Featherfags BTFO'd

>>2400594
No one said it was covered in feathers. No proper paleontologist that is. Proto-feathers are not feathers. Like how a screenshot blog post isn't a good thread.

>>2400599

>n-no one ever said they had feathers

Yes, they fucking did and you know it.

>>2400594
>From these skin patches, representing the tyrannosaurabdomen, chest, pelvis, neck and tail, theresearchers found nothing but scales.

I've been saying this on /an/ for about 8 years now.

>>2400599
>Proto-feathers are not feathers
it wasn't covered in protofeathers either.
it was covered in scales.

File: cc_Tyranno-skin-1Credit-Amanda-Kelley_16x9.jpg (178KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1280x720px

>>2400594
Thanks for posting, OP. This made my evening.

Must be the paper Larson told that anon he had coming out a month or two back.

>>2400776
It's like everyone forgot about the extensive Carnotaurus skin impressions that have been found.

>>2400822
Yep. Allosaurus is another one known from extensive skin (and scale) impressions. One from my personal area of study.

Another is Ceratosaurus, known from skin and keeled osteoderms. Not exactly my area of study but very close. A lot of theropods are known to be scaled but don't get much play in the press.

>>2400822
the part I find funny is that the Wyrex skin samples were first published 9 years ago, and have been known to paleontologists for over 10 years now.

A decade after the find someone finally publishes a white paper on what it means. We're that far behind.

Read /an/ if you want to stay up to date on theropod research, I can tell you a fair bit of news long before it gets published.

File: really.png (258KB, 1597x747px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1597x747px

>>2400599
>No one said it was covered in feathers.

Yes you guys did, stop lying. This is an official image on the Tyrannosaurus rex wikipedia page.

>>2400771
To be fair, your reading comprehension sucks. He said COVERED in feathers, as in completely(save for the legs like birds, probably).

>>2400901
I might be wrong but I think that artist is just a regular artist who draws dinosaurs sometimes rather than trying to be a real paelo artist. Or maybe she does now since her images exploded in popularity.

I personally couldn't give less of a fuck if t-rex had feathers or not. I'm still mad about people thinking spinosaurus walked on their knuckles.

>>2400594
>get a chicken
>pluck feathers
>press fetherless scaly skin into the mud to leave an imprint and leave chicken remains there
>5 million years later
>"featherfags BTFO new evidence shows chickens had scaly skin"

>>2400830
How extensive? I see this mentioned off handedly but would really like a paper/pictures

>>2400960
This are pretty obviously scales, don't look at all like plucked skin... the person who originally reasoned that is Phil Currie, one of the authors of this study, who evidently changed his mind.

And who the hell do you think was going around plucking feathers off dinosaurs? We would still have the general surface of the feathers impressed into the mud, and not what was underneath...

>>2400960
Yes a trex plucked its feathers to debunk your dumb shit

File: 49a13522fd16dd93136a0f7eb1a21553.jpg (46KB, 453x598px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 453x598px

>>2400960
Yes anon, dinosaurs looked exactly like this. Science Fact.

Its been well known that T-rex had scales on parts of its body, even modern birds have scales. Its suspicious we never find scale impressions from the areas of the animal likely possessing feathers

>>2401040
>Its suspicious we never find scale impressions from the areas of the animal likely possessing feathers
we have scales from the neck, chest, abdomen, hip, and tail.

all of these are parts of the body that should have feathers if T. rex was feathered.

>>2401186
No this is false, even Yutyrannus and Dilong are scaled on the bottom of the tail. Other Tyrannosaurs, as well as other therapods and even Ornithsicians such as Kulindadromeus have no feathers on the tail and other areas.

Also these are very small imprints, these articles seem to be making out that they can't have scales and feathers, which all dinosaurs with feathers have been observed to possess, including most modern birds.

Even the paper itself that thia evidence comes from does not claim that they did not possess feathers, just not in these areas.

>>2400835
Well to be fair, most of academia is either not written for mass consumption, or the media almost deliberately misinterprets academic papers.

>>2401223
>Yutyrannus and Dilong are scaled on the bottom of the tail
no, they're not.

>including most modern birds.
No bird alive has scales on the neck, chest, abdomen, hip, and tail.

no feathered dinosaur does either. Not one.

File: U wot.jpg (218KB, 820x774px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 820x774px

>>2400911
>I'm still mad about people thinking spinosaurus walked on their knuckles.
Wait what

>>2400901
>wikipedia

Try Google Scholar next time, kid.

>>2401251
>moving goalposts as fast as possible

When you were defending feathers you were perfectly happy with paleontologists saying rex had them. Suddenly that doesn't count?

>>2400911
>that artist is just a regular artist who draws dinosaurs sometimes rather than trying to be a real paelo artist.
these are the same thing.

'real' paleo artists are just artists who draw dinosaurs sometimes.

>>2401254
Not that anon, but it seemed fairly likely Rex did have them and it's entirely possible it still did, granted in less abundance than previously thought.

It is also possible that T-Rex shed much of it's feathers in adulthood, although this would not be replaced by scales, because they are basically the same kind of construct, so they can't have had feathers where the scales are shown, which seems to be a fair part of the animal.

So, it's still likely it had some degree of filaments, but probably not as extensive as has been previously put forward, likely on parts of the back.

It seems unlikely that they would lose all their feather structures in such a short time.

>>2401296
>in less abundance than previously thought.
only the public thought they had feathers all over. Paleontologists have known for 10 years now they didn't.

>So, it's still likely it had some degree of filaments
the problem is that's exactly backwards.

if you have 13 random samples of skin from all over the animal and NONE of them have filaments,

that does NOT imply filaments existed in the places that weren't preserved. That would be retarded.

>It seems unlikely that they would lose all their feather structures in such a short time
if they ever had them.

after this the next logical step is classifying Dilong and Yutyrannus outside of Tyrannosauroidea.

>>2400970
>I see this mentioned off handedly but would really like a paper/pictures
It's only been published in lecture.

It may take 10 years to get published in a journal like this rex skin did, or it may never be published.

>>2400970
>How extensive?
~30 cm square
this is a tiny bit of skin, but it came off a babby.

so it actually represents almost the entire body.

File: 1493878706574.png (316KB, 463x475px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 463x475px

>>2400594
NO NO NO NO NO! But what about the 1/2 a centimeter of skin that they didn't find!? THAT HAD to have feathers on it because muh Yutyrannus!

MUH CHINESE HOAX FOSSILS!!

Feathersluts are the absolute worst. They're what happens when you encourage plebs to think science is cool. You don't enlighten them, they just ruin science.

>>2401223
>Featherfag tries to understand paleontology, then tell others they don't know what they're talking about
Get out! Get out! GET OUT! Plebs get the fuck out of science!

>>2401296
>Not that anon, but it seemed fairly likely Rex did have them and it's entirely possible it still did, granted in less abundance than previously thought.
Seriously, what in the fuck is wrong with you? We could have an entire mummified T-Rex with one centimeter of missing skin and you dumbasses would still be trying to convince everyone that that 1 centimeter was fully feathered.

File: tumblr_or6uykqLBA1u6lnpuo1_r1_1280.png (31KB, 1280x496px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1280x496px

The green patches in this image represent the scaled skin impression found and where on the body they correspond to, along with four who's position on the body in unknown.

Now I've never been a big fan of the idea of a feathered T. rex but dinosaur didn't exist to adhere to our personal preferences of how they should look. While there is evidence for both sides of the argument, there isn't enough for either side to be accepted 100%.

>>2401392
>While there is evidence for both sides of the argument
There literally are not. There is evidence for scaled T-Rex and absolutely nothing else. The entire "argument" for a feathered T-Rex is "You can't prove it wasn't feathered! Um I mean in the spots you haven't already proven that, of course!" That's not a fucking argument at all. That's wanting to believe bullshit and trying to defend it AGAINST evidence.

>>2401399
>The entire "argument" for a feathered T-Rex is "You can't prove it wasn't feathered! Um I mean in the spots you haven't already proven that, of course!" That's not a fucking argument at all. That's wanting to believe bullshit and trying to defend it AGAINST evidence.
exactly

well said.

>>2401392
>people vomit their opinions with utter certainty over this
Holy shit.

>>2401445
>utter certainty
nothing in science is 100% certain.

this is about as close as you can get.

The odds of a random distribution of more than 12 samples from all different parts of the body of a feathered animal all coming up with scales instead of feathers approach zero.

there is almost no chance T. rex had feathers. That's essentially what this paper is about. Also not coincidentally it's the same thing I've been saying for years on /an/ and getting shit on for saying it.

Science, ruining your childhood one day at a time.

>>2400771
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a handful of "LUL SO RANDUM!!!" edgy juvenile twats on tumblr don't make up the vast majority of paleontologists, or people who love researching dinosaurs as a hobby.

>>2401633
>Science, ruining your childhood one day at a time.
If your childhood included chicken rex that means you're about 12. Get the fuck off of 4chan.

>>2400594
What if the T Rex only had feathers on certain parts of it's body, the same way vultures are bald?

>>2401657
Says every featherfag.

>>2401658
I'm not a feather fag, I couldn't care less how cute and fluffy people want to make a giant ass carnivorous reptile.

I just think it's silly to take a few teeny tiny flakes of dinosaur dandruff and use them to try and claim the T Rex was completely bald over 100% of it's body. There are many species of birds that exist today that are naturally bald in random areas. Ostriches, emus, vultures. And heck, google the male sage grouse. So yes, there are multiple perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations for why a large carnivorous scavenging reptile may have feathers in some places, and not in others. Up to and including the weird ass things that the opposite sex finds attractive. For all we know, male T Rexes had feather mohawks down their necks and spines, and nothing else, because that's what turns on the females.

Not only that, but the T Rex had multiple related sub species. So yes, even if the T Rex itself was completely scaled, one or more of it's relatives may have possessed proto feathers or even outright feathers.

>>2401663
>I just think it's silly to take a few teeny tiny flakes of dinosaur dandruff and use them to try and claim the T Rex was completely bald over 100% of it's body.
Just like every single featherfag.

>>2401663
Also, where they're bald, they're not covered in scales.

>>2401392
Paper even says the dorsum could have possessed feathers. It's still possible, but unlikely .

>>2401633
>The odds of a random distribution of more than 12 samples from all different parts of the body of a feathered animal all coming up with scales instead of feathers approach zero.

You would have a point if those 12 samples were distributed evenly throughout the body, but in reality the vast majority them come from the same few areas regions of the body. All that tells us is that those areas are more likely to be well preserved and that those areas likely don't have feathers, it says little about the entire animal.

>>2401654
>a handful of "LUL SO RANDUM!!!" edgy juvenile twats on tumblr don't make up the vast majority of paleontologists
the Wikipedia page literally quotes paleontologists saying it has feathers.
>>2401655
>you're about 12. Get the fuck off of 4chan.
I said your childhood, not mine.
yes, I assume you guys are 12.
>>2401793
>You would have a point if those 12 samples were distributed evenly throughout the body
I see you didn't read it.

they are distributed evenly throughout the body. That's the point of the paper. It's no longer MY point, other people have published it.

>>2401921
>they are distributed evenly throughout the body.
But they aren't, at all. We have lower legs, the back and bottom of the tail, a small part of the chest, and now an extremely tiny section on the neck.

>>2401392
how the hell do they even know where those tiny pieces are supposed to go?

>>2401998
>and now an extremely tiny section on the neck.
we've always had these parts, they're not new finds. This is all the same skin that was found 10 years ago.

Like I said back then, you denying it exists doesn't make it go away.

the size of the individual samples doesn't matter, what matters is the distribution and the fact that NONE OF THEM have feathers. This implies very strongly that the animal lacked feathers entirely.

you no longer have to take my word for it either. You could just read the paper.

>>2401998
>lower legs
nope. Outside of the hip/upper thigh. Also side of the abdomen.
>>2402031
>how the hell do they even know where those tiny pieces are supposed to go?
it was still attached to the body.

File: trex.jpg (70KB, 1110x840px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1110x840px

lol at all the featherfags going into full damage control with
>B-But it was only party feathered!

"No"
Trex had 0 feathers.

>>2400599
>No one said it was covered in feathers

Literally every dinosaur thread is someone saying it had feathers. Every. One.

>>2402071
>implying wyrex is anything new
>not knowing phylogenetics
>being this dense
wyrex has been known for a long time, and a ton of paleoart is not affected by wyrex at all. Defending your childhood on a scientific board is not going to fly.

>>2401399
>>2401439
>"we have no proof of feathers"
>no clue of phylogenetics
>not accounting for bare skin sample
>defending outdated reconstruction
>having argument based on tiny samples
>no mention of dilong or yutyrannus
>primary source even says feathers are more than likely
In case you don't believe me
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/t-rex-probably-looked-just-as-fearsome-as-you-thought-not-fluffy-with-feathers/

>>2402086
wrong link
https://www.cnet.com/news/t-rex-feathers-or-scales-research/

File: trex raugh.jpg (110KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 970x545px

>>2402078
>>2402086
>>2402092
Go home Trey.
Feathers are gay as shit and I'm glad that Trex has been scientifically proven to never had any.

>>2402093
>Calling me trey for having a brain
>feathers aren't scary is your argument
>on /an/

>>2402092
>https://www.cnet.com/news/t-rex-feathers-or-scales-research/
>>2402086
>primary source even says feathers are more than likely

you know that's not the primary source, right?
holy shit.

The study concludes that rex DID NOT have feathers.

>>2402093
go back to /tv/

>>2402128
I put the wrong link

>>2402128
i think that was the same guy correcting him/herself

>>2402130
I know, I responded to your second link.

are you fucking retarded?

that is NOT the primary source.

>>2401392
I agree that it's a good idea to take this with a bit of skepticism for the time being. Plus, it's not actually clear if the T. rex impressions are really scales or just a taphonomic artifact of desiccated skin.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&langpair=it%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&tbb=1&u=http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2017/06/quelle-squame-sono-squame.html&usg=ALkJrhiaez9w9nQyuMarxbqp6xehDERpZw
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&langpair=it%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&tbb=1&u=http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2017/06/pregiudizi-di-pelle-nellevoluzione-dei.html&usg=ALkJrhidUpfAcDrSHCQxj9y2vr-sYiPMsA#comment-form

>>2402128
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/6/20170092

>>2402138
yes, I have read the paper.

It concludes that rex didn't have feathers.
that is the opposite of what anon up there said.

I've now spent 3 comments trying to explain this to you.

>>2402137
>it's not actually clear if the T. rex impressions are really scales or just a taphonomic artifact of desiccated skin.
that's funny right there.

grasping at straws like I've never seen before.

>>2402136
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/6/20170092
I should really test my links
It talks about intigument conflicting with gigantism right? The fucking network of links you have to follow to find it is retarded

>>2402141
the primary source used synapsids for comparisons to diapsids. If that is fair game so is desecrated skin

>>2402143
>It talks about intigument conflicting with gigantism right?
no
>>2402148
>the primary source used synapsids for comparisons to diapsids.
the fuck are you talking about?

again, no.

>>2402154
>"Body size evolution in tyrannosauroids reveals two instances of evolution towards large body size (figure 2): (1) a drastic shift in the feathered Yutyrannus (from 2.615 to 2.929 log10 mm) and (2) a seemingly gradual trend towards the larger sizes of tyrannosaurids, starting with the common ancestor of Stokesosaurus, Xiongguanlong, Dryptosaurus, Appalachiosaurus and Tyrannosauridae. The ancestral tyrannosauroid integument likely comprised filamentous feathers (88.9–89.8% likelihood) with a loss of feathers occurring no earlier than the tyrannosaurid ancestor. Results are insensitive to differences in topology and branch scaling method (see the electronic supplementary material)."
>direct copypaste from article.
you didn't read it at all you retarded dip

>>2402154
>"Finally, gigantism (i.e. increased body mass) affords greater heat retention: a thermodynamic by-product of the square-cube law and linked to reductions in hair in large modern terrestrial mammals [26]. Gigantism has been offered as an explanation for the absence of feathers in large herbivorous dinosaurs [27]. Therefore, the greater ability of larger tyrannosaurids to maintain a constant body temperature may have outweighed the advantages of insulation by a more pressing need to shed heat. In the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, the juxtaposition of feathered ornithomimids [21] and non-feathered Albertosaurus supports this hypothesis. Such relatively modest-sized theropods would have proportionately less thermal inertia. However, although the mass estimate for the feathered Yutyrannus (1414 kg [1]) is considerably lower than most tyrannosaurids with integumentary data (Gorgosaurus, 2145–3577 kg [28]; Tarbosaurus, 1744–2945 kg [29]; Tyrannosaurus, 5014–8361 kg [28]), it is similar in size to Albertosaurus (1325–2210 kg [28]) and the size at which our model predicts tyrannosauroid feather loss might have first evolved (figure 2). Our results, therefore, reveal an intriguing counterintuitive pattern between size and integumentary evolution within Tyrannosauroidea that can only be tested by future fossil discoveries."
I can get more direct quotes if you want.

>>2401243
Some guys found spino bones mixed in with hadrosaur bones and decided it had manlet legs which weren't it's own. It's back legs were so small it would have needed to be a knuckle dragging invalid to move.

Everyone jumped on this because NEW AND DIFFERENT = SCIENCE

>>2402154
synapsids = mammals
diapsids = birds, crocs, ect
emus and other ratites use feathers to shed heat.

>>2402161
>>2402163
apparently you don't know what integument is.

go look it up.

it doesn't "conflict" with gigantism.

also none of those animals are synapsids.

so basically neither quote says what you said.

>>2402170
yes, I know what synapsids and diapsids are.

synapsids aren't mentioned in the article we're discussing.

are you off in a corner discussing a different article by yourself?

>>2400594
Do Velociraptors have feathers?

>>2402174
>large modern terrestrial mammals
>not synapsids

>>2402174
The gigantism was referring to yutyrannus, the theory being that tyrannosaurus was closely related to yutyrannus, an animal confirmed to be covered in feathers, The conflict of integument was referring to tyrannosaurus being closely related to yutyrannus which is extremely sketchy to me, as for "none of the animals being synapsids" "in hair in large modern terrestrial mammals "

>>2402182
yes.
Based on our record of raptor feather preservation and quill knobs, extensively

>>2402185
>>2402194
ah. I was looking for a comparison, not a passing mention. Comparing elephants to warm-blooded dinosaurs is perfectly acceptable, but they didn't do that.

integument, go look it up. Second attempt.

>>2402202
>intigument is referring to the scales
>article implies yutyrannus doesnt have scales
Do you see the problem now kid?
as for the "passing mention"
>"Finally, gigantism (i.e. increased body mass) affords greater heat retention: a thermodynamic by-product of the square-cube law and linked to reductions in hair in large modern terrestrial mammals [26]."
Here is a list of why this is garbage
>elephants do have hair, allbeit very thin
>elephants are giant fermenting plants
>In a comparison of emu and kangaroo activity, the emus spent hours in australian sun vs kangaroos only spending minutes in direct sunlight, suggesting a certain pattern of feathers sheds heat far better than hair
> elephants are semiaquatic
>tyrannosaurus rex lived in 50 - 60 degree climate

>>2402218
integument refers to both scales and feathers.
I keep waiting for you to figure that out.
>article implies yutyrannus doesnt have scales
this is a fact, it isn't implied.

they aren't saying Tyrannosaurus lacked feathers because elephants lack hair.

they're just saying the square cube law produces visible results.

I think you're reading way more into it than they said.

>>2402224
I understand integument. I was pointing out what they are referencing. The point I am trying to make is that yutyrannus was placed with tyrannosaurs specifically. The bone and muscle structures were very similar. For tyrannosaurus to be completely scaly is a very bizzare statement and it is going to require more than a few scale impressions. I understand why they are using elephants, It is because they are similar in size, both being 40 feet. The thing is the coverings of the animals have different properties and they don't seem to consider those factors. I am sick and tired of these sensational claims being made with almost no evidence. Hence all of the article copypasta. I did not mean to come off as ignorant, I just wanted you to consider all of the factors before plastering it everywhere

>>2402245
>The bone and muscle structures were very similar.
it has already been suggested that this is the result of convergence.
>it is going to require more than a few scale impressions
it won't, and this isn't the first time it's been said. It was said in the Yutyrannus osteology.
>they don't seem to consider those factors.
despite your belief that feathers are good for cooling off, this is false. It springs from your misreading of a paper.

the authors have not made your mistake, nor have scientists in general. In fact if any filaments are good for cooling off it is elephant hairs, not bird feathers. So perhaps they were being generous.

but in reality they used mammals as nothing more than evidence that the square-cube law works.

>I just wanted you to consider all of the factors before plastering it everywhere
I have heard it all before, and while some of it might have merit a couple of those are your own errors, not factors.

either way it doesn't change the FACT of the scaled skin.

>>2401663
>scavengerfags
Worse than featherfags imo desu

>>2400776
>abdomen, chest, pelvis, neck and tail
Doesn't prove they had no feathers, just not a full body covering (which only retards would have claimed anyway)

>>2402166
>NEW AND DIFFERENT = SCIENCE
featherfags in a nutshell

File: wojak tears.jpg (8KB, 208x250px)

8KB, 208x250px

WTF FEATHERBROS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE A GIANT TURKEY THIS CAN'T BE REAL
IT'S NOT FAIR

File: 1440809838097.jpg (84KB, 1000x1000px)

84KB, 1000x1000px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxE68c9rYa0
>this damage control

FEATHERS

B
T
F
O

FEATHERFAGS GTFO

File: TRexUltimateSurvivor_CGI_101.jpg (294KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1200x800px

>>2401392
This at the very least prove
1. Rex definitely had scales.
2. The scales at the very least appear to covered a wide range of areas, rather than just the legs.


Meaning depicting a rex without scales is just simply wrong.
Meanwhile, a rex depiction without feathers is not necessarily wrong. As for it is mainly heavily evident, but not actually factual.


Considering its ancestry, it probably still had at least some kind of feathering, but perhaps not with a coat. I would even assume whatever feathers they may have were used as a sign of male fitness to attract mates.

File: 1480819757974.gif (338KB, 538x572px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 538x572px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxE68c9rYa0
Trey's ass hurt is amazing
>We only said they were almost entirely covered in feathers, news articles saying we said they were entirely covered in feathers are missleading for getting it slightly wrong!
>T. Rex may have had feathers between scales. There's no evidence to support this, but I just find it aesthetically pleasing.
>Look guys, this paleontologist said the only part of T. Rex's body that isn't scale/skin is the dorsum, and feathers could reside there! HA! T. Rex may have possibly had feathers on a portion of it's back!

I'm laughing for real right now!

>>2402382
>Meanwhile, a rex depiction without feathers is not necessarily wrong. As for it is mainly heavily evident, but not actually factual.

It's still 99% wrong.

Why do people feel so strongly about this matter?

>>2402296
>Doesn't prove they had no feathers
in science we follow the evidence, not just the things that we can't disprove. In fact if a thing can't be disproven it isn't science at all.
>>2402460
>Why do people feel so strongly about this matter?
The public likes dinosaurs but most dinosaur science simply isn't available to them without extensive education.

so they concentrate on subjects they can easily understand and debate without extensive specialized knowledge. Like feathers on T. rex for instance.

If the discussion had any depth they'd immediately realize the debate isn't about feathers, it's about thermal strategies OR taxonomy. But those are subjects largely beyond the layperson.

>>2402460
>>2402472
>they concentrate on subjects they can easily understand and debate without extensive specialized knowledge.
In paleontology this behavior was called stamp collecting. Now we call it Pokémon collecting. Knowledge is collected based entirely on appearance and 'stats' rather than what it actually implies. People collect opinions that they think make them look cool to others. Fanbases appear defending each and every popular view. Not because they're right or wrong but because the owner of the opinion invests their self-image in possessing and defending it.

This is why /an/ loves "what's your favorite dinosaur" threads or arguments about feathers in dinosaurs. The opinions have no depth, but a very solid fan base.

>>2402390
I actually feel bad for him, just like I felt bad for him when he originally made the vid and it got popular.

Just like I feel bad for you if you've invested your personal feelings in the idea that rex DIDN'T have feathers.

how are you going to feel if one day soon they find rex feathers? I mean I don't think it's likely, but if it happens it says nothing about you as a person.

just like this says nothing about Trey as a person.

Jurassic Park was a mistake. We need to invent time machines already so we can prevent it from being made, so the retards can shut the hell up about their Godzilla fetish.

>>2402477
Honestly you're too kind for this site if you're worried about people's well being for being proven wrong in a dinosaur debate.

>>2402518
>Jurassic Park was a mistake
>The first media source to directly compare dinosaurs to birds and show dinosaurs as animals and not just movie monsters
This is why featherfags can't be taken seriously. They hate science this much.

>>2400830
>A lot of theropods are known to be scaled but don't get much play in the press.
Probably because that's been the status quo for dinosaurs since the beginning.

>>2402245
>elephants
>40 feet long
Rex and large African elephants were a similar weight, but Rex was a lot larger

>scalefags created fake fossils to support their argument

This isn't jurassic park

>incredible small patches of scales are found in areas we already knew they had no feathers on
>LOL feathfags BTFO

Never change /an/

>>2402218
Yutyrannus wasn't found with scales... there were parts that didn't preserve feathers, but inferring there scales present in those areas doesn't necessarily follow.

Hell Creek wasn't 50-60 degrees all the time, only in the wet season.

Also, emus are less fluffy than other birds, with a relatively thin covering of fuzz on the head and neck and bare legs... whereas kangaroos are covered pretty thoroughly by fur. They also have air sacs.

Elephants are not semiquatic... they can swim, and like to bathe in the water to cool off, but saying they're semiaquatic is a huge stretch.

>>2402475
The sad thing is most of these kids haven't gone fossil collecting a day in their life... I know I hadn't until recently (past 2-3 years) and the actual physical stuff is so much cooler than the fanboy shit that gets tossed around (though the discipline of paleo-art and all the dino-fiction is great supplementary stuff).

People get so hyped about a T. Rex, but they're so played out... just another animal. Crinoids are where it's at, bitches.

File: fd985f5b111c96c0441f55b434d0511b.jpg (135KB, 1280x572px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x572px

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE

>>2400960
This, god plucked the feathers from the T-Rex, and then buried it to DOUBLY test our faith in him.

File: ce6.jpg (41KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 501x585px

>>2402798
I'm sure you know a lot about fake fossils, Mr. Wong.

File: Brontoscorpio_anglicus.jpg (589KB, 525x566px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 525x566px

>>2402876
>not prehistoric scorpions
>having taste this shit
Just as bad as Dinofags.

>>2402800
The neck?

>>2403112
Fight me you arachnid-fucker

>>2403197
Cry me a river, Crinoidfag.

>>2400594
OP the actual source of this info only said that a couple of tiny skin impressions discovered found from parts of the animals body that don't even have feathers in related known feathered species don't have feathers either, it does not "disprove" feathered T.rex, you are falling for yellow journalism mate.

>>2400822
It's almost like you forgot that Carnostaurus is not even closely related to T.rex.

>>2401358
>But what about the 1/2 a centimeter of skin that they didn't find!?
1/2 a centimeter is about the amount they did find though.

>>2403324
>that don't even have feathers in related known feathered species
Name a single one.

I'll wait.

You can't because you're lying.

>>2401633
>there is almost no chance T. rex had feathers. That's essentially what this paper is about.
The paper itself didn't even say that.
In fact it said feathers were still likely just not a complete covering

>>2401655
>If your childhood included chicken rex that means you're about 12.
Dinosaurs have been thought to have been feathered since the 70's and it was suspected as early as the 19th century.

>>2403335
>This lie again
just a sec, let me copypasta the quotes from the other thread that shut you up.

>>2403333
yutyrannus

>>2403335
you mean this:
>Combined with evidence from other tyrannosaurids, the integument of HMNS 2006.1743.01 provides compelling evidence of an entirely squamous covering in Tyrannosaurus.
or this?
>Integument in Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus collectively covers parts of the neck, abdomen, hips and tail, suggesting that most (if not all) large-bodied tyrannosaurids were scaly
or this?
>Tyrannosaurids do not, therefore, exhibit the widely distributed filamentous feathers present in Dilong and Yutyrannus, where scales are unknown

they literally said the opposite of what you're pretending

>>2403341
>With the holotype they were present on the pelvis and the foot. Specimen ZCDM V5000 had feathers on the tail pointing backwards under an angle of 30° with the tail axis. The smallest specimen showed 20 centimetre (7.9 inch)-long filaments on the neck and 16 centimetre (6.3 inch)-long feathers at the upper arm.[1]

ironically enough the feathers on Yutyrannus exactly covered the areas we have rex skin from.

try again if you like, we can shoot this shit down all night.

>>2403347
Hey I have this theory that cars are made entirely out of rubber, I believe this because I found some car remains in the form of tires.

>>2403348
Pick 13 random spots on a whole car. If all 13 are rubber then your assumption is extremely likely to be true.

the skin comprised more than 13 random spots on the entire body of the animal. None of them had feathers. It is extremely likely that it didn't have feathers at all.

>>2403352
I picked thirteen random pieces of tire and also the engine belt and several bushings, I think I have successfully concluded that cars are made of rubber.

>>2403355
>picked thirteen random pieces of tire and also the engine belt and several bushings
are you saying the scientists picked which skin samples to have fossilize?

or that we're missing major parts of the tyrannosaurus?

because your choice of which parts to select is neither random nor what happened to this fossil. Nobody chose for those spots to be preserved. They were actually random, and taken from the whole body, not just parts someone chose for the purpose.

>>2403357
>or that we're missing major parts of the tyrannosaurus?
This one obviously
I thought my analogy made that clear?

>>2403362
which parts of the body do you think are missing?

and by what magic do you propose it's only the feathered parts missing?

>>2403366
>which parts of the body do you think are missing?
Skin impressions from about 99% of it's body
>and by what magic do you propose it's only the feathered parts missing?
The fact that the parts the impressions covered are not found to have been commonly feathered in other theropods.

>>2403368
>Skin impressions from about 99% of it's body
science, where a 1% sample if taken from the remaining 99 will absolutely speak for the remaining 99%.

sorry if this is beyond you. maybe go read up about how a sample can predict the whole?
>are not found to have been commonly feathered in other theropods.
I assume you mean feathered theropods.

again, name a single one that isn't feathered in all those areas. You can't because you're lying. Not one example exists. All feathered theropods had feathers in those areas.

File: dinosaur.jpg (19KB, 460x424px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 460x424px

>>2400960
this guy gets it

I hate T. rex.

>>2403773
t. Allosaurus

>>2403370

You're talking to a featherfag. Do you really think they're willing to listen to common sense?