HAHAHAHAHAHA FEATHERKEKS BTFO

HAHAHAHAHAHA FEATHERKEKS BTFO

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pterodactyls were based, not a single homosexual feather on them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >gives pterosaurs fur
      >makes them look even cooler
      Based

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think the main reason is that when dinosaurs are suggested to have feathers, everyone's first mind goes to
        >"OMG T. REX WAS JUST A GIANT CHICKEN, BUCK-BUCK-BUCKAW"
        and subsequent depictions revolve around that, or trying way too hard to subvert that in the lines of
        >"oh yeah?! Well, giant chickens are heckin' scary yo! But not too scary, because they're animals, not monsters! So they must be wholesome as well!"
        In contrast, when pterosaurs fur/feather/whatever the frick their body cover is called was discovered, people don't make these weird comparisons because no modern animal provided that. Thus, any subsequent pterosaur depiction actually force artists to be original with their design instead of revolving around a dumb idea.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/ZcUCQ0n.jpg

          >gives pterosaurs fur
          >makes them look even cooler
          Based

          its their head shape for me, they look like pyramid head

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I had no idea there was such a violent argument about feathers on dinosaurs until I found this thread.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This entire thread is proof that the autistic should be gassed at birth

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What is it with the scales only crowd who tend to hate color and want everything to be grey, black, or brown? It's like the moronic entertainment/videogame industry idea of how monsters should look and how it's most realistic for them to look boring as frick or camo when in nature it's mostly just mammals who are boring and bland as frick looking and everything from real lizards, to insects, to fish and birds have crazy colors.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Mammals are that colour because they are the largest animals currently living n earth. Almost every large bird is has a dull colouration.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >but ANYONE who acts like THEY KNOW FOR SURE or implies that SCIENCE is political is a FRICKING FREAK and needs to relax and shut the frick up
    Man, I wonder how we know for certain this animal was feathered

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      fricking chinese and their masterful sharpiework

      typical asians being able to recreate fossilized microscopic structures with a cheap marker. i hate them and their mad skills so much.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It’s all those piano lessons, does wonders for dexterity

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Could have been a bat

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why would a bat have feathers? You feathergays are taking it too far

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I cannot think of anything more autistic than adults caring about dinosaurs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wow anon you're so cool and mature let me be your gf.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I cannot think of anything more autistic than adults caring about animals.
      lol

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think about you at all. The only time I'm reminded that people seethe over feathers is when a gay thread like this happens to be on the front page when I visit the board.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    why do feather cucks have such an obsession with subverting the history of all life so everything is a bird? why are they obsessed with all life being birds?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's not "everything is bird", it's "bird come from dinosaur, therefor bird under dinosaur", and that was decided when they were still hashing out what "dinosaur" meant in the first place. Again, goes back to the 1860s, if that's "subverting history" then there IS no history.

      If T. Rex and Velociraptors and Ankylosaurs and all the other enormous variety of things qualify as "Dinosaurs", what the frick is the problem with birds coming out of that as ONE of the MANY things that count as dinosaurs?

      Seriously, we are talking about the people who invented scientific racism making the decision. It has absolutely nothing to do with any Current Year politics, because the mainstream politics was fricking Monarchy.

      >No, it was decided in the 1860s as one of the very first explorations of evolutionary theory.
      Dinosauria was literally erected based on the fused synsacrum of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus, a trait only found in birds.

      Still no, because line-of-descent was not how they were classifying things at the time. The taxonomy was morphological, not cladistic, because cladistic taxonomy was literally not invented yet.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's almost as if convergent evolution means that there can be bats and pterosaurs that are in no way birds at all yet still fly like birds.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          ...Except bats and pterosaurs DON'T fly like birds (membranous repurposed phalanges have VERY different flight dynamics) and the chain of anatomical similarities going back to inarguable dinosaurs is one of the most complete in existence.

          Why are you so obnoxiously insistent that birds CANNOT be a subset of dinosaurs, when on basically every level the notion of dinosaurs as a distinct variety of life involves "they're obviously in between reptiles and birds"?

          >Still no, because line-of-descent was not how they were classifying things at the time.
          I think you have a very childish view of the history of the theory of evolution. Darwin refined something that was being tossed around long before he was born. Owen was and evolutionist long before Darwin published, as most anatomists of the time were.

          Darwin got started in the late 1830s before somebody else mailed him 20 years later and the two spent most of a year on finishing touches. This codification of disparate population models, trait inheritance, and mutation is what finally proved convincing to the wider naturalist community.

          Yes, he did not invent it outright, nor was he the only one thinking about it. But he's the guy who pinned down an actual system that covered basic mechanisms and why they resulted in speciation, with strong examples to provide supporting evidence, resulting in the idea of a universal phylogeny finally "taking off".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >resulting in the idea of a universal phylogeny finally "taking off".
            your mistake seems to be thinking that a taxonomy based on biblical "kinds" indicates a disbelief in inheritance. Which of course is untrue because even Darwin subscribed to that form of taxonomy.

            It's wrong to think that just because Owen and others drew a strict line between dinosaurs and birds, the must not have believed them related by inheritance. Owen remarked repeatedly on his Dinosauria being erected on bird traits, and his correspondence indicates he was considering their manner of relation to both birds and extant reptiles when he named them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You have it all mixed up.
            Dinosaurs are a subset of reptiles.
            Birds are adjacent to reptiles, just like mammals.
            Feathercucks are actually brain damaged.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Birds are also technically reptiles.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Do you just not know what a clade is? Every tetrapod alive is an Amniote. Amniotes split into synapsids, who's only surviving members are mammals, and sauropsids, who's descendants include all reptiles AND birds. This was roughly 300 million years ago. Crocodilians and birds are the surviving Archosaurs, a subset additionally containing the considerable majority of dinosaurs otherwise unrelated to birds and the pterosaurs. THAT separation was around 250 million years ago.

              What is frequently DEFINED as the First Bird is

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

              >1860

              , 150 million years ago, very difficult to separate from many other small theropods. Twice the distance down the "reptile" branch as between the "reptile" and "mammal" branches. There is no lineage connecting crocodiles to turtles without including birds in that lineage, and the lineage from the common ancestor of crocodiles and birds IS dinosaurs, specifically through the theropods.

              The arguing about Tyrannosaurs having feathers is because they're the very next step away from skin-impression proofs. The development towards feathers would have to be defining of Maniraptora to FULLY leave out Tyrannosaurs.

              I don't get why leftists are so obsessed with saying dinosaurs are related to birds when their skeletons look like reptile skeletons.

              ...But bird skeletons ALSO look like reptile skeletons in rather close bone-for-bone terms. And it's not "leftists", this sentiment was devised by the inventers of Scientific Racism and Social Darwinism.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >But bird skeletons ALSO look like reptile skeletons in rather close bone-for-bone terms.
                Not really. You should go back to r*ddit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >their skeletons look like reptile skeletons
                I don’t know any reptiles with wishbones that walk on 2 legs and have a beak though

                Occipital condyle structure, theropod "true" dinosaurs DID walk on two legs and many possessed Furcula ("wishbones"), they share nucleated blood cell anatomy, the formation of the jaw from five fused bones, crocodilians share a four-chambered heart, both groups possess a single middle ear bone...

                There's A LOT of biological similarities between birds and reptiles even today not remotely shared with mammals.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Still no, because line-of-descent was not how they were classifying things at the time.
        I think you have a very childish view of the history of the theory of evolution. Darwin refined something that was being tossed around long before he was born. Owen was and evolutionist long before Darwin published, as most anatomists of the time were.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why is people so fricking annoying about this?
    Does it really mess up with your manliness if an animal has feathers or not?
    Is it because messes with your childhood because you saw that homosexual israelite Spilberg dinosaur movie?
    Super weird how people want this fricking EXTINCT animals to not have feathers

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Its their sexuality mostly. They want to be fricked by dinosaurs, and they aren’t bending over for chickenosaurus.

      Nothing else explains why they are so stupid they think this is recent and psychotically opposed to it. They were whacking it to JP the whole time and now their spank banks supply line may be cut off.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >It’s a hoax by the Chinese! Most of these feathered dinosaurs were described by the same Chinese guy, archaeoraptor proves they’re fakes
    >Never mind the fact that same Chinese guy was the one who called archaeoraptor into question, or that archaeoraptor itself was a composite containing microraptor
    The mind of the scalegay work in mysterious ways

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, he unironically believes Archaeoraptor is a "sacrifice" so people believe other Chinese fossils. Nevermind the fact that Archaeoraptor itself was just a composite made up of real animals. Or the fact that this implies that the paleoschizo unironically believes that a composite fossil hoax from 23 years ago is evidence that the Chinese somehow have the ability to fake complete fossils so accurately that no paleontologist on the planet can tell it apart from similar fossils from Europe.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this is the most braindead thread i have ever seen in my fricking life, how genuinely moronic do you need to be to believe there is some huge plot to make dinosaurs feathered and woke or that all dinosaurs were covered in rainbow-covered feathers. Actually bordering on schizo ngl.

    How do people think feathers are effeminate or that scales are masculine why are you applying your human moronation to this shit jesus christ

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Simple answer, they are furries.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      heres your dinosaurs bro

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You just don't understand lmao kys

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        exactly this
        feathers are an atack on the male identiy

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >how genuinely moronic do you need to be to believe there is some huge plot to make dinosaurs feathered and woke
      After seeing the 400th feathered carnotaurus you start to get doubts

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's called bait, anon

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Do you morons ever consider that maybe, just fricking maybe, they could have patches of skin that don't have feathers? That maybe some were more covered than others? Maybe some had barely any feathers at all?

    Good lord. The sheer variety of extinct life and inter-varieties must be positively mind-boggling.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Weird how everyone agreed Dinosaurs were scaled for hundreds of years and then in the last 10 years this feather psy-op inorganically popped up like we're expected to go along with it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >in the last 10 years this feather psy-op inorganically popped up like we're expected to go along with it.
        >implying feathered dinosaurs have only been around for ten years

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I've literally never heard of this woke feathered dinosaur psy-op until the 2010's.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I've literally never heard of this woke feathered dinosaur psy-op until the 2010's.
            that's because you're an idiot that doesn't read any science.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sinosauropteryx is over 25 years old now

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think thats the point anon. We don't know how much, how many of known species. At this point its just a circus to give paleo artists more stuff to do. Which I don't really get cause most of them live off making furry porn after all.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Feathers are a weak and feminine aesthetic. Soientists are trying to emasculate the historical perception of dinosaurs in order to drive away any sort of masculine or powerful imagery in the world. This is part of the two pronged attack to eradicate males from the human race because they are not passive creatures by nature that will obey like females. The first prong is the mental and societal attack on the masculine psyche, with inventions such as feathered dinosaurs. The second prong of attack is on the physical being, by introducing microplastics, estrogen and onions into the food supplies and environment, and convincing men to take hormone replacement therapy and amputate their male organs.
    Feathered dinosaurs are fake, and it is a direct attack on the male identity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Sure anon

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Feathers are still feminine.
        Your defense is using the animals actions which has nothing to do with the aesthetic being homosexualy.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >having a full head of hair is feminine
          baldy cope

          eagles are a symbol of masculinity. medium and small theropods are a symbol of 8 year olds and furries. yknow like barney.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Does anyone have that pic that had a not so friendly tumblr user saying
    >Trust the science bigot
    Followed by a scientist saying on loop
    >Dinosaurs had feathers
    >Actually they didn't
    >Actually they did
    It used to be posted so often in the past and I didn't save it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Trust the science just not the one that talks about XX and XY chromosomes in humans.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not anti science, but that meme did serve as a good way to criticise 'settled or static science' when science is all about iteration and paradigm shift after new discoveries take place.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm not anti science
          cringe

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Brainlet: Dinosaurs were scaly.
    NPC: Dinosaurs had feathers.
    Intelligent person: Most dinosaurs had fur. Most famous dinosaurs were scaly due to this class of animals being giant and giant animals very rarely being able to afford being furry.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >dinosaurs were birds
      >dinosaurs were mammals
      why the frick do israelites hate the fact that there used to be badass warm blooded scaly reptiles so fricking much?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        "Furred" dinosaurs wouldn't have literal mamalian hair, they'd have analogous structures to fur that are actually homologous to feathers. Look at cassowaries, emus, rheas, and kiwis for how this might look. The Ostrich is the outlier in having "actual feathers".

        Of note, this is also a leg to stand on for "they lost the feathers in between!", in that the Ratites have a bunch of anatomical indications that they developed from more typical flighted birds yet most have clearly lost "feathers" for "fur".

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Except your psy-op to ultimately get me to amputate my penis is missing one crucial fact. Dinosaurs were part of the class Reptilia, not part of the class Aves. Go frick yourself featherBlack person.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Reptilia doesn't exist.
            Birds are members of Dinosauria, which are Archosaurs. Your argument is the same as insisting that Bats aren't mammals because they have wings or that barnacles aren't crustaceans because they're sessile.
            Also, stop pretending you're not a self-inflicted eunuch with a mental illness, scaletroony.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They're both Sauropsids, with "feathered dinosaurs" being nearly exclusively the Coelurosaurs. Aves comes from Maniraptora in particular with incredibly strong evidence to the point of an infuriatingly blurred line, but Tyrannosaurs are part of the Coelurosaurs. With how surrounded by feathers and feather-adjacent structures they are, it'd be a bit weird if NO Tyrannosaur had structures more related to them than to scales.

            Also Reptilia is literally "non-bird sauropod". It's like saying monotremes cannot possibly be mammals because they lay eggs.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Mammalia and Aves are both part of animalia so we're basically the same thing as birds too
              this is how fricking moronic feathercucks sound

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Dinosauria > Theropoda > Averostra > Tetanurae > Avetheropoda > Coelurosauria > Maniraptorformes > Maniraptora > Pennaraptora > Paraves > Avialae > Ornithothoraces > Euornithes > Ornithuromorpha > Ornithurae > Aves.

                That is the chain of increasing specificity for birds. They are ALL of those, because that's how clades work. Tyrannosaurs branched off between Coelurosauria and Maniraptorformes, Oviraptors between Maniraptorformes and Maniraptora proper, and as you can see there's quite the list along the way to Aves.

                The scientific definition of "dinosaur" MUST include birds, because birds have an incredibly clear line of descent from a group of them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                rewriting history again so dinosaurs are birds, i see what you're doing, soience cucks

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >1860

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                "Birds are Dinosaurs" does not mean "Dinosaurs are Birds". Birds are an extremely specific subset of Dinosauria, meaning supremely few of Dinosauria are Aves, and this was decided on in the 1860s.

                This is not rewriting history, this is just plain history. Mostly due to the lucky find of Archaeopteryx being one of the most unignorably blatant transitional fossils to ever exist.

                >OH MY SCIENCE OH MY FAUCI DID YOU KNOW THAT MAMMALS ARE ACTUALLY BIRDS TOO?!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                EIGHTEEN SIXTY-FRICKING-THREE saw Richard Owen describe a near-complete fossil as a bird despite numerous reptilian features. Literally the instant evolutionary theory was a thing people immediately went "Oh, so birds are dinosaurs, 'kay, good for filling the tree out".

                This is not "erasing" or "rewriting" anything. Shoving feathers on T. Rex is pushed bullshit, but "birds are dinosaurs" is foundational to the most basic concept of "dinosaurs" as a scientific term back when Marx's babbling NEEThood was ongoing and Europe was run by monarchies.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yep, it was originally described as the dinosaur Compsognathus, but then the feathers were found and they switched the classification to bird.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Guys, I think we broke his mind.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                "Birds are Dinosaurs" does not mean "Dinosaurs are Birds". Birds are an extremely specific subset of Dinosauria, meaning supremely few of Dinosauria are Aves, and this was decided on in the 1860s.

                This is not rewriting history, this is just plain history. Mostly due to the lucky find of Archaeopteryx being one of the most unignorably blatant transitional fossils to ever exist.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >this was decided on in the 1860s.
                earlier than that

                the name "Dinosaur" was invented to describe a type of hip bone only found in modern birds. So about 1840 or slightly earlier.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >earlier than that

                No, it was decided in the 1860s as one of the very first explorations of evolutionary theory. Back when the term "dinosaur" was first coined in the 1840s taxonomy was still concerned with pure morphology because Darwin hadn't neatly layed out the baffling specialization of the Galapagos Finches.

                Of course, Tyrannosaurus Rex was only described in 1905. A LOT of dinosaurs were never known in a world before "Birds are Dinosaurs".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >No, it was decided in the 1860s as one of the very first explorations of evolutionary theory.
                Dinosauria was literally erected based on the fused synsacrum of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus, a trait only found in birds.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                "Birds are Dinosaurs" does not mean "Dinosaurs are Birds". Birds are an extremely specific subset of Dinosauria, meaning supremely few of Dinosauria are Aves, and this was decided on in the 1860s.

                This is not rewriting history, this is just plain history. Mostly due to the lucky find of Archaeopteryx being one of the most unignorably blatant transitional fossils to ever exist.

                >earlier than that

                No, it was decided in the 1860s as one of the very first explorations of evolutionary theory. Back when the term "dinosaur" was first coined in the 1840s taxonomy was still concerned with pure morphology because Darwin hadn't neatly layed out the baffling specialization of the Galapagos Finches.

                Of course, Tyrannosaurus Rex was only described in 1905. A LOT of dinosaurs were never known in a world before "Birds are Dinosaurs".

                It's not "everything is bird", it's "bird come from dinosaur, therefor bird under dinosaur", and that was decided when they were still hashing out what "dinosaur" meant in the first place. Again, goes back to the 1860s, if that's "subverting history" then there IS no history.

                If T. Rex and Velociraptors and Ankylosaurs and all the other enormous variety of things qualify as "Dinosaurs", what the frick is the problem with birds coming out of that as ONE of the MANY things that count as dinosaurs?

                Seriously, we are talking about the people who invented scientific racism making the decision. It has absolutely nothing to do with any Current Year politics, because the mainstream politics was fricking Monarchy.

                [...]
                Still no, because line-of-descent was not how they were classifying things at the time. The taxonomy was morphological, not cladistic, because cladistic taxonomy was literally not invented yet.

                ...Except bats and pterosaurs DON'T fly like birds (membranous repurposed phalanges have VERY different flight dynamics) and the chain of anatomical similarities going back to inarguable dinosaurs is one of the most complete in existence.

                Why are you so obnoxiously insistent that birds CANNOT be a subset of dinosaurs, when on basically every level the notion of dinosaurs as a distinct variety of life involves "they're obviously in between reptiles and birds"?

                [...]
                Darwin got started in the late 1830s before somebody else mailed him 20 years later and the two spent most of a year on finishing touches. This codification of disparate population models, trait inheritance, and mutation is what finally proved convincing to the wider naturalist community.

                Yes, he did not invent it outright, nor was he the only one thinking about it. But he's the guy who pinned down an actual system that covered basic mechanisms and why they resulted in speciation, with strong examples to provide supporting evidence, resulting in the idea of a universal phylogeny finally "taking off".

                He’s gotta be leading you on, at least I hope he’s leading you on

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >your psy-op to ultimately get me to amputate my penis
            I mean you're clearly never going to use it....

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >I mean you're clearly never going to use it....

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >it’s too late anon, for I have already depicted you as the basedjack and myself as the gigachad

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Paleoschizo thread

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is a great example of horseshoe theory

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They clarly had phimosis wieners, that's just a circumcised penis from which the foreskin rubbed off during combat

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They clarly had feathers, that's just a bald patch from which the feathers rubbed off during combat

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What exactly is the purpose of a cold blooded animal having feathers for insulation? It's easy to understand that birds have feathers because they're warm blooded and thus need to retain the body heat, imagining that cold blooded reptiles were covered in feathers is moronic

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Probably because they weren’t cold blooded, they were mesotherms with higher metabolisms than modern reptiles. If dinosaurs were cold blooded they wouldn’t have made it to Antarctica

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Also the fact that they have an erect idle stance requires energy to be constantly generated, which isn’t possible for cold-blooded animals. And the fact that they’re tiny as babies and grew to be massive in a relatively short time is only achievable with metabolism high enough to be warm-blooded.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      fricking moron one of the biggest deals with dinosaurs was that they were warm blooded reptiles which allowed them to be frickhuge and dominate the entire earth for millions of years
      they also had scales, feathers are a israeli subversion to destroy masculine imagery from society and emasculate you

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with modern paleontology is that the feather fanboys are hell-bent on pushing the narrative that dinosaurs were wholesome puffball chonksters, desperately trying to change the traditional image of dinosaurs as primordial reptilian creatures.
    Artist have the freedom to choose how they wish to depict extinct animals, and they’re free to depict them with or without feathers. Pic related, if an artist depict a scaly IRL dinosaur lkke Carnotaurus or something else like Pachyrhinosaurus with feathers, even if they’re just completely fictional headcanons, it’s usually met with celebration by the paleo-community. However, when an artist chose to depict a feathered IRL dinosaur such as raptors or ornithomimids without feathers, there will always be criticism pointing out the lack of feathers, even if the two depictions are equally as fictive. The double standard is obvious as day.
    It’s funny how the modern paleontology online crowd has devolved into something very homologous to modern identity politics, and it’s even funnier when you realize that there’s a huge overlap between feathergays and scalegays with the equivalent political spectrum.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not enough feathers

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the modern paleontology online crowd has devolved into something very homologous to modern identity politics,
      This is the case with pretty much every hobby by the way. I like to call it zealotry. People are just insanely zealous now about everything and will make it an ideological issue.
      I wouldn't be surprised if people were to interpret a lack of moral character into either of the points of views you mentioned

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >dead meme
    not reading but please lurk ten years before posting newbie-kun

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >anons using this thread as an excuse to post feet pics of birds.
    Lmao

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      A tale as old as time

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Could that not be part of like, the animal's snout or feet? I wou- ah what do i care

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think the dinosaur have feather

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    LMAO that looks 1:1 like the scales on the bottom of a bird's feet.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >each scale is less than half a millimetre wide
    Somehow I doubt they’re from something as big as utahraptor

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      T.rex scales are also really small.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Almost like they aren't scales at all but skin patches

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          How do you know? Seems like it’d be real hard to tell whether it’s scales or unkeratinized lumpy skin, not that it’d make much of a difference

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It’s almost like the smaller theropods had feathers and the majority of the larger ones didn’t. But no, that can’t be right, it has to be all or nothing?

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    BEHOLD!

    PROOF THAT BIRDS DO NOT HAVE FEATHERS!

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >jumps to conclusions about tiniest skin impression
    For all the hate he gives to the feathergays, the scalegay is just as bad but on the opposite end of the spectrum

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >people who unhealthily attach themselves to depictions of extinct animals exclusively for political reasons are unhinged and hypocritical
      next you'll tell me that composite fossils aren't evidence that the chinese can alter matter at the molecular level

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don’t you know the Chinese are part of a worldwide hoax to fake fossils with technology so advanced they can make fake melanosomes and shit

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder, have there been any wikipedia wars on pages that mention feathers or scales on dinosaurs?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I haven’t heard of it, but the only one I’m aware of is the lion vs tiger wiki war

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >but the only one I’m aware of is the lion vs tiger wiki war
        Please more on this.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Basically the wiki page for tigers originally said something along the lines of it being the biggest and most powerful cat, which was apparently an indescribable offence against people who think lions are cooler and stronger and have a bigger wiener. So the two sides started an argument that was so brain dead and so big it resulted in thousands of responses as people argued for weeks on end that their cat was the coolest, often cherry-picking videos of one beating the other in a fight as undeniable proof that their favourite was stronger as well as totally unrelated videos that would show how cool one was because the other totally wouldn’t be capable of the same thing. Some good memes came out of it too, like “you’re just a silly tiger fanboy” and “lion-tards”. I don’t know if there’s still any traces of it on Wikipedia, but if you want to see the exact same sort of debate go to the infamous lion vs tiger debate on the Carnivora forum which is like hundreds of pages long

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I randomly came to this board to see if by the off chance someone had a way to deal with raccoons shitting all over the porch. But now I’ve learned that dinosaurgays have twitter trannies too.
    Sheeeesh

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >post of a morbidly obese depiction of Tyrannosaurus in thick, full body covering of complex feathers, more colorful than 2020s pride flag, with lip implants. All of them highly speculative elements.
    >"YAAAASSSS QUEEN SLAAAAY THEY MIGHT LOOK LIKE THIS BECAUSE WE'LL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE, I LOVE SCIENCE"
    >post about a small patch of unidentified scales in a bone bed containing Utahraptor
    >"NOOOOOOO, THIS IS MISLEADING. PEOPLE WILL GET THE WRONG IDEA ABOUT DINOSAURS. IT'S MOST LIKELY FROM A LIZARD. MODERN BIRDS HAVE SCALES TOO. THIS WILL FUEL THE JP FANBOYS, NOOOOOOOOOOO"
    Regardless of the true origins of the scales, why are they THIS insecure?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >why are they THIS insecure?
      Too much estrogen.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Being "correct" is their entire personality
      Except they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, they simply repeat what other people say without having an actual understanding of the subject matter

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      My assumption is that they've been pushing it so hard for so long that they've entrenched it into their very identity, and don't want to even consider that they're the paleontological equivalent of the "biblically accurate angel" morons acting like pic over things they don't actually understand

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm sad that I was the gay who had this mindset in 1000 topics for most of my life.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don’t get why people are so up in arms about it anyways. Finding that little patch of scales doesn’t mean they didn’t have feathers so why are the Twitter tards all losing their minds over it?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They never recovered from pic related

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's over.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can anyone tell me what dinos and what not had Feathers, with proves?

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm more interested in if theropods had lips or not.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Personally I’m more concerned about whether or not they could probate their hands

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I dunno about whether or not they could probate their hands but I do wonder if they could pronate their hands

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          What’s really got me thinking is the difference between a scale and a scute

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The amount of copium of troony flags is amazing.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We all know it’s impossible it had feathers and scales. It’s not like an animal as large as this might have areas with no feathers like the upper thigh or belly like in modern ostriches, that’d be crazy

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Spinosaurus had feathers.

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Tbh, the by far largest droneosaur, living in a warm habitat evolving to be less feathery is not a huge shock too me.

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hey guys, what's going on in this thread?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Sparrow rex is good because it's satire and this entire discussion deserves to be satirized as much as possible.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >flight feathers on an advanced tyrannosaur

      no one has ever suggested this ever. scalegays are delusional

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is this the paleogay guy back in action or just someone unrelated?
    >38 replies
    >19 posters
    Every time with these threads

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I wouldn’t get excited yet, there’s meant to be a herbivorous dinosaur in the same block. Could also just have big bald patches like an ostrich given how big it was

  45. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Ornithopods and I believe lizards have been preserved in the same sediment. Just because it contains Utahraptor doesn’t mean everything preserved here is Utahraptor.
    People really are jumping to the wildest of conclusions based off of a tiny, TINY piece of skin that could've come from anywhere.

  46. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is it not possible, likely even, that some dinos had feathers and some didn't?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yes. And many had both feathers and scales in different body parts.

      But you're talking with a schizo who thinks he's fighting an epic battle against "progressives" or some shit by being a scalegay and doesn't understand how science works.

      He gets all excited about conservatives blasting progressives, when what we're seeing is scientists following the scientific process.
      The find evidence and formulate an hypothesis -in this case many theropods had feathers, including close relatives, thus they hypothesize that the t-rex may have had feathers.
      Then they find other evidence, and adjust their hypothesis
      - in this case scale impressions of t-rex skin, thus the t-rex didn't have feathers.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >He gets all excited about conservatives blasting progressives, when what we're seeing is scientists following the scientific process.
        lmao, no this is textbook pseudoscience. When evidence shows up to disprove the feathergay theory, the feathergay theory changes such that the new evidence is invalidated. "Oh, they only had feathers at the top of their head, you see". Bullshit.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You mean like the textbook conspiracy theory of “Nuh it’s all a Chinese hoax, they’re in on it despite the fact Europeans were involved in the descriptions”?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >When evidence shows up to disprove the feathergay theory, the feathergay theory changes such that the new evidence is invalidated
          We don’t even know what species of dinosaur this impression is from though, or where on the body it is, or if there’s not also feathers in the same block waiting to be found

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            One would expect the feathers to be on the skin, not mysteriously waiting somewhere. Again, this is pseudoscience. You believe the dinosaur was feathered, so the feathers must exist in there somewhere. If they aren't there, then it must have been a diseased dinosaur or something, right? Maybe molting? But surely, healthy specimens were feathered. Why? Well, they just were. Stop asking questions - that's unscientific.

            The fact is we've had examples of feathered dinosaurs for quite some time

            https://i.imgur.com/sX6r2io.jpg

            So all of the dinosaur skin impressions we've recovered were from bald dinosaurs? Curious.

            and we've had numerous examples of unfeathered dinosaurs from their skin impressions for just as long. These new finds fit in with modern theories so coincidentally the only conclusion we should come to is that they are highly suspect, because all previous data indicated the opposite and indicated it quite strongly. This is not some new technique we used to determine the feathers existed, these are feathers appearing where they were not before. As if most previous finds were mysteriously not feathered, and suddenly all recent finds mysteriously feathered. "Science" is not a series of beliefs, it is a process. One that involves skepticism, not blind trust in everything presented to you. There needs to be a damn good explanation as to why the fossil record suddenly became a lot more bird-like around the time when paleontologists decided dinosaurs were more like birds. They should have been bird-like and feathered all along, not only recently. Was previous evidence of feathers destroyed? Are the rocks different in China? Was the climate different in Mesozoic China? What?

            There needs to be an explanation, not "WELL THEY'RE FEATHERED NOW, SHUT UP".

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >One would expect the feathers to be on the skin, not mysteriously waiting somewhere. Again, this is pseudoscience.
              The point I was making is we don’t even know the skin is from utahraptor yet, there’s more than one species of dinosaur in the block. Even if it does turn out utahraptor had scales, saying so now is jumping to conclusions when we’ve got nothing more than a picture of a tiny piece of skin that hasn’t even been assigned to utahraptor yet
              >You believe the dinosaur was feathered, so the feathers must exist in there somewhere. If they aren't there, then it must have been a diseased dinosaur or something, right? Maybe molting? But surely, healthy specimens were feathered. Why? Well, they just were. Stop asking questions - that's unscientific.
              This is the most moronic shit I’ve ever read, I’m not even a feathergay
              >so coincidentally the only conclusion we should come to is that they are highly suspect, because all previous data indicated the opposite and indicated it quite strongly.
              This is why people call you a schizo
              >these are feathers appearing where they were not before.
              In most cases there are no feathers mysteriously appearing where they weren’t before because they’re from sites that hadn’t even been excavated at the time
              >Are the rocks different in China? Was the climate different in Mesozoic China? What?
              Well yes, the area was full of active volcanoes and the ash was an absolutely perfect area for preservation. We don’t just find feathered dinosaurs there, everything from dinosaurs with scales so well preserved you can tell what colour it was to fish so well preserved you can see what they’d last eaten are present in the Chinese fossil fields

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The only feathers appearing out of nowhere are in taxonomy bracketing moronation

              What were actually finding is a separate cold weather theropod population that evolved feathers

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                werent there featherless cold weather theropods too

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Schizophrenia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure all feathered dinosaurs would have had scales in the same way birds do, so yes

  47. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >subversive
    OP being a samegayging schizo again

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If you're acting subversive, more than one person might notice that subversion

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        There is really only one person concerned with "subversion" in something as totally irrelevant and moronic as paleoart

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You don't really believe that, you just wish that were the case.
          Which begs the question, why?

  48. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    FYI the utahraptor project is analyzing a 9 ton rock that happens to have scattered remains of utahraptor in it. It was essentially like la-brea tar pits and preserved a predator trap of sorts.

    I wouldn't get too excited like feathernazis did when an, at best, extremely distant relative like yutyrannus was feathered. Cause for all we know this could've just been a random patch of skin from something else that died in the trap. In addition to just being a few millimeters big.

    Just in case though, scalechads, I kneel...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They did say that the skin might have come from a stray lizard, but I personally doubt this because the scale texture does not look squamate at all, it has the distinct pebbly pattern of an archosaur skin. I think it’s more likely it came from another dinosaur which also got trapped in the site if it didn’t originate from the utahraptors, or if it truly came from one of the raptors it can always be like an ankle skin or something.
      Either way, good find which might have interesting further development.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Apparently there’s at least 2 iguanodonts preserved alongside the utahraptors, so if I had to guess it’s probably those

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >extremely distant relative like yutyrannus was feathered
      Yutyrannus lived in a region that regularly snowed and was cold/cool year-round. Saying "Yutyrannus was feathered" to justify other massive theropods being feathered is like looking at a woolly mammoth and then extrapolating that African Elephants should have thick coats of fur.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >snow
        What's with the sudden push towards snow and glaciers and shit in dinosaur times? Afaik the entire Mesozoic was a hothouse earth with no year round glaciers anywhere on earth. That honestly bothers me personally more than over feathering, although I'm glad someone realized feathers were for thermo-regulation and wouldn't make much sense on larger species.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Probably not glaciers or a lot of tundra, but a lot of areas around the poles would have seen some pretty heavy snowfall

  49. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >find more real world evidence of what dinosaurs looked like
    >NOO THIS ISNT SCIENTIFIC!
    >MUH JURASSIC PARK!
    morons have conflated "progressive" with "scientific" in recent years.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Been that way ever since the luminiferous aether was ""debunked"".

  50. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Feathergays won’t care. We have skin samples for dozens of dinosaurs, and the feathergays march on regardless. Science as a discipline is dying and becoming a religious cult where you just nod your head and don’t ask questions. It is sad to see, but at least with paleontology nobody will get killed.

    Hopefully at least the fraud of the Chinese hoax fossils will be exposed.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The only hoaxes are their fancy composite fossils. The feathers are much realer than their place in the taxonomy of this midwit discipline.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no chud, dinosaurs all had flight quills, even though none of them flew yet
      DUH

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      wait, do birds not have skin?
      only feathers?
      interesting id like to see your math...!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So all of the dinosaur skin impressions we've recovered were from bald dinosaurs? Curious.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Cope

          No one is claiming archaeopteryx was featherless

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They are claiming raptors were featherless though, and I don’t just mean utahraptor

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Modern “science” is just doing whatever israelites tell you to

  51. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Taxonomy in paleontology is hilariously wrong. It does not have feathers until you find it with feathers.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It can get already pretty ridiculous with extant species, especially with entomologists since there's so much diversity. Now imagine trying to reclassify entire taxa by just finding a newly discovered fossilized skin tissue

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Feathers in archosaurs have always been a poor taxonomic indicator anyway. Archosaurs can just randomly decide they don’t want feathers anymore and become scaly even with feathered ancestors. Moreover, an archosaur species can have both scales AND feathers at the same time. This is already demonstrated in many, many archosaur species. Maybe even crocodilians if you consider that they have the genes which code for feathers which are just dormant, and crocodilians are always consistently scaly. This shows that feathers as a phenotype can just be turned on and off if the species felt like it. Saying “muh most dinosaurs have feddurs” just because there are closely related species with feathers is asinine and dogmatic, especially with how unstable the feather phenotype is.

  52. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dinosaur skin was bright yellow by default if we go by the color in most birds feet.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Bird feet have a wide variety of colors, pink, black, brown, blue, yellow, beige, grey...
      You can still make rainbow colored dinosaurs if you want to

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >gayasaurus rex

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wait, birds have scaly feet so this skin patch is clearly just what the skin looks like UNDERNEATH the feathers (the feather wasn't preserved for some reason)

  53. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    All it took was one patch of preserved skin and that's all it takes to make the "pro-science" feather crowd expose their true colors.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Seeing people genuinely seething about this is extremely strange
      I thought accuracy was important?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It’s pretty unsurprising if you ask me, but still hilarious to look at. They always scream about scientific accuracy, but it’s clear that it’s all just an excuse to justify their fanaticism and pride, because sounding smart by spouting big-word nonsense gave them a superiority boner. Once their narrative is challenged by something like this, they double down just like in that picture.
        Case in point, there’s already numerous evidences of Tyrannosaurus skin samples, from multiple body locations, and they’re all consistently scaled and featherless. And EVEN THEN, these “progressive and pro-science” paleoartists would still bargain with shit excuses to depict Tyrannosaurus with feathers.
        >w-we don’t have the rest of the skin impressions of the entire body! That means there’s still a chance that they had feathers!
        >it just makes sense! All the other tyrannosaurids were feathered!
        >t-the scales are only on the undersides and legs! They had feathers!
        >n-noooooo! Muh chickenosaurus!
        It’s almost borderline fetishistic at this point.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >it’s clear that it’s all just an excuse to justify their fanaticism and pride, because sounding smart by spouting big-word nonsense gave them a superiority boner. Once their narrative is challenged by something like this, they double down just like in that picture.
          You mean like how OP just wants an excuse to make them all scaly, even the ones we know were feathered to the point where he claims every fossil that contradicts what he thinks is a hoax?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            We got a live one, boys.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >it just makes sense! All the other tyrannosaurids were feathered!

          This is where they show their ignorance the best. The tyrannosaurIDS (Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, Tyrannosaurus itself, etc) show no evidence of feathers in all of the skin impressions we have of them. Their relatives, the tyrannosaurOIDS (which includes the feathered tyrant itself, Yutyrannus) are the ones who had feathers of varying amounts.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Proceratosaurids are the ones with feathers, both Tyrannosaurids and Proceratosaurids are Tyrannosauroids

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think it's more about them knowing they were smug c**ts to other people and the prospect of having to acknowledge they might have been wrong is terrifying to them.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It’s even funnier when you consider we don’t even know whether the skin is from utahraptor and it wouldn’t even mean it didn’t have feathers yet they still act like this

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Basically yeah. If a tiny patch of unidentified scales is all it takes for them to go into full defense cope mode, I can’t imagine how they would react if it’s confirmed that the scales really are from Utahraptor and from a place which should be covered in feathers. Granted, I highly doubt it’s from Utahraptor to begin with and even if they are, it’s probably from the ankles or something. Still, would be hilarious if true.

            On a more serious note, though, if they do belong to Utahraptor (and from what should be the feathered parts), that in itself would be super interesting as well. If that’s the case, that would re-evaluate everything we assumed that we knew about dromeosaurs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >A... certain...crowd of people
      What actually did he mean by this?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        JP fans?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The awesomebro JP fan boogeyman

          The strawman they built up in their heads.
          In the minds of feathergays there lives a chad with a backwards baseball cap and a tank top who scalps anyone who claims Jurassic Park wasn't scientifically accurate.
          Meanwhile they're the only one who ever bring up Jurassic Park in discussions.

          So the antagonist in their heads is this superficial, testosterone-fueled, pop-culture jock who also reads paleontology papers?

          I get the feeling that the feathered Dino crowd just likes being subversive and doesn't actually care for accuracy.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Bingo.
            The reason why feathers are so popular in their sect isn’t because they actually care about science. They just use science as an excuse because calling Tyrannosaurus a giant bird is a cool hot take for the general public.
            Their wet dream is to spot normies talking about dinosaurs, butting-in and go AKSHUALLY with all the “obscure dinosaur deeplore” they have, and be praised for being smart. Dinosaurs having feathers is just the lowest hanging fruit in this subject.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The awesomebro JP fan boogeyman

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The strawman they built up in their heads.
        In the minds of feathergays there lives a chad with a backwards baseball cap and a tank top who scalps anyone who claims Jurassic Park wasn't scientifically accurate.
        Meanwhile they're the only one who ever bring up Jurassic Park in discussions.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That's me, I'm that chad.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            me too, brother. how many featherhomosexual scalps you got?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Jurassic Park’s tyrannosaurus is still pretty accurate; could have been fatter maybe.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It probably needs lips too, but that’s not definitive, just likely.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Sure Jurassic park wasn’t accurate but the only people who say that all the time are Twitter or reddit users, if you’re seeing people say that so often you need to spend less time obsessing over dead animals

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        People like OP? He is making fun of them with meme edits of their responses, after all. Some people do want dinosaurs to be scaly just as badly as the guys in that screenshot want dinosaurs to have feathers.

        Seeing people genuinely seething about this is extremely strange
        I thought accuracy was important?

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

        It’s pretty unsurprising if you ask me, but still hilarious to look at. They always scream about scientific accuracy, but it’s clear that it’s all just an excuse to justify their fanaticism and pride, because sounding smart by spouting big-word nonsense gave them a superiority boner. Once their narrative is challenged by something like this, they double down just like in that picture.
        Case in point, there’s already numerous evidences of Tyrannosaurus skin samples, from multiple body locations, and they’re all consistently scaled and featherless. And EVEN THEN, these “progressive and pro-science” paleoartists would still bargain with shit excuses to depict Tyrannosaurus with feathers.
        >w-we don’t have the rest of the skin impressions of the entire body! That means there’s still a chance that they had feathers!
        >it just makes sense! All the other tyrannosaurids were feathered!
        >t-the scales are only on the undersides and legs! They had feathers!
        >n-noooooo! Muh chickenosaurus!
        It’s almost borderline fetishistic at this point.

        It's so dumb either way, with scalegays and feathergays both acting like dinosaurs have to look the way they want them to look. I don't care, scales and feathers are both fine. It doesn't matter to me if it turns out that dinosaurs looked unappealing to my tastes. I'd still love to see what they looked like, and I'm excited about any new fossils that offer hints about their appearance in life.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Are you really so autistic that you think those people are being serious?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >implying paleonerds of all people have any capacity to generate humorous sarcasm.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm autistic enough to know that those people are autistic enough to be serious. Strong scaly/furry degenerate vibes on top of nerd head canon.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don't get why leftists are so obsessed with saying dinosaurs are related to birds when their skeletons look like reptile skeletons.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >their skeletons look like reptile skeletons
        I don’t know any reptiles with wishbones that walk on 2 legs and have a beak though

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      HAHAHAHA FEATHER TRANNIES BTFO

      I’m a stegosaurus chad so I’ve never had to worry about this bullshit but I’m glad the feathertrannies have been exposed as the contrarian homosexuals they are, who have been hiding behind “MUH TRUST THE SCIENCE, GOY!”

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >stegosaurus chad
        For me, it's the Triceratops.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The council has judged you based.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            anklesaurus is pretty neat too

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Armored dino chads rise up.

              I don't have an ankylo pic on hand so please enjoy a pachycephalosaur.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I’m glad the feathertrannies have been exposed as the contrarian homosexuals they are, who have been hiding behind “MUH TRUST THE SCIENCE, GOY!”
        OP here, can't believe this thread is still up lmao.
        Anyway, all things considered I highly doubt the minuscule patch of scales would change anything about what we already knew about dromaeosaur feathers, that is assuming that the scales even came from Utahraptor to begin with. But what made me kek is exactly what you said, it exposes the feathergays for being the disingenuous virtue-c**ts they are. They never cared about the science, just their egos.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      furries vs scaliegays are you jokng
      they're both furries

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, but to clarify: Birds are still technically dinosaurs, right?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Birds are birds
        Dinosaurs are reptiles

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Even in the unlikely event it did turn out utahraptor weren’t feathered that wouldn’t change

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not technically. Aves are the only living theropods. They're highly derived for flight which makes them incredibly different in body plan from all other Maniraptorians even when they lose the ability to fly secondarily, but they're as much dinosaurs as Dromaeosaurs. The fact that they survived a space rock exploding Mexico doesn't mean that they're magically excluded from Dinosauria, unless you're going to unironically say that the derived traits of animals like whales, bats, and even humans that has given them incredibly unique body plans and behaviors is proof that all of those animals are no longer mammals.

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