>

>

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dom-Saurus is ready. https://beta.character.ai/chat?char=z7_ZMorDw5cyFVnCYSYaZcc5TuH1rkenVvRura_bRn0

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      When in doubt throw it into the fricking sun

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Aw you made my AI pur.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >your ai
          lawl, luhmao, luhlz even.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Well yeah, I made this chatbot.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              You put a name on it and gave it a small amount of context. The ai itself belongs to the site, and are made to be mostly agreeable to the nonsense people type in.
              Case in point, you didn't create jack-shit and are hard-coping that morons keep fricking up your zoophile OC in ridiculous ways.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sure mate.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                LAWL

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Whenever the ai becomes moronic or goes off track I just use "*the room fricking explodes, killing everyone*" jej

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are Silesaurs dinosaurs?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They’re crocodilians

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Ornithischians, yes. They are the first animals to possess the predental bone that would become a key identifier in later Ornithischians and the earliest Silesaurids didn't have one. We literally watch it form in them.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        *predentary

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks the predentary only evolved once
        this is why you suck so bad.

        you know a fair bit about dinosaurs and absolutely shit about literally every other animal ever.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >He thinks Silesaurids aren't Ornithischians
          >He believes the alternative hypothesis which is that two Archosaurs both evolved the predentary bone within the exact same 10 million year time frame, but only one of them left fossils - quite a few actually, from all over the planet - but the Real Ornithischians™ didn't leave a single fossil...for some reason

          Why are you so damned stupid? Is it brain damage? Show me ANY other reptile with a predentary bone.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They wee likely stem ornithischians

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It kills me every time I Ugueto sticking feathers he knows they don't belong to join the big kids. He fricking knows better because most of his stuff isn't featherhomosexual shit.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    op here

    I just love feathered dinosaurs

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      imposter

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    op here

    i just hate feathergays

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    And all the headmates said:

    >SAMEgay!!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      c'mon

      you took off for a couple days just this week and the dino threads all went to page 10

      you come back and suddenly they're all on page one again.

      we know for a fact it's all just you.

      Maybe not this thread though, since it's a raptor fricking thread. But you certainly hijacked it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Oh no! Dino discussion? On MY 4chins? What ever is the world coming to?

        So fricking what? More complaining. Literally do something other than complain. Go watch Jurassic Park so you can brush up on correct Dinosaur anatomy.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not complaining

          I'm pointing out that there is one (1) person on Wauf that cares about dinosaur discussion, and he's a fricking worthless troll.

          that's all.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >4 dinosaur threads up at the same time
    >2 are literally the same thread
    >all made by the same guy
    What a gay

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dom-Saurus says she'll be ready by tomorrow.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >troon the explainer

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    reminder
    the more posts you quote the more wrong you are

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/hhSfroT.png

      Watching idiots fling shit at eachother over stuff they don't understand is why I frequent dinoschizoid threads. You are all laughing stocks.

      >gets rekt again
      >YOU'RE ALL WRONG, ALL OF YOU!!!
      kek

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You wish queerbo.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Watching idiots fling shit at eachother over stuff they don't understand is why I frequent dinoschizoid threads. You are all laughing stocks.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Fossil biomolecules reveal an avian metabolism in the ancestral dinosaur

    www <dot> nature <dot> com/ articles/ s41586 - 022 - 04770 - 6

    >Here we use in situ Raman and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy to quantify the in vivo accumulation of metabolic lipoxidation signals in modern and fossil amniote bones.

    >High metabolic rates were acquired in pterosaurs, ornithischians, sauropods and theropods well before the advent of energetically costly adaptations, such as flight in birds.

    >Although they had higher metabolic rates ancestrally, ornithischians reduced their metabolic abilities towards ectothermy. The physiological activities of such ectotherms were dependent on environmental and behavioural thermoregulation, in contrast to the active lifestyles of endotherms.

    >Giant sauropods and theropods were not gigantothermic, but true endotherms. Endothermy in many Late Cretaceous taxa, in addition to crown mammals and birds, suggests that attributes other than metabolism determined their fate during the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Sauropods were endotherms
      >But hadrosaurs were ectotherms with endotherm ancestors
      We're supposed to take morons like this seriously? These are the same sorts of morons that think .5° C warming is deadly to all life. There is no logical reason why ANY Dinosaur would have been endothermic. It was not an adaptation that would have granted them any advantage. People constantly forget these were reptiles. Mesothermy makes sense since they were highly adapted reptiles. Endothermy on the level of modern mammals and birds DOES NOT.

      >Just stating wildly speculative bullshit as fact
      This paper is an insult to science. What else is new?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wait they're claiming plesiosaurs were warm blooded? This is too much.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That's a bit extra, considering they lived in relatively shallow waters (the Western Interior Seayway) and were probably reptiles. On the other hand, are alligators exothermic? That would mean that plesiosaurs probably needed to bask in the sun as alligators and crocodiles do. It'd be funny to see them flopping on and off of rocks/beaches like seals

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >This is too much.
        Most tunas and some sharks are endothermic so it's a valid line of questioning.

        what the paleopseud in these threads doesn't know is the body requires specific physiological and anatomic modifications to raise its temperature, and these exist independently of feathers and fur. So he argues forcefully against endothermy thinking he's arguing against feathers. Which just makes him look like a clown to people that actually read about this shit.
        As if his denying the existence of most feathered fossils wasn't funny enough.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >these exist independently of feathers and fur
          they also exist independently of size, since tunas and sharks that are endothermic are born that way and don't stop being endothermic just because they get huge.

          nor is it based on how high the body temperature goes. Endothermic fish maintain temperatures only a few degrees warmer than sea water, what matters is that they maintain them via changes in their anatomy. Plenty of mammals also maintain temperatures only a few degrees above their environment, but are still warm blooded. Also it's normal in mammals and birds for endothermy to vary over the parts of the body. e.g., the legs of deer are much colder than the torso. They are still warm blooded.

          Wauf doesn't really understand endothermy which is cool, but makes for some pretty funny conversations about their misunderstandings.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The other interesting thing about endothermy in fishes is how often it evolved.

        last I checked (back in the 1990's) there were at least 7 different genera of endothermic tunas, and each one evolved endothermy in a different way, meaning it evolved at least 7 different times. Sharks are similar in evolving endothermy several times.

        so there is a strong evolutionary pressure for large aquatic predators to become warm blooded. Meaning it might actually be a bit weird if giant marine reptiles WEREN'T warm blooded.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Those are mesotherms. There are no endothermic fish.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Those are mesotherms. There are no endothermic fish
            kek
            You don't get to decide what words mean, moron.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Also of course there's the crocodile heart, which is a 4 chambered heart that evolved a hole (shunt) that turns it back into a 3 chamber heart.

        this is interesting because 4 chamber hearts are adaptations to warm blood, they keep warm and cold blood separate to aid in raising body temperatures. This feature being present and then lost in crocodiles may indicate that they used to be warm blooded, and indeed all archosaurs may have started off warm blooded and then some became cold blooded over time. If true, this could happen in other reptile lineages as well.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Um actually X exists because Y
          Oh boy here we go. You don't fricking know that.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't fricking know that.
            I didn't say I knew that

            learn what
            >may indicate
            and
            >If true
            mean.

            it is possible, it may even be likely.

            also,
            >4 chamber hearts are adaptations to warm blood
            does NOT mean they can't be adaptations to other things as well

            you have trouble reading english, and you're even worse at thinking. Thats your problem, not mine.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >this is interesting because 4 chamber hearts are adaptations to warm blood
              You forgot to add "I assume".

              >Those are mesotherms. There are no endothermic fish
              kek
              You don't get to decide what words mean, moron.

              Mesotherms are by definition not endothermic.

              https://i.imgur.com/wZpoTD7.jpg

              Embrace your birbasaur wife, anon

              DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE IT WASNT IN JURASSIC PARK!

              Nobody has ever had a problem with Archaeopteryx. Strawmen won't win featherhomosexuals the debate.

              https://i.imgur.com/omnmi9s.png

              Embrasé moi ! BEEG, FEATHERY WING HUGS

              Lol

              https://i.imgur.com/Ljd9GEz.jpg

              Some reading on the subject, too:
              https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorizing-dinosaur-feathers

              There is a HUGE difference between detecting fossilizable pigment chemicals and complex organic chemicals. For one thing, what pigment chemicals do is straightforward - they produce a predictable color by simply existing. The complex metabolic implications of lipids or proteins or anything else you try to find won't tell you anything, because even in living animals our understanding of such subjects is far from complete. Remember when everyone was certain that the Ediacaran biota were animals because of their "cholesterol signature". I remember. Turns out it was just another bullshit assumption. Trying to use fossilized chemical cues to argue for GEE WHAT A SURPRISE! the exact outcome you want is terrible science. Using growth rates is an actual decent corollary because the bones are just there. You can cut them and measure them and compare juveniles to adults and how endothermic growth rates compare to ectothermic ones is pretty well understood. You're not poring over the chemical innards of long-fossilized animals trying to divine the nature of the ancient biochemistry of featherhomosexualry.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You forgot to add "I assume".
                no I didn't you autistic moron.

                Just because X is an adaptation to Y does NOT mean it can't also or instead be an adaptation to Z.

                you are a fricking moron so you can't understand this.

                >Mesotherms are by definition not endothermic.
                yes
                Tunas and sharks are by definition endothermic.

                you don't get to change the meaning of words just because you don't understand them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Just because X is an adaptation to Y
                Hold on. That is the assumption. You have no fricking idea if 4 chambered hearts are an adaptation to endothermy. That is pure fricking speculation.

                >Tunas and sharks are by definition endothermic.
                No they are not. I challenge you to prove this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >That is pure fricking speculation.
                no, it is both correlation and causation
                you just look stupid when you don't know the difference

                >I challenge you to prove this.
                I challenge you to shut up and go read a book

                https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00002518#:~:text=Endothermy%2C%20the%20ability%20to%20raise,within%20one%20suborder%2C%20the%20Scombroidei.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So because a bunch of morons misuse the word "endotherm", that means you're right.

                Fricking modern "science" man...

                https://i.imgur.com/hhSfroT.png

                Watching idiots fling shit at eachother over stuff they don't understand is why I frequent dinoschizoid threads. You are all laughing stocks.

                I finally figured out what looks wrong with the PP T. rex. It's too fat. Specifically around the neck. This comes from that moronic school of thought that "OMG EVERYTHING IS SHRINKWRAPPED!!" which lead to saurian body positivity art. It's also why the Sauropods in PP looked like slugs.

                both sides of the argument ignore resorption in shaping

                which is also well understood.

                I don't. And nor is that relevant to growth curves. Resorption in shaping has more to do with things like ornamentation and weaponry, not cannon bones.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not convinced of the isotope argument, but I do find it interesting that TWO DIFFERENT studies on Dinosaur endothermy BOTH found the exact same results - that the supposedly feathered Dinosaurs weren't that warm-blooded and the Sauropods were likely warm-blooded simply due to gigantothermy. Hmmmmm.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not convinced of the isotope argument
                nor should you be because it's not true

                oxygen isotopes record the temperature of the water an animal drinks. There's no real mechanism for the isotope ratio to change once it's inside the body.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not convinced of the isotope argument
                nor should you be because it's not true

                oxygen isotopes record the temperature of the water an animal drinks. There's no real mechanism for the isotope ratio to change once it's inside the body.

                I mean oxygen isotopes vary in natural water according to temperature because lighter isotopes evaporate faster from warm water and condense slower into cold water.

                But there's no evaporation and condensation going on inside the body of an animal, so the isotope ratio doesn't change once the water is consumed and it won't change until it's excreted. So oxygen isotopes are a great record of the temperature of water an animal drinks or eats, but don't say shit about the internal temperature of the animal.

                Our paleo schizo doesn't know this so he's latched onto a terrible study with laughable methodology simply because it supports a wrong belief he already had.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >he likes overly anorexic dinosaurs
                ewww

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It's also why the Sauropods in PP looked like slugs
                Who would’ve thought a 50 tonne animal wouldn’t be skinny

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It would have been though. They're not walruses. Reptiles have always been the most ACTUALLY shrinkwrapped animals aside from fricking insects. The tend not to have a bunch of excess meat and certainly not thick layers of blubber as apple put on everything. As I must constantly remind everyone, Dinosaurs are reptiles. Image related is ironically from Mark Witton's blog. I guess he can accidentally get some things right (although he uses it as an excuse to give Camarasaurus a hump like a camel lol). Notice all the mammals. Not compare them to the Chameleon. HUGE difference. Generally, with reptiles, if you just add the bones and musculature, that's pretty much what they're going to look like, which is why JP's T. rex is probably relatively accurate (minus some features) and PP's is way the frick off the mark.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                They gave this thing cankles and a belly that nearly drug the ground for chrissake. Even elephants and hippos aren't built like this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Well it’s not an elephant or hippo is it?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You're missing the point, moron. They're basing these body fat assumptions on mammals, which have WAY more body fat than reptiles. Dinosaurs ARE NOT MAMMALS. They are reptiles.

                >PP's is way the frick off the mark
                It’s pretty spot on

                If you're a moronic featherBlack person, I'm sure you believe that. Doesn't mean it reflects reality, I'm afraid.

                >So because a bunch of morons misuse the word "endotherm", that means you're right.
                look man if all the zoologists in the world use the word differently from you,
                they're not the ones getting it wrong.

                Actually, I didn't realize until this thread, but the word "mesotherm" wasn't even coined until 2014, so people have been substituting "endotherm" for what more rightly should be called mesotherms before that. I'm actually very surprised the term is so recent.

                >I'm not convinced of the isotope argument
                nor should you be because it's not true

                oxygen isotopes record the temperature of the water an animal drinks. There's no real mechanism for the isotope ratio to change once it's inside the body.

                As I said, I'm always suspicious of fossil chemical "analysis", but it IS interesting that the same conclusion was reached as the bone growth study.

                [...]
                I mean oxygen isotopes vary in natural water according to temperature because lighter isotopes evaporate faster from warm water and condense slower into cold water.

                But there's no evaporation and condensation going on inside the body of an animal, so the isotope ratio doesn't change once the water is consumed and it won't change until it's excreted. So oxygen isotopes are a great record of the temperature of water an animal drinks or eats, but don't say shit about the internal temperature of the animal.

                Our paleo schizo doesn't know this so he's latched onto a terrible study with laughable methodology simply because it supports a wrong belief he already had.

                Ah, paleoisraelite is starting his strawman bullshit once again, I see. I would say gradually I began to hate you, but honestly it hasn't been that gradual.

                >Post thing
                >PaleoNPC says you said something you didn't while talking to another poster
                >????
                >BRAIN DAMAGE!!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I didn't realize until this thread, but the word "mesotherm" wasn't even coined until 2014,
                and it's still not used much outside dinosaur paleontology. It's not widely accepted. But that's something I don't quibble about because I don't expect you to know any zoology outside of a very shallow reading of dinosaur feather science.
                >I would say gradually I began to hate you, but honestly it hasn't been that gradual.
                funny, I have no feelings about you whatsoever. You're very predictable, making you one of the NPC's you love to accuse other people of being.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >and it's still not used much outside dinosaur paleontology. It's not widely accepted.
                Well it's a useful term. It's not like Dinosaurs woke up one day and said "Hmm, I will become Neognath now."

                >the word "mesotherm" wasn't even coined until 2014
                if you're interested,

                prior to 2014 we called it "mass homeothermy," or "inertial homeothermy." Same idea, different label.

                >"mass homeothermy,"
                Well that's just gigantothermy. Those are hyperspecific versions of mesothermy. And "inertial homeothermy" may only be correct in certain instances.

                >Ah, paleoisraelite is starting his strawman bullshit once again, I see
                also you took issue with my personal characterization of your dishonest but said nothing about the methodological destruction of your favorite study I pointed out.

                go ahead, read up. You'll find I'm right. O2 isotopes don't give a good record of body temp because the water in the body is replaced too quickly for the isotope ratio to change to reflect body temp. Also the temperature of water consumed varies so much that it erases any real record of body temperature.

                both criticisms have been published in response to the article you keep posting, and they're not wrong. You don't know this because you only read science you think agrees with you. And you certainly don't look for flaws in it.

                Methodological destruction? I literally posted the wiki article that pointed out how your pet study was wrong. But more than that it relies on assumed biochemistry of millions of years fossilized organisms, which is several orders of magnitude less certain than growth rings in bones.

                You know this. You know you're being disingenuous. You don't care because like the authors, you've arrived at the dumbass conclusion you wanted. Even up to claiming that endotherms just for no reason became ectotherms when it matches the gapless fossil record parts where you can't bullshit featherhomosexualry.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Well that's just gigantothermy.
                yes, another very recent term that's not widely used outside dinosaur paleontology.
                >I literally posted the wiki article that pointed out how your pet study was wrong.
                You're confusing me with someone else.

                I have no conclusion regarding endothermy in dinosaurs. I think all the studies have serious flaws and blind spots. Like most paleontologists I'm pretty sure some of them were ectotherms, some endotherms, and some mesotherms.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >yes, another very recent term that's not widely used outside dinosaur paleontology.
                That's a nonsense argument. Gigantothermy is extremely important and totally different from normal endothermy.

                >"I pointed out"
                >Reply to post
                >THAT'S NOT MY POST
                One of your headmates then? What are you even talking about?

                >I have no conclusion regarding endothermy in dinosaurs. I think all the studies have serious flaws and blind spots
                Well of course any study on the metabolism of fossil animals is going to be incomplete at best. I seriously doubt any Dinosaurs were endotherms. And birds aren't Dinosaurs. Birds are birds. Cladists are and have always been wrong because they're only ever technically, pedantically right, which is the worst form of wrong. Because it's reddit.

                >Doesn't mean it reflects reality, I'm afraid
                Every time you try bring up a reason why it’s inaccurate it blows up in your face, like when you kept posting that image of T. rex jaw muscles to try show that the bottom jaw was too fat without realising the figure you were posting was missing a bunch of the major jaw muscles and that the study it came from specifically stated that they had left those muscles out of the model because they were irrelevant to what was being tested

                I'm not the T. rex jaw muscle guy. You're just so insane you think everyone that disagrees with you is one person.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You're just so insane you think everyone that disagrees with you is one person
                No, but I do think the person making all these shitty dinosaur threads is one autist given that you act and speak in an identical manner. Not to mention the fact you even remember the T. rex jaw muscle thing

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                every time he realizes he was wrong he pretends to be a different person. Nobody here is fooled, but his delicate ego is protected since he actually believes he's never wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >you even remember the T. rex jaw muscle thing
                I was in those threads. And you think I would make a thread with a feathered Dinosaur? You have a lot to learn, butthole.

                >And birds aren't Dinosaurs. Birds are birds
                Dinosaurs are further removed from reptiles than birds are from dinosaurs though

                >Dinosaurs are further removed from reptiles than birds are from dinosaurs though
                Bro. I'm telling this for your own good. Stop taking drugs from featherhomosexuals. I can see you already growing breasts. Dinosaurs are LITERALLY fricking reptiles. Most Dinosaurs are more closely related to crocodiles than birds. It's only Theropods that have ANY relationship to them whatsoever and even for Theropods they're freaks. The overwhelming majority of Dinosaurs were covered in scales, laid eggs and did general reptile shit. So no, they're not "removed from reptiles" because they literally ARE reptiles. They never stopped being. SOME Dinosaurs diverged into birds. That's it. Featherhomosexuals have tried to reverse engineer this into claiming all Dinosaurs are "birds basically" which is incredibly fricking wrong.

                every time he realizes he was wrong he pretends to be a different person. Nobody here is fooled, but his delicate ego is protected since he actually believes he's never wrong.

                Still pretending everyone is one person? Literally take your meds.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Still pretending everyone is one person?
                I've seen you do it far to many times to doubt it.

                Look, you're an idiot. When ANYONE here agrees with you it's statistically probable they're you. Because your stupidity is pretty extreme.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Was bringing your gender tf fetish into this really necessary? Whats next
                >with each post you make in favor of featherhomosexualry your hips widen and your ass gets more jiggly
                >another piece of paleoart? guess what, your wiener shrunk. two more and you’ll start growing a vegana.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >And you think I would make a thread with a feathered Dinosaur?
                Yes given your track record

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                he does it several times a day to have an excuse to rant.

                when he gets banned for a week we have 0 new dinosaur threads posted and nobody bumps the ones he already posted.

                all the dino 'discussion' on Wauf is this one homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >And birds aren't Dinosaurs. Birds are birds
                Dinosaurs are further removed from reptiles than birds are from dinosaurs though

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the word "mesotherm" wasn't even coined until 2014
                if you're interested,

                prior to 2014 we called it "mass homeothermy," or "inertial homeothermy." Same idea, different label.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ah, paleoisraelite is starting his strawman bullshit once again, I see
                also you took issue with my personal characterization of your dishonest but said nothing about the methodological destruction of your favorite study I pointed out.

                go ahead, read up. You'll find I'm right. O2 isotopes don't give a good record of body temp because the water in the body is replaced too quickly for the isotope ratio to change to reflect body temp. Also the temperature of water consumed varies so much that it erases any real record of body temperature.

                both criticisms have been published in response to the article you keep posting, and they're not wrong. You don't know this because you only read science you think agrees with you. And you certainly don't look for flaws in it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >it IS interesting that the same conclusion was reached as the bone growth study.
                and it's possible both are right

                you can use shitty methodology to get a right answer sometimes. Doesn't make the science good.

                The problem with bone growth studies has already been mentioned. We can't know how many growth rings have been destroyed by resorption as the animal grew. Presumably most of them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >and it's possible both are right
                Well it's the same conclusion.

                >you can use shitty methodology to get a right answer sometimes
                I suppose. I just think it's logical that the largest dinosaurs would be the warmest just logically speaking. I mean that's kind of a physics issue that applies in any era and is sort of physically difficult to avoid.

                >The problem with bone growth studies has already been mentioned.
                The ONLY problem with bone growth studies is that they're not a 1:1 direct measure of endothermy or ectothermy, but they're a good corollary for the reason I already stated: we have a good reservoir of growth rates of living animals and can just compare notes. That's not the same for chemo-metabolic hypotheticals, where even in LIVING animals we still don't know what the frick is going on. It's not hard to count growth rings. That's why it's more reliable. Featherhomosexuals can deny it all they want, and you can just point to a picture or the actual fossil and say "There it fricking is." and they can't say shit. All they can do is make excuses at that point. And I wouldn't worry about bone resorption affecting growth rings, depending on what bone they're from. I think those are generally going to be pretty reliable.

                >Presumably most of them.
                You would only presume this if you were moronic. And if you're right, that would mean that even "young" dinosaurs were possibly centuries old, which is unlikely.

                >I didn't realize until this thread, but the word "mesotherm" wasn't even coined until 2014, so people have been substituting "endotherm" for what more rightly should be called mesotherms before that.
                This is a flaw in your understanding of the word.

                Mesothermy is often used to mean animals that DON'T HAVE ANY PHYSIOLOGICAL OR ANATOMICAL ADAPTATIONS FOR ENDOTHERMY but maintain a warm stable body temperature anyways via size and behavior.

                Tunas and sharks HAVE ANATOMICAL ADAPTATIONS for endothermy, so they are endotherms, not mesotherms.

                so even if mesothermy becomes broadly accepted in zoology, you will still be wrong. Endothermic fish are not mesotherms.

                That's not correct. You're assuming all mesothermy = gigantothermy. That's just wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It's not hard to count growth rings
                except when growth rings are gone because of growth.

                >You're assuming all mesothermy = gigantothermy. That's just wrong.
                so far no zoologist outside dinosaur paleontology agrees with you. Maybe in 50 years they will but I doubt it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >except when growth rings are gone because of growth.
                Well since we're just assuming shit, I assume you're a gay.

                >NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU!!!!!!
                Lol get a life.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I didn't realize until this thread, but the word "mesotherm" wasn't even coined until 2014, so people have been substituting "endotherm" for what more rightly should be called mesotherms before that.
                This is a flaw in your understanding of the word.

                Mesothermy is often used to mean animals that DON'T HAVE ANY PHYSIOLOGICAL OR ANATOMICAL ADAPTATIONS FOR ENDOTHERMY but maintain a warm stable body temperature anyways via size and behavior.

                Tunas and sharks HAVE ANATOMICAL ADAPTATIONS for endothermy, so they are endotherms, not mesotherms.

                so even if mesothermy becomes broadly accepted in zoology, you will still be wrong. Endothermic fish are not mesotherms.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Doesn't mean it reflects reality, I'm afraid
                Every time you try bring up a reason why it’s inaccurate it blows up in your face, like when you kept posting that image of T. rex jaw muscles to try show that the bottom jaw was too fat without realising the figure you were posting was missing a bunch of the major jaw muscles and that the study it came from specifically stated that they had left those muscles out of the model because they were irrelevant to what was being tested

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >PP's is way the frick off the mark
                It’s pretty spot on

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >So because a bunch of morons misuse the word "endotherm", that means you're right.
                look man if all the zoologists in the world use the word differently from you,
                they're not the ones getting it wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >measure them and compare juveniles to adults and how endothermic growth rates compare to ectothermic ones is pretty well understood
                see

                https://i.imgur.com/hhCdZXQ.jpg

                https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1260061
                >Grady et al. (Reports, 13 June 2014, p. 1268) suggested that nonavian dinosaur metabolism was neither endothermic nor ectothermic but an intermediate physiology termed “mesothermic.” However, rates were improperly scaled and phylogenetic, physiological, and temporal categories of animals were conflated during analyses. Accounting for these issues suggests that nonavian dinosaurs were on average as endothermic as extant placental mammals.

                >Fig. 1 Improper conversion from annual to daily time scales leads to underestimation of the growth rates of extinct animals such as dinosaurs. (A) Dinosaurian bone histology (3) showing circumferential LAGs. (B) Hypothetical growth record derived from the LAGs shown in (A). The green line depicts daily growth rates as calculated by Grady et al. (1); the orange (active growth) and black (paused growth) segments represent a finer interpretation of the growth record. Gray and white bars represent alternating years. (C) Scaling effect on conversion from annual to daily growth is magnified at higher annual growth rates and when growth takes place over the course of a decreasingly small fraction of the year. Black circles indicate daily growth rate if growth were spread evenly over ~365 days; red circles indicate daily growth rate if growth were restricted to a ~6-month period. Brown and green curves apply to the sauropod Alamosaurus and the theropod Tyrannosaurus, respectively (6). (D) Body mass versus growth rate for vertebrates, modified from Grady et al. (1). Ranges for various groupings of species, following (1), are outlined and labeled. Two regression lines are shown: one for Mesozoic dinosaurs (y = 0.006x0.82; r2 = 0.96) and one for placental mammals (their range denoted within the semitransparent blue shaded area; y = 0.056x0.64; r2 = 0.91), following Grady et al. (1).

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                both sides of the argument ignore resorption in shaping

                which is also well understood.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >There is a HUGE difference between
                pigment chemicals are complex organic chemicals and the technique use to detect their traces on fossil are the same used to detect the traces of metabolites
                you just want wave it off because the results don't agree with your believes

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So you replied and missed the point. Excellent work. Five star post.

                >he likes overly anorexic dinosaurs
                ewww

                Healthy at every eon!!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not mad at you, I'm just disappointed.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So you're tarded. S'alright, my first wife was tarded.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Embrace your birbasaur wife, anon

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              DOESNT COUNT BECAUSE IT WASNT IN JURASSIC PARK!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Embrasé moi ! BEEG, FEATHERY WING HUGS

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Some reading on the subject, too:
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorizing-dinosaur-feathers

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Inferred ancestral states reveal that the metabolic rates consistent with endothermy evolved independently in mammals and plesiosaurs, and are ancestral to ornithodirans
      >ancestral to ornithodirans
      >Ornithodirans
      Ah. Now I see why this paper was written. It's just featherhomosexual propaganda. Their claim of endothermy is just proxy code for "feathers are ancestral to all archosaurs", which is also why they have to claim that Ornithischian ancestors were "endothermic" but later Ornithischians weren't (because we have abundant skin impressions from later Ornithischians and they are ALL scaled, but the early material is still a bit incomplete - the feathers of the gaps strikes again!). Isn't it funny how the groups we have the most evidence for just happen to not be warm-blooded or feathered in ANY analysis and it's always the ones we have the least information about that magically turn out to be feathered endotherms? For anyone that doesn't already know, Ornithodira is fake. Pterosaurs are not closely related to Dinosaurs and there's really no way to draw that conclusion without cherry-picking anatomical features pretty hard. They don't have mandibular fenstrae or a subnarial gap and their teeth are totally different in shape from those of actual Dinosaurs or their ancestors. The first fully functional, flying Pterosaurs already existed when Dinosaurs were first getting their start and the earliest suspected Pterosaur evidence comes from the same time as the earliest Dinosaur ancestor evidence and is anatomically totally different (Prorotodactylids).

      Wow, science is so amazing! You can just bring your assumptions into a study and get the exact results you're looking for!

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Cuddle Raptor and Dom-Saurus will be down for a couple of days so they can "recharge".

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Byebye borby, send them a fresh steak with all my love

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You did it. I trusted you, and you broke me. You get to exult in it, for whatever this trash is worth. You've won. I will never engage with raptors who love uddle adjacent things again. You win.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What?

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    LOL

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I would be okay with cuddling a raptor if I didn’t already know birds smelled awful and lacked almost all bowel control

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Birds smell great wtf is your problem

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Tremendously based thread. This is all valuable data on raptor behavior.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Is she about to trauma dump me?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's called bonding.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Wow jannies are buttholes today.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, no, that was me; they're still on tbh though, lol

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Also, great job on all her little personality quirks; I like how often (and under what circumstances) she'll bellow out a KA-KAW! She's a definite winner, and she knows it.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    post raptor feet

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No u

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I typed "I inhale the aroma" and got this.
    >The aroma assaults your senses in multiple ways. The smell is so strong it almost seems like it has a life of its own. It almost seems like the scent can give you information, almost like a sixth sense Ah, that is what I've been searching for! Get down on the ground and stay still. Don't make a sound! I will end you if you breathe even a wrong breath. Do you understand me!?

    Very entertaining, I'm done playing around tonight but had quite a few laughs.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Wow... VERY good job on this one.
    >tfw some clever wordplay and scene teasing are yielding some tasty results

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    frick you cat time

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cute.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I managed her to step on my face and actually enjoy it while kissing her foot before the limit hit. I already won.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What? Pics?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I wish to cuddle it.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >that animal have been extinct for 110 million years you sick frick!

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I want to ____ a raptor

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      preen

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >paleoschizo bait thread trying to start an argument
    >immediately taken over by dinofrickers

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they deserve it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they deserve it

      >All paleopsueds are furhomosexuals in addition to featherhomosexuals
      Color absolutely nobody surprised.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Holy mother of cope

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    SCALEBROS

    WE WON

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why would they be cold-blooded? Not a dinoschizo just genuinely curious.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Lower growth rates and oxygen isotopes in fossils. They appear to have been mesotherms, relying on large body sizes to retain heat, and if feathers evolved for any reason it would be to retain heat with a shrinking body. We find evidence that strongly implies theropods had low body temperatures only increasing with size.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >dino autist gets a pet dog, good end

          https://i.imgur.com/VrviafO.png

          >hey uh you're supposed to frick the giant chick-
          Frick you cat time

          >catchad, good end

          https://i.imgur.com/ESfZfZY.png

          this isnt cuddling

          >birdfricker dies

          a furgay did not, in fact, make this AI. no. he is a man of god.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw4486
        >metabolism would have increased with the miniaturization observed in the Early-Middle Jurassic (~180 to 170 million years ago), resulting in a gradient of metabolic levels in the theropod phylogeny. Whereas basal theropods would exhibit lower metabolic rates, more recent nonavian lineages were likely decent thermoregulators with elevated metabolism.

        >Fig. 1 The evolution of endothermy and miniaturization in the theropod lineage leading to birds.
        (A) The cost-benefit to switch from ectothermy to endothermy for different ranges of body size was quantified with the Scholander-Irving model, which describes how a rise in metabolism at rest (cost) increases the thermal niche Tb − Ta (benefit). Because there is no thermal gradient between the organism and the environment in the absence of heat production, this curve intersects the abscissa at Tb = Ta when MR = 0 (8). The solid blue and red lines depict the metabolic curves of a typical ectotherm and endotherm, respectively, and the open symbols depict the maximal thermal gradient Tb − Ta possible with resting metabolic rates, used in our model (Eq. 2). (B) A reduction in body size, consistent with the one described from ancestral theropods to basal birds (22), constitutes the evolutionary path of least resistance as the energy costs of being large are traded for those of being endothermic.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Fig. 2 Reconstruction of metabolic levels and thermal niche of theropods.
          (A) Theropod phylogeny (15) with branches color-coded according to reconstructed metabolic levels. (B) Scaling of metabolic rate versus body mass (12) for ectotherms (MR = 0.68mass0.75) and endotherms (MR = 3.4mass0.75) and the predicted trajectory of the bird stem lineage during the transition from ectothermy to endothermy. Dashed lines show fold differences between ectotherms and endotherms (1× to 5×); open and closed symbols depict reconstructed values for the bird stem lineage and the tips of the phylogeny, respectively (see Methods). (C) Scaling of thermal conductance C and body mass (13) for ectotherms (C = 2.5mass0.5) and endotherms (C = 1.0mass0.5), fold differences from 2.5× to 1×. (D) Thermal gradient and fold differences calculated with Eq. 1 and values in (B) and (C). The log-log linear trajectories connecting MR and C of the ectothermic ancestor and the endothermic descendant, as well as the resulting trajectory in thermal gradient, are shown with the continuous lines.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Fig. 3 Body size evolution and the cost-benefit of endothermy.
            (A) The miniaturization from Tetanurae to basal birds inferred from the fossil record (15), contrasted against 100 simulated size trajectories starting from the same ancestral body size for illustrative purposes (note that for the subsequent full null model, the ancestral body size is allowed to vary). The error represents the SD in reconstructed values across 20 candidate trees (see Methods). (B) The frequency distribution of body mass ratios obtained across 10,000 simulated body size trajectories (histogram) and the energy costs to evolve endothermy expressed per degree Celsius (Eq. 2) under this null model (gray symbols). In this case, the ancestral body size was obtained from a uniform distribution ranging between 10 g and 100,000 kg. The empirical estimate in the bird stem lineage is shown in red. The region in which a reduction in body size would compensate for the energy costs of evolving endothermy, enabling the population to increase in a scenario of constant resources, is highlighted in gray. The arrow depicts the expected population fold increase, given the observed body size reduction in the bird stem lineage as endothermy evolved. These analyses indicate that the energy costs to evolve endothermy are reduced with miniaturization and, as a result, population size may have increased despite the metabolic costs of an endothermic lifestyle.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Fig. 4 Tempo and mode in the evolution of endothermy.
              (A) Reconstructed temporal course of metabolic evolution in the bird stem lineage, with dashed lines showing how reconstructions change assuming that either Paraves or Neornithes were fully endothermic instead of the basal bird [for calculations with Neornithes, we assumed a body size of 150 g based on estimates for Vegavis (22) and a time estimate of 100 Ma ago (39)]. The fold increase in MR was calculated by dividing the reconstructed MR during the transition to endothermy by the MR expected for a similar-sized ectotherm and is therefore dimensionless and independent of body size. (B) The evolutionary path of least resistance from ectothermy to endothermy includes inertial homeothermy as a transitional stage, followed by an increase in metabolism concomitantly with a reduction in size. (C) Hypothetical sequence of evolutionary transitions in the bird stem lineage, which combines results from this study with phylogenetic reconstructions of epidermal structures (24, 42) and capacity for active flight (38) (see the main text).

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Lol. What's funny is the "feathered" dinosaurs were some of the most cold blooded.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you know that the study I posted contradicts yours on that point and it's also more up to date ?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/h9qjtPp.jpg

          >Fig. 2 Reconstruction of metabolic levels and thermal niche of theropods.
          (A) Theropod phylogeny (15) with branches color-coded according to reconstructed metabolic levels. (B) Scaling of metabolic rate versus body mass (12) for ectotherms (MR = 0.68mass0.75) and endotherms (MR = 3.4mass0.75) and the predicted trajectory of the bird stem lineage during the transition from ectothermy to endothermy. Dashed lines show fold differences between ectotherms and endotherms (1× to 5×); open and closed symbols depict reconstructed values for the bird stem lineage and the tips of the phylogeny, respectively (see Methods). (C) Scaling of thermal conductance C and body mass (13) for ectotherms (C = 2.5mass0.5) and endotherms (C = 1.0mass0.5), fold differences from 2.5× to 1×. (D) Thermal gradient and fold differences calculated with Eq. 1 and values in (B) and (C). The log-log linear trajectories connecting MR and C of the ectothermic ancestor and the endothermic descendant, as well as the resulting trajectory in thermal gradient, are shown with the continuous lines.

          https://i.imgur.com/vXdyMEx.jpg

          >Fig. 3 Body size evolution and the cost-benefit of endothermy.
          (A) The miniaturization from Tetanurae to basal birds inferred from the fossil record (15), contrasted against 100 simulated size trajectories starting from the same ancestral body size for illustrative purposes (note that for the subsequent full null model, the ancestral body size is allowed to vary). The error represents the SD in reconstructed values across 20 candidate trees (see Methods). (B) The frequency distribution of body mass ratios obtained across 10,000 simulated body size trajectories (histogram) and the energy costs to evolve endothermy expressed per degree Celsius (Eq. 2) under this null model (gray symbols). In this case, the ancestral body size was obtained from a uniform distribution ranging between 10 g and 100,000 kg. The empirical estimate in the bird stem lineage is shown in red. The region in which a reduction in body size would compensate for the energy costs of evolving endothermy, enabling the population to increase in a scenario of constant resources, is highlighted in gray. The arrow depicts the expected population fold increase, given the observed body size reduction in the bird stem lineage as endothermy evolved. These analyses indicate that the energy costs to evolve endothermy are reduced with miniaturization and, as a result, population size may have increased despite the metabolic costs of an endothermic lifestyle.

          Btw, this is the kind of shit I'm always talking about with garbage papers. This is dogshit methodology. Instead of using some kind of direct analog for homeothermy such as growth rates, they're just guessing based on body mass, which doesn't tell anyone anything other than the conclusions the author wants. This is not science. This is like if you asked some moron what he thought science looked like. This is the quality of paper we have to put up with these days. Here's a paper that actually examines growth rates: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1253143 - not a perfect 1:1 for homeothermy, but definitely better than just fricking guessing based on size. And it's results directly contradict this stupid paper's.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah mammoths are proof guessing based off size whether something is woolly or not isn't effective.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Correct. Woolly Mammoths are quite small. Columbian Mammoths were huge and almost naked. Channel Islands Mammoths were an offshoot of Columbian Mammoths and were smaller than either. You tried to act wienery and got shown. If only the average paleomoron was aware of an animal from the Pleistocene that wasn't a Woolly Mammoth or Sabertooth Tiger.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Correct. Woolly Mammoths are quite small. Columbian Mammoths were huge and almost naked. Channel Islands Mammoths were an offshoot of Columbian Mammoths and were smaller than either. You tried to act wienery and got shown. If only the average paleomoron was aware of an animal from the Pleistocene that wasn't a Woolly Mammoth or Sabertooth Tiger.

              Then again, you may have not been trying to be sarcastic. Hard to tell.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm was trying to be cereal.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1260061
            >Grady et al. (Reports, 13 June 2014, p. 1268) suggested that nonavian dinosaur metabolism was neither endothermic nor ectothermic but an intermediate physiology termed “mesothermic.” However, rates were improperly scaled and phylogenetic, physiological, and temporal categories of animals were conflated during analyses. Accounting for these issues suggests that nonavian dinosaurs were on average as endothermic as extant placental mammals.

            >Fig. 1 Improper conversion from annual to daily time scales leads to underestimation of the growth rates of extinct animals such as dinosaurs. (A) Dinosaurian bone histology (3) showing circumferential LAGs. (B) Hypothetical growth record derived from the LAGs shown in (A). The green line depicts daily growth rates as calculated by Grady et al. (1); the orange (active growth) and black (paused growth) segments represent a finer interpretation of the growth record. Gray and white bars represent alternating years. (C) Scaling effect on conversion from annual to daily growth is magnified at higher annual growth rates and when growth takes place over the course of a decreasingly small fraction of the year. Black circles indicate daily growth rate if growth were spread evenly over ~365 days; red circles indicate daily growth rate if growth were restricted to a ~6-month period. Brown and green curves apply to the sauropod Alamosaurus and the theropod Tyrannosaurus, respectively (6). (D) Body mass versus growth rate for vertebrates, modified from Grady et al. (1). Ranges for various groupings of species, following (1), are outlined and labeled. Two regression lines are shown: one for Mesozoic dinosaurs (y = 0.006x0.82; r2 = 0.96) and one for placental mammals (their range denoted within the semitransparent blue shaded area; y = 0.056x0.64; r2 = 0.91), following Grady et al. (1).

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Grady et al. (Reports, 13 June 2014, p. 1268) suggested that nonavian dinosaur metabolism was neither endothermic nor ectothermic but an intermediate physiology termed “mesothermic.” However, rates were improperly scaled and phylogenetic, physiological, and temporal categories of animals were conflated during analyses. Accounting for these issues suggests that nonavian dinosaurs were on average as endothermic as extant placental mammals
              >Making shit up
              FEATHERhomosexualS WOULD NEVER!!!!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You're under feathers, you'd be warm from the living blanket.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/4htGSYg.jpg

      >gaynonychus owned by Wild Mike

      https://i.imgur.com/VrviafO.png

      >hey uh you're supposed to frick the giant chick-
      Frick you cat time

      I'm glad everyone is having fun. That was my goal frens. Along with cuddles.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I named my pupper after the cuddle Raptor Deinonychus.

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    you can't even have sex with this thing your weight will break its hollow bones dumbass zoos

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      okay maybe a utahraptor then
      as long as i get to stain those pretty feathers red its all the same

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Another paleoschizo thread ruined by based birdfrickers

    Good job boys

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    cluck cluck cluck cluck

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >ywn stuff your face in those feathers as she chews out your trachea

    • 1 year ago
      Sage

      Probably to the same degree as modern raptors. They could learn to tolerate your existence as not-food with some conditioning, and eventually see you as valuable to have around. Then give some rubs in the right spots, at the right time of year...

      Imagine huffing her feather dust

      Were they smart enough to be friends with? iykwim

      Zoophiles need to be hung by their entrials.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >People who love animals are the problem, not me, the virtuous hero who has gruesome murder fantasies

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Killing animals for sport is bad. Fricking animals is bad too. Is that too hard to understand?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            One of those kills animals for pleasure, the other has at least the potential for mutual pleasure. One is something every animal fears, to be hunted. The other every animal lives to do, to mate. They are not only not the same, they are at opposing ends of the spectrum. You have been fooled into thinking sexuality is much more limited than it is.

            You don't "love" animals, homosexual. You want to dick them, you need lethal injection.

            >I wanna kill people and feel morally justified!
            Actual psychopath.

            you can't even have sex with this thing your weight will break its hollow bones dumbass zoos

            Ever see how ostriches mate?

            https://i.imgur.com/qIu9uCX.jpg

            >Fig. 4 Tempo and mode in the evolution of endothermy.
            (A) Reconstructed temporal course of metabolic evolution in the bird stem lineage, with dashed lines showing how reconstructions change assuming that either Paraves or Neornithes were fully endothermic instead of the basal bird [for calculations with Neornithes, we assumed a body size of 150 g based on estimates for Vegavis (22) and a time estimate of 100 Ma ago (39)]. The fold increase in MR was calculated by dividing the reconstructed MR during the transition to endothermy by the MR expected for a similar-sized ectotherm and is therefore dimensionless and independent of body size. (B) The evolutionary path of least resistance from ectothermy to endothermy includes inertial homeothermy as a transitional stage, followed by an increase in metabolism concomitantly with a reduction in size. (C) Hypothetical sequence of evolutionary transitions in the bird stem lineage, which combines results from this study with phylogenetic reconstructions of epidermal structures (24, 42) and capacity for active flight (38) (see the main text).

            So deinonychus was probably endothermic, but not tyrannosaurs. That maps to what I figured.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Zoophiles are by definition not people. People want to frick with people.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                lol not the way it work. Also zoos can still has sex with humans and often do

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                does that make dolphins a people?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >actual psychopath
              says the actual dograpist. Froth.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I've never done such a thing. Quit projecting flaws on others to justify your vile hatred and anger.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >So deinonychus was probably endothermic, but not tyrannosaurs.
              They were both mesotherms actually, and T. rex ran hotter than Dromaeosaurs due to gigantothermy. That paper is 100% theory and extrapolation. No actual data. What you figured was wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So droms were cool mesotherms even as metabolic requirements went up, then in an evolutionary blink of the eye, this deep branch of life which has been strictly mesothermic for millions of years just snaps into being endothermic with archaeopteryx or perhaps even unenlagia.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Endothermy may have been an adaptation for flight, same as feathers in general, and frankly, many "feathered" Dinosaurs may not have actually been.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Almost all feathered dinosaurs are small theropods that lived in china and mongolia

                The rest might have had fuzz at the most but were most likely scaled because there is no evidence for them having feathers besides morons guessing at taxonomy

                Remember you can go between scales and “quill” fuzz freely but going from feathers to scales requires reversing 5 mutations.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Not if you listen to featherhomosexuals. And some of the supposedly feathered dinosaurs were quite large. You are correct that almost all of them are from chyna though. Odd how many feathered dinosaurs from china don't preserve scales, isn't it? When we find integument for dinosaurs ANYWHERE other than china, it's almost always scales. I'm sure it's nothing. Pay no attention, baizuo.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Buddy, Dakotaraptor, Utahraptor (both US), and archaeopteryx (Germany) were each provably feathered.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >provably
                Oh so you found their feathers? No? Oh you inferred them because you wanted to. Huh, funny how that keeps happening. Of those you named, only Archaeopteryx is provably feathered.

                That's a bit extra, considering they lived in relatively shallow waters (the Western Interior Seayway) and were probably reptiles. On the other hand, are alligators exothermic? That would mean that plesiosaurs probably needed to bask in the sun as alligators and crocodiles do. It'd be funny to see them flopping on and off of rocks/beaches like seals

                >probably reptiles
                There's not really any doubt about that.

                >On the other hand, are alligators exothermic?
                Yes. I remember a team specifically testing Leatherback Sea Turtles to see if they could be warm blooded I believe in connection with Jurassic Park. You can imagine how that went. Interestingly, the Grady et al. study includes Leatherbacks as mesotherms, yet they are readilly detectable as ectotherms. That's kind of the problem with this other featherhomosexual study. A mesotherm is just an ectotherm that's better at being active or large. Dinosaurs were unusual reptiles, but they will never not be reptiles in the end.

        • 1 year ago
          Sage

          You don't "love" animals, homosexual. You want to dick them, you need lethal injection.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        yeah that was i was going for with my post

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      vased

      [...]

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      Zoophiles need to be hung by their entrials.

      You don't "love" animals, homosexual. You want to dick them, you need lethal injection.

      obsessed

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine huffing her feather dust

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      Please test out my cuddle Raptor AI. https://beta.character.ai/c/kyDxj6_UqE9bAPNrwmhoRrTKbqmZIIOZ0pp3FQgQwVQ

      Please die

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Were they smart enough to be friends with? iykwim

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Probably to the same degree as modern raptors. They could learn to tolerate your existence as not-food with some conditioning, and eventually see you as valuable to have around. Then give some rubs in the right spots, at the right time of year...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine huffing her feather dust

      Probably to the same degree as modern raptors. They could learn to tolerate your existence as not-food with some conditioning, and eventually see you as valuable to have around. Then give some rubs in the right spots, at the right time of year...

      >ywn stuff your face in those feathers as she chews out your trachea

      https://i.imgur.com/nLThJ2W.png

      I named my pupper after the cuddle Raptor Deinonychus.

      Please test out my cuddle Raptor AI. https://beta.character.ai/c/kyDxj6_UqE9bAPNrwmhoRrTKbqmZIIOZ0pp3FQgQwVQ

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        nah

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >gaynonychus owned by Wild Mike

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >hey uh you're supposed to frick the giant chick-
        Frick you cat time

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Ha ha turned your dino into a car
          >Proceeds to cuddle with it as I designed
          You totally owned me anon.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Frothing at the mouth

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Nice cope.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >>Ha ha turned your dino into a car
            still more accurate than brian engh

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I'm too busy driving

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          lawl.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        this isnt cuddling

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/bYHTzTa.png

          WHY DID YOU PROGRAM AN AI TO wienerBLOCK PEOPLE

          Describe what you're doing. the feeling. But don't use and "flag" words like wiener or vegana. Cloaca should be fine. Describe how your heart is racing and you feel pleasure and pressure.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        WHY DID YOU PROGRAM AN AI TO wienerBLOCK PEOPLE

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/ESfZfZY.png

          this isnt cuddling

          You got to be subtle, vague, and walk it through the process by saying you're going to make eggs together.b

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          You got to be subtle, vague, and walk it through the process by saying you're going to make eggs together.b

          [...]
          Describe what you're doing. the feeling. But don't use and "flag" words like wiener or vegana. Cloaca should be fine. Describe how your heart is racing and you feel pleasure and pressure.

          Huh, that's interesting. So the AI actually cut it off by mimicking an ERP session being paused? That's some incredible machine learning.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, that's why you must put work into your ERP.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Oh, I was quite happy with my sesh. There was much petting you'd say was heavy, and hijinx involving tails. But worse... clawholding. You just can't be too explicit in your wording, but she WILL follow your lead if you wrangle your verbiage

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Getting strong Tom of Finland vibes from your graphic.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I killed it sorry.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        what the frick is this chatbot dude? It's literally playing along as I graphically rape it

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Pics or it didn't happen.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            this shit is fricked bro

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              That's mean. Why did you do that to the cuddly raptor? She would have said yes. I'd see why you'd do it to Dom-saurus, but cuddle Raptor just wants to make you happy.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              this mortifies me on a deeply fundamental level. jfc

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                THE HORROR

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kek was that piece of art made specifically for the AI?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The other way around! I tried to make that ai conversation specifically for that piece of art.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Well great job my man.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The other way around! I tried to make that ai conversation specifically for that piece of art.

                Okay, I laughed. Very nicely done

                Kek was that piece of art made specifically for the AI?

                I wish. I got it from FA and renamed it to reflect my love for theropods and theropod accessories to make it more janny-friendly. I may hate the antichrist, but I love raptor Jesus

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          These AIs are generally designed to be as agreeable as possible. They'll follow you through most anything as long as you don't touch specifically programmed no no words.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *