I went to a small ‘dinosaur museum’ last summer in South Bend Indiana. I wasn’t expecting much, but found myself disappointed that all the large displays (except one) were ‘replicas’. I’m not sure why I felt this way, since all fossils are ‘copies’. But ‘replica’ makes it seem fake.
edit: I think this is being misinterpreted. In my mind, all fossils are ‘copies’ of the original. The bone is gone, replaced by stone. But for some reason, calling something a replica doesn’t carry the same…majesty as the original copy. Maybe it’s just the thought that it could have been tampered with when making it out of plastic or fiberglass.
Answer: no
However fossils are relatively scarce, especially those that are in great condition (which means we can learn from them). They slowly decay when exhibited because of environment conditions, so you are very likely to find a majority of replicas.
Now, occasionally you do see the real thing. I remember seeing that famous archeopteryx fossil during a temporary exhibit at the Australian museum and I was completely blown away by the amount of detail it had. Mesmerizing. 10/10 would definitely recommend
There’s no benefit to displaying the real thing if you can’t tell the difference.
In most cases you’re free to believe its the actual fossil.
If you want to see a lot of real fossils directly, no replicas, go to Dinosaur National Monument and check out the Quarry Exhibit Hall. A huge wall of fossils still in their stone matrix.
Ok, that is objectively pretty cool
Most displays are likely to be replicas, I think. Few people would be interested in seeing a T. Rex hip bone in one display, half a triceratops horn in another, etc. Complete skeletons are a bit of a rarity so it would be tough to find all the parts of some species for all the different museums out there. Also, in order to build a complete display of a T. Rex or triceratops, you would likely use all replica parts because you would need to damage the fossils in order to connect them all together.
Finally, most of the actual fossils are valuable to researchers and putting them on display in museums would make them less available for study.
Also the real bones are often too heavy to support in a display, so lighter replica pieces are used.
putting them on display in museums would make them less available for study.
Very often, it’s the other way around, museum are a storage plage for scientific/historical/artistic artifact and the be in display is a bonus.
Government own many objects that have an important historical value, and they can’t sell them (beside law, imagine the scandal if the French gov sell the mona Lisa or if US gov sell Neil amstrong spacesuit) so better having them in public display
Exactly. So just an irrational response.
FWIW, I recently watched a debunk of a creationist video and they complained about the same thing, while showing footage of one of the few real skeletons 🤦
Dinosaurs were real. We find their bones all the time. You can imagine that they’re not in pristine condition, considering their age. We classify them and mull over them together. We build reconstructions. Some contain mainly real bones. Others don’t. They are still of educational value.
Well, if we are talking about dinosaurs, it is real fossils of bones; not real bones, but otherwise, yes
Not sure if there are tar pits with dinosaur bones but there are bones (not petrified bones) of post-dinosaur megafauna like sabertooths in the La Break tar pit in Los Angeles. There probably exists a real dinosaur bone somewhere on the planet.
Sure but i dont know of any that have been found. So none of the ones in museums would be “real” bones in the way most people would think. I know its sort of pedantic here but fossils are rocks not bones
In the sense that the original organic material has been replaced by minerals? I guess that’s a version of the old Ship of Theseus question.
