>"Saurian is an open world survival video game being

File: tumblr_nu4kymBprA1uujqb8o2_500.gif (1MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x280px

>>2130226

>>2130226
As long as you release it whrn it's fucking ready and don't pull some Dayz beta bullshit you'll be good.

I'm never buying a beta gamr again. H1z1 and dayz ruined that for you sorry mate. Super bad experiences, Waste of money.

holy fucking bump

>>2130239
Cute

>>2130226
How is this any better than lets say, a going-to-be """""""""""no rolepay""""""""" survival horror The Isle?

>>2130254
Do you play as dinosaurs in that?

>>2130226
>tries to be "realistic"
>jumps on the feathered large theropod bandwagon because "muh Yutyrannus" despite countless proven scaled large theropods existing

At least it's not another "human shoots at dinosaurs" game that every "dinosaur" game seems to be.

>>2130261
Who cares, it's a minor bit of poetic license in a grey area

It doesn't bother me that Ark has scaly raptors and quadrupedal spinosaurus, even though we know neither existed

>>2130226
>Kickstarter
Atleast it had potential

Would be cool if it worked out but I wouldn't get my hopes up

>>2130280
>Quadrapeda spinosaurus never existed
Fucking nostalgiafags.

>>2130351
Unbiased paleofag actually

If a spinosaurus even tried to walk on its hands, its wrists would shatter

>>2130360
kek

how do you suppose they stood up after laying down?

>>2130381
they used their dicks

>>2130351
The skeleton they found was a chimera.

>>2130381
How do birds?

>>2130351
Ibrahim and Sereno's Spino was most likely a chimera, mainly because of different bone sellers or something.

File: 43730135138262b030903e87df388d3f.jpg (19KB, 236x374px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x374px

>worked on for 3 years with no pay
>worked on in their free time
>they need money for food
pic related,

bc feathered dino bandwagon

>>2130389
they push off the ground with their wings.
strangely enough they don't shatter.

>>2130390
It was the same bone seller, and all of the bones were from one bone bed.

of course that doesn't mean they were all the same animal. Moroccan fossil miners don't know that though, so they sold them as one animal.

>>2130417
Is that how emus do it? Huh.

>>2130417
Dude what. Owned chicken my entire life and never seen this happen.

>>2130259
Yes you do. Aparently you can also play humans and some alien-like cannibal, yet they haven't been released yet.

Sounds too good to be able to be completed properly, especially since it would rely on the behaviour of the community. Also assuming it is not a rich triple A company so how the fuck can they pull this off without it crashing and burning?

>>2130259
At the moment you can only play as dinosaurs. 99% of players are 14 year old OMG REX MAINS and furries with wolf in their username.

File: 4vBnmAk.jpg (352KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1920x1080px

Feathers on The Isle's Rex may please some

>>2130678
It's out?

This is literally going to be spore 2.0, screencap this post you saw it here first

As that anon on /v/ said, it should be extremely difficult and time consuming to survive to adulthood. Making it a cakewalk would render the game dull and short-lived.

>>2130239
That's a very good walking cycle, I'm impressed, though it doesn't take much.

What species would you offer as a playable character? What locales would you use; Jehol formation? Hell Creek formation? Chinle formation?

I'm going to have to look into building a gaming computer with all these new dinosaur games coming out.

>>2130806
>Staying alive means managing physical needs while avoiding predators and natural hazards in an open world landscape reflecting up-to-date scientific knowledge of the Hell Creek ecosystem of 66 million years ago.

>Play as Dakotaraptor, Pachycephalosaurus, Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops and advance through multiple distinct life stages. Survive from hatchling to adult, each stage presenting its own unique challenges based on your growth and development.

>>2130226
Bump

>>2130239
>trex
>feathers
huehuehuehue.

Gonna have a feathered tryant atleast change it to the huali.

>>2131688
I hope there's an option to play as T Rex who is downy as a babby but bald as an adult

Not that I mind feathers, I would just like the option.

File: RJ-Acheroraptor-size-1024x963.png (363KB, 1024x963px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1024x963px

I wish Acheroraptor was still a playable species.

I understand why they choose to replace it with dakota raptor, but I simply liked the model of Acheroraptor more.

File: Acheroraptor_render_1.png (100KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 620x349px

>>2132371

File: Acheroraptor_render_2.png (88KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 620x349px

>>2132377

>>2132371
>>2132377
>>2132379
Post their dakota raptor models for comparison

>>2130239
feathered t-rex looks scarier desu

The idea is nice, though. It'll be funny watching people die two minutes in by getting stepped on by their parent.

Can video games simulate the doppler effect? That woulr make this really immersive.

File: imaeatchoo.jpg (94KB, 1519x526px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1519x526px

>>2132403
google

>>2132428

Yes.

>>2132586
Do you have video evidence?

>>2132588

Just look at racing games, anon.

File: dakotaraptor_growth_cycle_by_arvalis-da3rx2v.jpg (782KB, 5000x1232px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 5000x1232px

>>2132403
Here’s some concept art of it at different ages.

I can’t find any decent pictures of the models, but the kickstarter video has some good in game footage of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktbrUBUbjD0

>>2132424
Kek. I want this.

File: rjpalmer_dakotaraptor_jane_001_by_arvalis-d9ev6ij-1024x390.jpg (98KB, 1024x390px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x390px

>>2132403
http://saurian.maxmediacorp.com/?p=771

File: untitled_by_fredthedinosaurman-d9tionp.jpg (150KB, 1173x681px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1173x681px

>>2130226

>>2130226

the "realistic" T-rex sounds are pretty cool, I'm getting pretty tired of the Godzilla roars from Jurassic Park

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD8AIlm97lA

File: medium.jpg (2KB, 64x64px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 64x64px

>>2130226
>scientifically accurate prehistoric experience
roflmao This fake science sure is fun.

>>2134614
yeah, the only way you'll catch a 'real' scientist signing off on this shit is if there's money or pussy exchanged, and even then you're only going to get Jack Horner, Bob Bakker, or some similar attention whore of a dinosaur paleontologist. (I'm looking at you, Tom Holtz)

Dinosaurs are far too popular for science to prevail. Most of what the public 'knows' about dinosaurs is just guesswork, and what's 'scientifically accurate' today will be laughed at in the not-very-distant future.

>>2134628
Can you point out all the blarant innacuracies in the trailer for me please?

>>2134833
blatant*

File: 1451313482428.jpg (63KB, 636x565px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 636x565px

If I am not mistaking, this is one of the scraped concepts for their tyrannosaurus model

>>2130226
I like how far this has come. I remember when it was called something else and I put in for the first kickstarter. I'm glad this is still gonna be a thing.

>>2134610
>The vibrations in the snout as it snarls
It's the little things

>>2134833
I'm not watching the trailer. Nor do I need to.

the thing deals exclusively with dinosaur behavior and external appearance, two aspects of the animals for which there is essentially no factual basis.

it's all guesswork. It might be educated guesses, it might be LESS educated guesses, but at the end of the day it's just guesses.

if history should teach you anything it's that guesses are generally proven wrong in time.

but you're not old enough for history to teach you anything.

>>2135204
Thank for those words of wisdom Grandpa.

>>2130239
Inaccurate

>>2130239
that makes my knees hurt just to look at. they fucked up

>>2135204
I watched the trailer expecting shit and it was better than I had expected it to be. It was pretty neat.

Lmao al these idiots commenting on feathers being "innacurate" because muh 90s nostalgia.

>>2130806
>What species would you offer as a playable character?

I'd really like to see ankylosaurus as a playable species, I doubt they will though. It's a way better option for another herbivorous dino than pachycephalosaurus.

Really I'd want stegosaurus, but because it didn't exist in the same period as t. rex it will never happen.

>>2135204
this is a game not a research paper. settle down.

>>2135223
you're welcome.
>>2135297
anon said it's "scientifically accurate."
other anon laughed at the idea.
I just agreed and ruffled some feathers apparently.

it's a cool game I have no doubt, and I'm personally looking forward to playing it. But it's not science any more than Pokémon is. Well, maybe a LITTLE more than Pokémon is, but not a lot.

>>2135287
in 20 years the public went from laughing at the idea of feathered dinosaurs to laughing at the idea of unfeathered dinosaurs.

Just imagine what your kids will laugh about that you believe now.

well, assuming you have kids. A pretty big assumption I think we can both agree.

I hope the developers are going to have interesting story threads/quests for your dinosaur. Even if they're going for absolute scientific accuracy, a dinosaur could still go through certain episodes, like getting their first kill, finding a mate, forming a herd/pack, migrating, surviving natural disasters. Stuff like that.

I'm just so sick of aimless open world games where you do nothing.

>>2135342
no worries.
in time they'll sell their work to capitalists that will demand they stick saddles and lasers on the dinosaurs so people can ride them into battle with the trolls and dragons.

>>2135349
Yup, that's exactly what I said dumbass.

>>2134839
you are mistaken
this was the original T-rex design
http://arvalis.deviantart.com/art/Saurian-Concept-Art-495258921

File: tyrannosaurus_rex___updated_version_by_moricemonkey93-d83n1sa.png (306KB, 1600x834px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1600x834px

>>2134839

>>2135911
Looks sorta like a vulture.

>>2135287
Only it has nothing to do with nostalgia or "muh scaly beasts" but to do with the fact that a lot of species do not have the weight behind them to say they're feathered and a lot that have more evidence in favour of scales.

In the case of T. Rex is basically a game of what you prefer him to have because right now the evidence not conclusive.

Oh, jeepers, another dinosaur game. How new and exciting. Oh, it's a survival game! This has also never been done before. Certainly not one in active beta with 85,000 players online at any given time. I'm so excited about this concept. It's gotten me in the mood to play Ark: Survival Evolved.

>>2136110
Yeah but when was the last time you got to play as one? That old dinosaur fighting game from the 90s or Primal Rage?

>>2136112

All the time to create these games goes into multimedia (graphics, sound), and making dinosaurs playable in Ark would take like 3 days of work because all the graphics and sounds are already done. Just a few interface additions and coding it up.

A great example is how World of Warcraft made zombies playable for shits and giggles during Burning Crusade days. They over-ran Shattrath. It was simple, because all the graphics, sounds, and animations were already there. All they had to do was add a few lines of code.

Bet your ass that Ark will do it, too. And long before this game is released.

>>2136110
>>2136115
So Ark should be the only dinosaur game?

>>2130226
i've always dreamed of this kind of game

>>2130716
It really, REALLY looks like the creature stage from spore.

Here's hoping it's not shit.

>>2130715
Don't bother, devs are immature shit heads.

>>2136115
ARK's models and animations are fucking awful. Like every survival game, I need to jump to the next because it gets old fast.

>>2136609

Well, that was Ark's fault. These retards need to stop being greedy and wait until the game is finished before releasing it to the public. All these paid alpha/betas all over steam are just embarassing studios because no matter how many times you say "It's only beta!", players are STILL expecting a playable product. And their definition of "playable" is vastly different from yours.

This is why large studios don't do that shit. They know the business better, and they have a reputation to protect. Releasing alphas/betas destroys reputations.

A sure sign of a game you don't want to be involved in, is one that releases paid alphas/betas. It shows they are greedy, inpatient, and won't be as concerned with followthrough because they already have your money. Avoid those people. Like Ark, which is absolutely a piece of shit and not likely to get much better since everyone that was going to buy it, already has, so they already got their paycheck and don't NEED to work for it anymore.

>>2136778
I don't mind betas, honestly. I'm happy to see developers actually listen and work to improve their games through feedback but I am tired of them being in beta/alpha/whatever for what seems like fucking forever. I also think if you give people a chance to play a demo or beta you also increase your chances of getting funding for it.

I can even ignore shitty graphics if its fun but ARK is just survival. Between that and it's not the easiest of games it really drags on so I do hope this game actually adds in some quests that aren't just 'survive' and 'grow old'. And to be a huge hypocrite maybe ARK has listened too much because there's so many animals just crammed into one place. I havent played in months but last time I checked it was nearly impossible to go anywhere besides the one easiest zone without getting fucking destroyed by multiple, huge predators on top of trying to weave through the other fuckhuge ones that are just in way.

>This is why large studios don't do that shit.
Destiny.

>>2135204
They say in the trailer it's "as close as modern science allows" of course there's fucking guesswork.
There's no claim that it's definitely 100% how everything was back then, you spastic.

File: 078.gif (1MB, 500x429px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x429px

>>2130226
>Play as Dakotaraptor, Pachycephalosaurus, Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops and advance through multiple distinct life stages!

Implying it won't be:
>Play as Dakotaraptor, Dakotaraptor, maybe Tyrannosaurus but probably Dakotaraptor and advance through multiple distinct life stages!

>>2136854
I'm just reminding the anon that science has almost nothing to say about how dinosaurs looked and how dinosaurs behaved. Before you start flopping around on the floor and swallowing your tongue, please notice that I said ALMOST nothing.

and again, it's about as scientifically accurate as pokemon.

File: 1440382150769.jpg (40KB, 500x209px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x209px

>>2136922
>it's about as scientifically accurate as pokemon.

IT'S REAL TO ME!

>>2136922
>science has almost nothing to say about how dinosaurs looked and how dinosaurs behaved.
That's a massive overstatement.

>>2136939
If you think science publishes much of anything about dinosaur behavior or appearance you absolutely don't read science.

>>2136943
Spoken like a woman who doesn't know a thing about paleontology.

>>2136951
I read more paleontology in an average week than you have ever.

not bragging, it's just a fact.

>>2136953
No I have read more than you times infinity.

>>2136954
then you know that there's 1000 osteologies for every paper on behavior, and at least 10,000 osteologies for every paper on appearance.

I have it on good authority from my church's pastor that dinosaurs never really existed. The fossils we find were planted there by the devil's minions to test our faith in our lord Jesus Christ.

Fuck all you ingorant hethens.

>>2136957
Of course. Which leads us to intricate knowledge of what their muscles would look like, and which leads us to know how they would move. But my point was knowing even 30% of what a dinosaur's skin was like and 10% of how they probably behaved isn't "almost nothing"
We know almost nothing of their colors, sure. I don't see a problem with filling in the gaps with educated guesswork when the foundation is hard science.

>>2136987
>But my point was knowing even 30% of what a dinosaur's skin was like and 10% of how they probably behaved isn't "almost nothing"
we have skin from less than 1% of dinosaur species.

feathers from even less than that.

Statistically we know nothing.

And then we take one of the very few dinosaurs we have skin from and pretend it was covered in feathers just because reasons even though we know it wasn't.

The other problem with "scientific accuracy" is science doesn't actually agree on most of this stuff. It's bullshit and lots of people will call it bullshit. So when determining "accuracy" you invariably have to choose one person's bullshit over the other's even though you don't understand any of it.

>>2136987

Without proof, everything is deduction. It's all theory. We KNOW absolutely nothing about dinosaurs except basic bone structure and where they hung out.

Everything else is just guesses, with varying degrees of potential accuracy.

>>2136989
You have a fair point but you are using quite a bit of hyperbole

>>2136993
I only have two settings, raw data or hyperbole.

>>2135921
Taking skin of an existing bird and stretching it over a dinosaur seems to be very popular.

>>2136990
As someone who dearly loves paleontology this man's got it right

it's a science of interpolation and best-guesses based on a very limited sample of fossils

File: f7d240f9b1c850086da28a2875476504-d9vp5jd.jpg (213KB, 1130x707px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1130x707px

These brutish goliaths lived hard and died young. They truly were tyrant kings and queens that ruled by force.

>>2130226
Like along the lines of Tokyo Jungle?

File: Tyrannosaurus.mp4.jpg (72KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1920x1080px

>>2130226
The new tyrannosaurus model looks like shit compared to the first one,
If it was slightly outdated, they could have simply updated the model.

The rest of the game looks perfect though.

>>2134610
The vibrating skin around the antorbital fenestra is a nice touch.

>>2130226
Loving the featherdeniar's tears already.

>>2137392
That's the new one? Jesus, the old one was much, much better.

>Do dinosaurs really have feathers?
"Yes they absolutely do! Just as not all mammals have fur, not all dinosaurs have feathers, but over the last 20 years hundreds of specimens have been uncovered preserving direct evidence of feathers in a very large selection of the dinosaur family tree. Not to mention every living dinosaur has feathers! This fact is now indisputable."
>Does Tyrannosaurus really have feathers?
"While there are no direct impressions of feathers from fossils of Tyrannosaurus rex, there are from several other tyrannosaurs, including the giant Yutyrannus. All leading experts on tyrannosaurs agree that all evidence points to tyrannosaurs being feathered in some regard. As Saurian aims to reflect the consensus of such scientists, this is the route we have taken."
>Why does Saurian’s Tyrannosaurus have a scaly tail?
"The current evidence points to some feathered dinosaurs having scales on extremities such as their tails, legs and hands, just like most modern birds have scales on their feet. This appears to be true of the family Tyrannosaurus belongs to. For more information, check out our infographic on the topic."

File: Persons-and-Currie-feather-figure.png (361KB, 1042x880px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1042x880px

>What would Saurian do if a large, completely scaly theropod were to be discovered?
"If it was a tyrannosaurid or otherwise closer to Tyrannosaurus than to Yutyrannus we would re-design the animal to be scaly and remove the feathered option all-together. We will always be going with the most parsimonious solution to any given problem."
>Will there at least be an option to play as a featherless version?
"No. We do not believe in perpetuating outdated stereotypes. We will never have a toggle-able option regarding integument, we will always be going with the most parsimonious solution."
>Which dinosaurs have feathers?
"Below is a simplified diagram of how feathers are distributed amongst dinosaurs. Saurian will be following this pattern with it’s designs. This can be seen in our current models: filimentous feathers bore by the tyrannosauroid Tyrannosaurus and neornithischian Thescelosaurus, cylindrical integument on the ceratopsian Triceratops and the complex feathers on the deinonychosaur Acheroraptor."

Thoughts /an/?

>>2137537
>Thoughts /an/?
1. we already know Tyrannosaurus had scales and not feathers. They ignore this because Holtz ignores this.
2. Holtz ignores the fact because his entire life's work rests his tyrannosauroid/id diagnoses. If that's wrong then he's the Feduccia of dinosaurs.
3. If phylogenetic bracketing says Tyrannosaurus has feathers but fossils say it doesn't, the most parsimonious view is that your phylogeny is wrong, not that Tyrannosaurus somehow magically has feathers despite fossils saying it doesn't.

Holtz will have to pay this toll eventually. Probably after he's dead. His work got hijacked and ruined and he allowed it.

>>2137583
>we already know Tyrannosaurus had scales and not feathers.
Cool, post the evidence ITT

File: wyrexskinlarson.png (114KB, 621x337px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 621x337px

>>2137596
I posted it last time, you post it this time.

>>2137598
I wasn't here last time, I don't have it, which is why I requested it.

File: wyrex.jpg (30KB, 279x203px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 279x203px

>>2137596
did you save the pics?

File: wyrex t.jpg (94KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x398px

>>2137596

>>2137601
>>2137604
That's cool, but do we have any scale impressions from the back of the neck or the chest?

>>2137600
you didn't request it, you demanded it. Just like the prick that I argued with the last 15 times.

>>2137608
Perhaps if you project an inflection onto my request that I didn't intend., and we aren't arguing.

>>2137607
yes, but it doesn't matter.
because as soon as they realize they didn't have feathers on the neck and the upper thigh they'll just start pretending those were magical bare spots like they do with the tail and lower leg now.

>>2137610
>we aren't arguing.
you're presenting the same arguments he did.

>do we have skin impressions from X location where I expect feathers?
that's moving the goalposts, when we find an animal lacks feathers on 3 parts of the body you don't get to pretend it has feathers on all the parts you didn't find.

that's silly.

>>2130226
we all know how this will turn out

>>2137607
You keep pushing that goal post. Patchwork T. Rex is the future.

>>2137537
Jesus, talk about bias. Literally no palaeontologists will say that there is evidence of quills on like ceratopsians like triceratops.

It's like these sorts of people hear that one dinosaur has something they like and then they throw it on everything even remotely related. Even if there's evidence against it, like you know, skin impressions with no quills.

Funny how they leave dinosaurs like Carnotaurinae off their image. Guess it doesn't lend to their view of what they want things to look like.

>>2137616
it's kinda funny they still include Triassic theropods when it's been about 10 years since that evidence was debunked and dropped.

The "feathered" Dilophosaurus footprint turned out to just be some cracks in the mud.

When you demand proof during an argument on the internet, you automatically lose the argument in my opinion.

Google is not difficult. And, usually, the person demanding proof isn't actually interested in proof. They just want to make it harder for the other person to stay in the conversation. That's it.

Demanding proof is 3 simply words that take 10-30 minutes of work to reply to, and most people don't give a shit to do all that work. And if they do, the next reply will be calling your sources reputation into question (step 2 of the "demand proof" internet argument tactic.

Find your own proof. Learn how to debate without dancing around saying "proof! proof! proof!". If you're too lazy to do a quick google search, then you are genuinely not interested in the debate and just looking for a fight. In which face, you're an asshole. Go outside.

>>2137630
That's bullshit. You're just being lazy as fuck. Don't state a claim if you have zero interest in providing proof. The second point can be avoided by not getting your information form shitty sources.

>>2137635
>Don't state a claim if you have zero interest in providing proof.
he's got a point.

most of the stuff people demand proof of is common knowledge among people that actually care about the topic.

so when you ask for citations you're automatically admitting you don't know anything about it, and also don't care enough to learn.

then after telling us you don't know the topic or care about it you start arguing about it like you're some sort of expert.

which is fun I guess.

>>2137613
>>2137615
>>2137630
I'm not moving any goalposts, as we're not having an argument. I only wanted a yes or no answer because I'm interested in the facts. Stop projecting, please.

>>2137611
I'm sorry, I couldn't find chest or neck skin impressions of a tyrannosaurid, could you please direct me to where you got your information from?

>>2137438
Actually that's the older one.

>>2137598
But saurian haven't put scales on the tyrannosaurus tail, and we know some dinosaurs were partially feathered.

>>2137630
M8 you're the one being lazy f you can't be bothered to backup your claims.

>>2137720
>M8 you're the one being lazy f you can't be bothered to backup your claims.

You're the one being lazy if you haven't researched the topic enough to already know about the info presented.

And if you're not interested enough to research the topic, then you're just being an asshole trying to pick a fight, so I would certainly not waste my time trying to educate you since you only care about being captain of the debate club.

This goes both ways. The bottom lies is stick to what you know, or what you genuinely want to know. No one likes people who just troll around picking fights on the internet out of boredom.

File: Trevormccureispoorly.jpg (23KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 512x384px

>>2134535
>>2130239

Absolutely stupid.

The feathers dont look at all natural, as if its wearing a feather suit to appeal to realism autists.

Why is it smiling in the gif btw?

>>2137728
If you proved them wrong (assuming you're correct in the theory that they don't even really care) then certainly they'll shut up.

>>2137733
>realism autists

But it's not realistic, at all. The evidence doesn't point to it wearing a cardigan of fuzz, it points to no fuzz. You can be your ass as time goes on and we get more impressions that fuzz cardigan is going to get ever smaller as feather-kin try to cling on to "muh busu-kawaii monster".

>>2137750
You sound biased as fuck. I'm pretty sure they didn't have feathers, being scaly tailed megafauna in an arid climate and all, but who cares if some video game guesses they did have feathers? We can't even be 100% certain if they did or didn't yet, anyway, so going either way is just an educated guess.

>>2137735
>then certainly they'll shut up.
he never does.
like the anon says, he first demands evidence, then criticizes the source of the evidence, moves the goalposts a few times, and usually settles in to insulting people and denying.

might toss in an appeal to authority. Very rarely he brings valid criticism or finds his own citations that disagree with your point, but somehow pretends his citation carries more weight than yours just because he's magical like that.

300 posts later you finally quit out of sheer exhaustion and he calls your mother a couple inventive invectives and declares himself the winner. Then next time the topic comes up he does it all again.

repeatedly, to the end of time apparently.

at least he doesn't do what bugguy usually does and sage his responses in the hopes that his opponent won't see them and he'll win by default. That's probably the funniest debate tactic I've seen here and I've seen some pathetic shit.

>>2137757
That was me requesting evidence, though. You're being paranoid.

Thank you very much for providing it, by the way. I haven't being following paleontology for very long.

>>2137692
>could you please direct me to where you got your information from?
I told you last time, I got it from Larson.

email him and ask.

I've already contacted him and asked him to forward your email to me, so you might want to use a throwaway email if you don't want me knowing who you are. And honestly you probably don't.

>>2137759
>That was me requesting evidence,
a request comes with a question mark and a "please."

you demand other people google stuff for you because you're too lazy or stupid to use a search engine.

and you do it all the time.

>>2137764
I don't know who you think you're talking to, but it isn't me.

>>2137766
I'm sorry to offend you, but you're being quite insulting, you're not really someone to call anyone out on manners or courtesy.
Sorry to ask for something I could have googled, too. I thought the point of this image board was to share information and discussion with each other.

>>2137771
>posts the exact same shit the regular troll does
>I swear I'm not that guy, how dare you?!!

next time start by asking nicely then I won't recognize you, jackass.

>>2137773
I'm starting to think this person you believe you're referring to has been a different person every time. How much time do you spend on this image board? It seems like it hasn't been well to you.

>>2137775
Unless there's a plague of idiots that think a demand is the same as a request then I'm pretty sure you're our troll.

and I'm not the only one that spotted you from the looks of it. Do better next time.

>>2137778
I apologize for offending you, again.

>>2137779
you have never offended me. I don't think you could.

I'm looking for new arguments and criticisms and you bore me with the same old thing.

>>2137786
What's there to argue or criticize over? Whether you should post source along with your claims or not? Proving that you're talking to some anonymous person from earlier because they also wanted source alongside your claims? Being really anal about manners only to be condescending, presumptuous, and rude? Sounds riveting, have fun with that man. I wonder how many times you'll repeat that cycle.

>>2130226
Are they just doing dinosaurs, or other prehistoric wildlife too?

>>2137788
>What's there to argue or criticize over?
the citations the anon demands aren't available for free on the internet so he denies their existence.

because we all know if science isn't free and online it doesn't exist.

>I wonder how many times you'll repeat that cycle.
I didn't repeat it.
I cut you off at the start and got you pretending to be polite and actually interested.

I'll probably keep right on doing that to you, it's better than listening to the same bullshit every time.

>>2137791
You're making baseless assumptions on an anonymous person's identity bordering on paranoid schizophrenic I suggest you move to a forum requiring nametags, and if you trip I won't bother you again. Not that I'd need to, you've already given me the information I requested.

>>2137798
I don't honestly care if you're the same person or not if you bring the same tired bullshit to the table.

which you did.
>demand other person provides citations
>when citations are presented demand citations for a different part of the animal (literally moving the goalposts)
I already know where this is going.

you do to or you would've included intermediate arguments instead of jumping straight to a body part you think hasn't been found yet.

>>2137804
>(literally moving the goalposts)
No, it was a genuine question as I couldn't find any information about it using search engines. You'll obviously assume I'm lying though, everyone is out to mildly annoy you.

>>2137806
>it was a genuine question as I couldn't find any information about it using search engines.
then you share the inability to operate a search engine with our troll as well since this stuff is amazingly easy to find on google.

so you both:
demand citations
can't work a search engine
when given citations immediately ask for a different body part (always the neck for some reason).

these are some remarkable fucking similarities.

>>2137811
Sorry for bothering you...

Are you guys still arguing about arguing? C'mon, guys. It's a computer screen. Look around you. Maybe there's a wife, a dog, a door, a sandwich. Surely you can find something more meaningful to do.

>>2137728
But it doesn't go both ways
You say me and other anons "picked a fight" with you, in the same sense you picked a fight with saurian by saying their work is inaccurate. Doesn't that sound ridiculous to you? It doesn't matter if we're on the Internet or not, if you can't be bothered to support your claim, why should anyone believe you?

>>2137836
>You say me and other anons "picked a fight" with you

Do you even know who you're fighting with anymore? Do you know who posted what? You are slinging shit in random directions and hoping something sticks. There is no debate here. There is just a group of people desperate to win a fight. They don't even know who they're fighting. But god dammit, they're gonna win!

>>2137793
You've heard of Sci-hub right?

>>2137833
>Surely you can find something more meaningful to do.
>he can't do two things at once

>>2137842
no, I hadn't.

the cited material is a book and a lecture, I somehow doubt they've pirated both. Parts of the book are available online though.

Man the amount of uninformed idiots whining about feathers on dinosaurs is insane...

File: gm_construct0450.png (625KB, 1128x878px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1128x878px

I reskinned that old gmod trex model to look like the saurian one.

So which dino are you starting as?

I might start as pachy; seems pretty chill and it might be fun to headbutt some cocky raptors.

>>2130226
When is this game coming out?
My god, this si something I dreamd of ever since a child.

File: Saurolophus_debivort.png (1MB, 1800x922px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x922px

>>2138271
Triceratops.
Who should we vote for when that stretch goal is reached? I suggest saurolophus for herbivore.

>>2138288
I saw an article the other day saying that a toe bone that belonged to a t rex may of actually been a therizinosaur.
If this is proven to be true, then I'd suggest that.

>>2138288
I think a pterosaur would be fun as fuck for the carnivore.

>>2138350
I'm pretty sure they'll make dinosaurs playable, quetzalcoatlus is their only option for pterosaurs and they would be best as hazards if anything.

>>2138141
It's about the same as the amount of uninformed idiots whining for feathers.

>>2138288
Ankylosaurus. It's the most unique one.

>>2138435
Well, all the feathers are already there.

>>2135342
There will be a post K-T event survival mode

>>2138545
>K-Pg

>>2136568
Why do you say that?

I was considering to give them money. I've never joined a kickstarter before.

>>2138620
They can't handle even the slightest bit of criticism, constructive or otherwise and have been know to throw bans for even questioning things. There's tons of posts and reviews with claims and screen shots of them treating their players like shit. It's up to you if you still want to support them for the game but look into the dev behavior as well before hand.

>>2138892
do you have a link or anything? I tried to google criticism or something but can't seem to find anything

>>2138609
"The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, also known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction, was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of the plant and animal species on Earth—including all non-avian dinosaurs—that occurred over a geologically short period of time approximately 66 million years ago."

I play visual novels and even I think dinosaur obsessions are for dorks.

>>2138906
"Tertiary is the former term for the geologic period from 66 million to 2.58 million years ago"
"The Tertiary is no longer recognized as a formal unit"

>>2139135
No one gives a shit.

>>2139135
It's probably an autism trait.

Autistic people are known for developing obsessions with broad but extremely shallow knowledge that has no practical application.

>>2139145
>>2139155
Yeah dinosaur faggots are fucking autistic nerdy piece of shit asshole cunts. Every single one should kill themselves.

>>2139242
You're on 4chan, shithead, wtf did you expect?

>>2136989

> I read more paleontology in an average week than you have ever.

When you use that phrase as an argument very few people will take you seriously. As in gratuitous use of an appeal to authority does not make you even remotely close to being right.

Followed by using the magic statistics to get out of proving your point.

>>2137611

Have you ever seen a large bird like, say, an ostrich? Notice how it has lots of bare patches of skin?

>>2139691
>When you use that phrase as an argument very few people will take you seriously.
yet I hooked a moron anyways....
>appeal to authority
It wasn't an appeal to authority, it was a response to the anon's claim that I don't know anything about paleontology.
>Followed by using the magic statistics
they are factual.
you can look them up if you like
how many species of dinosaur are there? How many of those are known from fossils of feathers?
>to get out of proving your point.
the numbers proved my point.

>>2139692
elephants also have lots of bare patches of skin.

are they hiding feathers somewhere we don't know about? Stay tuned to learn the exciting truth!

>>2139694

Statistics is a pretty shoddy "science". It's generally used when people lack facts or broader knowledge of the subject at hand.

That's why statistics is so popular with right-wing nutjobs and pseudointellectuals of all breeds.

> inb4 "statistics IS a science"

Although some will call it that, it's more of a tool for making predictions and calculating probabilities, rather than a science per se.

So long story short, the numbers didn't prove your point, you used numbers in an attempt to prove your point. Which you failed.

>>2139695

Elephants aren't remotely as related to tyrannosaurids as ostriches are.

That's either weak bait pr a bad case of the stupids.

>>2139698
I was just making fun of your thinking that an animal having bare skin implies it has feathers.

>>2139697
my point was that less than 1% is almost nothing.

you could argue that it's not and I'll sit back and smile.

File: really2.jpg (7KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 282x179px

>>2139699

Your comprehension skills are truly amazing. As is your vast knowledge of comparative anatomy. As is your attempt at being a wry cunt.

Let's hope your sarcasm detection skill is on par with the above.

>>2139705
I actually do know a shitload about dinosaur anatomy, but it's not a subject anyone here would be able to test me on.

You're awfully polite today. Almost subdued. Feeling ok?

>>2139701

While I won't argue that 1% is almost nothing, I will argue that we know a lot more than that. Climatology, paleobotany, phylogeny and comparative anatomy give us a picture on dinosaur integument that comprises far more than a measly 1% of our knowledge.

>>2139709
>I will argue that we know a lot more than that.
You're using a looser definition of "know" is all.

We infer a great deal.
we know very little.

File: dino-feather-1.jpg (778KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1000x750px

>>2139706

Your sarcasm meter might be broken.

Let me put it in terms even you can understand.

> The post you answered to was a very thinly veiled insult. Your continued attempts at being a wry cunt are pathetic at their best.

> I could probably (and gladly) drag both you and your knowledge on dinosaur anatomy through the mud with little to no effort, but you're not even worth that additional small waste of my time.

Have a nice one.

>>2139714
>The post you answered to was a very thinly veiled insult
yeah, I got it.
I just don't care. You're always an insulting douche, I'm used to it. I'm actually a bit worried because you seem to lack your usual passion and inventiveness today. Again, is everything ok?
>I could probably (and gladly) drag both you and your knowledge on dinosaur anatomy through the mud
I'd be thrilled if there was someone here who knew more anatomy than me.

you're no daisy.

>>2130239
That looks fucking retarded. Fuck T-Rex, not my favorite anymore.

>>2139692
Using a modern bird doesn't help to discern much about a T. Rex, especially for external things like integument.

It'd be like taking a modern human and saying that all early primates must've had near hairless bodies with long shaggy head hair.

>>2139729
>T REX DID NOT HAVE LIPS!!!
Fuck off retard.

>>2139810
I know it had lips, that's why it looks fucking stupid, retard.

File: ko1.jpg (566KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1024x768px

>>2139716
he's too busy being angry at me to be angry at you.

>>2139818
Wrong, skeleton face is fucking stupid

File: 1430985586375.jpg (45KB, 540x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 540x480px

>>2139823
too funny.
I saw that on the other board.

File: c0359d97414f04fa8fd8199a2fd95b00_original.png (215KB, 639x353px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 639x353px

>Anatosaurus

File: f591fafc7f8c4093179c12b9bde59f5e_original.png (519KB, 639x474px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 639x474px

>Ankylosaurus

File: da617f191ea225616034a54e08b21980_original.png (153KB, 639x516px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 639x516px

>Anzu. Yes, it will be feathered.

>>2140079

The anky loojs good. Quite lifelike. The sculptors know their shit.

>>2137757
Saging your own posts in a debate to avoid ghost bumping is considered polite on some boards.

What is with all the shilling? Buy advertising space.

Okay wait, so riddle me this

An adult T Rex is pretty huge, right? And it lived in a climate that was fairly hot, right? Why would it be covered in feathers? Wouldn't it overheat?

>>2141250
They probably avoided overheating in similar ways that modern birds do.

http://birding.about.com/od/birdingbasics/a/howbirdskeepcool.htm

>>2141250
The average climate for hells creek is 11 degrees Celsius
Emu feathers are better at cooling the body down than bare skin/kangaroo fur
Would you also think that megatherium would be hairless considering it's a 6 tonne animal in a tropical environment?

>>2141214
I sage almost all of my posts outside of plant threads.

>>2141283
>The average climate for hells creek is 11 degrees Celsius
if you think that's cold you don't understand average temperatures.

The Hell Creek is characterized by palm trees and crocodiles, neither of which survive in cold places.

>>2141325
>neither of which survive in cold places.
both crocodiles and palm trees can survive in cold places.

>>2141373
most people wouldn't consider the places they survive to be cold climates.

I think the actual term is "subtropical." Most people would consider them hot.

>>2141376
>I think the actual term is "subtropical.
crocodiles and palms can survive your average mid european weather without any issues.

>>2141388
the average perhaps, but the average is not what happens all the time.

The Hell Creek has three distinct genera of crocodile, Middle Europe has what, zero?

>>2141398
>Middle Europe has what, zero
they're all extinct, but it's funny, because crocodiles are actually slowly returning to europe.

>but the average is not what happens all the time.
the temperature isn't what kills them.

most reptiles native to michigan for example should do fine in mid europe if it was just for the temperature.

but they don't, because they're unable to find burrows and unable to incubate their eggs for example.

escaped crocodiles aren't exactly rare.

>>2141403
>the temperature isn't what kills them.
said no herpetologist ever.

I find it interesting you'd try to argue palm trees and crocs prove cold weather though.

when I presented the same argument to Dr. Holtz (Hell Creek was hot) he came up with a much better argument in less than a second.

think on it a bit and see if you can tell me what he said?

>>2141409
>said no herpetologist ever.
said every herpetologist ever, you can find plenty of articles about it if you look for the reasons as to why red eared sliders for example haven't wreaked havoc upon mid europe yet.

they survive the winters, they aren't an issue because they can't reproduce.

> palm trees and crocs prove cold weather though.
I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just telling you that palms and crocs have nothing to do with cold or warm weather, they can be found in both.

I wasn't the one you were arguing with.

>>2141414
>they can be found in both.
but they aren't.
and it's not because the soil is too hard for palm trees to burrow or whatever.

climate does actually limit some organisms while not limiting others. It's weird.

>>2141418
>but they aren't.
crocodiles aren't, palms are.

there's palm trees that survive -15C.

that's cold to anyone living outside of ant fucking arctica.

>>2141423
crocodiles survive occasional freezing temps as well.

not so much in places where freezing is a regular thing though. Palms either for that matter.

the average is not the extreme.

>>2130226
>>2130239
Disgusting

>>2141429
>crocodiles survive occasional freezing temps as well.
exactly, whether an area is cold is actually irrelevant.

it's the climate as a whole that you have to look at.

every time someone claims animals aren't capable of something there's always some fucked up mutant tucked away in some shady corner of the world that actually does it.

nature finds its way...eventually.

>>2141439
agreed.
and that was my point in saying that a climate with an average temp of 11C can certainly be quite hot. As indeed the Hell Creek was, as evidenced by its rather large diversity of crocs.

The point Dr. Holtz made was that the average isn't representative because the Hell Creek spanned clear from the center of Canada all the way down to the top of Mexico, which includes a large number of different local climates.

He also pointed out that the Hell Creek covers millions of years, during which the climate changed greatly at least three times.

so the average isn't actually informative.

The problem with his argument is that T. rex lived in one of the hottest climates found in one of the hottest parts of the Hell Creek. So if climate is an indicator the heat might indeed be a problem.

>>2140074
Wait I thought it was called Anatotitan? Or was that the genus that was regrouped with Edmontosaurus?

>>2141571
Both "Anatotitan" and "Anatosaurus" are currently considered junior synonyms of Edmontosaurus.

Holy shit. Multiplayer is almost reached.

>>2142383
If the console goal gets reached (which I doubt) there had better be bro-op. I don't care how inaccurate the situation is, I want to play T-Rex & Triceratops vs the world with my friend.

>>2136990
That is absolutely wrong though. We have skin, feather, egg and other fossils of extinct saurians that show gait, speed, care of young, whether they laid eggs or not, whether they built nests or not, etc. We know a LOT more than you're letting on. And much of that comes DIRECTLY from physical evidence, not deduction.

>>2143067
He's sorta got a point.
I mean you're correct, we do have all that, but from extremely few dinosaurs.

It's weird when you start reading up on it. For example when I last read anything on dinosaur eggs we had something like three or four species that were positively known from eggs because their embryos were found in the eggs or because the eggs themselves were found in the mother. There's something close to 100 different sorts of dinosaur egg known, but we don't know what dinosaur over 90% of them came from, even in cases where a dinosaur is found on top of the eggs.

a similar situation exists in trackways. We don't usually know for a fact which dinosaur made certain tracks. The tracks themselves aren't usually diagnostic even to the genus level. Even when we do know the trackmaker there's often questions about how far it could move its legs, and thus how long its stride would be normally. Without all that information, we don't actually know who was running or exactly how fast.

These kinds of guesses are listed as educated guesses in the scientific literature, and paleontologists are very careful to distinguish what they KNOW from what they INFER.
But the public is largely unaware of the distinction and presents a lot of educated guesses as if they were known facts. They may or may not be.

We actually have mathematical scales ranking the levels of guesswork and the evidence behind them, but that gets into topics that will bore any but the most rigorous of scientific minds.

>>2143086
There are actually a lot less species of Dinosaur than most paleontologists let on. Horner has already shown good evidence for several examples of what everyone should already have known. So we actually have a LOT more fossils than people imply when you subtract the 80 trillion junior synonyms.

Take the Protoceratops and Velociraptor fossils. We know that the Velociraptors preyed upon their eggs, that the Protos built nests and defended them, that they were more than a match for the Raptors and that they lived in an arid climate susceptible to sand movements, because that's how they were buried. We know all that from just a few fossils of them frozen in combat over nests. And that's just ONE example.

>trackways
Trackways are a lot fuzzier, but not nearly as much, again, as people may think because a lot of the confusion stems from the erroneous view that there were dozens of times more Dinosaur species present than there actually were. Once you subtract all the synonyms named for a fucking knucklebone, the picture clears up pretty substantially. Take Tyrannosaurus' habitat. There weren't actually that many Dinosaur species there. And there was a decent amount of diversity, so it wouldn't be that difficult to distinguish who could have made which tracks, so long as they're clear enough.

>Without all that information, we don't actually know who was running or exactly how fast.
I would strongly contest that. We understand a lot about Therapod gait just from looking at birds. The gait should be utterly unchanged because the morphology of the legs is practically identical to what it was hundreds of millions of years ago. Not only that, but you can only have a certain sized foot with a certain sized gate for each species. Bipedal vs quadrupedal, etc. Again, once you whittle down the artificial species diversity to realistic levels, it becomes clearer.

>We actually have mathematical scales
Of course all of this assumes the species are accurately described.

>>2143094
>There are actually a lot less species of Dinosaur than most paleontologists let on.
oh they admit it. About 1/3 of the species out there are probably junior synonyms.
>Horner has already shown good evidence for several examples
his ideas have essentially 0 support among paleontologists. Time may prove him right, or it may make a fool of him, but for the moment his ideas are based on a lack of evidence rather than the presence of it.
>We know all that from just a few fossils of them frozen in combat over nests.
kek
I only know of two such fossils, neither of which was found near a nest.
> it wouldn't be that difficult to distinguish who could have made which tracks, so long as they're clear enough.
yes, assuming we've found every dinosaur ever. Which no paleontologist would agree with.
>The gait should be utterly unchanged because the morphology of the legs is practically identical to what it was hundreds of millions of years ago.
Most birds hop, they don't run. Of those that do run, the hips are tilted a good 45 degrees off of what non-avian theropods' are.

so no, there's definitely some discussion on dinosaur gait. Actually an interesting story to exemplify that fairly recently, but I'm not sure if it interests anyone on /an/.
>Of course all of this assumes the species are accurately described.
we have mathematical scales for how likely that is to be true as well.

>>2143107
>About 1/3 of the species out there are probably junior synonyms.
My guess is it's a LOT more than that.

>his ideas have essentially 0 support among paleontologists.
Well then they're fucking morons, because even I knew as a child that Torosaurus was very obviously just Triceratops (though there is a little more nuance with timeframes, etc.). Nanotyrannus never made any damn sense either as a species.

>Time may prove him right, or it may make a fool of him, but for the moment his ideas are based on a lack of evidence rather than the presence of it.
What the hell are you talking about? That's literally the opposite of reality. His ideas are based on the PRESENCE of evidence, not the lack of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQa11RMCeSI

>I only know of two such fossils, neither of which was found near a nest.
Hmm. I may have gotten multiple fossil finds mixed up. I could have sworn one was over a nest. Anyway, we have a lot more evidence than was suggested. We're even starting to look into coloration from physical and chemical cues.

>yes, assuming we've found every dinosaur ever.
Nah, you just have to narrow down the time period. Ecosystems don't work the way a lot of people imagine they do. Most of the time only one megafaunal species or one from each family present occupies a niche. For example, there are only two Rhinos in Africa and they differ in lifestyle: one a browser, the other a grazer. The same was true of Eemian Europe, I believe. Future paleontoligists, however, would probably say there were 5-25 species of African rhino concurrent. Biologists and paleontoligists have been doing this retarded shit for a long time when there's no basis for it. The problem is recognition. You make a new discovery, you get some prestige. That's a problem.

>Most birds hop, they don't run
We're not talking about fucking Robins, dumbass. I'm talking about shit like Ratites.

>>2143107
>we have mathematical scales for how likely that is to be true as well.
So what? This delusion that math makes one infallible is absolute cancer to modern science.

>>2143112
>My guess is it's a LOT more than that.
Perhaps. I would tend to agree with you but most paleontologists won't. Paleospecies are notoriously hard to define.
>Nanotyrannus never made any damn sense either as a species.
I think there's only three people that still accept it as a genus.
>What the hell are you talking about?
His premise is that the differing morphology is overlapped by differing sizes suggesting different ontogenetic stages.

for example we don't have any huge Triceratops and we don't have any little Torosaurus, so he says they're the same thing even though there's some major changes between the two. That's basing the hypothesis on what we LACK. We LACK giants of one species and LACK juveniles of another. Hypotheses based on a lack of evidence are rarely published and even more rarely accepted.
>Hmm. I may have gotten multiple fossil finds mixed up
that's why I laughed. I do that all the time. I know that feel.
>Nah, you just have to narrow down the time period.
many of our tracks occur through the entire Mesozoic, unchanged even when we know they weren't made by the same animals because no dinosaur species survived that entire time period. Either way though, you can't rule out an unknown dinosaur as the trackmaker. There's no point where we say, "we've found all the dinosaurs in this rock unit and we'll never discover another." We discover new dinosaurs every month.
>I'm talking about shit like Ratites.
answered above. The posture is different even when the bones themselves are similar.
>This delusion that math makes one infallible is absolute cancer to modern science.
No scientist considers themselves infallible. However science without math isn't science at all.

>>2143115
>I think there's only three people that still accept it as a genus.
Yes, but what I'm telling you is that I never did. Even as a teenager, because it was blatantly obvious Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus could not in any way have been chronospecies. It's like Horner pointed out in that video, biologists have egos and it's disgusting. I've always believed it should be illegal to name a species after a person.

>His premise is that the differing morphology is overlapped by differing sizes suggesting different ontogenetic stages.
Yes?

>for example we don't have any huge Triceratops and we don't have any little Torosaurus
That's not exactly accurate, but close, yeah. But I would add something I'm not sure he's made clear or not and that's what I've already stated, you don't have a lot of megafauna with identical niches in the same place and time. That just doesn't happen.

>That's basing the hypothesis on what we LACK
No, because he's opened the bones and also compared morphology and found exactly what he and any sane person would have expected. One of the proofs of a theory is that it makes accurate predictions. Well, his did. That's why he sawed them open to begin with.

>you can't rule out an unknown dinosaur as the trackmaker
Oh I fully realize how poor tracks are as fossils, but IF you can narrow down the time period and IF the track is relatively clear, there's no good reason the track should be obscure.

>We discover new dinosaurs every month.
"""""new dinosaurs""""" This is a major supposition here. I consider nothing from China to be reliable, for example. I don't think that the weirdtarded shit that we've been finding, combined with China's legendary fraudulent fossil manufacturing industry, combined with the planet-sized egos of paleontologists all vying for their place in pop science culture are a coincidence. I think it's blatant fraud.

>>2143115
>The posture is different even when the bones themselves are similar.
Not as radically as you're making it seem. The difference is only a slight tilt in angle to balance the anterior portion of the animal into a slightly more upright posture to compensate for a shortened tail.

>No scientist considers themselves infallible.
Now that's a damned lie straight from the pit of hell. I would reckon MOST scientists consider themselves infallible until forced to accept otherwise. Especially when they start leaning on math, which has developed a kind of occult power in modern times for some totally arbitrary reason.

>However science without math isn't science at all.
Again, that's simply flat false. Particularly in the life sciences. The vast majority of discovery and proof in all science should an does come from simple trial and error and experimentation, not ticking away on a calculator. That's the major reason, I think, that physics has spiraled so far out of control on the cosmic and subatomic scales that we can't reconcile anything anymore. And all the physicists swear up and down that there's no way they could be wrong, while paying lip service to objectivity. Yet we now have a model where 96% of the universe basically doesn't exist and can't be falsified. It's complete horseshit.

>>2143122
>I've always believed it should be illegal to name a species after a person.
Horner has two species named for him.
>you don't have a lot of megafauna with identical niches in the same place and time
agreed, but niche may not always be obvious from bones or tracks.

A lot of study goes into trying to figure out how sympatric species avoided competition, but the answer isn't always obvious.
>because he's opened the bones and also compared morphology and found exactly what he and any sane person would have expected.
bone structure isn't actually diagnostic either.
>what he and any sane person would have expected
I've mentioned this to you before, biologists don't classify animals just by how they look. The overall shape isn't that important. So when "any sane person" thinks they know why a dinosaur is classified one way or another they almost certainly don't know the real reasons.

That said, I tend to agree with Horner. But he has no evidence. The bone structures he says are evidence wouldn't actually differ if the remodeling was ontogenetic or specific in nature.
>there's no good reason the track should be obscure.
except that almost all of the dinosaurs had one of two foot types so they all look the same, and size isn't very useful because even large dinosaurs start off small.
>I think it's blatant fraud.
I'm aware. I do wonder some at the amount of interest you have in a field you seem to distrust completely. Perhaps you seek to revolutionize it?

>>2143124
>The difference is only a slight tilt in angle to balance the anterior portion of the animal into a slightly more upright posture to compensate for a shortened tail.
true, but the slight change in hip angle produces a larger change in stride angle since the change is magnified by the length of the leg/foot.

I mean a move of a couple degrees forward or back for the muscle attachments would make a difference of inches or feet in stride length depending on the length of the leg.

File: alberto.jpg (137KB, 776x948px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 776x948px

>>2143124
>. The difference is only a slight tilt in angle to balance the anterior portion of the animal into a slightly more upright posture to compensate for a shortened tail.
to address that further, the loss of the tail moved the center of gravity forward, meaning the knee had to move forward to stay under the center.

so what happened is birds evolved a femur that's closer to horizontal and essentially doesn't move. In fact it's recruited for breathing iirc, so it's essentially fused to the belly of the animal by muscles that support the lungs. The knee is stuck right up on the chest.

none of this was true in non-avian theropods, to even balance they had to have a femur that could swing, completely unlike that of a bird. Just because all that tail.

>>2143132
>Horner has two species named for him
And I don't agree with it. I've always thought that was wrong. Nonetheless, he is right about the reason for so many species being ego.

>agreed, but niche may not always be obvious from bones or tracks.
Niches haven't changed for hundreds of millions of years. There are still tall browsers (Giraffes, Brachiosaurs), grazers, low browsers, apex predators, lessor predators, lesser herbivores, etc. And the habitats are little different: only the plant assemblages have changed to a degree. Most of the largest creatures to ever walk on land either now or in the Mesozoic lived in open areas - grasslands now, and fernlands then.

>bone structure isn't actually diagnostic either.
Of course it is. Now you're just being dumb.

>But he has no evidence
Now you're being really fucking dumb. I can't take you seriously anymore.

>>2143140
>he is right about the reason for so many species being ego.
it's not just ego. to get paid they have to publish something. And they don't get paid a lot so if they don't publish they may starve.
>Niches haven't changed for hundreds of millions of years.
sure, but the shapes of the animals exploiting them sure has. Dinosaurs were far more conserved than mammals. They really didn't vary that much.
>Of course it is. Now you're just being dumb.
lol
>I can't take you seriously anymore.
you have never taken me seriously and we both know it.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts though.

>>2130280
Wait, Spinosaurus didn't exist? That was my favorite dinosaur when i was little

File: spinosaurus.jpg (94KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x768px

>>2143827
It existed. It just may not have been a quadruped as was recently suggested.

>>2137630
lol u lazy as fuck m8

>>2144159
>working to know things is lazier than sitting around typing "citation needed" over and over

nobody here is getting paid to educate you.
get off your lazy ass and do it yourself.

File: saurian_tyrannosaurus_lifecycle_by_arvalis-d9dwo0o.jpg (3MB, 8252x2497px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 8252x2497px

>>2134531
Years of AGE from left to right:
25, 12, 5, 2

>>2130226
Any chance that i can be a giant carnivoire turtle?

File: 5d64b793b5819333782d182b801347a2.jpg (82KB, 452x640px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 452x640px

>>2135911
i hope to god that no therapods ever looked like this holy shit.

>>2138288
their only using hell creek dinos for now which means Ankylosaurus, Edmontosaurus and Quetzalcoatlus are obligatory

Why has this shill thread not been deleted?

>>2144920
/an/ doesn't report things anymore.
it's all newfags, they probably don't even know how and they sure as hell don't know why.

>>2144711
You can only play as dinosaurs.

>>2130261
because if other 'saurs have scales , the ones with feathers are simply not allowed to exist. if birds with t-rex pelvises exist , someone must have started wearing feathers at some point , as it is unfound that they developed leathery wings first and feathers later

>>2130239
Sigh. Adult T. rex most likely did not have feathers.

>>2145212
>if birds with t-rex pelvises exist
ironically enough T. rex had a lizard pelvis, it was a Saurischian.

Bird-hipped dinosaurs, aka Ornithischians, didn't evolve to become birds.

It's a weird twist in the plot.
>>2146861
If "Nanotyrannus" is a juvenile T. rex as most people think, then juveniles didn't have feathers either. Larson last year described a "Nanotyrannus" mummy with extensive skin preservation. All scales, no feathers.

>>2146874
>Larson last year described a "Nanotyrannus" mummy with extensive skin preservation. All scales, no feathers.
Yeah I remember that, it was really cool. Hopefuly it gets published legitimately soon.

>>2147662
it was published in lecture which is legit enough.

He won't do a paper on the thing until the fossil sells though. If even then. It's hard to get a whole scientific paper out of "we found some skin."

>>2143827
>reading comprehension