Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,488 Views) | |
| Similis | Oct 9 2013, 01:43 AM Post #181 |
![]() ![]()
|
First and foremost: Do you have some problem with the fact that people go with the evolutionary trends instead of trying to desperately reverse them? Dilong was feathered, Yutyrannus was feathered, why not get over the reality and accept that tyrannosauroidea was feathered to some extent? I rarely see T.rex restoration with even stage 3 feathers, even more scarce are restorations covering it in the fuzz from the tip of the nose to it's ankles. "Half-feathered" with sparse feathers rules the scene and it's probably best assumption we have so far. Second: Stop using chickens for a comparison of 'bad looking' dinosaurs. These are fabulous animals with greatly developed feathering, so those who know their position will laugh at the 'chickenfluff' argument as I do, and won't take you seriously here in the tiniest bit. http://ewilloughby.deviantart.com/art/Feather-Evolution-313472392?q=gallery%3AFeatherNazis%2F37732603&qo=10 ^This link might also help you differentate between said chickenfluff (advanced feathers) and the earlier stages of the development of this integument. Calling a dinosaur with sparse Stage 1 coating - a chicken - is an insult to every bird today, as their feathers are far superior to the more primitive mesozoic design and by far are not a result of evolutionary mistake - feathers DID make it through K-T, didn't they?. ![]() And these birds are not happy about what you said. Why don't, for a change, you, leave feathers alone? There were many dinosaurs discovered with extensive (well, sorta) proof of the existance of the scaly integument - sauropods, thyreophorans, hadrosaurs, even the ceratopsians and not to mention allosauroids and ceratosaurians when it comes to meat-eaters. Not enough? Why not pick some other mesozoic archosaurs, for example pseudosuchians? This trend of "stop taking away our precious scales" is quite annoying and counterproductive if we have to fight for freedom of every damn species that has a basis to be restored with feathers. Edited by Similis, Oct 9 2013, 01:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 02:46 AM Post #182 |
![]() ![]()
|
First of all, i find it almost frustrating how it feels like you paid little to no attention to the rest of my argument and it feels like you found this little tidbit that you wanted to pick on me for, just because you don't agree with it. Second, while i do agree that i used a poor example with chickens, i was just generally just trying to think of something to describe what i meant other than "feathers", which i DO THINK THEROPODS HAD, something that you didn't seem to notice with my argument. Third: While i do understand feathers a bit more now, i still question the persistence in the exaggeration of paleontology. Fourth: I wasn't calling all feathered dinosaurs fluffy, just the fully coated, smooth reconstructions that people seem to be going crazy over. Fifth: I did not call feathers an evolutionary mistake, if anything, they're an evolutionary success. Sixth: I really feel like you were just picking on me, even though my statement was about paleontology's tendency to exaggerate things based on indirect evidence, rather than about how feathered dinosaurs are "Stoopid chickens taht are ruinin mah childhood waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!".Do we really have to make such a big deal about two people differing opinions on the extent to which that tyrannosaurs were feathered? |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Oct 9 2013, 03:00 AM Post #183 |
![]() ![]()
|
The statement was actually about putting feathers on animals that have scientific backup to be restored with them, hence I don't see why you try to deny it now. Opinions don't matter. I'd love to see a fully feathered sauropod uncovered, but it's not going to happen, so why try to make it reverse and force baldness on the feathered side? |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 9 2013, 03:13 AM Post #184 |
![]() ![]()
|
WUT !? animals don't have bugs. they can't have them. otherwise, they wouldn't survuve in the echosystem. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 03:21 AM Post #185 |
![]() ![]()
|
For the third time, I'm not denying anything, I'm just questioning things. i think you took my statement the wrong way. Do i think some tyrannosaurs were feathered? Yes, most definitely, but not to the extent that many restorations would make you think. Yutyrannus? Full coat of feathers, no doubt. Gorgosaurus? Depends, if it's one of the gorgos living in Alaska, full coat. If it's one of the ones living in Montana or the warmer parts of Canada, sparse feathers. T. rex? Sparse feathers. Dilong? Full coat. And Furka, when i said "Working out all the bugs", i meant that evolution was still putting it's animals through the process, not literally working out all the bugs, that would be ridiculous. So overall, my point is, i do think some theropods were feathered, just not to the extent that some material implies. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 9 2013, 03:27 AM Post #186 |
![]() ![]()
|
well that's down to personal preference and artistic license, and you can't complain about that. otherwise you could complain about Picasso's drawing not looking like real people. |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Oct 9 2013, 03:27 AM Post #187 |
![]() ![]()
|
Dilong actually is so far proved to only have partial coat When you say that, I quote "every single dinosaur has chickenfluff now", then I correct you that it's not true and why on so many levels. Mind that I do not disagree with your statement that extensive, thick and advanced feathery coat on them is quite unlikely.
Edited by Similis, Oct 9 2013, 03:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Iben | Oct 9 2013, 05:37 AM Post #188 |
![]()
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!
![]()
|
Dr.Hax, I think you're just missing some basic biological facts here that make your reasoning a bit flawed. First, in modern day species we see that the type of integument ( hair/naked skin, feathers, scales, etc.) is determined by the species. Even that was used to determine the species relations of animals when things like DNA testing wasn't possible yet. Dogs and cats were/are both clearly mammals because they have fur. As we slowly get more information on the integument of dinosaurs, we see that more and more dinosaur groups seem to have had feathers as a common type of integument, so it's most reasonable to assume that most dinosaurs most likely had some kind of feathering. To take this even further, since the theory launched that the so called scales we found on fossils are actually derived from feathers, we can easily compare this to how modern day rhinos have developed thick hardened skin. Second, whether there's a relationship between the amount of integument and the size of an animal is yet to be proven. When we take a look at modern day animals we see that what actually matters is the climate. Animals that live in a very cold climate tend to develop thicker coats. However, when animals come to warmer climates, it doesn't automatically mean they completely shift to a different type of integument or that the original integument becomes very sparse. As you can see, this doesn't compare to nature. I think I already said why the "elephants are big and naked " argument doesn't work, but if I have to repeat it, just ask. Third. The sentence you often use is " it doesn't make sense to" or "it wouldn't need". First of all. Just because an animal no longer needs a certain trait, doesn't mean it will automatically loose that trait. That's completely nonsense. More often, animals loose a certain feature as a sacrifice when evolving to fit a certain habitat. Evolution doesn't work as a thinking progress that thinks " hey, why should I put time in developing feathers , we don't really need them". No, evolution doesn't work that way. There are some good videos on evolution that explain how it really works on youtube, perhaps I can link you one if you need it. Fourth. You always relate the "necessity" of an integument to the climate. While when we look around, we see lots of examples that show a total different "reasoning" behind it. For mating display, for flying, to be waterproof, etc. etc. etc. When you stick to to the world of " integument is only there to keep animals warm", you don't even understand the world around us. Ostriches use their big wings for mating displays and to shade their young. See ? They do have a good reason and do make a lot of sense, you just don't know the reason behind it. And besides, hot and dry climates are known to have very cold nights, a good amount of feathers keeps you warm at night, and keeps you cold during the day. There's a very good reason why Ostriches don't look like this. So what do we know ? Well we know that this, this, and this are good examples of feathering on tyrannosauridae. Feathers are still "sparse" aka not thick, but still cover the full body. While this, this and this are bad examples. I already explained the whole naked leg thing on Ostriches and Emus, I'm willing to do it again, but you could just go back a few pages. As tyrannosauridae were far from sprinters, there would have been no loss of feathers on the legs, as their leg muscles wouldn't overheat. And finally, fifth. The whole idea that in the 135 millions years that dinosaurs were the dominant species on earth, evolution ( as a thinking progress as you seem to describe it, which it isn't ) was just goofing around, not knowing what to do, just trying things and developing, and eradicating the bugs as you call them, to get the ultimate blueprint we have today ; will make just any serious palaeontologist and biologist laugh at you. Evolution doesn't work like that. It's not a process that's constantly improving itself towards one big good blueprint that now is shared by all animals living today. This is a misconception. Again, I refer to videos on youtube, some of them explain it in a very clear way and get rid of certain misconceptions. So basically, when you want to prove your view on how dinosaurs looked, make sure you really know how biology and evolution works. I don't mind the fact that you have your own view and opinion on it, and you don't have to agree with the current scientific view. But on the other hand, if you want to back up your view with facts, be sure that you're facts are right and your think process is too. I do really want to stress that I don't want to offend you or make you angry, it's just that there are some flaws in your reasoning that don't work with modern day biology, nature and palaeontology.
Edited by Iben, Oct 9 2013, 05:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 9 2013, 10:36 AM Post #189 |
![]() ![]()
|
I pretty much take a middle ground in this argument. On the one hand, feather-haters are annoying as all hell, but I find the scale-haters equally annoying. |
![]() |
|
| Okeanos | Oct 9 2013, 11:44 AM Post #190 |
![]() ![]()
|
I've never actually seen a scale 'hater'. Their logic is not so much "omg scales r stewpid dey look lik giant leezaards" which is the kind of logic I've seen many people against feathers use, especially on YouTube, but closer to 'well, this is commonly portrayed with scales but what if it had feathers?' which is a more open attitude. I've never seen anyone be attacked for putting scales on a Tyrannosaurus, which unfortunately can't be said for a Tyrannosaur with a feathery integument. I've never seen 'scale haters' openly deny that a known scaly dinosaur like Carnotaurus had scales, because it 'wud look cooler with feathers' I tend to see 'feather haters' who are more narrow-minded, since the majority of people I see denying any feathers on dinosaurs are JP Fanboys who don't want their opinion of T. rex to change. That is not to say that everyone who doesn't agree with feathers on T. rex is like that, but these decent people who it's actually possible to have a calm debate with seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Personally I feel I'm quite open minded, although I like my Rexies fully fluffy, not half fuzzy or scaly Edited by Okeanos, Oct 9 2013, 01:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Oct 9 2013, 11:56 AM Post #191 |
![]() ![]()
|
I can't even watch YouTube videos about dinosaurs anymore, because somewhere there's a comment by some obnoxious JP fanboy complaining about feathers and using simply how "stoopid fedderz luk on mah raptrz" as valid logic, when really nature couldn't care less about what humans think looks good. I'd really like to punch these people...very, very hard!
Edited by CyborgIguana, Oct 9 2013, 11:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2013, 12:18 PM Post #192 |
|
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.
![]()
|
People who hate feathers and scales are idiots when it comes to on dinos, because no matter what species who had feathers would have scales. Then animals like Carnotaurus could have feathers and scutes on it's body. I mean really why would they not have feathers if they still had the same lineage as tyrannosaurus rex. I mean Carno would likely have a minor extent of feathers yes alot maybe but not all feathers no animal in the history of the world has been all feathers or fur. |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Oct 9 2013, 01:52 PM Post #193 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
![]() I was just looking for an excuse to post a cute chipmunk picture. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Oct 9 2013, 02:02 PM Post #194 |
![]() ![]()
|
![]() unless you want feathers in the eyes, or on the keratineos areas like beak and claw too ... |
![]() |
|
| Swimming Spaghetti Monster | Oct 9 2013, 02:08 PM Post #195 |
![]()
|
It's obvious.There is also skin, muscles, etc. |
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups










When you say that, I quote "every single dinosaur has chickenfluff now", then I correct you that it's not true and why on so many levels. Mind that I do not disagree with your statement that extensive, thick and advanced feathery coat on them is quite unlikely.









