Let's review, shall we:. Dinosaurs:. - Almost all had ONLY scales (literally the entire fossil record)

Let's review, shall we:

Dinosaurs:

- Almost all had ONLY scales (literally the entire fossil record)
- Were NOT warm-blooded (Grady et al. 2014)
- There is STILL no evidence of feathered dinosaurs outside of china except for Archaeopteryx and apparently Ornithomimus (though there are other claims).
- NOW Utahraptor scales have been discovered (whoopsie!)
- Modern soientists are NOT to be trusted as they publish shit paper after shit paper, so black twitter ain't havin' no trust the experts™ (see: the replication crisis - ongoing)
- The chinese dragon bone trade's history of fraud is NOT a hallucination or to be ignored. (no, china will never be a superpower)
- YES, paleontologists have been fooled by it before (Qi et al. 2014)
- No specart isn't science (cope, seethe, dilate, etc.)

In summary, yes dinosaurs were big scary, stupid lizards (and that's a good thing).

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Crazy to think that Antarctica was once a lish jungle.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I can't even imagine trying to dig fossils out of Antarctica. I mean it's valuable information but dear god.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Feathered dinosaurs objectively look like shit. Nobody would have made Jurassic Park if T-Rex was associated with feathers in pop culture.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love schizos like you. They make even chud scientists look mentaly sound

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    dinosaurs are fake and gay
    evolution is fake and gay
    i know it's hard to grow up from a little retarded child, but the time is here

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How did none warm blooded animals live in the Arctic year round without hibernation?

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I fucking hate science

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    David Peters stop posting on Wauf

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Almost all had ONLY scales (literally the entire fossil record
    Feathers fossilize only in very, VERY specific conditions. Retard.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Scales and feathers are made of the same thing, genius.

      David Peters stop posting on Wauf

      NEVER

      I'm actually glad we have a few people like Peters around. I don't agree with him that Pterosaurs are lizards, but I DO agree with him that they're not descended from Proterosuchids. The current belief about Pterosaur phylogeny doesn't line up with the actual fossil record.

      >That's it. There is no scenario where Dinosaurs have feathered ancestors and every lineage re-evolved scales to cover themselves from nose to tail.
      The scutes of bird feet are genetically thought to be derived feathers

      >The scutes of bird feet are genetically thought to be derived feathers
      Yes, NPC. Your buddies already say this 40 times a thread. This belief comes from a single paper with shit methodology.

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

      >Oh you have further evidence?
      Aside from the fact that bird scales turn into feathers over a short band of the leg, which has been known since the 1600's and probably before,
      there are literally dozens of papers proving that bird scales are derived feathers.

      You don't know this because you only read the science I cite in our arguments, not the citations. This gives you the wrong notion that JUST BECAUSE I CITED ONE PAPER, ONLY ONE PAPER MUST EXIST.

      In real life it's well established fact that bird scales are a type of modified feathers. It's been proven molecularly, morphometrically, and ontogenically. Pic is one interesting case where a simple injection of hormones in embryos caused leg feathers to form into flight feathers. This would of course be impossible if the genetic pathway didn't still exist from a time when bird scales were still feathers.
      Again, there are dozens of studies like this one, all proving that bird scales evolved from feathers.

      >there are literally dozens of papers proving that bird scales are derived feathers.
      Cool. Go ahead and post them. Let me guess, you'll actually just post the same one over and over again.

      >it's well established fact
      It's almost amazing the frequency with which you feathergays just claim things that aren't true as solid fact.

      >a simple injection of hormones in embryos caused leg feathers to form into flight feathers.
      >leg scales to form into flight feathers

      This is the shit methodology I'm talking about. They're manipulating the chemistry of animals then claiming this is a natural phenomenon. You can give a man tits or a woman facial hair with hormones too. That doesn't mean men turn into women naturally. The authors seem to have missed why this isn't science. Manipulating the chemistry of modern birds to shit out abominations doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs. I'm sorry your IQ is too low to understand this.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They're manipulating the chemistry of animals then claiming this is a natural phenomenon. You can give a man tits or a woman facial hair with hormones too.
        but you can't give a man an elephant trunk with hormones, because men never had elephant trunks.

        the only reason you can turn bird scales into feathers is because that's what they came from.

        you're painfully stupid. So fucking dumb.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Meds

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >this is enough to mindbreak people

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Fuzzy
      >Hands painfully positioned
      Lol they try so hard to retcon them as birds

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Hands painfully positioned
        Do you know which elements of the Coelophysis carpus are known and how they articulate with the hands and arms?

        the artist does. You don't. You're like a babby criticizing a Van Gogh. The pic might be good and it might be bad, but you'll never know.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm just going to shut down this idiocy with a picture. Tell me if you notice how this image presents a problem for your arguments.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is that a pic of Coelophysis?

            no?

            fuck off retard.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Lol they try so hard to retcon them as birds
        so you think birds learned to fly and then evolved wings and feathers AFTER?

        are you fucking retarded?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This but dinosaurs weren't real and evolution isn't real

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prove it

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    guys, calm down. dinosaurs did have feathers but only at the very end after their society descended into decadence and sodomy. why else would God kill them all? Late cretaceous dinosaurs were mostly gay.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why you guys insist in reasoning with him ? he is clearly a troll or a schizo

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He's mostly replying to himself.
      Don't bump the threads and report his low quality off topic spam for what it is.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because we want him to hjaking threads. we can beat him. HE already abandoned the other thread after getting humiliated enough.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God sends his most subtle conspirators to his most unstable schizophrenics

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >But no animal has feathers OVER lizard-like scales.
    Because preservation can only really record impressions of one or the other. And considering its already been demonstrated to exist, I think yoou've been btfo.

    >Havent looked into it
    Well then you lose that point, too

    >You can't demonstrate they did
    Don't need too. Unless you have direct contradictory evidence (you really don't), that is the most parsimonious solution. It also doesn't mean that the evil Chinese are out to get you (another claim you have zero evidence for and have been frantically dodging every single post.)

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >204 replies
    >39 unique IP
    have a nice day retard, you're not fooling anyone.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The idea that filaments are "basal" to dinosaurs is as absurd as feathered dinosaurs being fake

    Trivial to evolve from scales? Absolutely. "Basal"? No you fucking idiot. Someone this stupid could only be samefagged controlled opposition. The evidence is the evidence. Phylogenetics is bullshit even with living animals that we aren't barely piecing together.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >- Were NOT warm-blooded (Grady et al. 2014)
    >However, rates were improperly scaled and phylogenetic, physiological, and temporal categories of animals were conflated during analyses. Accounting for these issues suggests that nonavian dinosaurs were on average as endothermic as extant placental mammals
    I largely agree with you, but Grady Et Al 2014 is a shit paper and you should feel bad for citing it.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >There are no feathered dinosaurs except these two which are very distant from each other
    >They both evolved feathers independently, just trust me bro
    lol, fucking flat earther tier

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This post was made unironically
      You do realize the featherfag theory is that either Ornithischians and multiple other groups of Dinosaurs ALL evolved feathers independently or that all dinosaurs have feathered ancestors, right? What is it you think you're arguing here?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dinosaurs had ancestors with filamentous integument. Feathers evolving multiple times has never gotten beyond a vague proposal.
        If you're going to argue please be smart enough to understand what you're arguing against.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No they didn't.

          - There is ZERO fossil evidence of this
          - It literally doesn't even make speculative sense since 99% of Dinosaurs don't have feathers - only scales
          - We have countless modern bird species that have lost feathers on parts of their bodies, and ZERO of them have replaced them with lizard-like scales.

          You fucking feathergays just saying things doesn't make them facts.

          All feathergays are child rapists. I typed it out and everything. It's online. That clearly means it's true. It even has a period at the end.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except for the several feathered ornithischians But they don't count because Chinese people and apple are out to get you, right?

            >99% of Dinosaurs don't have feathers
            Lol prove it.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              They don't count. And there aren't several. There's ONE: Tianyulong. Guess where it's from.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kulindadromeus. You discounted that as being too close to China so it must be a forgery, even though the people who worked on it weren't Chinese. Do you ever get tired of losing?

                >Lol prove it.
                Wait wat? You literally don't know shit about dinosaurs, do you? No Hadrosaurs have feathers. No Sauropods have feathers. Most THEROPODS don't even have feathers. We have skin impressions from probably a dozen or several dozen species of dinosaurs across the spectrum at this point. The overwhelming majority don't have fucking feathers.

                Damn, several dozen is nowhere near 99%. I guess you can't prove that absurd claim lol.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Wow, you don't have every fossil of every organism that ever lived
                >I guess that means my totally unsubstantiated claim based on my out of control furgayry is right!
                Checkmate, atheshits!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dodged the crucial bit of the question again because youre a dishonest worm that survives on deceit. If both Ornithiscians and Saurischians have unequivocal fillamentous integument, do you think they evolved independently or not?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't have any crucial bits, retard. And your same stupid three questions have been answered over and over again.

                - Kulindadromeus has about as much feather coverage as a pangolin
                - Tianyulong is the only Ornithischian that supposedly even has actual feathers. And big surprise, it's chinese. That and a South American "species" that got its own paper retracted are literally it. That's the entire encyclopedia if "proof" that "Ornithischians have feathers". That and just calling everything feathers.

                It is objectively less likely that fillamentous integument evolved more than once. Parsimony is the default position unless you can find evidence to overturn it. You would know this if you were actually educated.

                Don't bring up Occam's Razor. Occam would punch you feathergays in the face for your contortionist act.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                We're not talking about asymmetrical flight feathers. we're talking about basal filaments. Nobody has ever claimed that asymmetrical flight feathers are ancestral to dinosauria. Thats just you tilting at windmills in defense of your childhood impressions.

                >Kulindadromeus has about as much feather coverage as a pangolin
                And? It's still more likely that they derived their feathers from the same source as saurischians did.

                >Its Chinese so it doesn't count.
                And we're back to your primary cope. You have not, and cannot explain

                Deflection deflection deflection he never answers the question

                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feather impressions can be faked to the point that we can identify remnants of pigments that we find in feathers today
                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathers can be faked well enough to be carbon dated
                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathered dinosaurs can not exist without resorting to racism against the chinese

                Your dismissal of all fossils out of an entire geographic region is not founded on any scientific concern or principle, but on entirely political ones. You are not a scientist, and you are not a serious person which is why you were too stupid to go to college.

                You know, now that I think about it, there's a question YOU haven't answered yet.

                Are Silesaurids early Ornithischians?

                The evidence does not suggest so. Why would they be?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The evidence does not suggest so. Why would they be?
                LOLOLOLOLOLOL

                No further questions, your honor.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your concession.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Let's review the evidence, shall we:

                You believe that feathers are an ancestral trait in dinosaurs because some Theropods have them and (you believe) ONE (1) Ornithischian has them (although you won't stop claiming Kulindadromeus has feathers for some reason also). There is ZERO fossil evidence to back up this claim and you think that it negates 99% of Dinosaurs having only scales. You invoke Occam's Razor while doing this.

                That would be bad enough.

                But you ALSO believe that there were TWO different, unrelated lineages that both came about around 250-245 million years ago that independently evolved the predentary bone at the exact same time, but the ones we have fossils of aren't Real Ornithischians™, but also for some reason the Real Ornithischians™ left ZERO fossils. Also, they were probably feathered (both of them for no particular reason other than you're literally obsessed with feathers). Do I have that right?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Let's review the evidence
                >Rejects all evidence if Chinese, everything not Chinese just "doesn't look right" to you.
                You don't get to try to look to the evidence you little cretin lol.

                But they didn't. And you literally can't demonstrate that they did. You think inference is science. But you think evidence is heresy. You're not a fucking scientist. This is not how science works.

                Juratyrant has both feathers and scales. But Juratyrant is fake because it "doesn't seem right" to you

                >It is objectively less likely that fillamentous integument evolved more than once.
                yes, compared to the alternative that feathers evolved once, that is less likely.

                the problem is that's not what we're comparing it to.

                we're comparing
                1. Feathers evolved once AND turned into scales at least 10 times
                2. Feathers evolved twice

                of these 2 possibilities, the second is far more parsimonious.

                >And turned into scales
                Feathers and scales coexisting on the same patch of sin is entirely possible. You just hate it because it ruins your childhood and that was the last time your life was worth living.

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

                That's not entirely correct. For some parts of the Dinosaur family tree we have solid chronospecies lines, like with the Centrosaurines. There are ZERO gaps. In fact, in that line, people have tried to fill in gaps that didn't exist and made TOO many species. When you can see that sort of thing, there are few questions about taxonomic organization or phylogeny. You are correct that scaled animals can't come from feathered ones - so far as we know. It's never been demonstrated in the fossil record - only the opposite, and no bird has ever lost feathers to replace them with reptilian scales.

                You missed something though. It's possible for BOTH taxonomy AND the fossils to be wrong. Especially in a market like the dragon bone trade where fraud is literally a known and well-documented factor.

                [...]
                >Why not?
                The truth is, we don't know. But it doesn't seem to work that way. Dollo's Rule seems to come into play. That's why the study that claimed the opposite is obvious dogshit.

                [...]
                >Why wouldn’t you?
                Because...keep with me here...it was...retracted. Here's the problem. If you think paleontologists would behave unethically ONLY as regards handling fossils but wouldn't DREAM of lying about them, you're an idiot.

                [...]
                I want to be clear. I never said feathered dinosaurs are fake writ large. There are definitely feathered Dinosaurs, and we've known about them since the 1800s. It's not even new. But I damn sure don't believe all the mountains of bullshit coming out of china. Take a look at this picture. Does this strike you as real?

                Nobody cares about your own personal credulity. Maybe if you were actually an educated science you wouldn't mistake your intuition as evidence

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Feathers and scales coexisting on the same patch of sin is entirely possible.
                yes, it's seen in both Kulindadromeus and Sciurumimus

                the problem with that interpretation is it takes as many steps to lose feathers as it does to evolve them. But this is something people outside of biology don't realize or understand. It solves the problem of how scales evolved, but not how feathers were lost.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Feathers and scales coexisting on the same patch of sin is entirely possible.
                yes, it's seen in both Kulindadromeus and Sciurumimus

                the problem with that interpretation is it takes as many steps to lose feathers as it does to evolve them. But this is something people outside of biology don't realize or understand. It solves the problem of how scales evolved, but not how feathers were lost.

                >feathers and scales together
                Even better is that modern birds show this

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yes.

                in that case the scales evolved from feathers.

                in the earlier case it was presumably the other way around.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh no! It's over for us, scalesisters! This is an accurate Hadrosaur now!

                >Am I supposed to differentiate between chinks and chink apologists?
                So what you’re saying is you’ve got no answer to a European/American finding a feathered dinosaur outside of China

                Yeah, they're gays. That's my answer. Honorary cannibals.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                are these "honorary cannibals" in the room with us now?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, they're in china, stupid. Haven't you been listening?

                [...]
                >But no animal has feathers OVER lizard-like scales.
                Because preservation can only really record impressions of one or the other. And considering its already been demonstrated to exist, I think yoou've been btfo.

                >Havent looked into it
                Well then you lose that point, too

                >You can't demonstrate they did
                Don't need too. Unless you have direct contradictory evidence (you really don't), that is the most parsimonious solution. It also doesn't mean that the evil Chinese are out to get you (another claim you have zero evidence for and have been frantically dodging every single post.)

                >Because preservation can only really record impressions of one or the other.
                Oh boy, here we go with this horseshit again. Prove it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't need to. It only needs to be a sufficient explanation for previously observed phenomena

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                OP just revealed that he's not actually arguing with science, just a vague caricature. What a hellish existence he lives.

                https://i.imgur.com/iCOW0fY.jpg

                >You're too pathologically possessed to understand that scientists have not ever claimed that branching pennaceous feathers are ancestral to all dinosaurs.
                Oh no, believe me, I'm well aware of the feathergay penchant for calling everything that's convenient in the fossil record "feathers". That's sort of my point. Even in the received evolution of feathers, wiry fringe hanging off scales isn't part of the continuum.

                So if anything is a feather, why are you demanding examples of things that you call a feather? Because you thought you could use it as more ammo for your ad hom? Do you think everyone reading this thread doesn't see right through you?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                deliberately misunderstanding the opposing argument is how you morons convince yourselves that you're winning here

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We're not talking about asymmetrical flight feathers. we're talking about basal filaments
                Also no. Proterosuchids have scales, Aphanosaurs have scales, Silesaurids have scales. Just which fucking dinosaur ancestor exactly do you retards believe had feathers? Do you think there were furry crocodile analogs running around or what? You retards always say this, but you never specify. You just leave it vague "Oh, some dinosaur ancestor." WHICH ONE? Doesn't even have to be a genus, just a clade.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                An animal can have both feathers and scales lol. Why are you so autistic?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                But they didn't. And you literally can't demonstrate that they did. You think inference is science. But you think evidence is heresy. You're not a fucking scientist. This is not how science works.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You know, now that I think about it, there's a question YOU haven't answered yet.

                Are Silesaurids early Ornithischians?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Kulindadromeus
                Behold! A chicken!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It is objectively less likely that fillamentous integument evolved more than once. Parsimony is the default position unless you can find evidence to overturn it. You would know this if you were actually educated.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It is objectively less likely that fillamentous integument evolved more than once.
                yes, compared to the alternative that feathers evolved once, that is less likely.

                the problem is that's not what we're comparing it to.

                we're comparing
                1. Feathers evolved once AND turned into scales at least 10 times
                2. Feathers evolved twice

                of these 2 possibilities, the second is far more parsimonious.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes BUUUUUUT if the second one is true (and I doubt even that) he has to stop shilling the pop sci "feathers are an ancestral dinosaur trait" deviantart tier soience he's so fond of.

                >See pic. ALL feathered dinosaurs come from china with very few exceptions. And the only two VALID excpeptions appear to be Archaeopteryx from Europe and *probably* Ornithomimus from North America
                I’m not talking about the fossils being found in Europe or America, I’m talking about palaeontologists from Europe and America being the ones finding feathered fossils in China and Mongolia

                Am I supposed to differentiate between chinks and chink apologists?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >deviantart tier soience he's so fond of.
                paleontologists rejected it pretty much the same instant it was published. It's old news, nobody currently takes it seriously. For the reason I mentioned.

                what the public latches onto is a different story.

                so is your rabid disagreement with an idea that currently seems wrong but could be proven true with more discoveries. Scientists don't get emotionally attached to other people's hypotheses. That's a bad idea.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Am I supposed to differentiate between chinks and chink apologists?
                So what you’re saying is you’ve got no answer to a European/American finding a feathered dinosaur outside of China

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Lol prove it.
              Wait wat? You literally don't know shit about dinosaurs, do you? No Hadrosaurs have feathers. No Sauropods have feathers. Most THEROPODS don't even have feathers. We have skin impressions from probably a dozen or several dozen species of dinosaurs across the spectrum at this point. The overwhelming majority don't have fucking feathers.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Schizo couldn't explain how china fakes feathers so now he's started a retarded 4chan argument about his deeply repressed homosexuality

    Bravo. Bravo.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >his deeply repressed homosexuality

      >>bad faith
      >Why the fuck do NPCs only believe in bad faith arguments when it's their opponents arguing in good faith? You gays never question your own side's entire rhetoric schedule which is loaded with nothing but.
      Shit sorry, [...] was replying to too many posts and they ran together. Disregard this, I'm not sucking enough cocks.

      >Disregard this, I'm not sucking enough cocks.
      kek

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hate schizos so fucking much

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most schizos aren't that bad.

      I suspect even OP isn't normally that bad. He disappears for weeks at a time and I like to imagine during those times his brain isn't firing incorrectly at a thousand miles per hour. We only see him during his truly psychotic episodes.

      Maybe I'm wrong and he's always this bad or worse. If so I feel bad for whoever takes care of him when we're not babbysitting his delusional ass.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most schizos aren't that bad.

      I suspect even OP isn't normally that bad. He disappears for weeks at a time and I like to imagine during those times his brain isn't firing incorrectly at a thousand miles per hour. We only see him during his truly psychotic episodes.

      Maybe I'm wrong and he's always this bad or worse. If so I feel bad for whoever takes care of him when we're not babbysitting his delusional ass.

      Yeah and he just made another thread.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >everyone I, nonironic regular samefag, do not like is one person
        Schizo, but real.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          More like eternal summer blueboard perma-nufag.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        He’s lost every thread he’s started this week lol

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Schizos are literally, unironically the saviors of mankind. They warn of the dangers facing modern society and make contingencies against them while all the NPCs are cheerily stampeding off the cliff.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        dangers like homosexuality and transexuality which reduce population growth and unironically make societies wealthier by allocating resources to personal use rather than a shitload of stupid kids.

        weird how you don't complain about birth control since it does the same thing.

        but anywho, your 'dangers' are known, and noted. And also ignored because you're too stupid to see the benefits.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't like humans. I want fewer of them. There would be nothing wrong with homosex if gays could have some fucking decency about it. Trannies will never be acceptable.

          >but you can't even recognize me unless I let you.
          Anon, I'm not the "paleo schizo" you're arguing with but considering that every last one of us here is just anonymous text on a screen while we're using this site, this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
          As for him not writing paleo-artists or confronting them in real life, this is a half-step removed from the "SAY IT TO MY FACE IF YOU THINK YOU'RE TOUGH NOT ONLINE gay" that kids bat around here while they shitpost at each other. THIS is the arena here where we can debate ideas unfettered while saying what we really mean, so let's take advantage of it as such.

          You're talking to a guy who's literally posted selfies on this board. He thinks Wauf should be a forum where everyone has a registered account with a mugshot.

          >this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
          he claims to be waging war on me personally which only works if he can ID me personally. Which of course he cannot. As he proves daily, much to my amusement.
          >this is a half-step removed from the "SAY IT TO MY FACE IF YOU THINK YOU'RE TOUGH NOT ONLINE gay" that kids bat around here while they shitpost at each other.
          nope, I just want to laugh when a crazy person tries his shenanigans in the real world and gets locked up. With the added bonus that it will improve Wauf 1000% if he goes away.
          > THIS is the arena here where we can debate ideas unfettered while saying what we really mean,
          his complaints are political rather than biological or scientific, so no. THIS is NOT the forum.

          The only reason I don't report him for it is because I know he evades bans every day for exactly that.

          Oh don't be mistaken, not you alone. But I don't allow footsoldiers of evil to get away with it just because they're not in charge.

          My complaints are very much both biological AND political. But being an NPC, that won't track for what is allowable for you to believe, so you have to shut it all down.

          >nope, I just want to laugh when a crazy person tries his shenanigans in the real world and gets locked up.
          So you think people should be locked up for daring to speak out against modern "science" and for criticizing bad paleoart? Interesting.

          Always has been. Academia can only exist in its current form by silencing its opponents, because it knows the truth isn't behind it.

          >When did he threaten violence though?
          he makes nonspecific threats every day about how scientists necks will feel the punishment for their sins and stupid shit like that.

          This is legal free speech when said to the general public on the internet. but will get him locked up when he says it to a specific scientist in their personal email.
          that's the joke.

          shit he pulls here will get him locked up in the real world and that's funny. Besides, he does legitimately need some help with his problems. If he doesn't get locked up for this, it's gonna just be some other stupid shit he does.

          MUH STOCHASTIC TERRORISM!! BIDEN!! BIDEN!! SHUT THIS DOWN NOW!!!

          >This is legal free speech when said to the general public on the internet. but will get him locked up when he says it to a specific scientist in their personal email.
          Don't be an idiot. If and when I send a personal email to Engh or Witton, I'm just going to attach a diagram of why they're gays.

          You DO know that the internet is actually a part of the real world, right? Don't think for a second I wouldn't tell Nick Longrich in public how much of an asshole he is for endangering priceless fossils to win goyim presentation points during a talk where every one of his points is verifiably wrong.

          >bad faith
          Why the fuck do NPCs only believe in bad faith arguments when it's their opponents arguing in good faith? You gays never question your own side's entire rhetoric schedule which is loaded with nothing but.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>bad faith
            >Why the fuck do NPCs only believe in bad faith arguments when it's their opponents arguing in good faith? You gays never question your own side's entire rhetoric schedule which is loaded with nothing but.
            Shit sorry,

            >he makes nonspecific threats every day about how scientists necks will feel the punishment for their sins and stupid shit like that.
            I knew it. Yeah and you guys call him autistic, but it would take an actual autist to read posts like that and take them 100% literally. I don't even disagree with him; am I "threatening" you now too?
            >but will get him locked up when he says it to a specific scientist in their personal email.
            Which he hasn't done. Interesting, though, that a few posts above you were actually urging and encouraging him to take it up with scientists in real life.
            Almost like you're not actually concerned with anyone's "safety" but just want to see him get locked up...
            It's hard to have a debate with someone who just argues in bad faith anon. I hope you're a little more honest in your own scientific writings...

            was replying to too many posts and they ran together. Disregard this, I'm not sucking enough cocks.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're talking to a guy who's literally posted selfies on this board.
            I think I've seen those. Old guy posting in front of a fish tank, right?
            I wonder what exactly compels some old man to go on Wauf to post selfies like a teenage girl. And he says I'm new here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why the fuck do NPCs only believe in bad faith arguments when it's their opponents arguing in good faith?
            I don't care about your intentions in arguing.

            I said it because I found it ironic the person accusing me of bad faith then acted in bad faith as well.
            By his own definition, not mine.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, I replied to the wrong post.

              Schizo couldn't explain how china fakes feathers so now he's started a retarded 4chan argument about his deeply repressed homosexuality

              Bravo. Bravo.

              I have multiple times now. So I'll do it again. Don't repeat this lie another time. You're useful only so long as you're not annoyingly repetative. They do it mostly by gluing feathers of bird fossils onto dinosaur fossils. I strongly suspect they outright paint some on with mineral pigments which would look similar even under a microscope, however. Although that's a theory that requires testing. The funniest part is, YOU FUCKING AGREE WITH ME. Even you are fully aware the chinese fabricate fossils by gluing together different animals and thereby ruining priceless specimens. You just handwave it and make excuses for it.

              I DON'T.

              Also, my homosexuality is not repressed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They do it mostly by gluing feathers of bird fossils onto dinosaur fossils. I strongly suspect they outright paint some on with mineral pigments which would look similar even under a microscope, however. Although that's a theory that requires testing.
                that's awesome

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would that be awesome? This is the most glowmoron post I've ever seen on Wauf.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It perfectly explains your beliefs but is completely untestable by you so it can't be disproven to you.

                that's funny. How the mind rationalizes irrational beliefs. Or how the antisocial personality can't accept intersubjective evidence. both are amusing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >completely untestable
                moron you bring up Archaeoraptor at least twice a thread, what the fuck are you even talking about?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >moron you bring up Archaeoraptor at least twice a thread
                >everyone here is one person

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Eventually when you grow up and follow your convictions to their logical conclusion you'll realize that if you can't trust anything anyone says, there's absolutely no use for speech at all.

                that's it.
                No point in talking, no point in listening if you can't trust anything someone else says.
                Just shut up and crawl into a corner and wait to die. There is nothing else for you in the world of men. Certainly nothing you need to talk about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They do it mostly by gluing feathers of bird fossils onto dinosaur fossils. I strongly suspect they outright paint some on with mineral pigments which would look similar even under a microscope, however
                You have never seen a feathered dino fossil in your life

                Especially not the ones that predate all birds, period

                >Also, my homosexuality is not repressed.
                I take it you're a bottom gay with AGP who fears and hates that fact (all bottom gays have AGP) judging by how often you bring up trannies

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have seen Archaeopteryx fossils, yes.

                >Especially not the ones that predate all birds, period
                You mean the non-existent ones?

                >bottom
                >AGP
                lolwut

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm calling you a bitch, son. I thought fags knew all about fag psychology but I guess not. That might be down to your lack of education however.

                t. nick longrich

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Go back to /lgbt/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                As far as I know /lgbt/ rejects such terms because it invalidates their entire "movement" as gradients of a neurological disorder (it is) with causes ranging from the mothers immune system to dysfunctional genes for testosterone receptors to chemicals in the water turning the frogs gay.

                But yes you haven't explained how china fakes the feather impressions. You said some words yes but they were so absurd and incongruent with the "fakes" before you that I'm going to have to write them off. Feathers can evolve from dinosaur scales. They are a derived trait that only appears in some theropod lineages. When discrepancies arise, the correct assumption is that the taxonomy was wrong. Because the feathered dinosaur is there, but a scaled dinosaur can not descend from one, regardless of what seems to be more basal. Basality fags and bracketing fags can't even figure out the order of cephalopod evolution or explain the anachronistic cephalopod-alikes. The fossil record is too sparse and often literally jumbled for accurate taxonomy and evolutionary change is truly random.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but a scaled dinosaur can not descend from one
                Why not?

                Why would you count something from a retracted paper. I've already warned you children about how South America is trying to catch up to china.

                [...]
                Not nearly as many as I would like. Who has the time in this war?

                >Why would you count something from a retracted paper
                Why wouldn’t you? It was retracted because the fossil was smuggled illegally, that doesn’t mean it stopped existing

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's not entirely correct. For some parts of the Dinosaur family tree we have solid chronospecies lines, like with the Centrosaurines. There are ZERO gaps. In fact, in that line, people have tried to fill in gaps that didn't exist and made TOO many species. When you can see that sort of thing, there are few questions about taxonomic organization or phylogeny. You are correct that scaled animals can't come from feathered ones - so far as we know. It's never been demonstrated in the fossil record - only the opposite, and no bird has ever lost feathers to replace them with reptilian scales.

                You missed something though. It's possible for BOTH taxonomy AND the fossils to be wrong. Especially in a market like the dragon bone trade where fraud is literally a known and well-documented factor.

                >but a scaled dinosaur can not descend from one
                Why not?
                [...]
                >Why would you count something from a retracted paper
                Why wouldn’t you? It was retracted because the fossil was smuggled illegally, that doesn’t mean it stopped existing

                >Why not?
                The truth is, we don't know. But it doesn't seem to work that way. Dollo's Rule seems to come into play. That's why the study that claimed the opposite is obvious dogshit.

                >but a scaled dinosaur can not descend from one
                Why not?
                [...]
                >Why would you count something from a retracted paper
                Why wouldn’t you? It was retracted because the fossil was smuggled illegally, that doesn’t mean it stopped existing

                >Why wouldn’t you?
                Because...keep with me here...it was...retracted. Here's the problem. If you think paleontologists would behave unethically ONLY as regards handling fossils but wouldn't DREAM of lying about them, you're an idiot.

                The idea that filaments are "basal" to dinosaurs is as absurd as feathered dinosaurs being fake

                Trivial to evolve from scales? Absolutely. "Basal"? No you fucking idiot. Someone this stupid could only be samefagged controlled opposition. The evidence is the evidence. Phylogenetics is bullshit even with living animals that we aren't barely piecing together.

                I want to be clear. I never said feathered dinosaurs are fake writ large. There are definitely feathered Dinosaurs, and we've known about them since the 1800s. It's not even new. But I damn sure don't believe all the mountains of bullshit coming out of china. Take a look at this picture. Does this strike you as real?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Does this strike you as real?
                if that's your metric dinosaurs are all way out of your league because none of them strictly looks real unless you were raised with them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dinosaurs are just big iguanas. Deal with it.

                >deviantart tier soience he's so fond of.
                paleontologists rejected it pretty much the same instant it was published. It's old news, nobody currently takes it seriously. For the reason I mentioned.

                what the public latches onto is a different story.

                so is your rabid disagreement with an idea that currently seems wrong but could be proven true with more discoveries. Scientists don't get emotionally attached to other people's hypotheses. That's a bad idea.

                >paleontologists rejected it pretty much the same instant it was published
                Lol no they didn't. All the biggest pop recognized names in paleontology not only accept it but shill it constantly. Schrodinger's featherfag paper strikes yet again.

                >what the public latches onto is a different story.
                What the public latches onto is what acredited paleontologists intentionally push the mainstream into believing. You keep acting like this shit came from non-scientists or some misreading of the original papers. IT DID NOT. You're just mad because when a mirror is held up to your team's own views, you look like clowns. You're mad at the mirror, when you should be mad at yourselves.

                >so is your rabid disagreement with an idea that currently seems wrong but could be proven true with more discoveries.
                And in the very next breath he defends it. Could you post a link to your wikipedia entry. I wanna check something real quick.

                >Scientists don't get emotionally attached to other people's hypotheses.
                LOLOL Now this shit takes the cake. This makes me think you've never actually been around academics and this whole thing is a LARP for you.

                >That's a bad idea.
                Now there you are right.

                Looks real to me

                Can you explain how the feathers are faked without requiring a worldwide conspiracy to turn the frogs gay and retarded hatred of the chinese who despite being bastards are masters of faking shit down to the molecular level apparently

                I have more for you. This was just unearthed in china. The paper isn't out yet.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >All the biggest pop recognized names in paleontology not only accept it but shill it constantly.
                suggesting that something is POSSIBLE is NOT the same as saying it's true.

                this is where your autism makes you incapable of understanding science. Science is about weighing and testing the possible, not finding absolute truth.

                you want science to be authoritative and true. And you're extremely mad that it isn't. And you think that's a fault of scientists personally when it's actually how science works. It's what makes it work.

                but anyways, you're too stupid to understand this no matter how many times I tell you. You're literally retarded. A really good troll though. Just sorta sad because I don't think you're having fun being retarded. It just makes you angery and confused.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No no no no no. Stop. You don't get to spread propaganda then act surprised when NPCs soak it up. Just quit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You don't get to spread propaganda then act surprised when NPCs soak it up.
                when idiots like yourself take a hypothesis as ABSOLUTE TRUTH that's their problem. It's also your problem.

                not the problem of anyone with a normal brain. Neurotypicals and high IQ autists all understand the idea of competing hypotheses.

                you are a low IQ autist, exactly like the true believers you complain about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not the one who created pop sci, dickhead.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not the one who created pop sci, dickhead.
                nor did scientist, though we tolerate it because it keeps retards like yourself from cutting our funding.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nor did scientist
                1: Yes, they did.
                2: They also keep it going.

                Stop trying to cope your way out of this.

                >Let's review the evidence
                >Rejects all evidence if Chinese, everything not Chinese just "doesn't look right" to you.
                You don't get to try to look to the evidence you little cretin lol.

                [...]
                Juratyrant has both feathers and scales. But Juratyrant is fake because it "doesn't seem right" to you

                [...]
                >And turned into scales
                Feathers and scales coexisting on the same patch of sin is entirely possible. You just hate it because it ruins your childhood and that was the last time your life was worth living.

                [...]
                Nobody cares about your own personal credulity. Maybe if you were actually an educated science you wouldn't mistake your intuition as evidence

                >Juratyrant has feathers
                Do you have a source for this?

                >Feathers and scales coexisting on the same patch of sin is entirely possible
                >Uh actually, the scales preserved but the feathers didn't!
                Whatever you have to believe to keep your little cult going, buddy.

                >Feathers and scales coexisting on the same patch of sin is entirely possible.
                yes, it's seen in both Kulindadromeus and Sciurumimus

                the problem with that interpretation is it takes as many steps to lose feathers as it does to evolve them. But this is something people outside of biology don't realize or understand. It solves the problem of how scales evolved, but not how feathers were lost.

                These are the "feathers" of Kulindadromeus. Find me a bird with "feathers" like this or shut the fuck up.

                No, the problem is once you lose feathers, you gain bare skin. That's it. There is no scenario where Dinosaurs have feathered ancestors and every lineage re-evolved scales to cover themselves from nose to tail. Anyone that believes ANY part of this has failed a Turing test.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Find me a bird with "feathers" like this or shut the fuck up.
                all birds have downy feathers like those found in Kulindadromeus and pterosaurs and lots of other dinosaurs.
                >There is no scenario where Dinosaurs have feathered ancestors and every lineage re-evolved scales to cover themselves from nose to tail.
                sure there is. In fact there's several including the exact one you just said.

                suck it up buttercup. You're a moron if you can't at least admit it's possible.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Juravenator had feathers. Mispoke

                >Whatever you have to believe
                Thats not "whatever" thats an extremely simple solution to the most parsimonius sequence of events. It easily undoes everything you screech about. You lose.

                >These are the "feathers" of Kulindadromeus. Find me a bird with "feathers" like this or shut the fuck up.
                Maybe your worst blunder yet out of many. You're too pathologically possessed to understand that scientists have not ever claimed that branching pennaceous feathers are ancestral to all dinosaurs.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >thats an extremely simple solution to the most parsimonius sequence of events
                It's not, but again you'd have to spend years studying evolution to understand why not.

                There's a reason vertebrates have only lost legs about as many times as they've evolved them. Losing a complex organ is about as hard as gaining it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's orders of magnitude worse than that. The claim isn't just that feathers were lost. It's that feathers were lost and WHOLE BODY pavement scales were gained. This is near to impossible. And let's be clear, EVERY single accredited paleontologist believes this bullshit right now because it's fashionable.

                [...]

                >Most dinosaurs don’t have lizard-like scales either
                Sorry, I was trying to dumb it down. I didn't go dumb enough.

                [...]

                You mean the exception even among the only feathered animals we know of? Which are a rare subset even of all Dinosaurs? You're not doing well with this argument.

                [...]

                >probably because that's what every paleontologist in the anglophone world is calling it.
                So now we're back to admitting mainstream paleontologists are crazed feathergays.

                >that's because you don't recognize that the word could refer to two (2) or more different types of structure.
                Pretty sure keratinous tags can't be referred to as down in good conscience. Down are insulating feathers.

                yes.

                in that case the scales evolved from feathers.

                in the earlier case it was presumably the other way around.

                >in that case the scales evolved from feathers.
                No, not even here.

                so you get angery when words have more than one meaning

                this is your "that's not a scale" argument all over again.

                you understand you're handicapped, right? Like the rest of the world is going right on without you?

                I'm not arguing semantics with a retard. Words have meanings. Abusing words for your own ends doesn't make you right.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's that feathers were lost and WHOLE BODY pavement scales were gained.
                the anon you're arguing with said both feathers and scales could have been ancestral on the same animal in the same place

                you're not smart enough to grasp this idea so you can't argue against it.
                >EVERY single accredited paleontologist believes this bullshit right now because it's fashionable.
                kek
                who accredits paleontologists in your fantasy?
                >No, not even here
                the scales literally have feather shafts sticking out of them. We know for a fact they evolved from feathers.

                denying reality doesn't change it
                it just means you're crazy.
                >Words have meanings.
                if find it fascinating you can't understand words have multiple meanings while you're using words to mean multiple things.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the anon you're arguing with said both feathers and scales could have been ancestral on the same animal in the same place
                But that's not correct. That's like arguing for beaks in Sauropods. People who don't understand comparative biology wouldn't see a problem with this. Those who know better realize this makes no sense. You don't have feathers wedged between pavement scale because they serve the exact same function. That's why the owl argument doesn't work. Owl's are working with what tools they have available for very specific goals. Because their ancestors had totally scaled feet, they have a problem because especially the more northern species want to cover those feet for warmth. But scales are more durable than feathers and feet take a beating. So there are literally evolutionary pressures to retain the scales. Now if owls had scales on their armpits, that would be a different story. Any ancestor of whatever animal spawned the first feathered dinosaurs would transition VERY quickly from pavement scales to feathers. Within a few million years, most likely, because that's fucking with some important shit. It can't stay transitional for too long. Evolution is going to be very harsh about it. And the fossil record supports this. We have no transitional fossils between early bird ancestors like Archaeopteryx and their scaled ancestors...that we know of. But that's just the beginning of this "feathers are ancestral in dinosaurs" fucking nonsense.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You don't have feathers wedged between pavement scale
                we actually do.

                Kulindadromeus and Sciurumimus

                as you've been told repeatedly.

                and keep denying.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those aren't real because one of them was found in Russia (which is close to china) thus invalidating both as clear forgeries.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol

                OP is so nuts I can't tell his posts from parody of them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So the earliest direct ancestor of Dinosaurs we know of would be something like Prolacerta, which just looks like a monitor lizard, except with a tiny bit of a funny notch on its jaw. That gets very accentuated in the (probably) directly descended Proterosuchids, where it becomes laughable looking. These animals are like slightly more terrestrial crocodile analogs. It would be HIGHLY unlikely that either of these animals had feathers. It wouldn't make any sense for them to evolve them for any reason - they lived on a tropical planet and likely had an amphibious habit. Now we go forward a bit and we see Aphanosaurs. These are also scaled. We've found their overlapping back scales (to put it dumbly). These also pretty well resemble monitor lizards. Again, why the fuck would they have feathers? There's no evolutionary impetus for it. Next come the very early Theropod like Dinosaurs like Lagosuchus and the Silesaurids which are the first Ornithischians. Well, the Silesaurids ALSO have dorsal osteoderms (back scales), so they were unlikely to have feathers as well. The record appears to be agnostic on the early Saurischians and feathers, so there's not much to be said other than they're pretty lizard-like, except bipedal, and again, the planet was tropical, so feathers are unlikely. Let's be clear about another thing - the argument that these animals were warm-blooded and that's why they needed feathers ALSO doesn't track, because their growth patterns match mesoderms like Leatherback Sea Turtles, not mammals or birds. So far, the evidence is pretty fucking strong that none of the ancestors of Dinosaurs or early Dinosaurs had feathers. So where the fuck is this creature that supposedly makes feathers an ancestral trait in Dinosaurs??

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Look dude, I'm not reading your walls of text.

                if you can't even admit that bird scales evolved from feathers you're starting from a false understanding.

                If your idea of evolution can't explain facts, we toss your idea of evolution, not the facts.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >who accredits paleontologists
                Do you mean currently or who do I think SHOULD? Because currently it's the colleges, obviously.

                >the scales literally have feather shafts sticking out of them
                There's so much wrong with this. First of all, I'm not certain that's even what is being seen. It looks like feathers are appearing beneath scales which are wrapping around them in a hood-like shape. But honestly it's hard to tell if these are one structure without a closer look. Given feather anatomy, I'm guessing it's two different structures.

                Secondly, if anything evolved from anything it was the feathers (again) from the scales, not vice versa. And I'm pretty certain that's not what happened in owls either. It was probably a mutation that multiplied feathers to areas adjacent to where they were along the legs.

                >muh semantics
                And that's why it's very important to use the correct terms only, because pedants like you will try to abuse words to achieve easy victories instead of being right. If I call all scales feathers, then I win as a feathergay by default. In your mind, this is fine because "woRDs haVe MOre Tahn WuN mENING" (as reddit as I could do it), but in the realm of reality, no, that's quite wrong.

                >You don't have feathers wedged between pavement scale
                we actually do.

                Kulindadromeus and Sciurumimus

                as you've been told repeatedly.

                and keep denying.

                Yes, we've already established you like to eat Play-Doh and call crayons feathers.

                Look dude, I'm not reading your walls of text.

                if you can't even admit that bird scales evolved from feathers you're starting from a false understanding.

                If your idea of evolution can't explain facts, we toss your idea of evolution, not the facts.

                They're not for you. They're in response to you. There's a difference.

                >if you can't even admit that bird scales evolved from feathers you're starting from a false understanding.
                They literally didn't, you fucking retard. And the only "evidence" you have of this is one bad paper. It doesn't match the fossil record.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And the only "evidence" you have of this is one bad paper.
                kek
                you're such a fucking ignoramus

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh you have further evidence?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Oh you have further evidence?
                Aside from the fact that bird scales turn into feathers over a short band of the leg, which has been known since the 1600's and probably before,
                there are literally dozens of papers proving that bird scales are derived feathers.

                You don't know this because you only read the science I cite in our arguments, not the citations. This gives you the wrong notion that JUST BECAUSE I CITED ONE PAPER, ONLY ONE PAPER MUST EXIST.

                In real life it's well established fact that bird scales are a type of modified feathers. It's been proven molecularly, morphometrically, and ontogenically. Pic is one interesting case where a simple injection of hormones in embryos caused leg feathers to form into flight feathers. This would of course be impossible if the genetic pathway didn't still exist from a time when bird scales were still feathers.
                Again, there are dozens of studies like this one, all proving that bird scales evolved from feathers.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >a simple injection of hormones in embryos caused leg feathers to form into flight feathers.
                >leg scales to form into flight feathers

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your fallacy is false dichotomy.

                for example, I've said for years here that there are no known cases of birds losing all their feathers and evolving scales over the whole body instead.

                This is a fact. But it doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE. Of course it could happen. It just never has as far as we know.

                Similarly I've said that I consider it extremely unlikely that feathers are basal in dinosaurs. That doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE. Just that I consider it unlikely.

                You're not comfortable with these sorts of unknowns. So you demand that one idea is TRUE while the opposing ideas are ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
                This makes you wrong every time, because we don't know for sure which is true, and we can't say for sure which is false. Which breaks your insane mind. Every time. You can't handle uncertainty and so you shouldn't be trying to discuss these topics until you learn to think like a human. As it currently stands you just get all mad and irritate everyone around you and frankly the board would be much nicer if you either weren't here or just kept your mouth shut and tried to learn instead of trying to teach people your wrong ideas based on ignorance and an inability to think.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Asking you to cite your batshit beliefs is a "fallacy"? Lol the fuck?

                >But it doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE.
                I think birds pretty much put the belief to bed, seeing as how there are far more "feathered dinosaur" species now than their ever were in the Mesozoic and none of them behave like pretend featherfag dinosaurs.

                >Similarly I've said that I consider it extremely unlikely that feathers are basal in dinosaurs
                Good, because this is the correct position. If you're paleoNPC, however, this is an outright lie, because he has not said this. Quite the opposite in fact.

                >You're not comfortable with these sorts of unknowns.
                Yeah, you're him. You say this at least once or twice a thread, because you think it makes you look smart.

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

                [...]
                Your previous reference to Dollo's Law regarding feathers turning back into scales is true. This is one good example of Dollo in action.

                But Dollo's Law isn't an actual law. There are plenty of cases where it has been broken. It's just generally true. Usually true. Not ALWAYS true. It's possible for dinosaurs to lose feathers and evolve scales over the entire body, it's just really fucking unlikely. And it would have had to happen lots of times, so paleontologists don't consider it IMPOSSIBLE. Just far less likely than the prospect that feathers evolved several times. Parsimony as the other anon wrongly used the idea. It probably didn't happen. We have no modern examples of it happening and no evidence it happened in the fossil record. That doesn't mean it never happened, just that it PROBABLY never happened.

                >But Dollo's Law isn't an actual law.
                Of course it's not. That's why I called it Dollo's Rule.

                >Lol they try so hard to retcon them as birds
                so you think birds learned to fly and then evolved wings and feathers AFTER?

                are you fucking retarded?

                Actually, yes. Same as Pterosaurs. I think feathers are an adaptation for flight. They likely produced a patagium first. My suHispanicion is that feathers, pycnofibers and the like evolve as insulation because flying makes you cold. Now, I fully admit I have no way of proving that, but that's my current suHispanicion. The fact is, bird flight is an aberration that nobody can fully explain. All animals that have learned to fly or are in the process (Bats, Insects, Colugos, Flying Squirrels, Pterosaurs, Flying Lizards, Flying Fish, even flying squid) produce a broad surface to use as a wing. Birds are the only creatures in the fossil record that defy this, so working out how they figured out how to fly using what basically amounts to back and arm hair is a mystery.

                Is that a pic of Coelophysis?

                no?

                fuck off retard.

                Ooo, you tried. That looked painful.

                >They're manipulating the chemistry of animals then claiming this is a natural phenomenon. You can give a man tits or a woman facial hair with hormones too.
                but you can't give a man an elephant trunk with hormones, because men never had elephant trunks.

                the only reason you can turn bird scales into feathers is because that's what they came from.

                you're painfully stupid. So fucking dumb.

                This isn't the win you believe it to be. Just because you can cause an effect in an organism by manipulating its hormones doesn't mean that effect will ever take place naturally.

                I fucking hate science

                The correct position these days.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Asking you to cite your batshit beliefs is a "fallacy"? Lol the fuck?
                you know the citations on both sides, you talk about them enough

                your fallacy is dismissing the evidence on one side. This is a false dichotomy and a symptom of your autism.

                your belief that the evidence you dismiss exists to hurt you is delusion. A symptom of your schizophrenia.

                I'm not going to spend this day reading your batshit ramblings. Enjoy your day. Try to keep out of trouble.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you know the citations on both sides
                Yes, that's sort of my point. You and I both know the studies you claim support feathergayry are all heavily flawed or don't exist.

                >your fallacy is dismissing the evidence on one side.
                It's a "fallacy" to dismiss papers with bad methodology? Jesus, it's no wonder the replication crisis is happening. Let's clarify something here. Even when I cite a paper, I'll fully admit it's flaws. I've already mentioned I think the mesothermy study should have had a much larger sample size, however its conclusions I think are sound. Now compare that to both of Baron et al.'s Ornithoscelida papers. One claimed that Eoraptor was a Theropod. The other claimed Chilesaurus was at the root of the divide between the various dinosaur groups, despite almost being from the Cretaceous. Both papers denied Silesaurids as Ornithischians, if I'm not mistaken.

                These beliefs are ALL wrong. Every one of them. If your conclusions come out of views this incorrect, they simply can not be right. And the only way they could arrive at them is by manipulating the base data. "Oh it's commonly agreed that Eoraptor is a Sauropod? It's a Theropod for this study." And I've noticed a lot of this shit in modern papers not just in paleontology but in biology as well.

                >We arrived at the conclusion we were looking for
                >We were shocked by the results

                This happens so often it really needs a name. Biologists set out to prove something they believe. But in the course of the paper's story they act like it was some random chance that brought them an epiphany. It's all so tiresome.

                Silesaurids are T. rex 2.0. If they're not feathered, that fucks up the "feathers are ancestral" non-argument. That's why exactly 0 feathergays accept that they're dinosaurs.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                NTA and ignorant, autistic tourist, but:
                > I think the mesothermy study should have had a much larger sample size
                This is declaring a flaw in method, as you said.
                >Now compare that to both of Baron et al.'s Ornithoscelida papers. One claimed that Eoraptor was a Theropod. The other claimed Chilesaurus was at the root of the divide between the various dinosaur groups, despite almost being from the Cretaceous. Both papers denied Silesaurids as Ornithischians, if I'm not mistaken.
                These are criticizing a claim, and make no mention of any methodology flaw.
                What was wrong with the methods in those papers?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is declaring a flaw in method, as you said.
                A minor one, but yes. It doesn't devastate the study, but it would have improved it to use a wider sample. The conclusions wouldn't really change. It would just give a wider view.

                >These are criticizing a claim, and make no mention of any methodology flaw.
                Stop being disingenuous. The methodology flaw is that they BEGIN by swapping around what these animals are. If you're trying to prove that horses are whales and you begin by claiming that Eohippus was an Archaeocete, you're fucking up your study out the gate. But your conclusions will turn out how you want, now won't they? That IS flawed methodology.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It doesn't devastate the study
                Didnt think it did. I was agreeing that you are being intellectually honest.
                >Stop being disingenuous.
                I wasnt. I was pointing out that you switched from critiquing a method flaw to critiquing a claim.
                I am telling YOU to remain consistent and thus sincere.
                >they BEGIN by swapping around what these animals are
                So instead of throwing a hissy fit, explain the methodology flaw, which you only just now did.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It doesn't devastate the study
                Didnt think it did. I was agreeing that you are being intellectually honest.
                >Stop being disingenuous.
                I wasnt. I was pointing out that you switched from critiquing a method flaw to critiquing a claim.
                I am telling YOU to remain consistent and thus sincere.
                >they BEGIN by swapping around what these animals are
                So instead of throwing a hissy fit, explain the methodology flaw, which you only just now did.

                >reclassifying extinct animals based on morphology is flawed methodology
                >literally the entire job of the vertebrate paleontologist is flawed methodology
                You reject paleontology in its entirety because you don't like the results. What is there left to argue and why the fuck shouldn't you be reported and banned for trolling outside /b/?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >reclassifying extinct animals based on morphology is flawed methodology
                This is I'm not sure what the right word is. Not right, not wrong. Just parallel to the truth? Morphology is important in classifying dinosaurs, but it's not the only tool.

                >literally the entire job of the vertebrate paleontologist is flawed methodology
                ?

                >You reject paleontology in its entirety because you don't like the results. What is there left to argue and why the fuck shouldn't you be reported and banned for trolling outside /b/?
                Because I make this board less homosexual by posting here. Someone has to counter your deadly amount of gay radiation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Because I make this board less homosexual by posting here
                You ruin the board you mean. We don’t need 2 spinosaurus threads talking about the exact same shit at the same time. Getting this worked up about fucking dinosaurs of all things means you’re either underage or more likely severely mentally retarded. Go back to whatever discord server you crawled out of

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >maybe if I keep replying to the attention starved retard so desperate for (You)'s he argues with himself for HOURS he'll go away
                S T O P
                D O I N G
                T H I S
                S H I T
                M O R O N S

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't give a fuck about Spinosaurus.

                How did none warm blooded animals live in the Arctic year round without hibernation?

                Because the entire planet was tropical back then. There were no ice caps. Prehistoric Planet is a work of fiction. It can barely even be called science fiction because that implies there was some science involved. So those hadrosaurs walking through snow storms? That shit never happened.

                >maybe if I keep replying to the attention starved retard so desperate for (You)'s he argues with himself for HOURS he'll go away
                S T O P
                D O I N G
                T H I S
                S H I T
                M O R O N S

                Still waiting on that answer. How do you think this board should be run? What do you think people should be talking about?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not him but I'd permaban shitbull posters, toxo posters, animal fuckers, and you.
                I expect most of those categories are all you though. Just permaban your ass and 3/4s of that shit disappears.

                People don't talk with you, you're absolutely incapable of conversation. You say something stupid and crazy and then attack anyone that questions or disagrees. That's not talking.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Have you noticed something anon? The Wauf troll cycle? There haven't been many
                any "dogs suck, cats rule" or "cats suck, dogs rule" threads lately. Instead, there was a rash of these schizophrenic paleo threads that totally cut their creation off as the existing ones died down! And then, the paleo threads tapered off, and someone started PSYCHOTICALLY making veganism thread after veganism thread with very little overlap between that troll wave and the paleo shit. Like every time the argument between gays got resolved or died off someone just made a new thread. Sound like a familiar pattern? Yeah it happens in cog-dat threads too. And paleoschizo threads. And now those are tapering off so expect more dog vs. cat threads in the coming days. or maybe pitbull attack threads. but... only one. not both. they come in waves.

                Almost like it's a discord op, or just... one guy.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Almost like it's a discord op, or just... one guy.
                Yes, that has been my suHispanicion for years.

                OP falls over dead and all this shit goes away instantly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                We can only hope.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In one of the paleo threads he segued into a
                redditor dog hate nonsense meltdown. I don't have the archive, I just remember people fucking with him over it. I'm not saying he's all of it, that would be insane, but he's definitely one of them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Does that kill the zoofag threads too? Or is that someone else?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                One of the recurring schizos is an actual zoosadist with a hard drive full of dogs being tortured and cats being eaten so maybe.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You know, even I hate shitbull gays, but I probably wouldn't ban them from the literal animal board. The animal fuckers, on the hand, HAVE to fucking go.

                >and you
                For...? And here's the crux of the issue and what I'm getting at. You want to ban people who disagree with you. There's already a site for that run by the american government. Can you guess what it's called? I'll give you a hint. All its mods are literal pedophiles.

                Have you noticed something anon? The Wauf troll cycle? There haven't been many
                any "dogs suck, cats rule" or "cats suck, dogs rule" threads lately. Instead, there was a rash of these schizophrenic paleo threads that totally cut their creation off as the existing ones died down! And then, the paleo threads tapered off, and someone started PSYCHOTICALLY making veganism thread after veganism thread with very little overlap between that troll wave and the paleo shit. Like every time the argument between gays got resolved or died off someone just made a new thread. Sound like a familiar pattern? Yeah it happens in cog-dat threads too. And paleoschizo threads. And now those are tapering off so expect more dog vs. cat threads in the coming days. or maybe pitbull attack threads. but... only one. not both. they come in waves.

                Almost like it's a discord op, or just... one guy.

                Stop talking to yourself, retard.

                Does that kill the zoofag threads too? Or is that someone else?

                >animal rapers are only one person
                Oh god if only.

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

                dinosaurs are fake and gay
                evolution is fake and gay
                i know it's hard to grow up from a little retarded child, but the time is here

                But are you capable of growing up from a little retarded garden gnome? Or does your entire life revolve around a desert tribe of bandits?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >For...?
                hijacking entire threads, topics, and the board

                we can't actually discuss dinosaurs because of you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hijacking my own thread? Literally take your meds. Not even joking.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have hijacked every single paleo thread on this board for years now and you know it. Most of them were probably "your own" threads, but that doesn't make them your own threads.

                this is not your board. You don't own it. You don't even belong here. If you post a thread and make it all about you, you absolutely should be banned. Especially since nearly everyone here hates you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Shut the fuck up, you whiny old bitch. People are allowed to disagree with you, especially when you're a fraud. Now go eat shit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't want you banned for disagreeing with me. I don't care about that.

                You need to go because you kill conversation and will eventually kill the board. It's happened before and you're doing it again.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't want you banned for disagreeing with me.
                That's literally what you want.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's literally what you want.
                bullshit, you don't even disagree with me 90% of the time.

                Almost everything you say is a dumber, confused version of things I've been saying here for years. I've literally contributed to a couple of your favorite scientific articles.

                I rarely disagree with you. I absolutely think you need to go.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just be quiet. If your arguments can't stand up to rigor, just head back to retarddit and whine about how you're "being silenced" in an actual echo chamber.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yes, because surely you're not just mistaken or ignorant of any topic.

                You know everything and anyone that disagrees is your enemy. The problem is you're actually retarded, so everyone is your enemy.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not mistaken. And everything I say I source. All of your feathergay arguments rely on "theories" that aren't even science and covering for literal charlatans.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not mistaken.
                you can't even admit that you might be mistaken. That's why you kill conversation. You don't understand how it works.
                >And everything I say I source.
                surely it's all true then.

                you don't see the irony of attacking science as fraudulent in one breath and citing science as your authority in the next?

                you really are quite stupid.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't even admit that you might be mistaken.
                Oh I very much could, but you see, MY arguments are based in the actual fossil record. Not hokey science experiments done on chickens. I also don't hold to any modern ideology, so I can freely criticize all the immoral behavior going on perpetrated by china, STEMfags, academia, the media, etc. I don't belong to any of you. And that's why you want me silenced. I agree, you wouldn't have a problem with me if all I did was insist no dinosaurs had feathers. You would just think I was stupid. But I don't do that. I attack the messenger also. BECAUSE THE MESSENGERS ARE FUCKING LIARS and I won't fucking put up with it. That's the difference between us, you are aculturated to academic mores. I am not. I will never bow to academia's immorality.

                NEVER.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >THE MESSENGERS ARE FUCKING LIARS
                then why cite them to try to prove your points?

                if they're all corrupt, why do you cite their work for support?

                why do you cite science that agrees with you while dismissing science that disagrees as fraudulent or having poor methodology?

                do you understand or should I say it again?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also, let's be clear. Wauf is a slow board. Nobody is "killing conversation" here. If anything threads I enter have their post counts radically increased. And if pop sci feathergays are being chased off of Wauf? FUCKING GOOD.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If anything threads I enter have their post counts radically increased
                yes, and half of those posts are you.

                which is really cool if everyone wants to talk to you all day every day. But they don't. Most of them hate you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And? Discussion about animals on Wauf is kind of the point. Yes, I can call you a liar. No, you can't just silence anyone that disagrees with you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Discussion about animals on Wauf is kind of the point.
                You're not here to discuss dinosaurs. If you were I'd really appreciate it.

                You're here to discuss how politics ruined your childhood.

                [...]

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're not here to discuss dinosaurs.
                What you meant to say was "You're not allowed to discuss dinosaurs how I don't like". Yes I am.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes I am.
                no, you're here to tell us how you think paleontology is fraudulent as part of some crazy conspiracy to turn kids gay.

                you're insane, you attack anyone that questions your insane ideas, and you're on the wrong board entirely.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shiot shut the fuck up and go back to 4chan, Eugene. I can smell the greasy hair from behind my computer screen.

                Please cease gayposting at once.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >to turn kids gay
                You keep saying this. If you have to keep repeating a strawman over and over again, chances are your argument is a bad one.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's what you've been saying for over a year now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No. I haven't. Let this serve as a reminder for the next time you claim this.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                everyone here has seen you do it.

                you can change what you say in future but not the past, crazy person.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, when a person is as insane as you, someone's own beliefs aren't allowed to be theirs because you can't insinuate enough malice to them.

                And you call others paranoid? I'm literally a gay and I don't bring up gay shit half as much as you do. Tell us the truth. You're not allowed near schools, are you?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's not allowed near schools, is he?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm literally a gay and I don't bring up gay shit half as much as you do
                you constantly complain that trannies have taken over paleontology. It's pretty much all you do.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No I don't. But I will say the chudshit and the feathergayry have the same origin in the need of rich liberals to subvert literally everything in society.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I will say the chudshit and the feathergayry have the same origin in the need of rich liberals to subvert literally everything in society.
                yes.
                this is the sort of non-dinosaur shit you constantly flood dinosaur threads with.

                fuck off

                [...]

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >this is the sort of non-dinosaur shit
                And like I said, I'm not a brain-leashed gay like you. There's reddit for that sort of thing. I will never stop criticizing STEMfags for immoral behavior. You should be thanking people like me for fixing the mess retards like you made.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I will never stop criticizing STEMfags for immoral behavior.
                feel free.

                just don't do it here because it's not animals or nature. Which you already know because you get banned for it all the time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/1yBoJlf.jpg

                >NOOO!! YOU DERAIL THREADS
                >Literally derailing the thread by screaming about 4chan
                Pottery.

                With gays fucking each other on it.

                Was meant to be the other link.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOO!! YOU DERAIL THREADS
                >Literally derailing the thread by screaming about 4chan
                Pottery.

                With gays fucking each other on it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I just want you to understand why you're disliked and why you get banned so often.

                I'd suggest you take it to Wauf but they'll ban your gay ass in a heartbeat.

                I don't know if 4chan wants your shit either, but it's worth a try.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody cares. Shut the fuck up. This isn't /soc/. Noone is concerned about personalities here. You're such a whiny bitch. Talk about dinosaurs or go away.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Talk about dinosaurs or go away.
                that's what I'm telling you.

                talk about dinosaurs or fuck the fuckety fuck fuck off

                This isn't your personal blog. Nobody cares if scientists are gay. You don't understand science so your criticisms are stupid and wrong. And we're not on a science or politics board where they'd even be relevant.

                Talk about dinosaurs or fuck off. Not politics, not scientists, just dinosaurs. It shouldn't take you long because you know absolutely nothing about them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I stopped seeing 4chan everywhere when I got off that board anon you should try it too

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shiot shut the fuck up and go back to 4chan, Eugene. I can smell the greasy hair from behind my computer screen.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >animal rapers
                ESL plz go

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You reject paleontology in its entirety because you don't like the results.
                I reject it because I don't care.
                Again
                >NTA and ignorant, autistic tourist
                The only reason I chimed in is because of the discrepancy between the criticisms, where anon went from pointing out method to pointing out claim.
                All that was required was to say "the bad methodology was starting with a wrong/unproven claim".

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >All that was required was to say "the bad methodology was starting with a wrong/unproven claim".
                all of paleontology is literally and unproven claim
                all of science is.

                if that's bad methodology then you wouldn't be here because electricity is an unproven claim.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/pCw4EZk.jpg

                Your fallacy is false dichotomy.

                for example, I've said for years here that there are no known cases of birds losing all their feathers and evolving scales over the whole body instead.

                This is a fact. But it doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE. Of course it could happen. It just never has as far as we know.

                Similarly I've said that I consider it extremely unlikely that feathers are basal in dinosaurs. That doesn't mean it's IMPOSSIBLE. Just that I consider it unlikely.

                You're not comfortable with these sorts of unknowns. So you demand that one idea is TRUE while the opposing ideas are ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
                This makes you wrong every time, because we don't know for sure which is true, and we can't say for sure which is false. Which breaks your insane mind. Every time. You can't handle uncertainty and so you shouldn't be trying to discuss these topics until you learn to think like a human. As it currently stands you just get all mad and irritate everyone around you and frankly the board would be much nicer if you either weren't here or just kept your mouth shut and tried to learn instead of trying to teach people your wrong ideas based on ignorance and an inability to think.

                Your previous reference to Dollo's Law regarding feathers turning back into scales is true. This is one good example of Dollo in action.

                But Dollo's Law isn't an actual law. There are plenty of cases where it has been broken. It's just generally true. Usually true. Not ALWAYS true. It's possible for dinosaurs to lose feathers and evolve scales over the entire body, it's just really fucking unlikely. And it would have had to happen lots of times, so paleontologists don't consider it IMPOSSIBLE. Just far less likely than the prospect that feathers evolved several times. Parsimony as the other anon wrongly used the idea. It probably didn't happen. We have no modern examples of it happening and no evidence it happened in the fossil record. That doesn't mean it never happened, just that it PROBABLY never happened.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The claim isn't just that feathers were lost. It's that feathers were lost and WHOLE BODY pavement scales were gained
                Or feathers were lost and scales which were already present on other parts of the body like the face and legs were gained over the rest of the body. You don’t need the feathers to directly turn into scales for something to evolve from feathered to scaled
                >You mean the exception even among the only feathered animals we know of?
                They’re hardly an exception, a shitload of owls have it even when they’re not species adapted for the cold. Not to mention heaps of other birds like capercailles, ptarmigans, eagles, hawks and even certain breeds of pigeons, chickens, etc can have feathered feet and legs
                >No, not even here
                So that means the scales must be from an ancestor that possessed both feathers and scales, which you seem to very against the idea of

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So that means the scales must be from an ancestor that possessed both feathers and scales, which you seem to very against the idea of
                Your reading comprehension is truly a marvel of nature's own chaos.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're too pathologically possessed to understand that scientists have not ever claimed that branching pennaceous feathers are ancestral to all dinosaurs.
                Oh no, believe me, I'm well aware of the feathergay penchant for calling everything that's convenient in the fossil record "feathers". That's sort of my point. Even in the received evolution of feathers, wiry fringe hanging off scales isn't part of the continuum.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                so you get angery when words have more than one meaning

                this is your "that's not a scale" argument all over again.

                you understand you're handicapped, right? Like the rest of the world is going right on without you?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's it. There is no scenario where Dinosaurs have feathered ancestors and every lineage re-evolved scales to cover themselves from nose to tail.
                The scutes of bird feet are genetically thought to be derived feathers

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's are not only thought, we pretty much have molecular evidence of that being the case
                https:// www <dot> nature <dot> com/ articles / s41598 - 018 - 35176 - y
                https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ede.12123

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                http://www.tomspinadesigns.com/restoration/film-tv-props/dark-crystal-mystic-head-conservation/
                AHAHA you fucking retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Looks real to me

                Can you explain how the feathers are faked without requiring a worldwide conspiracy to turn the frogs gay and retarded hatred of the chinese who despite being bastards are masters of faking shit down to the molecular level apparently

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                NWO here. We've since stopped our turning frogs gay policy. You've fulfilled our quota.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i have AGP whats the matter also /lgbt/ fully embrace the term

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like you. Breakfast in the morning. Lunch at lunchtime. Dinner in the evening and dinosaurs are not gay chickens.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      As it should be. Bullshit needs to stop being tolerated. Our entire clown society is run on it at this point. It needs torn down brick by brick.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We've reached the point of the thread where your podium gets taken away again. See you tomorrow where you'll repeat the same lies. Don't worry. You're winning me converts.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You're winning me converts.
      that's the delusion part of your brain rot

      nobody reads your shit here. You're arguing with the same 5 people all day every day, Even if you manage to convince all 5, you've accomplished nothing. But if it makes your miserable life worth living, carry on.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why not post on

    [...]

    though
    is it too pozzed for you or smth

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He thinks there's REAL LIVE PALEONTOLOGISTS on Wauf and he's somehow changing their minds by flinging his own feces around and acting like he knows stuff.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >yet another paleoautism thread

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OMG WHY WON'T HE JUST SAY ISLAMIC EXTREMIST?!?!?

    Did I hit my head and get transported back to 2005?

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think this is it. PaleoNPC might have a heart attack this very thread.

    China is fake and gay. Always was. Always will be. And soientists lie for money. Sorry sweaty, thems the breaks. Don't like it? Stop doing it.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Reminder that the most high profile chinese fake dinosaur was created by combining the fossils of two actual feathered dinosaurs. In order to deploy the
    >Le ebil chinamen are trying to turn me gay!
    narrative, you have to recognize the existence of the most famous faked fossil and thus the existence of a feathered microraptor.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Uh, I thought there was no monkey business in the dragon bone trade. So is there or isn't there? You don't get to have it both ways.

      Nobody agrees with you. You are completely alone in these threads. Everyone hates you and laughs at you.

      >NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU!
      Says increasingly nervous shill for the 7th time today. If anything, increasing numbers no longer agree with YOU. And your obscene behavior and utter disregard for any actual scientific principles is at the core of that.

      Keep handwaving the replication crisis all you want, but people are increasingly talking bout it as they abandon woke academia and lose faith in for-profit scientism.

      >Either its not a tyrannosaurid
      Yutyrannus is not and has never been a tyrannosaurid. You can't even get the simplest of facts right.

      Oh shit, that's actually a typo. I dropped an 'o'. For once, good catch. See, accuracy is important to me, however little you care for it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >So is there or isn't there? You don't get to have it both ways.
        Yeah, actually I do. Some fossils have faked, and educated are quickly able to discern these. you wouldn't know because you didn't go to college. And, of course you sidestepped the original point being that you just acknowledged that microraptor is feathered. I accept your concession.

        >And your obscene behavior and utter disregard for any actual scientific principles is at the core of that.
        Ok let me know when you're not laughed at by the people who actually study fossils for a living. We really don't care about you. I just want you to stop assassinating threads.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You didn't recognize the distinction between tyrannosaurid and tyrannosauroid, so you did a quick google search and are now pretending like its a typo. You're hoping your faux contriteness will let you avoid notice but everyone sees you for what you are. You can't get the simplest of facts straight, and this is why you should leave the thinking to the educated people :^)

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    For anyone still reading this shill's nonsense. He has been provided with example after example for months now. He ignores them all and makes excuses. Pic related.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody agrees with you. You are completely alone in these threads. Everyone hates you and laughs at you.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feather impressions are faked to the molecular level such that the feathers can be carbon dated with samples from multiple parts of the impression showing the same age.
    >LOL NO
    You can't. That's the thing. You say you want proof that every last feather is real, but it is plainly obvious that they are there, because some feathers sampled turned out to be real and look a lot like those that weren't sampled. Here is how it is: You can not comprehend how they could have been faked. You can not begin to imagine how they could have been faked. But they have to be, in your mind, because somehow, this is a conspiracy to "subvert" dinosaurs and make you finally transition and become a gross bottom gay with fake tits. You can not imagine how feathers would have evolved frame dinosaur scales, despite that being well described (and flying around today), for some reason. And you can not imagine that dinosaurs on a whole other continent would have this mutation while a lineage on another continent did not develop it so thoroughly.

    To anyone with half a mind it is obvious that feathered theropods evolved in china. To you, these small feathered gay raptors running around ancient wuxingxansmoldicksuk province are a direct attack on your masculinity. Because you are not intelligent enough to separate them from the large north american theropods. Or intelligent enough to separate serious paleontology from dumbass theory crafting as grad students, social media attention whores, and amateurs jack each other off. No. You are just a paranoid schizo who has repressed gender dysphoria and a disordered level of hatred and distrust for the chinese (who, thus far, seem to be acting exactly like a mix between the english and the french during their industrial revolution, down to the psychopathy - we had two world wars to kill all the bloodthristy people yknow).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you say this and he'll just post an infographic and screech

      I type pretty fast so i'm going to take a minute to pretend to be him lol
      >GLOWIES
      >MIDWITS
      >CHINESE DRAGON BONE TRADE
      >ITS THERE
      >OPEN YOUR EYES
      >ALL CHINESE FOSSILS ARE FAKES
      >PROOF: ONE FAKE CHINESE FOSSIL
      >FINANCIAL MOTIVATION
      >THE FEATHERED DINOSAURS CAN NOT BE REAL BECAUSE CHINA FOUND THE
      >DRAGONS
      >WHERE WOULD CHINA GET THE IDEA FOR DRAGONS? SHUT UP
      >WHERE WOULD THE WEST GET THE IDEA FOR DRAGONS? BADASS T REX WHO WAS *NOT*. NOT! NOT! NOT! NOT! ROUNDED AT ALL! HE HAD THICK LEGS AND A THIN NECK AND A BONY BODY THAT LOOKED MORE MASCULINE TO ME! HE WAS NOT ROUND LIKE A HIPPO OR AN ALLIGATOR OR NO NO NO NO NO SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE T REX WAS SEXY
      >ITS AN INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY BECAUSE I FOUND A PINK ALLOSAURUS ON DEVIANTART
      >STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME TURN INTO A chud GLOWIES

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Like this?

        MANY SCIENTIFIC STUDIES IN OTHER FIELDS ARE UNREPLICATED SO ALL RESEARCH NEEDS CATEGORICALLY WRITTEN OFF UNLESS IT ALIGNS WITH MY OWN PREFERENCES NO I CANT EXPLAIN WHICH ONES AND WHY BESIDES THAT I DONT LIKE THEIR RESULTS SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you say this and he'll just post an infographic and screech

      I type pretty fast so i'm going to take a minute to pretend to be him lol
      >GLOWIES
      >MIDWITS
      >CHINESE DRAGON BONE TRADE
      >ITS THERE
      >OPEN YOUR EYES
      >ALL CHINESE FOSSILS ARE FAKES
      >PROOF: ONE FAKE CHINESE FOSSIL
      >FINANCIAL MOTIVATION
      >THE FEATHERED DINOSAURS CAN NOT BE REAL BECAUSE CHINA FOUND THE
      >DRAGONS
      >WHERE WOULD CHINA GET THE IDEA FOR DRAGONS? SHUT UP
      >WHERE WOULD THE WEST GET THE IDEA FOR DRAGONS? BADASS T REX WHO WAS *NOT*. NOT! NOT! NOT! NOT! ROUNDED AT ALL! HE HAD THICK LEGS AND A THIN NECK AND A BONY BODY THAT LOOKED MORE MASCULINE TO ME! HE WAS NOT ROUND LIKE A HIPPO OR AN ALLIGATOR OR NO NO NO NO NO SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE T REX WAS SEXY
      >ITS AN INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY BECAUSE I FOUND A PINK ALLOSAURUS ON DEVIANTART
      >STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME TURN INTO A chud GLOWIES

      https://i.imgur.com/Jft5EAW.jpg

      Like this?

      MANY SCIENTIFIC STUDIES IN OTHER FIELDS ARE UNREPLICATED SO ALL RESEARCH NEEDS CATEGORICALLY WRITTEN OFF UNLESS IT ALIGNS WITH MY OWN PREFERENCES NO I CANT EXPLAIN WHICH ONES AND WHY BESIDES THAT I DONT LIKE THEIR RESULTS SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP

      >all this literal schizo tier rambling
      >NO! YOU'RE THE SCHIZO!!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You just got BTFO, son. Clowned on. Mocked. And proven to have no argument except seething.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Stop hacking at your dick. Just let a doctor do it. It looks infected.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >To anyone with half a mind it is obvious that feathered theropods evolved in china.
      In your long, wandering tirade, this is possibly the dumbest part, almost unbelievably. Just becasuse china is the source of almost all feathered dinosaurs doesn't mean they evolved there first. There's no thought process that could arrive at that conclusion within a scientific framework. That's just wild speculation. And let's be clear. We're not talking about a single family of feathered dinosaurs with a logical lineage pattern. ONLY in china are we finding groups of dinosaurs with feathers we KNOW ONLY have scales outside of china and it's all over the map. Everyone is even trying to cope with Yutyrannus saying it lived in a "cold" environment. No it fucking didn't. It was the fucking Cretaceous. There were no ice caps on the planet.

      All of these complicity theorist arguments only make sense as long as they sound sciency and nobody actually looks into any of them. And that's what you gays rely on. You seem to forget that most "feather" impressions are just a few dark streaks on a rock. Surely, this would be impossible to fake. But we know that even discussing with you is basically pointless since you don't believe there is any foul play in the dragon bone trade, despite it literally making mainstream headlines.

      Because your career relies on lying.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Mental illness trigger words to ensure you have the meltdown first, and make the response second
        I am brian engh
        Lips
        They are like real animals

        Please explain in no uncertain terms how feather impressions can be faked to the point that we can identify remnants of pigments that we find in feathers today

        Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathers can be faked well enough to be carbon dated

        Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathered dinosaurs can not exist without resorting to racism against the chinese because many people say all western fossils are faked due to the west's history of faking imaginary animals and arrangements of animals to prove their own myths and make money

        Please explain these things without resorting to neo-nazi rhetoric repurposed from garden gnomes, and literal paranoid schizophrenic nonsense like "the more people disagree with me, the more I am right, because the integument of an extinct animal matters to DA JOOS plan" like a small feathered theropod is going to turn you gay

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          My guy, you are literally the first one in the thread to bring up garden gnomes. In a thread almost entirely about China.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That thing that dishonest people do where they respond to a single minor point and ignore the rest as if that absolves them. I'm sure theres a word for it...

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I think it's called being a dishonest gay.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, sure, but theres a specific name for what that disgusting little freak is doing and it will make it easier to dismiss him in the future assuming he doesn't get banned soon.

                I hope you were agreeing with [...] and not saying HE was doing that. Because if you were doing the latter LOL

                You responded to a single one of his points (a minor one) because youre desperate and upset. That other anon is right, its no wonder you didn't go to college.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You responded
                That wasn't my reply. And it's typical NPC hyperbole. OMG YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU THINK TRANNIES AND garden gnomeS ARE MIND CONTROLLING YOU!!!

                Literally get over yourself. You're just another cog in a machine made of shit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes because you're a caricature. A lunatic. You think that the hundreds of feathered chinese fossils can be dismissed because you personally don't trust Chinese people. You think feathered fossils can be dismissed because they're NEAR China, even if chinese people had nothing to do with their discovery. You are not a serious person, which is probably why you're losing arguments here and not in college.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Deflection deflection deflection he never answers the question

                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feather impressions can be faked to the point that we can identify remnants of pigments that we find in feathers today
                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathers can be faked well enough to be carbon dated
                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathered dinosaurs can not exist without resorting to racism against the chinese

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Dodges
                You must be extremely ignorant and uneducated then because this little image [...] is an adlib from a well known passage in mein kampf.
                https://hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html
                ctrl+f "Gradually I began to hate them"
                Imagine being so ignorant you unknowingly use rephrased anti-semitic propaganda penned by hitler. Lmfao.
                Now answer the questions.

                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feather impressions can be faked to the point that we can identify remnants of pigments that we find in feathers today
                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathers can be faked well enough to be carbon dated
                >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathered dinosaurs can not exist without resorting to racism against the chinese

                he never did answer the questions doe so all his samefagging activity moved to the other thread

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I answered it a long time ago, then further elaborated again a few posts ago. Hope this helps.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You didn't. You just said you don't trust china. That's all your argument is, and you back it up with vitriolic racism levied against people that are most likely better than you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >vitriolic racism
                you mean altruistic racism

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Well, sure, but theres a specific name for what that disgusting little freak is doing
                I was actually talking about you.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I hope you were agreeing with

              My guy, you are literally the first one in the thread to bring up garden gnomes. In a thread almost entirely about China.

              and not saying HE was doing that. Because if you were doing the latter LOL

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Dodges
            You must be extremely ignorant and uneducated then because this little image

            https://i.imgur.com/6Xdn2HQ.png

            For anyone still reading this shill's nonsense. He has been provided with example after example for months now. He ignores them all and makes excuses. Pic related.

            is an adlib from a well known passage in mein kampf.
            https://hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html
            ctrl+f "Gradually I began to hate them"
            Imagine being so ignorant you unknowingly use rephrased anti-semitic propaganda penned by hitler. Lmfao.
            Now answer the questions.

            >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feather impressions can be faked to the point that we can identify remnants of pigments that we find in feathers today
            >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathers can be faked well enough to be carbon dated
            >Please explain in no uncertain terms how feathered dinosaurs can not exist without resorting to racism against the chinese

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Not the one you're replying to, but that's kind of the joke, you NPC retard. It's kind of amazing to me how many fucking casuals there are on this site that don't understand Wauf culture in the slightest.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Samefag

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your next trick will be to say "You edited that image!" Crying "samefag!" on Wauf is almost as newfag as whining about nazis.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah you probably did. The compulsive "NPC" mewl is your signature. You just cant help yourself lol.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Wauf culture
                >stormfag shit
                You must be a terrible newfag if you think /newpol/ trash belongs here. You're like those people who think there's a such thing as a furgay Wauf approves of because you started on Wauf, Wauf, /co/ or Wauf in 2010 when furfag tripfags were at their height and became a regular /trash/ user.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly, I don't think blue boards belong on the sight. They've always been the reddit nufag gateway.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                *site

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think Wauf should exist at all because the whole thing is a terrible conglomeration of reddit and twitter schizos at this point

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >this mfer refers to people as npcs sincerely
    Room temp iq.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    based and truthpilled

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The truth is the NPC's greatest enemy. It reveals them for what they are: a non-person. An abomination.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    nick longrich here. t-rex had big dick sucking lips and giant bouncy tits. they were so big t rex had to pay smaller theropods with less useless arms make bras to hold them up. they were also extremely fat, had bright purple feathers that looked like a 1920s hairstyle, and called everyone sweetheart.

    this was all regardless of gender and both sexes would gladly bottom.

    trust me i'm a paleontologist.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nice samefag op. You almost got us there.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you angry and being sarcastic, or are you unironically aroused by chudsaurus rex? That's a little detailed there.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think he's just trying to get sued by a paleontologist.

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >every dinosaur to come out of China is real except the feathered ones
    >b-because they just are okay???
    I agree that fake fossils are a real thing and if they're done well enough palaeontologists can fall for them. But are you claiming shit like yi qi isnt actually fuzzy? Because you'll need more than racist dogwhistles to back that claim up.

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Please explain in no uncertain terms how feather impressions are faked to the molecular level such that the feathers can be carbon dated with samples from multiple parts of the impression showing the same age. Please.

    Maybe feathered dinos just evolved in china and TAXONOMY IS WRONG ABOUT WHO DESCENDED FROM WHO BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE THESE ASSERTIONS?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >arguing scientific fact with a schizo that denies scientific fact

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Let's review, shall we:
    who are you talking to?
    nobody here takes you seriously. Nobody anywhere does.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I take him seriously.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        why?

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >China
    >Utahraptor scales
    >Specart
    Yup, he’s retarded

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      nah, just the schizo import from Wauf

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which thing did you have a problem with and please specify why. Let me guess, you're just drive-by teamposting with your comrades and you wouldn't dream of elaborating because you know it's bullshit too. How close am I? Now reply with an insult.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Which thing did you have a problem with and please specify why
        Well for China you seem to discard literally everything found there but only if it has feathers or if it’s not a bird, even if it was found by non-Chinese palaeontologists from Europe or America. You also discard everything from Mongolia because it’s “just over the border” again regardless of whether or not the Chinese had anything to do with the discovery or description. You also can’t seem to give an explanation to how they faked shit like melanosomes preserved in said feathers. You also don’t seem to consider how excellent the fossil beds in China are in terms of preservation given the huge amount of volcanic ash at the time making perfect preservation conditions
        >Utahraptor scales
        Kirkland still hasn’t actually given us a statement on whether or not they’re even from utahraptor. But if you want to run away with it before we know then go ahead
        >specart
        He still thinks specartists are palaeontologists lol
        >Let me guess, you're just drive-by teamposting with your comrades and you wouldn't dream of elaborating because you know it's bullshit too. How close am I?
        Lol
        Lmao

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Well for China you seem to discard literally everything found there
          Oh it's worse than you know. The sheer level of fraud in the fossil trade in china combined with the desperate fumbling of baizuo gays to defend it has made me re-evaluate a lot of things. I used to just assume that Dromaeosaurs had feathers. I'm no longer convinced of this. I'm also taking a more skeptical look at traditionally accepted animals like Mamenchisaurus and the similar Omeisaurus, which have WAY too long of necks for how short their tails are. This skepticism is also more often being applied to North American and European finds, which I never questioned before. So, I guess congratulations for training me to have a more critical eye. That's good for science. Like any pathogen, you're strengthening our immune system.

          >even if it was found by non-Chinese palaeontologists from Europe or America
          See pic. ALL feathered dinosaurs come from china with very few exceptions. And the only two VALID excpeptions appear to be Archaeopteryx from Europe and *probably* Ornithomimus from North America, though that evidence is a bit muddled (no clear feather prints - most of the evidence is "chunky").

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/h9JeePN.png

            >You also can’t seem to give an explanation to how they faked shit like melanosomes preserved in said feathers.
            Well for one thing I'm skeptical you've ever found them in any chinese fossils. I've been around this rodeo a while now. Paleontologists fudge shit all the time. The paper that claimed Archaeopteryx had a hypertrophied second toe like raptors includes images. None of them depict this feature and nobody else has ever seen it historically. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

            >You also don’t seem to consider how excellent the fossil beds in China are in terms of preservation
            It's amazing how complicity theorists will unabashedly say shit like this, but cover up the massive hoax and fraud-laden dragon bone trade in china. You CAN'T know this much about particle size in Liaoning bone beds without knowing about the dragon bone trade's hokey bullshit, yet you cover up one and emphasize the other. It's really odd how all NPCs appear to be sociopaths lacking any sort of moral fiber or understanding of why that's a bad thing.

            >Kirkland still hasn’t actually given us a statement on whether or not they’re even from utahraptor.
            I'm sure it's nothing. Go back to sleep.

            >He still thinks specartists are palaeontologists lol
            We covered this here: [...]

            Any other ways you wish to be proven wrong today?

            [...]

            Holy shit take your fucking meds

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I'm saving them up to shove up your ass.

              [...]
              >this mfer refers to people as npcs sincerely
              Room temp iq.

              The surest sign of an NPC is that he thinks NPC is "just a meme". We were just using different terms to describe your kind before. You're abominations that lack personhood.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you do t have any actual evidence. Got it. We can safely ignore your pathetic lunatic threads

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Of course I do. I listed it. Children, pay attention to Mr. Smith here. He's an excellent barometer of how close to the truth we are.

              For all the NPC bystanders wondering why this topic gets such attention. Pic related is your answer.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >“The sheer level of fraud, as well as the desperate number of Chinese defenders has made me reevaluate”
                So you have no evidence and we have good reason to not take you seriously. Got it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Literally read the image in the post you were responding to, asshole.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Kulindadromeus was found near China so it must be fake!
                I’ve never seen people assert an international science conspiracy founded on geographic proximity.
                And you still have no actual evidence for the Chinese fossils being fake. No wonder you couldn’t hack it in college.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Literally read the image in the post you were responding to, asshole.

                Honestly, the fact that your only two arguments that you've been attempting to milk for all their worth for months now are:

                >I SUE YOU!!

                and

                >YOU CAN'T PROVE EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL FEATHER IS FAKE
                basically constitute an admission that your case is that weak and you're wrong. So you agree with all my other points? I'll take it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can’t prove any of them fake. You dont even have any evidence other than prejudice against Chinese people lmfao. You lose :^)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Either its not a tyrannosaurid
            Yutyrannus is not and has never been a tyrannosaurid. You can't even get the simplest of facts right.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is STILL no evidence of feathered dinosaurs outside of china except for Archaeopteryx and apparently Ornithomimus (though there are other claims).
            >Every single fossil on this list is from China/Mongolia except:
            So there is no evidence for feathers outside of China, as long as you count Mongolia as the same country as China, and as long as you ignore the evidence that doesn't come from China or Mongolia.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Also so long as you don’t count Ubirajara and discount all quill knobs as not being quill knobs even if it’s on a bird-adjacent dinosaur with feathered relatives because that one time we thought we found quill knobs on concavenator turned out to be incorrect meaning it must now apply to literally all of them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would you count something from a retracted paper. I've already warned you children about how South America is trying to catch up to china.

                not him but I also think OP is a gay. He probably sucks a lot of dick. Takes it in the ass to cure his tism.

                Not nearly as many as I would like. Who has the time in this war?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Who has the time in this war?
                you're not really fighting a war with paleontology though. You're fighting a war with paleoartists, and you can't even face them in real life. You have to talk about them behind their backs, and you can only criticize the shallowest superficial details of gross anatomy because you know exactly shit about real anatomy and even less about paleontology.

                it's funny, but it's also a bit pathetic. Learn more so you can get better at your "war." Right now you're completely ineffectual and a coward, or you're just trolling the second slowest board on a very slow site 24/7. Which is a waste of your neetbux but clearly you have nothing better to be doing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You misunderstand. The war isn't WITH paleontology. It's not even really IN paleontology. I'm not fighting it. I'm fighting YOU, because you are the child of my enemy and the father of darkness must be cast into hell for eternity.

                >You have to talk about them behind their backs
                You know what, that's a good point. I should write Engh and Witton to tell them just how fucking retarded and what colossal gays they are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm fighting YOU
                but you can't even recognize me unless I let you.

                most of the people you think are me are in fact not. And even I'm not the person you think I am.
                >I should write Engh and Witton to tell them just how fucking retarded and what colossal gays they are.
                you don't have the balls, but if you grow a pair please post results. Should be hilarious when the village idiot gets loose and pesters real people.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but you can't even recognize me unless I let you.
                Anon, I'm not the "paleo schizo" you're arguing with but considering that every last one of us here is just anonymous text on a screen while we're using this site, this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
                As for him not writing paleo-artists or confronting them in real life, this is a half-step removed from the "SAY IT TO MY FACE IF YOU THINK YOU'RE TOUGH NOT ONLINE gay" that kids bat around here while they shitpost at each other. THIS is the arena here where we can debate ideas unfettered while saying what we really mean, so let's take advantage of it as such.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
                he claims to be waging war on me personally which only works if he can ID me personally. Which of course he cannot. As he proves daily, much to my amusement.
                >this is a half-step removed from the "SAY IT TO MY FACE IF YOU THINK YOU'RE TOUGH NOT ONLINE gay" that kids bat around here while they shitpost at each other.
                nope, I just want to laugh when a crazy person tries his shenanigans in the real world and gets locked up. With the added bonus that it will improve Wauf 1000% if he goes away.
                > THIS is the arena here where we can debate ideas unfettered while saying what we really mean,
                his complaints are political rather than biological or scientific, so no. THIS is NOT the forum.

                The only reason I don't report him for it is because I know he evades bans every day for exactly that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nope, I just want to laugh when a crazy person tries his shenanigans in the real world and gets locked up.
                So you think people should be locked up for daring to speak out against modern "science" and for criticizing bad paleoart? Interesting.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no I know crazy people get locked up for threatening violence and I think that's all good fun

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                When did he threaten violence though? I think you're just a pussy who gets worked up into feeling threatened by people disagreeing with you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >When did he threaten violence though?
                he makes nonspecific threats every day about how scientists necks will feel the punishment for their sins and stupid shit like that.

                This is legal free speech when said to the general public on the internet. but will get him locked up when he says it to a specific scientist in their personal email.
                that's the joke.

                shit he pulls here will get him locked up in the real world and that's funny. Besides, he does legitimately need some help with his problems. If he doesn't get locked up for this, it's gonna just be some other stupid shit he does.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >he makes nonspecific threats every day about how scientists necks will feel the punishment for their sins and stupid shit like that.
                I knew it. Yeah and you guys call him autistic, but it would take an actual autist to read posts like that and take them 100% literally. I don't even disagree with him; am I "threatening" you now too?
                >but will get him locked up when he says it to a specific scientist in their personal email.
                Which he hasn't done. Interesting, though, that a few posts above you were actually urging and encouraging him to take it up with scientists in real life.
                Almost like you're not actually concerned with anyone's "safety" but just want to see him get locked up...
                It's hard to have a debate with someone who just argues in bad faith anon. I hope you're a little more honest in your own scientific writings...

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it would take an actual autist to read posts like that and take them 100% literally.
                or an FBI agent
                >Which he hasn't done. Interesting,
                sure he has
                >Almost like you're not actually concerned with anyone's "safety" but just want to see him get locked up.
                yes, I think you understand now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >yes, I think you understand now.
                Well, there we have it folks.
                So you can stop playing your "le safety!" card now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                when did I ever say it was about safety?

                I said it would be hilarious if you tried your shit on a real person and got locked up.

                It would be.
                I'd definitely laugh.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >my shit
                I'm not him you fucking retard, as I already said.
                Shameful display

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                avoided the question, didn't ya?

                you're making words up and pretending I said them. This is a straw man.

                or as you say, arguing in bad faith
                I expect nothing more or less from you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you're making words up and pretending I said them. This is a straw man.
                I suppose I was. And you know why that is? Because I was giving you more credit than you deserve.
                Normally, if someone takes exception to an allegedly schizoprenic person's behavior and brings up the threat of violence it's because they don't want to see people get hurt. Or at least that is the pretense of it.
                You DO want to see people get hurt if it means a guy you argue with on Wauf gets locked up.
                This tells us two things:
                1. You don't get to claim any kind of moral high ground in this "debate".
                2. You are THAT upset and worked up about paleo-schizo questioning your beliefs about long dead animals.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you must be really new here.

                the schizo threatens me personally with violence pretty often. The only reason I don't report that is because he doesn't know who I am or where I am, so the threat isn't a serious one.

                however if I was going to worry about anyone's safety, it would be mine, not his.

                As to 'moral high ground' there is none. This is just a crazy person that needs help. And the "debate" also doesn't exist. It's all in his head.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the schizo threatens me personally with violence pretty often.
                Ok, so now we've gone full circle back to you being a pussy then.
                >The only reason I don't report that is because he doesn't know who I am or where I am,
                And, I suspect, because you don't know who or where he is either.
                I mean, earlier you thought I was him samefagging, so your trail has already gone ice cold. I don't even agree with everything he says (though I do agree with a lot of it). But I do think his heart is in the right place.
                And from your posts in this thread, I'd say you are AT LEAST as prone to unstable, anti-social behavior as he is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >so now we've gone full circle back to you being a pussy then.
                I don't need random crazies from Wauf showing up at my house. He'd probably die, but I don't need the hassle.
                >And, I suspect, because you don't know who or where he is either.
                why would that matter to the cops? If he knows who I am and says he's going to kill me, the feds will have no trouble finding him. But I don't think he knows who I am so no worries.

                >You're talking to a guy who's literally posted selfies on this board.
                I think I've seen those. Old guy posting in front of a fish tank, right?
                I wonder what exactly compels some old man to go on Wauf to post selfies like a teenage girl. And he says I'm new here.

                schizo said I was a kid and a newfag. I proved both wrong by posting my face and a picture that you can find in the archives at least 10 years ago.

                you guys are the newfags. He likes to pretend I'm from reddit but that's exactly where you gays came from.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >or an FBI agent
                So you admit only retarded gays agree with you.

                >yes, I think you understand now.
                LOL! мoлoдeц, кoмиccap!

                >you're making words up and pretending I said them. This is a straw man.
                I suppose I was. And you know why that is? Because I was giving you more credit than you deserve.
                Normally, if someone takes exception to an allegedly schizoprenic person's behavior and brings up the threat of violence it's because they don't want to see people get hurt. Or at least that is the pretense of it.
                You DO want to see people get hurt if it means a guy you argue with on Wauf gets locked up.
                This tells us two things:
                1. You don't get to claim any kind of moral high ground in this "debate".
                2. You are THAT upset and worked up about paleo-schizo questioning your beliefs about long dead animals.

                I mean, technically that's a steel man argument. Sorry, autism would not allow me to leave that alone.

                >the schizo threatens me personally with violence pretty often.
                Ok, so now we've gone full circle back to you being a pussy then.
                >The only reason I don't report that is because he doesn't know who I am or where I am,
                And, I suspect, because you don't know who or where he is either.
                I mean, earlier you thought I was him samefagging, so your trail has already gone ice cold. I don't even agree with everything he says (though I do agree with a lot of it). But I do think his heart is in the right place.
                And from your posts in this thread, I'd say you are AT LEAST as prone to unstable, anti-social behavior as he is.

                The difference between him and me is that I fully admit to being anti-social. I don't like humans. That's why I'm into dinosaurs and shit. Also I value the truth above a lot. If I'm wrong, I want it corrected. PaleoNPC literally is not able to even CONSIDER that his masters could be wrong, because it means the entire edifice of modernity is a giant lie. He will call you "schizo", but he himself knows it on an instinctual level. All NPCs do. NPChood is basically insanity level tribalism to prevent anyone going outside the norms and (as far as their dim senses can gather) threatening the tribe. They operate almost exclusively on fear.

                I lack fear. That's also why he and his masters are afraid of me. Their only weapon in this fight is literal terrorism - they ridicule, form mobs, get people fired, if they can, get people arrested and imprisoned (or worse), turn people's families against them, turn people's own governments against them. It's literally the only thing they can do, because, and I repeat, the truth is not their ally. They know this. Their goal is social engineering to an absurd and unnatural degree. This, however, they don't seem to be aware of, except at the higher ranks. Stupid goylems like paleoNPC probably don't even understand why academia is such a woke mess, though they loudly and proudly state exactly what they're doing and what their goals are every chance they get.

                >so now we've gone full circle back to you being a pussy then.
                I don't need random crazies from Wauf showing up at my house. He'd probably die, but I don't need the hassle.
                >And, I suspect, because you don't know who or where he is either.
                why would that matter to the cops? If he knows who I am and says he's going to kill me, the feds will have no trouble finding him. But I don't think he knows who I am so no worries.
                [...]
                schizo said I was a kid and a newfag. I proved both wrong by posting my face and a picture that you can find in the archives at least 10 years ago.

                you guys are the newfags. He likes to pretend I'm from reddit but that's exactly where you gays came from.

                Why would anyone show up at your house? Nothing material about you is important. You have absolutely no understanding of this conflict whatsoever. You are a tool. You're a tool of evil, but still a tool. One which I use to hone both my own knowledge of the subject, and expose your masters to lurkers.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why would anyone show up at your house?
                You're the one that made the offer, you tell me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He told me he was going to step on my neck one day in a now deleted post.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >in a now deleted post.
                yeah I usually report him when he threatens other people.

                I don't report if he threatens me because I don't really care what he says. Also I like to leave a record of his threats for when he finally shoots up a school or whatever.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I thought it might at least get the freak banned long enough to get some peace and quiet.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                too much internet gave you brain damage
                perhaps you were retarded to begin with

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, got a problem with that? Unlike Tibet, Mongolia is just china.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >See pic. ALL feathered dinosaurs come from china with very few exceptions. And the only two VALID excpeptions appear to be Archaeopteryx from Europe and *probably* Ornithomimus from North America
            I’m not talking about the fossils being found in Europe or America, I’m talking about palaeontologists from Europe and America being the ones finding feathered fossils in China and Mongolia

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You also can’t seem to give an explanation to how they faked shit like melanosomes preserved in said feathers.
          Well for one thing I'm skeptical you've ever found them in any chinese fossils. I've been around this rodeo a while now. Paleontologists fudge shit all the time. The paper that claimed Archaeopteryx had a hypertrophied second toe like raptors includes images. None of them depict this feature and nobody else has ever seen it historically. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

          >You also don’t seem to consider how excellent the fossil beds in China are in terms of preservation
          It's amazing how complicity theorists will unabashedly say shit like this, but cover up the massive hoax and fraud-laden dragon bone trade in china. You CAN'T know this much about particle size in Liaoning bone beds without knowing about the dragon bone trade's hokey bullshit, yet you cover up one and emphasize the other. It's really odd how all NPCs appear to be sociopaths lacking any sort of moral fiber or understanding of why that's a bad thing.

          >Kirkland still hasn’t actually given us a statement on whether or not they’re even from utahraptor.
          I'm sure it's nothing. Go back to sleep.

          >He still thinks specartists are palaeontologists lol
          We covered this here:

          [...]

          Any other ways you wish to be proven wrong today?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Any other ways you wish to be proven wrong today?
            All you’re proving is how retarded you are, believe it or not you’re not some master sleuth who happens to just be able to see through everything. For someone who hates NPCs so much you really do act like one

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >using the r slur
              Shame on you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                not him but I also think OP is a gay. He probably sucks a lot of dick. Takes it in the ass to cure his tism.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not really a slur when it's true.

                OP legitimately has the mental capacity of a very dumb child, and demonstrably sucks penises for fun and money. We could call him learning disabled and a catamite but he doesn't know what that means.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Meds

    Get the team on the case! Shut it down!

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Meds

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    To the average joe, there are pretty much just three extinct things: Sabre-toothed cats, mammoths, and dinosaurs. This makes dinosaurs incredibly significant in pushing the link between birds and reptiles, serving as a potentially popular example of transitional organisms. This is precisely why we see the lack of feathers in dinosaurs in the creation museum which has surprisingly accurate models otherwise. They know birdlike dinosaurs would aid in acceptance of evolution and, in turn, move people away from anti-science, so they avoid them.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      One of the saddest things to me about the current year absolute state of mesozoic paleontology is that I often end up on creationist websites when trying to find the truth about recent obviously bullshit studies, because they're the only ones willing to defy academia and reveal the details of the shenanigans that went on during the study. It's actually pretty fucking depressing. We fought for a decade to shut the creationists up and now our own fields are full of what amount to creationists so terrible we're resorting to oldschool creationists to rectify the situation to any degree. Edmontosaurus help us.

      >They know birdlike dinosaurs would aid in acceptance of evolution
      It's actually the opposite. Feathergayry is moving people AWAY from believing paleontologists or thinking they have any credibility whatsoever. You can only claim all dinosaurs had feathers and get publicly proved wrong so many times before people see you for the retard you are and just stop listening. I mean, they're literally mutilating the skeletal mounts at this point to try to push their bullshit (see pic). What's even worse is paleoartists are now putting Theropod hands on totally backwards.

      As with global warming, the believers' own insanity has probably done more to discredit their views than anything their opponents ever did.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What’s up with the dick bone

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Motherfucker got convergently-evolved birdlike hips

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I refuse to believe dinosaurs had flesh and skin. They were clearly skeletons roaming and fighting each other for calcium.

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Out of curiosity, you bring up the replication crisis. Is that even really valid in the field of paleontology? You can’t exactly replicate discoveries like that, outside of just finding more of the same shit I guess

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit stop making threads.
    Go back to one of your other dozen dinoschizo sad samefag spambot threads.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >NOOO!!! THE ONLY DINOSAUR THREADS ON Wauf MUST FEATURE GORE AND FEATHERS!!!
      Mods may be trying to turn this place into reddit, but we're not quite there yet, so fuck off.

      Out of curiosity, you bring up the replication crisis. Is that even really valid in the field of paleontology? You can’t exactly replicate discoveries like that, outside of just finding more of the same shit I guess

      Of course it is. More all the time in fact, since the experts™ are veering away from actually studying fossils more and more all the time.

      But more than that, it's not JUST the replication crisis, it's the culture that created it that has a much wider range of negative effects. "Publish or perish" is a big part of the replication crisis - it encourages STEMmorons to publish loads of dogshit papers - the crazier the better. The more insane, the more attention the papers get. Similar to paleoart. That's why the most popular paleoartists right now are all beligerent feathergay retards creating the most insane edgy teenaper sci-fi shit they can come up with that swing so much weight they're getting even decent artists like Ugueto and Wierum to shove feathers on things that clearly shouldn't have them.

      Then there's all the woke shit, which means you can't criticize open chinese fraud or you're a racist.

      Also all STEMbabbies are egomaniacs high on their own farts so they all think they can't be wrong or get fooled, and then they do all the time. And when you bring it up they handwave it, pretend you never brought it up and just continue being wrong.

      Then there's also the sloppy work in general that typifies the replication crisis which all the popular modern paleontology papers are full of. The Baron et al. paper (2017 (A Dinosaur Missing-Link? - not the other one)) that tried to resurrect Ornithoscelida was full of laughably wrong shit. I don't even know how these people have degrees.

      I refuse to believe dinosaurs had flesh and skin. They were clearly skeletons roaming and fighting each other for calcium.

      Metal.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How does one become a paleoartist, anon?

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based rambling maniac
    Your autistic fascination with dinosaurs is really fun to follow along with, keep being you anon
    Do you have anything else to say?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Plenty. I typically wait for the seething reactions of NPCs though. If you have any questions, please ask. I know quite a lot about dinosaurs and general biology. I'm also a heretic in the field, so I'm not afraid to expose the actual truth in opposition to the pop sci NPC bullshit.

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