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 (256,333 Views) | |
| stargatedalek | Aug 6 2014, 10:36 AM Post #2506 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "diplodocus" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 8 2014, 07:59 PM Post #2507 |
![]() ![]()
|
People who say that they'll only accept feathered dinosaurs if they only have a light or partial covering of feathers, even though that's not how feathers work. How many birds today are half-feathered? That's right, none! Half-feathered or lightly feathered dinosaurs usually look completely unnatural and ugly anyway.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Aug 8 2014, 08:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| gatorguy | Aug 8 2014, 09:19 PM Post #2508 |
![]()
Proud to be an American
![]()
|
You guys who like feathers, try not to start a riot over this one. Before I say this, let it be known I like dinosaurs with or without feathers, though for some I definitely have a preference. I hate how there is such fierce rivalry about dinosaurs having feathers. Yes, there are some specimens that show strong evidence of feathers, but for the vast majority, there isn't. It is safe to assume that lots of dinosaurs that we have no evidence, had feathers. So, it is now the 'scientifically correct' way to show a dinosaur. But we must remember. Nearly all (I'd say more than 80%) of paleontology is assumption. Every article says ' may,' 'might,' 'could have,' more than they say 'did', by a long shot. We have named entirely new species based on such fragmentary remains that there is very little to even find differences in. Therefore, one can say that some dinosaurs had feathers. Raptors, larger theropods, and small herbivores. Lots of people will accept this statement, and a few(as always) will turn it down.But neither group can prove you right or wrong. You can say all dinosaurs had feathers. Marginocephalia, thyreophora, hadrosaurs, all the ones that are generally assumed to not have feathers. A few might support, but most will be naysayers. But they cannot prove this wrong. You can say that no dinosaurs had feathers. They were all scaly, all the time. A few will support, and a lot will not. But they still can't prove you wrong or right. I say this because the evidence of feathers is just that. Evidence. The lack of evidence of feathers in other species is the same. Evidence. So while I can say that Ankylosaurus had feathers all day long, all you can do is say that that isn't written anywhere. In short, We should appreciate both views of dinosaurs. We have no earthly idea whether or not these animals had feathers, so we should be able to entertain both viewpoints. While each can believe what he wants, regardless of what the scientific community believes, we shouldn't jump at the throat of every guy who drew a bald T rex. I hope I got the point across. Just my opinions. Thanks for listening. -Zac |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 8 2014, 09:40 PM Post #2509 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I can easily prove that wrong, give me a few hours and I get you dozens of fossils with preserved feathers but I get your overall point the odds are strongly in favor of feathers, which is why they are considered the "most accurate" option, its not as much guesswork as you seem to think, it still is somewhat, but these guesses should never be based on personal preference, and instead based on likelihood and cladistics, which point towards integument being the "norm" and lack of being the rarity (if at all present) its not a matter of guesswork, but of "informed guesswork", sure cladistics are not 100%, but they are the best we have and so they are considered most accurate for good reason Edited by stargatedalek, Aug 8 2014, 09:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| gatorguy | Aug 8 2014, 09:55 PM Post #2510 |
![]()
Proud to be an American
![]()
|
Oh thank goodness. I was a little worried no one would get it. Also, yes, I know that it's all informed and that it's all very strongly supported. I was exaggetating a bit. I had just gotten on a roll. Sorry for any confusion. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 8 2014, 10:02 PM Post #2511 |
![]() ![]()
|
Dude, I strongly suggest you examine all the evidence more thoroughly. It is scientific fact that many dinosaurs had feathers, and there is a high probability that the majority of the dinosaur family tree possessed feather-like integument of some form. You imply a scientific debate as to whether or not dinosaurs had feathers, and yet no such debate exists. There is very little, if any debate these days as to the reality of feathered dinosaurs. Such debates ended within scientific circles over a decade ago. |
![]() |
|
| gatorguy | Aug 8 2014, 10:09 PM Post #2512 |
![]()
Proud to be an American
![]()
|
I knew it wouldn't take long. All Im trying to say is we can only assume that a lot of species had feathers. We can say that some almost surely did, because they were preserved. Im saying that we shouldn't (pardon me if this comes off as rude) do what you just did and attack anyone who gives the slightest notion that some groups of dinosaurs had little or no feathers. We should be civilized enough by now to live and let live, and be able to entertain the idea of no feathers instead of yelling and screaming about why we think they did. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 8 2014, 10:13 PM Post #2513 |
![]() ![]()
|
I didn't intend to attack you, just to say that I think you're exaggerating the amount of uncertainty surrounding dinosaur integument. Yes, we have good evidence that a few dinosaur groups lacked extensive feathering (hadrosaurs, Carnotaurus, etc.) yet we have just as much evidence that most dinosaurs had some form of integument (maybe not direct evidence in some cases, but indirect evidence is still evidence, keep in mind). |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 8 2014, 10:18 PM Post #2514 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Cyborg, I think you missed the point just a little ![]() the point was that neither extreme was 100% known even if almost all the examples got muddled, the basic overall point is sound that would the 100% confirmed, not "almost surely", microraptors weren't wearing feathered suits Edited by stargatedalek, Aug 8 2014, 10:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| gatorguy | Aug 8 2014, 10:22 PM Post #2515 |
![]()
Proud to be an American
![]()
|
just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that dinosaurs had feathers or that they didn't. I was trying to say that we shouldn't be mean to the guys who like them without. While I'm sure most of us would agree that this liberty should not be applied to professionals, and that said professionals should base these things on as much fact as possible, us laymen shouldn't be ridiculed so harshly for believing in bald dinosaurs. Like I said before, are we as paleontologists (albeit amateurs) so simple minded to attack those who don't share our beliefs? Oops, stargatedalek beat me to it. Thanks for clarifying for me. Edited by gatorguy, Aug 8 2014, 10:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 8 2014, 10:23 PM Post #2516 |
![]() ![]()
|
People who prefer them without feathers are fine. People who constantly deny that they had feathers just because they don't like them that way is what I'm complaining about. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 8 2014, 10:25 PM Post #2517 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
I don't mind retrosaurs (many cases I prefer them), but I do mind when people try to pass them off as accurate retrosaurs can be fun and cool, but they have a time and place, and thats not in any sort of context where they can be perceived as deliberate reconstructions |
![]() |
|
| gatorguy | Aug 8 2014, 10:27 PM Post #2518 |
![]()
Proud to be an American
![]()
|
Agreed. But even then, if those people haven't accepted that some (heck, if not most) dinosaurs had some kind of integument by now, then I don't think they ever will, so might as well give up and leave them behind. Dadgummit, stargate, you type too fast! I agree with your statement as well. Edited by gatorguy, Aug 8 2014, 10:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Aug 8 2014, 10:37 PM Post #2519 |
![]() ![]()
|
Sorry if you felt like I was attacking you, I just didn't entirely understand the point you were trying to make. Probably my own fault. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Aug 8 2014, 10:42 PM Post #2520 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
in no way have I (deliberately) attacked someones preferences, only when they have claimed something inaccurate to have been accurate
|
![]() |
|
| 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








