>

>

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wish that were me

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Okay if Linnaean isn’t “correct” anymore can someone direct me to somewhere I can read about whatever classification method is better? I didn’t know there was another viable option in 2022 so I want to learn

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cladistics is the only alternative. The problem with cladistics is it's fucking pseudoscience based on weird non-scientific shit like molecular clocks and COI barcoding and a fucking shitload of assumption.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Linnaean" isn't a system of classification.

      the simple fact that ALL THESE gayS keep using the same word wrong indicates they are all the same gay.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It is, it has been for centuries and it will always be. Sorry, butthurt moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the funny part is you don't actually know you're wrong so you think you don't stand out like a sore thumb every time you say it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >OH MY GOD!! YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY!! GET WITH THE TIMES!!! YOU'RE OLD (and therefore wrong)!! EVERYTHING NEW IS RIGHT AND IF WE KEEP REPEATING THAT EVERYONE ACCEPTS THE SCIENCE™ IT WILL BE TRUUUUUUUUUUE!!!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >OH MY GOD!! YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY!! GET WITH THE TIMES!!! YOU'RE OLD (and therefore wrong)!! EVERYTHING NEW IS RIGHT AND IF WE KEEP REPEATING THAT EVERYONE ACCEPTS THE SCIENCE™ IT WILL BE TRUUUUUUUUUUE!!!
              No, you're just using the wrong name for it.

              Like if we were talking about tapioca and you kept saying terracotta and then you samefagged a bunch of posts calling tapioca terracotta and thought nobody noticed.

              Whether Evolutionary Taxonomy is useful or not is a different debate than whether it's called "Linnaean System." You don't even know what it's called, so there's not really any point in talking about it with you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Let me explain something to you. The current crop of STEMfags doesn't get to set policy for the whole world. I know that's what you think, but it's completely wrong. What you're trying to describe is you and every other NPC following a trend. You don't understand that molecular clocks are witchcraft pseudoscience, yet you have absolute faith in them. You have no experience with COI barcoding, so you don't understand why it's bullshit and leads to incorrect conclusions. And these sorts of things are what you base this cladist bullshit on. Unlike you, I don't just jerk off to rocks. Not only do I have a strong interest in paleontology but I actually work in the field with LIVING species and I can tell you right now, NONE of these tools are reliable. In fact, COI barcoding and use of mtDNA to speciate results in such awful accuracy the DNA difference between species can be as great as that between PHYLA or even KINGDOMS if you were to compare the entire nuclear genetic code. These nonsense tools encourage splitting, which is why they are preferred. It has NOTHING to do with science. It has to do with cynical career advancement. You can publish far more papers splitting species up than lumping them back together. It's literally that simple. And that's at the root of nearly every problem with modern science. It's fucking RARE to find a scientist who actually does science these days instead of just manipulating data to advance their careers, either by directly receiving money from corporations or publishing papers that are so shockingly stupid that it increases their viewership.

                I honestly doubt you actually work in any STEM field the more you speak.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, it's not a matter of policy.

                you can use the wrong name for Evolutionary Taxonomy all you want.

                But you can't pretend to be a bunch of different people while you use the wrong name because we're going to know all of those people are just you.

                because they all use the same wrong name.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >No, it's not a matter of policy.
                Yes it is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Let me explain something to you. The current crop of STEMfags doesn't get to set policy for the whole world. I know that's what you think, but it's completely wrong. What you're trying to describe is you and every other NPC following a trend. You don't understand that molecular clocks are witchcraft pseudoscience, yet you have absolute faith in them. You have no experience with COI barcoding, so you don't understand why it's bullshit and leads to incorrect conclusions. And these sorts of things are what you base this cladist bullshit on. Unlike you, I don't just jerk off to rocks. Not only do I have a strong interest in paleontology but I actually work in the field with LIVING species and I can tell you right now, NONE of these tools are reliable. In fact, COI barcoding and use of mtDNA to speciate results in such awful accuracy the DNA difference between species can be as great as that between PHYLA or even KINGDOMS if you were to compare the entire nuclear genetic code. These nonsense tools encourage splitting, which is why they are preferred. It has NOTHING to do with science. It has to do with cynical career advancement. You can publish far more papers splitting species up than lumping them back together. It's literally that simple. And that's at the root of nearly every problem with modern science. It's fucking RARE to find a scientist who actually does science these days instead of just manipulating data to advance their careers, either by directly receiving money from corporations or publishing papers that are so shockingly stupid that it increases their viewership.

                I honestly doubt you actually work in any STEM field the more you speak.

                Additionally, I honestly DON'T think mos STEMfags are knowingly doing anything wrong. I think they are literally just NPCs. They're just extras on a rail shooter. They just go with the flow and the flow has encouraged this sort of apparently dishonest and unethical behavior. Here's the thing though: NPCs don't understand concepts like "truth" or "morality", so they're not actually doing anything dishonest or immoral. They simply don't have consciousness. That's why it's pointless to argue with your kind. You're not in control. You're just following your programming. That's why the system must be attacked directly. Financially if possible.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your shit's wrong and you talk faggy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Morals are the definition of NPC programming.
                >because it just is ok
                I think we need more silly dinosaurs just to piss you off

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >NO MORALS BAD! U DA NPC!!
                What a gay. You literally couldn't construct a truer NPC than you've turned out to be.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >NPC short circuits

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            self-appointed smart ass

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What the Duck doing?
    t. retarded moron monkey

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    People have been arguing about it being an aquatic pursuit predator or a heron like ambush predator, but for some reason nobody seems to ever mention an aquatic ambush lifestyle. Why’s this shit always have to be so black and white

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If I had to guess, making spino be a sauroid croc and nothing else would be to boring and that would mean less quotas for these studies.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hey again man it's been a while- checking in how's this effort of yours coming along

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Paging the paleoschizo

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What’s a dinosaur or prehistoric animal that you hope more fossil material is found for?
    For me it’s Therizinosaurus. It’s been my favorite since I was young but only recently have I thought about how little of its skeleton we truly have. I hope that one day we can be more confident about how the rest of it looked compared to more complete closely related Therizinosaurs like Nothronychus and Falcarius.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Therizinosaurs are very strange. In fact, most supposed Coelurosaurs are. We have basically no transitional fossils for any of them. All the later "feathered" dinosaurs just appear and then there's a shit ton of each of them with extreme adaptations like nipple claws and scythe hands. Therizinosaurs, for example, may not even be true theropods and may be related to Herrerasaurs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >source: my anus

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          no, he's right about that except for

          Therizinosaurs are very strange. In fact, most supposed Coelurosaurs are. We have basically no transitional fossils for any of them. All the later "feathered" dinosaurs just appear and then there's a shit ton of each of them with extreme adaptations like nipple claws and scythe hands. Therizinosaurs, for example, may not even be true theropods and may be related to Herrerasaurs.

          >Therizinosaurs, for example, may not even be true theropods

          it doesn't really work like that. They would still be theropods, but Theropoda, Saurischia, and Dinosauria would be polyphyletic and we'd throw the names out.

          There would be no such thing as a theropod, or a saurischian, or a dinosaur according to science if he's right. Those would be invalid taxa and we'd have to give them new names unless someone formally and successfully appealed to conserve the names.
          This is what happened to "Reptilia." It's why reptiles aren't actually a thing anymore. Dinosaurs would cease to exist and would be named something else.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            none of this means he's wrong though.

            it just means if he's right, the consequences are much larger than he imagines. He may very well be right. Several paleontologists support the idea.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The same situation exists with silesaurids/ornithischians, prosauropods/saurischians, theropods/saurischians and indeed all early dinosaurs.

              the options are either Dinosauria diverged in the Carnian or earlier, or Dinosauria is polyphyletic and will be thrown out and the individual taxa will be given new names. We don't know yet which is true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What happened to reptilia? Is it a new group that encompasses birds or something like that?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Is it a new group that encompasses birds or something like that?
              It's currently not a valid group.

              about 20 years back a couple scientists suggested changing it to include birds and remove mammals but nobody has accepted that change yet. Mostly because we don't know when mammals diverged from reptiles or how that happened.

              so as of right now reptile isn't a valid classification.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Is it a new group that encompasses birds or something like that?
              It's currently not a valid group.

              about 20 years back a couple scientists suggested changing it to include birds and remove mammals but nobody has accepted that change yet. Mostly because we don't know when mammals diverged from reptiles or how that happened.

              so as of right now reptile isn't a valid classification.

              The other problem was that "Reptilia" was abandoned in 1975 and only suggested to be retained in 2002. So it was a dead taxon for almost 30 years and nobody complained.

              this time lapse makes it hard to keep the name. We did just fine without it for 50 years now. We don't need it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Cladists don't like it so they claim it doesn't exist now. The Linnean System still exists, cladists have just tried to rewrite history to even claim there never was such a system now. Reptilia is still a class. Dinosauria is somewhere around subclass or infraclass in rank.

              This is the future cladists actually want.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The Linnean System still exists
                it never existed in the way you think it did

                What you call the Linnaean System was actually called Evolutionary Taxonomy. It used some Linnaean Ranks but not his classifications.

                It isn't used anywhere in real life anymore. We sometimes will give a Linnaean rank to a clade just for reference by boomers and wikipedia readers like you. But nobody actually uses it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it never existed
                Lol fucking cladists.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Linnaean ranks existed, but you don't know anything about them because you've never read Linnaeus. So what you think it is never existed. Linnaeus never produced a taxonomy.

                And by the way, it's used EVERYWHERE. All zoos and aquaria, all conservation workers, all bio professionals use the Linnaean System. It's basically just zoomers and paleomorons abusing this cladistics shit.

                >All zoos and aquaria, all conservation workers, all bio professionals use the Linnaean System.
                yep, we use it to communicate with the public because you gays are 100 years behind on science. You grew up with Evolutionary Taxonomy so we still use it when talking to you.

                we don't use it among ourselves because we're not retards.

                >or fresh water
                It works kinda fine on shallow water if he was an ambush predator. Also the bone density points to it wanting to sink rather than to float.

                yeah, that sail seems top heavy for swimming in any kind of water, especially for a theropod stuffed full of lungs and air.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >shallow water
                I meant it as in how a river nile croc swims or waits there for prey to come close.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yep, it seems likely.

                People have been arguing about it being an aquatic pursuit predator or a heron like ambush predator, but for some reason nobody seems to ever mention an aquatic ambush lifestyle. Why’s this shit always have to be so black and white

                that's sorta implied in the wading aquatic model I think.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Linnaean ranks existed
                *EXIST

                If anything is invalid it's this nonsense cladistics shit.

                >But muh gaps!
                >Muh bracketing
                Retard. You can stomp and throw a tantrum all you want and at the end of the day reptiles, birds, fish and mammals will all still objectively exist, have discreet characteristics they share that set them apart from other groups and you'll just have some deviantart fantasy dinosaurs to jerk it to.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not mad

                I'm explaining to you why your ideas aren't used in science anymore.

                you're the one that seems mad about that and has no argument to back up his opinion aside from "I just don't like it." I already won this debate, nobody uses your ideas and we both know it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh so you're just wrong then. Just because something is trendy doesn't mean it becomes science and everything else isn't. Stop acting like a blue-haired shitlib.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Just because something is trendy doesn't mean it becomes science and everything else isn't
                I explained why scientists don't use your system anymore. It suggests ideas of saltation, replacement, equivalence, and ascendance.

                if you can find a way to remove these wrong ideas from the system I'd bet we'd go back to it. But cladistics already removed all those problems so even if you fix them you'll have to do even better to reverse time and make Linnaeus proud.
                And maybe you will if you get off Wauf and do something with your life aside from complaining about things you don't like.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If it helps any I suggest you start with morphometrics since it deals directly with degree of change over time.

                what morons like you think of as "how evolved" an animal is. Something Evolutionary Taxonomy was obsessed with instead of degree of relatedness. But even then "how evolved" an organism is will be much less useful than "how related" it is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"how evolved" an organism is will be much less useful than "how related" it is.
                both are arbitrary metrics though, and neither one matters much.

                but it is perhaps useful to say we're more related to gibbons than we are to sharks. While saying we're more evolved than sharks when compared to gibbons is both completely useless and arguably untrue.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the biggest problem with your system is one you'll love

                morons like yourself use it to argue that some groups of people are "more evolved" than other groups, and have a natural right to rule over and even kill off those other groups.

                if this were true scientists would've nuked your idiot parents before you were even born because the difference between our intelligence and yours is greater than the difference between you and a mudkip.

                we're so much smarter than you that you can't even imagine how much higher we are on the technological and intellectual food chain.

                but we have no more right to kill you than we do to exterminate mudkips. But that also means you have no right at all to look down on other groups of morons. As far as we can see you're no different from the morons you say you're better than.

                you are scum. The lowest of the low on the human order. The least evolved. A different species than us. If anyone is going to be exterminated by science, it will certainly be you. But if we can hold off from killing you, you had better hold off from killing people you look down on. Because you're certainly no better than them. As far as innovation goes, people like you are much worse.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but this is a purely Linnaean take
                An Evolutionary Taxonomy idea

                and that's why we got rid of those ideas.
                Those are the ideas of Hitler, who died flopping on the ground, drooling, and shitting himself

                the ideas of Mussolini who choked on his own blood and shivered himself to death

                they're not right and they're not good and it's amazing that morons on Wauf think they are. But they will also die, probably in much the same ways.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The Linnaean System is literally Hitler
                Did this gay really? I mean if it makes retards seethe to the degree of hitting Godwin's Law, the Linnaean System literally has to be the correct one.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Look at the reddit spacing, the obsessed seething and the desire to be seen as the enlightened SCIENCE!! worshiper competing with the frothing yearning to slaughter the unbeliever. You're not dealing with a rational thinker.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So what you're saying is he went to college and has a degree. Everyone that goes through the system is like this now. Even if they went to school in an era that wasn't this toxic. STEMfags will always be some of the worst wokie retards. Engineers are generally the only exception.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And by the way, it's used EVERYWHERE. All zoos and aquaria, all conservation workers, all bio professionals use the Linnaean System. It's basically just zoomers and paleomorons abusing this cladistics shit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can see the problem with what you call "Linnean System" every day on Wauf and 4chan.

                the ranks aren't equal. Human races are one example, dog breeds are another. They're so different that if we adjusted them to match other ranks they'd be subspecies or maybe even different species. And those are just the ranks you're aware of. A class of reptiles is nowhere similar to a class of fish in levels of difference.

                so morons like you get confused thinking one Linnaean Rank should be equal to another and they never were. So we got rid of them. Because they imply wrong ideas about evolution including saltation, replacement, and equivalence.

                if you can prove that these wrong ideas are useful, we'll go back to using them. You can't of course. All you can do is complain because new thing bad. Which is pretty much the opposite of what science is and what every scientist believes.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          what you've got going is a bias favoring the ideas you were raised with.

          Boomers were raised with the idea that dinosaurs were any large extinct mesozoic reptiles. So a lot of them think things like pterosaurs and plesiosaurs and mosasaurs and crocodiles were all dinosaurs, while smaller animals like Compsognathus and Velociraptor and Coelophysis weren't dinosaurs.

          You guys were raised with the idea that dinosaurs are all related to each other, regardless of their size.

          The generation being born right now may very well be raised believing dinosaurs are again a group of unrelated animals that evolved completely separately. Or they may not use the word "dinosaur" at all.

          Currently anon appears to be wrong, and therizinosaurs appear to be theropods. But he could be right. It's possible they're not closely related to theropods at all. Or perhaps birds and other raptors aren't dinosaurs. We don't know for sure since as he says, they appear fully formed in the fossil record with no clear fossils recording how they evolved.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Here's where I started reading in the thread.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Spinosaurus desperately needs a complete skeleton so that all the absurd theory crafting and incremental discovery can finally be put to an end.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just fucking hate how many artistic depiction videos show spinosaurus swimming in the ocean. Why are paleo artists so fucking retarded?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, all art should be photorealistic and 100% accurate at all times. Anything less is a grave danger to the lives of autistic children everywhere.

      clearly being an artist is a form of retardation, while autistic 'people' aren't at all retarded despite what all those psychologists, teachers, and parents have to say.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There's other ways of telling us that your uncle raped you, anon.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is it too hard for your smooth brain to understand the difference between some artistic changes and completely wrong takes on something?
        >paleo artist takes some liberties like giving the animal some patterns, feathers or else that we aren't able to correctly know
        ok
        >paleo artists gets the animal's habitat, prey and behaviour completely wrong
        I like speculative evolution and respect most forms of art but iliterates like the ones (you) defend get reposted by media to the point that news outlets or youtubers show them because 'they look good, kinoo xd' and its pure disinfo that makes people that aren't on topic repeat nonsense.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          how does this hurt you?

          honest question.

          the world is overflowing with misinformation and stupid wrong ideas and you personally need to crusade for accuracy on things we literally don't know for a fact anyways?

          why this? Why dinosaur accuracy?
          Because I don't think it matters at all. You fake outrage so you can show off how much you know about a topic literally nobody else cares about. Which is cool, but you're wrong half the time or more yourself, so you just look ridiculous to anyone that might otherwise share your interests and admire your knowledge.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how does this hurt you?
            Not him but lies hurt the world. This has been explained to you before. If you make sure to put feathers on a Triceratops, but forget to accurately depict its belly scutes, you are the problem. If you make sure you put a cockscomb on an Edmontosaurus, but forget the manus hooves, you are the problem. If you make sure you reproduce Silesaurids with feathers, but forget their imbricate dorsal osteoderms, YOU are the fucking problem. Paleoart used to be about trying to create an accurate depiction of what these animals looked like. Now it's just tabloid shit where gays try to outcompete one another making they most retarded contrarian shit possible, but who don't actually know shit about the paleontology. Then retards all over the internet repeat it as though it's fact. Only an actual demon wouldn't have a problem with disinfo becoming the norm.

            >the world is overflowing with misinformation
            So encourage more?

            >why this? Why dinosaur accuracy?
            What makes you think we aren't attacking your kind wherever we find them?

            Your failure isn't so much being wrong, but being over the top about being right

            e.g. you love to bitch about bracketing because featherfags use it to infer the presence of feathers.

            that's fine, perhaps you have a valid point

            but at the same time you don't think about how bracketing is also being used to infer scales in 80% of other dinosaurs. So when you get all mad at bracketing and swear up and down that it's worthless, you're defeating yourself without even knowing it.

            and that's pretty funny, except I think you're actually serious. And in that case you do actually need your meds. Or therapy. Or something so you don't get all worked up about other people being wrong when you're clearly as wrong as they are or worse.

            >but at the same time you don't think about how bracketing is also being used to infer scales in 80% of other dinosaurs
            Lol you fucking idiot. First of all, dinosaurs are reptiles. You need to get over this. This isn't even bracketing. It's just saying "fish live in water". And we say they had scales not because we pretend to know, but because we've found the fucking scales. No bracketing bullshit required.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Not him
              kek
              > we say they had scales not because we pretend to know, but because we've found the fucking scales. No bracketing bullshit required.
              the funny part is you probably believe that.

              we have scales from only slightly more dinosaurs than we have feathers from. The vast majority of species we've never found feathers or scales.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I post my opinion on a topic in a related thread in a related forum. Why the need to do ridiculous strawmen? Why the need to write an essay about it? It certainly triggers you that someone posts 'I dislike thing'.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Why the need to do ridiculous strawmen?
              I require data points in an attempt to distinguish what makes some crazy people geniuses and others merely retards.

              If anon's dislike were rational he'd be a genius. It appears to be irrational, making him merely a retard. But perhaps I am missing the reason of a genius, in which case I'd like him to explain to a retard where I went wrong.

              sadly that doesn't appear to be the case.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Made rational discrimination between artistic take and plain wrong information providing examples
                >But you're irrational!
                You sure showed me
                >Genius vs retards
                Do you see people on black and white? You sure seem like a real basket case.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You sure showed me
                I'm not trying to show you anything. I'm trying to show me.
                >Do you see people on black and white?
                of course not. That's why I don't care when neurotypicals make mistakes or neurodivergents make rational risks.

                but they don't interest me because they're not generally going to be making novel ideas. New ideas don't generally come from normal minds.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Your failure isn't so much being wrong, but being over the top about being right

          e.g. you love to bitch about bracketing because featherfags use it to infer the presence of feathers.

          that's fine, perhaps you have a valid point

          but at the same time you don't think about how bracketing is also being used to infer scales in 80% of other dinosaurs. So when you get all mad at bracketing and swear up and down that it's worthless, you're defeating yourself without even knowing it.

          and that's pretty funny, except I think you're actually serious. And in that case you do actually need your meds. Or therapy. Or something so you don't get all worked up about other people being wrong when you're clearly as wrong as they are or worse.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >e.g. you love to bitch about bracketing because featherfags use it to infer the presence of feathers.
            >that's fine, perhaps you have a valid point
            >but at the same time you don't think about how bracketing is also being used to infer scales in 80% of other dinosaurs. So when you get all mad at bracketing and swear up and down that it's worthless, you're defeating yourself without even knowing it.
            I specifically mentioned patterns, scales feathers as okayish speculation since we don't aren't 100% certain what each species had but apparently you needed to bitch about it anyway.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I specifically mentioned patterns
              so your problem is with calling it bracketing

              you think if we call it bracketing when it indicates feathers we need to call it something else when it indicates scales. As if they're not both the exact same logical process.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >bracketing
                Anon are you having a stroke? my original post never mentioned bracketing or anything of the sort and I just quoted your whole post there but I'm gonna give you a pass because I see some posts a few hours ago were discussing it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the one post I saw mentioning pattern recognition was the schizo complaining that it was called bracketing.

                I have trouble keeping multiple nuts organized in my head, and I'm not going back to read the entire thread every time I respond, so I probably confused you with the schizo I was examining. If you're a different schizo that's a cool coincidence that you both used the same term.

                though not necessarily surprising because we often read a line and then unconsciously repeat the wording in our own comments later.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the 2 reasons I assumed you're the paleoschizo were

                1. talking about my "smooth brain."
                2. complaining about wrong habitat, prey and behavior when these are even more speculative than appearance in almost all cases

                the insult combined with a logically inconsistent thought pattern is usually his trademark. If you're not him then I'd apologize for the misunderstanding except you were doing a real good job of sounding like him.

                If it helps any, we can't know what habitat a dinosaur inhabited 99% of the time. Only where it was buried. Which may or may not be where it lived.

                we almost never know for sure what a dinosaur preyed on. Proof of an animal preying on another is extremely rare in the fossil record, and even when proven it doesn't mean they didn't prey on other animals we don't have proof of.

                behavior is complete guesswork most of the time. Behavior fossilizes even less often than feathers.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Have you considered upgrading to a folded brain? It might allow you to question authorities.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nice dude, sick roast

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >paleoschizo
                I'm pretty sure whoever you think is one person is not, this board may be slow but theres lots of people willing to discuss dinosaurs. Also smooth brain is an on topic insult since this is a nature/animal related board which I've heard even as far as Wauf.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >concentrates on the insult
                >ignores the huge blind spot in his thinking
                look if I have to point out to anon that dinosaur habitat, prey, and behavior are far more speculative than appearance then I'm not the one with the smooth brain.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I was kinda lazy and you had written a huge wall of text. Prey, behaviour and habitat are intertwined so if you get habitat wrong then most likely get the others wrong too. Thats (you)r blindspot anon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Prey, behaviour and habitat are intertwined so if you get habitat wrong then most likely get the others wrong too
                yes
                >Yes we can, there are studies for that. Spectroscopy and isotope analisis are a thing and most times the layer in which the fossils were found has other clues as what the area surrounding it was like.
                >That's assuming the animal lived in the same habitat in which it died and also the same habitat in which it was buried.
                There are dozens of reasons this assumption can be wrong, and often we know it's wrong.
                >This studies also can asses what the dinosaur ate too (even if the sawfish is a stretch).
                No, it merely tells us what temperature the water was the animal drank, and what temperature of water its food drank. And even then it's only accurate if the water in the bones and teeth wasn't replaced by ground water when the bones were buried and fossilized.
                >Its been pretty much established that what is today moroccan desert at the time spino lived was a fluvial system.
                yes, a system that often moves dinosaur bodies from other habitats and deposits them potentially miles from where they actually lived.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No, it merely tells us what temperature the water was the animal drank, and what temperature of water its food drank.
                Yes and that coupled with teeth shape and other clues can be used to narrow down what it used to eat.
                >yes, a system that often moves dinosaur bodies from other habitats and deposits them potentially miles from where they actually lived
                Theres no way to prove that happened or that it didn't, why bring it up? Doesn't add any info. If somehow you found 100 new skeletons in another excavation site elsewhere, that would be relevant, the possibility that may happen isn't relevant to discussion now.

                >Thats (you)r blindspot anon.
                not at all.

                I don't assume a dinosaur lived in the same habitat it was found in. No scientist does. We need evidence to assume that. Usually that evidence is missing when only a handful of fossils have been found.

                I think it's safe to say that Spinosaurus lived in and around water based on the shape of its skull and teeth, but that means every one of its relatives did as well, including ones without all the other supposedly aquatic adaptations of Spinosaurus.

                It's possible I'm wrong though. If Spinosaurus lived in water we should find way more fossils of it because animals that lived in water fossilized way more often than those that lived on land. So maybe it was a land animal that for no obvious reason looked like a water animal.

                >I don't assume a dinosaur lived in the same habitat it was found in.
                No one does this, they look at other stuff to make their hypothesis and compare it with other specimes meassured to be around the same age too.
                >Acuatic vs land
                Pretty much no one was discussing this on the thread, just the retardedness of open ocean spinosaurus.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes and that coupled with teeth shape and other clues can be used to narrow down what it used to eat.
                I agree, but my point is it's still speculation. We can't rule out other competing hypotheses in most cases.
                >why bring it up? Doesn't add any info.
                it does if we're discussing whether or not habitat, diet, and behavior are more or less speculative than appearance.

                that idea rests on some very shaky ground. Almost everything Wauf discusses about dinosaurs is the least well-known, least scientific, and most superficial attributes.
                >Pretty much no one was discussing this on the thread,
                yes, a huge blind spot
                >just the retardedness of open ocean spinosaurus.
                It's not retarded at all. The reason scientists don't generally suggest it is because we have no evidence of it. Not because it's a dumb idea.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Not because it's a dumb idea
                Its kinda dumb, the hydrodinamics and floating analysis done on spino shows that it wasn't adapted to swimming in salt water and the flag generated to much drag underwater so a spinosaurus living near rivers like a crocodile and trying to ambush stuff from the surface looks to be the moree correct one.
                Maybe some spino specimens lived on the coast? Unlikely but possible.
                The possibility that a spino descendant or baryonix descendant further became something like a salt water crocodile? Highly likely.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Its kinda dumb, the hydrodinamics and floating analysis done on spino shows that it wasn't adapted to swimming in salt water
                or fresh water

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >or fresh water
                It works kinda fine on shallow water if he was an ambush predator. Also the bone density points to it wanting to sink rather than to float.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Maybe some spino specimens lived on the coast? Unlikely but possible.
                the Kem Kem beds are a coastal deltaic formation. If Spinosaurus lived there, it lived on the coast.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the Kem Kem beds are a coastal deltaic formation
                Species that live both in freshwater and saltwater because they are near the meeting point are not common. Even then I need to point to bone density, deltas tend to have greater depths than common rivers and the depth increases when it turns into sea.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also I need to point to the ganges dolphins, bull sharks and saltwater crocodile. The former were species that came from the sea and the later is really well adapted to the sea envorinment for a crocodilian.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Species that live both in freshwater and saltwater because they are near the meeting point are not common
                that you know of.

                estuarine, brackish, diadromous, intertidal and semi-aquatic animals are extremely common.

                not saying that Spinosaurus was any of those things, because living on the coast doesn't necessarily mean entering the water. But you'll find deer and elk and crocodiles and all sorts of interesting coastal animals in the ocean sometimes.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're mentioning species of fish. The transtition from salt water to fresh water in fish has been seen a lot of times.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yep, but we could talk seals and otters and such if you want.

                I don't really think Spino was similar to any of those though. I'd suggest wading birds but most of those critters have long legs.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but we could talk seals and otters and such if you want
                I'm listening, I've never heard of freshwater seals. Not baiting, curious.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm just thinking of coastal animals that enter the ocean. There's a shitload of those. Whether they also go in freshwater depends on the animal and the water I'd guess.

                But anon originally suggested that Spino didn't live on the coast while river deltas are sort of by definition on the coast.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                For one the Nile river crocodile used to live on the delta (perhaps there still are some specimens left there) but I don't know if there are registered cases of that species going into the mediterranean.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't know if there are registered cases of that species going into the mediterranean.
                maybe not on purpose

                this is kinda like the discussion of if T. rex could swim. Like every animal on land needs to be able to swim even if it almost never does. Any animal that lives near the ocean is going to wind up in the ocean eventually, even if that's not where it normally lives.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Any animal that lives near the ocean is going to wind up in the ocean eventually, even if that's not where it normally lives.
                That phrase with this image is in someway really funny to me

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I do agree with the recent spino paper that suggests they couldn't really swim though.

                I mean that freakin sail was really heavy. If they swam it seems like they'd be tipped over on their side the whole time.

                but yeah. That's what I told my kids. If you're going to be on the beach you need to know how to swim. Even if you don't plan on going in the water, the water might just come up and go over you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's what I told my kids. If you're going to be on the beach you need to know how to swim. Even if you don't plan on going in the water, the water might just come up and go over you.
                Wholesome

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                as far as dinosaurs go, we've found at least one ankylosaur and a hadrosaur in ocean sediments before. It's possible that these animals died and washed out to sea, but it's probably more likely they swam out to sea as some land animals do now.

                so even if Spinosaurus didn't live in the ocean, the idea of it being in the ocean isn't impossible. It happens to pretty much any animal that lives near the sea.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There are freshwater seals in Lake Baikal if I remember right.

                as far as dinosaurs go, we've found at least one ankylosaur and a hadrosaur in ocean sediments before. It's possible that these animals died and washed out to sea, but it's probably more likely they swam out to sea as some land animals do now.

                so even if Spinosaurus didn't live in the ocean, the idea of it being in the ocean isn't impossible. It happens to pretty much any animal that lives near the sea.

                Hadros could probably swim, but I doubt ankylosaurs could. They certainly wouldn't float. Maybe they could cross shallow waters by walking on the bottom at most.
                Those ankys they've found out at sea (sediments) were probably carcasses washed down river. Poor things would've drowned pretty quickly in the ocean I'd imagine.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I doubt ankylosaurs could.
                I'm not aware of any land animals that just can't swim.

                even if they live in the driest dessert, there's still a chance they'd need to swim at some point. But maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure how tortoises do. But then tortoises got to the islands in the ocean somehow.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >spinosaurus living near rivers like a crocodile and trying to ambush stuff from the surface looks to be the moree correct one.
                I have a...hunch...that prey animals would see a spino coming if it tried to pull some croc shit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Thats (you)r blindspot anon.
                not at all.

                I don't assume a dinosaur lived in the same habitat it was found in. No scientist does. We need evidence to assume that. Usually that evidence is missing when only a handful of fossils have been found.

                I think it's safe to say that Spinosaurus lived in and around water based on the shape of its skull and teeth, but that means every one of its relatives did as well, including ones without all the other supposedly aquatic adaptations of Spinosaurus.

                It's possible I'm wrong though. If Spinosaurus lived in water we should find way more fossils of it because animals that lived in water fossilized way more often than those that lived on land. So maybe it was a land animal that for no obvious reason looked like a water animal.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >maybe it was a land animal that for no obvious reason looked like a water animal.
                Another alternative is that Spinosaurus was an aquatic animal that didn't live anywhere near the Kem Kem beds. Then the reason it didn't fossilize often is because only a few of them migrated or got washed down to the Kem Kem.

                this is also normal in animals, especially fuckhuge ones. The young often grow up in much different habitats than the adults live in.

                Another obvious problem with making assumptions about habitat based on where an animal was buried is the fact that large animals usually migrate through lots of different habitats. It's unusual for large animals to live their entire lives in just one habitat.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I was kinda lazy and you had written a huge wall of text. Prey, behaviour and habitat are intertwined so if you get habitat wrong then most likely get the others wrong too. Thats (you)r blindspot anon.

                Also since I didn't really made a point against
                >99% of the time we can't get
                Yes we can, there are studies for that. Spectroscopy and isotope analisis are a thing and most times the layer in which the fossils were found has other clues as what the area surrounding it was like. This studies also can asses what the dinosaur ate too (even if the sawfish is a stretch). Its been pretty much established that what is today moroccan desert at the time spino lived was a fluvial system.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what the hell are you rambling about

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah, all art should be photorealistic and 100% accurate at all times.
        >He said sarcastically, for some reason absolutely nobody could possibly understand
        So you WANT fake paleoart??

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >So you WANT fake paleoart??
          absolutely

          especially when the fake paleoart is both plausible and thinking outside of the current paradigm.

          for example we know that sauropods had pulmonary diverticulae and pneumatic pleurocoels. We know birds have these same features. And we know some birds have external balloons if you will that they can inflate and deflate for various reasons.

          so when someone makes the obvious connections and depicts a sauropod or theropod with large, odd looking balloons on the throat, that's a very reasonable possibility even though we can never know if it's true or not. It's a really cool idea and very likely a true one.

          but anon goes apeshit because either he doesn't know this or he doesn't care. He just doesn't like anything UNKNOWN showing up in his art supply. Meanwhile real humans with normal brains realize it may or may not be true, but it's a great idea.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >absolutely

            >Not him
            kek
            > we say they had scales not because we pretend to know, but because we've found the fucking scales. No bracketing bullshit required.
            the funny part is you probably believe that.

            we have scales from only slightly more dinosaurs than we have feathers from. The vast majority of species we've never found feathers or scales.

            >the funny part is you probably believe that.
            There's nothing to debate, you seething moron. We have the receipts. You seem to have forgotten that paleontology is about the fossils, not your cringe ass pet """"theories""". We have scales from every single major group of dinosaurs: Ornithopods, Marginocephalians, Thyreophorans, Sauropods, Theropods, in fact it looks like scales are very much the norm. Seethe and dilate about. Feathers have been found in a small, autistic group of Theropods and supposedly in a few Ornithischians if you call everything feathers.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >We have scales from every single major group of dinosaurs:
              yes

              which means we have scales from about 40 out of ~800 species

              the remaining ~760 species are assumed to have scales based on bracketing.

              >we have scales from every single MAJOR GROUP of dinosaurs
              this is literally bracketing

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >which means we have scales from about 40 out of ~800 species
                That's not how it works, moron. Just because basic intuition and pattern recognition is something you don't possess doesn't mean you get to abuse "bracketing" to claim everything in the gaps has feathers.

                "Bracketing" is a term used by cladist cringe gays. Nobody sane would ever use this word, as it's been tainted by feathergays and assorted NPCs.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                kek

                you don't get to change the meanings of words just because you don't like how a handful of people are using them.

                Scientists use bracketing to infer feathers in raptors just like we use bracketing to infer scales in tyrannosaurids.

                you like it when we do one of these things and hate it when we do the other. That's the part you don't understand. You don't get to say bracketing is right in one case and fundamentally wrong in another, equal case.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, society does. That's why we don't have swastikas hanging everywhere. People don't connect them to their original meaning anymore. Don't blame me. Your side turned all these words to cringe by abusing everything you could get your hands on.

                >infer scales in tyrannosaurids.
                We don't need to infer anything. We've found scales on multiple species of Tyrannosaurids. Stop being such a greasy garden gnome and trying to slip in your fucking propaganda all the time in place of things that actually happened. You're a fucking appalling creature.

                >cladist cringe gays
                since literally every paleontologist in the world is a "cladist," you also can't say they're idiots when they disagree with you but cite them as authorities when the happen to agree with you.

                I guarantee every single paper you have ever cited on the topic of dinosaurs was written by "cladist cringe gays."

                Yes I can.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We've found scales on multiple species of Tyrannosaurids.
                but not ALL OF THEM

                of the ones we haven't found, we know with a fair amount of certainty that they also had scales

                because bracketing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >OMG YOU CAN'T PROVE ALL DINOSAURS HAVE FEATHERS!!
                >MUH BRACKETING!!
                >MUH FEATHERS OF THE GAPS!!
                Last reply.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Last reply.
                That would be nice. You going away is another goal of mine, the board is much nicer without you.

                but you're not leaving, you have nowhere to go. You'll get banned from literally any other corner of the internet.

                You complain about feathers of the gaps while literally advocating scales of the gaps. You are retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes I can.
                I test your ideas on 2 criteria, internal agreement and external. Does your idea agree with your other ideas? Does your idea agree with reality.

                in this case I ask
                >how can you X and NOT X?
                >how can you verify belief by both trusting authority and NOT trusting authority?
                one of these queries deals with internal agreement of your ideas, and the other with external agreement with reality.

                in your case you fail both forms of agreement, indicating you are retarded rather than a mad genius. Even more retarded than a simple blindness to certain forms of thought, you actually have no rational basis for determining truth and thus live in a world of dishonesty both to yourself and towards everyone else.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cladist cringe gays
                since literally every paleontologist in the world is a "cladist," you also can't say they're idiots when they disagree with you but cite them as authorities when the happen to agree with you.

                I guarantee every single paper you have ever cited on the topic of dinosaurs was written by "cladist cringe gays."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The really funny part of all this is you think you're doing some noble deed ridding the world of dishonesty when in reality you're just retarded and raging against anything you can't understand.
                And buddy, there's A LOT you can't understand. You're not a good person, you're just a stupid one.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >You seem to have forgotten that paleontology is about the fossils, not your cringe ass pet """"theories""".
              Irony from the literal gay that says any fossil with feathers is fake

              do you even realize what a joke you are?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >So you WANT fake paleoart??
          Fake or speculative paleo art is cool as long as the people involved are at least trying to deviate from facts on a conscious manner. The channels that repost incorrect art without notifying viewers are also part of the problem.
          Pic related is clear speculation/fantasy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Agreed. But these gays are passing off their fantasy nonsense as actual paleontology and the masses are eating it up. The majoritarian view on Dinosaurs in popular society is that they either all had feathers or that their ancestors did, that sauropods had neck balloons, that all dinosaurs had wattles and cockscombs and that everything was fat. The fact that pop sci is cancer has been an ongoing discussion for years.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The majoritarian view on Dinosaurs in popular society is that they either all had feathers or that their ancestors did, that sauropods had neck balloons, that all dinosaurs had wattles and cockscombs and that everything was fat.
              popular society doesn't give a shit about dinosaurs.
              that is a delusion. You are deluded if you think anyone cares what dinosaurs looked like aside from a desire to be entertained by strange, threatening, and large creatures.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I’m sure at some point a spinosaurus went for a swim in the ocean

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Perhaps, but most likely not aegyptacus itself

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I’m sure at some point an S. aegyptiacus went for a swim in the ocean

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It is almost confirmed it did with the Oxalaia specimen we have.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why can't you fuckers keep it in one thread?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      because dinosaur posters are the worst posters.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      1 thread for a single animal makes sense but since Spinosaurus is always in a quantum state and simultaneously exists in at least 3 wildly different interpretations we need several threads.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    worlds largest duck

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a simple man. OP posts another Spinosaurus thread, paleoNPC gets triggered to shit, I laugh.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He might be banned or something

      the paleo threads aren't getting bumped with the usual non-stop schizo bullshit

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >dino threads stop being bumped
        >board quality improves by 100%
        Here’s hoping

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I said paleoNPC, retard. Not paleoschizo.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yes,
          I was taunting you because nobody knows who we are aside from me and you.

          and as long as you keep your retarded mouth shut you'll never see me post in a dinosaur thread because I don't care about paleoartists drawing dinosaurs wrong to make you question your sexuality or whatever.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I said paleoNPC, retard. Not paleoschizo.

            Just adopt tripcodes already so the rest of us can filter you. You're the most obnoxious type of attention whore who ~needs~ to stand out but won't just give yourself a name to cement it.

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