slow fossilization'.

Neil Thompson

'Armchair Scholar'

"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5

User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Update: MAD Materials Science. Fossils possible in DAYS?

Postby MGmirkin » Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:43 pm

Well, isn't this a hell of a thing? :shock: :o 

(Presto! Instant Petrified Wood Created in Lab)
http://www.livescience.com/technology/0 ... _wood.html

(Instant petrified wood yields super ceramics)
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=1

(Instant petrified wood yields super ceramics. [FORMING/PROCESSING]; includes related article links at the bottom.)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-134619844.html

(Related technical papers from Yongsoon Shin available on Google Scholar)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... tnG=Search

(Petrified Wood in Days)
http://www.physorg.com/news2801.html

"The material 'replicates exactly the wood architecture,' according to Shin."

(Presto! Instant Petrified Wood Created in Lab)
http://www.livescience.com/technology/0 ... _wood.html

My question: Does this turn a discipline on its ear? If fossils can be created (under the right circumstances) in days, rather than millions of years, is it incumbent upon science to re-examine the fields of fossils and geology in this new light? I mean, dating of materials is founded on specific assumptions. If new data overturns those assumptions... I hate to speculate the can of worms this opens!

Another question: why is argon used in the process? Is it a requirement or could other elements / chemicals be used in the process? If not, why not? What's special about Argon in the process?

Yet another: Is the structure of the ceramic identical to that of ACTUAL fossils, or are there differences? If so, what are they?

I still wonder whether something similar to electrophoresis might also produce similar results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophoresis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis

Considering the following:

(Clinkers)
http://www.capturedlightning.com/frames ... tm#Clinker

Though I hate to speculate too wildly.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby Osmosis » Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:04 pm

Argon is a easily-obtained, dense and inert gas. They may have chosen it, because the heating process would otherwise result in charcoal. :?:
Osmosis
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby MGmirkin » Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:43 pm

Osmosis wrote:Argon is a easily-obtained, dense and inert gas. They may have chosen it, because the heating process would otherwise result in charcoal. :?:

Hmm, could be. :) Don't know.

~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby longcircuit » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:14 pm

The first article mgmirkin mentions above states, in its final paragraph:

one cubic centimeter has the surface area of a football field.

Maybe it's just me, but how is this possible?
The rest of the article was very interesting. I second Osmosis' thought about using argon during the "fossilization" process.
The question is: now that we know wood can be fossilized in a few hours' time—after being soaked, in turn, in hydrochloric acid and silica solution, then heated and cooled in an argon atmosphere—how may we fossilize wood using electricity? It's a safe bet the fossil record wasn't created in the same way.

longcircuit

longcircuit
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby MGmirkin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:25 am

longcircuit wrote:The first article mgmirkin mentions above states, in its final paragraph:

one cubic centimeter has the surface area of a football field.

Maybe it's just me, but how is this possible?

I think, though don't quote me on this, that what they were saying about surface area was with reference to porosity... IE, if the surface is textured with holes / bubbles or small protruding bits, then the 3D surfaces of those bubbles amount to much more surface area (if laid flat) than just an otherwise perfectly flat 2D surface would...

Kind of like a giant cubic crystal of salt versus a finely ground pile of salt powder. The powder has far more surface area than the crystal, assuming the large crystal's surface is relatively perfectly flat.

~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby cigarshaped » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:03 pm

Can't say I've ever believed in the convention of slow fossil formation. I did tend to go the IV way of earth subsurface heating (friction) as the agent, due to planetary axis spins. Then electric underfloor heating was invented! Now I'm not so sure. Whether its shells preserved in Med limestone (seabed mud) or coal seams (compressed forest debris) in Germany, I just see incredible amounts of heat delivered instantly over vast areas. Dinosaur fossils are often baked into mud/sand "washed down riverbeds" with their footprints similarly preserved elsewhere.

My other concern, slightly off base, is explaining the lower gravity conditions that must be necessary for these enormous lifeforms to exist. I haven't searched the entire forum for this discussion yet. Until we have (or I read) an electrically adjustable gravity theory I just go with a faster rotating earth....

cigarshaped
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Postby MGmirkin » Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:43 pm

cigarshaped wrote:My other concern, slightly off base, is explaining the lower gravity conditions that must be necessary for these enormous lifeforms to exist. I haven't searched the entire forum for this discussion yet. Until we have (or I read) an electrically adjustable gravity theory I just go with a faster rotating earth....

Not to go too far out on a limb, but if mass is variable under Thornhill's interpretations, then might gravity (which seems to depend on mass) also be variable in kind?

(Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

We now return you to your regularly schedule discussion of fossils, et al.

Regards,
~Michael

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Next  

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

  

WHO IS ONLINE

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Zoology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Zoology (/zˈɒləi/, zoo-OL-luh-jee or /zˈɒləi/, zoh-OL-luh-jee) or animal biology is the branch of biology that studies the animal kingdom, including the structureembryologyevolutionclassificationhabits, and distribution of all animals, both living and extinct, and how they interact with their ecosystems. The term is derived from Ancient Greek ζῷον, zōion, i.e. "animal" and λόγος, logos, i.e. "knowledge, study".[1]

History[edit]

Ancient history to Darwin[edit]

 

Conrad Gesner (1516–1565). His Historiae animalium is considered the beginning of modern zoology.

The history of zoology traces the study of the animal kingdom from ancient to modern times. Although the concept of zoology as a single coherent field arose much later, the zoological sciences emerged from natural history reaching back to the works of Aristotle and Galen in the ancient Greco-Roman world. This ancient work was further developed in the Middle Ages by Muslim physicians and scholars such as Albertus Magnus.[2][3][4] During the Renaissance and early modern period, zoological thought was revolutionized in Europe by a renewed interest in empiricism and the discovery of many novel organisms. Prominent in this movement were Vesalius and William Harvey, who used experimentation and careful observation in physiology, and naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus and Buffon who began to classify the diversity of life and the fossil record, as well as the development and behavior of organisms. Microscopy revealed the previously unknown world of microorganisms, laying the groundwork for cell theory.[5] The growing importance of natural theology, partly a response to the rise of mechanical philosophy, encouraged the growth of natural history (although it entrenched the argument from design).

Over the 18th and 19th centuries, zoology became an increasingly professional scientific discipline. Explorer-naturalists such as Alexander von Humboldt investigated the interaction between organisms and their environment, and the ways this relationship depends on geography, laying the foundations for biogeographyecology and ethology. Naturalists began to reject essentialism and consider the importance of extinction and the mutability of speciesCell theory provided a new perspective on the fundamental basis of life.[6][7]

Post-Darwin[edit]

These developments, as well as the results from embryology and paleontology, were synthesized in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. In 1859, Darwin placed the theory of organic evolution on a new footing, by his discovery of a process by which organic evolution can occur, and provided observational evidence that it had done so.[8]

Darwin gave a new direction to morphology and physiology, by uniting them in a common biological theory: the theory of organic evolution. The result was a reconstruction of the classification of animals upon a genealogical basis, fresh investigation of the development of animals, and early attempts to determine their genetic relationships. The end of the 19th century saw the fall of spontaneous generation and the rise of the germ theory of disease, though the mechanism of inheritance remained a mystery. In the early 20th century, the rediscovery of Mendel's work led to the rapid development of genetics, and by the 1930s the combination of population genetics and natural selection in the modern synthesis created evolutionary biology.[9]

Research[edit]

Structural[edit]

Cell biology studies the structural and physiological properties of cells, including their behavior, interactions, and environment. This is done on both the microscopic and molecular levels, for single-celled organisms such as bacteria as well as the specialized cells in multicellular organisms such as humans. Understanding the structure and function of cells is fundamental to all of the biological sciences. The similarities and differences between cell types are particularly relevant to molecular biology.

Anatomy considers the forms of macroscopic structures such as organs and organ systems.[10] It focuses on how organs and organ systems work together in the bodies of humans and animals, in addition to how they work independently. Anatomy and cell biology are two studies that are closely related, and can be categorized under "structural" studies.

Physiological[edit]

 

Animal anatomical engraving from Handbuch der Anatomie der Tiere für Künstler.

Physiology studies the mechanical, physical, and biochemical processes of living organisms by attempting to understand how all of the structures function as a whole. The theme of "structure to function" is central to biology. Physiological studies have traditionally been divided into plant physiology and animal physiology, but some principles of physiology are universal, no matter what particular organism is being studied. For example, what is learned about the physiology of yeast cells can also apply to human cells. The field of animal physiology extends the tools and methods of human physiology to non-human species. Physiology studies how for example nervousimmuneendocrinerespiratory, and circulatory systems, function and interact.

Evolutionary[edit]

Evolutionary research is concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time, and includes scientists from many taxonomically oriented disciplines. For example, it generally involves scientists who have special training in particular organisms such as mammalogyornithologyherpetology, or entomology, but use those organisms as systems to answer general questions about evolution.

Evolutionary biology is partly based on paleontology, which uses the fossil record to answer questions about the mode and tempo of evolution,[11] and partly on the developments in areas such as population genetics[12] and evolutionary theory. Following the development of DNA fingerprinting techniques in the late 20th century, the application of these techniques in zoology has increased the understanding of animal populations.[13] In the 1980s, developmental biology re-entered evolutionary biology from its initial exclusion from the modern synthesis through the study of evolutionary developmental biology.[14] Related fields often considered part of evolutionary biology are phylogeneticssystematics, and taxonomy.

Classification[edit]

Scientific classification in zoology, is a method by which zoologists group and categorize organisms by biological type, such as genus or species. Biological classification is a form of scientific taxonomy. Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carl Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descentMolecular phylogenetics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so. Biological classification belongs to the science of zoological systematics.

 

Linnaeus's table of the animal kingdom from the first edition of Systema Naturae (1735).

Many scientists now consider the five-kingdom system outdated. Modern alternative classification systems generally start with the three-domain systemArchaea (originally Archaebacteria); Bacteria (originally Eubacteria); Eukaryota (including protistsfungiplants, and animals)[15] These domains reflect whether the cells have nuclei or not, as well as differences in the chemical composition of the cell exteriors.[15]

Further, each kingdom is broken down recursively until each species is separately classified. The order is: Domainkingdomphylumclassorderfamilygenusspecies. The scientific name of an organism is generated from its genus and species. For example, humans are listed as Homo sapiensHomo is the genus, and sapiens the specific epithet, both of them combined make up the species name. When writing the scientific name of an organism, it is proper to capitalize the first letter in the genus and put all of the specific epithet in lowercase. Additionally, the entire term may be italicized or underlined.[16]

The dominant classification system is called the Linnaean taxonomy. It includes ranks and binomial nomenclature. The classification, taxonomy, and nomenclature of zoological organisms is administered by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. A merging draft, BioCode, was published in 1997 in an attempt to standardize nomenclature, but has yet to be formally adopted.[17]

Ethology[edit]

 

Kelp gull chicks peck at red spot on mother's beak to stimulate the regurgitating reflex.

Ethology is the scientific and objective study of animal behavior under natural conditions,[18] as opposed to behaviourism, which focuses on behavioral response studies in a laboratory setting. Ethologists have been particularly concerned with the evolution of behavior and the understanding of behavior in terms of the theory of natural selection. In one sense, the first modern ethologist was Charles Darwin, whose book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, influenced many future ethologists.[19]

Biogeography[edit]

Biogeography studies the spatial distribution of organisms on the Earth,[20] focusing on topics like plate tectonicsclimate changedispersal and migration, and cladistics. The creation of this study is widely accredited to Alfred Russel Wallace, a British biologist who had some of his work jointly published with Charles Darwin.

Branches of zoology[edit]

Although the study of animal life is ancient, its scientific incarnation is relatively modern. This mirrors the transition from natural history to biology at the start of the 19th century. Since Hunter and Cuvier, comparative anatomical study has been associated with morphography, shaping the modern areas of zoological investigation: anatomyphysiologyhistologyembryologyteratology and ethology.[21] Modern zoology first arose in German and British universities. In Britain, Thomas Henry Huxley was a prominent figure. His ideas were centered on the morphology of animals. Many consider him the greatest comparative anatomist of the latter half of the 19th century. Similar to Hunter, his courses were composed of lectures and laboratory practical classes in contrast to the previous format of lectures only.

Gradually zoology expanded beyond Huxley's comparative anatomy to include the following sub-disciplines:

Related fields:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ "zoology"Online Etymology Dictionary.
  2. Jump up^ Bayrakdar, Mehmet (1986). "Al-Jahiz and the rise of biological evolution" (PDF). Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi DergisiAnkara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi27 (1): 307–15. doi:10.1501/Ilhfak_0000000674. Retrieved 21 December 2012.
  3. Jump up^ Paul S. Agutter & Denys N. Wheatley (2008). Thinking about Life: The History and Philosophy of Biology and Other Sciences. Springer. p. 43. ISBN 1-4020-8865-5.
  4. Jump up^ Saint Albertus Magnus (1999). On Animals: A Medieval Summa Zoologica. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4823-7.
  5. Jump up^ Lois N. Magner (2002). A History of the Life Sciences, Revised and Expanded. CRC Press. pp. 133–144. ISBN 0-8247-0824-5.
  6. Jump up^ Jan Sapp (2003). "Chapter 7". Genesis: The Evolution of Biology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515619-6.
  7. Jump up^ William Coleman (1978). "Chapter 2". Biology in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29293-X.
  8. Jump up^ Jerry A. Coyne (2009). Why Evolution is True. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-19-923084-6.
  9. Jump up^ "Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions"Science and Creationism: a view from the National Academy of Sciences (php)(Second ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences. 1999. p. 28. ISBN -0-309-06406-6. Retrieved September 24, 2009.
  10. Jump up^ Henry Gray (1918). Anatomy of the Human Body. Lea & Febiger.
  11. Jump up^ Jablonski D (1999). "The future of the fossil record". Science284(5423): 2114–16. PMID 10381868doi:10.1126/science.284.5423.2114.
  12. Jump up^ John H. Gillespie (1998). Population Genetics: A Concise Guide. Johns Hopkins Press. ISBN 0-8018-8008-4.
  13. Jump up^ Chambers, Geoffrey K.; Curtis, Caitlin; Millar, Craig D.; Huynen, Leon; Lambert, David M. (2014-01-01). "DNA fingerprinting in zoology: past, present, future"Investigative Genetics5: 3. ISSN 2041-2223PMC 3909909Freely accessiblePMID 24490906doi:10.1186/2041-2223-5-3.
  14. Jump up^ Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis (1996). Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03343-9.
  15. Jump up to:a b Woese C, Kandler O, Wheelis M (1990). "Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya"Proc Natl Acad Sci USA87 (12): 4576–9. Bibcode:1990PNAS...87.4576WPMC 54159Freely accessiblePMID 2112744doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576.
  16. Jump up^ Heather Silyn-Roberts (2000). Writing for Science and Engineering: Papers, Presentation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 198. ISBN 0-7506-4636-5.
  17. Jump up^ John McNeill (4 November 1996). "The BioCode: Integrated biological nomenclature for the 21st century?". Proceedings of a Mini-Symposium on Biological Nomenclature in the 21st Century.
  18. Jump up^ "Definition of ETHOLOGY". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 30 October 20122 : the scientific and objective study of animal behaviour especially under natural conditions
  19. Jump up^ Black, J (Jun 2002). "Darwin in the world of emotions" (Free full text). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine95 (6): 311–3. ISSN 0141-0768PMC 1279921Freely accessiblePMID 12042386doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.6.311.
  20. Jump up^ Wiley, R. H. (1981). "Social structure and individual ontogenies: problems of description, mechanism, and evolution" (PDF). Perspectives in ethology4: 105–133. Retrieved 21 December 2012.
  21. Jump up^ "zoology"Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-09-13.
 

External links[edit]

Wikiversity
At Wikiversity, you can learn
more and teach others about Zoology at the School of Zoology.