daily reminder

The hell am i looking at?

>>2475161
proof that dinosaurs had feathers

>>2475164
>implying the fossils weren't put there by god to test our faith
Have fun in hell nerd

Didn't your thread get hijacked by better bait last time?
Why bother trying again?

>>2475156
#NOTALLDINOSAURS

File: are those supposed to be feathers.gif (1MB, 494x494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 494x494px

>>2475156
kek

File: 1504480363100.jpg (19KB, 468x475px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 468x475px

>>2475156
>so assmad about the other thread he makes a new one
>using the paper that states they most likely lost their ancestral feathers rather than not having them to begin with

>>2475320
>the paper that states they most likely lost their ancestral feathers rather than not having them to begin with
That's the only conclusion they can publish without reassigning Dilong and Yutyrannus.

It's not necessarily the true conclusion or the most likely one. It's just the only one they can give atm.

>>2475320
>using the paper that states they most likely lost their ancestral feathers rather than not having them to begin with
So even palaeontologists have gone full retard. That's proof of nothing and it's still based on assumption. Exactly like "proof" of feathers is supposedly given by phylogeny when we don't actually know the true phylogenies of dinosaurs because they're not fucking alive.

File: en_mE5iPDdxrO.png (178KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 265x370px

>>2475325
>Yutyrannus
There it is. Muh fucking Yutyrannus. Could it be...just maybe...that the massive market in hoax Chinese fossils could have something to do with any of this? Nah! All dinosaurs had feathers lololol Ixalan is real!

>>2475706
wow are you retarded, its not like paleontologists worldwide approve its accuracy but no
>Im a burger fuck everyone!

>>2475799
Yeah, they're fucking morons. All the "experts" in this world have become as fucking retarded as the average pleb was in the 70s at this point. You have "experts" saying shit that anyone can disprove with a fucking google search now. The fact is, China has had a MASSIVE fraudulent fossil market for decades and while palaeontologists USED to acknowledge this, now they just buy fake fossils from chinks and pretend they're 100% legit now for some bullshit retarded reason.

>>2475861
>REEEEE STUPID CHINKS RUININ MUH SCALY MONSTERS
And I suppose we shouldn't listen to anything people from the U.K. say on account of Owen, huh?

>>2475891
Listen you retarded pop sci junkie. Most Dinosaurs did not have fucking feathers. We've known that at least some do before the fucking 1900s. This is neither new nor edgy and you're not super special hip and cool for thinking every fucking thing over 3 feet long from the Mesozoic looked like a fucking rooster.

File: Paleocene Dinosaurs.jpg (879KB, 1898x837px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 1898x837px

To shift the focus a bit: any thoughts on Paleocene dinosaurs? Could some small groups have survived for a short period of time after the K-T event, or is it just a case of fossils being moved from their original layer?

>>2475909
Yeah birds. It's literally a guarantee that some did.

>>2475924
I'm honestly curious as to why birds survived, while other small dinosaurs beefed it.

>>2475938
You and everyone else, brother. Honestly, birds make sense. But why ONLY birds among Dinosaurs? Why turtles? Why crocodilians? Etc.

>>2475945
Protection, maybe. Turtles and crocodilians had the water, birds had the air, and mammals had the undergrowth, leaving the smaller dinosaurs with only open spaces to roam.

>>2475954
That's my guess. But there really should have been some other Archosaurs that survived besides the ones that did.

>>2475966
Well, most of Antarctica is unexplored in the geological sense, so that might be something.

Ok so I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to this - do you anti-T. rex feather guys think that tyrannosaurids should be reassigned from coelurosauria or that most coelurosaurids except avialans and maniraptors were scaled/didn't have integument?

>>2475971
Oh boy, now you opened Pandora's box. Here's the reality: nobody fucking knows Dinosaur phylogeny because it's literally fucking impossible to test without them being alive. So all the claims about "Well Dinosaur X had feathers (it probably didn't to begin with), so it's """"descendant"""" must have too!" are complete and total bullshit. That's why muh Yutyrannus argument is total shit. If you don't find fucking feather imprints on a Dinosaur at some point, it probably didn't fucking have feathers.

I know, what a fucking revolutionary concept to only consider actual physical evidence when trying to draw a scientific conclusion instead of endless retarded conjecture.

File: Richard_Owen_(1804–1892)_aged.jpg (260KB, 443x726px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 443x726px

>>2475900
>before the fucking 1900s
Reminder that the only reason people think of dinosaurs as dragonlike monsters is because of some old hack who couldn't stand being wrong.

>>2475977
Wrong. You're just a stupid nufag retard who was born after Jurassic Park came out so you don't know shit about anything and think you're the hippest pop sci faggot on the black, when really you're just another faggot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#History_of_discovery

Feathered Dinosaurs have been known about for a fucking century and a half. Hipster faggots are just in a competition with each other to see who can claim the most Dinosaurs that didn't have feathers have feathers.

File: FeatheredDinos.jpg (183KB, 1000x480px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1000x480px

>>2475974
>feathered theropods showing up all over the place
>even though they are relatives, it would still imply their ancestor may have had them

>>2475980
*block

>>2475981
>relatives
>MY IMPLICATIONS MEAN MORE THAN REALITY
Lol no faggot. They don't.

>>2475981
Also, guess where Yutyrannus is from? Yep. Liaoning. Chinese fossil hoax HQ.

>>2475981
>>2475983
Btw, let's put some more nails in this coffin. It makes no sense for T-Rex to be totally devoid of feathers for having evolved from feathered ancestors. That shit just does not fucking happen. Take mammals. When mammals get large enough, they start losing most of their body hair because it's no longer as useful. But NOT ONE fucking mammal in the entire fossil record has ever lost ALL of its hair. Not even Cetaceans. ZERO. The same is almost certainly true of Dinosaurs because it's a series of steps of change in genetic characteristic: you know? Evolution? If it is 100% confirmed that T-Rex had absolutely no feathers (which seems more likely by the day) AND that the views on Dinosaur phylogeny (or at bare minimum Chinese hoax fossils OMG TOTALLY ARE 4 REALSIES!), then evolution is literally disproven as a theory. So what's more likely? That evolution is wrong? Or that either current theories about Therapod phylogeny or the veracity of Chinese Therapod fossils is wrong? Hmm...I wonder...

>>2475980
But they considered it a proto-bird. The implications of being directly from the dinosaur lineage weren't realized until much later, yes?

>>2475982
>>2475983
>"your bias is stupid! Shut up while I shove mine down your throat"

File: the-tyrannosaurus-rex-could-grow-charles-r-knight.jpg (145KB, 662x900px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 662x900px

>>2475985
Maybe we haven't found intigument yet and you're just butthurt that your dragons are dying out in popularity.

>>2475987
>But they considered it a proto-bird.
Sorry no. Aracheaopteryx wasn't the only feathered Dinosaur considered at the time. There were several taxa. I'm so very very sorry to have to burst your pop sci bullshit bubble, but feathered Dinosaurs are old as shit. It's just trendy NOW to claim animals that never had feathers had feathers and accept totally fraudulent species as valid. I can't even imagine what is possessing the palaeontological community to do this, but I suspect it has something to do with Chinese politics and "inclusiveness". Same with the fucking Chinese names of all these species which defy the Linnaean system. This is a fashionable trend among cretins and nothing more. No Triceratops never had feathers. I'm sorry this hurts your feefees.

>>2475988
>Maybe maybe maybe!
Yes, your retarded wild speculation may fly in retard circles, but it has no currency with anyone who can use fucking logic. If there's no physical evidence, then the CURRENT logical conclusion is not flights of insane fancy that seem cool to stupid children, the logical conclusion is to follow physical evidence. And the physical evidence says that T-Rex didn't have feathers over literally every single part of its body we have evidence for.

>Muh dragons! I'm cool now! Get out grandpa!
Lol what a huge faggot.

File: gallery-1473975022-dinosaur2.jpg (61KB, 768x461px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 768x461px

>>2475991
>trike with feathers
Nah, but its relative's quills are a nice touch. Oh wait, you think ol' Professor Dhing Dhong put them together in his chicken-bone bowl, huh?

>some theropods in several different branches had feathers, which means it may be widespread
>COMPLETELY OUT OF ORDER! IMAGINATIVE EXTRAPOLATION
You ok, Ken? You seem tense.

>>2475994
>some theropods in several different branches had feathers, which means it may be widespread
This is acceptable.

>OMG EVERYTHING HAD FEATHERS AND U STOOPIT IF U DON THINK SO!
This is not.

You'll note I have no problem accepting many Therapods had feathers when those feathers were ACTUALLY DISCOVERED (not you, China).

>>2475991

>I can't even imagine what is possessing the palaeontological community to do this, but I suspect it has something to do with Chinese politics and "inclusiveness".

?

File: Archaeoraptor-liaoningensis.jpg (51KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 700x394px

>>2475995
>China
That was one major slip-up nearly two decades old.

>>2475998
It's become really popular to talk up China as a "rising superpower" (it's not) in recent years in everything from politics to movie marketing to paleontology (hence all the fucking Chinese "scientific" names like Dilong, which has zero Latin or Greek roots, thus defeating the entire fucking purpose of binomial nomenclature).

>>2476001
No. It wasn't. And you just proved you know fucking nothing.

>>2476004
Then elaborate, what garners enough credibility to dismiss anything from China as a hoax? Where are your sources for these claims?

File: piri_reis_map.jpg (240KB, 1036x772px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1036x772px

>>2475970
pls. those doodles are fossils obviously

File: srep20252-f1.jpg (82KB, 926x550px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 926x550px

>>2475985
please point out an actual ancestor of T-Rex that's known to have been feathered, not off shoot cousins of it's distant ancestry like Yutyrannus or Dilong, oh wait you can't, because they don't exist

I thought dinosaurs were just spooky skeletons...

File: tapir___chalicothere_by_dewlap.jpg (165KB, 800x1101px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 800x1101px

>>2476171
>please point out an actual ancestor of Chalicotherium that's known to have been hairy, not off shoot cousins of it's distant ancestry like Tapirus or Equus, oh wait you can't, because they don't exist.

>>2475938
Mobility and adaptability, most likely. Birds are very good at adapting to new niches in a short timespan

>>2476225
>muh false equivalence
kys.

>>2475900
Are you one of those "hobby paleontologists" with a receding hairline who are stuck in the 1980's and cant accept a majority of dinosaurs were feathered?
>pop sci junkie
Pls just kys

>>2476262
Not even him, but
>Using the scientific method and demanding physical evidence to support a hypothesis means you're old fashioned.
Jesus Christ you're like a fucking Creationist

>>2475156
Just put this theory to its death anon.

We have limitless fossils with scales or clear cut remains of them, and then a few with a shape that's so-so resembling feathers.

t. actual palaeontologist.

>>2476268
Hes just flaming over feathered dinosaurs and not "using the scientific method and demanding physical evidence" you moron
>Jesus Christ you're like a fucking Creationist
Yes, jesus Christ was a Creationist.

>>2476283
He's the only one thats provided an actual argument in the entire thread and not just lob nostalgia accusations.
>When you make an absolutely abhorrent post

>>2475156
Why do amerisharts get so triggered by some gay long-dead retarded lizard having feathers or not?
Like, we don't give a fuck about it in Europe. Is the T. rex the national spirit animal or something?

>>2476411
Yes. Say what you want about America but at least we're not being invaded by the Muslim hordes. Dumbass.

File: Adorable_ff70d3_5461493[1].jpg (74KB, 540x719px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 540x719px

>>2476275
It is impossible to have both scales and feathers? Have you ever roasted a chicken? The feathers rarely survive fossilization, regardless the evidence is overwhelming. Tyrannosaurus Rex was densely packed with feathers and looked like a giant budgie.

t. actual palaeontologist.

>>2476477
This is exactly what I want from the next dinosaur movie/game. Adorable bird dinosaurs that make cute chirping noises before they eat you whole.

File: 1501614608806.jpg (38KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x480px

>proto-feathers =/= feathers

>>2476225
>Tries to argue T Rex had feathers because it's ancestors Yutyrannus and Dilong had them
>Get's BTFO because neither of those are Rex ancestors
>tries to shift into some false equivalency garbage
>because there is no actual pro evidence for Rex having feathers whatsoever other than increasingly baseless speculation

You guys are becoming increasingly anti science and it's delicious

>>2476644
than give us a link to all of Trex direct ancestors in correct order please, you fucking retard

>>2476653
already did>>2476171
sorry it doesn't confirm to your personal prejudices, but please go ahead and post something that does show either of the two feathered examples actually leading directly to the Tyrannosauridae, since you know you're the ones actually under the burden of proof right now.

We'll wait.