>Feather turning into scale

>Feather turning into scale
Ain't that neat

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    did paleoschizo's handlers let him out of the deviantart autism zone again

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So, from what I gather from this thread:

    >methods for "mining" atavistic traits results in all integument in modern birds becoming downy feathers
    >this is taken as evidence that scales in bird's phylum developed from feather-like integuments
    >mass replying "paleoschizo" anon rejects this in favor of claims like "early feathers are misidentified co-fossilized ferns"

    [...]

    >Clearly the feathers can't go back to the base of Archosauria because crocodilians can't express feathers no matter how much you frick with their gene expression.
    The dissimilarity of crocodilian scales to those of birds and dinosaurs does offer the possibility they developed separately, permitting the avemetetarsalia construction of the theory, and while I forget the source splicing in a single gene causes them to develop multiple feather characteristics so they may simply be too distantly derived for an available feather atavism.

    [...]

    >Aves is likely polyphyletic and I'm still skeptical if ratites ever had flying ancestors.
    The carpometatarsus is a sufficiently consistent and peculiar structure to be a clade indicator, as it developed well into the flight optimizations of the lineage like a proper keel. Definitely a possibility that Palaeognathae is more distant from Aves than several "pre-Aves birds", but this gets into the thoroughly unproductive definition-quibbling of just how wide class Aves "should" be and the Tinamou exists so you're still wrong.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So you think longisquama had feathers. How moronic. What sort of feathers are these?

      >splicing in a single gene
      So playing Jurassic Park results in animals with bullshit characteristics and then you claim this means something. This is like how homosexuals claim they've created "immortal" mice literally every single fricking year, but the longest lived mouse has still only lived a few years.

      >The carpometatarsus is a sufficiently consistent and peculiar structure to be a clade indicator
      There are arguments for flying ancestors like the pygostyle, but there are other interpretations also.

      >But muh Tinamou!!!
      Stop being stupid. This only furthers my argument that Aves is polypheletic.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >So you think longisquama had feathers. How moronic. What sort of feathers are these?
        I am personally of the opinion that "feathers" emerged somewhere in Theropods. The namesake "long scales" may be homologous to feather development, may be an unrelateted scale modification, or may be a wholly novel integument.

        >So playing Jurassic Park results in animals with bullshit characteristics and then you claim this means something.
        The thing is that the extent of similarity was in considerable excess of what a SINGLE gene should do, unless there is much stronger relation than predicted, such as a basal form of "stage 1 feathers" recurring sporadically throughout Arcosaurs.

        >There are arguments for flying ancestors like the pygostyle, but there are other interpretations also.
        Where is the non-flying origin of the carpometatarsus?

        >Stop being stupid. This only furthers my argument that Aves is polypheletic.
        The point being made is that the Tinamou proves that ratite anatomy contains many characteristics so trivially modified for flight that it is more likely those traits are vestigial leftovers of flighted ancestors, as in "even if Aves is polyphylactic you're still wrong"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The carpometatarsus is a sufficiently consistent and peculiar structure to be a clade indicator
      I once did a thread of over 100 posts about how the synapomorphies of Aves prove it's monophyletic.

      went over the synsacrum, pygostyle, tarsometatarsus, pneumatic pleurocoels, and sternum fused from 5 or more bones. Not even necessarily as flight adaptations, just as simple synapomorphies that are irreversible and not prone to convergence.

      he didn't argue. He ignored it and came back in this thread months later spouting his same stupid bullshit. He's a moron. He's a troll. And he's immensely dissatisfying to debate because he doesn't understand what you're saying.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Did you include the sex chromosomes lol?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This means emus are basal

          Sex determining chromosomes degrade, it's basically a rule

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, all ratites are like that. Tinamous are actually between the two extremes. As one might expect.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          lolno

          I don't know a lot about genetics or birds, I just know enough about theropod evolution to realize birds are dinosaurs and birds are monophyletic.
          Both facts he denies.

          He actually would've made a remarkable dinosaur scientist back in 1945, but by now all the ideas he comes up with have been published and proven wrong. Reading his posts is like traveling back in time.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The question is WHEN the various feathered animals we call "birds" separated from one another. Are Oviraptorosaurs birds? Dromaeosaurs? Therizinosaurs? These are all assumed to have feathers, but nobody in their right mind would call them birds.

            >He actually would've made a remarkable dinosaur scientist back in 1945
            Once again: this is not at all the own you think it is.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >but nobody in their right mind would call them birds.
              I disagree, the only reason we think them separate is due to how long it took for us to figure out how they relate to birds and for them to be feathered
              Would be just like with mammals, but with other theropods as the platypus and marsupials of the clade
              Birds is a colloquial term and early naturalists and people in general would classify any living feathered theropod in the class 'aves', AKA, 'birds'
              At most they would make a division between aves with beaks and bills, aves with toothed mouthsbefore and short vs long tails until they discover those to be phylogenetic due to beaks and short tails evolving multiple times

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You're literally agreeing with me. Also, keep in mind, for mos of these groups we don't actually have proof of feathers. Just ASSUMED feathering based in things like "quill knobs", which no non-flying animal should have to begin with.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >for mos of these groups we don't actually have proof of feathers. Just ASSUMED feathering based in things like "quill knobs"
                No, we have much more than just quill knobs(that aren't exclusive to flying animals) that indicate feathers in small to medium therapods, and many other dinoaur clades
                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982220315116

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >quill knobs(that aren't exclusive to flying animals)
                Name an animal with "quill knobs" that isn't flying and isn't a (mesozoic) dinosaur.

                >many other dinoaur clades
                There are no clades of dinosaurs that have feathers other than theropods. Kulindadromeus doesn't have any kind of feathers. Nor does Tianyulong. Ornithischians DO NOT HAVE feathers. You have all been told this many, many times. Even mainstream paleontologists doubt the "quills" on Psittacosaurus.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >There are no clades of dinosaurs that have feathers other than theropods
                see

                >Feather have evolved only on therop dinosaurs as far as we know
                No, feathers are know in ornithischian dinos like kulindadromeus suggesting that they are an ancestral trait of dinosauria as a whole

                ,

                https://i.imgur.com/6nUtf0l.jpg

                >Mom, can we get ornithischian feathers?
                >We have ornithischian feathers at home.
                >*the ornithischian feathers at home*
                Remember kids, everything is a feather if you're troony enough.

                >Even mainstream paleontologists doubt the "quills" on Psittacosaurus
                where ?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/blah-blah-feathered-ornithischians-yawn/

                David Hone was CONVINCED that T. rex had feathers too. So him suggesting the "quills" on Psittacosaurus are plant remains is particularly damning. He also mentions that more than one researcher has speculated that these ornithischian "feathers" were actually plant remains.

                For your next trick, you will handwave the link I posted directly refuting your claim that nobody believes this and continue pilpulling, as women are prone to do.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Impressive, very nice.
                Let's see some non-Chinese fossils.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/9ueLt23.jpg

                Also, take a wild guess what all these have in common.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh china hoaxes
                You still haven’t actually shown any of these to be fakes or given any actual reasoning as to what makes them suspect beyond “they’re from China”

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You still haven’t actually shown any of these to be fakes or given any actual reasoning as to what makes them suspect beyond “they’re from China”

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >they’re fake because they’re from China
                >even if it was found by a European
                >the ones from Mongolia are also fake because that’s near China
                >ignore the fact a European found it in a country outside China
                >the feathers were carved or drawn on
                >don’t worry about the fact they found melanosomes in the feathers
                >also that one ornithomimus from North America is fake because I don’t like it

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You're worthless. have a nice day.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t think a guy who spends all day seething over a tv show about dead lizards can call anyone worthless

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Did you make that? It's pretty neat looking, but my brain started hemmoraghing while reading that "humorous" copy.
                >Tell you what, Kyle.
                >I really enjoy
                >making gay
                >memes. I share them on
                >Wauf
                >.org

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >this is not at all the own you think it is.
              not to you since you think evolutionary biology peaked 80 years ago.

              the rest of the world moved on. Your ideas are irrelevant.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's weird when everything you held as virtuous becomes a sin, huh? When the witches begin burning the priests and nobody steps in to stop them. I understand your anger, but if you'd just stop struggling it'll be over much faster.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                YWNBAW

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Most likely it evolved both ways multiple different times. They were around for a long long time. So scales turned to feathers and back to scales multiple different times with different species.
    The real answer as to what actually came first is hair came first. Pycnofibers. Which evolved to scale or feathers.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    if you hate morons so much but interact with them constantly, you are either a psychopath who enjoys making people feel stupid or a self-loathing moron. I propose that instead of calling people morons you just present your arguement and defend it until you must admit defeat. If that's too much for you, then you may have room temperature IQ. Either way, I stick around because watching you morons fight each other is kind of entertaining.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What you're failing to realize is that's how it always begins. But then the basedjaks start seething when you point out that a paper's conclusions are clearly flawed and start screaming about nazis and trannies and communists.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They need to get rid of this stupid soi filter and stop filtering words. Shit like this just proves how moronic the admins of the site are. They've always been like this too. They'll allow a single shitposter to take over a board (like /b/) or literal bullshit pedowood adposting to take over a board like Wauf, but they're hurt by certain words so badly they have to filter them.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I agree, free speach should be the main focus of this entire forum since we don't really have anything else going for us. That said, at some point we should realize that certain terms and memes can be counterproductive to the point you're trying to get across. For example, I instinctively ignore any and all "heckin (blank)erino" posters because it represents a kind of irony that doesn't actually make a point beyond "i think your idea is stupid so i'm going to act like i'm stupid for comedic effect". It was never funny to me, just annoying, like "hurr durr". People reacted too much to the behavior, and as a reult trolls employed it as a tactic to get a rise out of people.

          We must never forget, pretending to be a fool will cause actual fools to feel empowered. Likewise, pretending to be an arrogant prick will attract arrogant pricks.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I agree that scientists can make mistakes, no matter how reputable they are. Therefore resorting to insults won't get your point across, it will just lead your opponent to label you a basedjack or a basedjack or an incel or any 1 of 100 terms they use to catalogue people who disagree with them. We're all participating in the learning process, so there's no need to be arrogant. I'll admit that insults can get people's attention, which is why I called you all morons. Now that I have your attention, I can tell you that I don't think any of you are moronic, you're just not familiar with healthy debate practices.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This isn't about mistakes. It's a combination of knowingly publishing junk and people being unqualified to participate in the field.

          >Therefore resorting to insults won't get your point across
          When someone pilpuls 24/7 for years, yes it does. You can't have a conversation in good faith with someone who only argues in bad faith.

          >We're all participating in the learning process
          But that's just it. Some of "us" genuinely are not. Some buttholes here don't care about facts, only culture war bullshit like defending chinese hoaxes so you can advance your career. That's unethical behavior and it's become the norm and it needs to be called out.

          >healthy debate practices
          See my comments above.

          I agree, free speach should be the main focus of this entire forum since we don't really have anything else going for us. That said, at some point we should realize that certain terms and memes can be counterproductive to the point you're trying to get across. For example, I instinctively ignore any and all "heckin (blank)erino" posters because it represents a kind of irony that doesn't actually make a point beyond "i think your idea is stupid so i'm going to act like i'm stupid for comedic effect". It was never funny to me, just annoying, like "hurr durr". People reacted too much to the behavior, and as a reult trolls employed it as a tactic to get a rise out of people.

          We must never forget, pretending to be a fool will cause actual fools to feel empowered. Likewise, pretending to be an arrogant prick will attract arrogant pricks.

          Satire is literally older than your civilization. And there's a good reason for that.

          Most likely it evolved both ways multiple different times. They were around for a long long time. So scales turned to feathers and back to scales multiple different times with different species.
          The real answer as to what actually came first is hair came first. Pycnofibers. Which evolved to scale or feathers.

          This is a fence-sitter idea, and it's incorrect. Scales unquestionably came first. Anyone arguing against this is a moron. Feathers come from scales. They literally can't just pop out of the skin replacing scales. That's not in the evolutionary cards I think. And birds can literally turn scales INTO feathers. The abundance of evidence is pointing to the classical theories being correct, not all this weird new bullshit. Also, interesting fact about "pycnofibers": they may not even exist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think the problem is everyone on Wauf already knows you're a dumbass

            so you write this 5000 word essay on your personal headcanon, responding to every single post in the thread

            and nobody reads it

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You're really going that far to keep this going huh?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Stage II feathers are what they found on Kulindadromeus, some random pterosaur, and at least one other ornithischian.

      Meaning a direct interpretation of your statement "that's not how feathers evolved" is directly refuted by that pic right there. That is exactly how feathers evolved.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus christ, what a dumb b***h. I would bother going into detail why you're wrong, but this argument is so old even you know why you're wrong.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      also worth observing that feather evolution starts with a barb, not a scale. Because we don't know if they evolved directly from scales, or from the skin in between them. Kulindadromeus indicates the second idea is correct.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Aren't barbs themselves just thin, pointy scales tho?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          no, they're also hollow. So far nobody has come up with a good explanation of how a scale could roll up into a hollow tube without a seam. We do have a good idea how a lump in the skin could turn into a tube, but not a scale.

          Wait what? There are people that think that feathers evolved INTO scales?
          What sort of fricking ass backwards moronation is this?

          ....
          Literally every zoologist alive? What's this thread about?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >There are people that think that feathers evolved INTO scales?
            I mean this was established in zoology in the 1700's, maybe earlier.
            you can literally see the feathers on chicken legs transition to scales complete with intermediate forms over the distance of the leg.

            There is no conceivable way for a feather to turn into a scale, while we can see scales turning into feathers in the op picture.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >There is no conceivable way for a feather to turn into a scale,

              >barbs become shorter
              >shaft becomes shorter
              >barbs disappear
              >shaft shrinks down to a little thorn
              >then a little hump
              >then a mound in the skin
              >mounds spread out until they run into other mounds
              >bam, feather is now a scale

              It's very easy to conceive because we can see it in motion on chicken legs.

              OP's pic is the exact reversal of this process, which we already know of because it is evident on the legs of chickens.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                also if you read the paper, OP's pic isn't scales turning into feathers.

                there ARE genes that turn scales into feathers. But OP's paper did not study those. It created feathers INSTEAD OF scales. It never turned scales into feathers.

                >there ARE genes that turn scales into feathers.
                specifically there are genes that cause feathers to grow from the edges of scales, and from the center of scales. But in those cases the scales are still there. They become both scale and feather.

                OP's chickens didn't start with scales where the feathers grew. The feathers grew instead of scales. From the same organ that normally would've produced scales.

                So scales and feathers are more akin to different expressions of the same base process that generates the skin covering on those types of animals?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, if you zoom WAY out it's basically the same process to produce hair or scales or feathers or quills.

                but in reality it's a lot more complex than that. You can't just change fish scales into feathers because they never evolved that process. You can't change bird feathers into scales because that process is deleted. You can't change human hair to scales.

                the only reason the scales on bird faces and legs can be changed to feathers is because they evolved from feathers fairly recently.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes, and anyone who says feathers or scales evolved from one another is a fricking moron, because they both come from the same place so they can develop either, but just because it can do something doesnt mean it will

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                then why can't any of the feathers make scales instead except on the feet?

                you're just going in circles ignoring facts you don't like. Because you're a wienersucking little moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >yes, and anyone who says feathers or scales evolved from one another is a fricking moron
                You're a legit moron.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              also if you read the paper, OP's pic isn't scales turning into feathers.

              there ARE genes that turn scales into feathers. But OP's paper did not study those. It created feathers INSTEAD OF scales. It never turned scales into feathers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >there ARE genes that turn scales into feathers.
                specifically there are genes that cause feathers to grow from the edges of scales, and from the center of scales. But in those cases the scales are still there. They become both scale and feather.

                OP's chickens didn't start with scales where the feathers grew. The feathers grew instead of scales. From the same organ that normally would've produced scales.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Idiotic. Feathers clearly evolved from scales. Both the early correct theories state this and the fact that birds can turn scales into feathers all but proves it. They can't turn their fricking eyes or anuses into feathers, now can they? Nor can they turn random patches of skin into feathers.

        Aren't barbs themselves just thin, pointy scales tho?

        Almost certainly. The chance of this not being the case is astronomically low.

        >There are people that think that feathers evolved INTO scales?
        I mean this was established in zoology in the 1700's, maybe earlier.
        you can literally see the feathers on chicken legs transition to scales complete with intermediate forms over the distance of the leg.

        >I mean this was established in zoology in the 1700's, maybe earlier.
        No it fricking was not, pilpul expert.

        >There is no conceivable way for a feather to turn into a scale,

        >barbs become shorter
        >shaft becomes shorter
        >barbs disappear
        >shaft shrinks down to a little thorn
        >then a little hump
        >then a mound in the skin
        >mounds spread out until they run into other mounds
        >bam, feather is now a scale

        It's very easy to conceive because we can see it in motion on chicken legs.

        OP's pic is the exact reversal of this process, which we already know of because it is evident on the legs of chickens.

        Pretty amazing how you can outline these steps from your own headcannon, but can't even entertain the possibility of the actual objective truth of what happened. I certainly hope you aren't actually employed in any paleontology field, although it would explain a lot about the absolute state of things.

        Yeah, if you zoom WAY out it's basically the same process to produce hair or scales or feathers or quills.

        but in reality it's a lot more complex than that. You can't just change fish scales into feathers because they never evolved that process. You can't change bird feathers into scales because that process is deleted. You can't change human hair to scales.

        the only reason the scales on bird faces and legs can be changed to feathers is because they evolved from feathers fairly recently.

        >You can't just change fish scales into feathers because they never evolved that process
        That's not why. Fish scales are a totally different structure basically synonymous with teeth.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    His broken mind doesn't work that way.

    How it works is you say something he doesn't like, then he invents reasons why *thing he doesn't like* is both stupid and a plot to hurt him personally

    You present more facts about *thing he doesn't like* and he denies or rationalizes each fact away in turn.

    Eventually he has built an entire narrative about how something happened that completely disagrees with whatever you have said.

    If you just ask him how something happened he will never answer. He's not capable of thinking unless it's as an active response to something he hates. He's a fricking moron.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The featherhating schizo is a blight on this board and I hope he suffers retrograde ejaculation, deep vein thrombosis and testicular torsion all at once.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    can we turn the foreskin into feathers?

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I will never understand why feathered dinosaurs make some people so fricking angry lmao.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because lying has no place in science. Glad I could help you understand.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Who's lying about what tho? Are you claiming that anyone who says that some dinosaurs had feathers or that birds evolved from dinosaurs is a liar?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Literally everyone.

          >Are you claiming that anyone who says that some dinosaurs
          Look at this weasley language. Black person, SOME dinosaurs had feathers in the 1800s. That's not the issue.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Then what is the issue you fricking Black person? I haven't seen anyone claiming that every single dinosaur had feathers ITT or in general, so who the frick are you actually arguing against you fricking spastic moron?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >OMG NOONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THIS!!!
              Now you're just lying.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                so go argue with them instead of the imaginary people in your head.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Does that mean if I take meds you will die?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, the person you imagine me to be doesn't exist outside your head. So that imaginary person would die.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ITT pet dumbasses try to discuss genetics and protein expression without reading or learning about it.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution isn't real. Dna manipulation from a higher power is. homosexuals.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    paleoschizo thread

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >fish have scales
    >fish evolve to live on land
    >land vertebrates have scales
    >certain later land vertebrates have feathers
    clearly feathers are the ancestral condition
    did you know that the original fish ancestor could fly and that fins evolved from wings?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Again it's not that simple. Land vertebrates lost their scales and then re-evolved them separately from fish just like birds lost their scales and then re-evolved them.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        many such cases

        scales have evolved dozens of times. Maybe hundreds

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Those aren't scales, dipshit. Just calling things what you want doesn't make your bunk theory correct.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/H71Zwzn.jpg

          Those aren't scales, dipshit. Just calling things what you want doesn't make your bunk theory correct.

          Actually, it seems like you're against the feathergays, but you're still wrong. You can't just call everything "feather" or "scale". There are specific evolutionary lineages to these integumentary structures.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >There are specific evolutionary lineages to these integumentary structures.
            kek

            I love it when you try to redefine words to win an argument. You understand nobody thinks dinosaur scales, bird scales, and snake scales all share a common descent?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >clearly feathers are the ancestral condition
      Feather have evolved only on therop dinosaurs as far as we know. Every other winged creature uses membranes to fly.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Feather have evolved only on therop dinosaurs as far as we know
        No, feathers are know in ornithischian dinos like kulindadromeus suggesting that they are an ancestral trait of dinosauria as a whole

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          WRONG. Painfully wrong. No Ornithischian has feathers. Not a single one. Tianyulong and the unnamed Psittacosaurus died on plant remains which have been misidentified. Nothing about Kulindadromeus can honestly be called feathers and it's "integument" looks eerily like something a plant would also produce. The same is true of Longisquama. This appears to be a common mistake in Mesozoic "feather" studies that resists correction because it goes against the pop culture of current year. True fact: every single "Longisquama" fossil contains zero animal remains except the one and consists of nothing but likely fern fronds.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Mom, can we get ornithischian feathers?
              >We have ornithischian feathers at home.
              >*the ornithischian feathers at home*
              Remember kids, everything is a feather if you're troony enough.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Feathergays and scalegays are one side of the same coin.
    Also,
    >turning into scale
    Not again, mammalbros...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Feathergays and scalegays are one side of the same coin.
      Yeah, talking about what dinosaurs looked like is a bit disappointing. They do bring up some interesting real questions though.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    why the frick is it called "sonic hedgehog" lmao? It has literally nothing to do with speed or hedgehogs. Did the autist scientist just wanna plug sonic? I can understand as a sonic autist myself that but important scientific shit is not your gay little playground. It reminds me of the moron who named 3 beetles after the legendary bird Pokémon just for fun

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      a similar gene was first found in fruit flies that caused them to grow spikes all over, and was named "hedgehog" because it made them spiky.
      Different variations of the hedgehog gene were then found in other animals and given different hedgehog names. SHHa and SHHb was called sonic hedgehog just because it fit.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        oh that makes a lot more sense

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          it's a stupid name, but it's easy to remember so it sorta stuck.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The Hh and SHH in hedgehog and sonic hedgehog comes from the molecular code of their polypeptide ligand.

          I have no fricking clue what that means, but that's the other reason for the hedgehog names.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If feathers are somehow a basal trait in archosaurs does that mean crocodiliforms could also have had feathers or that crocodiles might evolve feathers in the future?

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't trust any branch of science that has things called "sonic hedgehog".
    Sort your shit out, no one's gonna take your crap seriously when you let autistic children name your stuff.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    thinly veiled paleoschizo thread. i genuinely hope he commits sudoku

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Always wondered how dinosaurs did it if theyve had feathers since their earliest ancestors

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I want to murder whoever named it "sonic hedgehog"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yes indeed. Names should be super serious and reflect the very holy and not at all funny nature of nature.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      should have named it yourself, but it seems like
      you're too slow

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        KEKMAO
        Ok so we live in a word where "Sonic Hedgehog pathway" is a scientific term.
        What a time to be alive.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >What a time to be alive.
          it was named before you were.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The question is, did he post this thread to argue with himself, or did someone else post it?

    I've posted the pic and article in the past to prove to him that bird scales evolved from feathers. I did not post this thread though. It would be interesting if he finally decided I and every other paleontologist alive was actually right all along.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How does this affect my day to day life???

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Someday YOUR feathers will turn into scales.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't we have scales in tubes for our hairs just super small and compacted?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No! My glam rock career!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why are you in this thread? Boy there sure a LOT of "disinterested" posters online making sure everyone knows how much they don't care about current thing.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Here, we demonstrate that stage-specific transient agonism of sonic hedgehog (Shh) pathway signaling in chicken triggers a complete and permanent transition FROM reticulate scales TO feathers on the ventral surfaces of the foot and digits.
    Dumbass

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the only way scales could turn into feathers by activating a single gene is if they came from feathers in the first place.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No shit dawg

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          the anon was saying the study ONLY proves that scales can become feathers, not the other way around.

          In fact it proves both that scales can become feathers, AND that feathers did in fact evolve into scales.
          This is a fact the paleoschizo has consistently denied in the past for some reason. I think just because he rejects any facts that disagree with his politics.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I mean if you were right, all we'd have to do is find the gene that suppresses transitions from scales to feathers and activated it, and we'd have chickens covered with scales instead of feathers.

            this is impossible because no such gene exists. We can only cause scales on the feet to turn into feathers, we can't cause feathers on the body to turn into scales. Because the feathers on the body either never were scales, or the gene to suppress feather growth from scales was lost.

            meaning the only possible interpretation is that leg scales evolved from feathers.

            I don't see anyone considering the obvious possibility that birds once had scales all over, then *transitioned* to feathers all over, and then returned to scales on their legs only.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              That's exactly what I'm saying, along with almost every paleontologist alive

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So when it comes to the tale of the feather and the scale in the manner of the chicken and the egg, as in which came first, the obvious answer is still scales correct?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, scales evolved dozens of times before feathers did, and the ancestors of birds had scales. That doesn't necessarily mean the scales in birds are from their ancestors. What happened is birds lost scales completely, then evolved new scales from feathers.

                >thats not how evolution works
                >once something is lost, its almost impossible to regain it
                >except feathers
                eat a dick
                fake experts are a plague on Wauf

                He's dumbing it down a lot, but he's right. As long as the genetics for a trait exist, it's not lost.

                Like if chickens had the same genetic pathway to produce scales that crocodiles do then they never lost them. It's just a matter of turning the genes on or off.

                He's wrong if he's saying crocodiles can express feathers, they never evolved feathers so they don't have those genes. But they could evolve them convergently with enough time and evolutionary pressure.

                The feathers on bird legs were "lost" in the sense that the genes are no longer expressed, but the genes weren't lost so it's a simple matter of activating them to grow feathers on a chicken foot. However the ancestral genes for scales were lost in chickens, so they only have scales where they evolved them convergently and you can't turn feathers into scales because those genes no longer exist.
                This is important to the T. rex scales/feathers debate because the genes to turn feathers into scales were almost certainly lost long before T. rex evolved. Meaning it would have to completely re-evolve scales in place of feathers. And as birds demonstrate, this is virtually impossible. Birds have had over 100 million years to do it an the most they ever got was a few scales on the feet and face. It's extremely unlikely that tyrannosaurs would have managed it in a few tens of millions of years.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >He's wrong if he's saying crocodiles can express feathers, they never evolved feathers so they don't have those genes
                You're missing the major point in this feathertroony debate though. If crocodilians don't have any genes for feathers, that means the first Archosaurs the Proterosuchids didn't either, which means it's literally impossible for feathers to be an ancestral trait in dinosaurs. QED feathertrannies played themselves.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody claims that feathers are ancestral to archosauria, but to either dinosauria or to avemetatarsalia and those would only have evolve feather/proto-feather fibers after they split from pseudosuchia
                you have no idea how evolution or cladistics works or/and have no idea what the position you oppose even is

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                LOTS of morons claim this. For a while it was the mainstream view. It still is implicitly, but now paleontologists have been embarrassed enough by it that they claim to not support it. They just have every artist that puts images in their papers put feathers on everything and believe in stupid shit like ornithoscelida. Most paleontologists still believe that feathers are ancestral to all dinosaurs or all archosaurs, they just don't brag about it anymore.

                >avemetatarsalia
                This is a fake taxon. Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs. And feathers can't be ancestral even to all dinosaurs because the first dinosaurs (Aphanosaurs) have scales. So do the first Ornithischians (Silesaurids).

                >I can name almost every Ceratopsian ever named off the top of my head and I don't even have a degree in paleontology
                Congrats, you have a level of knowledge rivalling that of even the most autistic kindergarteners. I’m sorry to say that knowing the names of as many dinosaurs as possible has 0 value in paleontology

                Why doesn't someone literally naming new species in this specific group have the knowlege of an autistic kindergartner? You make a LOT of moronic non-arguments for apparently no real reason other than to be a dumb c**t. This is why women need to be banned from all media and academia. The perfect marriage of incompetence and pissiness.

                ITT pet dumbasses try to discuss genetics and protein expression without reading or learning about it.

                You're joking, right? This shit is VERY old news by now.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >LOTS of morons claim this.
                where ?

                >Most paleontologists still believe that feathers are ancestral to all dinosaurs or all archosaurs
                show me some publication claiming feathers are ancestral to all archosaurs

                >This is a fake taxon. Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs.
                nobody claims ptrosaurs are dinoaurs, that is not what avemetatarsalia claim is, the claim is that Pterosauromorpha is the sister taxa of Dinosauromorpha, bothe forming the two main branches of ornithodira, that with orher more primitive taxon form avemetatarsalia
                you have no arguments for why it's supposed to be a fake clade

                > first dinosaurs (Aphanosaurs)
                Aphanosaurs are not dinosaurs, they aren't even ornithodirans, they are a basal sister clade to ornithodira
                we also don't know what forms of integuments it have because we don't have any skin impressions of it

                >So do the first Ornithischians (Silesaurids)
                we don't have skin impressions of Silesaurids and it's possible that they two have filamentous integuments(feathers) given that that those are founded in other ornithischians dinosaurs

                you have no idea of the thinks you are talking about

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >you have no idea of the thinks you are talking about
                this is why everyone just ignores him

                all the things you are telling him have been said before. He won't listen and he won't even argue with you. He'll just deny what you say and call you a moron. He'll do it for years until you stop torturing him with facts he doesn't like.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              because thats not how evolution works, once something is lost, its almost impossible to regain it, ie humans ability to create vitamins c. birds cannot regain scales across their body as they dont have those genes anymore, theyve been permanently modified to create feathers, that is why when shh activated all it does is create feathers

              If feathers are somehow a basal trait in archosaurs does that mean crocodiliforms could also have had feathers or that crocodiles might evolve feathers in the future?

              yes and no, youre putting the cart in front of the horse, feathers are a different expression of how that gene being expressed, scales and feathers are derived from the same gene, but again, the above. feathers are not a basal trait, scales are, because crocodilfiorms are closer to archosaurs that birds are, birds are really weird split off at 143 million years, but yes, crocodiles can develop feathers, the gene can do that, but its not going to, feathers are really strange and flight feathers are even stranger, to the point it being kind of a miracle they exist in the first place, and their continued existence is a fluke on them being first and bully the competition out, being bats

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >thats not how evolution works
                >once something is lost, its almost impossible to regain it
                >except feathers
                eat a dick
                fake experts are a plague on Wauf

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                also and obviously, neither feathers nor scales are produced by a single gene. That's a childishly simple view of genetics.

                both feathers and scales can be suppressed by a single gene, just like a car can be destroyed by removing the engine. But that doesn't mean that one thing is responsible for creating the whole item. A car is made of lots of parts, just as a feather or scale is made by lots of genes. It's just that removing any critical part of a car or critical gene in a feather or scale will ruin the whole thing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >neither feathers nor scales are produced by a single gene. That's a childishly simple view of genetics.
                OP's paper alone cites at least 5 other studies that turned bird scales into feathers by activating or suppressing DIFFERENT GENES.

                because feathers rely on dozens of different genes, perhaps hundreds of them.

                the idea that a single gene codes for both feathers and scales is gross oversimplification. It's a shitload of genes working together.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There's also shades of gray in how lost a feature is.

                Humans have the genetic pathways to express a tail, but the tail is useless and short. So if we needed to evolve a tail, we'd have a head start on it, but not much of one because we'd still need a lot of evolution to make the tail useful.

                so the trait is mostly lost. Not completely lost. Chickens are similar regarding teeth. Some of the genes are still there, but most of them have been lost. At that point they'd have to completely re-evolve the genes to produce teeth pretty much from scratch. For practical purposes, the trait is lost. Similar with human or chicken gill slits. We have the genes to produce gill slits, but they don't function as gills. So if we had to evolve gills, we'd pretty much be starting from scratch. The trait is essentially lost.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Because that's exactly what's being proposed by these paleopseuds and it's obviously stupid.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This is false and you're an idiot. The proof this fricking moronic and famously en vogue dipshit theory is wrong is that bird legs and feet down to every single scale are indistinguishable from theropods whose ancestors never had any feathers. Convergent evolution paints in broad strokes. It doesn't mimic exactly the same structures in the same pattern on the same lineage. This idea that dinosaurs get their scales from feathers is just more bad science which is all too common these days. Also, how do you explain ornithischian or lizard or crocodilian or turtle scales? Did these animals all used to have feathers? This idea is patently absurd and it only exists to keep pushing feathertroony bullshit.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >mammals convergently evolve scales
              >yeah so what?
              >birds convergently evolve scales
              >NO THAT'S FRICKING IMPOSSIBLE IT CAN'T HAPPEN!!!!!11

              convergently evolve scales
              >>yeah so what?
              convergently evolve scales
              >>NO THAT'S FRICKING IMPOSSIBLE IT CAN'T HAPPEN!!!!!11

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >things nobody has said itt

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You must be new here

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >>itt
                okay, schizo

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        no you dumbass. you absolute moron.

        feathers came from scales. but the gene that turns scales into feathers is suppressed in the feet region. by deactivating the suppressor (or activating a suppressor of the suppressor) they turn the mechanism off and allow the scales to transition into feather in that region as well.

        No shit dawg

        dumbass too

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >but the gene that turns scales into feathers is suppressed in the feet region. by deactivating the suppressor (or activating a suppressor of the suppressor) they turn the mechanism off and allow the scales to transition into feather in that region as well.
          then why doesn't it work in lizards, snakes, crocodiles, fishes, mammals with scales, or any other type of scale?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            because those animals never had feather genes in their genome, moron.

            I mean if you were right, all we'd have to do is find the gene that suppresses transitions from scales to feathers and activated it, and we'd have chickens covered with scales instead of feathers.

            this is impossible because no such gene exists. We can only cause scales on the feet to turn into feathers, we can't cause feathers on the body to turn into scales. Because the feathers on the body either never were scales, or the gene to suppress feather growth from scales was lost.

            meaning the only possible interpretation is that leg scales evolved from feathers.

            >We can only cause scales on the feet to turn into feathers, we can't cause feathers on the body to turn into scales.
            theoretically possible, just pretty hard and would require quite a lot of gene tampering

            On the more technical side,

            activating the sonic hedgehog pathway in any animal can only produce ancestral embryological states. It cannot advance evolution, only reverse it.

            which means when they activate SHH and the scales turn into feathers, they are reverting to a former state. Literally proving that they evolved from feathers.

            This is why scientists no longer consider the evolution of feathers to scales a question. It has been solved, it has been essentially proven.

            Black person reread what i wrote again. you are literally moronic. scales are the primordial texture.

            Your biggest mistake here is the idea defeats your argument about Tyrannosaurus feathers.

            If all it takes is a single gene to suppress growth of feathers from scales, then T. rex didn't need to evolve scales from feathers. It just needed a single mutation at the SHH pathway and it would magically turn back into a scaled animal in a single generation. Atavistic scales would be much faster and easier to evolve than feathers to scales.

            that fact that no bird has ever done this even though some would presumably benefit from it, indicates it is impossible. This impossibility is confirmed by genetic studies failing to find any such mechanism available.

            t-rex never had feathers you moron. nor anyone in it's lineage did.

            You think your idea defeats feathered rex by making it impossible for feathers to turn to scales.

            all it actually does is makes it much easier.
            as usual you didn't really think it through.

            absolute moron. holy shit.

            I will explain this again so even morons like you lot can grasp it.

            >be dino
            >be covered in scales
            >lineage of dinos evolves feathers from scales (feathers are modified scales, a gene/pathway ensures that instead of scales feathers form)
            >since the entire body was covered in scales and it is not a good idea to have feathers in some areas like feet/snout, a pathway evolves that suppresses the feather gene in those areas (or maybe the scale -> feather pathway evolved to not spread to the entire body and only affect parts of the body).
            >you now have dinos/birds where most of the body is affected by this feather mutation while in some areas the "feather gene" is either suppressed by another gene or there is a gene that restricts it's local expression in said areas.
            >by turning of that suppressor gene or by turning off whatever is restricting it's expression in the foot area, the feather mutation now can freely express itself in the area and turn scales into feathers.

            it's literally just basic evolution. how can you morons be so moronic? scales evolved from feathers? are you clinically moronic?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >he didn't understand

              ok one more time

              There's a gene suppressing feather growth in the feet and keeping them as scales, right?
              so turning that same gene on in the whole body should turn ALL the feathers into scales, right?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                what part of
                >they dont have a gene to create scales on their body
                do you not understand. its been already said that scales and feathers are formed from the same gene, a second gene controls whether not it expresses into scales or feathers, they dont have this gene for their body that expresses into scales anymore, only their legs, so it takes a fourth gene to suppress the second gene so the third gene can stay as scales

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                so your reasoning is they lost the gene to produce scales on the whole body except the feet and face.

                how do you propose those genes were kept while the others were lost? Just asking how the fiction in your head works out of curiosity.

                not exactly how that works. you seem to lack basic understanding of how gene suppression works:

                1. gene suppression works in layers
                2. most of the time a trait has multiple genes working together to regulate how much, where, and what type of suppression it is, so it could be many genes that result in the feather gene being turned off locally on feet. the more genes are active in the subject the more intricate and harder to achieve the task becomes. maybe turning the scales on feet into feathers is just 1 gene. maybe doing anything else includes tampering with a whole range of processes and genes.

                the layers are as follow, each row represents a gene (ideally just one):
                A. scales (produces scales)
                B. scales -> feathers (facilites production of feathers from scales)
                C. scales -x-> feathers (stops production of feathers from scales)

                in a chicken:
                A layer is active in all body
                B layer is active in all body
                C layer is active in a few regions, including feet

                by tampering with the C layer [suppressing] we can undo whatever it is that's preventing the scales on feet from turning into feathers

                by tampering with the C layer [expressing] we can (theoretically) broaden it's expression area into working in other regions of the body, theoretically producing a completely scaly chicken

                by tampering with the B layer [suppressing] we can theoretically turn off feather production globally and theoretically produce a completely scaly chicken as well

                Thank you for this, it was fascinating.

                In real life the study proves that the entire process is modulated by a single gene, SHH. This same gene modulates feather production through the entire body.

                that's the point of the study.
                Your wild imaginings are fascinating, but also complete bullshit in this case. Read the paper.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >that's the point of the study.
                it's literally not. the study is bullshit rambling by a bunch of morons who don't know what they found and are assuming nonsense if that's the case. scales do not form from feathers. feathers form from scales, because the scales is the more basal thing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                thank you for explaining your thought process, I appreciate it.

                in this case I found your narrative explanatory but not correct. I further find that you've ignored evidence that it is incorrect, probably because you usually settle for narratives that are explanatory even when incorrect.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                your argument is that you read an interpretation of it in some delusional science article. what nice argument you have.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not making an argument.

                I'm explaining the reasoning behind the idea that bird scales are convergent from feathers and then judging your reaction.

                I found your reaction unusually lucid for you. I rather enjoyed reading it. It is a plausible explanation but arises from several false premises. I don't care if you correct your idea, I'm more interested in
                1. If it makes sense
                2. if it deals with existing facts.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Black person you literally have 0 arguments to back your claim. your arguments is "just trust my interpretation bro".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >you literally have 0 arguments to back your claim.
                It's not my claim

                it's the claim of the authors cited in the thread.

                and they have thousands of arguments to back their claims. I have repeated a couple of them here for you because I realize you can't read the paper.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >thousands of arguments
                I'm literally looking at the article and it just talks about suprression and expression of things just as I explained it to you. there are more layers piling onto each other in this case, yes, but it doesn't prove wrong anything I said. it;s literally just basic biology gene expression/suppression puzzle that they need to solve to find what suppresses who and what expresses what exactly. it's literally that simple and the article literally talks about it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >it doesn't prove wrong anything I said.
                if you ignore facts your explanation can make perfect sense and still be completely wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the authors literally say what I said. by suppressing the gene they are able to keratinize feather buds, by expressing the gene they are able to convert reticula into feather buds. just what I said 1:1. I think you simply lack reading comprehension and can't wrap your head about what's being talked about, and are assuming nonsense.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not disagreeing with the facts you explained

                I'm waiting to see if you notice the ones you purposefully ignored because they disprove your explanation

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                again, you have provided 0 arguments. I merely explained the basis behind expression/suppression mechanism to you. either say what is wrong or gtfo.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >either say what is wrong or gtfo.
                I already did.

                expression of the two structures is regulated by a single gene, and it doesn't work the same way over the entire body.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                again, it's merely a top layer gene on top of a mountain of other genes. easiest to play with, easiest to tamper with. ultimately regulates everything, but not because it codes everything.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                entirely correct, and still ignoring the point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are ignoring the point that you can't grasp how gene expression functions on a basic level. yo uare saying I'm entirelly correct but wrong, then when asked to say what is wrong you just say what I already said? literally get yourself together.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                for the tenth time

                >expression/suppression is everything, and whatever is on top regulates the outcome.
                so far we agree...

                how do you deal with the fact that suppressing sonic hedgehog in the feet produces scales, while suppressing it everywhere else produces feathers?

                >how do you deal with the fact that suppressing sonic hedgehog in the feet produces scales, while suppressing it everywhere else produces feathers?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                let's say:
                sonic gene: supress the gene that expresses feather formation in this area under this and that circumstance
                >without it in region where conditions match: happens the opposite
                >without it in region where conditions don't match: nothing happens
                >without it in region where conditions somewhat match: rogue interaction occurs resulting in either expression or suppression of either scales or feathers

                it's literally that simple. a single gene codes very little. it's all about the layers and interaction of them. it's a puzzle. different combinations will result in different expression even if we are changing a single layer, be it the top one or not.

                >it's hard to untangle that mess and figure out what exactly controls/causes what.
                I thought the authors of the paper did an excellent job of that.

                it's their interpretation of the events. dunno how accurate or not it is, but it HAS to follow the basic guidelines that I told you about or it's a farce, and to me it seams you are making a misinterpretation of their interpretaion/misinterpretation.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                so why does it produce scales in the feet but nowhere else?

                anon upthread suggested that the genes for expression of scales were lost everywhere but the feet. But offered no mechanism for that to happen.

                if we say they never needed feathers on the feet, then why do the scales become feathers there when SHH is expressed? If they never evolved to be feathers, that shouldn't even be possible. If they evolved to be feathered, then the scales came from feathers.

                the genes already prove which scenario is true. The scales become feathers because they used to be feathers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >so why does it produce scales in the feet but nowhere else?
                BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS FOR IT MATCH IN THAT REGION! BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER GENES THAT CODE HOW THINGS WORK UNDER PRESENSE/ABSCENSE OF THIS GENE.

                >suggested that the genes for expression of scales were lost everywhere but the feet
                I don't think that's accurate, we are not viruses, we don't shed DNA that easily. we operate by adding layers of suppressors/expressors. at least, there are no proof in this particular case and it's really unlikely to have happened.

                >if we say they never needed feathers on the feet, then why do the scales become feathers there when SHH is expressed? If they never evolved to be feathers, that shouldn't even be possible. If they evolved to be feathered, then the scales came from feathers.
                already told you, the gene for feather expression is present globally in the chicken. the genes that regulate it not so much, including the sonic gene and many others involved - some are global, some are active in just some areas.

                >the genes already prove which scenario is true. The scales become feathers because they used to be feathers
                they prove no such thing. in fact, this claim is so out of touch with biology you should look for a different hobby. something simpler. maybe try astrology?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >already told you, the gene for feather expression is present globally in the chicken
                yes, the study proves that.

                we're talking about the gene for scale production, which is present only in the legs and faces.

                earlier you claimed it should be possible to create a completely scaled chicken. You now seem to realize that's wrong.

                what else are you wrong about that you haven't yet admitted?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >what else are you wrong about that you haven't yet admitted?
                rhetorical question, I'm not going to stick around and read the answer.

                have a good evening.

                >so why does it produce scales in the feet but nowhere else?
                BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS FOR IT MATCH IN THAT REGION! BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER GENES THAT CODE HOW THINGS WORK UNDER PRESENSE/ABSCENSE OF THIS GENE.

                >suggested that the genes for expression of scales were lost everywhere but the feet
                I don't think that's accurate, we are not viruses, we don't shed DNA that easily. we operate by adding layers of suppressors/expressors. at least, there are no proof in this particular case and it's really unlikely to have happened.

                >if we say they never needed feathers on the feet, then why do the scales become feathers there when SHH is expressed? If they never evolved to be feathers, that shouldn't even be possible. If they evolved to be feathered, then the scales came from feathers.
                already told you, the gene for feather expression is present globally in the chicken. the genes that regulate it not so much, including the sonic gene and many others involved - some are global, some are active in just some areas.

                >the genes already prove which scenario is true. The scales become feathers because they used to be feathers
                they prove no such thing. in fact, this claim is so out of touch with biology you should look for a different hobby. something simpler. maybe try astrology?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The scales become feathers because they used to be feathers
                no. scales evolved first, they are at more basal layer than feathers. when things are developing all sorts of genes tap in to shape the development. layears upon layers, initial layers initiate scale development, while further layers can either stop scale development, kickstart feather development, stop feather development, kickstart scale development again, or a collection of those functions. that is exactly what happening. by defusing a single regulator you tamper with the order of things and different results emerge based on circumstances of other genes involved.

                >we're talking about the gene for scale production, which is present only in the legs and faces.
                it's not a scale-producing gene. it's merely a regulator, whos presence or abscense in that region results in scale expression.

                >earlier you claimed it should be possible to create a completely scaled chicken. You now seem to realize that's wrong.
                no that is still very much theoretically possible, but geometric magnitude of layers more difficult to accomplish

                >what else are you wrong about that you haven't yet admitted?
                nothing. you are a moron, end of story.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                youre really this stupid arent you
                >its been already said that scales and feathers are formed from the same gene, a second gene controls whether not it expresses into scales or feathers, they dont have this gene for their body that expresses into scales anymore, only their legs, so it takes a fourth gene to suppress the second gene so the third gene can stay as scales
                this means thats
                >gene 1 produces structures that can produce feathers or scales, as humans we have this same gene but thats irrelevant
                >gene 2 tells gene 1 to produce X. X being either scales, feathers, or whatever, bird have changed this gene to produce feathers instead of scales
                >gene 3 produces scales on their feet it can do this because gene 1 exists, but because gene 2 exists it will override gene 3
                >thus gene 4 exists to suppress gene 2 so gene 3 can express

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >they dont have this gene for their body that expresses into scales anymore, only their legs
                yes, that's the point where you went wrong.

                How did they lose the gene to produce scales on the entire body except for the face and legs?

                and how did they gain the gene to create feathers in those same areas if they never had feathers there?

                Why have a useless gene to suppress feather growth in one area if they never had feathers there to begin with? At that point, why not just lose the gene to express feathers on the legs instead of losing the gene to express scales on the rest of the body?

                do you see the problem? The reason they suppress feather growth on the legs is BECAUSE THEY USED TO HAVE FEATHERS THERE.

                Meaning those scales evolved from feathers.

                it went scales to feathers and then to different scales.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >as humans we have this same gene but thats irrelevant
                it's extremely relevant because in humans the gene that produces feathers or scales in birds actually codes for differentiation of the brain, pairing of the eyes, nostrils, teeth, and facial bones. It also codes for pentadactyly/polydactyly. It doesn't code for feathers because we never evolved feathers, and it doesn't code for scales because we lost the genes to produce scales.

                when a human is born with scales, those are a new structure, not an atavistic one. Because just like birds, we lost the genes for ancestral scales entirely.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                This is an extremely simplistic view of gene expression. What you're saying doesn't mean that that gene whose moronic name I refuse to repeat codes for "ancestral traits".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                when I tell you a pangolin evolved scales convergently from hair, not as atavisms, you have no problem with that because you have no emotional stake in the argument

                when I say dinosaurs did the same thing you suddenly come up with a million reasons it can't happen because you have an emotional stake in the argument.

                stop being an emotional b***h and realize if mammals can convergently evolve scales after hair, birds can certainly do the same with feathers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >gene 2 tells gene 1 to produce X. X being either scales, feathers, or whatever, bird have changed this gene to produce feathers instead of scales
                >gene 3 produces scales on their feet it can do this because gene 1 exists, but because gene 2 exists it will override gene 3
                youre really this moronic, schizo.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you admit that a gene cannot produce a structure that has never evolved on that area

                so if the gene can produce either scales or feathers on the foot, that means the foot has evolved both feathers and scales.

                and again
                >pangolins do it, no problem
                >birds do it, paleoschizo has a stroke

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >gene 1 produces structures that can produce feathers or scales, as humans we have this same gene but thats irrelevant
                >gene 2 tells gene 1 to produce X. X being either scales, feathers, or whatever, bird have changed this gene to produce feathers instead of scales
                >gene 3 produces scales on their feet it can do this because gene 1 exists, but because gene 2 exists it will override gene 3
                >thus gene 4 exists to suppress gene 2 so gene 3 can express
                finally you agree with me, took you long enough, moron.
                but
                >that means the foot has evolved both feathers and scales.
                this is not a true statement, because feathers and scales are mutually exclusive traits. to say one evolved from the other is not a true statement, because theyre derived from the same structure they just develop them differently, the correct statement is that scales and feathers have evolved from the epidermis

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm curious what you make of the pangolin that secondarily evolved scales after hair.

                do you insist that pangolin scales are actually reptile scales that were previously suppressed?

                again, I'm not arguing with you since i already know you're wrong. I'm curious how you handle proof that you're wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                outcome is the same, starting point is different, same principle as porcupine quills or armadillo shells
                i dont see what mammals have to do with with reptiles, schizo, we are 318 million years removed from them

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >i dont see what mammals have to do with with reptiles, schizo, we are 318 million years removed from them
                the first evidence of bird scales on the feet is modern. 318 million years AFTER the divergence you mention.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >mammals convergently evolve scales
                >yeah so what?
                >birds convergently evolve scales
                >NO THAT'S FRICKING IMPOSSIBLE IT CAN'T HAPPEN!!!!!11

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody has a problem with it because it's clearly what happened. Anyone arguing against it would be a moron.

                >when I say dinosaurs did the same thing
                Because dinosaurs FRICKING LITERALLY DID NOT do the same thing and your lack of understanding of the structure of dinosaur scales, feathers and pangolin "scales" is actually pretty startling. Pangolin scales are fused hair, dinosaur scales are not fused feathers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >How did they lose the gene to produce scales on the entire body except for the face and legs?
                >bird have changed this gene to produce feathers instead of scales

                >Meaning those scales evolved from feathers
                >gene 1 produces structures that can produce feathers or scales

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >they dont have this gene for their body that expresses into scales anymore, only their legs
                yes, that's the point where you went wrong.

                How did they lose the gene to produce scales on the entire body except for the face and legs?

                and how did they gain the gene to create feathers in those same areas if they never had feathers there?

                Why have a useless gene to suppress feather growth in one area if they never had feathers there to begin with? At that point, why not just lose the gene to express feathers on the legs instead of losing the gene to express scales on the rest of the body?

                do you see the problem? The reason they suppress feather growth on the legs is BECAUSE THEY USED TO HAVE FEATHERS THERE.

                Meaning those scales evolved from feathers.

                it went scales to feathers and then to different scales.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >gene 1 produces structures that can produce feathers or scales
                sure, but we're talking location

                they don't grow feathers out their eyeballs because their eyeballs never evolved feathers

                they don't grow feathers out their beaks, because their beaks never evolved feathers

                why do they grow feathers out their feet?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Again, your reasoning is flawed. They don't grow feathers out their eyeballs or beaks because they never had SCALES in those areas.

                you admit that a gene cannot produce a structure that has never evolved on that area

                so if the gene can produce either scales or feathers on the foot, that means the foot has evolved both feathers and scales.

                and again
                >pangolins do it, no problem
                >birds do it, paleoschizo has a stroke

                >you admit that a gene cannot produce a structure that has never evolved on that area
                I defy this argument. I think it's the total opposite.

                >mammals convergently evolve scales
                >yeah so what?
                >birds convergently evolve scales
                >NO THAT'S FRICKING IMPOSSIBLE IT CAN'T HAPPEN!!!!!11

                Totally different structures. They're only called the same thing due to colloquialism. It's like saying geese have evolved teeth because their beaks have serrations. They're a totally different structure than actual teeth.

                >There are specific evolutionary lineages to these integumentary structures.
                kek

                I love it when you try to redefine words to win an argument. You understand nobody thinks dinosaur scales, bird scales, and snake scales all share a common descent?

                I'm not redefining words, I'm stressing the need for specificity and frankly we NEED new words for these structures. Calling what pangolins have "scales" gives a very false impression that these structures bear any relation to fish or reptile scales, which are also totally different structures from one another.

                I love that when you disagree with every single scientist alive you think they're wrong and not you. You have an innate talent for calling bullshit without ever looking at a single fossil or spending a day in a school learning about them.

                but you are insane, so delusions of grandeur are your thing. Luckily you're trapped here where nobody has to read your masturbatory ramblings.

                Well I mean the state of the world alone proves that the majority of "experts" are wrong. We have all the resources to make this world a paradise for everyone, yet it's a hell that's getting worse every year. I most certainly DO NOT Trust the Experts™. This age is far too decrepit and dysfunctional for appeals to authority to even bear a resemblance to an actual argument.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the claim of the authors is one gene is producing feathers which means another gene is suppressing that gene, to look beyond that is literally your opinion

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the claim of the authors is one gene is producing feathers which means another gene is suppressing that gene
                actually they're both the same gene.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                it's not the gene itself, it's whatever regulating expression/suppression of other genes. jesus christ this isn't that hard you dumbass.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                getting closer

                the production of scales or feathers is actually caused by dozens of different genes

                a single gene regulates the expression of all those other genes.

                this single gene is called sonic hedgehog

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                not really, it's not that simple. your sonic gene is merely the top layer gene. by tampering with it you can turn the process in any way, just like I explained here

                not exactly how that works. you seem to lack basic understanding of how gene suppression works:

                1. gene suppression works in layers
                2. most of the time a trait has multiple genes working together to regulate how much, where, and what type of suppression it is, so it could be many genes that result in the feather gene being turned off locally on feet. the more genes are active in the subject the more intricate and harder to achieve the task becomes. maybe turning the scales on feet into feathers is just 1 gene. maybe doing anything else includes tampering with a whole range of processes and genes.

                the layers are as follow, each row represents a gene (ideally just one):
                A. scales (produces scales)
                B. scales -> feathers (facilites production of feathers from scales)
                C. scales -x-> feathers (stops production of feathers from scales)

                in a chicken:
                A layer is active in all body
                B layer is active in all body
                C layer is active in a few regions, including feet

                by tampering with the C layer [suppressing] we can undo whatever it is that's preventing the scales on feet from turning into feathers

                by tampering with the C layer [expressing] we can (theoretically) broaden it's expression area into working in other regions of the body, theoretically producing a completely scaly chicken

                by tampering with the B layer [suppressing] we can theoretically turn off feather production globally and theoretically produce a completely scaly chicken as well

                >by tampering with the C layer [suppressing] we can undo whatever it is that's preventing the scales on feet from turning into feathers
                >by tampering with the C layer [expressing] we can (theoretically) broaden it's expression area into working in other regions of the body, theoretically producing a completely scaly chicken

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >by tampering with the C layer [expressing] we can (theoretically) broaden it's expression area into working in other regions of the body, theoretically producing a completely scaly chicken
                yes, I have already posted another paper itt showing that that is NOT what happens.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                again, this was just a simple basic explanation of how things work, real life isn';t that simple, but it follows those exact rules. expression/suppression is everything, and whatever is on top regulates the outcome.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >expression/suppression is everything, and whatever is on top regulates the outcome.
                so far we agree...

                how do you deal with the fact that suppressing sonic hedgehog in the feet produces scales, while suppressing it everywhere else produces feathers?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                what part of [mountain of genes] do you not understand? it's hard to untangle that mess and figure out what exactly controls/causes what. there are numerous other genes and their expressions working, maybe a layer even higher than the sonic gene. by turning off the regulator you can get various different results based on how the rest of the genes stack without it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >it's hard to untangle that mess and figure out what exactly controls/causes what.
                I thought the authors of the paper did an excellent job of that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                thats not how genetics work, theres a lot of gene that limit and control growths, thats why cancer exists, because the genes that control growth are damaged or gone

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                not exactly how that works. you seem to lack basic understanding of how gene suppression works:

                1. gene suppression works in layers
                2. most of the time a trait has multiple genes working together to regulate how much, where, and what type of suppression it is, so it could be many genes that result in the feather gene being turned off locally on feet. the more genes are active in the subject the more intricate and harder to achieve the task becomes. maybe turning the scales on feet into feathers is just 1 gene. maybe doing anything else includes tampering with a whole range of processes and genes.

                the layers are as follow, each row represents a gene (ideally just one):
                A. scales (produces scales)
                B. scales -> feathers (facilites production of feathers from scales)
                C. scales -x-> feathers (stops production of feathers from scales)

                in a chicken:
                A layer is active in all body
                B layer is active in all body
                C layer is active in a few regions, including feet

                by tampering with the C layer [suppressing] we can undo whatever it is that's preventing the scales on feet from turning into feathers

                by tampering with the C layer [expressing] we can (theoretically) broaden it's expression area into working in other regions of the body, theoretically producing a completely scaly chicken

                by tampering with the B layer [suppressing] we can theoretically turn off feather production globally and theoretically produce a completely scaly chicken as well

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I think a fact that a lot of people are missing is that this hormone frickery only works on the FEET of birds. Now let's think about this. What is the only area of a modern bird that looks different integument-wise from a Mesozoic Theropod? The body. If anything this only reinforces that birds never gained feathers on their feet. It's like birds abandoned scale expression on their bodies so long ago it's literally irretrievable, but if their bodies are now fine-tuned for making feathers, they've had to spend millions of years making sure their feet didn't do what their bodies did. This is a FAR more reasonable theory than all this troony madness.

                >that's the point of the study.
                it's literally not. the study is bullshit rambling by a bunch of morons who don't know what they found and are assuming nonsense if that's the case. scales do not form from feathers. feathers form from scales, because the scales is the more basal thing.

                Correct. That's why we can't tell shit about dinosaurs from modern genetics and anyone claiming otherwise is a fricking moron.

                the authors literally say what I said. by suppressing the gene they are able to keratinize feather buds, by expressing the gene they are able to convert reticula into feather buds. just what I said 1:1. I think you simply lack reading comprehension and can't wrap your head about what's being talked about, and are assuming nonsense.

                What madness would possess someone to believe that once birds evolved feathers from scales they wouldn't have an entire whole-body solution to changing embryonic scales to feathers and would need some sort of biochemical mechanisms to PREVENT their feet from doing this? How is this not obvious to everyone?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Dude I hate to sound rude but I think you fundamentally misunderstand how genetics works like on a basic undergrad level. The other anon has very clearly explained how this works and it makes perfect sense.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The other anon has very clearly explained how this works and it makes perfect sense
                I was working him around to the point that the suppression only happens in the feet, nowhere else

                which doesn't make any sense at all
                in fact it's moronic. He can't explain it because it's not true.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >are you clinically moronic
              Most modern "paleontologists" are, yes. Basically the only way a paper about dinosaurs gets published at this point is if it's obviously wrong.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I mean if you were right, all we'd have to do is find the gene that suppresses transitions from scales to feathers and activated it, and we'd have chickens covered with scales instead of feathers.

          this is impossible because no such gene exists. We can only cause scales on the feet to turn into feathers, we can't cause feathers on the body to turn into scales. Because the feathers on the body either never were scales, or the gene to suppress feather growth from scales was lost.

          meaning the only possible interpretation is that leg scales evolved from feathers.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Funny how nobody can ever do this. Everyone keeps turning scales into feathers then claiming it's proof scales come from feathers, but nobody can make a scaled chicken. If anything this only demonstrates the path is one-way and it follows the traditional interpretation of feather evolution, not this new batshit one.

            >meaning the only possible interpretation is that leg scales evolved from feathers.
            Lolwut this is some pilpul bullshit right here.

            On the more technical side,

            activating the sonic hedgehog pathway in any animal can only produce ancestral embryological states. It cannot advance evolution, only reverse it.

            which means when they activate SHH and the scales turn into feathers, they are reverting to a former state. Literally proving that they evolved from feathers.

            This is why scientists no longer consider the evolution of feathers to scales a question. It has been solved, it has been essentially proven.

            What a stupid post. Literally "the science is settled". So too was the science settled on sauropods living in lakes. And that dinosaurs couldn't run or jump. Or that they couldn't get any larger than X and then we find something larger than X.

            >that fact that no bird has ever done this even though some would presumably benefit from it, indicates it is impossible
            And it doesn't even need to be beneficial.

            Atavistic defects are extremely common from disruption of sonic hedgehog. So the fact that no birds with a defect turning feathers into scales have been observed in literally hundreds of billions of bird hatchings indicates feathers either didn't evolve from scales, or birds lost the gene for atavistic scale expression entirely.

            >indicates feathers either didn't evolve from scales, or birds lost the gene for atavistic scale expression entirely.
            which again supports the idea that scales on the legs, feet, and faces of birds are not atavistic.

            they are derived, they evolved from feathers.

            You have it totally backwards, as usual, moron.

            >indicates feathers either didn't evolve from scales, or birds lost the gene for atavistic scale expression entirely.
            which again supports the idea that scales on the legs, feet, and faces of birds are not atavistic.

            they are derived, they evolved from feathers.

            So what did the feathers on their bodies evolve from?

            Suppressing sonic hedgehog in humans causes failure to differentiate forebrain and face. Because human ancestors had undifferentiated forebrains and faces. It causes reversion to previous evolutionary states, it cannot produce new ones.

            Lol I can't tell if this is a joke post or not. Paleothreads are so full of moronation.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              [...]

              [...]

              I think a fact that a lot of people are missing is that this hormone frickery only works on the FEET of birds. Now let's think about this. What is the only area of a modern bird that looks different integument-wise from a Mesozoic Theropod? The body. If anything this only reinforces that birds never gained feathers on their feet. It's like birds abandoned scale expression on their bodies so long ago it's literally irretrievable, but if their bodies are now fine-tuned for making feathers, they've had to spend millions of years making sure their feet didn't do what their bodies did. This is a FAR more reasonable theory than all this troony madness.

              [...]
              Correct. That's why we can't tell shit about dinosaurs from modern genetics and anyone claiming otherwise is a fricking moron.

              [...]
              What madness would possess someone to believe that once birds evolved feathers from scales they wouldn't have an entire whole-body solution to changing embryonic scales to feathers and would need some sort of biochemical mechanisms to PREVENT their feet from doing this? How is this not obvious to everyone?

              what did he mean by this?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          On the more technical side,

          activating the sonic hedgehog pathway in any animal can only produce ancestral embryological states. It cannot advance evolution, only reverse it.

          which means when they activate SHH and the scales turn into feathers, they are reverting to a former state. Literally proving that they evolved from feathers.

          This is why scientists no longer consider the evolution of feathers to scales a question. It has been solved, it has been essentially proven.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that's how that actually works

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              sure it is

              blocking the development of a feature can't produce a new feature. It can only produce a previous one. Blocking the development of bird scales doesn't cause new feathers to form. It causes the scales to become feathers because that's what they originally were.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              this is the basis of the entire study of embryology.

              we can tell how an animal evolved to some extent by how it develops in the womb or egg. Stopping a feature from developing leaves it in an earlier evolutionary state. Human embryos have gill slits and a tail because human ancestors had gill slits and tails, not because humans are evolving tails and gills.

              stopping development of a feature can only produce an earlier state, it can't produce new features.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Suppressing sonic hedgehog in humans causes failure to differentiate forebrain and face. Because human ancestors had undifferentiated forebrains and faces. It causes reversion to previous evolutionary states, it cannot produce new ones.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Pics of this happening? Does the resulting mutant look like some kind of surviving Erectus?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Saying that is like saying that jaws arise from gills and suppressing the right gene causes them to fail to differentiate. The resulting structure is just a poorly formed flesh blob of a face because the versions of genes and controlling genes required to make the tissue a functional structure have been repurposed or lost. The embryos were aborted before forming further.

                The more interesting thing it teaches us is that some variations in facial structure can predict variations in forebrain structure, so if you ever thought there was schizo face, autist face, gay face, troony face, psycho face, nerd face, jock face, etc...
                You were right. You were so right that photos of peoples faces can be used to diagnose aspergers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Does the resulting mutant look like some kind of surviving Erectus?
                it goes much further back than that. Back before we had 2 eyes and lots of paired facial bones.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              because thats not how that works, evolution literally says that birds evolved from reptiles, and reptiles have scales first, thats the layman explanation
              on the real technical side, as proving what we already know, the shh gene is NOT activated in the feet, for reasons; the paper demonstrated that by injecting the smoothened agonist to specifically promote shh signal into the embryo it causes feathers to develop. this means that birds have genes that produce a hormone prevent the shh expression in their feet at certain stages in embryonic development, as shh expression promotes feather growth. after shh expression the animal basically maintains that state permanently post embryonic development.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I see you didn't read anything I wrote.

                I'll keep it short this time. If you're right suppression of SHH should result in all feathers turning to scales, on the whole body.

                that doesn't happen because you are not right.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Here's what actually happens if you suppress sonic hedgehog in chickens:

                >https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/147/9/e0902/223174/Sonic-hedgehog-helps-feathers-take-flight

                flight feathers become downy feathers, and downy feathers don't change. This is because Shh suppression can only produce an earlier evolutionary state, and flight feathers evolved from downy feathers.

                downy feathers don't turn into scales, either because they didn't evolve from scales in the first place, or because the genes for scale expression were lost.
                this again proves that scales on bird legs evolved from feathers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                frick the autist who named this gene lmao

                mother frickers out there who have to be told they have sonic hedgehog cancer

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >mother frickers out there who have to be told they have sonic hedgehog cancer
                kek
                death laughs at us all. All you can do is laugh back

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It also proves that feathers/filamentous integument are ancestral to scales in Avemetatarsalia

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                maybe.
                as birds prove, you can have both at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.

                The fact that most non-avian avemetatarsalians had scales without feathers/fur is a problem for the idea that still hasn't been sufficiently explained.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Your biggest mistake here is the idea defeats your argument about Tyrannosaurus feathers.

          If all it takes is a single gene to suppress growth of feathers from scales, then T. rex didn't need to evolve scales from feathers. It just needed a single mutation at the SHH pathway and it would magically turn back into a scaled animal in a single generation. Atavistic scales would be much faster and easier to evolve than feathers to scales.

          that fact that no bird has ever done this even though some would presumably benefit from it, indicates it is impossible. This impossibility is confirmed by genetic studies failing to find any such mechanism available.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >that fact that no bird has ever done this even though some would presumably benefit from it, indicates it is impossible
            And it doesn't even need to be beneficial.

            Atavistic defects are extremely common from disruption of sonic hedgehog. So the fact that no birds with a defect turning feathers into scales have been observed in literally hundreds of billions of bird hatchings indicates feathers either didn't evolve from scales, or birds lost the gene for atavistic scale expression entirely.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >indicates feathers either didn't evolve from scales, or birds lost the gene for atavistic scale expression entirely.
              which again supports the idea that scales on the legs, feet, and faces of birds are not atavistic.

              they are derived, they evolved from feathers.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You think your idea defeats feathered rex by making it impossible for feathers to turn to scales.

          all it actually does is makes it much easier.
          as usual you didn't really think it through.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Kill self

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            be kind

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    isnt it depicting the opposite? scales being turned into feathers?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what in gods name is this supposed to show

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He thinks it proves dinosaur scales come from feathers, therefore all dinosaurs have feathers. He's an idiot.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        literally nobody itt

        it does prove bird scales came from feathers, therefore all birds have feathers.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >literally nobody itt
          Literally every single moron arguing this "scales from feathers" bullshit. This is like claiming that a guy that publishes a paper on the virtues of raping women and has a long criminal history of raping women isn't advocating for raping women because technically the term "rape" doesn't appear in his pro-raping women paper.

          Absolutely nobody is fooled by this shit. You've sure as hell been on this kick long enough everyone is already tired of it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I like to respond to one or two of your comments when you're having an episode so I can go back and see when you get banned

            enjoy your day you fricking nutjob

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Shut up, c**t. I think the problem with blue boards is that they're the only ones that allow women to post.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                kek

                some woman shit in your cheerios this morning?

                WRONG. Painfully wrong. No Ornithischian has feathers. Not a single one. Tianyulong and the unnamed Psittacosaurus died on plant remains which have been misidentified. Nothing about Kulindadromeus can honestly be called feathers and it's "integument" looks eerily like something a plant would also produce. The same is true of Longisquama. This appears to be a common mistake in Mesozoic "feather" studies that resists correction because it goes against the pop culture of current year. True fact: every single "Longisquama" fossil contains zero animal remains except the one and consists of nothing but likely fern fronds.

                >every single "Longisquama" fossil contains zero animal remains except the one and consists of nothing but likely fern fronds.
                all of them? The same fern fronds in the same places every time?
                what are the odds of that happening?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Don't respond so stupidly without actually knowing about the thing you're replying about. Go look up the Longuisquama fossils. There aren't that many of them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I've seen a few. We ran one by the most respected paleobotanist in the world and he agreed those aren't fern fronds.

                but you seem to be the expert. And you're known for never making things up completely and then lying about them for years. So I'm sure you're right and my friend the botanist is wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >We ran one by the most respected paleobotanist in the world and he agreed those aren't fern fronds.
                Then he's an idiot. Paleontologists in this era are typically wrong. That seems to be the norm.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Then he's an idiot.
                an idiot that runs the Smithsonian

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That's about standard. The head of any biological organization like a zoo or aquarium should be expected to be an incompetent moron at this point. I don't know what possessed you to think america is a meritocracy other than having a pussy which makes you believe that anyone with authority is infallible.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I love that when you disagree with every single scientist alive you think they're wrong and not you. You have an innate talent for calling bullshit without ever looking at a single fossil or spending a day in a school learning about them.

                but you are insane, so delusions of grandeur are your thing. Luckily you're trapped here where nobody has to read your masturbatory ramblings.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >paleontologists find a feathered dromaeosaur in Mongolia
                “that’s right next to China, ignore the fact a European found the fossil. Paleontologists don’t know what they’re doing”
                >paleontologists identify Psittacosaurus composite as a fraud
                “see! trust the paleontologists, they clearly demonstrated that this case agrees with my views”

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Paleontologists don’t know what they’re doing
                Modern """paleontologist"""? Absolutely not. I just watched a talk on some dumb bint naming a new Ceratopsian and she literally only knew the Ceratopsians of one fricking state. I can name almost every Ceratopsian ever named off the top of my head and I don't even have a degree in paleontology. This is a level incompetence that is at once totally unacceptable as well as all too common.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I can name almost every Ceratopsian ever named off the top of my head and I don't even have a degree in paleontology
                Congrats, you have a level of knowledge rivalling that of even the most autistic kindergarteners. I’m sorry to say that knowing the names of as many dinosaurs as possible has 0 value in paleontology

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kys pathetic homosexual

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Wait what? There are people that think that feathers evolved INTO scales?
        What sort of fricking ass backwards moronation is this?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >There are people that think that feathers evolved INTO scales?
          I mean this was established in zoology in the 1700's, maybe earlier.
          you can literally see the feathers on chicken legs transition to scales complete with intermediate forms over the distance of the leg.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Oh that's the mainstream view now. At least for modern bird feet. But they try to apply it to all feathers. Welcome to babby's first witnessing of how insane modern paleontology is.

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