>>1752331 I think hardcore Jews think that. I had a very religious Jewish teacher(forgot what they were called but the men wear black and have the Jew curls) and she explained to us that they believe dinosaurs were faked.
>>1752334 Actually I'm googling a combination of 'dinosaurs are fake' and 'Jewish dinosaur hoax' and I'm either retarded or bad at googling because I'm not finding much. Now I'm not sure if she was trolling me but she did like telling us about the Jewish community.
>>1752369 >Humans have been around for eight million years
Yeah nah. Our branch of the family tree diverged from the rest of the great apes six million years ago, and australopithecines aren't "Humans". Anatomically modern humans have existed for only 250,000 years.
>>1752318 some dinosaurs such as Maiasaura feed and cared for their young. We used to think they were like other reptiles, they laid their eggs and then abandoned them. Now we now many of them took care of their babbies.
The dinosaur Oviraptor, which means egg theif, was named because it was found near nests of eggs, which paleontologists thought it was stealing eggs from. We now know those eggs it was found near were its own. It was sitting on the eggs like a bird sits on its nest.
>>1752318 while the dinosaurs other than birds were killed by a massive comet impacting the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous, we've found fossils of dinosaurs in New Mexico that may have survived almost a million years after the comet hit.
>>1752318 while all the baby dinosaurs we've found so far have been in or near eggs, we don't actually know for a fact that all dinosaurs laid eggs. It's possible that some gave birth to live young.
Recently we've found a large number of small dinosaurs that aren't direct ancestors of birds but have quills, hairs, or feathers. It's likely that most dinosaurs had something like fur and quills covering them.
>>1752318 Until the 1990's it was thought that all dinosaur fossils were completely replaced by rock, and no soft tissues such as blood vessels or bone cells could survive. Since then we've found preserved blood cell components, soft bone tissue, and even fragments of DNA from T. rex and other dinosaurs.
One of the first dinosaur paleontologists, William Buckland, spent much of his life attempting to classify every living animal by how it tastes. In his honor I have over the years ground up and eaten small quantities of bone from Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus, as well as some other unidentified dinosaur bone fragments.
>>1752415 A species can be an active hunter AND a scavenger. All the best carnivores are. (Bears, hyenas, canids, procyonids, lions, birds like caracaras, corvids and gulls...) If you're a carnivore and you pass up an animal that died of natural causes, you're an idiot. (Kleptoparasitism from a weaker predator also counts under this, particularly for lions and hyenas)
>>1752514 meh. I'm a much younger and better looking paleontologist. I could fuck all the 19 year olds I want, but they're a pain in the ass to relate to once the fucking is done. Plus I have a kid that's almost 19, so that would be weird.
Horner is alright. He's a bit like Bakker, eccentric but creative. Not usually right, but an interesting guy none the less.
>>1752515 >>1752516 I'm not against his attempt to reverse engineer dinosaurs from chickens. He needs to find a way to market that so it can happen faster and we can all have tailed and toothed chicken pets.
>>1752522 another interesting point is that bird teeth and other dinosaur teeth are very different. We don't exactly know how bird teeth evolved, since the earlier part of the bird lineage is flat out missing.
so even if he managed to grow socketed teeth, a paleontologist would still be able to tell hen's teeth from paravian teeth just by the shape of them.
probably wouldn't matter to the public, but retrograde chickens would be obviously chickens to anyone that's studied anatomy.
>>1752420 >some dinosaurs such as Maiasaura feed and cared for their young Yeah, we know that from The land before time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-eRdWIZl2Q
>>1752525 since crocodilians and dinosaurs were closely related is it possible that crocodile teeth dna is a good substitute for what birds are missing?
Anyway I googled a bit, and it seems that this >the teeth they grew were simple serrations of the beak, like the ones we see in geese. Is wrong, and it was actually genes involved in tooth development that became activated. And most of the quotes or blogposts from evolutionary biologists and paleontologists say that birds have most of the genes necessary to make teeth. So once again you are spouting bullshit in a paleo thread.
>>1752574 >no That's a bold statement http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/
>"They don't make a molar," explains development biologist John Fallon, who oversaw Harris's work. "What they make is this conical, saber-shaped structure that is clearly a tooth. The other animal that has a tooth like that is an alligator."
The most correct answer is "we don't know yet, it's a possibility but there has to be more research."
>>1752395 There's no evidence that Tyrannosaurus was feathered like there is for other theropods. Some people think it's likely it has some feathers but it was probably not a feathery bird dinosaur like Deinonychus.
>>1752635 They probably had since related species with similar sizes had. Just like Australopitecus probably had hair. We didn't found any Australopitecus hair but other related species had so there is no reason to think they don't
>>1752536 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryctodromeus >>1752563 Ok. We have several skin impressions from T. rex, and we only need one to know it lacked feathers. >but what if the feathers fell out feathers fall out when the skin rots, so if they fell out there wouldn't be a skin impression >but maybe the feathers rotted away and left the skin doesn't work that way, skin rots much faster than feathers. >maybe something plucked it, magic occurred or whatever lel >maybe all the parts we don't have impressions of were covered in feathers. that would be an astounding coincidence. The odds would be astronomical.
there, did I cover all your childish thoughts, oh argumentative one? >>1752569 >So once again you are spouting bullshit in a paleo thread Fuck you, moron. It's not my fault you're too stupid to actually google. >http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-8-246.pdf >>1752577 >What they make is this conical, saber-shaped structure that is clearly a tooth except it lacks enamel, dentin, and doesn't grow in a socket. other than not being a tooth it does look a bit like one if you get the proper angle though. >>1752601 I said, they are the most common and diverse vertebrates alive today. >>1752602 all birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds. >>1752645 >They probably had since related species with similar sizes had. "similar sizes" is where you fucked up. >>1752649 Maybe later. I get bored with argumentative morons disagreeing with everything.
>>1752522 We have all sorts of stuff hidden in pseudogenes. It's a pretty fascinating topic to think what we living organisims have hiding inside our genomes. It's almost like our genomes keep a record of previous genes (but not everything, obviously) that we can reference if we ever need to bring them back.
I'm still incredibly curious when the uropygial gland arose, since it's important for feather maintanence. At least in modern birds, it is. It's embroyonic in birds, even the ones who lose it as adults.
>>1752649 Troodon is my personal favorite, it's named for it's crazy teeth. But they also had the largest brain size to mass ratio, Had good binocular vision, possibly nocturnal, possibly omnivorous, could grasp things with it's forelimbs. I tend to think of it as the dinosaur take on a raccoon niche.
My understanding is that the Chinese in Hunan Province knew of dinosaur eggs and bones in the 1950's and called them dragon eggs, bones, teeth, etc. This doesn't prove that that's the source of the dragon mythology, but it's a good possibility.
Native American terms come from the first dinosaur hunters to search the west for Marsh and Cope. A couple of them spoke native languages, and they'd ask the Indians where to find the "Ghost Horses" or "Spirit Horses." The Sioux and Navajo both directed paleontologists to major dinosaur bone quarries that they knew of. One of those, Ghost Ranch in New Mexico is named for the Navajo term for the animals.
>>1752867 >I'm still incredibly curious when the uropygial gland arose Hard to say since early bird evolution is still missing, but it appears that pennaceous feathers evolved before flight so long as we discount Feduccia and Chatterjee.
there must have been some use for well-maintained planar feathers aside from flight, so it seems reasonable that the preen gland probably arose well before Paraves and perhaps in basal Theropoda if Concavenator is properly classified.
So Late Triassic-ish if we consider planar feathers basal, or Middle Jurassic if derived.
>>1752882 Could they be having dust baths beforehand? Some modern birds, even with flight, dust bathe as feather maintenance instead of using preen oil. (I have no idea how Columbidae do it - they don't dust bathe or preen or have powder down. And I can't find any articles on feather maintenance in them. Dirty pigeons.)
>>1752930 Possible, but the last half of the Jurassic was seasonally monsoonal. They wouldn't be able to find dust for half of the year. Some waterproof oil would be pretty useful during the wet season.
>>1753242 There's been many mass extinctions all of which have many theories of why X died out and Y didn't. In the case of the dinosaurs and pretty much all of them it's probably a collection of reasons rather than simply "a meteor did it".
>>1752405 Is it weird that it kind of weirds me out that humanity is so fucking young? How much we have altered the earth and reached for the stars in such a short span of time? It's...kind of amazing, really. And kind of depressing how much we've fucked up in a quarter million years.
>>1755114 “We have as much evidence that T. rex was feathered, at least during some stage of its life, as we do that australopithecines like Lucy had hair,”
Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History.
"In short, the evidence for the possibility of feathers in Tyrannosaurus is piling up and my discussions with several colleagues suggests that a number now think the balance of probability lies with a fluffy or fuzzy Tyrannosaurus rex. I'd put myself in that same bracket – for my money, even big, adult Tyrannosaurus more likely than not had at least some feathers on its body."
Dr Dave Hone: lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London, specialising in dinosaurs and pterosaurs.
I would rather put my bets on the opinion of specialists than in some random anon on 4chan.
>>1755138 The thing is that since we found feathers on more primitive species and on similar size species the base assumption is that all of them probably had. Now we need a reason to believe that this or that specie didn't had any in any stage of its life.
And fiding skin without feathers marks doesn't prove anything since the conditions to preserve feather signs are rare.
>>1755151 >Now we need a reason to believe that this or that specie didn't had any in any stage of its life. Yes. skin impressions are that reason. Also the fact that no bird exists today that has feathers as a chick and loses them as an adult. So it's probably not possible.
>fiding skin without feathers marks doesn't prove anything since the conditions to preserve feather signs are rare. the conditions to preserve skin are even more rare.
if there were feathers on that skin, they would be preserved.
>>1755172 one would be a lot. we've got something like seven, from the thigh, tail and neck. The odds of those just happening to be the only unfeathered parts and our just happening to only find skin from those parts are ridiculously high. >>1755178 Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. T. rex weighed somewhere between 5 and 7 TIMES what that animal did.
also of course Yutyrannus lived in a place with an average temperature of 50 F versus T. rex in an average of about 85 F. That's about like the difference between Florida and Southern Iceland.
and yes, elephants have hair. Very very little of it.
>>1755172 >A place I wouldn't expect to be fluffy. why wouldn't you expect it to be fluffy? do birds generally lack feathers on their underparts? Feather coverage didn't evolve in patches, you'd have to explain why T. rex lost feathers on the underside of the tail.
and if you can explain why it lost feathers on the underside of the tail, you've got a good explanation for why it lost feathers everywhere else.
>>1755269 They didn't dragged the tails while walking but probably used it as support while still or resting.
Also back to the elephant thing I found out that sparse hair have a cooling effect considerably better than be totally hairless, something that would be pretty useful for a big dinosaur living in hot climate.
>"Hair works as an insulator when it covers the skin, but in this paper, we show that sparse hair has the opposite effect. What was surprising to us when was the magnitude that we found for this positive effect." >Elephants have the greatest need for heat loss of any modern terrestrial animal because of their high body-volume to skin-surface ratio, the report points out. >Many typical elephant behaviors help the giant creatures keep their cool -- from ear flapping to dust baths to water-spraying. They also lose heat through their skin and from blood flowing through their large ears. >But none of this was quite enough to meet an adult elephant's need to release several kilowatts of heat every day, Bou-Zeid and lead author Conor Myhrvold explain. >So they turned their attention to the little-noticed wiry hairs spaced out across the elephant's head or back -- and discovered they have a surprisingly significant effect. >In a slight breeze, the elephant's hair can enhance its ability to lose heat by up to 23%, the team found.
Thinking about it this also explains why we have sparse hair too so it is a good hypothesis that big dinos might have had sparse feathers to aid on cooling.
>>1755276 >probably used it as support while still or resting. this is one of those things that's impossible to tell except from footprints.
we don't have many from T. rex, but we have tons from other bipedal dinosaurs. It seems most of them squatted down on the upper part of the foot (the tarsus or cannon bone, the part you called the legs) without dropping their tails to the ground. Tail prints are really quite rare, and even rarer from resting dinosaurs.
>>1752433 all the dinosaurghosts are thirty or more feet underground. think about it. Ghosts in renovated houses follow the original floor plan, even climbing staircases years after theyve been torn down.
jurassic park could be going on right now, beneath millions of years of sediment right where youre standing.
>>1752369 >They were around for 150 million years. Humans have been around for 8. >they could have been intelligent They're pretty good evidence that human intelligence is not a normal outcome of evolution.
in fact all animal lineages drive this point home.
we are fucking unique, we are a freak accident.
if we die off there's no reason to think anything like us will ever evolve here again. In billions of years it's never happened before, and in billions more it won't again.
>>1752369 >They were around for 150 million years. Humans have been around for 8 What is that even supposed to say. Dinosaurs are a large, diverse taxon and are still around as birds, so they've been existing for 230M years but that still doesn't mean anything. Archosaurs, a taxon that includes dinosaurs have been around 250M years, Sauropsids for 300M. Since all life on earth very likely descends from a common ancestor every living organism's lineage has been around for 3 billion years. Your cutoff is arbitrary.
>>1755645 they always degenerate into discussions of whether or not Neanderthals are a subspecies of H. sapiens, and back in the good old days /pol/ used to jump in claiming that Africans are inferior because they lack Neanderthal genes.
>>1755682 But wasn't it proven that they were a separate species? Just because you're a separate species in the same genus, that doesn't mean you can't have fertile kids. Hell, this has been proven with fucking camels and llamas, who haven't been the same species for 20 million years or so.
>>1755723 But it's such a small amount of Neanderthal DNA in us. Hell, if that were the case, then Neanderthals aren't a real species/subspecies, but a hybrid. Remember Denisovans? They fucked Neanderthals several times, to the point where their DNA has a small amount of Denisovan. And if it makes Homo Sapiens Sapiens a hybrid subspecies of early Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, Denisovan, and an as-of-yet unnamed archaic human species in Africa (most likely Heidelbergensis, Rhodesiensis if they were a separate species, or a new species that outlived Erectus's reign in Africa, and lived along side Heidelbergensis and Rhodesienis), then so be it. Who knows? Maybe we were the most attractive species of human back then, maybe the Denisovan pussy game was outstanding, or maybe Neanderthal-Sapiens relations were common the second Sapiens stepped into the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Either way, it's fun to know about our ancestors, which is ironic considering how little we know (or care) about the only other true race/subspecies of Sapiens, Idaltu.
Also, I wish we knew what Denisovans looked like. All we have from that DNA sample is that they had dark skin, dark eyes apparently, and dark hair (making this picture silly, unless the northern ones had blonde hair)
>>1755731 Considering my experience on 4chan humans will fuck anything doesn't matters if it looks human or not. Not that every human would do this but in every group there would be some that would try different meats.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.