43
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
43 points (97.8% liked)
Ask Science
15393 readers
62 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Finally my time to shine haha ! Professional paleontologist here, the answer is "yes, but"
We do undersample EVERYTHING solely due to how rare and exceptional the fossilization process is. We especially undersample anything other than hard mineralized tissues, so yes, a lot of metamorphosis is forever lost, but that's a drop of water compared to the universe of soft bodied creatures that we will never get to know...
However, we are not that clueless, for several reasons. First, using a kind of uniformitarian thinking, we can speculate that ecological communities were similarly structured to those we know today, and as such estimate what we're missing, particularly how much we're missing. But also, and perhaps the most exciting, we do discover new things everyday, and I don't think that people grasp how much our discipline has evolved and been changed by new technologies in the last 20 or so years. Scans and 3D imaging techniques allow us to examine the most minute details of fossils previously hard or impossible to study, and methods such as Synchrotron powered X ray fluorescence allow us to unravel unprecedented levels of details and information on soft tissues. I had the opportunity during a research conference to discuss the results of a young researcher working on amphibian metamorphosis on specimens about 300 million years old, using these technologies. He was able to study very early stages of development, and observe structures such as intestines, eyes, and even the various layers of skin !
In conclusion, yes we definitely undersample metamorphosis, but we probably don't underestimate it that much today, because we can estimate how much we're missing. Furthermore, new technologies allow us to study unprecedented levels of detail, including unseen before soft tissues.
Oh thank god. This is about professional interpretation of a very vast and complex dataset. If you didn't answer it there was going to be a lot of trash and guessing in the replies.
As one of people I can tell you that they dont. (But this might also be a small sample size)
I still can’t quite wrap my head around it. I remember from my childhood that it was a big deal when they found samples of dinosaur skin and eggshells. So I wonder, is this information simply “hidden” in the rocks surrounding the fosil bones, and can now be examined with these new techniques? Or does it take an exceptionally well-preserved sample that can now be analyzed in much greater detail, revealing more information?
It's both, as in not all fossils preserve things other than hard tissues, but new methods allow both deeper examination and understanding of known exceptional preservation, and discovery of previously unknown soft tissue fossilisation. And anyways, finding any fossil is still as cool as it ever was ;)