WTF is this shit. Birds RUINED dinosaurs

Nope. Dinosaurs made birds cooler.

File: Berlin 1880.jpg (373KB, 473x715px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 473x715px

>>2455843
Dearest Cousin Johnathon,

I am in receipt yours, Apr. 2'd, 1863.
I can scarcely contain my astonishment, dear cousin, at this bold and usurpious news you relayed therein!

Are you telling me in your latest post that a bird has been derived from the venerated Dinosauria Owen only so recently erected? It has been but a scant two decades and onon we find birds all but ruining the very image of the blessed thunder lizards! However shall this madness end, dear Johnathon? If another dinosaur is found with veritable feathers upon its very continent I know not how I shall be forced to act! Only the One True Lord knows how a man can bear such diabolical evolutions and contortions of the very corpus reptilian!

Yours ever in blood and faith,
Anonymous

May the first, Year of our Lord 1863

>>2455848
Maybe /k/ can stop fucking shooting them then with their Fully-Automatic Laser Guided Assault Destroyer Ultra with Flamethrower Attachment™ limited edition banned in 5 states across the US.

>>2455843
In bird culture, this is considered a dick move

File: 1334022905024.jpg (45KB, 479x464px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 479x464px

>>2455843
Nice thumbnail

File: 27.jpg (113KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x400px

>>2455843
I dunno man, bird dinos look pretty fucking rad to me.
Either way, our opinions aren't going to change the truth, unfortunately. Fantasy is fantasy and reality is reality. And weird bird dinos are reality.

>>2455851
Nah, all the unnecessary shit makes /k/ feel less impotent. Birds make shit happen without all the whizbang, thats why birds are better than /k/fags.

>>2455843
Fun fact: all living things on this planet share 80% of the same DNA.

As a result, every single anon posting in this thread is genetically almost identical to fucking bananas.

Which means it's only a matter of time before scientists figure out how to program viruses to genetically reverse engineer bird embryos into dinosaurs.

>>2455850
Are you telling me that scientists have known about dinosaurs possessing feathers since fucking 1880, and we are only now talking about it?

>>2455873
>Are you telling me that scientists have known about dinosaurs possessing feathers since fucking 1880
no, it was a lot earlier than that.

1862.

"we" have been talking about it for 155 years now.

File: bird.jpg (49KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 624x351px

>>2455876
and still people deadass refuse to believe its true, despite the fact that you can fucking see the feathers with your own damn eyes.
If you deny the fact that fossils with feathers probably belonged to animals with fossils you're a dumbass.
"b-but I thought dinosaurs were cool dragon monsters??"

>>2455876
>>2455886
So WTF were all those books with bald ass dinosaurs?!

>>2455864
true, but you have to admit the velociraptor looks absolutely ridiculous.

File: Sinosauropteryx.jpg (157KB, 1024x617px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x617px

>>2455898
the first definitively non-avian dinosaur to be discovered with feathers is this guy, who was only discovered in the 1990's I think.

even though I am passionate about feather dinosaurs I will always love those books with bald dinos because they're hella nostalgic, that shit's my childhood man. there was one book I loved in particular and it looking back it had such an old-style dinosaurs vibe to it, wish I knew what the fuck it was called so I could find it again.

>>2455898
just because some dinosaurs had feathers doesn't mean they all did.

>>2455906
But its probably correct all things considered. it only really looks weird because you're comparing it to incorrect reconstructions of dinos that we've grown up with in our culture. if you compare it to theropods we have today, doesn't look all that weird.

also, that pic was a reconstruction of deinonychus, emily willoughby check her out

>>2455908
>the first definitively non-avian dinosaur to be discovered with feathers is this guy
I think you mean non-avialan.

otherwise it's still Archaeopteryx, which is a non-avian dinosaur.

File: Dougal Dixon deinonychus illustrations.jpg (505KB, 900x568px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 900x568px

>>2455898
>>2455908
its also worth noting that have long thought many dinosaurs could have feathers, although even after definitive proof it took a while to take root in our culture after dinosaurs believed to be feathered today were initially decided to be entirely scaly.

example, here we see Dougal Dixon (the Man After Man guy) speculatively hint at deinonychus having feathers which was later proven right. This is in the 80's I believe.

>>2455909
did tyrannosaurus rex have feathers?

File: Yuutyrannus.png (143KB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 640x266px

>>2455918
There is no definitive proof, although many believe genera believed to be related to it which have found to have feather impressions to be sufficient phylogenetic proof that they did have feathers.
Yuutyrannus is an obvious example, which is covered head to toe to tail with feathers save for scaly feet similar to most birds. this is obviously an extreme example.

>>2455918
no.

File: t rex skin.jpg (221KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1024x576px

>>2455920
definitive proof.

>>2455898
Pornos.

Why do humans have such a hard on for dinosaurs? Is it because they used to hunt us down when we were small rat like creatures all across the mezozoic period?

>>2455986
They're dragons but real. Why wouldn't we obsess?

>>2455848
>Dinosaurs made birds
Fixed.

>>2456149
This. Monsters are so fucking rad and dinosaurs were fucking real-life monsters. What's the most terrifying "monster" today? A bear? Lmao.

I guess there's still some scary shit in the ocean like orcas or sperm whales, but neither are dangerous to humans. And great whites aren't anything to shake a stick at either relative to dinosaurs.

File: .webm (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

>here's your dinosaur

>>2456166
That's like showing someone a mouse and saying
>here's your mammals

File: tail_164-.jpg (695KB, 2048x1362px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 2048x1362px

>>2455898
Some of them didn't have feathers.Tyrannosaurus rex,for example,has some very well preserved skin impressions that prove it lacked feathers.

>>2455917
I think Baker also speculated about Deinonychus specifically and their possible feathered covering back in the late 70s/early 80s, in no small part due to noting anatomical similarities to both birds and Archaopteryx. Gregory S. Paul went a few steps further in the mid-80s by actively illustrating his Dromaesaurs with (now admittedly conservative) covering of light filament. This is almost certainly what inspired, or gave bolder conformation to Dixon in this example.

File: giphy (5).gif (2MB, 378x218px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 378x218px

>>2456166
>here's your dinosaur

>>2456200
How does a scaly skin sample prove it lacked feathers?

Are you saying that we have no proof of any dinosaur that has both scales and feathers? Or do you not understand the definition of "proof"?

>>2456230
see
>>2455925

>>2456255
I can't tell if you're presenting that as actual proof or if you're just being sarcastic to insult that poster.

>>2456256
That's what happens when you're extremely stupid. You get confused about things.

What?

Dinosaurs were always retarded looking and unrealistic
I have yet to see a single believable depiction of a dinosaur

>>2455851
Boo hoo

File: ostrich___jurassic_park_version_by_raph04art-db112na.jpg (195KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 792x612px

>>2455906
No I don't. Dromeosaurids are some of the most avian-looking and seeing bald Velociraptors makes me think of this.

>>2456307
Neat! Are there more of those? (Also, their butt is so fat!)

>>2455918
I wouldn't figure it would have many, if at all. I mean, if large dinosaurs followed the same conventions large mammals have in warmer climates, such as the world of the mesozoic, they may have mostly lacked fur, due to it's insulating qualities being less of an advantage at their size, like how elephants and rhinos mostly lack significant hair. I recall reading a book that portrayed T-rex mostly featherless, but with some quill-like feathers along it's head and neck. Personally, I think that's the most likely case. Sauropods I think were probably totally featherless, with the exception of perhaps some of the later titanosaurs.

>>2456307
Do you have any of those pictures of what certain modern animals would look like if we speculated on their appearance the same way we do for dinosaurs. Shit was rad, they made baboons look like nightmare-creatures.

>>2456345
Europasaurus might have had feathers, since there were so tiny (for a sauropod). Of course, I don't think there have been any non-theropods found with feathers yet. Pterosaurs did have some suspicious structures, so maybe protofeathers go way back.

>>2455871
We only share about 50% with plants. Archaea is way less than that.

>>2456346
You're probably thinking of the skinwrapping pics that one autist always posts in threads that have nothing to do with skinwrapping.

>>2456285
You think the fact that a dinosaur having scales is proof that they lacked feathers.

Shut the fuck up retard.

>dinosaurs

>Feathers

>>2455954
top kek

>>2456381
>You think the fact that a dinosaur having scales is proof that they lacked feathers.
so does the rest of the scientific community.

>>2456381
You are in for a taste of the finnest autism.

File: EFbvm.jpg (158KB, 816x880px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 816x880px

>>2455843

dinosaurs ruined dinosaurs

File: Chicxulub_Art_Jek_2004_Wide.jpg (209KB, 1000x714px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1000x714px

>>2455843
>implying this didn't ruin the dinosaurs most

>>2456477
>posts an archosaur
>posts an archosaur on an entirely different evolutionary branch to what produced dinosaurs

>>2455851
I actually have to shoot them. If I didn't they would steel my seeds and kill my rabbits. You ever seen what a bluejay does to chicks and ducklings? It's fucked up. The poor thing is going to be ripped apart and dropped from high up repeatedly and thats before the bluejay starts to tear the chick's anus apart with it's beak.
I shoot every single one I see and if I spook it I'll be waiting outside for an hour for my chance to shoot at it again.

>>2456381
Anon,these skin impressions aren't from only one part of the beast,they come from almost the entire body.If T-rex had feathers they would have found at least one.

>>2456532>
>posts an archosaur on an entirely different evolutionary branch to what produced dinosaurs

How do you know? Were you there?

File: 512px-Tree_Pangolin.jpg (34KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 512x384px

>>2456288
that's because your reality doesn't include dinosaurs.
>>2456547
Its perfectly reasonable that t-rex and other dinosaurs could have had no feathers, instead being entirely scaly. Feathers on dinos likely served a similar purpose to fur in mammals, to regulate the animal's body temperature and protect it from rain, snow, water. And of course not all mammals have fur, example pangolins are largely scaly with mostly bare skin otherwise with sparse hairs on the underbelly.

File: glad you took it.png (140KB, 476x346px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 476x346px

>>2455843
>this thread

>>2455925
>Hopeful placement of scales with no published association (even after the recent publications), and made about 20x larger than the actual patches.


>>2456457
What is "the rest"
Some people have a very strange perception of "all".

>>2455918
>Featherfags BTFO
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-only-fossils-t-rex-skin-suggest-it-was-covered-scales-not-feathers

>>2455850
>>2455873
>>2455876
>>2455886
>>2455898
You idiots. You dense dense idiots. You are so ignorant that you don't even grasp what's the argument about. You ask me "were dinosaurs feathered?" and I answer "do humans have dicks?" Such questions are flawed as in neither "yes" nor "no" answers them correctly.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs developed feathers and took flight before there were birds. Yes, there were dinosaurs that were feathered. That is a fact. There were also dinosaurs that weren't feathered. That is also a fact. The discussion is not about whether dinosaurs were feathered or not, but how widely feathers were distributed among them. Barring the dinosaurs from which birds evolved and their relatives, the general consensus used to be that the rest of the dinosaurs were entirely scaly. However, lately the notion has changed. Some wannabe scientists found dinosaurs that doesn't belong to aven-like dinosaur subcategory, yet had some sort of protofeathers and concluded that "it must mean all dinosaurs had a feathered common ancestor and this means all dinosaurs must have been feathered". Now this... "statement"... has a lot of errors. Those new-found structures could not even be related to avian feathers (in fact they look like quills/fur, their composition is still unknown); those structures could easily have been developed independently. To claim such a thing without having ANY decent proof is to commit a scientific fallacy, yet they did. And then, a lot of scientists and "scientists" who thought it was cool, accepted it.

>>2457064
Dinosaurs could be divided into 3 main categories: theropods, sauropods and ornithischia. Among sauropods, there has never been found anything that even resembles a filamental structure. Only scales. Lots of scales. They're considered exclusively scaled. Ornithischia is a very varied genus. There are many exclusively scaled species within this category. Then there are some species, that had quills on their tails. I wouldn't call them feathers, they look more like porcupine's quills. Were they related to avian feathers? No one knows. Then here were a species of small dinosaurs that were covered in fur-like protofeathers (for heat insulation, since they lived in colder regions and were small). Again, it is unknown whether these fur-like-feathers are even related to avian feathers. Both those instances of Ornithischia's "feathers" are most likely independently developed traits that has no connection to avian feathers. To claim that they're proof that there was a common ancestore which must have been feathered is plain ridiculous. Another thing to mention, that there's literally just a few instances of "feathered" dinosaurs among Ornithischia, where's there're coutless findings of scales all over the genus and many dinosaurs confirmed to be exclusively scaled.

>>2457066
The third category is Theropods. This category contains both avian-like dinosaursfrom which birds evolved, as well as the huge predators such as Tyrranosaurus rex. It is a fact that a lot of the smaller ones had feathers in various development stages. It is possible, that most of the smaller ones could have had something that could be conmsidered feathers, yet, the proof exists just for a very small fraction of them, so ultimely it remains a speculation if really most of them had feathers. As for the larger ones, the general answer is "No". Logical errors aside (why would a huge animal have feathers - they're an advanced trait that was developed in an offshoot lineage, would cause overheating and would be useless (can't fly anyways)), neither T.Rex nor his close (or far) relatives were ever found to have feather-like structures. Just scales. Scales all over the place. The only larger theropod with "feathers" was Yuutyrannus, which is a far far far relative to T.Rex and alike. Even then, his lifestyle was different and it lived in cold climate so heat insulation would have been an useful trait and those "feathers" aren't really feathers - more like quills or long fur, so most likely an independently developed trait as well.

Tldr, aside smaller theropods (bird relatives), there is no actual proof that other types of dinosaurs had actual feathers and not independently developed structures, where's the scales are all over the place with many cases of exclusively scaled dinosaurs confirmed.

>>2455851
>Attachments make the rifle more deadly
Retard. Attachments make rifle heavy and less maneuverable. Plus bird hunting is a job for a shotgun anyway.

>>2457111
>Attachments make rifle heavy and less maneuverable
Spoken like a true fud

>>2457114
>Damn, he's right but I still don't agree because I'm dense as fuck.
>I know! I'll just call him names. That's an acceptable substitute for an argument!

>>2455851
I learned how to shoot with an air rifle. My grandad put me to work guarding his apricot orchard. I turned a flock of finches into a murder of finches. I put Hitchcock's imagery to shame. The ground was littered with so many bird carcasses that grandad didn't have to fertilize for the next 3 seasons. You could not walk without feeling the squish-crunch of little feathered critters under every step. It was veritable genocide. And I did it all for a quarter.

>>2456980
>>Hopeful placement of scales with no published association (even after the recent publications),
It was in the supplemental data which you clearly skipped.

>What is "the rest"
Any disinterested scientist that has read the paper would immediately recognize your complaints as special pleading.

You're saying the rules used in all other cases don't apply in this one specific case simply because you don't want them to.