.

>>2462687
NO LIKE MUH JURASSIC PARK MOVIES

R

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

SCIENCE AND BIRDS RUINED DINOSAURS

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: puffbird.jpg (51KB, 540x719px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 540x719px

>>2462687

File: 18cfnt1gqz1zhjpg.jpg (38KB, 800x467px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 800x467px

Dinosaurs look way better with feathers imo. How is this not badass

File: T'vaoan.png (440KB, 640x980px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 640x980px

I'm okay with dinos having feathers.

File: 1503105880712.jpg (283KB, 968x1280px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 968x1280px

>>2462879

>>2462920
Looks like shit
Also this is not how they were covered in feathers
You being typical featherfag

>>2462756
They even state in Jurassic World that none of the Dinosaurs look like the original species would have due to missing/ substitued DNA

>>2465472
This post is stupid because it could be from adaptations like this that flight was originally possible. Like a byproduct of feathers.

>>2465475
lol
only took 3 years for someone to say it.

flight feathers likely evolved before powered flight because they have adaptive value in volplaning.

>>2465481
Yup. And those recent Dakota fossils had the appropriate quill spike fucking holes or whatever in its arms.

>>2465482
quill knobs alone don't indicate asymmetrical flight feathers, but they do indicate large quills rather than down as the poster above pretends.

I have waited 3 years for you to appear. Congratulations on not being a retard!

File: Smugtile.png (103KB, 406x308px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 406x308px

>>2465483
I'm not even that smart. The vast majority are just stupid.

>>2465488
these are the same thing.

File: 1407104290562.gif (2MB, 250x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x225px

>>2465488

Featherfags: This fossil shows evidence of feathery covering. Therefore all dinosaurs were feathered.
Scalefags: This fossil shows evidence of scaly covering. Therefore all dinosaurs were scaly.
Why nuance so hard for people to grasp on these threads?

>>2465505
>Why nuance so hard for people to grasp
autism produces false dichotomy

>>2465488
I haven't read the rest of this thread but you sound like if you were half as smart as you thought you were you'd be twice as smart as you are.

>>2465523
>I haven't read the rest of this thread
read it.

>>2465523
what if I think I'm only relatively smart?

>>2465526
then based on the work of Dunning and Kruger you're a fuckin' genius compared to people that think they're fuckin' geniuses.

>>2465526
61% of men think that they're slightly smarter than average.

>>2465577
80% of that 61% are right.

>>2465475
THANKS finally someone intelligent.
>>2464791
Oh, some tiny scale patches so i guess it must be covered in scales on his entire body. You really fell for all the false news from public media wow.

>>2462687
who's this cutie?

>>2462879
>it had quills
>but lets cover it in a thick feather mantle, they're the same amirite?
k

>>2467618

They turned a T-rex into a poofed up sparrow anon. It's a joke, and the fact that you seem unable to understand that indicates actual, unironic autism.

>>2467629
>replying to falseflaggers

>>2467524
Ah yes, as opposed to no evidence for feathers at all. What proof is more solid for T. Rex having feathers than no proof whatsoever?

>>2467981
Oh geez i dunno, maybe his relatives having feathers and the fact that feathers are an ancestral trait in theropods

>>2468478
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.ca/2017/06/revenge-of-scaly-tyrannosaurus.html

>amerilards literally screeching autistically over some fucking extinct meme reptile
Pls explain to europeans this autism over dinocunts

File: modern ankylosaurus.jpg (202KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 800x1067px

>>2468481
I don't see how your personal blog is relevant to the debate.

>>2468478
To be fair no Tyrannosauridae-tyrannosauroid has been found with either feather or quill knobs impressions while "scale" impressions have been found from both basal (Gorgosaurus) and derived (Tarbosaurus/Tyrannosaurus) tyrannosaurids.

Their closest relative of similar proportions with feathers was Yutyrannus and it was more distantly related to tyrannosauridae than smaller taxa like Alioramus and Alectrosaurus.

Just because Wooly Rhinos existed does not mean that Indian Rhinos can't have an filament-less armored carapace.

File: rickyo.jpg (52KB, 250x300px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 250x300px

>>2468560
eurofags literally started this autism.

>>2468643
not him, but the blog of a professional paleontologist who specializes in life reconstructions is pretty damn relevant to the debate.

File: image.jpg (164KB, 1190x793px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1190x793px

>>2464791
>>2467524
Those actually proved that it wasn't covered in scale but rather skin similar to that of elephants. Anyway It doesn't disprove feathers at all. Especially when they found out a theropod from 99 million years ago was completely covered feathers.

File: chicken.png (117KB, 445x355px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 445x355px

>>2462687
hello father

>>2469923
He doesn't know that Yutyrannus is a tyrannosauroid, this isn't someone qualified to judge content.
>>2469955
>Those actually proved that it wasn't covered in scale but rather skin similar to that of elephants.
there's wide agreement among paleontologists that they are scutes, a type of scale. Not skin.

the regularity of the borders and sizes is the diagnostic feature. Skin forms random wrinkles and patches of different size. Scales are uniform and mosaic in arrangement.

File: scalyrex.jpg (51KB, 640x283px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x283px

>>2470027
Except that he does...

From the actual first paragraph of Mark Witton's blog post that anon linked (emphasis mine):

"but relatively recent discoveries of filamented TYRANNOSAUROIDS in China (Xu et al. 2004, 2012), as well as a growing mountain of fuzzy coelurosaur fossils, point to a different conclusion: that Tyrannosaurus was adorned in simple filaments - hair-like equivalents of feathers. Skin impressions for more DERIVED tyrant species - the TYRANNOSAURIDS - have proven rare in fossil record (Hone 2016) and, though rumours have circulated about some, they have largely escaped formal description and publication. In the absence of better evidence, the most parsimonious modern takes on everyone's favourite tyrant have involved a fuzzy covering."

He also has a Phd. from the University of Portsmouth and holds a research position there, in addition to years of experience as a paleoartist. As far as life appearances of extinct animals go, you'd be hard pressed to find someone more qualified to judge content.

>>2470062
>Except that he does...
I was talking about the anonymous fellow you were responding too, sorry I wasn't clear.

Witton is fairly qualified to hold an opinion on the subject, however he was mistaken about the "formal description and publication" part.

which is an understandable error, not everyone buys every dang book on the subject.

>>2470117
>I don't see how your personal blog is relevant to the debate
nice backpedaling