So I understand now that scientists say that T-Rex had feathers, but I dont understand why it would evolve feathers?

So I understand now that scientists say that T-Rex had feathers, but I don’t understand why it would evolve feathers? What evolutionary advantage did feathers give?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The gorepedo engh strikes again.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Shitty bait.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Feathers are good for keeping warm, keep parasites off one's skin, and rain runs off it.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >no feathers
      This is a false flag.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

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

        a failed false flag like the uss liberty

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So you think necrophilia is cool. Gross.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So carnivores never get to eat? Also what exactly is erotic about picrel? It seems like pure projection.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    tranitors deleting anti feather posts because mossad feather shills cant compete in rational debate. sad

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Now you did it. Now is the time to quadruple reply.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >So I understand
    i doubt that very much

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Brian Engh is such a god damned moron. Literally the only reason anybody knows who he is is because outrage sells tabloids and science is now the national Enquirer.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Probably the weirdest part of this statement is that nobody shills feathers on Wauf, nobody has for years.

    People like OP are probably just you pretending to be a shill so you have someone to argue with. Because as mentioned, when you go away, threads like OP do too. Every time.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I mean this is really weird, even by conspiracy-nut standards.

  12. 1 year ago
    Sage

    >HIDE DINOSAUR THREADS
    >SAGE ALL DINOSAUR THREADS
    >BAN DINOSAUR THREADS FROM Wauf
    >MAKE A CONTAINMENT BOARD FOR ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO PALEONTOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
    >TREAT DINOSAUR THREADS LIKE SLIDE THREADS
    >SLAM DUNK A DINOSAUR THREAD INTO THE TRASH
    >TELL JANNIES TO GET OFF OF THEIR FAT ASSES AND DELETE ALL ACTIVE DINOSAUR THREADS
    >BULLY ANYONE WHO MENTIONS DINOSAURS IN A THREAD

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think everyone that complains about dinosaur threads needs to be IP rangebanned from posting on Wauf ever again.

      • 1 year ago
        Sage

        >n-no...... STOP SAGING MY THREAD YOU MEANIE!!!!
        cope

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I don't even think you have schizophrenia, you're just a lame troll who has to change methods constantly whenever you're called out for being a worthless contrarian shit-stirrer. And no, putting quotes you made up in your head next to a soi face isn't an argument, it just shows that you're such a narcissist that even the most simple and basal of disagreements is met by ad-hominem and buzzwords from the likes of you.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Literally what in the everliving frick is wrong with these morons? Why is every modern paleohomosexual a weird necrophile pervert?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Do you have examples of this???

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah what engh posted there for one. Also emily willoughby.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Because crocodiles NEVER eats zebras or wildebeests and they sing koombiya with every other animal in Africa, that's EXACTLY why they have bone-crushing jaws and pointy teeth, right? Fricking mongoloid moron.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >So I understand now that scientists say that T-Rex had feathers
    No they don't. We have skin impressions of tyrannosaurus and it's close relatives and regional equivalents, and they are bald. The cretaceous was a lot warmer than the current time and large animals produce a lot of their own heat; there'd be no reason for them to have feathers. If they did have feathers, they'd be dull brown or green or something.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You mean adaptation? Evolution isn’t real.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If we ever do bring back dinosaurs should it be our duty to uplift them?

    https://files.catbox.moe/v2vb7o.jpg

    https://files.catbox.moe/naoc3c.jpg

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    that article is written like a yahoo news post, but i see nothing wrong with what is saying. Is not a secret that the field was full of biased morons making epic fanart to own other "races".

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Mark Witton is a woke shill
    Color me absolutely shocked, I say!

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Convective heat transfer is called convection. I can't do it anymore.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Convective heat transfer is called convection.

      convection only takes place in fluids. Elephants aren't fluids, so they can't engage in convection.
      >I can't do it anymore
      pfft. Here's hoping.

      even if you're right, all you did was disagree with me and the authors using a formal term informally.

      you completely failed to address their paper or my criticisms of it, and I see no reason to think you actually understood any of it. Might as well be talking to a fricking chimp.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the reason I didn't respond to

      In the abstract radiation is literally referring to radiative heat losses. Heat departing from the skin of the elephant into the environment as electromagnetic waves. How is this so difficult for you to understand. It does not somehow refer to energy moving through the elephant.

      is because at that point we switched sides and you were arguing for what I said originally.

      in reality it's more complex than that because heat leaves the elephant via a combination of actual radiation (a very small amount) and thermal conduction (which removes most of the heat).

      one that heat leaves the elephant and enters the air via conduction and radiation (which we loosely call radiation) the air then removes it via convection.

      all three processes are taking place, and what we're calling radiation is a combination of radiation and conduction, of which almost all of it is actually conduction.

      either way it's just semantics, and for some reason we switched sides in the argument and you started arguing my point and me yours.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In the abstract radiation is literally referring to radiative heat losses. Heat departing from the skin of the elephant into the environment as electromagnetic waves. How is this so difficult for you to understand. It does not somehow refer to energy moving through the elephant.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    If Wauf dinosaur threads had an avatar it would be this image.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because some raptors might have had them, but people assume trex must too.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting fact: the "quill knobs" on raptors aren't actually quill knobs. Quill knobs are a VERY specifically evolved trait to help only a small number of FLYING birds keep their feathers attached to the bone for reinforcement to fight wind pressure. There is no non-flying bird that has quill knobs. Also, the "quill knobs" in Concavenator have already been questioned, and that's an animal we KNOW had scales because we've found the scales. Darren Naish also claims to have found "quill knobs" in the tibia of a Theropod, but that claim is from an out of print book and I'm not sure which species it's from. The VAST majority of claims about feathers in ANY dinosaur, even therapods are made up bullshit or misinterpretation of evidence. There are only a very tiny number of dinosaurs actually found with feathers and basically all of them are related to birds or later Coelurosaurs like Ornithomimids. The way things are going, I don't even think it's likely the Proceratosaurids like Yutyrannus actually had feathers. The "feathers", for instance, on Dilong go right to the bone. This is how you can generally tell the animal didn't have feathers and the fibers are something else misinterpreted - often plant remains.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I know they didn't.

    I also know mossad isn't trying to convince you they did.

    stay crazy, schizo.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You know how? Because you work for them?

      >yes they are

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >You know how?

        [...]
        >a nation is spending millions of dollars to troll me personally on my adopted blog nobody reads
        seems likely

        >a nation is spending millions of dollars to troll me personally on my adopted blog nobody reads
        the schizo has delusions of grandeur
        nobody actually gives a flying frick what he thinks, not even Wauf

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The stupidest talking point on all of /misc/ is that shills don't exist. Well, at least you homosexuals have pretty much abandoned the "conspiracies don't exist" nonsense, since ya know, they've all pretty much come true in the open for everyone to see.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            *The stupidest talking point on all of Wauf

            To be fair, Wauf basically is just /misc/ at this point.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm pretty sure you'll find shills and glowies on /misc/

            but if you think they're here trying to convince you that dinosaurs had feathers, you've got your tinfoil hat on way too tight. That's just moronic.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              They're everywhere, stupid. You ever heard the phrase "full spectrum dominance"? They can't allow freedom anywhere because it might lead to freedom everywhere. That's why I fight on every angle I can. They do.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >That's why I fight on every angle I can
                Like pretending to be a feather shill just so you can then fight the feather shills, who were all you all along?

                makes a lot of sense. Have you checked under your bed to make sure you didn't hide any monsters there?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't have to lie. I'm not a glowisraelite.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Then why do the feather shills go away when you do?
                Nobody posts feathered dinosaurs when you're gone

                And believe me, we love it when you go away

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because you take your meds and your imaginary friends disappear?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                When you don't post dinosaur threads, nobody does. When you don't post in your own dinosaur threads pretending to fight with yourself, nobody bumps them.

                nobody cares. You're spending your entire life arguing with yourself. You've been doing it for decades. It's sad.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The saddest part is that you claim to have studied me for 15 years or whatever the frick and you're still fricking shit at telling which posts are mine and which aren't. I almost never make threads on Wauf. And when I do they're almost never about dinosaurs.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I almost never make threads on Wauf. And when I do they're almost never about dinosaurs.
                You're like a little kid lying to his parents when they know he did it.

                Ok, so what you're saying is when the anon that posts 5 dinosaur threads a day goes away, you stop posting in dinosaur threads that very same day even though you normally post hundreds of times a day?

                I mean it's an obvious lie, but if you think people are falling for it, good for you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                NTA, but it's almost like there's more than one person who is fed up with paleoart garbage and wants to criticize it.
                Like right now we are literally about to go back to "dinosaurs are too heavy to support their own weight, so they lived their lives mostly in water". There was a fricking study done saying T-Rex could only run in water, hunted in water, and all of its prey must have lived in water too. You cannot deny this shit for much longer, science is going backwards for no other reason than they need to say the opposite of what they did thirty years ago in order to seem progressive.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >NTA, but it's almost like there's more than one person who is fed up with paleoart garbage and wants to criticize it.
                weird how all of you many completely different anons who are totally not one person stop bumping threads at the exact same times a totally different anon who totally isn't you stops making them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You really need to take your fricking meds. This is an Anonymous website, and screaming "YOU'RE ALL THE SAME PERSON" is not a rational argument. You are almost certainly talking to multiple people. There are 44 IPs in this thread alone.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He literally thinks everyone is just me using a dynamic IP. He's an alcoholic or schizophrenic or something legitimately mentally ill.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >screaming "YOU'RE ALL THE SAME PERSON" is not a rational argument
                I'm not making an argument, schizo

                I'm making an observation.

                when you stop making threads, everyone stops bumping them. All 500 of you go away at exactly the same time, including OP.
                And you all come back at the same time.

                these are facts, and anyone who lurks Wauf for a while knows it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I am not making the threads. Take some medication and get therapy.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >i-im not the schizo, y-y-you are!
                Cope

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He literally thinks everyone is just me using a dynamic IP. He's an alcoholic or schizophrenic or something legitimately mentally ill.

                I have considered the alternative,

                that me beating the frick out of the schizo in rational debate and knowledge of facts day after day after day has a chilling effect on other users.

                But I don't see why anyone who isn't the schizo should care when he loses an argument over and over again. If anything other people should find it almost as funny as I do. Particularly since he doesn't usually know that he's been beaten.

                But the simple fact is when the schizo realizes he's lost an argument and looks like an idiot, these threads all instantly die for a few days. This is very likely because most of those different users that normally converse here are different personalities of one schizo, and he's a sensitive little fella. Delicate. He needs his time away sometimes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Now switch back to your other personality that claims to agree with everything I say.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You agree with almost everything I say about paleontology because you imitate me

                and when you disagree, you usually realize you're wrong in a year or two and I find you agreeing with me once you figure it out.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I will never agree with you that the chink fossil hoax industry is made up. I will also never agree with you that most modern paleontology isn't bullshit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I will never agree with you that the chink fossil hoax industry is made up. I will also never agree with you that most modern paleontology isn't bullshit
                kek

                you think you came up with either of those complaints? Check the fricking archives, I was complaining about fake fossils being sold out of china long before you were. You copied that from me and then because you're an idiot you expanded it to include all chinese fossils.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody said I did. But pretty much every modern paleopseud covers it up.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Phones change IPs constantly. I'd guess the actual census in most dino threads to be about a dozen humans

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >everyone who questions feather revisionism is a bot
                projecting israelite troony detected

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                New IP for ban evasion.
                Now watch your thread die because all the people that argue with you are also one persin

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                god is on my side

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Jannies apparently aren't

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the truth WILL win out, god is love, praise jesus

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Most cellular IPs are perma banned from Wauf for various reasons. Cope harder, schizo, and get some therapy.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You know that's a lie
                But if you like we can report you for ban evasion and see

                My bet is it'll take less than a minute for you to change th IP on your phone

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He's right and you're a fricking moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He (you) is obviously wrong or phone posting would be impossible because phones switch IPs constantly

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I start about half the dinosaur threads on here, and I'm not that guy. People pattern-match way too hard on a website where anonymity, in-jokes, mocking imitation, trolling, meme-repetition, etc. are standard. If everyone who gets called 'paleoschizo' actually was one person, there would only be like three users on this board.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >If everyone who gets called 'paleoschizo' actually was one person, there would only be like three users on this board.
                that is correct.

                if you are an oldgay then you know the meme that Wauf is just 3 people pretending to be 200.
                It's not far from the actual truth. Most of the posts here come from 2 or 3 easily recognized people. And those people have been here a very long time.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >a nation is spending millions of dollars to troll me personally on my adopted blog nobody reads
    seems likely

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    feathers are ancestral to birds, t rex was a bird, therfore trex likely had feathers. it wouldn't need to evolve feathers, it would take some kind of environmental pressure for it to lose its feathers by the time it was t rex

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >t rex was a bird
      birds have a fused tarsometatarsus, while T. rex has an unfused set of foot bones instead. It would be essentially impossible for T. rex to have evolved from birds and then unfused the bone back to its original configuration.

      so no, T. rex is not a bird. It might be very closely related to birds, but probably not because it has several other big differences from birds that would've been impossible to evolve if it was closely related.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Birds are not dinosaurs

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs are fishes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Correct and people need to cut that shit out.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >feathered T-rex in 2023
    Get on with the times old man

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >why it would evolve feathers?
    It evolved feathers like elephants evolved fur

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No it didn't. Stop repeating this fricking patent nonsense.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I wish I had feathers and a tail to let girls know that I'm interested in sex without the awkwardness of telling her that I'm interested in sex.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I mean like this guy. I wanna be like this guy (no homo).

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it evolved feathers to keep warm. it lived in Canada and it is cold in Canada

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it evolved scales to keep cool. it lived in Mexico and it is hot in Mexico

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It didn't evolve feathers. Its distant ancestor evolved feathers.
    t-rex simply kept them, at least in some places

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Its distant ancestor evolved feathers.
      probably not
      >t-rex simply kept them, at least in some places
      apparently not

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >So I understand now that scientists say that T-Rex had feathers
    [citation needed]

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Its ancestors had feathers. They are basically in a similar spot to elephants and hair. Elephants didn’t evolve hair, elephants have some sparse hair that helps cooling them. Elephants had related species who lived in colder climate with lots of hair and elephants evolved from animals with hair.
    Some people seems to hold a study as proof that they didn’t had feathers despite never reading the actual paper. What the study actually say is that they didn’t found feathers on T-rex fossil but it didn’t necessarily means it didn’t had any. It did the comparison with elephants that I just did, also that it could had feathers in areas they didn’t got impressions or that the fossilization process that made skin impressions didn’t preserve feathers since only in very specific conditions that happens. Your pic either is from the cold climate relative or from the time they found out that T-rex ancestors had feathers. It probably had few and sparse feathers like elephants have few and sparse hair, it could have had more feathers in specific spots for a variety of reasons and probably had more when young losing them as they grew up.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >They are basically in a similar spot to elephants and hair.
      moronic comparison. Mammals losing their hair covering don't randomly re-evolve scales, they just have naked skin.
      Tyrannosaurus didn't have naked skin, it had scales.
      While it is not impossible to re-evolve scales, it is statistically improbable. Yutyrannus and allies belonging to a side branch that split off the line that led to Tyrannosaurus and allies before they evolved feathers is entirely possible. So is Yutyrannus simply being missclassified.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you know that animals that have feathers also have scales and that scales can be derived from feather, right ?
        and most likely the big Theropods didn't lost their feathers, but some or most of their feathers got modified into scales, like what happen with birds feet

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >you know that animals that have feathers also have scales and that scales can be derived from feather, right ?
          that's what he said

          based moron doesn't understand english or evolution.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          scales can also be derived from hair, but most of the mammals that lost hair did NOT evolve scales.

          it's not impossible, it's just really really really fricking unlikely.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >scales can be derived from feather
          NO.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        There are dinos with scales AND feathers together. Birds still have scales today in part of their body.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Name a bird that lost feathers during evolution and replaced them with scales. Not on the feet, since all you trannies are convinced bird feet scales are somehow identical to dinosaur ones despite them coming from "totally different" sources.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    feathers are for heat regulation, like hair on mammals. t-rex didn't have feathers because it was too big and would have overheated. same reason elephants have much less hair than most mammals.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Do elephants have hair and scales?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Elephants use hair for cooling. It improves their cooling efficiency by 20%.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Elephants use hair for cooling. It improves their cooling efficiency by 20%.
        kek

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Abstract
          The idea that low surface densities of hairs could be a heat loss mechanism is understood in engineering and has been postulated in some thermal studies of animals. However, its biological implications, both for thermoregulation as well as for the evolution of epidermal structures, have not yet been noted. Since early epidermal structures are poorly preserved in the fossil record, we study modern elephants to infer not only the heat transfer effect of present-day sparse hair, but also its potential evolutionary origins. Here we use a combination of theoretical and empirical approaches, and a range of hair densities determined from photographs, to test whether sparse hairs increase convective heat loss from elephant skin, thus serving an intentional evolutionary purpose. Our conclusion is that elephants are covered with hair that significantly enhances their thermoregulation ability by over 5% under all scenarios considered, and by up to 23% at low wind speeds where their thermoregulation needs are greatest. The broader biological significance of this finding suggests that maintaining a low-density hair cover can be evolutionary purposeful and beneficial, which is consistent with the fact that elephants have the greatest need for heat loss of any modern terrestrial animal because of their high body-volume to skin-surface ratio. Elephant hair is the first documented example in nature where increasing heat transfer due to a low hair density covering may be a desirable effect, and therefore raises the possibility of such a covering for similarly sized animals in the past. This elephant example dispels the widely-held assumption that in modern endotherms body hair functions exclusively as an insulator and could therefore be a first step to resolving the prior paradox of why hair was able to evolve in a world much warmer than our own.
          https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047018

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            can you see their mistake?

            Pretend they're idiots about biology but experts at fluid thermodynamics. Their error should be obvious.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Can you see your mistake? Pretend you are expert at everything but look like an illiterate idiot.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Does heat move from the core of the body via radiation, blood flow, or both?

                of the two, which is more efficient?

                which one does skin use?
                which one does hair use?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't understand what you're saying. It seems like you're implying the paper says elephants radiate heat through their hair (as in, the hair itself is the 'radiator surface'), but that obviously isn't right.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It seems like you're implying the paper says elephants radiate heat through their hair (as in, the hair itself is the 'radiator surface')
                that's exactly what they're saying

                and it is right. But not for a 20% increase in efficiency I don't believe because
                1. the heat has to radiate from the skin to the hair and they didn't subtract that heat from the heat lost via skin
                2. the skin has much better blood flow than the hairs, so any heat radiated by the hair is coming from the skin first
                3. the hair lacking distributed blood flow makes it less effective than skin for radiating heat

                I don't doubt the hair radiates heat, I just very sincerely doubt it radiates as much as they counted, and every bit of heat loss they attribute to the hair is already counted for the skin.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >that's exactly what they're saying
                The abstract refers to convection, why do you keep bringing up radiation?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The abstract refers to convection, why do you keep bringing up radiation?
                because convection happens in fluids, like air
                radiation happens in solids, like elephants.

                the authors spent a great deal of time calculating how convection deals with heat once it leaves the elephant, and not nearly as much time on how radiation causes the heat to move to different parts of the elephant.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >radiation happens in solids
                What the frick am I reading.

                also just for clarity, not only does the heat move through the elephant via radiation, it also passes into the air via radiation.

                after it enters the air, convection takes over.

                >heat move through the elephant via radiation
                What the frick am I reading.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                go back and read the paper and maybe you'll see.

                >However, under most conditions, radiation will also be an important cooling mechanism. With an air temperature of 12.6°C, Williams [11] estimated the contribution of convection to be about 40% of the total heat loss from the elephant, while radiative losses were estimated at about 50%.

                > The rest of an elephant’s required heat loss is then performed through other means including radiative and latent losses (thermal energy used for water evaporation – such as breathing and evaporative cooling on the skin, but not sweating [9]).

                holy shit, scientists using a word in a way you don't understand!
                I know, it's nuts.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There's a word scientists and engineers use to refer to heat moving through a solid and it's not "radiation".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                one of the problems of being either ESL or scientifically illiterate is you don't know when an english word has multiple meanings and can't tell by context which meaning is intended.

                It makes a person look stupid, but you look even stupider when a native english speaker explains the definition and shows you examples of a scientist using it, and you still decide to disagree.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                They could have used the "correct" term if they wanted to.

                I could have used the "correct" term if I wanted to.

                we didn't want to. Not everything in science is formal language. The idea is to communicate, not to impress people with the big words you know. I often use "wrong" words in published science, all scientists do. Because we're having a discussion, and informal language is part of that. We know by context what is meant.

                I often refer to the tarsometatarsus in birds as the "cannon bone." Some other paleontologists do as well. Obviously we're not talking about the bone in a horse leg, that's easy to tell by the context. We're discussing the equivalent fused bone in birds. The formal name doesn't have to be said every fricking time, because we expect the reader to know what we're talking about.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Okay then what does "radiation" mean in the context of the paper? The topic of the paper is convection, they covered evaporative losses, I suspect conduction into the ground through the feet is marginal and safely ignored... what could they mean by "radiation" except "radiation"?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >what could they mean by "radiation" except "radiation"?
                conduction of heat from a solid to a fluid.

                you ignore the fact that air is made of molecules, it's not just empty space. Likewise elephants are made of tissues and fluids, they're not just solid blocks.

                but this is too much to sit there and explain to every single reader, we expect readers to be familiar with english. The purpose of the paper is not to teach you english.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >conduction of heat from a solid to a fluid.
                That's called convection, and it is the topic of the paper.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >That's called convection, and it is the topic of the paper.
                no, convection is the movement of a fluid that causes heat to rise and cold to descend.

                you seem to have completely misunderstood both the paper and my comments on it. Which is disappointing. Also it's clear you didn't read the thing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are you really trying to tell me that the paper is using radiation to refer to convection in this sentence?
                >estimated the contribution of convection to be about 40% of the total heat loss from the elephant, while radiative losses were estimated at about 50%.
                So you're saying that breaking it down into convection and also-convection is just for fun?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >That's called convection, and it is the topic of the paper.
                no, convection is the movement of a fluid that causes heat to rise and cold to descend.

                you seem to have completely misunderstood both the paper and my comments on it. Which is disappointing. Also it's clear you didn't read the thing.

                >no, convection is the movement of a fluid that causes heat to rise and cold to descend.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                also just for clarity, not only does the heat move through the elephant via radiation, it also passes into the air via radiation.

                after it enters the air, convection takes over.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                also also
                I am not using "radiation" in the sense of physics, but in the mechanical and informal engineering sense. Obviously the elephant isn't radioactive or something. It's radiating heat like a car radiator does. Which is actually a combination of conduction, convection, and radiation of heat.

                I am using "radiation" in the same mechanical sense the authors do in the paper.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                and the reason I keep bringing it up is because I don't doubt the author's calculations of convection. They seem to know their shit when it comes to fluid thermodynamics

                I think they screwed up calculating the radiation that gets the heat into the air in the first place. They screwed up modeling the elephant, not the air or how heat would behave once it left the elephant.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It seems like you're implying the paper says elephants radiate heat through their hair (as in, the hair itself is the 'radiator surface')
                that's exactly what they're saying

                and it is right. But not for a 20% increase in efficiency I don't believe because
                1. the heat has to radiate from the skin to the hair and they didn't subtract that heat from the heat lost via skin
                2. the skin has much better blood flow than the hairs, so any heat radiated by the hair is coming from the skin first
                3. the hair lacking distributed blood flow makes it less effective than skin for radiating heat

                I don't doubt the hair radiates heat, I just very sincerely doubt it radiates as much as they counted, and every bit of heat loss they attribute to the hair is already counted for the skin.

                In their favor, they only counted the first 7mm of hair as radiant surface, and they adjusted the thermal conductivity of both skin and hair to account for neither one being particularly good at radiating heat.

                but they still ignored the source of that heat, which is mostly from blood in the capillaries of the skin. The skin having lots of capillaries and hairs having very few located only at the base would seem to throw their calculations off.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The other thing they did is just mechanically and mathematically model the heat loss rather than
                1. shaving and elephant and seeing if it resulted in less heat loss
                2. comparing the elephant to other mammals with sparse hair that don't use it for heat loss. Humans are one example, and others certainly exist. Not that having sparse hair in colder climates necessarily debunks its use to lose heat in warmer ones, but it does question their results a bit.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Probably the weirdest thing they did was mention heat loss via vasodilation and constriction in the ears, and then went on to ignore the role the same mechanism plays in heat loss at the skin and hairs.

                the radiant heat they measured comes primarily from the blood. Not as much from other, less conductive tissues. This seems like a significant error on their part, even if their idea in general is undoubtedly correct.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                all of this

                >It seems like you're implying the paper says elephants radiate heat through their hair (as in, the hair itself is the 'radiator surface')
                that's exactly what they're saying

                and it is right. But not for a 20% increase in efficiency I don't believe because
                1. the heat has to radiate from the skin to the hair and they didn't subtract that heat from the heat lost via skin
                2. the skin has much better blood flow than the hairs, so any heat radiated by the hair is coming from the skin first
                3. the hair lacking distributed blood flow makes it less effective than skin for radiating heat

                I don't doubt the hair radiates heat, I just very sincerely doubt it radiates as much as they counted, and every bit of heat loss they attribute to the hair is already counted for the skin.

                [...]
                In their favor, they only counted the first 7mm of hair as radiant surface, and they adjusted the thermal conductivity of both skin and hair to account for neither one being particularly good at radiating heat.

                but they still ignored the source of that heat, which is mostly from blood in the capillaries of the skin. The skin having lots of capillaries and hairs having very few located only at the base would seem to throw their calculations off.

                The other thing they did is just mechanically and mathematically model the heat loss rather than
                1. shaving and elephant and seeing if it resulted in less heat loss
                2. comparing the elephant to other mammals with sparse hair that don't use it for heat loss. Humans are one example, and others certainly exist. Not that having sparse hair in colder climates necessarily debunks its use to lose heat in warmer ones, but it does question their results a bit.

                Probably the weirdest thing they did was mention heat loss via vasodilation and constriction in the ears, and then went on to ignore the role the same mechanism plays in heat loss at the skin and hairs.

                the radiant heat they measured comes primarily from the blood. Not as much from other, less conductive tissues. This seems like a significant error on their part, even if their idea in general is undoubtedly correct.

                is to say the authors are fabulous experts on modeling fluid thermodynamics, and the paper is a joy to read from an engineering perspective.

                their knowledge of biology however seems a bit lacking. I expect if they did a better job modeling skin, hair, and blood, we'd find a more modest increase in heat loss efficiency, perhaps in the range of 2% rather than their surprising 25%.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Also while sparse hair doesn't trap air around it, it does trap air inside it. This air has an insulating effect.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It didn't evolve them, because it's ancestors already had feathers. If anything it secondarily lost them again

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Op's been living under a rock for a good few/handful of years, if anything it had at most peach fuzz, as even cetaceans still have bits of hair from their mammalian linage

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >t-rex had feathers
    >t-rex was aquatic
    What's wrong with it just being a big lizard? And why does this stuff always come from China?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > Tyrannosaurus rex from China

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >why so many stuff come from china, is it a secret agenda??
      totally sound question, toootally couldn't be due to china and eurasia as a whole is simply just one of, if not THE largest landmass on the planet...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong. There have been archaeological expeditions into Asia - especially China - for a full two centuries. All conformed with similar archaeological observations found in America, Africa, Europe, and South America until the last decade.
        Hmmmmmm... curious.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >And why does this stuff always come from China?
      China has bigass deserts and plains and deserts and plains are the easiest places to excavate for fossils. Same reason so much comes from the American west.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Uh oh. Sounds like you just posted something rational! That simply won't do, anon.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        my family has land on the green river formation and it's absolutely insane how many millions of fish fossils there are littering the landscape.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      All the answers you've already gotten are wrong. The true answer is china has a frickton of people and there has been something called the "dragon bone" trade for centuries. It's hot shit right now because the chinks found out feathered dinosaur fossils can net them more money than they would make in their entire lives. And, because modern paleomorons are all incompetent hacks they will chase a feathered lizard to the ends of the Earth.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >scientists say that T-Rex had feathers
    They're saying the opposite.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why are there so many pictures with feathers then?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Blame moronic tumblrites and Gey the Explainer back in 2017.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Based the Explainer* for not being some degen straggot

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Why do I keep seeing this gif
              Is the full some monkey torture shit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Are we referring to the same guy? The guy with an OC dinosaur recolor?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Because paleontologists are bad at their jobs and furgays want everything to have feathers.

        ?t=2954

        Paleomorons spent 20 years convincing everyone T. rex had feather when even the data we had at the time said otherwise, then they all got BTFO when it was revealed not only do Tyrannosaurs NOT have feathers but they don't have feathers ANYWHERE on their body and as far as we can tell NO Tyrannosaurids ever did.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          if it wasn't published it doesn't count.

          you shouldn't believe much of anything a scientist says on youtube, they don't have any skin in that game. Not one of them published a paper saying it had feathers.
          Not a single one.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It was published, you moron.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It was published, you moron.

            Or do you mean the claim that T. rex had feathers? And you're wrong. If a paleontologist says something stupid, they need to be held to account, and they ALL are saying stupid shit these days.

            >Not one of them published a paper saying it had feathers. Not a single one.
            This is totally false too. There are multiple papers that claim T. rex had feathers.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >There are multiple papers that claim T. rex had feathers.
              cite one (1)

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No. It would take me a while to find specific papers, and then you would move the goalposts immediately and handwave it away as you always do. You and I both know they exist.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I've read every single paper on the topic, you can just tell me which one and I'll explain how you failed to read english.

                several papers have said
                >IF T. rex had feathers...
                but IF doesn't mean it does.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I wouldn't be surprised if you had read a large number of them, the problem is you feel the ungodly need to always lie about them.

                No, several papers just assume T. rex DID have feathers and flatly state as much with no evidence.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >several papers just assume T. rex DID have feathers and flatly state as much with no evidence.
                cite one (1)

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You never do because you're lying

                and we both know it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I always do, you ignore it, lie about it, then come back the next day pretending it never happened.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I've asked you dozens of times to post a single one

                I've seen 2 responses, one is the Yutyrannus paper that says "IF Tyrannosaurus had feathers..."
                the other one is the 2017 paper I helped right, which also says "IF Tyrannosaurus had feathers..."

                you're a liar and an idiot.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                k

                Just farted. Thought you should know.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe you wouldn't hate them so much if you were ever smart enough to win an argument. But you're a dishonest lying scumbag and everyone sees it lol.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I've had better debates with chatbots.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You lost a debate to a chatbot?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The bigger question is why an ESL wienersucker thinks he's qualified to critique english language science he can't even understand.

                but morons gonna moron I guess.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Literal trannies drawing fan fiction.
        Drawings aren’t real, just as ~~*troons*~~ aren’t real women (because they’re men).

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        There was a Nat Geo (?) touring exhibit several years ago that peddled feathered T. Rex in the wake of Yutyrannus's discovery. Lots of online artists jumped on the feather T. Rex bandwagon before scholars came to the conclusion that at least the adult probably had little to no feathers.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Lots of online artists jumped on the feather T. Rex bandwagon before scholars came to the conclusion that at least the adult probably had little to no feathers.
          no, feathered rex came out well AFTER scientists knew it wasn't feathered.

          Wyrex was found in 2006 and published in 2009. Yutyrannus was published in 2012 and the paper clearly states that rex didn't have feathers.

          the idea of feathered rex was never endorsed by scientists, and in fact a whole paper was published in 2017 just to say that it didn't have feathers because artists didn't get the memo.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >at least the adult probably had little to no feathers.
          those same scholars are aware of a juvenile/subadult tyrannosaur that was found in 2009 that also lacks feathers, but hasn't been published yet.

          Wauf will of course be all shocked and surprised when that gets published, but I've mentioned it here and was called a liar for saying it clear back in 2012 or so.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Dumb fanart

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        photoshop

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        morons.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This. We have skin impressions from the entire animal except the top back of the neck/head, so they were nude unless they had feathers in that one specific area.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >We have skin impressions from the entire animal except the top back of the neck/head
        as far as you know.

        paleontologists know even more than that.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          If it’s not published, it isn’t real. You and I both know both of these things.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If it’s not published, it isn’t real.
            It was published.
            you guys all missed it.
            as usual.

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