Turkeysaurus Rex.

>when furries draw your waifu

File: Tyrannosaurus_Sprint.gif (2MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x280px

>>8130106
Here's a better one. I call it "Aslan Barney."

>>8130106
Re-envisioned Jurassic Park when? People would die of laughter.

>>8130175
Jurassic Park was never about accuracy.

>>8130181
There wasn't a single unfeasible frame in the new one.

File: 1437681322058.jpg (73KB, 528x396px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 528x396px

>>8130165

What is the evolutionary purpose of partially formed feathers?

File: 1823360007Shrew.jpg (70KB, 600x436px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x436px

>>8131920
Insulation, like hair or fur in mammals.

File: alligator-ding-darling-michael-dougherty.jpg (175KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1024x682px

>>8131924
Also, as armor in crocodilians.

File: 1439326322865.png (77KB, 586x537px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 586x537px

>>8131924

>reptiles need insulation

>>8131955
You try getting up in the morning with lukewarm blood. It's not pleasant.

File: Chinese_alligator_and_rhea.jpg (47KB, 690x484px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 690x484px

>>8131961
Also, reptile=/=lizard. By the broad definition given, birds are trchnically reptiles.

>>8131961

run out of excuses already?

File: Stout_Iguana.jpg (410KB, 1250x786px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1250x786px

>>8131999
All I'm saying is that dinosaurs (as we currently understand them) are not cold-blooded, but are more intermediate, being between warm and cold blood. The insulation would help them to "warm up" more efficiently than their distant squamate relatives who have to sun themselves.

>>8131955
Large, fanlike feathers like which Ostriches and Emus have are also very good at dissipating heat and cooling the body. So feathers like which T.Rex probably had could both cool and warm the animal.

>>8131955
That's not how evolution works dumbass, you don't just get what you "need"

File: feather-evolution.gif (631KB, 2250x870px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 2250x870px

>>8132025
Like stage 2?

>>8132029

t. was there when it happened

>>8132016
not who you're replying to, but that's not necessarily the case. The atmosphere was much thicker in that time, and global temperatures were colder on average. Also, dinosaurs had much bigger body mass than reptiles today, so exertion used a lot more energy and they gave off more heat. Being able to retain as much heat as possible was much more important to dinosaurs than it was to smaller reptiles.

>>8132039
Oh. I guess that makes sense.

File: T rex feather 1.jpg (138KB, 1100x551px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1100x551px

Sure we know T-rex had feathers now but that doesn't make it any less of a badass

>>8132045

I would have replied to you that you we're talking out of your ass but I knew it wouldn't matter to someone like you.

At least I got to see someone else explain it to you though.

File: tumblr_mkqmjsHGaI1qkt19no1_500.jpg (69KB, 422x750px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 422x750px

>>8132052
Here, have a creepy transitional form.

File: dinosaurs_72.jpg (143KB, 950x572px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 950x572px

>>8132047
What about ceratopsians? Some are saying that it may be an omnivore.

File: 1465010781678.png (84KB, 245x316px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 245x316px

>>8131920
>purpose

>>8132067
*they may be omnivorous.

File: !.png (52KB, 359x376px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 359x376px

>>8130106
Honestly looks better than the old, scaly one desu

File: tumblr_lzu222sLR81r6q9d2o1_1280.jpg (649KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1000x669px

>>8132096
I dunno, they still have a place in my heart, like dragons.

No arms at all?
Wrong.
It has tiny arms.
It's like japanese mafia... cutesy tattoos make them seem more insidious.
Tiny T Rex arms are the cutesy insidious tattoos of the dino world.

Bring back the arms or I'll shoot you.
With carpets.

>>8132166
They're just covered by the proto-feathers.

>>8132112
Dragons can be awesome and I don't blame you, but I find feathered dinosaurs to be pretty badass too.

File: Tyrannosaurus_rex_mmartyniuk.png (482KB, 1920x653px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1920x653px

>>8130106

>>8132168
There are zero bumps in the feathers and that's impossible.
There would have to be pockets for the arms to hid in, and there's no evidence to support that.
DON'T HOT POCKET MY DINOSAUR.

>>8132170
No, i meant I see scaly dinosaurs like I see dragons: inaccurate, but still imaginative.

File: iguan.jpg (131KB, 654x471px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 654x471px

>>8132296
Then there's the first dinosaur ever illustrated (from what I can gather).

File: 1407382249759.jpg (8KB, 116x122px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 116x122px

>>8131920

It makes them harder to eat, because plucking the feathers slows the cavemen down.

File: NotThere.png (202KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 500x384px

>>8132033
>You have to be personally present for things to happen.
Are you actually fucking retarded?

File: 4jnh2h.jpg (76KB, 512x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 512x600px

>>8132349

>>8132039
>The atmosphere was much thicker in that time, and global temperatures were colder on average.
lol'd

The atmosphere was exactly the same density as now. To make it thicker would require drastically increasing gravity. Gravity wasn't magically higher in the Mesozoic.

The climate was warmer than present throughout the entire Mesozoic. At its coldest moments it got close to modern climates, but for the most part it was much much hotter.

I enjoyed your post, you're exactly wrong in every possible way. Funny stuff.

So are you saying we should genetically engineer turkeys back into T-rexs and farm em' for HUGE meat legs? This is the USDA, your idea has been funded.

>>8131948
that fucker looks so damn smug

[citation needed]!

>>8132737
I enjoyed your post, you're exactly wrong in every possible way. Funny stuff.

>>8132737
>the atmosphere was exactly the same density as now
<citation needed>
gravity isn't the only factor in determining the characteristics of a planet's atmosphere, you nitwit. and a rather common theory, based on the preposterous size of pterosaurs, is that earth's atmosphere was likely as much as 5 times more dense during their evolutionary height.

File: venusmar.jpg (110KB, 1576x1848px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1576x1848px

>>8132737
>To make it thicker would require drastically increasing gravity
you wouldnt believe how complicated and seemingly chaotic atmospheres can behave

>>8133405
excellent example.
>80% the mass of earth
>90% the surface gravity
>92 TIMES the fucking atmospheric pressure

anon. b.t.f.o.

>>8132304
considering there are two other dinosaurs and an extinct mammal in that picture, i kind of doubt its the first illustration.

>>8133401
>a rather common theory, based on the preposterous size of pterosaurs, is that earth's atmosphere was likely as much as 5 times more dense during
it's not a theory, it's a blog post by an idiot very much like you.
If you don't believe me, try to show me a scientific paper that says that.
here's the idiot that came up with it:
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/thick_atmosphere.html
><citation needed>
no citation available, your "theory" has never been published in a scientific journal because it's ridiculous and demonstrably untrue.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19073/what-was-the-density-of-prehistoric-earth-atmosphere-dinosaurs-buoyancy-theory

Esker was a laughingstock for his ideas, now nobody really remembers his bullshit.

He used to post on /sci/ defending his "theory."
Apparently he still does.

File: owenmeg.jpg (115KB, 711x407px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 711x407px

>>8133410
Marine reptiles and pterosaurs are not dinosaurs. Anyway, here's Richard Owen's megalosaurus.

File: Mantells_Iguanodon_restoration.jpg (81KB, 657x289px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 657x289px

>>8133457
And Gideon Mantell's iguanodon.

[citation needed]!

File: 1465278804746.jpg (199KB, 639x899px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 639x899px

>>8130106
obligatory

File: X0vapwI.jpg (65KB, 600x797px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x797px

>>8133674
Relevant

>>8131920
>purpose

>>8130106
You know what's funny? As a (6 y.o.) kid I always asked myself how they knew what dinosaurs really looked. I mean, all they had was the bones, for all I knew they could've been big amorphous balls of flesh (which isn't really true). But it was a funny thought to entertain nevertheless.

Ironic how it turned out.

>>8131920
feathers evolved as a means of getting rid of waste products their kidneys didn't process.

scales too. But feathers allowed the animal to dump more waste into integument than scales do.

so even if it had no obvious purpose it would have been likely to evolve in some form.

>>8133684
jesus christ...

>>8133864
It was probably based on reptiles or lizards. I always wondered, as a kid, how they knew exactly how to "mount" a dinosaur with only its bones.

File: IMG_1288-600x450.jpg (62KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x450px

I have a question.

Much is lost when it comes to how dinosaurs looked. This means stuff like protofeathers and cartilage are normally never found or known about. This also means the naked skin tight versions of dinosaurs we see in media could be as far from the truth as a baseball is to a starfish.

Is there artist conceptions of dinos with not just protofeathers, but also cartilage formations like big ears, noses, or other soft tissues that go wildly out of what is considered correct?

File: 1465435199010.png (653KB, 1987x877px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 1987x877px

>>8134099
Another example.

File: allosaurus-fragilis.jpg (468KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1500x1500px

>>8134099

File: 1280.jpg (111KB, 1096x553px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1096x553px

>>8134099
would also like to see more of this.


How educated can our guesses on stuff like this even be?

>>8130106
https://soundcloud.com/fecshrooms/a666s

File: BrachioFullWeb.jpg (602KB, 900x680px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 900x680px

>>8134297

File: original (6).jpg (218KB, 1075x1600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1075x1600px

>>8134299

File: JurassicPark_T-Rex_With_Feathers1.jpg (350KB, 900x482px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 900x482px

>>8134304

File: cordoba-dinosaur-skin.jpg (671KB, 1417x797px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1417x797px

>>8134297
at this point pure and utter speculation I believe. We already have dinosaurs with soft tissue appendages preserved. I find it hard to imagine that we'd find such appendages at this point on most popular dinosaurs

File: Glyptodon_asper_armor.jpg (350KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1024x768px

>>8134322
That's Glyptodon osteoderms, not dinosaur.

We do have lots of dinosaur skin and osteoderms, that's just not it.

>>8134305
Looks pretty freaky in a positive way desu

It doesn't matter anyway, pop culture has 100 of millions of years of dinosaur evolution to cherrypick scaly dinos from.

>>8134507
we also have scales from T. rex, but we can pretend we don't if it makes everyone feel better.

>>8134416
eh, google lied. Darn them

File: 8xkpmHQ.jpg (13KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x250px

>>8134107

>>8134519
retard

>>8131920
One theory is even... roosting.

To sit in a nest and keep eggs warm and undercover while asleep.

>>8131920
>purpose

Weird question...how much do we actually know about dinosaur penises? I just read the triceratops series by Chuck Tingle and I want to know how true-to-life it really is.

File: 1441769754292.jpg (110KB, 938x1500px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 938x1500px

>>8135591
I think we can only make educated guesses based on birds, turtles and other animals

>>8135001
>skin impressions from a Tyrannosaurus rex specimen nicknamed "Wyrex" (BHI 6230) discovered in Montana in 2002,[36] as well as some other giant tyrannosauroid specimens, show at least small patches of mosaic scales,[37]

File: df97167e28f1bf8bffe5066893d7335c.jpg (239KB, 736x627px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 736x627px

>>8135605
And I'm sure that they walked upright like us too.

File: wyrex.jpg (30KB, 279x203px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 279x203px

>>8135654
not sure if you're trolling or not.

you do know we in fact have skin impressions from T. rex, right?

and that those skin impressions are covered in scales, correct? I try not to underestimate fanboy's ignorance, so if you're just being sarcastic you have to tell me.

File: crystal_palace_dinosaurs.jpg (44KB, 560x411px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 560x411px

>>8135672
I jest.
Which part of the body is it supposed to represent?

Cute

File: wyrexskinlarson.png (114KB, 621x337px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 621x337px

>>8135685
about a dozen patches from base of the tail, upper thigh and throat. Most of them are from the tail.

>>8131955
Dinosaurs weren't/aren't reptiles they were birds.

File: saurian-2-1024x591.jpg (150KB, 1024x591px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1024x591px

>>8135725
I think most agree that if it had feathers, it would be more like this, which seems to line up with those findings.

>>8135748
since that drawing was made AFTER the skin was found, it of course lines up.

they just stuck feathers on all the parts we don't have skin from.

when we find more skin they'll take feathers off that part too. Eventually it'll have one little patch of feathers on the left forearm and nowhere else and they'll pretend THAT'S accurate.

the feathers of the gaps.

>>8135751
>since that drawing was made AFTER the skin was found,
Are the drawings supposed to be baseless unscientific predictions? What the fuck? Generally agree with the rest of what you said, but what the fuck?

File: i'm retarded.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>8131920
>ummmm but its not a clear positive trait.... why was it selected for then?.??.?

>>8135771
So you think putting feathers on an animal for which we have scale fossils is scientific?

I mean, yes, it could have both, but there's no evidence whatsoever that it did. We don't have feather fossils from any tyrannosaurid. Just lots of scales.

Phylogenetic bracketing only works if your phylogeny is correct. I'm not the first person to suggest that T. rex isn't related to Yutyrannus and Dilong. In fact the scales seem to indicate it isn't.

but even if we pretend tyrannosaurids are also tyrannosauroids, finding skin without feathers is very good evidence it didn't have feathers due to secondary loss.

The thing isn't some grand mystery though. Paleontologists know T. rex didn't have feathers. We just don't like to contradict big names like Tom Holtz. When he dies or retires his bullshit will come tumbling down.

>>8136072
>I mean, yes, it could have both,
thank you

>>8136072
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5JN__15-g

>>8136733
>thank you
it could also have a giant penis on its forehead and a trunk like an elephant.

just because something is possible doesn't mean it's true. And you'll notice it's not illustrated with a head-penis and trunk. Because that would be silly.

almost as silly as putting feathers on an animal we know had scales and that we have no evidence of feathers for.

>>8137235
it comes down to whether or not Holtz' Tyrannosauroidea is distinguishable from Allosauroidea. (i.e., are Yutyrannus and Dilong related to T. rex.)

Something that guy isn't qualified to comment on.

>>8137289
Why exactly couldn't it have feathers and scales when modern birds have both? Ostriches have feathers and scales.

>>8137319
scales on modern birds are confined to parts of the body we didn't find.

So basically we found random patches of skin that all had scales. If the animal was partially covered with feathers and partially covered with scales, what are the odds of finding 12 patches (or 3 locations if that's easier) that ALL have scales?

File: 5423638-ostrich-leg-closeup.jpg (80KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 533x800px

>>8137328
Look at all the not feathers on that leg. If you only found an impression of skin in that area on an ostrich fossil (and had no idea what an ostrich was) you'd think the thing was a scaly abomination.

>>8137340
1. that's skin, not scales
2. that's the calf, not the thigh

we found scales on the upper thigh, a part of an ostrich that has feathers. Also of course secondary loss of feathers in birds exposes skin, not scales.

>>8137340
there's also the problem that the protofeathers on Yutyrannus and Dilong cover the entire thigh, and scales aren't present.

so we'd have to pretend that not only did Tyrannosaurus lose the feathers on the upper thigh, but it also evolved new scales where they used to be. Which requires two novel evolutions- secondary loss of feathers and then development of scales.

The more parsimonious solution is that Tyrannosaurus isn't descended from feathered dinosaurs. That doesn't make it necessarily the correct answer, just more parsimonious and thus statistically more likely to be true.

File: 19th_century_science_ruined_dinosaurs_by_osmatar-d81jxfc.jpg (101KB, 1280x624px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x624px

>>8137362
Why do you want a scaly t rex so badly?

>>8137375
I don't.

my actual interest is in refining Tyrannosauroidea, it's currently a wastebasket taxon as it sits.

which is frustrating and wrong. It will have to be fixed at some point and I and others are working on fixing it now.

>>8137375
But I mention it because the scaled skin of T. rex is actually pretty good evidence that Tyrannosauroidea is broken.

If Yutyrannus, Dilong, "Nanotyrannus," Albertosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are all tyrannosauroids they should all have feathers or a very compelling reason why they lost them.

2 of the 6 have feathers. The remaining 4 don't. This points to a problem where tyrannosaurids are probably not tyrannosauroids.

File: 20160611_161519.jpg (387KB, 800x552px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 800x552px

>>8137378
Huh, I didn't know it was a wastebasket taxon. Well, I wish you the best of luck.

File: Brontosaurus_Copyright_DavideBonadonna-1.jpg (852KB, 5876x1983px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 5876x1983px

>>8137383
Now what about sauropods? They seem a bit big for insulation to be necessary.

>>8137386
It's indistinguishable from Allosauroidea based on cranial features, and most of the new tyrannosauroids are being assigned entirely based on those cranial features.

mostly by European and Asian scientists that aren't familiar with Allosauroidea, but it's being allowed by several famous paleontologists in the US that have staked their careers on the diagnosis.

but as I said, they'll die or retire at some point and this will be sorted out. Assuming money and interest in the field continue.

>>8137391
We also have extensive skin samples from them.

so far no reason to think any of them had feathers.

File: 12dino-1-articleLarge.jpg (20KB, 600x188px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x188px

>>8137391
And this fucker right here. Was this a fluke on the scientists' part?

>>8137398
Are you aware that that one has been debunked as well?

It's currently been reassigned to three different species.

File: gideon_mantell_and_his_iguanodon_by_pelycosaur24-d826xjg.jpg (130KB, 970x823px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 970x823px

>>8137399
Good Lord, man. Any others?

>>8137405
not sure.
things change almost daily. There's huge amounts of dinosaur paleontology getting published.

File: 6265_2.jpg (107KB, 728x409px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 728x409px

>>8137411
Is Quetzalcoatlus still considered a flyer, or is it seen as a ground-dwelling scavenger?

File: Phenacodus_primaevus_and_Macrauchenia_patachonica.jpg (624KB, 1448x852px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1448x852px

Did this have a trunk? It doesn't look like it would have one. If it didn't, what organ could've been there?

File: dont cry.png (336KB, 1240x753px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1240x753px

>>8137418
>>8137461
apologies, I only keep track of dinosaur stuff.
Mostly just theropods with known skulls at that.

There's way too many fossils out there, you kinda gotta specialize. Otherwise it's like trying to memorize the Brooklyn phone book every year.

File: 1465517921653.gif (787KB, 800x1148px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 800x1148px

>>8137485
Are you that one chap I was talking to on the Ardipithecus thread?

File: Allosaurus eyeball witmer labs.jpg (194KB, 750x738px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 750x738px

>>8137507
yep.

File: Ebenezer.jpg (124KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x731px

>>8137515
Well, it's good to see you. Have you heard of Ebenezer?

File: big al 2.jpg (44KB, 600x464px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x464px

>>8137536
Yeah, I have a collection of pictures from the dig somewhere on my computer.

Last I heard it was in litigation with the land owners suing the guy that coordinated the dig over ownership since the thing turned out to be worth a couple million dollars. Creationists are greedy too.

they must have got it all settled.
It's a nice one, but unfortunately it has essentially no scientific value just because of how it was excavated and prepared.

fucking amateurs.

File: 20140523.gif (61KB, 290x361px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 290x361px

>>8137549
They don't care about accuracy, they just care about entertainment value. Remember: kids love dinosaurs.

File: 2-allosaurusfe.jpg (603KB, 3541x4060px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 3541x4060px

>>8137560
When the were digging it up the were pointing to weed roots that had grown in the cracks of the rock and bone and saying they were plant material from the flood.

the whole thing was sort of depressing.

I took an interest in it only as a potential crime-
a couple years before they found that guy some people broke into a dinosaur quarry and museum in Utah and stole parts of an Allosaurus skull.

My thinking was perhaps these were the same faggots trying to launder their stolen skull by pretending they dug it up on some creationist's land while on a creationist field trip.

I eventually concluded their find was probably authentic, these dipshits aren't smart enough to burgle a telephone booth.

File: allosaurus.jpg (158KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1600x1200px

>>8137560
Also, fuck yeah Big Al.

File: 094.jpg (156KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x680px

>>8137564
Also, this looks wrong. Is it wrong?

File: A sp II.jpg (26KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x329px

>>8137564
Big Al is a nice one. I wish Chure would clear up the species though. I believe it's A. "jimmadseni" just based on length of the lacrimal, slope of the rostrum, and presence in the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison rather than the Brushy Basin Member like most A. fragilis.

File: al.jpg (63KB, 675x470px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 675x470px

>>8137569
what part looks wrong to you?
looks ok to me at first glance. It's missing a few bones, but whatever. The skull looks like one of the Madsen casts. Possible even his best cast, the one he illustrated for his monograph.

The posture seems ok. Not sure about the pronation of the manus, or the relationship of the carpus to the forearm.

>>8137584
Mainly the neck and hands, though that's probably due to when it was constructed.

Is there a place you can download 3D printer schematics of realistic dino skeletons?

>>8137391
but what about stuff like
>>8134299
>>8134297
or similar "extensions", or crazy colors?
implausible?

File: rjpalmer_alamosaurus_002-663x1024.jpg (129KB, 663x1024px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 663x1024px

>>8137771
Maybe some weird nose pouches like this. Other stuff could work too. I think a trunk was brought up at least once.

>>8137771
>implausible?
not just implausible but virtually impossible.

About a decade ago there were complaints that artists were depicting all dinosaurs the same way. I mean it's a good guess they had fleshy features we don't know about. So artists started drawing them with junk all over them for which there's no evidence.

whether it's more accurate to never add stuff for which there's no evidence or to make shit completely up is a question you have to answer. Neither approach is particularly great.

File: Bakker-Munns-trunked-sauropod-motley-Nov-2012-Darren-Naish-Tetrapod-Zoology-340-px-tiny.jpg (82KB, 340x571px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 340x571px

>>8137934
I beg to differ.
Just look at that snoot.

>>8137952
I was going to point out that they lack a facial foramen for the facial nerve (VII).

But Naish did a much more thorough job with it:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/20/junk-in-the-trunk/

File: 51nU07vk23L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (46KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 333x499px

>>8137978
Ah, you read him too. Good to know I'm not the only one. I mainly love his work on cryptozoology, but do tend to look into his debunking articles when I'm bored. I even have his book.

File: r-jurassic-park-art-large570.jpg (36KB, 570x238px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 570x238px

>>8137988
Yeah, if you go through my posts you'll find most of what I've said itt was said by Naish first.

in particular he's the one that raised the complaint about 'shrinkwrapping' including not putting fleshy parts for which there is no evidence on our paleoart.

He's also questioned the validity of Tyrannosauroidea as distinct from Allosauroidea particularly in regards to Yutyrannus and Concavenator, though to be fair I raised that question long before he did.

I tend to agree with Naish on most stuff, and when I disagree I still respect his reasons for thinking things. He's one of the better ones.

File: image.jpg (234KB, 1069x748px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1069x748px

>>8138023
The April Fools articles were always a hoot in my opinion. I mainly stray towards the speculative and fantastical when it comes to biology.

>>8130106
This "dinosaurs were birds" meme needs to die, I can't stand the idea that the next generation of kids will grow up with dinosaurs that look like this. Why don't we just tell them Santa isn't real while we're at it?!

File: image.jpg (55KB, 320x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 320x600px

>>8138120
But he was.
Also, the media will never let scaly dinos die, don't you worry.

File: kulindadromeus-fuzz.jpg (88KB, 341x527px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 341x527px

>>8138120
we've known since 1862 that birds were dinosaurs.

the first skeleton fossil of Archaeopteryx was originally thought to be the dinosaur Compsognathus until it was found to have feathers.

best get comfy with the idea, it's only getting more support.

File: 0i9bwn8.png (262KB, 1488x1016px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1488x1016px

GUYS

>>8130207
Which is why there is a scene in the movie where the scientist explains that they're created with mutations to make them look scarier, foe exemple the raptors are bigger and don't have feathers

>>8131920
cuz it looks sexy

>>8138589
Kek

so i dont get it. modern day birds came from trex or from a common ancestor?

cause on one hand, scientists would need to put feathers on trex to make the evolutionary connection to a fucking finch, but on the other hand, why would an animal evolve proto feathers like its cousin if scales would work better for just about everything they probably did?

File: saurian_dakotaraptor_by_arvalis-d9ewtr5.jpg (101KB, 1600x554px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1600x554px

>>8138757
they come from small avian dinosaurs