Feathered dinosawrs in amber n shit

File: yoshi.png (6KB, 544x640px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 544x640px

i agree, ryder

>>2276532
looks photoshopped to me.

File: 1479601698217.jpg (50KB, 406x364px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 406x364px

>>2276585
Wow, your informative post just singlehandedly invalidated the research of numerous palaentologists, you sure told 'em
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31193-9

>>2276597
Wana fucking go den brada?

File: 1479595402900.jpg (20KB, 540x539px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 540x539px

>>2276598
Outside, now

File: fluffytail.jpg (596KB, 1024x938px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1024x938px

>>2276597
at least I didn't drench a cat's tail in honey, throw some dirt and a bug in there, then harden it and photoshop out the rest of the cat like our flaming fag of an OP. pic related, cat tail.

>>2276605
Why do longnecks have fangs?

>>2276612
biting into coconuts

My dad's gonna be so pissed when he finds out about this.

i wonder if it tastes good

Why are feathered dinos so gay looking?

>>2276532
What about that bug in there :o

>>2276779
He sleepy

https://youtu.be/2R0btJB6-S4

https://youtu.be/Ght9WlxORFE

jap crayzy vattle

File: image.jpg (111KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1000x665px

>>2276610

>>2276903
>arguably may become one of the most important and iconic fossils in the history of paleontology
>like the Berlin archaeopteryx or the bones of Lucy
>found in Burma
>polished it to make it pretty possibly damaging or eliminating some valuable fossil evidence
>recognized by Chinese scientist
>bought by Chinese institute
>forever Chinese

Is this what it felt like when the US and UK were sucking up all the world's treasures?

>>2277178
>muh western colonialist history
Except that hasn't happened for a century, back when there was an excuse for being pricks.

>>2277326
>Lucy was returned to Ethiopia because muh cultural heritage
If there's an uprising and the museums get looted they'll probably be ignored (not shiny and sparkly).
If fanatics take power some mullah might have them destroyed because evolution is haram.
Great idea, giving treasures back to shitlands.

>>2277178
>china
It's probably fake

File: 09TBfeather-superJumbo.jpg (745KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 2048x1365px

>>2276532
>>2276903
That's really cool and exciting. I'm interested in the evolution of feathers and any information that helps us imagine what dinosaurs looked like when they were alive, so this discovery is relevant to my interests. Can't help feeling a little jealous of China, they get all the cool fossils. My country didn't have the correct conditions to get any dinosaur fossils at all.

I'm sometimes a little bit suspicious of the Chinese fossils, though. They get so many feathered dinosaurs, and there are instances of Chinese fossil forgery in the past. - However, I don't think that one's a forgery. Apparently an international team has been examining it long before they published information about it. Those are feathers rather than just normal hair, they're stuck to a tail that can't belong to a bird, and there are extinct ants from Cretaceous bundled in the amber too.

File: gr1_lrg.jpg (4MB, 2897x3850px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2897x3850px

>>2277419
So are those 2 things that look like ants ants, or wasps?

Quite a lot of bugs, really cool. Free meal turned into an eternal trap

File: dhingdhong-300x222.jpg (20KB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x222px

>>2277381
Don't be a creationist.

>>2277375
Except Ethopia is 65% Christian. For perspective America is 70% Christian.

How unfortunate that silly facts get in the way of your racism.

>>2276532
Obviously just a bird's tail, no reason to jump to conclusions that it's a dinosaur.

>>2277443
But you just said it's obviously a dinosaur's tail.

File: Zhenyuanlong-skeleton.jpg (573KB, 1240x1012px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1240x1012px

>>2277443
>obviously a bird

File: fossil 6.jpg (452KB, 1536x1768px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1536x1768px

>>2277443
>>2277446
>obviously a bird

File: nature14423-f1.jpg (1MB, 946x1666px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 946x1666px

>>2277443
>>2277446
>>2277450
>obviously a bird

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/dinosaur-in-amber-evolutionists-spin-another-tail/

>>2277441
>purposefully avoids mentioning the sheer extent of religious violence and warfare in African nations, which was anon's point
Racist. Regardless, a completely undeveloped unstable nation is no place to be storing incredibly-important scientific artefacts.

>>2277460
His point was that Muslims would take over the country, which is a hilariously impossible idea. How you missed this between "mullah" and "haram" is beyond me.

File: 1.png (49KB, 509x813px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 509x813px

>>2277436
Yeah, those ones are the ants. Apparently they belong to Sphecomyrminae, not sure of the exact species. There's also beetle bits in that piece of amber too.

I never even imagined the possibility that we'd actually get to see dinosaur remains encased in amber. Apparently it was a tiny sparrow-sized baby dino that got stuck in tree resin and couldn't get out. Kinda feeling sorry for the little thing, but kinda hoping there might be more of those somewhere out there.

>>2277443
Are you saying you're more knowledgeable of Saurischian anatomy and phylogenetics than the multi-national team of experienced paleontologists who have been analyzing this sample since 2015? They were all just jumping to conclusions when their studies classified the animal as a juvenile coelurosaur? The team examined it with microscope, CT scan, UV light and so on, but apparently they still got it all wrong; you can tell with a simple glance that it's obviously just a bird.

>>2277462
>which is a hilariously impossible idea

Why? They've already taken over Europe. London has Muslim leadership now.

What about people trapped in amber?

>>2277537
>their studies classified the animal as a juvenile coelurosaur?
not to be a dick, but birds are also coelurosaurs.

>>2277537
>you can tell with a simple glance that it's obviously just a bird.

I can tell it's a bird because it has feathers, and birds have feathers. Dinosaurs did not.

>>2277598
not to be a dick, but birds are also dinosaurs.

>>2277602
Yeah, and by that same pseudo-intellectual logic we're reptiles, you pedantic cunt.

>>2277604
>by that same pseudo-intellectual logic we're reptiles, you pedantic cunt.
not to be a dick, but are you a creationist?

>>2277578
What about them? Amber is fossilized tree resin. I can't imagine how a person would end up trapped and fossilized in tree resin, you'd need an awful lot of it. Tiny animals such as bugs, frogs and lizards can get stuck and die, but it's not a problem for creatures that are big enough.

There are certain situations where a person or a large animal can die with the body staying pretty well-preserved though, like for example ice. There are mammoth carcasses with fur on them, and a bunch of nasty stories about people who froze to death and left a particularly disturbing corpse behind.

>>2277585
I'm aware of it, but I keep being lazy about technical terms. I tend to talk about "dinosaurs" when I mean just "non-avian dinosaurs".

File: 1480676079164.jpg (48KB, 651x528px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 651x528px

>>2277606
Not to be a dick, but are you underage? Anyone with a vague interest in evolution knows the basic evolutionary history of humans at least back to the therapsids in the Permian.

>>2277610
>I'm aware of it, but I keep being lazy about technical terms.
The authors of the paper you're discussing AREN'T lazy about technical terms.

so when they say it's a juvenile coelurosaur that DOESN'T imply that it's necessarily not a bird.

just means they can't tell if it's a bird or some other coelurosaur.

>>2277612
not to be a dick, but what does that have to do with you rejecting modern phylogenetics?

>>2277615
Not to be a dick, but you've completely skimmed everything I've said. Birds are dinosaurs in precisely the same manner as we are therapsids - i.e. only distantly, and only brought up in discussion by tedious pricks. To bluntly say "x is y, because x descended from y" is fucking moronic and shows thorough misunderstanding of the facts.

>>2277668
yes. this is a rejection of modern phylogenetics.

are you a creationist or just really old?

>>2277671
>modern phylogenetics is now apparently just purposefully refusing to acknowledge clades because they (OBVIOUSLY) evolved from something else
You're definitely underage aren't you? Just because x evolved from y, doesn't mean x has to retain the common overall name of y - there's OBVIOUSLY a point where you can call it something else out of common sense. How can you be so ignorant?

>>2277680
>Just because x evolved from y, doesn't mean x has to retain the common overall name of y
that is not phylogenetics, that is evolutionary taxonomy. Where have you been the last 50 years, under a rock?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_taxonomy

Not all dinosaurs were feathered.

>>2277680
>While in phylogenetic nomenclature each taxon must consist of a single ancestral node and all its descendants, evolutionary taxonomy allows for groups to be excluded from their parent taxa (e.g. dinosaurs are not considered to include birds, but to have given rise to them), thus permitting paraphyletic taxa.[2][3]

>The concept found its most well-known form in the modern evolutionary synthesis of the early 1940s.
>the early 1940's.

you're operating on ideas that were outdated 70 years ago.

>>2277680

No, there isn't. Phylogenetics is a process of increasingly narrow bracketing; every clade is a subset of the clade that gave rise to it. The system you are suggesting is completely arbitrary and unscientific -- who decides when group x is different enough from group y to require a separate name? At exactly which generation do you draw the line between bird and dinosaur?

>>2277703
>>2277714
>>2277715
So why don't you all simplify things and call mammals synapsids? Who are you to draw the line?

>>2277718
because not all synapsids are mammals.
mammals are synapsids though.

are you literally retarded or just pretending?

>>2277718

Mammals are synapsids. That was never in question.

>>2277720
Not all dinosaurs are birds though, so why ignorantly lump the two together ad tedium? Have I woken up in some bizarro contrarianist world?

>>2277725
>why ignorantly lump the two together ad tedium?
we didn't
we said birds are dinosaurs.

that doesn't imply that all dinosaurs are birds.

this is stuff most people understand around the age of six. What happened to you?

>>2277728
Obviously birds arose from dinosaurs - but in what world is that information pertinent and worth pointing out? If you were discussing mammals, I wouldn't butt in and blurt out "actually, mammals are synapsids" - because that's a fucking pointless thing to say. The recent trend of arrogant denial of informal paraphyletic groups e.g. 'Dinosaur' just reeks of pseudointelligence.

>>2277725

Do you understand what a subset is?

>>2277731

In a world that cares about the relationships between groups of organisms? Paraphyletic groups are meaningless pseudoscience. They conflate coincidental commonalities with definitions that have actual scientific merit, and idiots like >>2277454 seize on them as support for their bullshit.

>>2277733
Yeah but in no way is it relevant to shout "muh birds are dinosaurs" as much as you can. If you take that contrarian, show-off attitude then you might as well refuse to accept any slightly defined category of organisms, because they're inevitably part of something bigger. "Humans are apes", "frogs are fish" - technically true but not remotely relevant to someone just discussing humans or frogs or whatever.

>>2277731
I only butted in when you said some retarded shit like,
>it's a bird, not a dinosaur.
which is a direct contradiction of modern evolutionary understanding.

you're free to deny modern science and I'm free to laugh at you.

>>2277741
>Yeah but in no way is it relevant to shout "muh birds are dinosaurs"
it is entirely relevant when some retard (yourself for instance) claims they aren't.

>>2277744
>>2277743
But birds are obviously referred to as a different thing to just plain dinosaurs - if someone points to a crow do you interrupt and say "NO, IT'S A DINOSAUR" or do you accept that it's a bird? Do human doctors exist, or do they now have to call themselves hominid doctors? Do you not see how pretentious and unnecessary that is?

>>2277746
>Do you not see how pretentious and unnecessary that is?
it's entirely unnecessary until you deny it.

I don't have to call a doctor a human doctor until you show up telling people the doctor isn't human. Then you've gone full retard and someone needs to set you straight.

I don't ever point out that birds are dinosaurs unless some retard says they're not.

>>2277748
I didn't deny it - but birds aren't simply dinosaurs (obviously they are evolutionarily, in layman terms, but linguistically and visibly modern birds can be safely distinguished as a separate group).

>>2277598
>birds have feathers. Dinosaurs did not.
>>2277753
>I didn't deny it

ok

>>2277757
That wasn't even me... I think there's been some understandable confusion

>>2277760
>That wasn't even me...
2 of the exact same Darwinian taxonomist retards in one thread?

holy shit, what are the odds....

>>2277762
The other guy's retarded, I was merely responding to the tedious contrarianism that he was met with

>>2277767
>contrarian:
>adjective: contrarian
>1. opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.

Contradicting an idiot is not being contrarian. In fact it is the idiot that's being contrarian by stating a wrong or outdated opinion.

like you just did.
again.

>>2277771
>dinosaurs and birds are interchangeable terms
Sounds pretty contrarian to me

>>2277773
see, now that's what we call a strawman.

it may be intentional or you may honestly be stupid, there's no way for me to know.

nobody said the terms are interchangeable. You are literally retarded if you think they did.

>>2277773

No one ever said they were interchangeable. Everyone this entire time has been saying birds are a variety of dinosaur.

File: thing.jpg (267KB, 1200x884px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1200x884px

What's the thing that's been circled? At first I looked at the image wrong and saw it as part of the animal and some kind of rump portion, but then I realized it seems to be a separate object. Is that the dead cockroach?

File: 1476448415220.jpg (15KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x375px

>tfw returning to /an/ after 8 months and the featherfags have won.

File: scales_vs__feathers_by_kirawra-d81elga.png.jpg (184KB, 1225x652px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1225x652px

>>2277951
Cheer up, feathers aren't that bad. I'd rather get more insight into the true living appearance and habits of extinct animals than just keep imagining them as movie monsters whose purpose is to look terrifying and kill everything they see.
All these discoveries of feathered little creatures have made the line between a reptile and a bird really fuzzy. I think that's great. It helps me remember that even if all the really big dinosaurs are gone, at least they weren't entirely lost; one group that spawned off of them is still around.

One more reason for taxonomists to go fucking nuts for the next couple of years, gon be good

>>2277917
It seems to be, since no other protuberances of the like can be seen on the rest of the fossil

>>2277963
Right definitely looks better. More threatening and fierce.

>>2277963
>posts dinosaur with lisa frank bird feathers drawn by a furry in a thread started with a picture of a real tail

>>2278266
Eh, having something fluffy look at me like lunch triggers uncanny valley and adds a depth to the scary more than naked dinosaurs could ever achieve

>>2277441
>religion
>racism

haha

>>2277680
to be a dick, you're literally retarded

>>2277731
>denial of informal paraphyletic groups

so being right reeks of pseudointelligence?

>>2277773
>common knowledge among the scientific community is contrarian because average people don't know it lol

>>2278266
but left looks more interesting and beautiful.

do you just want it to be a scary killing machine instead of an animal?

>>2276795
I still have troubles accepting that. Now when it comes to dromaeosauridae I think all of them had feathers even though I still have a few questions.

Like for example is it right to assume that because we know several species had feathers, all species throughout the millions of years of evolution and different geographical locations had them. I know they've discovered some really old species with feathers but it's still a lot to assume.

>>2277563

based ethiopians arent pussies like modern day brits

>>2277731

incidentally, 'reptiles' don't exist. tetrapods exist, amniotes exist, anapsides existed, synapsids exist (mammals), diapsids exist, lepidosaurs exist (tuataras and squamates), squamates exist (snakes and lizards), testudines exist, archosaurs exist, pseudosuchians exist (crocodilians), avemetatarsalians exist (birds), but 'reptiles' do not in any tangible sense as they are totally paraphyletic. all modern amniote groups are simply the surviving strains of various different ancestral nodes which have been, in historical popular and colloquial paleontology, known as 'reptiles', whether that's 'diapsid reptiles' or 'mammal-like reptiles' or whatever. a sparrow and an alligator are more closely related than an alligator and a komodo dragon. there is no functional zoological, biological, taxonomical, anatomical, paleontological or phylogenetic use to the term 'reptile'. It is as useless as grouping birds and mammals together as 'haematotherms'.

there, now you can have a proper little sperg

>>2277741

fish also don't exist by the way. 'fish' are the most outrageously paraphyletic and useless grouping of taxa.
humans are apes. the great ape taxon is literally 'Hominidae'.

you don't really understand how evolutionary relationships between different groups of organisms work.

>>2278266

>these ancient organisms preserved over many aeons of geological time are only important or worth paying attention to if they're scary-looking

4chan is an 18+ website

>>2278422
>I still have troubles accepting that.
and you should.

there are no known tyrannosaurid skin impressions with feathers
there are several known tyrannosaurid skin impressions WITHOUT feathers
and several paleontologists have explained this by saying feathered tyrannosauroids are mis-classified.

>>2277598
birds got their feathers from a certain type of dinos that became them

>>2278266
human romanticism is great eh? but in reality most dinosaurs probably looked like modern day emus, ostrich or cassowary

>>2278266
This might be shocking, but what an animal from millions of years ago looked like isn't decided by what you think looked cooler and scarier.

>>2278496
Birds existed alongside dinosaurs and were already there when the first dinosaurs grew feathers and started flying.

>>2277437
what the fuck is this from?

>>2278532
it's generally considered impossible on the grounds that feathers are too complex to have evolved twice.

whether this is true or not, birds have at least 30 dinosaurian traits in their skeletons vs. about 2 traits that can't be easily explained as dinosaurian.

the consensus is the same now as it was in the 1870's- birds are dinosaurs.

>>2278421
neither look like animals

>>2278552
>feathers are too complex to have evolved twice.
I-is this a bad time to bring up the extreme plasticity of dinosaur integument?

Cool now jurassic park will be real

>>2279623
>I-is this a bad time to bring up the extreme plasticity of dinosaur integument?
you'd have to mean archosaur, not dinosaur.

even then it's not extreme, they all have scales, two clades have fibers, one of those clades has feathers.

File: 278938472399.jpg (35KB, 568x394px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 568x394px

Did other dinosaurs than Theropods have them? I can't imagine a Triceratops or Brontosaurus with feathers.

>>2279696
yeah, check out Kulindadromeus.

it's still being argued whether or not its feathers are the same as theropod feathers, but it had them. It's likely they were also present in ceratopsians, there is one with quills on its tail.

>>2279699
It's funny when you think about how the common image of dinosaurs might be so far off from how they actually looked like.

I mean, imagine Giraffatitan with a thick mantle of feathers, and a trunk coming down from the large nostrils on his forehead. I don't even know how valid the trunk idea is, but I read about it years ago and always found it funny.

File: not actually a brachiosaurus.jpg (30KB, 400x410px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x410px

>>2279759
Forgot my pic.

>>2279759
>>2279760
I don't think they found the marks of muscle attachments on the skull that are necessary for a fully controllable trunk. It's still curious why it had that giant hole in its head. I mean, sure, I guess it was to make the head lighter so its neck wouldn't get tired too quickly, but its neck skeleton was basically self-supporting (kinda like how horses can sleep while standing due to their leg bones) so I am not sure how much of an impact a few kilo less on the head would have made.
Another idea is that it needed giant nostrils to breath, but that is retarded, since other sauropods of similar size, and even whales today, have much smaller nostrills.

File: wattle.png (1MB, 896x680px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 896x680px

>>2279759
That's because it definitely didn't have those things.

If you want to imagine sauropods being weird at least go with something possible, like weird huge display structures on the neck or something.

>>2279845
>that image
Full Pokemon.

Anyway, what were the giant nostrils for then?

File: the land before niggers.png (318KB, 552x487px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 552x487px

>>2276532

>>2278266
Consider making yourself a bleach milkshake sometime.

File: 1457660882529.jpg (23KB, 452x288px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 452x288px

>>2280005

>>2277963
Only thing I don't like about left's design is the tiny useless wings.

I'm not sure where this feather agenda came from. For decades everyone was content to have them be featherless, then somewhere around 2000 everyone suddenly got on board with the "dinosaurs were definitely feathered" meme. I could understand if it was like the global warming hoax, where there's billions of dollars at stake, but no one is seriously funding dinosaur feather research so what's with this massive push?

>>2280768
Is this some kind of post ironic meta-baiting or is there a single genuine word in that post?

>>2280768
libruls and joos

>>2277563
>they've taken over Europe
Europe is 70% catholic, and less than 10% Muslim. This white genocide victim complex is pretty damn absurd

>>2280993
70% down from 99%. You're losing ground fast.

>>2281015
There are a lot of atheists in Europe you know.

>>2281015
Question: who the fuck cares?

File: Hallucigenia.gif (3MB, 1600x878px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1600x878px

>>2279965
>Full Pokemon.
No, THIS is full-Pokemon

>>2281015
Europe hasn't been 99% catholic for about 500 years. Ever heard of Luther?

>>2276613
coconuts didn't exist tho.

>>2282467
Fuck you, if potatoes can exist in medieval europe then coconuts can exist in cretaceous anywhere