Featherbros when do we start winning again?

Featherbros when do we start winning again?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Simply put:

    Sauropsid Plaques = NOT SCALES
    They did not yet produce the Beta Ketarin proteins that produce scales OR feathers.
    Theros in likely retained their plaques well past 200ma.

    It's how you get late Cretacean scaled raptors despite them being a majority feathered clade. It's how the yuta in happened despite tyrannos being a majority scaled clade.

    In all likeliness these sauropsid plaques disappeared among theropods somewhere between 200ma and 100ma from the evolutionary pressure of their specialized scaled and feathered descendants.

    In conclusion:

    * Anyone who says dinosaurs "lost" their feathers is an idiot who doesn't understand evolution of organs happens.
    * Anyone who says dinosaurs started out with REPTILIAN SCALES is an idiot who doesn't understand how the biochemical qualities of reptilian scales wouldn't permit the development of feathers.

    tl;dr fuck paleoschizo AND fuck TV archeologists who don't cross reference their finds with biology research and just pull shit out their ass

    someone with a tablet please redraw this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Of all the stupid shit, this is one of THE STUPIDEST bullshit """theories""" to come out of nufag paleontology.

      >Oh yes, you see, amphibians (which don't exist) just sprouted feathers and then others just sprouted scales
      >Ignore the fact that feathers don't exist until the jurassic period and are only found in a small cluster of Theropods

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the fuck do amphibians have to do with anything said here.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I realize your generation is too retarded to understand this, but sometimes when two amphibians love each other very much, they produce a reptile. And reptiles had scales LONG before the split with Synapsids.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ...there's an 100 million years gap between amphibians and sauropsids.
            This non-reptilian bad boy here is from 300ma and is definitely not an amphibian.

            And again this has nothing to do with the topic.
            Back to grade school with you.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's a reptile. Nobody cares if you cladist retards like it or not. Again, unless you're suggesting a polytomy directly from amphibians, the division between Sauropsida and Synapsida is just as illusory as all the other paraphyletic groupings you lose your shit over.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >That's a reptile.
              No.

              I'm seriously kekking irl at your idea that reptiles and amphibians are directly related.
              Can you even give a description of what a reptile is?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Non-aquatic amphibians

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm seriously kekking irl at your idea that reptiles and amphibians are directly related
                Where do you think reptiles came from? God damn, nufag paleopseuds have some fucking witchcraft tier beliefs about evolution of tetrapods.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Where do you think reptiles came from?
                Sauropsids then Amniotes.

                Both groups existed for millions of years in habitats that Amphibians could not live in.

                Do you think sapiens sapiens happened straight out of erectus?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Sauropsids then Amniotes
                Wait what?

                >Both groups existed for millions of years in habitats that Amphibians could not live in.
                It is my pleasure to inform you that early Synapsids had scales, just like early hurr durr "Sauropsids". My guess would be that early amphibians developed toadlike skins which keratinized into scales at some point when they permanently divorced from water. The split between Synapsid and Sauropsid almost certainly did not occur before the establishment of scaly reptiles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Wait what?
                amphibians -> amniotes -> sauropsids -> reptiles

                it isn't rocket science. you need sauropsids to exist else you don't get dinosaurs

                >It is my pleasure to inform you that early Synapsids had scales
                It says right there on the paper posted that mammals have the same aminoacid base that led to the development of scales in modern reptiles without developing the mechanism that led to the tissue that creates modern scales. aka they have a common ancestors that wasn't scales.

                >toadlike skins
                toads are completely removed for the reptilian branch of the evolutionary tree you utter retard.

                >almost certainly did not occur before the establishment of scaly reptiles.
                Again, research into the protein makeup of reptiles and analysis of their in vitro development shows sauropsid scales can not be considered reptilian scales.
                Evidence? You cannot grow feathers out of reptilian scales. There aminoacids necessary that are simply gone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >amniotes -> sauropsids
                You switched these two before.

                >It says right there on the paper posted that mammals have the same aminoacid base that led to the development of scales in modern reptiles without developing the mechanism that led to the tissue that creates modern scales. aka they have a common ancestors that wasn't scales.
                Yeah. Amphibians, dipshit. I assure you once they permanently became terrestrial, they had scales.

                >toads are completely removed for the reptilian branch of the evolutionary tree you utter retard.
                You really are dumb as shit. You're clearly actually autistic. You have no ability to use analogy or comparison. Everything is direct and literal to you.

                Stop talking about "proteins" of shit that's been dead since before dinosaurs were thought of. That's enough of this fraud bullshit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You switched these two before.
                Seems you can't read. [descends from ]sauropsids, then amniotes.

                >Yeah. Amphibians
                not mentioned at all in the abstract. Amphibians don't produce alpha or beta keratin.

                >I assure you once they permanently became terrestrial, they had scales.
                Instantly, as if by magic?
                You NEED amniotes to happen for reptiles to happen because evolution doesn't happen in seconds. Amphibians and reptiles are simply too far apart on a biochemical level to descend directly from the other.

                That's your problem, you think scales happen in the span of a few generation. More like the span of a couple hundred species. And those species are called amniotes and sauropsids.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >not mentioned at all in the abstract. Amphibians don't produce alpha or beta keratin.
                No, you retard. That's literally where reptiles come from. Stop getting hung up on this shit and learn to fucking extrapolate. You fucking morons can do that just fine when you're making up bullshit stories about feathers. I don't grasp why you can't do this for LITERALLY ANYTHING other than feathergayry.

                >Instantly, as if by magic?
                What makes you think the transition to permanent terrestrialism was anything resembling "instant"?

                >That's your problem, you think scales happen in the span of a few generation
                Literally nobody said that you fucking retard.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Literally nobody said that you fucking retard.
                > but sometimes when two amphibians love each other very much, they produce a reptile.
                forgetting your posts eh?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's that autistic literalism acting up again.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In order to justify your feather paranoia you are saying
                >DINOSAURS STARTED OUT WITH SCALES
                i'm telling you "no those scales are nothing like modern scales"
                and you go straight
                >NUH UH DINOSAURS ARE REPTILES THOSE ARE REPTILE SCALES
                and when people flat out prove you wrong you start to rant about amphibians for no apparent reason

                in short you are an idiot

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >"no those scales are nothing like modern scales"
                Nobody cares.

                >DINOSAURS ARE REPTILES THOSE ARE REPTILE SCALES
                Correct. Reptiles naturally have scales. All reptiles have different morphologies for them. What the fuck of it? That doesn't mean they evolved separately 2000 times.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Nobody cares.
                >

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That doesn't mean they evolved separately 2000 times.
                They literally did.
                Crocodiles have completely different proteinic make up than other reptiles, they are are totally different.
                Guess what? Crocs are dinosaurian descendants

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. Now shut up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Make me, cuck.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Sauropsids then Amniotes.
                Oh, so you mean animals we used to call reptiles and then arbitrarily stopped? Way to disprove his point anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >and then arbitrarily stopped?
                over 50 years ago...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nope.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >sapiens sapiens
                basedface.jpg
                Anyways sauropsida are a subgroup of Amniotes.They definetely did not evolve from 'sauropsids then amniotes'. If you want to be a hairsplitting smartass at least do it right.
                And both are part of the clade 'reptiliomorpha'.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >someone with a tablet please redraw this.
      I got you.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is this new faggy game some retard plays where he posts random fossils with the wrong or no name and everyone else is supposed to figure it what specific fucking specimen it is?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Source?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry sweetie, how do you know this individual didn't die in a forest fire, the feathers could have simply burned off.?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What species?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Feathers were basically just a small and medium sized theropod thing.

    We're not even sure if all theropods came from the feathered ones. There could have been two lineages. Paleontologists love their hubris and trying to construct family trees when they've found a fraction of the number of species that would have likely existed based on the diversity we see today.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      evolutionists in general
      >find the earliest animal that seems to be related to thing
      >THING EVOLVED FROM THIS!
      >meanwhile in the past
      >thing evolved from a distant cousin of that

      fuck the fossil record could be completely and utterly fucked by the presence of an intelligent but not industrialized species with burial practices that ensured they did not fossilize

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        kek are you the /bigfoot/ guy?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No I’m one of the Bigfoot guys and he’s retarded.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's no way there's any good evidence for bigfoot. What's available is absolute contrived horseshit.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You’re wrong but it’s that’s a discussion for another time. I don’t know why you get so upset about a subject you don’t even care to look into?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Actually, that would probably ensure they WERE fossilized at times.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Species evolves intelligence
        >Makes industrial machinery and buildings from durable materials
        >Destroys it all and cremates all their dead just to fuck with schizos in millions of years
        Seems likely

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Paleontologists love their hubris
      Uh oh. Sounds like someone is not Trusting the Science. Fall into line, chud!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Weirdo.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Feathered Theropods are a small branch of Theropods that started in the Jurassic. Scales is the initial state, not feathers. I can't believe I have to keep repeating this about fucking reptiles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Scales is absolutely the initial state of all dinosaurs. Feathers evolved from scales. BUT ALSO, feathers are able to evolve into scales. AND, most importantly, there is clearly an entire line of theropods that NEVER ONCE HAD FEATHERS, ANYWHERE, and we are just missing their ancestor, because if this does not exist T-rex did what birds did to their legs across its entire body without one transitional form found.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >BUT ALSO, feathers are able to evolve into scales.
          Stop this bullshit.

          You’re wrong but it’s that’s a discussion for another time. I don’t know why you get so upset about a subject you don’t even care to look into?

          Most of cryptozoology - like 98.9% is lazy and obvious fraud. It's insulting. It's always:

          "We have a specimen!"
          Can I see it?
          "No we lost it, but we have a blurry photograph."

          or

          "We have a photograph!"
          Can I see it?
          "No, we lost it."

          Cryptozoologists are such clumsy people. Always "losing" the most valuable finds in the history of the world. Amazing really, how often it happens.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Stop this bullshit.
            Why would I stop it
            WHEN
            IT
            IS
            OBJECTIVELY
            TRUE?

            You’re wrong but it’s that’s a discussion for another time. I don’t know why you get so upset about a subject you don’t even care to look into?

            And this is objectively false. Yes it was a suit. Deal with it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The PGF film was absolutely bullshit. Their "unique bigfoot gait" walked like a fat man struggling with ankle braces and doing a monkey impression. The "bigfoot proportions" are explained by a common fursuit making trick - false joints - which are only revealed by extreme movements, which they avoided. It was also made by gays who were trying to make a living off bigfoot. A labor of love but definitely a hoax.

              However, someone once found DNA that appeared to belong to a chimpanzee in american forests. It's likely the last of these animals are either dead or have been for a while, or it's one family all living in a cave system.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >However, someone once found DNA that appeared to belong to a chimpanzee in american forests.
                aye, so me grannie told me back in the day
                yes she di indeed

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.nkytribune.com/2021/03/kentuckys-deep-forests-could-hide-piece-of-the-bigfoot-puzzle-investigators-discover-possible-dna/

                A close relative of the chimpanzee. Not a hominid. Likely looks something like a gorilla. Likely nearly extinct.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                aye me grannie is from ol kentuck, so we all are

                I member her rocking on the porch telling me the story. "Not a homo-kneed" she said so she di. Muh grannie weighs a metric ton so I dinna argue wit her. I just asked her who fixed her rockin chair since granpapy passed on and she asked
                "wut rockin chair"?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >retard, when btfo, acts like a retard
                who could have predicted this?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Scales is the initial state, not feathers.
        neither, theropod skin wasn't specialized enough to have anything resembling modern reptilian scales or modern bird feathers.

        >saurians
        >reptile
        retard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >this post

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what do you think feathers 200ka looked like?

            hint: quills weren't a thing

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're literally denying dinosaurs had scales. You're trying to sit on the fence so hard you're breaking your ass.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                people have already showed evidence that scales and feathers had a common ancestor that could produce primitive versions of both.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We literally have the skin impressions of scaled dinosaurs. This isn't theory, it's direct observation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                and of feathered dinosaurs.

                which suggests theropods at one time had skin that could produce both. aka a fucking common ancestor.
                organs undergo evolution, dumbass.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's not how that worked, dummy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It literally is. Specialization of organs into exclusive functions as a driving factor in evolution is a well attested mechanism, visible in both the saurian fossil record and modern fossil records.

                A much better attested example? Eyes
                The primitive version that still exists in some fishes specialized in into a plethora of forms that can no longer take back lost functions.

                It is the same with skin plaquettes. Theropod, better said early sauropsid skin, was unspecialized like fish eyes and could mutate into both early feathers and early scales.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                have a study btw

                https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01045.x

                >Abstract
                >Hard skin appendages in amniotes comprise scales, feathers and hairs. [...]
                >The evolution of these skin appendages was characterized by the production of specific coiled-coil keratins and
                >associated proteins in the inter-filament matrix. Unlike mammalian keratin-associated proteins, those of sauropsids
                >contain a double beta-folded sequence of about 20 amino acids, known as the core-box. The core-box shows 60%–
                >95% sequence identity with known reptilian and avian proteins.

                >The core-box shows 60%–>95% sequence identity with known reptilian and avian proteins.
                aka COMMON ANCESTOR

                These specialized into scales and feathers depending on the evolutive branch they follow. Reptiles developed scales, herviborean saurians developed scales, theropods were in a position to develop not only both but raptors had basically the entire spectrum of feather evolution coexist until the meteor. meaning they really didn't specialize until the late jurassic give or take.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Again, this doesn't mean what you think it means. Theropods weren't magical Schrodinger's birds. Feathers came after scales.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes feathers evolved from a more primitive scale. This is well known. AFAIK feathers did not occur in a lot of fucking dinos, mostly just theropods. Feathered sauropods didn't happen.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                and its glaringly obvious that there was an entire lineage of theropods that don't and feathers are not basal to all theropods, or we need to start calling a lot of theropods something else

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes feathers evolved from a more primitive scale.
                no, that's now how common ancestors work.
                A primitive ape is not a homonid.
                A primitive monkey is not an hominidae.
                They are their own thing. Calling them early core-box plaquettes scales is flat out mistaken.

                I think you simply don't know what scales are or how the work in modern reptiles and are extending their qualities to primitive-ass saurians out of ignorance.

                don't worry despite all this they still look greenish. protein make up didn't really change.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nothing undergoes evolution because it's not real, natural selection only selects from existing information, that's not evolution

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *laughs in mutated DNA expressions*

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                mutations are harmful and "more time" isn't a magic wand especially when considering hereditary mutations. you will never evolve into a god

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Feathered Theropods are a small branch of Theropods that started in the Jurassic. Scales is the initial state, not feathers. I can't believe I have to keep repeating this about fucking reptiles.

      Why shouldn't anatomy take different paths of development in evolution? Paleoconservatives like you people say that the loss of feathers on the legs of ostriches in the form of nakedness must mean feathers cannot become scales once again, but seeing the different anatomical solutions taken by modern animals, I don't think that's a valid enough reason to discredit the idea.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        God damn featherfags are retarded. If feathers are the default status for archosaurs, and scales re-evolved in every single dinosaur line except for coelurosaurs and a smattering of Ornithischians if you squint really hard and make shit up, then why have birds never been able to do it one time? Even if anyone grants you the retarded proposition that bird feet scales are derived from feathers (they're absolutely not), why nowhere else on the body? 66 million fucking years and they've never done it once? I thought it was easy and the majority of dinosaurs managed it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you're entirely right and in complete agreement with modern paleontologists
          except this
          >(they're absolutely not)

          the thing you're too stupid to realize is that if you agree with 450 paleontologists and disagree with 200 paleontologists, and they're all the same paleontologists, that doesn't make them wrong.
          it only makes you wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Or, most of the planet is full of retards and most experts are frauds. Every STEMfag is such a genius that the entire world is going to hell in a handbasket. You might even argue that it's because they don't have enough control over society. Then you see soientists say what they'd actually do to the world if given the power and the only reason we're not lynching them en masse is because they're already at the bottom of the totem pole.

            The fact is, the majority is usually wrong. Almost always, in fact. But physical evidence doesn't give the slightest shit about opinion. If you're too blind to see fucking scale imprints in a sedimentary rock, no amount of bullshit modernist posturing will make the rock wrong and you right.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              again, you're right about everything

              except your failure to recognize that you are one of the retards

              just because the majority is retarded doesn't mean mindlessly contradicting them makes you smart. You're a great example. You're often correct AND you're a drooling fucking idiot.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You're right, but you're still stupid!
                Ok

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you got it

                If the public is usually wrong about science,
                and you disagree with the public

                you're just mindlessly agreeing with science

                you become the "accept the science" NPC that you constantly deny being. You're not an independent thinker, you don't think at all. You mindlessly react and your reaction usually puts you squarely on the side of the scientist you think you hate.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >except coelurosaurs
          They would have to reevolve in coelurosaurs too, because T.rex is scaled and also a coelurosaur.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dear lord it's more retarded than I could have ever imagined. There are so many logical hurdles you have to clear to even arrive at a fucktarded conclusion like that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >We're not even sure if all theropods came from the feathered ones.
      whatever 250ba theropods had could hard be called feathers. would have been almost indistinguishable from insect like hairs

Your email address will not be published.