You know, something deep inside me tells me that this kind of creature could not even walk (as well as catch fish with its lipped jaws). As well as there is no any evolutionary sense in such useless forelimbs turned inside out.
Evolution is the process of sifting out in a stream of random mutations those that make the organism fitter and give it an advantage over the rest. A creature with SUCH mutations would simply died, as it could neither walk, nor hunt, nor even use its forelimbs.
So, I'm more inclined to think that modern "paleontologists" simply have low IQ as a result of negative selection over the past two decades.
>spinosaurus
>lips
lips on spinosaurus is fucking dumb and paleoschizos keep injecting their bullshit """science""" to trying to justify it
I wouldn't ever do lips on spinosaurus especially
The dinosaurs you want not only exist, but they're still around. You don't need Jurassic Park to be real in order for your dreams to come true. They always were. No glowie can put lips or feathers on these.
The arms and legs keep getting smaller
Nowadays it must have more fethers than a pillow to be "scientifically accurate". Doesn't matter if a specific creature had no evidence feathers. It must have feathers because something distantly related did.
the tide is turning, nature is healing
Why are garden gnomes so obsessed with making everybody believe dinosaurs had feathers?
Dinosaurs like T-Rex and velociraptor are often a small child's first "masculine" role models. They want to take them away and essentially "feminize" them to better shape culture to their whims.
Yeah if it werent for t-rex I would not be the straight man with a beautiful wife i am today. I can’t imagine a single day without her soft fur or cute awoos.
Feather gayry will deny an entire generation happiness.
I thought glowies were people who insist that if I'm not doing anything bad I need to generate a continuous stream of exculpatory evidence through my devices to prove it.
Wouldn't their teeth rot out of their skull if not in a salivated mouth? Crocs live in and around water. Therapods, with few exceptions, most likely did not.
Don't even know.
That's why some people tried putting jowls on sabertooths.
holy shit that's fucking retarded
BWAHAHAHAHHA
Are they unaware of elephants??
Elephants never count for some reason.
Yeah the new Spino is full retard.
Pseudosuchians are a different branch of archosaurs. Dinosaurs are on another branch entirely.
I'm nearly convinced at this point raptors had scaly hides. Every single feathered reconstruction I've seen looks fucking retarded and there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the scaled ones.
Look at these two. Look at how the scaled raptor looks like a dinosaur, but the feathered shit triggers red flags in your brain that tells you it doesn't look right. Instinct exists for a reason. Paleopsueds have tried to convince everyone to distrust their "lying eyes" because they're a cult that just wants you to accept their doctrine.
>Paleopseuds will unironically defend this very obvious nonsense
Contrarianism. The younger generations of paleontologists are all rebellious gays. They sincerely believe that they must latch onto the most farfetched idea because it makes them super-experts in the know. It's literally the same mentality as people that go into college normal and come out Xirs.
Perhaps.
Maybe. (Or maybe glowies are just low iq / terminally ignorant).
Anything you can imagine can be viable, but dinosaurs being on earth millions of years ago is a subversive larp to hide things from humanity.
>glowie
either have a nice day already or keep it in your echo chamber
Just report his posts for the low quality spam they are. These threads are just so a brain damaged retard can argue with himself.
I would bet on this retard being the bigfoot shill and the lemur fucker
OP is a fat brown American (probably a latinx) who watched Jurassic Park as a kid and then got massively asspained when he read a book which told him that it was inaccurate.
Latinx isn't a thing, you ugly gnomish twitter whore.
>The're not even remotely comarable.
The point is, this is a common reptilian trait. It has no bearing on what the lips look like. It just means they're reptiles.
Seems pretty retarded on raptors too tbh.
You fucking idiot. You think you're write about this while you morons are putting theropod hands on backwards.
Oh shit. Details?
Schizo meltdown
>you morons are putting theropod hands on backwards.
not really possible, they only go on one way.
Even your fighting dinos pic that you love to post has them on that direction. Just extended because the raptor was pulling the ceratopsian down hard.
>Oh shit. Details?
I think you can find it on the wiki
That's nonsense. If you were to reconstruct crocodilian hands "intuitively", you'd be doing that wrong too because they're palms are perpendicular to their radius and ulna.
>Even your fighting dinos pic that you love to post has them on that direction.
Once again, not me.
>looking at joint facets to tell how the bones connected is "intuitive"
literal retard
>Once again, not me.
your multiple personalities don't count, moron.
>Latinx isn't a thing, you ugly gnomish twitter whore.
Yup, you're a latinx.
I personally think this is a really good representation of what Proterosuchid lips looked like. Kind of like if a lizard shit out an alligator, which is pretty much what happened.
So is this thread what happens when you bring Jurassic Park to the psych ward for movie night?
Saw this graphic on some new braincase study speculating T. rex's cognitive capacity could have been somewhere between chimp and baboon.
>could have been somewhere between chimp and baboon.
Reminds me of
How do you even calculate this for an extinct animal
extrapolating extrapolations based on how forebrain neuron count scales with size for its close relatives i guess?
but remember bears have larger brains but the cognitive capacity of a housecat (less than 1/2 a small dog), theoretically to burn fewer calories. which really puts the effects of cognitive capacity below threshholds (the maturation of certain skills) into perspective. should not bears be smarter than large canines with densely packed brains, given their relation? guess not. however the neurons they have are geared towards activities relevant to their survival and they are more successful predators than the more intelligent wolves...
if you want to see how little higher intelligence can matter without the correct skills to make use of all those brain cells, a sheepdog is very smart and can even learn to understand english syntax to a limited extent but they can't communicate with each other effectively or learn by watching other dogs consistently. they also can't pass simple rope platform tests that wolves ace.
and yes, those are border collies failing hilariously while wolves figure it out quickly, the "SMARTER THAN ALL OTHER DOGS 1488 MASTER RACE UBERDOGSCH" breed Wauf wants to fuck
t. rex could have been much dumber, and even if it was smarter, that intelligence might not have accomplished much due to not having the right innate cognitive skills to accomplish much, rather its neurons could have been dedicated to something without grand aspirations rather than life in massive t. rex clans, if they were even present in great density. t. rex could have been more like a bear, with a larger but sparser brain nonetheless well optimized for being really good at killing fucking everything.
>All those multicolored wolves
LOL Most people don't realize this but those aren't actual wild wolves. Those are semi-feral wolves that people kept in captivity to breed coat colors they wanted and then released into the wild to "restock" "wild" wolf populations. That's why all wild wolves in North America look like cartoon dogs.
All surviving wolves like 1-5% dog. It was common practice to let dogs run free for a long fucking time, especially sled dogs in the north which were expected to fuck off and feed themselves. All the genes for weakness and stupidity get filtered out fast so wolves mostly just retain weird coat colors, a little longer socialization window, and a small amount of extra friendliness, I guess because they don't get into as many fights with other wolves that way.
They're still not anywhere near being dogs and if you tried to keep one as a pet it would love you like no other but hunt your family for food.
don't forget coyote hybridization. when we tried to exterminate them the surviving wolves got desperate and fucked coyotes.
it makes you wonder how many ancient species existed on gradients like this and how much we've identified as things that were uncommon or just not what they actually were
DINOSAURS NEVER HAD FEATHERS STOP TRYING TO STEAL MY TESTOSTERONE YOU FUCKING garden gnomes I HATE THE ANTICHRIST
>feathers out of nowhere
I see you shill
This statement is patently false. Modern paleontologists are some of the most highly educated and intelligent scientists in the world. They have dedicated their lives to studying the fossil record and have a wealth of knowledge about the history of life on Earth.
The statement also misunderstands the process of evolution. Evolution is not a simple process of "sifting out" mutations that make an organism better adapted. It is a complex, ongoing process that is influenced by many factors, including the environment, the organism's own biology, and chance.
There is plenty of evidence that creatures with seemingly "useless" mutations can and do survive and thrive. We see this all the time in nature, where animals with strange and unusual adaptations are perfectly well-adapted to their environments.
So, to say that modern paleontologists are simply idiots is ignorant and insulting. It is clear that the person making this statement does not understand the complexities of evolution or the vast amount of knowledge that paleontologists have about the fossil record.
>Modern paleontologists are some of the most highly educated and intelligent scientists in the world.
Jesus christ apple's evolving. KILL IT!!
>seemingly "useless" mutations can and do survive and thrive
name 1 mutation in 5 different animals that is seemingly "useless", because by definition is it not useless then, even the human appendix has a use
The most useless bullshit is always handwaved as sexual selection. However, please explain why people are still born with extra ribs, conjoined kidneys, etc, and have been so and able to thrive and reproduce without modern medicine.
so it’s settled then. most theropods did have some form of lips to go over their gums good to know.
I mean I should think it should clear from the evidence.
I don't listen to some basket vile board brainlet
Reddit better than this
Everything that looks different from Jurassic Park (my FAVORITE childhood movie) is wrong
>something deep inside me tells me
jesus christ i fucking hate this new anti-science sentiment across the internet
yes it was funny when gigachad was asked what his source was and he said he saw it in his dreams, and yes einstein once said that one quote about intuition, but holy shit you are speaking completely without any hard facts or scientific methodology here about an only biological subject. please stop being retarded and save your highly wise and god-given, trustworthy intuition for instances that actually call for it.
>jesus christ i fucking hate this new anti-science sentiment across the internet
Well why don't you take a wild fucking guess who's responsible. When you publish so many fraudulent papers you collapse science, people tend to notice and stop listening to you. I assure you, most people have never heard of the replication crisis, but they trust science less today than they did 30 years ago. That's because feelings and instinct actually matter. That's how you develop a good bullshit filter and don't just "Believe Science!™" like a moron.
I thought it looked like Earl Sinclair. With peachfuzz.
Well you also had the entire Dreadnoughtus catastrophe. I mean holy shit was that bad. And the weird contorted handed Therizinosaur. And the feathered Pachyrhinosaurs. And frankly I've already spent more time bothering with that dumbass show than I care too.
Yes.
>don't just "Believe Science!™" like a moron.
>don't just believe science like a moron
I think that's all we need to know about this midwit.
>the entire Dreadnoughtus catastrophe
"The air balloons are dishonest! They're lying to me! No you can't just have artistic license!"
No, I mean look at the picture. That thing's a trainwreck.
Dreadnoughtus is a titanosaur though, not a brachiosaur
You know what it isn't though? A walmart shopper. They gave it fucking cankles for christ's sake.
>fattens your sauropods
I thought putting fat and muscle on dinosaurs was a good thing
Turning Sauropods into Americans is never a good thing.
>south american sauropod
>looks like average latinx uncle
Seems accurate to me
those dinosaurs didn't have feathers OR scales, they just had that thick leathery skin that lizards have
Are you saying lizards don't have scales?
I'm saying sauropods had thick leathery skin and not scales.
They had both. The first dinosaur skin discovered is actually from a Sauropod.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haestasaurus
>chad dinosaur
>described by such chad words as "graceful" and "elegant"
>literally limp wristed in the pic
Imagine being such an insecure virgin you can't use words to describe yourself such as "elegant" and "graceful".
>weird contorted handed Therizinosaur
Maniraptoran holds its hands like a Maniraptoran. Shocker
>the feathered Pachyrhinosaurs
They were just spikes, its not like they were putting the meme quills along the tail on all the ceratopsids. I thought the argument was the quills on Psittacosaurus weren't feathers in the first place
I was actually talking about the crazy chicken pose they had it in. But no, Maniraptorans do not have fucking backwards hands with claws flying in every direction.
what makes you think they're useless?
>there's not shaped like human hands!
so what?
Actually, the entire "Theropods can't pronate their hands!" bullshit appears to be based on the way humans hold their hands, so you need to rethink your life.
how does that make them useless?
Because it's gone so far people are putting their hands on backwards and orienting their fingers all at different angles.
so how does that make them useless?
I want to know what you think they were supposed to be using them for
>well velociraptor certainly can't fly a plane with THOSE HANDS!
I don't know, how would your hands be useless if your fingers all faced a different direction and your hands were on backwards, retard? Also, you're talking to two different people.
>how would your hands be useless if your fingers all faced a different direction and your hands were on backwards, retard?
we're not talking about my hands
we're talking about raptor hands
what do you think they needed to use them for?
>you're talking to two different people
so?
neither of you seems to have an answer.
No. Let's turn this around. What do YOU think backwards hands with spaghetti fingers are USEFUL for?
>No. Let's turn this around.
so no answer
>So any bodyplan that doesn't adhere to that initial task is erroneous in my eyes.
even after they left the trees?
So no answer.
>even after they left the trees?
Lions and cheetahs still retain the same basic bodyplan of cats (with, admittedly, a ton of differences in terms of body/limb proportions) despite being utterly shit at climbing trees.
>I want to know what you think they were supposed to be using them for
Not that anon, but I, as an amateur eco-functionalist, believe raptors evolved out of an arboreal ancestor: the sickle claw initially appeared as a climbing spike; afterwards, just like the big cats, many species lost the ability to climb trees because they got too fucking big. See Balaur bondoc: a heckin chonker, which retained the dropbear lifestyle (it was basically the dinosaurial equivalent of a cross between a leopard and a wolverine). Hence the second sickle claw, to avoid butt-planting its rather bulky frame while climbing trees.
So any bodyplan that doesn't adhere to that initial task is erroneous in my eyes.
Hey, braindead fag. Imagine that you're a predator and evolution gave you developed forelimbs with large claws. In all likelihood, you need them for hunting (especially if your jaws are not massive enough for your body size).
Now think (at least try) - how can you hunt with your developed forelimbs with large claws, if some moronic glowie drew them to you in an inverted crippled position, because one of your distant cousin's grandchildren developed the ability to fly and mutated it's hands to suit this? Hmmmm?
so what you're saying is they used their hand to capture and kill prey?
you can just say that, you don't need all the schizo word salad.
you think they used their hands to capture and kill prey. Maybe to move prey to the mouth.
and you think they couldn't do that if their hands folded in the same direction as bird wings.
You can say it. It's fine.
not him but the bird wing on theropods that aren't raptors is retarded
>not him but the bird wing on theropods that aren't raptors is retarded
sure would be if we didn't have the marks on the wrist and hand bones showing what angle they joined at.
I like to keep it clear and easy to read for the stupid people.
>the marks on the wrist and hand bones showing what angle they joined at
Look. Again. At. This:
REAL. Evidense. You. Braindead. Glowie. And. Finally. Hang. Yourself.
You keep posting that picture like its hand was permanently like that. You know they could move their hands right anon?
Actually, Carpenter's big argument was that they couldn't. Which is why everyone acts like such a fag about Theropod hands nowadays.
Based on modern observations of clawed maniraptorans (juvenile hoatzins), the hand and thumb possess considerable mobility (at least, until the joints ossify and the hand turns into a wing).
So it's quite likely that a more splayed resting position (with the thumb pointing forwards and the rest of the fingers slightly at an angle) might be correct (though obviously not at the extreme angle of modern bird wings).
So once again, you're basing Theropods hand positions on fucking birds, which Mesozoic Theropods are not (excluding birds, you reddit pedant).
>reddit spacing
>they couldn't do that if their hands folded in the same direction as bird wings
Bingo, retard! Congratulations, you're beginning to comprehend the basic principles of logical thinking. (I understand that you're not really, but at least you figured out why you're being laughed at. Already commendable.)
On maniraptorans (with the exception of the birds themselves) this also makes no sense. Why would a flightless animal (besides, a predator that actively uses its arms) cripple its forelimbs, intentionally worsening their functionality.
Evolution doesn't work that way. A dromaeosaurus with a mutation that limits its hunting abilities would simply lose the evolutionary race to its normal healthy relatives.
Wait, how does having the range of motion to bend the wrist make them crippled or in any way less functional?
>Why would a flightless animal (besides, a predator that actively uses its arms) cripple its forelimbs, intentionally worsening their functionality.
probably because they were already useless long before that.
if the animal bends over to grasp prey with its hands it falls over. Then hands don't reach the mouth so it wasn't bringing stuff up to eat. If it grasped large prey with its hands it would fall over backwards because the things are way too short.
all indications are that theropods weren't using their hands for much of anything. Including the fact that the arms and hands shrunk over time to the point of being completely vestigial in several lineages while the jaws and heads grew larger and more important.
The bird-oriented hands are still theoretically useful for grasping standing prey and ensuring it maintains balance during a kick.
the anon I was responding to is complaining about bird wrists in dinosaurs that obviously didn't use their arms. Non-raptors.
he doesn't realize bird wrists evolved long before birds did. For that matter he has no idea when birds evolved so he doesn't know bird traits were common in theropods almost from the very start.
I swear to god, half these comments are from the same 15 year old who doesn't know shit about dinosaurs. Most theropods do not have tiny little cripple hands. That's just the very large ones.
Backwards hands with fingers flying in every direction are useful for nothing.
You think raptors are the only theropods that used their hands?
>he doesn't realize bird wrists evolved long before birds did
That's literally bullshit you feathergays made up to justify your fetish.
>You think raptors are the only theropods that used their hands?
we can tell if a theropods hands are useful.
Can they reach the mouth?
Can they grab something close to the ground without the animal falliing over on its face?
Can they grab something at eye level without the animal falling over backwards?
most medium to large theropods couldn't do any of that. Their hands were entirely useless for grabbing things.
Like I said.
They are like real animals.
his mistake is thinking that grabbing stuff is the only possible use for hands
he's retarded.
It's sad.
That's literally what hands are for, dipshit. I mean, when we're arguing about shit THIS basic, there's no point in a thread even existing. This is kindergarten level shit.
>That's literally what hands are for, dipshit.
except when it's not.
>That's literally what hands are for, dipshit.
even a child could understand that hands might be used for stuff other than grabbing
you're so fucking stupid
If I had a cow as dumb as you I'd be afraid to drink the milk
Such as?
slapping you
rubbing my girl's pussy
balancing when running
balancing when jumping
balancing when walking
balancing when standing
balancing when standing on one foot
slapping your mother
slapping your mother while rubbing her pussy
flipping you off
speaking
gesturing
pushing things
pushing the ground
poking stuff
rolling over
punching your stupid face
I'm sure you can think of more
actually I don't think you can think of any of this because you're fucking retarded.
>Backwards hands with fingers flying in every direction are useful for nothing.
The fingers move, you know, and they obviously weren't stuck completely backwards. They're of limited use in some niches but not really important hence their degeneration.
That's within Theri's range of motion though. Do you think they constantly held their hands in front of them dangling limply?
Kind of hard to say how they held them, but I would assume some sort of slightly tucked position would be most likely. What I absolutely do not go for are these fucking contorted positions every paleo"artists" tries put their arms in these days. It wasn't a fucking bird. Cut this shit out.
But
is just
in a tucked position. It's not contorted, it just looks weird from the front. The claws aren't flying in every direction either, they're all facing inwards
>I would assume
meanwhile people with an IQ twice yours have spent decades studying the subject and produced much more likely conclusions.
you're a moron
you don't like how they look so you deny evolution.
maniraptorans don't have bird wrists. birds have maniraptoran wrists.
because maniraptorans aren't birds. birds are maniraptorans.
Just like people aren't retarded, but retards like you are still people.
>Maniraptorans do not have fucking backwards hands
Their defining anatomical trait is a half-moon shaped wristbone that allows the hand to fold at a lower angle felative to the forearm
Did it have enough tail to counterbalance the rest of its body?
its really hard to tell, because we dont have a lot of fossils of spinosaurus, the most we have is a few neural spines, some skull fragments, pelvic bones fragment, and some teeth, anything else is just an inference, and those can only go so far, which is why spinosaurus is really weird in its depictions
>WE ABSOLUTELY DO know how many of those species looked and it was most certainly not how PP depicted them
Which ones exactly?
>Bruh there's a fucking gumline.
this is an easy mistake to make if you don't know anything about tooth and jaw anatomy.
but we know that line was under the gums and inside the bone of the jaw.
we can usually tell where the gumline is by either a cingulum, basal striations, or more often where the carinae and/or denticles begin.
read up. Learn some stuff.
>we can usually tell where the gumline is by either a cingulum, basal striations, or more often where the carinae and/or denticles begin.
Unless of course theropods had carinae and denticles covered by the gums as in varanids
but we can't know that so we assume they didn't..
>Literally a 12 year old: There's the gumline.
again, that's not the gumline and you aren't as smart as a 12 year old
the gumline in theropods corresponds roughly to the cingulum dentis, which theropods don't usually have
the line you're mistaking for a gumline is the cervix dentis, or cervical line. It is well below the gumline.
It's literally the gumline.
>the gumline in theropods corresponds roughly to the cingulum dentis
I'd love to see what actual evidence you have to support this that defies a clear devision between crown and root on a fucking tooth. You retards must've just stolen this from Varanids.
Also, don't forget that the exact location of the gumline on something like a T. rex is going to be difficult to judge anyway since they have teeth growing all over the fucking place. Some of their teeth are always going to be some degree below the gumline. That's just obvious. I doubt the mature teeth were though. Sauropods are more regular.
ORRR, hear me out...by where the root differentiates from the crown, you know, like in most animals.
I mean they had feathered T. rex dominating the first episode. Pic related is much more accurate.
Birds don't weigh shit.
>I mean they had feathered T. rex dominating the first episode
Aside from that the T. rex looks pretty good, and I can't think of many other examples aside from like one of the pterosaur's having its wingtips slightly too pointy or Kaikaifilu being a bit too robust
>WE ABSOLUTELY DO know how many of those species looked
Hey can you point me to the time traveller you've been speaking with? Cause id like to know how you know, for absolute certain, how the species depicted in prehistoric planet looked irl.
Wow looks like we'd better put away paleontology until we discover time travel.
Edit: Thanks for the reddit gold, kind strangers! Stay awesome!
Real palaeontologist admit all the time that we actuallt do not know for certain how these animals looked irl. We have a good idea, but for the majority of dinosaurs, the intricacies of their morphology (colour, display structures, exact musculature, etc) remain a mystery.
Don't blame palaeontology for your dumbassery and arrogance. We do not know, for certain, how any dinosaur looked, no matter how much evidence we have for one thing or the other, because we did not see them. Retard. It's all speculation with evidence for and against.
So yeah, point me to your time traveller. Stupid cunt.
Lol no you don't. Paleontologists never admit when they're wrong. They just go quiet(ER) then everyone abandons them for their old, retarded theories. That's how it always works. That's the "never apologize" part. The "Never stop making the same mistakes" part is the kind of shit.
The fact is most of the evidence we need to know how these animals looked is right there in the fucking fossil record. It's threads like these where I spend the entire fucking thing trying to tell supposed actual paleopseuds "FUCKING LOOK!" is pretty phenomenal. You gays never see because you WON'T see, not because you can't see. Color is about the only thing that's a true mystery.
>So yeah, point me to your time traveller.
GOTT DAMN you're retarded.
Oops never finished that sentence.
The "Never stop making the same mistakes" part is the kind of shit like claiming "dinosaurs can't X" or "this is the largest Y" and then a bigger one is found. Paleontologists are always trying to tell dinosaurs what they can and can't do.
Your lack of ability to recognize patterns is not the fault of science. It is a personal failing on your part. Nobody forced you to ignore comparative anatomy and your susceptibility to public schools drilling any critical reasoning skill out of you is your own god damned fault for being a genetically inferior specimen.
Yeah man just look at the skeleton that'll tell you literally EVERYTHING about how an animal looked irl.
You're at the peak of mount stupid and you would disintegrate if you ever attempted to spout your bullshit to a real palaeontologist
We've been over this before, retard. We have MUCH more than just skeletons and we can use the EXTREMELY detailed information we have on some dinosaurs to feed us information about others.
Well yes, chimps and baboons are fucking retarded so that's probably correct. T. rex had a tiny fucking brain for its size. All dinosaurs did.
>Yeah man use this skeleton this skin imprint and this footprint that MIGHT be this dinosaur and you'll know how it looks for 100% certain. Trust me man.
Jesus fucking christ.
Yjk that lobotomy patient is writing 3 paragraphs to try and justify this mindset.
Are you retarded? Or just ignorant of how much information is available on the subject? You mental midgets have to be trolls. Or mormons.
No matter the amount of information there is (which isnt as much as you seem to think there is) it will never tell us exactly how extinct animals looked with 100% certainty and accuracy. What about that is hard to wrap your mangled brain around.
the real paleo schizo has entered the thread. OP and others who agree with him are just larpers.
See? It's easy to tell lol
>bone shrinks as it dries
Not THAT fucking much. THIS is a crocodile skull. Why isn't it drying out shrinking the gumline several inches? No lips.
>cervical line
So the gumline, dipshit.
Evolutionists: despite evidence that they occurred these mutations are just too WACKY of a coincidence so i deny them
Also evolutionists: well i like the result of this wacky coincidence so it happened chaos and time are amazing things
Why do they keep insisting on making that stupid M shaped sail based on one fucking sail?
I think Cau's interpretation is more likely. The sail was used to hold the neck straight up and thus improve balance
As OP was told in his other thread it’s far more likely that the crocodile like dinosaurs such as spinosaurus had no lips vs other theropods like tyrannosaurus. some food for thought.
>crocodiles takes around 1-2 months to replace to replace a tooth
>spinosaurus needed 8 months
>tyrannosaurus on the other hand needed 2 years to replace a broken tooth
also keep in mind that loss of lips is generally an adaptation for aquatic/semi-aquatic animals meant to reduce side to side drag which fits animals that utilize fast sudden movements to quickly snap up passing by prey.
>spinosaurus needed 8 months
on the other hand needed 2 years to replace a broken tooth
kek
"up to" 2 years
"up to" 8 months
these are the outside limits and they aren't supported by either the number of teeth on the ground or the number of broken teeth in the jaw. The real rates were much faster.
while it might take over a year for a tooth to fully erupt in a fully grown adult T. rex, that tooth was probably broken before it fully emerged. And it was shed before it fully emerged. Meaning in real life most teeth never fully formed and certainly didn't take the full 2 years to be replaced.
>Something deep inside me
Damn what’s years of research by experts in the face of a hunch from anon
>real scientists:
>did this theropod have some sort of lip like structure?
>maybe. maybe not. we have not yet found evidence of lips and although some of its living relatives lack lips it's possible that they were eventually lost in evolution due to being useless. we can not say for sure that all members of a group share the same traits because it is apparent in the present day that they often do not. it is important to understand that animals often have traits that serve no purpose simply because they do not cause sufficient harm to be selected against. evolution is not purposeful. to say that living theropods lacking lips proves that extinct theropods also lacked them would be to say that primates having very fleshy lips and hairless faces proves that their shrew-like ancestors also had those traits. phylogenetic bracketing does not constitute evidence, it simply sets the standard for what evidence is required to prove that something is out of the ordinary.
>what about feathers on t-rex?
>we have found many theropods with feathers, and much t-rex integument without. based on examples set by mammals, it is definitely possible for an animal to lose things like feathers and hair in adulthood. we may be missing a piece of integument with remnants of the feathers t-rex lost, such as a patch of filaments on the head, or it could have lost them entirely.
>schizophrenic divorcees on Wauf:
>NO THIS LOOKS STUPID
>SUBVERSIVE SOIENTISTS MAKING DINOS LOOK LIKE PUSSIES
>ALL CHINESE FOSSILS ARE FAKE! CHINESE PEOPLE ARE NOT HUMAN! GENOCIDE NOW! ITS A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO RUIN DINOSAURS!
>ALLIGATORS HAVE NO TOOTH COVERINGS THEY ARE ARCHOSAURS THEROPODS DO NOT HAVE LIPS ITS IMPOSSIBLE
>FUCKING RETARD
>SHILL
>GLOWIES ARE RUINING DINOS
>ITS A CONSPIRACY
>YOU ARE AN APPLE SHILL
>SHILLS!
>YOU ARE NOT BELONG TO THE PALEO WORLD
Oh no. It's richer than that anon. Theropods definitely had lips.
>definitely
How do you know? That pic is spectaculating without hard evidence.
Well... If you so highlighted the words CLEARLY and ANYTHING, then everything is EXACTLY as you say. Pure scientific approach.
(oh, Satan, why glowies are so cringe?)
have you been drinking at night?
your english goes to shit after midnight
Clinging to a European's English you only confirm that you have nothing more to complain about. You must be very humiliated and mad.
Previously the verbose, combative, and retarded paleo schizo said he's a burger
now you admit you're a yuropoor.
make up your minds.
You should take your meds and stop personalizing your inner demons. After all, if the whole world stinks for you - it's probably you're the one who shitted own pants.
why do crocodiles not have lips anyways?
Because they live in water near constantly so they don't need lips to keep their teeth wet.
Every other reptile/mammal has lips in some form to keep their teeth wet and healthy and stop them from drying out and snapping.
Lips can also be used to protect teeth from impacts and to mechanically clean them so dried up shit doesn't disrupt the bite.
This too. Therefore it is way more likely dinosaurs had lips than didn't. WAY more likely.
so what youre saying is that i can get dino head
broken theropod teeth are the most common theropod body fossil found. Broken teeth outnumber skeletons by about 10:1
theropods constantly broke teeth.
and when we find a theropod skull, it's normal for the teeth in the skull to be broken too.
Same could be said of things like Komodo dragons
>Same could be said of things like Komodo dragons
nah, if varanids lost teeth at the same rate theropods seemed to, they wouldn't ever have any. As it was theropods were often missing almost half their teeth at a time.
difference is, unlike T. rex, Komodo dragons have multiple rows of developing teeth at any given time so can quickly replace a lost tooth instead of having to grow a new one
>unlike T. rex, Komodo dragons have multiple rows of developing teeth at any given time
ah, I see you've never examined the insides of a T. rex jaw.
I'm not talking about inside the jawbone, even humans have their baby teeth already inside the jawbone. I'm talking rows of teeth almost like a shark in Komodo dragons
>I'm talking rows of teeth almost like a shark in Komodo dragons
I'll give you a hint
there's already a pic in this very thread of multiple tooth rows in a T. rex.
If you mean
I don't see it. They don't seem to show up in any references of the underside of the skull I can find either
>I don't see it.
fair enough.
I see several sockets with 2 emergent teeth and at least one with 3. I also know from handling theropod skulls that there's another 2 or 3 rows inside the maxilla.
rows 1 and 2 are almost the same size, meaning they were replacing teeth extremely rapidly.
how do you know about tooth replacement in varanids and know nothing about theropods? Seems an esoteric bit of knowledge and an interesting scotoma.
>how do you know about tooth replacement in varanids and know nothing about theropods?
Because I don't study theropods. If you know of any good references or where to find them, it just seems weird they aren't in most of the drawings/images I saw. Also when I said multiple rows maybe I should've been clearer in that I didn't just mean having a couple teeth emerging from some of the sockets that already have a grown tooth, I meant full rows of extra teeth like picrel, sometimes with 5 or 6 replacements for each tooth. If any theropods have rows like that its news to me
>Because I don't study theropods
kinda what I was thinking. It might surprise you to learn that people who study theropods also study varanids because they're good analogies in a lot of ways. Particularly in feeding and dentition.
>it just seems weird they aren't in most of the drawings/images I saw.
Yep, we usually don't break fossils open to show what's going on inside, but any theropod paleontologist has seen the inside of some dinosaur jaws.
>I meant full rows of extra teeth like picrel,
yes. The reason you don't see that with theropods much is the teeth generally broke as fast as they erupted. Then they got shed.
it's normal with large theropods to find half of the teeth or more missing. Of those that remain, over half are faceted, spalled, cracked, broken, or worn to nubs after being broken and used anyways.
>It might surprise you to learn that people who study theropods also study varanids because they're good analogies in a lot of ways. Particularly in feeding and dentition
This I've heard of. They might not be the best analogue but I suppose they're probably one of the closest we've got
>picrel
This makes more sense. The few scans I could find like this one showed much fewer and less pronounced teeth in comparison to a monitor
Before this seems misleading I mean the picture of the jaw you posted there not the allosaurus scan when I said >picrel there
Yep, That appears to be A jimmadseni though I'm currently too drunk to tell you if that's "Big Al" or picrel
the number of replacement teeth in that scan is aberrant. Normally there should be multiple rows present. Though I don't know if it's a problem with the animal or the scan or my knowledge of the particular specimen.
based on the jugal fenestra I'd guess the scanned skull is the one in the pic I posted.
how well tooth rows would show up on a CT I don't know. But I'd expect far more unerupted teeth than are pictured.
If I had to guess the person who uploaded it probably removed a lot of junk for the sake of clarity and removed most of the other teeth
could be. That particular specimen has one of the best theropod tooth rows I've ever seen. Super clean.
an interesting fact about that skull, the postcranial skeleton was actually found years before the skull. Nobody could figure out where the skull was so a paleontologist invented a highly modified Gieger counter to search for radio anomalies in the rock. Result was finding that particular skull. The second specimen of Allosaurus jimmadseni recovered.
iirc it was just above the Salt Wash member of the morrison formation in dinosaur national park. At a location I'm not allowed to talk about in public forum. But basically in a road cut.
also of course that was the holotype of the species. Chure was working at DINO when it was recovered. I was working nearby.
In Allosaurus the number of unerupted tooth rows varies from 1 to 3. 2-3 unerupted rows are typical.
this is true of both upper and lower jaws. Sometimes we'll see one full tooth row and a partial second in the maxillae with usually another 2 in the dentaries extending up from the Meckelian groove to the interdental plates.
as pics itt show, it's common to have 2-3 teeth erupting simultaneously and linguo-labially without disrupting the interdental plates. Presumably theropods were shedding teeth at a rate of one per month or two based on estimated growth times under a year. This fits with both number and condition of shed teeth found in fossil quarries. Theropod teeth are about 10 times more common than theropod bones. Only exceeded in frequency by theropod ichnotaxa.
>Theropod teeth are about 10 times more common than theropod bones.
This disparity has resulted in dozens of theropod species being named based solely on teeth.
Richardoestesia is a good example, with thousands of teeth found but only 2 actual bones ever recovered. Theropods shed teeth at spectacular rates.
Tooth taxa are the bane of my existence. Unless it's a shark or something there's no reason for a description off a tooth. Though they do occasionally result in some interesting surprises
>This disparity has resulted in dozens of theropod species being named based solely on teeth.
That's why you never name animals based on isolated teeth or mandibles. For a SHORT, blessed window of time, Late Pleistocene paleontologists learned this lesson. Then immediately forgot it again when they realized fuck the rules, gimme attention, like every other field.
Amen. But we both know the reason is credit.
That's bad science. I should think that history, particularly recent history, should teach paleontologists to stop doing this shit, but the first rule of paleontology: "Never stop making the same mistakes, never apologize."
How about based on the fact it looks fucking stupid and probably couldn't stand up.
>we don't give 2 fucks what it looked like
You should. This is like that "Scientists don't ask 'why?', only 'how?'" bullshit. Scientists are just plain getting fucking lazy.
>Presumably theropods were shedding teeth at a rate of one per month or two based on estimated growth times under a year.
this is per socket
with 70 or so tooth sockets they were losing a couple teeth per day in the whole skull.
I have a particular fondness for shark teeth. I really like the chronospecies Otodus-Carcharocles. I have a set sitting on my shelf.
I was under the impression they were more croc like and less varanid like
>I was under the impression they were more croc like and less varanid like
crocs usually have teeth inside hollows of the erupted teeth. Theropods grew rows beside each other.
the result is theropod teeth were much stronger than croc teeth because much thicker dentin core.
>Because they live in water near constantly so they don't need lips to keep their teeth wet.
This has been debunked. Some crocodiles spend more time on land than in water and their teeth are fine.
that is due to the law of irreversibility and those land dwelling crocs come from ancestors who already lost their teeth to live in water.
*lost their lips*
actually depending on whether or not you believe the law of irreversiblity is valid and how flexible/inflexible it is, you could argue that all archosaurs lacked lips due to them evolving from semiaquatic proterosuchidae which survived the permian mass extinction. and as pointed out here
they mostly likely had no lips due to their lifestyle and when they expanded into niches left by extinct therapsids the only ones who would come closest to """re-evolving""" lips would be herbivorous beaked archosaurs gaining cheeks to help with chewing. carnivorous archosaurs on the other hand would have no pressure to gain lips and simply opt to replace their teeth faster.
It's definitely valid. Modern birds alone prove that. We don't have any scaly lizard-birds these days, regardless of how much feather cover they lose. Proterosuchids likely had some degree of lips, though likely less than their dinosaur descendents since they were crocodile analogs. Prolacerta (which gave rise to Proterosuchids) wasn't very crocodile-like though. Much more lizardlike.
That Meg never skips leg day.
>Because this is a common feature of all archosaurs (which can be seen from the jaw bones of various both crurotarsians and avemetatarsals).
You're right about the rest, but this is incorrect. True Suchians are very different from most Archosaurs. Their lipless state is derived, not basal. It's actually coincidence that they're anything like their Proterosuchid ancestors. Some Pseudosuchians (like Poposaurs) basically turned into Dinosaurs.
That's because you keep listen to paleopseuds drone on about "phylogenetic bracketing" instead of looking at the animals' actual anatomy. It's not your fault if you don't study Theropods, but this only highlights how fucking retarded relying on assumed brackets is and how much damage it does to one's understanding of extinct animals. Dinosaurs aren't alligators. Crocodilians are actually quite a bit divergent from their common ancestor.
>Only exceeded in frequency by theropod ichnotaxa.
Are they really that common? It was my impression that footprints, etc. were sort of rarer. You're saying they're more common than teeth? That almost seems hard to believe.
>It was my impression that footprints, etc. were sort of rarer
you're correct, the ichnotaxa themselves are pretty rare. But individual footprints? There's probably close to a million of those just from known trackways.
so yeah. Even though somewhat rare compared to non-theropod footprints, there's still an incredible shitload of them. Mostly small to medium theropod tracks. But a fair number of gigantic ones as well.
teeth are an easy second place though. Tens of thousands of those show up. Maybe hundreds of thousands.
I meant the individual footprints. I think you misspoke so I took it as you meaning that. I had no idea they were so common. I've so rarely heard of them. I mean most of the ones I'm familiar with like the Broome Sauropod or the supposed Dilophosaurus prints in the East have been talked about repeatedly.
I mean with reconstructions like that pic, you're basically arguing for a quadruped.
Also, those yellowish bits are said to be soft tissue - parts of the remaining lips, but I've never seen good enough detail of them to know if that's correct.
>their lipless state is derived, not basal
Is there any evidence of this, or it's just another's glowie "subverting speculation"?
Just look at the skulls of Proterosuchids. They're very different from true Suchians (one of their many descendents).
For example, the same jaws, full of holes for nerves and blood vessels, which are typical only for lipless animals?
Squamates have jaws full of foramina too. See:
The jaws of Proterosuchids are also quite different from Crocodilians.
>iguana
The're not even remotely comarable.
>far fetched excuses
Seethe.
You classical paleontologists are the very last people I'd listen to when debating "far-fetched excuses". You're the reason we're in this mess in the first place. Your original sin, the "OnLi BOanZ FoSsiLyZ!" position, caused irreplaceable destruction, with untold amounts of fossilized tissue being scraped off and discarded throughout the decades. And you have the nerve to call us crackpots.
Yeah, it really makes you wonder how much soft tissue has been lost. I was thinking about this recently and I think more fossils probably preserve soft tissue than has been accepted and people aren't paying attention and just scraping it off.
>with untold amounts of fossilized tissue being scraped off and discarded throughout the decades
wasn't there some rumor not too long ago that the carnotaurus specimen had facial soft tissue removed during rushed preparation?
>wasn't there some rumor not too long ago that the carnotaurus specimen had facial soft tissue removed during rushed preparation?
it's not a rumor, but yes.
Show me on the skull where the five gajillion crocodilian-like foramina are located. And the crocodilian-like heavy ridging. Oh, wait, you can't. The only foramina are found along the tooth line, like in modern lipped lizards. And the skull is smooth.
That skull resembles a varanid one, with a big-ass ugly overbite.
>full of holes for nerves and blood vessels, which are typical only for lipless animals
Not entirely true. Caecilians have holes all over their skulls like crocodiles but their teeth are covered. The ganges river dolphins have smoother skulls but their teeth are exposed.
what the fuck is this jaw, its more fucked than dilophosaurus; just why
That's great grandfather dinosaur you're looking at. A Proterosuchid. Proterosuchids had fucked up schnozes, which is why early dinosaurs - especially theropods have what's called a "subnarial gap". The suHispanicion is that they lived like crocodiles and the notch helped them catch prey.
Bruh you're agreeing with me.
but the rostrum teeth arent worn, so whats the point
What are you talking about? It seems like you're having a conversation with another thread.
Sorry, it annoys me when people use crocodilians as yardstick for every other more or less related archosaur's anatomy.
You can even see the lip line on that skull. The lower and primary part of the upper jaw have exposed roots (hence, high gums, therefore lips), that overbite not so much. The thing was buck-toothed.
Retard. Absolute braindead glowie retard. If you had at least a grain of critical thinking and knowledge in biology, then you knew that crocodiles spend most of their lives basking in the sun, along the way mercilessly drying their teeth on it. And then they are subjected them to even greater stress, dipping into cold water after long hours in the sun.
According to your "logic" lips would be useful here like nowhere else, but crocodiles don't have them. Because this is a common feature of all archosaurs (which can be seen from the jaw bones of various both crurotarsians and avemetatarsals).
subversive paleontology is cancer. notice how theyre ridiculous reconstructions are not only slowly but surely turning them into things that dont even look like real animals, but also more and more like early 19th century reconstructions of dinos made by cursory guesses
That's why I like prehistoric planet. They take artistic liberties, which is cool since we really dont know exactly how any of them looked, but they still look like real animals.
>but they still look like real animals
uh oh! you said the magic words!
SCHIZO TIME
>subversive paleontology is cancer
>dont even look like real animals, but also more and more like early 19th century reconstructions
Amen! Feathers on non-coelurosaurian species, theropod lips and crippled forelimbs are the peak of glowie autism, that contradicts to the very common sense. Glowie "scientists" should not be even allowed to draw unicorns on Furaffinity, not to mention real scientific publications.
>they take artistic liberties, which is cool
Go back watching Mrvel shit and Disney "Star Wars" while spilling spinach smoozie on your beard. You're not belong to the Paleo-world (so as that hack Favreau).
>You're not belong to the Paleo-world
lel
Theropods could have had lips. Taxi-genetics is irrational and incorrect crackpot “science”. Do I have pronounced fangs and a full coat of hair because other primates do? My distant ancestors and relatives had claws, not nails, so if fingernails are never found maybe i had claws?
>Taxi-genetics is irrational and incorrect crackpot “science”. Do I have pronounced fangs and a full coat of hair because other primates do?
Phylogenetic inference works in absence of evidence that point to the contrary. That's just how science is.
>claims to be american
>completely forgets how to speak english sometimes
>Taxi-genetics is irrational and incorrect crackpot “science”
you don't understand it, so yes. Your 'understanding' of bracketing is absolutely retarded.
No yours is. He's actually right. Trying to force Dinosaurs into alligator or pigeon models is pants on head retarded. One should examine the ANATOMY and make assessments accordingly. Phylogenetic comparisons should always come DEAD FUCKING LAST. Lips are an excellent example. We know with some certainty that dinosaurs had lips because they have GUMLINES which are clearly visible some ways away from the jaw. This necessitates lips covering AT LEAST the gumline and likely a bit more than that, because that's the natural state of animals. We only CONFIRM this because we see that the foramina of lepidosaurs, for example, are near-identical to those of the more plesiomorphic dinosaurs like Theropods, so we can assume they had lizard-like lips. Phylogenetic "bracketing" only gets you into trouble. It's why so many fucking retards have tried to do somersaults explaining away Ornithischian cheeks when the more apomorphic groups like Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsids CLEARLY fucking had them or their food would fall the fuck out of the sides of their mouths when they chewed. "Um reptiles can't have cheeks, sweaty." And for those who don't know much about the subject, these groups are not like Iguanas that mostly swallow their food whole - that's another reason we're pretty certain Saurischians DIDN'T have cheeks, because they dind't really chew their food that well. Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsids thoroughly chewed their food. We know because we have the remains of the food.
>they have GUMLINES which are clearly visible some ways away from the jaw.
kek'd
bone shrinks as it dries, but teeth don't shrink nearly as much. Those lines you see were below the gums and also covered by the bone of the jaw. Just like on every toothed vertebrate.
then they die and the jaw bone shrinks exposing that line.
the line is called the cervical line.
just a helpful tip from someone that actually knows a little anatomy.
THIS is a human skull. How much do you think the bone has shrank? Know why there's a gap? Because humans have fucking lips.
THIS is an Iguana skull. Which does it look like? Iguanas are reptiles, but also have lips.
And this is a Camarasaurus skull - a Saurischian, just like Theropods. Again, which one does it resemble?
Why do people want to draw this instead of, say, badass sea serpent spino?
its a joke reconstruction
Well, it is pretty funny. L o L !!
I'm pretty sure I've failed to comprehend the OP because it seems like they're saying Kangaroos should not exist according to natural law.
Adaptations don't exist in a vacuum. Maybe there's a "better" way it could have evolved, but that niche may not have been available while they were evolving.
there are multiple examples of the kangaroo phenotype evolving.
Spinosaurus is unique among hundreds of known theropod taxa, including its closest relatives. This is a pretty strong argument against it. Not proof, but a pretty strong argument.
Time will tell. If Spinosaurus as we know it really is multiple species or even genera that changes things, and that's not considering the possibility highly fragmentary related taxa like Oxalaia or Irritator might turn out to be similar to it with more material
Agreed. Lots of opportunities to either support or discredit Ibrahim's work. He may be right, but lots of people have very reasonable doubts.
Aren't there those Ichthyovenator tail verts with the tall neural spines waiting to be described
I'm not sure, but it's entirely possible for the tail to be right and the legs wrong. If I'm remembering right the only part of Ibrahim's spino that he actually dug up was the tail.
>aquatic animal has aquatic adaptations
wow what an impossible creature
circular reasoning
we don't know it's an aquatic animal. We assume it is because it has aquatic adaptations.
the actual science (oxygen isotopes ratios from tooth enamel) points to it being semi-aquatic.
those limbs probably are impossible for a semi-aquatic animal.
The fact people are even engaging this retard still is probably a bad idea. Hopefully he'll get bored if his threads start dying
>Hopefully he'll get bored if his threads start dying
He's been here at least 6 years now and probably closer to 12. Over that time period he has been by far the most prolific poster on Wauf, even when ignored.
he's not going anywhere. He has no job, no responsibilities, and presumably someone taking care of him.
I know who you mean but is it even the same person, these last couple threads seem like a new one
>is it even the same person
yeah.
I count how many times he uses particular phrases. "Glowies" is one. "Pseuds." "soientists"
shit like that.
he adopts new phrases when presented with them, and he uses them immediately. Like I called him a bot a couple weeks back and he immediately started calling everyone else bots. He learns new words like a bot does.
but it's still him. There aren't actually that many complete retards out there with an overweening obsession with dinosaurs and a painful and itchy case of schizophrenia.
Reminds me of the ancels, mutters, buttsniffers, shitbeasts guy (then again all his catchphrases bring up reddit as the 3rd or 4th result on google when combined with “dog”)
yep
some of our schizos are easy to track by their vocabulary. OP is one of them. He's prolific, I suspect he's a toxofag, shitbull schizo, and bigfoot guy. Possibly a couple other crazies and retards on the board.
fun Wauf fact
most posts using fgt, zhe, elipsis (…), and dogue, as well as posts quoting filenames in replies, are all one schizo
More like 11. "You're here forever" isn't a threat. It's a promise.
>Over that time period he has been by far the most prolific poster on Wauf
Lol not even close. I guarantee bugguy alone has posted more than I have. Who knows about anons.
They weren't me. I don't have to lie about which threads I make. That implies I'm afraid of redditors and trying to do the opposite of my goals.
I never say "glowie". The proper term is glowmoron. And it is you appletrannies who started the "feds are gaying our dinosaurs" bullshit trying to sell Prehistoric Planet, which failed fucking spectacularly.
I think he's just saying Ibrahim's reconstruction is fucking retarded and he's right.
Honestly the best argument against it is it came out after the 90s. Rigor has really taken a fucking nosedive in favor of trying to sell bullshit in the past few decades. Honestly it seems like recent life scientists are all trying to outdo each other on who can sell the dumbest theory humanly possible to the public. Life scientists are truly the stupidest scientists in existence. Much worse than even political scientists or psychology majors. Rarely have I met a biologist who didn't sound like he was huffing paint.
Straw man
most glowies will tell you
1. Ibrahim engaged in academic fraud regarding the collection of his holotype
2. Ibrahim's holotype is currently considered a chimera.
so no. Glowies are NOT trying to convince you that's a real viable animal. In fact they've gone out of their way to say it's not. But you won't listen. You'd rather be mad than right.
>1. Ibrahim engaged in academic fraud regarding the collection of his holotype
>2. Ibrahim's holotype is currently considered a chimera.
Source?
All of the claims against the chimeric nature of Ibrahim's Spinosaurus finds have been addressed thus far. And on the topic of the larger paleontology community, Sereno et al literally sourced Ibrahim's followup paper on classifying Sigilmassaurus as Spinosaurus in their paper opposing the aquatic reconstruction. Even people who disagree with Ibrahim's Spinosaurus concede that the material he found wasn't chimeric.
The problem with this species is that people got attached to a completely fictional version of it with Jurassic Park 3. Everyone knocks on Ibrahim for using "Sigilmassaurus" parts as if the older Spinosaurus reconstruction (which Sereno himself was a major contributor for often times BTW) was "pure" when it's a bunch of flimsy fragments GDI'd using Irritator and Baryonyx.
Even if you still discount Ibrahim's work, the fact of the matter is that we legitimately have zero idea how Spinosaurus truly looked. While Horner's attempt at pushing lesser known species into the public eye was great in theory, it ultimately did more damage to this taxon than it helped. Spinosaurus should have remained, like Bahariasaurus, a blank/vague figure until we got more material for it.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.25.493395v1.full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667120302068?via%3Dihub
>The problem with this species is that people got attached to a completely fictional version of it with Jurassic Park 3.
Including the several scientists that assigned it to multiple species, and all the other scientists that agree it's probably a chimera?
Because that seems unlikely and probably impossible. Proving it's a chimera requires re-assigning it based on facts, not nostalgia.
Okay I mean it seems like people are just fine citing Ibrahim but even if regardless of what you think of the timelines/quarry maps he wrote about the fact is that Spinosaurus was short legged and weighed far less than previously thought. The OP image is closer to the reality of Spinosaurus than its pre-2014 reconstructions ever were.
Funnily enough Andrea Cau had strongly hypothesized nearly everything this before Ibrahim even published a single word about this just based on Spinosaurus material he had directly been involved with. This Spinosaurus (or something resembling it) isn't "new" anymore, something along its lines has been known for over a decade now.
>the fact is that Spinosaurus was short legged
this wouldn't be known even if we had reliable quarry maps. It may be likely, but it's not known.
finding the tail in the same place the fossil collectors supposedly dug up the legs is a very good sign, but far from proving they go together. And we may never know because skeletons from the Kem Kem are almost never articulated. It's a random bone bed with all kinds of stuff mixed together.
should add to this that finding both legs also indicates they go together.
but it's certainly not proven.
>Even if you still discount Ibrahim's work, the fact of the matter is that we legitimately have zero idea how Spinosaurus truly looked
A problem paleontologists don't share.
we don't give 2 fucks what it looked like. We just want it classified and described correctly. Ibrahim's description will always have an asterisk by it because he didn't did it up. He said he did, but then it turned out he didn't. And now he's saying he dug up some of it and we don't know if that's true or not because he lied the first time around and he has no records of digging it up.
>we don't give 2 fucks what it looked like. We just want it classified and described correctly
LITERAL autism.
There's no defending this.
Fuck off back to your shitty discord server or subreddit newfag
Dinosaurs are the cape shit of paleontology.
Nobody here even knows what paleontology is.
>feel slightly uncomfortable every time I see a thumbnail of what are ostensibly pebbles
You did this to me Wauf
Parasite orb
You mean because actual nerds like them and then they got mainstreamed and absolute retards ruined them by turning them into something they're not? Sounds about right.
a lot of animals in nature look retarded for weird reasons, dinosaurs probably also looked retarded for weird reasons
that's a government conspiracy to make kids gay. Dinosaurs were terrible monsters that only manly men can love!
every carnivorous dinosaur ate whey protein before deadlifting OP's mom. Don't let globohomo convince you otherwise
Shut the fuck up, apple.
at this point paleothreads are just schizos vs schizos. at least thanks to them the scalies and creationists are leaving us alone!
>hurray!
Fuck off retard you don't need another thread
paleofags can be really fucking stupid sometimes
>this is related to this so the unknown trait of this must actually be just like the known analogous trait of this!
I found a mummy of a dog but only a skeleton of a wolf. Therefore, I will declare that wolves had floppy ears and coats with clearly separated colors!
Also, I only found hairless elephant integument so I will deny that any proboscideans could have had fur. After all, the "evidence" of fur came from a country that I am strongly racist against and obviously if the african elephant had no fur (no found integument had a single discernible fiber) the mammoth couldn't have either. Do glowies just want us to believe an animal lost a useful trait entirely? Lol.
the result of letting liberal and schizoid midwits into the softer sciences that they were smart enough to get degrees in. colleges are full of junk courses that let these "people" pad out their degrees when back in the day the "useless" courses were legitimately difficult and were a hard filter for such subhumans as aspergers patients that don't belong in academia or anywhere near the upper crust of society where they might breed. Now you have things like womens studies where agreeing with the instructor is an instant 4.0.
Anon the uper castes pf europe used to be fucking swarming with aspies and autists. Left to their own devices, scholarly pursuits are one of the few environments aspies can actually thrive in. All the useless, easy degrees did was bring in the normies.
I thought he was being sarcastic since he's clearly an aspie and a schizo
moron have you ever had an aspie classmate? they are genuinely some of the worst students
>have you ever had an aspie classmate?
only retards have aspie classmates
I used to upset all my fastidious classmates by fucking around in class and never studying, and still do well. The fuck is the point of extreme studying? Just remember what you heard retards, it isn’t hard.
Do fish eaters have lips in nature? I always thought the point was to have the big interlocking teeth as a cage for the struggling wet prey rather than chunks of meat from a corpse. Otherwise I like it, it's very unique. Like a demonstration of what a hyper specialist in the right environment could become.
You like being lied to?
Cetaceans literally lost their lips and basically adopted crocodile-normal mouths and teeth when they went full-time aquatic. Take that as you will.
Unless you can find a scaled elephant you really need to drop the feathered T. rex shit. Losing one integument (feathers) and losing one and gaining a DIFFERENT one (losing feathers, THEN gaining scales) are in different universes of difficulty.
Featherfags have become the new creationists. Russel's Teapot is unironically now a mainstream paleontological principle.
Let me guess, you're going to tell us it's the study of rocks (which is incorrect)?
I think it's a near certainty that ALL dinosaurs had some degree of lips. I do not think they covered as much as most people think. People tend to either want to strip the entire lip off or cover up every molecule of tooth, but the truth is almost certainly neither.
And this fucking nonsense claim that enamel has to be wet deserves a death penalty for whatever criatura came up with it, because every fucking idiot parrots it now (welcome to modern soience). First they say that fangs can't exist without drool running down them all the time, then you remind them that musk deer exist, then they say well you can't actually USE them, then you remind them Elephants exist, then they claim OH BUT ELEPHANT TUSK DOESN'T HAVE ENAMEL I WIN!! Then you remind them that elephant tusks used to have enamel and that enamelless tusks are a recent adaptation, then they shut the fuck up and regroup because they don't actually know the science, they just want to spread bullshit and get paid for it.
>Let me guess, you're going to tell us it's the study of rocks (which is incorrect)?
open the pic dumbass
>First they say that fangs can't exist without drool running down them all the time, then you remind them that musk deer exist, then they say well you can't actually USE them, then you remind them Elephants exist, then they claim OH BUT ELEPHANT TUSK DOESN'T HAVE ENAMEL I WIN!! Then you remind them that elephant tusks used to have enamel and that enamelless tusks are a recent adaptation, then they shut the fuck up
I love the arguments you have with straw men in your head
in real life we'll tell you that tusks have a different physiology from other teeth, generally less enamel and thicker dentin.
Then we'll tell you that tusk enamel dries out and cracks all the fucking time
we might remind you that tusks aren't used for chewing or biting so they don't undergo the same stresses as teeth
and finally we might tell you that tusks still break quite often despite all this.
all of which you will ignore because you like imaginary opponents. You don't deal well with reality.
>open the pic dumbass
Yes, I saw the pic and from the other comments I assume you made, you meant more the study of extinct marine organisms. I'm getting tired of hearing the "paleontology is just geology" nonsense. If that's true then detective work is the study of clues, no the attempt to solve crimes. Or anatomy is the study of meat and can only give you cooking tips.
>I love the arguments you have with straw men in your head
I've literally had this exact argument on Wauf for years with retards such as yourself who don't know shit about Proboscideans.
>in real life we'll tell you that tusks have a different physiology from other teeth, generally less enamel and thicker dentin.
Again, you're retarded. Modern elephants don't have enamel AT ALL on their tusks. But their recent ancestors DID. Literally nobody even knows why this is.
>Then we'll tell you that tusk enamel dries
Are you talking about fossils? Modern elephants don't have enameled tusks. In Gomphotheres, for example, we can watch it disappear in transition. That's why Cuvieronius has spiraled tusks. The spiral is a band of enamel. Notiomastodon lacks enamel (maybe on the tips?). I believe Elephantidae went through the same process during the Pliocene-Pleistocene time frame.
>we might remind you that tusks aren't used for chewing or biting so they don't undergo the same stresses as teeth
moron you outta your fucking mind. This has always been one of the stupidest fucking arguments LITERALLY of anything of all time. Elephants use their tusks to destroy entire fucking trees. I don't know if there's an animal on Earth that puts more pressure on their teeth than an elephant does with their tusks. This is where shit gets fucking loony. You can claim all you want that "ornamental" tusks like those of a Musk Deer are possible because they "don't need to be under pressure", but claiming that those of elephants aren'd put through the fucking ringer is absolute insanity. There are pieces of heavy industrial equipment that see less work. The fuck are you talking about?
>and finally we might tell you that tusks still break quite often despite all this.
Gee, I wonder why. It's almost like they work the shit out of them. Also, diet has a significant impact on their variable fragility. You try uprooting a fucking tree with your teeth and see if one cracks.
>and gaining a DIFFERENT one (losing feathers, THEN gaining scales) are in different universes of difficulty.
Scales and feathers coexist at the base of Avemetatarsalia. Even modern birds have body parts where both integuments are present
Be silent now. Avemetatarsalia is a myth. It doesn't exist. And feathers are not an ancdestral archosaur trait. You can repeat bullshit until you're fucking blue in the face, but it will never be science. Both Aphanosaurs and Silesaurids have dorsal imbricate osteoderms. They weren't feathered.
>Even modern birds
I'm just glad the tide is finally turning back in the direction of eugenics. Oh to one day see a world where midwits that can't pass a turing test are considered once again what they are: fucking retards. DINOSAURS ARE NOT FUCKING BIRDS. For the last fucking time. Birds evolved from a VERY SPECIFIC TINY branch of Theropod dinosaurs which were DIFFERENT from other dinosaurs.
>now. Avemetatarsalia is a myth. It doesn't exist.
Ornithodira is better for you?
>And feathers are not an ancdestral archosaur trait
Never claimed that. But it's likely that the common ancestor between Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs had some primitive feathers
>Both Aphanosaurs and Silesaurids have dorsal imbricate osteoderms. They weren't feathered.
Having osteoderms doesn't mean the animal couldn't have filamentous feathers anywhere else on the body
You literally did, now go the fuck back to that cesspool of NPCness, reddit.
>You literally did
No, I claimed the common ancestor between Dinosaurs and Pterosaur likely had feathers. That's an ancient archosaur, yes. Doesn't mean I implied feathers were an ancestral Archosaur trait. Retard.
>DINOSAURS ARE NOT FUCKING BIRDS. For the last fucking time. Birds evolved from a VERY SPECIFIC TINY branch of Theropod dinosaurs which were DIFFERENT from other dinosaurs.
And that group of theropod is known to have feathers. What we were talking about. Feathers in dinosaurs. Whether an animal could have only scales or feathers. Spoiler: they can have both. Idiot.
You're eithet baiting, a massive retatd or David Peters
You're literally too stupid to give a reply to other than to say that you're stupid and reminding you that strawmanning people and stating basic bitch shit everyone already knows in an attempt to prove more advanced topics wrong is pointless.
Look in the mirror.
A theropod can lose feathers and gain scales if losing insulation while remaining well protected is important for survival. It's pretty trivial. More trivial than a monkey developing the capacity for abstract thought, actually.
i could buy its reduced limbs it was some sort of transitory evolution towards a primarily aquatic lifestyle, lips are dumb though
The thing that elliminates those who rooting for twisted theropod forelimbs and believe that it's dinosaurs evolved from birds, and not vice versa.
The (un)presence of lips in archosaurs has already been well described here:
>The (un)presence of lips in archosaurs has already been well described here
>Thread is a bunch of people telling you you're retarded for making such a statement based on dogshit reasoning and basically no evidence
lol, lmao even
>Thread is a bunch of people telling you you're retarded for making such a statement based on dogshit reasoning and basically no evidence
He's probably right though.
As far as I know, the idea that theropods had lips to keep the enamel of their teeth from cracking was published in a blog, and has not been published in any white paper.
There's no evidence they lacked lips, but there's also no evidence they had them.
more importantly, the reason paleontologists probably refuse to publish the idea even if they agree with it is because
1. theropods constantly broke their teeth, indicating if they had lips they weren't really working to protect teeth from breakage.
2. theropods constantly replaced their teeth, indicating again that lips weren't working to protect them.
this isn't conclusive evidence or anything. It just makes the whole lip idea shaky enough that people won't publish it.
I don't know whether or not they had lips, I'm just saying his argument for taking such a stance is dumb as fuck. There's minimal evidence either way
>his argument for taking such a stance is dumb as fuck.
I agree, but it's not his argument
he took it directly from a scientific paper.
some of it was from the paper, but the shit about the teeth being too long or the weird comparison to saber toothed cats was not. He also doesn't seem to agree with the croc skin stance of Carr's paper seeing as he referenced the JP rex as being correct
I didn't read the whole thread or try to keep track of who was saying what. That's a lot.
but yes, he often comes to right conclusions for very wrong reasons.
Lips exist to keep gums and the oral cavity wet, not protect teeth. I don't know where the fuck this retarded idea that lips protect teeth came from.
This isn't totally correct. Bad paleontology is feeding bad paleoart, which is feeding back into even worse paleontology. The fact that you insist on bringing up scavenger T. rex reveals you to be a worthless pseud. Jack Horner is one of the greatest paleontologists who has ever lived and has done more for the field than any score of your level will ever do. Papers are not science. They're a format. Nobody doesn't know scavenger T. rex is Jack Horner's idea and everyone thought it was stupid when he first said it.
Once again, those who know less are trying to tell those with eyes who understand anatomy that "we don't know nuffin". We can literally see the fucking gumlines on Dinosaurs. We know they had lips to some degree. The only real debate is over how much of the teeth they covered. Once again, BOTH paleontologists and paleo"""artists""" signed off on stupid shit like lipless sauropods for years. They're all to blame for this bullshit.
Ibrahim's Spino is clearly fucking retarded. That's all the evidence anyone needs. If his reconstruction is correct, the animal would be no more capable of walking than a seal. May as well bring back elephant seal spino at that point.
You're going to have to deal with a truth at some point in you miserable reddit life: not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person. I know you're whining about me, but I'm not the OP of this thread or half the others. People like dinosaurs. And my efforts are having their intended effect: people are realizing you've been lying to them.
>those with eyes who understand anatomy
you have the anatomical knowledge of a 5 year old. A retarded 5 year old.
That's another reason I love your posts. How do you memorize entire books on phylogeny and still not understand the most basic of ideas about anatomy? Usually idiot savants like you do fine with anatomy since it's just memorization.
>If his reconstruction is correct, the animal would be no more capable of walking than a seal
Is this based on any biomechanics or is it just because you looked at picture and went "nah not possible"? There are birds that can walk with short legs and extremely front heavy skeletons so you can't say that without the data to back it up
>Is this based on any biomechanics
not him but it would appear to true based on center of gravity problems, the legs being far too thin to support the weight, and the fact that Spinosaurus was missing most of its wrist bones, as is typical in theropods.
>There are birds that can walk with short legs and extremely front heavy skeletons
They do this by adopting a more upright posture that puts the front weight over the hips.
this is impossible to do with short legs and a huge tail that would smush directly into the dirt.
I forget what species but there's some bird that rarely lands and tries to walk with its legs so far back in a horizontal position rather than upright. Also couldn't it simply pull a ye olde tripod pose
I think the problem with the tripod is the same one other theropods have-
the first couple caudal verts are fused to the synsacrum so they can't bend, and the ones after that apparently weren't flexible enough to pull it off.
or to simplify,
we once again have the general public and artistic community running with an idea that paleontologists aren't confident enough about to actually publish.
see also, feathered rex, scavenger rex, nonpronating raptor hands, etc.
And paleontologists love this, because this way they get their quack ideas out into the public consciousness without putting their own professional reputations on the line. They know something like scavenger rex can never be actually tested, so instead of having to write a paper they just plant a seed and stir the pot and let the public make their dumb idea go viral.
That way they can always fall back on "wtf bro we never published anything saying this though" when the pushback inevitably (deservedly) starts.
What is modern paleontology even like? How does one become a paleontologist nowadays? What do they even do? Are they all doing digs? There can only be so many undiscovered bones...
Can I be a paleontologist? I promise I'm smart.
usually modern paleontology consists of studying thin sections of marine sediments under a binocular microscope to identify foram tests and diatoms for oil companies. Biostratigraphy.
If you insist on going into useless paleontology like dinosaurs, you need to complete a 4 year BS degree which frankly nobody here is smart enough to pass. Then you do another couple years for a completely useless MS degree or another 4 years for a PhD. After that you do post doctorate studies for another 20 years at no pay waiting for your professor to die so you can apply for his job.
during that time you publish 5-10 papers as a co-author for your professor. In which he gets the credit and money and you do all the work.
at the end of the day you get a mediocre salary teaching your craft to other kids, and you get fame among a certain class of sexless autistic men that honestly pays no dividends whatsoever.
and you get gays like OP who hate you for doing something they're not capable of.
This whole pronation thing seems like a big misunderstanding. I think that one guy is trying to say that most theropods couldn’t fold their arms to the extreme extent that most birds could reach today and that their wrists did have limited side to side movement as seen in the picture here which I agree with. It also isn’t pronation. Pronation is the act of twisting the radius over top of the ulna to make your palm face down which I think we can all agree theropods couldn’t do.
Pic related is a example of how far different dinosaurs could fold their arms and keep in mind some of these positions wouldn’t have been comfortable or their natural resting position.
>Pronation is the act of twisting the radius over top of the ulna
No it isn't. That's the extremely specific version of pronation that refers to humans. The word "pronation" literally just means in a face down position. That's all it means. Period.
Also if you think Theropods held their hands like those in that image, you are a literal fucking retard. The Allosaurus is the least retarded and every single finger is facing a different direction.
Pterosaurs are not that closely related to dinosaurs. And retards that believe this may as well just start calling pterosaurs dinosaurs, since you keep nesting them closer to dinosaurs than literal dinosaurs like Silesaurids or dinosaur ancestors (or perhaps even the earliest dinosaurs) like Aphanosaurs. There are so many traits Pterosaurs DO NOT share with Dinosaurs it's retarded. And that's before you even bring up the fact that they were already flying when Dinosaurs were learning to walk upright.
>every single finger is facing a different direction
Its not. They're all facing the forwards at an angle, the reason they look like they're twisting in different directions is because they're trying to show the curve of the claws