Look how they massacred my boys Posted on January 22, 2023 by Anonymous Look how they massacred my boys https://nixillustration.com/category/theme-months/retro-vs-modern/
>I don’t really care about whether or not edmontosaurus had a tiny amount of extra tissue on its head
I do lol. The more information I have the faster I can build dinosaurs.
would you like a list?
I think if you review the Allosaurus publications of the last 5 years you'll find almost all of them discuss cranial pathologies
and you have no idea what's been going on for the last 150 years.
>He’s not the guy you’ve been arguing with for the past few hours, I am. I don’t really care about whether or not edmontosaurus had a tiny amount of extra tissue on its head
I'm not arguing with either of you.
funny you think that though
Whatever you say man
I don’t doubt there’s plenty of examples of face biting in allosaurus. I’m just telling you what you posted in another thread, and unless there’s someone else on this boards who has supposedly handled hundreds or thousands of allosaurus skulls then it was you
>unless there’s someone else on this boards who has supposedly handled hundreds or thousands of allosaurus skulls then it was you
do you automatically believe anyone that claims to have handled hundreds or thousands of allosaurus skulls?
that seems like a pretty easy claim to make. And I have at least one schizo that has made a career here impersonating me.
my estimate of pathology via injury is pretty close to Foster's.
>do you automatically believe anyone
No, but given it was in a discussion where there wasn’t any feather arguments and it was about face biting in theropods which he clearly doesn’t fucking care about in the slightest seeing as it’s not related to China or feathers I find it hard to believe that it was him. I find it a lot easier to believe that you talk out of your ass when you know everyone else in the thread doesn’t know any better
>I find it a lot easier to believe that you talk out of your ass when you know everyone else in the thread doesn’t know any better
I do, absolutely
I just don't lie about the prevalence of pathological cranial bones in allosaurus that I recall.
I'm checking archives right now. A search of "allosaurus" isn't showing the comment you speak of. What's another good key word?
"pathology" you think? or did our poster use dumb words?
oh I found it!
that was me. Wednesday the 13th of July, 2022.
I'd have to check my facebook but I'm guessing I was drunk af if I don't remember the convo. It appears I was talking about ossifications, not complete bone loss. Which certainly happened.
You have an amazing memory for my posts. Thank you for reading.
>why yes, this dinosaur could bite chunks of bone clean off the face of another individual. Oh but they couldn’t cause infections that would be seen when tooth cuts bone and results in ossification of the area as in tyrannosaurs, that other group of theropods that could also bite chunks of bone off the face of another individual. That would be ridiculous
If you notice you don’t just talk about ossification of bone, you also state that the face biting in the art is fanciful behaviour
>you also state that the face biting in the art is fanciful behaviour
I did indeed.
more importantly I don't remember making that post and I have an eidetic memory unless drunk.
I don't know for a fact that face biting is responsible for loss of facial bones in either Allosaurus or T. rex. Certainly infection and remodeling don't seem to have played a significant role.
but you guys can look that stuff up and decide for yourselves I suppose. Not that you will.
>more importantly I don't remember making that post and I have an eidetic memory unless drunk
Or if it contradicts what you’re currently saying I guess
>Or if it contradicts what you’re currently saying I guess
sure, if you say so. I don't know because I don't remember saying it.
I clearly did though.
I think you're ignoring some key features...
Allosaurus jaw structure and teeth were were evolutionarily picked to sheer and tear flesh, not exactly puncture bone. In Tyrannosauroids however, this was their main feature, to puncture and break bone. T-Rex also had 6-12 inch long teeth, two to nearly four times longer than an allosauroid.
Don't bother man, even if you're right the guy will try to weasel out and try to find a counter-argument.
Just ignore him.
Actually I'm more interested in Ornithischians than anything. Featherfag up your gay ass tyrannosaurs all you want. It's lies, but it's lies I mostly don't care about. I'm still going to make fun of people putting theropod hands on backwards though.
But keep that bullshit away from my Ornithischians.
YOu understand why I don't give out infor when there's someone literally pretending to be me itt?
why help some retard pretend to be me?
What is it with 4chan mongoloids and dinosaurs living rent free in their minds?
I will PAY dinosaurs to live in my head. Fuck you.
bout tree fiddy?
As a subscription service.
does it bother you that your dinosaurs are entirely meta?
Cartoon animals living in your head?
Bother me? They have transcended your reality.
Looks like the summary for all of these is that they got some things wrong in the 1800s-1900s, the science was pretty good by the 90s. Then everything went to shit after that as everyone tried to be as contrarian as possible.
Now a lot of ideas are coming back that were "proven wrong", like non-fuzzy Pterosaurs, cold-blooded dinosaurs and "shrinkwrapping" being more accurate than the specart bullshit that's become the norm.
Also a lot of the change in views from the 1800s-1900s vs 90s shown are revelations that come directly from the physical evidence, while the "things we *now* know" we don't actually know and are pure fucking speculation, like how Stegosaurus held its thagomizer, everything having lips covering its teeth, or Pterosaurs being warm-blooded. We don't KNOW any of that shit. The difference in knowledge from the early days to the 90s are that we KNOW that Deinocheirus was an Ornithomimosaur now vs "knowing" that T. rex was a fatass with baboon lips. One is backed by fossil discoveries (that actually used to be the norm, god forbid). The other is mental masturbation. That's the difference between the actual paleontology that was being done pre-2000 and the gayry pretending to be science now.
You spamming your histrionics on Wauf does not mean your childhood view of dinosaurs is coming back.
Isn't the entire reason why crocs have their teeth visible is because they live in water? Thus their dental health is protected and moisturize by the surrounding water and not the mouth. It seems quite counter-intuitive for dinosaurs to have their teeth visible as it would actively harm their dental health and probably cause infections on the teeth itself.
Even Jurassic Parkfags are inconsistent because when they bring up the T-Rex they always ignore the raptors who had their teeth covered up.
My biggest counter-argument for the visible teethfags are the fact we have fossil evidence of dinosaurs sparring and injuring themselves in their skull of which, if were visible like crocodilians would mean their teeth would be utterly deformed and injured beyond healing. But we don't see that, we see minor scratches and bite marks left on their jaws but their dental placement are not horrifically fucked up like in crocodilians which implies they had a thick layer of skin protecting their face.
I love how as time moves on, T. rex gets less and less fuzz, but it's always there. By next year, paleo"artists" will begin putting microscopic insets into their pictures to show the tiny fuzz (WHICH IS STILL TOTALLY THERE!! T. REX HAD FEATHERS!! IT HAD TO!!!).
Where's the butthole?
dinosaurs don't have buttholes
butt not everybody had buttholes
>Isn't the entire reason why crocs have their teeth visible is because they live in water
No, that's just a meme that started trying to claim saber tooth cats has to have bulldog pouches. I've explained this to redditards before. But it always just falls back to moving the goalposts constantly.
It begins like this:
>No animal that doesn't live in water can have exposed teeth
Musk deer have exposed fangs
>Well they don't USE their teeth
>Yeah but they don't have ENAMELED TEETH
They used to though.
Then reddit dies because it doesn't actually know the fossil record.
Also the ancestors of dinosaurs are crocodile like animals called Proterosuchids. And theropods are the most primitive of the Dinosaurs, so it actually makes perfect sense that they would have exposed teeth.
Dinosaurs constantly replaced their teeth.
>makes perfect sense that they would have exposed teeth
it doesn't, the most primitive dinosaurs like eoraptor, and like other avemetatarsalians, have small teeth that were already different form primitive archosauriformes like the proteosuchids,the idea that they would be expose makes no sense at all
also though to NOT have exposed teeth
>comparing them to carnivores
>comparing them to dinosaurs
not only is the dinosaur dental anatomy completely different from that of mammalian one, but you're comparing herbivores to fucking carnivores. Musk Deer use their fangs for display and fighting, nothing else. Elephants tusks aren't even canines but incisors which are made out of the more durable and thicker teeth dental bone.
>Ancestor of dinosaurs are Proterosuchus
Guy saw walking with dinosaurs once and thought it was gods gospel lmao.
>Dinosaurs constantly replaced their teeth.
Not my point retard. Crocodiles injuring their dental bones or jaws results in utterly fucked up deformities and sometimes severe infections. We have fossil evidence of allosaurs and tyrannosaurs injuries in their jaws but they're not even halfway close to the injuries crocodiles take due to their exposed teeth.
>We have fossil evidence of allosaurs and tyrannosaurs injuries in their jaws but they're not even halfway close to the injuries crocodiles take due to their exposed teeth.
you have no idea what injuries are out there, do you?
I mean the point he’s trying to make is wrong but I suppose he’s right that we’ve never found a dinosaur that survived with an injury quite as bad as some crocs like picrel
It's cute that you guys think the three fossils you've heard of are the only three we've ever found.
I like how you say "we."
You're right, "we" haven't found anything like that. In fact "we" have never found a dinosaur fossil.
I’m not saying there’s none with injuries, but there’s none where a tyrannosaur has a healed half missing face
>there’s none where a tyrannosaur has a healed half missing face
you've done a thorough survey of the existing fossils, have you?
Nah just the interesting ones
You missed a few.
Do enlighten me
You don’t seem to realise it’s not particularly hard to tell when you’re full of shit and when you’re confident in your knowledge
>it’s not particularly hard to tell when you’re full of shit and when you’re confident in your knowledge
then why do you do such a shitty job at it?
Why would someone good at it be bothered with a bad liar?
I bet everyone that disagrees with you is a liar, huh?
what are the odds? You already know everything.
>I bet everyone that disagrees with you is a liar, huh
Nah, but when you’re a pathological liar it becomes pretty clear
Like how your opinions have done a complete 180 over the last year when you realized I was right and you were wrong on several topics?
you are indeed a pathological liar. It's literally all you do all day.
>Like how your opinions have done a complete 180 over the last year
I haven’t frequented Wauf over the last year
then how did you become so proficient at telling when "I" am lying or speaking with confidence? How do you even know who I am?
you're a fucking liar.
Because you’ve been around longer than a year. The way you type with those big spaces and the way you talk about being an expert makes it pretty easy to tell whether or not you’re you
anyone that was here more than a year back knows I don't lie and I'm almost never wrong about dinosaurs.
calling me a liar ID's you immediately, and proves you're lying about not being here for the past year.
>I'm almost never wrong about dinosaurs
I believe you
>anyone that was here more than a year back knows I don't lie
I don’t believe you
>calling me a liar ID's you immediately, and proves you're lying about not being here for the past year
You’re welcome to think that
thank you for bumping my cranium thread
you see why they used to call me craniumfag
Well craniumfag is much better than dinoschizo at least
I've been called a lot of things.
they called me paleoschizo before you earned the title from me.
>paleoschizo before you earned the title from me
Paleoschizo is the one who thinks everything from China or has feathers is fake and really likes caps lock
Yes. He's also the only anon that seriously thinks I'm lying when I say anything about dinosaurs.
I dunno about that one chief
As I said you’re welcome to think that
The interesting thing about the paleoschizo is he doesn't realize his brain doesn't work right. So he thinks everyone else is fooled by childish lies that would fool him.
of course nobody is fooled. Because everyone else has a working brain. But he can't admit that to himself.
You're literally almost always wrong about dinosaurs. And the only ones you even know anything about are large theropods. Because you have shit pleb taste.
There he is
one of his personalities anyways.
>You don’t seem to realise it’s not particularly hard to tell when you’re full of shit and when you’re confident in your knowledge
Your mistake is thinking if I know a topic I discuss it at length and if I don't discuss a topic I don't know it.
In reality what I do is provide as much info as Wauf can NOT understand.
I can talk for 100 posts about cranial osteology or how to set up an experiment with dna, because NOBODY HERE KNOWS WTF I'M SAYING.
Conversely all I need to do is show you a couple pics of pathological theropod face bones you've never seen before and that ends the discussion.
I give you just enough info that you have no clue what I'm talking about, but if you learn you'll find out I was right. Sometimes that's a lot of info. Sometimes it's 0 info. In both cases I'm certain I'm right, and in both cases I am speaking the truth. And if I really feel like it, I can prove it easily enough with a couple photos or links.
You already replied to that but whatever
>I give you just enough info that you have no clue what I'm talking about
I don’t doubt it
>And if I really feel like it, I can prove it easily enough with a couple photos or links
But you never do and never will. Even if someone asks politely if you got a link when nobody is even arguing about anything because they genuinely want to know more your immediate reaction is to be insufferable about it and try start an argument
>try start an argument
If I wanted to argue the existence of theropod facial injuries you have never heard of, I would have just posted some pics. There's no point in arguing something I can win in a matter of seconds.
it teaches you something, but it's not my job to teach you. I'm actually asking if anyone here knows what I'm talking about. Getting called a liar is just a bonus.
>If I wanted to argue the existence of theropod facial injuries you have never heard of, I would have just posted some pics. There's no point in arguing something I can win in a matter of seconds.
I know facial injuries in theropods are pretty common, just that none were anywhere near as bad as a crocodile missing half its mandible or having the front of its face ripped clean off almost up to the eye
>it teaches you something, but it's not my job to teach you
No, but you’d rather argue back and forth about horseshit with someone who wasn’t arguing in the first place for hours rather than just post a link to a paper you could find in 30 seconds because you’ve got an over inflated ego that needs to be satisfied. Don’t act like you don’t try to start arguments once it’s already devolved over a hundred replies even though you know what you’re doing when you start shit. I’ve seen you do this multiple times. Your dino god complex is just as bad as the ramblings of the conspiracy theorist
>I know facial injuries in theropods are pretty common, just that none were anywhere near as bad as a crocodile missing half its mandible or having the front of its face ripped clean off almost up to the eye
yes, that's an interesting thing to "know."
> rather than just post a link to a paper you could find in 30 seconds
99.99999....% of fossils have never been published and never will be.
Your lack of curiosity marks you.
You just assume there's no severe facial injuries in the fossil record that you've never heard of. This is a weird thing to think.
you think you know everything on the topic. That's some pretty extreme hubris or naivete, don't you think? It's always stupid to think you know everything. You're guaranteed to be wrong.
>You just assume there's no severe facial injuries in the fossil record that you've never heard of. This is a weird thing to think
No, I said there’s no tyrannosaurs with healed facial injuries as severe as those seen in some crocodiles. There aren’t any half faced tyrannosaurs like
>My posts are shibboleths. Smoke signals. Morse code in the night. Explaining them defeats the purpose.
>99.99999....% of fossils have never been published and never will be.
Not my point. My point was when asked you could post a photo of it, name the specimen or even just describe the fossil or just ignore it. Instead you like starting shitflinging contests
>Instead you like starting shitflinging contests
I'm still just asking questions.
how many T. rex facial fossils do you think there are?
how many do you think you're aware of?
how many do you think have been published?
stuff like that.
the epistemology stuff. Why do you think (insert stupid opinion here)?
what fallacies brought you to this obviously wrong conclusion?
>just asking questions
>totally not creating arguments out of nothing for the sake of it
I continue to expound while you continue to not disagree.
we are not arguing. I am stating facts and alluding to lacunae in your knowledge. Which you do not deny. In fact it'd be silly to deny.
for every nearly complete T. rex skeleton ever found, we've found literally thousands of individual bones or very incomplete individuals.
you should know this, we get some leaf fossil collector on here every now and then posting more T. rex bones than most of Wauf thinks even exist. The blind spots here are enormous.
I get lazy, because I already know the answers in most cases
wikipedia told you there's only 23 T. rex fossils in the world or whatever.
None of them are missing large chunks of face
if one was found missing large chunks of face you'd have surely heard of it
shit like that.
>wikipedia told you there's only 23 T. rex fossils in the world or whatever
Um ackshually theres 13 because I saw a Netflix documentary called dinosaur 13
>None of them are missing large chunks of face
>if one was found missing large chunks of face you'd have surely heard of it
Well I mean hey if you know about one you could surely tell all us plebs since your aim isn’t creating arguments
>because I saw a Netflix documentary called dinosaur 13
I'm guessing "we" have found another 10 since then.
you wouldn't believe the stuff "we" find and don't tell you about.
Just stop replying to him, dude. He's just a shitposter.
>Just stop replying to him, dude. He's just a shitposter.
I am apparently your only opportunity to learn anything about dinosaurs since none of you read for yourselves.
and I'm not going to teach you shit.
I'm just going to point to what you're missing and it's up to you to see if I'm right or not.
which of course you won't
Nah gotta hit bump limit. When paleoschizo doesn’t post threads he doesn’t make his own
>for every nearly complete T. rex skeleton ever found, we've found literally thousands of individual bones or very incomplete individuals.
Which is why my point was there are no known T. rex skulls that show both that degree of damage and signs of healing. There probably was a T. rex who managed to survive with a good chunk of skull missing at some point, but it hasn’t been found. Last time I tuned into one of these threads you yourself stated that Fred Wierum’s allosaurus face biting art wasn’t accurate because there’s minimal signs of face biting compared to tyrannosaurs on the skulls which you’d handled hundreds of. Even when someone stated in the several million years allosaurus was around it probably happened at some stage you said nah. You’re on the opposite stance here
You vastly overestimate how much anyone actually cares about learning about dead lizards aside from the resident skitz farmer
>Which is why my point was there are no known T. rex skulls that show both that degree of damage and signs of healing.
are you familiar with the thousands of T. rex skull bones out there?
>Last time I tuned into one of these threads you yourself stated that Fred Wierum’s allosaurus face biting art wasn’t accurate because there’s minimal signs of face biting compared to tyrannosaurs on the skulls which you’d handled hundreds of.
that was the paleoschizo pretending to be me
Most of the described Allosaurus skulls have severe facial injuries, they're famous for it.
>that was the paleoschizo pretending to be me
imagine my embarrassment if I'm speaking to the paleoschizo and he just now realized he's more than one person.
that would be funny
>that was the paleoschizo pretending to be me
Lying shitposter strikes again. I said no such thing and have never said any such thing. I honestly don't know that much about theropod behavior. I do like Fred Wierum though.
you might be more than one person
>Most of the described Allosaurus skulls have severe facial injuries, they're famous for it.
I’m sure there’s a shitload with lesions on the face from biting, but does that compare to a croc with half its face bitten clean off?
>but does that compare to a croc with half its face bitten clean off?
no, not at all.
it would be interesting if there were theropods with their faces bitten clean off.
but "we" have never found such a thing, amirite?
>it would be interesting if there were theropods with their faces bitten clean off
It’s almost that’s like what the start of the argument was about
. Or is that sarcasm? Still yet to see any examples of a skull like that
>Or is that sarcasm?
>Still yet to see any examples of a skull like that
because you're arguing with drunk paleontologists at 3 am instead of trying to find something like that.
>because you're arguing with drunk paleontologists at 3 am
I thought we weren’t arguing mr mightier than thou
>instead of trying to find something like that.
I tried a few hours ago, no luck
>I thought we weren’t arguing mr mightier than thou
did I say I was arguing?
seems like I'm pretty bad at it since I agreed with you that I contradicted myself.
>I tried a few hours ago, no luck
yeah, I know buddy.
>did I say I was arguing?
You’re arguing. Call it whatever you want to make yourself feel better about it, but anyone else looking at the thread can tell pretty easily that your goal is to argue
so admitting to you that you were right and I was wrong is arguing with you?
are you sure?
are you also sure that your 15 minute search for theropods with faces bitten off covered the tens of thousands of theropod skull bones out there?
>so admitting to you that you were right and I was wrong is arguing with you?
The last hundred replies is what I’d call arguing
This stuck out to me because since that thread I had just taken your word for it that allosaurus face biting wasn’t super likely, the contradiction to that in this thread confused me because of that
>This stuck out to me because since that thread I had just taken your word for it that allosaurus face biting wasn’t super likely, the contradiction to that in this thread confused me because of that
I don't know that it is. I explained in that post about ossified lesions. Missing chunks of face aren't exactly ossified lesions.
also at least 2 new examples have been published since I posted that. Things move fast, you gotta keep up.
>I explained in that post about ossified lesions. Missing chunks of face aren't exactly ossified lesions.
I know that. But if an allosaurus can bite off a chunk of another individual’s skull it would be easily capable of puncturing the bone enough to cause an infection that would result in ossification. Also you weren’t just talking about ossification in that post, you also stated face biting as a whole in allosaurus was bullshit
Yep, I can be mistaken.
Later that same evening I posted a pic of myself and my gf who was 15 years younger than me when we went shooting and drinking at the range.
We broke up all of 2 months later
I am not perfect anon. I make mistakes and I drink too much.
3 replies that could easily be consolidated into a single post. You always do this, you make threads unreadable with this bullshit. Note also that this is my first reply to you in this thread.
>hyuk hyuk you sure seem to pay attention to my posts
Yes asshole, because that's the point of written communication. And surely a "respected scientist" such as yourself can appreciate having strong powers of observation and deduction? Seems like a useful talent, especially for those in your field.
>3 replies that could easily be consolidated into a single post.
If I thought of them all at the same time, yes.
>You always do this, you make threads unreadable with this bullshit
>any post worth replying to is worth replying three times.
>surely a "respected scientist" such as yourself
who said I was respected?
what a weird thing to assume
as to who bit off allosaurus' face, that's a mystery because there are several large theropods in that fauna. Not as easy to solve as Hell Creek where it comes down to one species.
if the face was bitten off at all.
when (if) you find examples of T. rex or Allosaurus missing chunks of their face, you'll find the pathology isn't directly attributable to face biting
but what started this discussion wasn't face biting. Rather the claim that "we" have never found such a thing.
Which indeed "we" still have not.
>anyone else looking at the thread can tell pretty easily that your goal is to argue
you seem to pay far more attention to my posts than anyone else, including me.
If you want to tell me from the schizo,
I don't care about paleoart, I don't know anything about it.
if someone is discussing art in depth, it's not me. I do bones, not pictures.
schizo knows nothing about bones, so he talks pictures.
>schizo knows nothing about bones, so he talks pictures.
I know the difference between anatomy and taphonomy, unlike you and most other paleontologists.
>You vastly overestimate how much anyone actually cares about learning about dead lizards aside from the resident skitz farmer
not at all
it's just one of several Wauf related topics where I have enough knowledge to spot fallacies in thought.
If you go to other boards you'll find me speaking with authority on other topics, and for exactly the same reasons.
I am curious where people stop thinking
when you decide you know everything, you stop thinking. And you think anyone with more knowledge than you is "arguing" with you.
it's an interesting chimp behavior.
>nobody cares about dinosaurs
Okay, I was with you up til this nonsense.
For real. His entire goal appears to be arguing to argue.
>Your lack of curiosity marks you.
Bruh you shill status quo on Wauf literally 24/7.
>99.99999....% of fossils have never been published and never will be.
even more were published in the 1800's and nobody here will ever hear of them.
No he's right. That's totally in character for you. You're quick to fight rather than teach. Methinks because you're college-educated and any attempt to teach anything here is going to be met with the correct healthy dose of skepticism which is missing in the modern college environment. Thus why college libs are so confrontational about literally everything: everyone knows most of what they were taught is bullshit except them.
>Methinks because you're college-educated and any attempt to teach anything here is going to be met with the correct healthy dose of skepticism which is missing in the modern college environment.
if you're paying me to teach you, you're going to be far more credulous.
since you're not paying me you don't trust anything I say so there's no point in me saying it
>I know the difference between anatomy and taphonomy, unlike you and most other paleontologists.
how did taphonomy change anatomy?
Edmontosaurus regalis doesn't have a cockscomb. It's literally just skin that's slipped off the corpse. You'd think they'd know this shit since this LITERALLY JUST FUCKING HAPPENED with the Edmontosaurus "dewlap" which was shown to be the same thing.
yeah, I don't disagree with that
what was the taphonomy of the reversed stapes in UUVP 5961
what forces literally bent the stapes backwards without affecting the preotic pendant?
>without affecting the preotic pendant?
or christa prootica for the plebs
see, your interest in taphonomy begins and ends with WHAT THE PALEOART LOOKS LIKE
you have no real curiosity.
>It's literally just skin that's slipped off the corpse.
does skin often slip off corpses? are there other examples of skin slipping off corpses?
you don't know and you don't fucking care. You're just grasping at anything that renders the appearance of dinosaurs the way you grew up seeing them. Whether it's true or not.
you don't care about science and you hate science when it disagrees with you. You're a child, and not a smart one.
You've learnt some big words like "taphonomy" but you have no idea what it implies. Nor do you care. You just want to argue on Wauf that anything you don't like is wrong.
as if anything you say here matters at all.
>You already replied to that but whatever
any post worth replying to is worth replying three times.
My posts are shibboleths. Smoke signals. Morse code in the night. Explaining them defeats the purpose.
for example I'm fond of posting UUVP 5961 in left lateral aspect. Nobody asks why. I'm looking for someone that sees what's wrong with this shot. Because that person is someone I want to talk to.
Not that I don't want to talk to you, but when we talk I gain nothing. You teach me nothing.
you gotta understand that. I get nothing from teaching you guys stuff. Except insulted. I do get insulted a lot.
you see, the stapes is bent completely the wrong direction. How does that even happen? Like what kind of mud tornado was the thing caught in where the stapes is bent completely the wrong direction? Why just the stapes and nothing else?
You clearly didn’t know about Snarfle rex
>this kills the retard
Also baboons are disgusting freaks. Not even animals. Just demons.
>archosaurs are heckin cute chonkers
What did trex evolve from?
archosaurs are heckin cute chonkers
every dino thread sucks balls
Maybe if you stop butthurtedly samefagging them all up they won't. Every dino thread is full of your cat five bitch fests.
>bröther, may I have some horsetails
Lol, apparently horsetails are so nutritious a lot of baby dinosaurs were suspected of having focused on them. Mammals don't eat them because they're full of silica that grinds down teeth. Dinosaurs don't have that problem because they're always replacing their teeth.
so is every "dinosaurs can't be fat" fag going to ignore chickens exist?
So is every "dinosaurs are fat" fag going to keep bringing up domesticated animals?
subcutaneous fat isn't exactly common in wild animals of any sort. When it does show up it's probably because the animal goes half the year without food or maybe water.
if dinosaurs literally cannot be fat under any circumstance
then why are chickens fat?
breeding and a steady diet.
wild birds are notoriously dry. Even domestic birds were usually wrapped in bacon before cooking right up until recently.
wild ducks have fat anon
a delicious fat layer
>Even domestic birds were usually wrapped in bacon before cooking
Is beyond silly, especially because birds were staple foods of humans in places that didn't have pork
>wild ducks have fat anon
some do, mostly in the ass end where dinosaurs may also have carried fat.
>because birds were staple foods of humans in places that didn't have pork
I said they were wrapped in bacon, not that they were always wrapped in bacon or wrapped in bacon everywhere.
barding is a european tradition to deal with how dry even domestic fowl were.
wild ducks carry a fat layer pretty much all across their torso
penguins also have a fat layer in addition to their specialized feathers
there's plenty examples of fat birds, and by definition, fat dinosaurs
both aquatic. Aquatic dinosaurs are rare.
More likely in dinosaurs is a glycogen body and perhaps uropygial glands.
so you agree that given the right selective pressure, dinosaurs could and would have been fat
I've shot some extraordinarily lean ducks, most of them aren't fatty in my experience.
but sure, if you find a fully aquatic dinosaur I could see how fat would help it float. That's why I like the fat spino drawing a bit. It's funny and stupid, but it might just be true.
fat can also have different purposes
for example: a layer of fat between the skin and muscle tissue can help prevent dangerous injuries to said tissue
in case of T-rex, since it didn't have a thick covering of feathers, a protective layer of fat would make sense
fossils don't indicate either way, so I don't really care if people draw it with fat. I doubt it had much fat just based on what I've seen killing and skinning game, but there's no way to know and no harm in making it look fat. It's an interesting idea even if I doubt it's accurate.
do remember that mammalian predators tend to have a protective layer of fur
fat, depending on the particular makeup, can be pretty darn lightweight
the duck example above is a decent one, duck skeletons, like all flight-capable birds, is also aimed at making them lighter, but they still have a fat layer because it's advantageous to them
I don't shoot mammalian predators. Not out of any ethical preference, they just don't taste great. Deer and elk have short fur, and are extremely lean despite your idea that fat would help protect them.
And yes, fat is relatively light, but on animal the size of an adult rex would still be an enormous weight.
We don't know how they managed to stand up or move without their bones snapping as is. Obviously they did, but the mechanics of it indicate they were much much lighter than if they were mammals.
deer and elk on average would get in less fights with risk of bodily harm than most predators
at least, fights that don't involve antlers
though you're right weight is something that needs to be taken into account
such a shame honestly we know so little about extinct animals, dang DNA why do you not preserve well?
I expect we'll eventually get a strong enough understanding of how DNA evolves over time to trace out some of these problems.
and of course I'm not saying dinosaurs lacked fat completely as schizo upthread seems to say. They undoubtedly had fat, it's just a question of how much and where. Which I suspect varied at least as much as their bones did.
given the fact that both birds and mammals occupy niches where fat is useful, it's a bit absurd to think no dinosaurs did as well.
The other question I'd have is why T. rex had hollow bones and enormous lungs, lightening the body immensely, just so it could carry a few extra tons of fat around.
but that's not proof or anything. Just something I'd wonder about. Almost everything about saurischian skeletons is aimed at making them lighter, not heavier.
Because they're trying to emulate your mother.
Nah I grew up with the bottom form in the 90s and 00s and it's an improvement.
Hell, veliciraptors are now more terrifying as birds.
Wow, you're a zoomer and like it. That means it's science!
Hey, so if dinosaurs are related to birds like leftist redditors claim, why do their skeletons look like reptile skeletons and not bird skeletons?
This fetish for birds is making people actually understand dinosaurs LESS. Birds are so radically different from even Theropods that they don't really inform us about anything about Dinosaurs.
Oh also we have tracks of Theropods using their hands to claw the ground facing forward.
The article tries to cope and claim they were bending their elbows but if you try this yourself you immediately see how absurd that is as the animal would have had to have had its chest touching the ground and its hands would have been wider than its foot tracks, which they weren't. Good luck ever finding this information though, it seems to have gotten buried pretty hard.
Well I did it. It wasn't easy, but I found a source.
Pronated hands in a large (possibly Allosauroid) theropod with proof literally carved into stone. And a larger image.
Also look at the angle of the rake marks.
>Oh no no is that a 20° angle? No, trans-sisters, not like this!
Very interesting. Can't say I'm surprsed that this is not well known. It goes against the narrative and that just won't do.
It took them 12 years to publish it as a short note in a paper about something else. Literally one of the most important finds in mesozoic paleontology and they buried it metaphorically AND literally.
Didn't we just go over this, you fucking NPC?
You raged about carpenter's paper which is pretty funny since he's the only scientist that comes close to agreeing with you.
But you seem ignorant of the fact that he was merely pointing out that most theropods can't cross the radius and ulna.
the problem you have with avian folding is older even than carpenter. I'd have to check, but he was probably shitting in diapers when that got published, and he'll be shitting in diapers again before it gets tossed out.
your problem with avian folding is with Ostrom, and his pupils like Bakker, Holtz, Galton, etc.
Their views aren't just accepted, they're considered proven many times over. But I guess if you want to rage against how dinosaurs look they're the ones to blame.
Looks like my penis
>"i want to speak to the manager"-rex
they made him into a fat chud with blue hair and pronouns
In summary, dinosaurs are reptiles, not mammals. Stop basing your dinosaur reconstructions on mammals. Dinosaurs aren't birds either. Saying they are is as accurate as claiming lungfish are just pre-humans and thinking Seaman is real science.
>In summary, dinosaurs are reptiles, not mammals.
They're neither reptiles nor mammals, they're dinosaurs. Stop being retarded.
>Dinosaurs aren't birds either.
yeah, birds are a clade of dinosaurs
birds are also sauropsids, so they are reptiles too
These guys are cool though
Dinosaurs had no feathers
Pluto is a planet
all this shit and they would accomplish it more easily with a one child policy. unfortunately that can't happen, because they need more serfs to keep the pyramid scheme afloat.
Don't even need a one-child policy. Just stop all immigration and start repatriating all the high-cost, low-contribution foreigners. This would not just reduce pollution but also raise wages for the working class, reduce serious crime by at least half, and end the housing crisis. Furthermore, it would be very popular with voters.
Alternatively (or additionally), just build lots of nuclear power plants.
These things will not be done, because the people in power like immiserating working-class whites and are willing to trade having a functional country for status games.
>Alternatively (or additionally), just build lots of nuclear power plants.
This would help the environment. The other shit would not. Americans consume ridiculous amounts of resources, so ridiculous the money black hole immigrants actually consume less by living in cities and being poor as fuck. Either go poor or be fewer.
>Americans consume ridiculous amounts of resources...
I was talking about the UK (as per the original image), but even in the US you could significantly reduce consumption by reducing the number of Americans, and White people are currently reproducing below the replacement rate, so you can make some improvements just by stopping immigration. Of course, the black population has reached critical mass, so you need to do something about that, but just returning them to Africa would work fine (cost of bribing blacks to leave and Africans to accept them probably less than overall cost of keeping blacks in your country).
>Just stop all immigration and start repatriating all the high-cost, low-contribution foreigners. This would ... reduce pollution
It would actually massively increase pollution, third-world energy production is much less efficient and far more polluting.
>This would not just reduce pollution but also raise wages for the working class
Lol no. If corporations can’t get cheap labour from immigrants it will just open their factories where the cheap workers are. So instead of having a factory in your country paying taxes in your country full of immigrants who still have to buy stuff from people from your country, use services in your country and pay taxes in your country they will just open another factory in a poor country and get the cheap workers directly and send a few high skilled workers from your country to train and manage the cheap workers in the poor country taking technology and know how with them. Corporations will never pay you more than they pay to a shitty immigrant if they can. Reasons for them to stay in your country is that either it is a very specialized thing other countries can’t do (very rare cases and other countries eventually catch up) or it makes it easier to sell in your country but in that case if the production costs rise they will just move away and import. By reducing cheap labor offer (cutting immigrants) you are not improving things for the ones left, corporations are not bound to your country and can simply move away to a different country or import said product for cheap from another country instead of making it themselves.
Then why don't they? The truth is, the market is getting fossilized even for the capitalist demons damning this world. Soon they will all die.
>all shipping declines to 0
Not even possible, even if we could make shit at a printer with the click of a button.
>a fucking pigeon
>like the single dinosaur people traditionally believed to have RGB gamer feathers
>"erm no actually it was brown and boring"
why are paleocontrarians like this
Didn't have raptor claws. Was a bird-lizard. Color is questionable. The more I read, the less I believe the findings of recent papers.
You clearly have never had Australian Magpies in your yard.
Those things are demons I tell you. Demons!
I know that Microraptor has been confirmed black because of the analysis of the feathers, but were they able to do the same thing with Archaeopteryx, or is this just fanfiction?
They shrank his neck... Made him look small
I know fuckall about anatomy, but the thick neck does at least make sense in hydrodynamic terms. The snake-like neck would be quite difficult to move underwater in anything other than a straight line.
Though this being said, we do know there were both, long- and short-necked variants (several of each, as both kept evolving back to short/long necks every now and then), so there must've been a reason for the long necks, which speaks against a 'Fat' neck that wouldn't really accomplish anything the shorter neck variant doesn't.
I don't want his mother to see him this way
Tbh, I do have problems with flight feathers on maniraptorans too big to fly.
Flightless birds invariably lose those feathers, and as far as I can tell - though I have admittedly not looked through the entirety of relevant literature - all fossils with actual flight feather impressions that we've found are firmly on the small enough to fly side.
Deinonychus' coating was likely more reminiscent of cassowaries or moas than of doves.
What's the ancestral condition? Small enough to fly, or at least glide? In that case flight-like feathers seem at least somewhat plausible as a retained feature. Ostriches don't have flight feathers per se but they have some feathers which look 'feathery' rather than 'hairy'.
Also, I think it's just about possible that a lot of dinosaurs weren't capable of true flight but benefited from improved aerodynamics in terms of being able to make extended jumps or survive falls. Gliding is pretty common, as are fall-mitigating adaptations (e.g. cats' mid-air twisting). This also accounts for the evolution of flight, providing an intermediate step.
In terms of coolness, I'm not convinced that hair-like feathers as seen in kiwis, cassowaries, etc. actually looks less silly than flight feathers. At least flight (style) feathers in eagle-colours look like a serious predator we are familiar with.
there needs to be a word for the equivalent of shrink-wrapping but for over-fuzzing or over-fattening in paleoart
>there needs to be a word for the equivalent of shrink-wrapping but for over-fuzzing or over-fattening in paleoart
"scientifically accurate" is the preferred term
It's called being a chud.
um... kingofthedinosaurssisters, how do we respond?
Of these, the first is the most metabolically and ethologically correct, the second is the most anatomically correct and the last isn't correct at all.
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
how many boosters?
Alright, I'll bite, how is the second T-Rex more accurate anatomically than the third?
he's not going to answer because he doesn't know jack shit about dinosaur anatomy.
Or if he does answer we're going to learn that his complaints are about mechanics, not anatomy. Because he doesn't know anything about anatomy.
it's all so tiresome. The schizo doesn't even get the words right, he doesn't know what anatomy even is.
- Is not fat
- Is not based on a mammal and has reptilian features
- Not covered in "fuzz"
I thought they'd disproves the T-rex feather theory and it was mere sparse filaments all along (as many people were already guessing in the 80s and 90s).
After a certain size the feathers really don't make sense. You only have to look at Ostriches and Cassowaries, how they've slowly developed patches of less to no feathers, to see how that happens.
And they may have been more brightly coloured than people think too when you look at cassowaries.
>and it was mere sparse filaments all along
Stop reading tabloids. No Tyrannosaur had ANY feathers. And Proceratosaurids aren't Tyrannosaurs.
no large Tyrannosauroids outside of Yutyrannus has any evidence for feathering or integument. And it's a Proceratosaurid that lived 60 million years before Rex in an environment where it regularly snowed and exposed the animal to freezing temperatures. There is zero evidence of feathering in any member of Eutyrannosauria while there is overwhelming evidence that they were scaly.
>scavengerfags are back
>Tripod pose bad
There's actually no real evidence dinosaurs couldn't do this except people don't want to believe it. They'll use stiffening ligaments as an argument for why they couldn't bend their tails like this, then every other year some dumb asshole will try to claim a dinosaur curled up in burrows.
>Hands in correct alligator-normal position
>Neck slightly too thin
These are the issues with the old image.
>Neck far too thick
>Fat dinosaur (reptiles basically can't be fat, they're not mammals)
>Fantasy cockscomb. This was almost certainly yet another taphonomic issue of skin sliding off the corpse like the stupid "Edmontosaurus dewlap" that everyone realized was a mistake. Modern paleopseuds can't tell the difference between taphonomy (how an organism gets fossilized) and anatomy.
Kudos to someone for finally getting the feet right though. Most modern paleogays can't even manage that. And they didn't extraneously cover it in feathers. That shouldn't get any points, but that's how bad the current situation is.
Modern paleoart is just as inaccurate as the oldest paleoart, and often worse because the old school were actually trying to depict dinosaurs accurately instead of just trying to cause drama to advance their own careers like modern paleo"artists".
>Fat dinosaur (reptiles basically can't be fat, they're not mammals)
>MOMMY I POSTED IT AGAIN!
Here's what a normal reptile looks like. Notice something odd compared to the other images?
>OMFG WHO SHRINKWRAPPED THIS CHAMELEON!?!
Dinosaurs are not lizards you shrinwrapped fuck.
Look at the birds to get a better image of what they could be.
Yes they are. You mad? What they're not is mammal-birds and you need to get over this fetish of yours.
Here's your (You) you unironic retard
>Look at the birds
hey now, where's the crests and dewlaps?
To be fair that would be a pretty emaciated owl if it weren’t taxidermied when you compare it to a live owl without feathers
not even most lizards are shrinkwrapped though
Why's this lizard shrinkwrapped? Also, we know that scales evolved from feathers, so this reptile should have feathers.
>SOME scales evolved from feathers
>ALL scales evolved from feathers
Based actual retard can't tell the difference between these two statements.
Nope. All scales evolved from feathers. All reptiles should have feathers except birds. The problem with the statements is that neither are true.
so you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum, but about something that's actually true (some scales evolved from feathers) but you don't believe it.
got it. I'll note that one as a straw man rather than a failure to recognize gradients.
do you do this often?
I mean create a false dichotomy as a rhetorical tool to demonstrate absurdity?
I ask because you use so many false dichotomies it's impossible to tell when you're pretending to be retarded and when you're actually just retarded.
All yesterdays strikes again. Yeah, when you literally pair down the skin to the absolute bone. Are you Mark Witton?
A Komodo dragon’s top teeth overhang the lower jaw, therefore it is impossible for them to have lips. baka my fucking head
Except Komodo Dragons aren't sabertoothed animals. T. rex is. Thanks for playing.
As a visual demonstration, some T. rex skulls have such long teeth they would pass the lower jaw. Teeth-covering lips are basically off the table for anything like T. rex.
These are mammals, anon. They have soft lips and cheeks. Theropods didn't. A better comparison would be Varanids or Tuataras, but again, these aren't saber-toothed animals.
>but again, these aren't saber-toothed animals.
That's kind of the definition of saber toothed animal: that caniniform teeth project well into the domain of the mandible (or maxilla if coming from the bottom).
That would make virtually any carnivorous mammal a saber toothed animal. You can’t make up a definition and then claim it’s the actual definition that everything should abide by
>T. rex is a sabertooth according to my definition I made up which is the only correct one
>some T. rex skulls have such long teeth they would pass the lower jaw
Sounds like bullshit. Also baboons and clouded leopards seem to manage just fine with that
Mad retard strikes again. You're literally replying to a fucking image and saying the image isn't real. Here's a trick: grap a ruler and compare the teeth to the mandible. Or just open the image in fucking MS Paint and count the pixels. Not hard.
they've gotten so used to you being wrong they don't believe you when you're right.
don't worry, I know when you're right. I just prefer to keep silent and see how you deal with retards that won't read, learn or think. Because irony.
Not him but in this case the teeth don’t really look like they extend past the lower jaw much if at all
what none of you seems to realize, including the paleoschizo, is that the lower jaw slides up inside the upper jaw.
so even if the teeth were relatively short, they'd still hang down over the lower jaw.
see picrel here
I know the lower jaw would fit within the upper jaw, but even accounting for that it still doesn’t look like it had fucking saber teeth like the dinotard is suggesting or that lips would be impossible as a result. I’m not really convinced whether it had lips or not either way but he seems very hung up on this
Yes, you are correct.
but so is the tard.
It could still have lips, but it would mean the upper lips would hide the lower jaw when the mouth is closed. Moving the line of the mouth to the bottom of the lower jaw.
This looks stupid so no artist draws them that way. And because of that any illustration with hypothetical lips is inaccurate in this regard.
why he worries so much about accuracy in drawings of dinosaurs I can't say for sure, but I tend to assume it's just extreme autism.
>This looks stupid so no artist draws them that way.
I mean, a lot of artists are trying, but it always looks fucking retarded which is how you know it's wrong.
>that hideous prosciutto color scheme
What on Earth were they thinking?
>it still doesn’t look like it had fucking saber teeth
Most people don't realize T. rex is a saber toothed animal. It's because it doesn't have just one pair of caniniform teeth that stand out. It has several and they blend into being saber toothed, so it's easy to miss. If a saber toothed cat had similar dentition it would look something like this.
>but he seems very hung up on this
It's been mentioned one time.
>Most people don't realize T. rex is a saber toothed animal
Probably because it isn’t
Everyone has seen Jurassic Park.
Of course T. rex can NEVER be illustrated or mounted with its mouth closed,
but we know from wear facets on the teeth and the occasional articulated skull found with a closed mouth that it had occluding teeth and jaws just like other theropods.
meaning the lower jaw and teeth fit well up into the upper jaw when the mouth was closed.
But to look at T. rex illustrations and mounts, you'd think it never closed its damn mouth.
Just noticed you posted a Yutyrannus skull. Proceratosaurids aren't Tyrannosauroids. That superfamily is fiction.
So this is the cope you use to retroactively justify your position that Yutyrannus doesn't count. Its still pathetically transparent, but at least its better than a Chinese conspiracy theory.
I and several other paleontologists agree with that view.
In fact he's just repeating something I've been saying on Wauf for at least 12 years now.
If Yutyrannus is a tyrannosauroid then T. rex should have feathers.
T. rex didn't have feathers, which indicates Yutyrannus may not be a tyrannosauroid.
There is no chinese conspiracy. Just lack of morals in china.
How far the teeth extend compared to the mandible varies wildly among individual rexes, but those specimens with the longest upper teeth basically preclude iguana-like lips.
Yeah Dinosaurs stuck in eternal soiface is a human obsession.
>we know from wear facets on the teeth and the occasional articulated skull found with a closed mouth that it had occluding teeth and jaws
I literally don't see how this is possible. The maxilla is much wider in T. rex than the mandible. Unlike most theropods the ratio is nearly 2:1. I would be very surprised if T. rex's teeth were wearing on each other without being physically capable of touching. I also wouldn't be surprised if those wear marks were just from chewing bone.
>The maxilla is much wider in T. rex than the mandible
>I would be very surprised if T. rex's teeth were wearing on each other without being physically capable of touching. I also wouldn't be surprised if those wear marks were just from chewing bone.
It's well established fact.
>Most people don't realize T. rex is a saber toothed animal.
Animals with exposed teeth have different thickness of enamel. T. rex doesn't have saber-tooth teeth.
>it always looks fucking retarded which is how you know it's wrong.
how it looks has nothing to do with whether it's accurate or not. Lips making them look stupid is not an argument against them having lips.
>It's well established fact.
Well I don't how they did it when their maxillary and dentary teeth are fucking airgapped.
>how it looks has nothing to do with whether it's accurate or not.
Of course it does. You don't grasp this concept because judgement is a person skill. NPCs just run on information dumps and don't possess things like intuition or discernment. Literally goodthink mindset.
>Well I don't how they did it when their maxillary and dentary teeth are fucking airgapped.
yep. It's a complete mystery to you and no dinosaur paleontologist ever.
like I said, bones shrink after death.
>You don't grasp this concept
of course I do. I also grasp that your idea of what looks good is based on what you were raised seeing, not what's real. You're incapable of introspection so that doesn't occur to you.
>like I said, bones shrink after death.
But just the mandible right. Typically I just ignore your babbling, but this one is particularly fucking stupid.
nope, shrinkage depends on length and thickness of the bone. The lower jaw is smaller, thinner, and it shrinks more. All it has to do is shrink a cm more than the top and the teeth no longer touch.
>but this one is particularly fucking stupid.
I love that you think your brain works.
classic schizophrenia. You have no idea you can't think.
The other mistake you're making is thinking those teeth necessarily go in those sockets.
or that those teeth even necessarily came from the same skull.
but that's understandable since you've never dug up or restored a dinosaur skull.
you're also unaware of diagenesis, but again that's just a complete lack of experience working with dinosaur bones.
It would be like if we took your head and ran it over with a truck a few times. Then take all the crushed bones and teeth out, throw 3/4 of them away, and mix the remainder up with some broken dog parts and maybe the crushed heads and bodies of a few other people.
then we try to collect just the parts from you and glue them back together again and some moron comes along and says
>but the teeth don't touch!
you're that moron.
Imagine if alien xenopaleontologists in the future restored all mammals based on modern americans lol.
Not the feather autist, but your pic supports his point. In order to optimize sunbathing that croc is extremely flat, it's completely different from the striped hippo in OP.
So if you were to lift this 1 ton reptile up, it would remain perfectly disc-shaped? And not sag like a fat bag of potatoes?
Get a grip cunt.
Actually, it's just an overfed zoo animal, but most of what you're seeing here isn't fat OR muscle. It's internal organs just moving around in the body cavity like a sack of fish. Crocs don't have rigid torsos. This is what wild crocs actually look like though. Though older/larger crocs do tend to be 'juicier' it's not because of body fat. Again, the fact that feathergays think dinosaurs were eating McDonald's says a lot more about them than it does about the science.
Why is this photo's lighting somewhat undicky?
He chonkin thicc.
By the way, thick necks in Hadrosaurs, like a lot of fashionable beliefs about dinosaur anatomy these days, is physically impossible. Parasaurolophus would have had to have its head pointing down literally all the time.
Why does it have a bone connecting to its poopa?
That's the poop tube.
>It's actually a paired hip bone, but you can't see that form the side
>reptiles basically can't be fat
Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?
Here's the thing. The fact that you pseuds are using overfed zoo animals to "explain" why "axchually dinosaurs were fat" is a sign of your own decadence. It has fuck all to do with science. Reptiles in the wild are not fat. I literally just posted a chameleon skeleton for you. Explain to me why it's "shrinkwrapped" and doesn't have neck balloons and turkey wattles and feathers. Go on. Let's see if there's a single honest bone in your body.
I don't care about any of this other shit with wattles or whatever, that's pretty clearly speculative and I can take it or leave it - many modern reptiles are covered in wattles and dewlaps, as are many modern birds.
But your statement that 'reptiles basically can't be fat' when they specifically store adipose tissue in abdominal fat bodies and in their tail is just wrong/retarded and a product of your biased hysterical overreaction to some paleoart you don't like. There isn't a fundamental biological rule that states that 'reptiles don't have fat', because, conversely, they do. They don't have the same level of extensive fat deposits that mammals have because A) modern reptiles are generally smaller so require less on demand energy and B) surviving reptile taxa are all ectotherms, meaning they can't survive on burning their own calories alone, they need to warm themselves with the sun. Most of their fat deposits are for reproductive purposes primarily. However, we now know it's unlikely that a purely ectothermic regulation method could've supported the metabolic rates of most dinosaurs, which were generally larger than modern reptiles, more active, and grew a lot faster. They had four-chambered hearts (all modern reptiles except for crocodiles have 3 chambers, crocodiles require 4 chambers because they are aquatic and probably inherited it from archosaur ancestors), likely a sustained aerobic metabolism (indicated by chambered air sacs), and ecologies that do not reflect ectothermic lifestyles (the ratio of the total mass of predators to prey in dinosaur communities was much more like that of modern and recent warm-blooded communities than that of recent or fossil cold-blooded communities.)
They were either wholly warm-blooded endotherms like their modern bird descendants, or they had intermediate mesotherm metabolisms somewhere between full ectothermy or full endothermy, perhaps with different lineages covering different types of metabolism.
>many modern reptiles are covered in wattles and dewlaps
No they aren't. Some lizards have dewlaps. Most reptiles (other than snakes and turtles) have midline dorsal scales. That's about it. Floppy bits isn't really a thing with ANY animal. Retards like Engh have just built a career on being contrarian gorefag chuds. They take the most bizarre examples of birds and try to claim all animals looked like that. Most BIRDS don't have wattles and inflatables sacks and dinosaurs are not birds. Nor are they neutral animals getting ready to become birds. They're reptiles.
I've already posted the skeletons. Want me to post a fucking series of X-rays? Bruh why are modern artists shrinkwrapping all these reptiles???!!
>because A) modern reptiles are generally smaller
That's got fuck all to do with it. A rat has more fleshy bits than a giant tortoise, you retard.
>surviving reptile taxa are all ectotherms
So are extinct ones.
>Muh croc heart!
Crocs have reptilian hearts. Examine one some time. They're not really that impressive.
>Whatever the combination, the evidence shows that many dinosaurs were homeotherms
Actually, it doesn't and this proves you don't know the literature on the subject. You're a midwit with Dunning-Krueger. Try actually going and reading some papers on dinosaurs and come back to the conversation.
Honestly ain't that different. I remember someone on Wauf reconstructed a conservative artwork based only on the skull of a beaded lizard and it looked almost identical to the living animal.
So, no evidence, just ad hominems and appeals to non-existent authority? Enjoy your mental illness and hysteria.
Evidence of what. Unlike you, I post papers. Ask me to prove any claim and I'll send you a link immediately.
>Crocs have reptilian hearts.
non-archosaurian reptiles have three chambered hearts, meanwhile crocs have four chambered hearts that resemble avian hearts more than other reptiles hearts
>Actually, it doesn't
Actually it does
www <dot> nature <dot> com/ articles/ s41586 - 022 - 04770 - 6
Crocs have three chambered hearts. Try again.
>Actually it does
Oh for fuck's sake, you don't have to break up the link this much, retard.
Oh boy, here we go with the witchcraft again. Now here are a bunch that counter this nonsense. Why is it always the contrarian studies that rely on non-scientific means? By the way, organic molecules aren't 100 million years. This is a non-scientific view that simply won't die in the paleo community for some odd reason. Now for some actual studies.
If you're the same poster, you even posted an image from one study that shows dinosaurs weren't endotherms.
Once again, showing your idiocy. You clearly don't even know what Prolacerta is. You'd never be saying this kind of shit if you did.
>Oh for fuck's sake, you don't have to break up the link this much, retard.
you need, for some reason Wauf treated that link as spam
>h the witchcraft again.
you have no idea on how science works
> you even posted an image from one study that shows dinosaurs weren't endotherms.
I'm not that anon and that studie is older and receive a fair deal of critics, and was contradicted by newer studies like the one I posted and also works as evidence for the papers you cherry picked being incorrect
Hmm. Just looked again, I thought the intraventricular septum was *mostly* complete but not entirely sealed. I guess it is entirely sealed. This still doesn't mean that archosaurs come from endothermic ancestors like every retard likes to think.
This is your last reply because it's clear you actually hate science. I won't argue with religion.
>I'm not that anon and that studie is older and receive a fair deal of critics
Ever notice how only the unfashionable papers are ever criticised? I bet you didn't, because you're a pop sci retad.
you are the one ignoring the most recent article and calling techniques you don't understand witchcraft
>Crocs have three chambered hearts.
Four-chamber sections of crocodile (a–b) and human heart (c–d) in attitudinally correct positions. The heart of a 2-year-old crocodile showing the inferior aspect (a) and the superior half (b). The section cuts across the inferior aspect of the fibrous leaflet of the right atrioventricular valve. In the inferior part of the heart (a), the two septally positioned leaflets of the atrioventricular valves are seen to insert at similar levels (circled). There is no evidence of an atrioventricular septal ‘sandwich’ as seen in the human heart. The fold of tissue between the right pulmonary vein and the right atrium is also evident (red arrow), as are the right (R) and left (L) venous valves. In the superior half of the heart (B), there is a greater degree of offsetting of the atrioventricular valves. This is due to the right atrioventricular valve hinging from the mid-point of the extensive membranous septum (green arrow). LA, left atrium; LV, left ventricle; PV, pulmonary veins; RA, right atrium; RV, right ventricle; SS, spurious septum; TC, terminal crest.
Whatever the combination, the evidence shows that many dinosaurs were homeotherms and could independently maintain body temperature and metabolism in a way that modern reptiles can't. Now, if they were indeed endotherms, then they might have a different relationship with their adipose deposits than modern reptiles do, ie they might require them to maintain a high metabolic rate.
You don't have to undo the entire Dinosaur Renaissance just because you hate modern paleoart. It's very much the case that there's a lot of retarded stuff out there but that doesn't bring us back to the conclusion that dinosaurs were just 'muh big lizards'. They were a lineage of reptiles that developed a collection of traits that made them wholly different from other reptile groups, including modern taxa. That's why they were so SUCCESSFUL for 165 million years, because these adaptions allowed them to dominate Triassic ecosystems in a way that other archosaurs or lepidosaurs or just other diapsid reptiles weren't capable of doing. Which is why their only surviving descendants, birds, are so totally different from any other line of reptiles.
Just admit this modern paleoart rubs you up the wrong way because you think it looks retarded. There's no shame in that, I'd agree with you on a lot of it. But that doesn't justify trying to ignore some of the very unique things we know about dinosaurs that means that modern reptiles are NOT a good analogue for reconstructions, in much the same way that modern birds or, even further afield, mammals are also not a good analogue. Dinosaurs, as a lineage, were entirely sui generis and their only surviving non-avian reptile relatives are highly specialised aquatic predators that are very different from what we know about dinosaurs. With regards to other modern reptile groups, like squamates and testudines, they aren't all that helpful in understanding dinosaurs because they differ in fundamental ways.
Missed this, because I'm mostly glossing over your reddit tier posts.
>With regards to other modern reptile groups, like squamates and testudines
Actually, you're fucking wrong in a huge way. While turtles are evolutionary freaks they STILL inform us about reptiles, in some ways BECAUSE they're so apomorphic. Lizards, on the other hand, are so plesiomorphic and have existed for so long they are an excellent source of information on what we can expect from a generalized reptile model. Snakes, turtles, tuataras, crocodiles AND birds all came from originally very lizard-like ancestors. And I don't mean that generally, I mean SPECIFICALLY. The ancestor of all dinosaurs is Prolacerta and it basically just looks like a monitor lizard with a bit of a funky jaw, mostly not visible from the exterior.
You don't know the actual science. That's why you agree with the pop sci bullshit. It's all wrong. The evidence is VERY clear on most of these issues.
>The ancestor of all dinosaurs is Prolacerta
prolaceta isn't even an archosauriform, much less the ancestor of all dinos
different Waufon, very good read
>chamelons are the only type of lizard
vs the skeleton
Oh no, look they've shrinkwrapped a snake too! Don't these bigots know they had feathers and wattles?
Why won't the shrinkwrapping stop? How the fuck are these anti-science transphobes shrinkwrapping living animals?!?!? They even got a tuatara! How dare they!?!?
you gays make me hate Wauf contrarians as much as i hate redditor soibois. i'd rather have an insufferable manchild with a genuine sense of wonder over an insufferable manchild whose entire line of opinions and personality is based around NOT liking what the other manchild likes.
i hope some dude gets to travel back in time and take a picture of a t. rex, have it be fat, wattled, muscular and cylindrical, shoves it in your face while calling it a "hecking chonker, just like your mom"
By the way, the hands being in the correct alligator-normal position is not a problem, it was just worth noting that paleoartists USED to get this right and now they religiously get it wrong because of Carpenter having never seen a crocodilian and reddit and deviantart playing telephone.
>s USED to get this right
they didn't because that is not the correct alignment for dinosaurs, their forearms and wrist structure is not like the crocodilians or lizards but resemble the ones in birds(the only living dinosaur clade)
Cool story. Now I'm going to step-by-step explain to you why you're wrong. Here's a link to the foolish paper that started this "Theropods can't pronate" horseshit:
In it Carpenter makes an elementary mistake he then goes on to build an entire paper around and now everyone believes it like it's the fucking bible. The problem is, he reconstructed Allosaurus' hand as if it were simply laid flat. Just one problem: that's not how dinosaurs held their hands and it's not how their closest relatives the crocodilians hold their hands either. Pic related is a crocodile's hand bones. Clearly crocodilian hands are oriented in a single plane like a dolphin's flipper, right? WRONG.
This is an alligator's hand with the ligaments still intact. This is how crocodilians ACTUALLY hold their hands. Notice something? The hand is damn near perpendicular to the plane of the radius and ulna. Neither the finger bones nor wrist bones inform very well of the orientation of the hand in relation to the arm bones in the living animal. Carpenter, like all other paleopseuds just assumes that how you find them bones is how they's oriented. It's not. Like most paleontologists alive today, Carpenter doesn't know the difference between taphonomy and anatomy.
And this is how it looks when the animal is alive. Note the lack of "accurate" hands on the living animal. Doesn't this alligator know brian engh doesn't approve of his inaccuracy?
But it gets worse. EVERY SINGLE DINOSAUR WE HAVE HANDPRINTS FOR holds their front feet at the EXACT same orientation of crocodilians - between about 20° from forward to about 45° from forward. NONE of them hold their hands perpendicular to front like they're dancing the robot as is religiously shown in theropods.
But it gets worse still. The constant refrain of feathergays is that theropods are just useless animals waiting to become birds. They weren't. Dinosaurs are not pre-birds. They weren't just waiting around to do nothing with their front limbs until their great great great grandchildren learned how to fly. They used their hands and crippling them with funky orientations because they clairvoyently know that they will become birds one day would impede the use of them. And now we have to put up with this bullshit - backwards hands.
In summary, dinosaurs are reptiles, not pre-birds. If theropods had this retarded hand orientation, they are the ONLY dinosaurs that did, and there's no actual evidence they did so. Once again, we're back to "you can't prove it isn't that way!" which isn't science. That's religion. That's cult shit.
Paleo"artists" have become so terrified of "bunny hands" because "AXCHUALLY *spits everywhere* CARPENTER SAID THEY COULDN'T DO THAT!!" that now putting theropod hands on backwards has become the norm. Is it science? Nope. Is there ANY evidence theropod hands were attached to their arms in a supinated position? FUCK NO. And it would be batshit insane to think so.
But here we are. This is what happens when midwits do science, then other midwits use that bad science for entertainment.
>Is there ANY evidence theropod hands were attached to their arms in a supinated position?
I see you've never heard of the SLC
I believe it was first described by Ostrom in 1969, so again you're raging against science that's older than you are and a lot more trustworthy.
your ignorance is vast, young padawan.
>waiting around to do nothing with their front limbs until their great great great grandchildren learned how to fly
Just look at cassowaries. We literally have this today with some modern birds.
he doesn't seem to understand birds were flying when allosaurus was around, and almost every theropod he's aware of came AFTER birds.
he's not very bright.
That literally makes no sense. Cassowaries aren't waiting to evolve flight. Your brain doesn't work. No animal is waiting to become something else. They are what they are. Whatever comes after is not known beforehand.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the fact that birds evolved before Allosaurus fragilis and almost every other theropod you know of.
Just curious how that fits into your worldview.
>Whatever comes after is not known beforehand.
true facts, but whatever comes after usually evolves a bit at a time long beforehand.
evolution is weird that way, it can't plan things, it can only work with what's there.
by the time birds flew, dinosaurs had already evolved almost every single adaptation for flight beforehand. Not because they were planning on flying, but because every adaptation they evolved was useful for something other than flight.
you come close to understanding and then for no reason just stop.
I suspect you of having a saltational view of evolution. Dinosaurs are completely unbirdlike until one day they decide to be birds and instantly and completely become birds instead of dinosaurs.
this is a fun view that creationists often hold and scientist never do.
Evolution doesn't work that way. Before dinosaurs evolved into birds, there were millions of years of them slowly becoming more birdlike. Not because they were planning on becoming birds, but because almost all of those bird traits HAD TO EVOLVE BEFORE THEY COULD FLY. And none of them evolved for the purpose of flight, because evolution doesn't make plans.
If you understood how evolution actually works you'd have no problem with the fact that Allosaurus had an SLC (a bird trait) even though it very obviously used its hands and wrists to grab other animals.
because having a bird wrist doesn't mean it was waiting to become a bird, or that it couldn't use its hands in the meantime. Not that it matters, since birds had already evolved by then and Allosaurus just had several bird traits left over from the common ancestors it had with birds. It presumably never evolved to fly, and it didn't need to because birds existed before it did. But it had a handful of bird traits anyways. Because evolution can't make plans. It just works with whatever it's got.
>It presumably never evolved to fly, and it didn't need to because birds existed before it did.
and this is why your "my ancestor" thread was so amusing to me.
creationists think that evolutionists think all those modern animals are ACTUALLY our ancestors. Of course they're not. They represent steps on an evolutionary path, but not one of them IS ACTUALLY OUR ANCESTOR.
Same goes with dinosaurs. Every single theropod represented a step along the path to becoming birds, but NOT ONE OF THEM WAS ACTUALLY AN ANCESTOR OF BIRDS. Birds evolved before they existed.
It's a bit sad you don't understand why one of your funniest threads is so amusing, but you are at heart just a creationist, with a creationist's misunderstandings about evolution.
I mean, birds are theropod dinosaurs
a heavily diversified former niche group which spread after a mass extinction, but theropods none the less
same way mammals are still synapsids
Yes, but with the difference that birds evolved before almost every other theropod we know of.
including the ones that lots of people mistakenly believe are their ancestors.
isn't the current consensus the last common ancestor of birds and their closest related non-avian raptor relatives is somewhere around the middle-jurassic?
It's a shitload earlier than most people assume, but theropods had diversified quite a bit at that point too
so when we say Velociraptor is close to the animal we expect birds to have evolved from, we don't literally mean they evolved from Velociraptors. They show up almost 100 million years after birds, so they're not a likely ancestor of birds.
oh yeh absolute
and it doesn't help that some later non-avian raptors had a tendency to evolve bird-like features from time to time
but that's just the result of them sharing a common ancestor from which they inherited the potential to evolve some of those features, much in the same way birds evolved them to begin with
a lot of those bird features were probably inherited from their MRCA with birds.
but we don't know for sure because those fossils haven't been found and may never be.
Yet another bullshit belief that won't die. The view that birds come from raptors is based on a claim that Archaeopteryx had a hypertrophied second toe like a raptor. It doesn't. The authors made it up. If anything, birds are most closely related to Compsognathids, as has always been suspected. I literally don't give a flying shit about chyna.
Why are you trying to cram dinosaurs into being fat so hard? The fact that you have to try this much kind of proves they weren't doesn't it? You can just point to the fat layers on a mammal. You don't have to squint.
Actually, once again, they fucking do. People really don't seem to grasp how very much fossils tell us. We have nearly complete bodies of some animals like Hadrosaurs and they weren't fat. They were never fat.
>I expect we'll eventually get a strong enough understanding of how DNA evolves over time to trace out some of these problems.
Lol more witchcraft. And you'll never understand the evolution of DNA so long as you continue to overfocus on mtDNA because it gives all the splitter answers you want to publish a trillion papers.
>Dinosaurs aren't reptiles
>I'm not retarded, you're retarded!
Missed the rest of the thread did you? Go back and read. Literally EVERY PIECE of evidence, including hand prints from the theropods themselves proves they didn't hold their hands out to the sides.
And let me break it down further:
Evidence Theropods DIDN'T hold their hands like a robot:
- All Dinosaurs INCLUDING Theropods we have hand prints for held their hands at an angle between pronated and perpendicular to their body axis. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
- Crocodilians also hold their hands at this exact same angle. SHEER COINCIDENCE!!
- There is SPECIFICALLY at least one track of a theropod's hands that DIRECTLY proves they could almost completely pronate their hands.
Evidence Theropods DID hold their hands like robots:
- It's easier/lazier to reconstruct the hands that way
Too bad everything you just wrote is wrong, retard.
>The view that birds come from raptors is based on a claim that Archaeopteryx had a hypertrophied second toe like a raptor.
it's based on the presence of the semilunate carpal and was known in 1969 because Ostrom published it then.
The presence of feathers and a fused canon bone in maniraptorans just confirms the hypothesis.
said the uneducated creationist that couldn't possibly know. You're too dumb to even notice the raptorial claw on Archaeopteryx is located on the wrong toe for it to be derived from raptors.
You're a masochist. You're addicted to getting humiliated thread after thread its one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen short of someone like ChrisChan
>They weren't just waiting around to do nothing with their front limbs until their great great great grandchildren learned how to fly.
I guess I should direct this at you.
you understand birds evolved long before almost every theropod you know of, right?
no, you didn't know that?
google exists, buddy. You can look this stuff up.
and that don't matter because dinosaur were not crocodillians and didn't had their wrist structure, nor had their rest position resembling that
not even your own article agree with you as it point that dinos couldn't can't cross the radius and ulna, and couldn't pronate in that way
>Fat dinosaur (reptiles basically can't be fat, they're not mammals)
How many zoos do you "people" think there were in the mesozoic?
>Fat dinosaur (reptiles basically can't be fat, they're not mammals)
>reptiles basically can't be fat
Again, not fat. And what all you redditors seem to miss is that this was covered in previous threads. The only place Dinosaurs COULD bulge in non-skeleto-muscular ways would be the belly due to the viscera. Again, not fat.
pee pee poo poo
wee wee doo doo
your opinion about dinosaurs is incorrect
>bulging on the head, neck, back and tail
Sure thing bro
That's muscle, you fucking idiot.
Then why do you always complain when there’s meat on a dinosaurs bones in art as if it must be fat and not muscle, you fucking idiot
You think this is muscle?
yes, muscle and a large gut
Bruh they gave the sauropod cankles.
>reptiles basically can't be fat, they're not mammals
Somebody has clearly never been around the average captive reptile
We've covered this like twenty times now. Is there a back door that just leaks reddit hivemind into blue boards or something? Read the fucking thread.
Why do they think it had striped coloration? or is that just "artistic license"
Surprisingly enough, there is some evidence that Edmontosaurus had stripes. A few fossilized mummies which preserve skin show that the scales varied in size in a sort of pattern. On many reptiles, different sized scales have different colours, so this may have been the case on Edmontosaurus, too. It's possible they were instead sights of folding in life, but really either interpretation is equally valid. They weren't quite like OP's pic, but pic related shows a map of scales on E. annectens. It comes from the Saurian team, which often makes mistakes, but they got this one right.
The one in OP's pic is absurdly fat, though. Hadrosaurs were bulky, but there's no way they'd be that heavy.
It's just a coincidence this Mexican dino has the colour scheme of a rooster. I hate artists so much for doing this stupid shit. They're doing more harm than good.