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?
So I understand now that scientists say that T-Rex had feathers, but I dont understand why it would evolve feathers?
The gorepedo engh strikes again.
Shitty bait.
Feathers are good for keeping warm, keep parasites off one's skin, and rain runs off it.
>no feathers
This is a false flag.
a failed false flag like the uss liberty
So you think necrophilia is cool. Gross.
So carnivores never get to eat? Also what exactly is erotic about picrel? It seems like pure projection.
tranitors deleting anti feather posts because mossad feather shills cant compete in rational debate. sad
Now you did it. Now is the time to quadruple reply.
>So I understand
i doubt that very much
Brian Engh is such a god damned retard. Literally the only reason anybody knows who he is is because outrage sells tabloids and science is now the national Enquirer.
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.
I mean this is really weird, even by conspiracy-nut standards.
>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
I think everyone that complains about dinosaur threads needs to be IP rangebanned from posting on Wauf ever again.
>n-no...... STOP SAGING MY THREAD YOU MEANIE!!!!
cope
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.
Literally what in the everliving fuck is wrong with these retards? Why is every modern paleohomosexual a weird necrophile pervert?
Do you have examples of this???
Yeah what engh posted there for one. Also emily willoughby.
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? Fucking mongoloid retard.
>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.
You mean adaptation? Evolution isn’t real.
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
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".
>Mark Witton is a woke shill
Color me absolutely shocked, I say!
Convective heat transfer is called convection. I can't do it anymore.
>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 fucking chimp.
the reason I didn't respond to
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.
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.
If Wauf dinosaur threads had an avatar it would be this image.
Because some raptors might have had them, but people assume trex must too.
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.
I know they didn't.
I also know mossad isn't trying to convince you they did.
stay crazy, schizo.
You know how? Because you work for them?
>yes they are
>You know how?
>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 fuck what he thinks, not even Wauf
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.
*The stupidest talking point on all of Wauf
To be fair, Wauf basically is just /misc/ at this point.
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 retarded.
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.
>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?
I don't have to lie. I'm not a glowisraelite.
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
Because you take your meds and your imaginary friends disappear?
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.
The saddest part is that you claim to have studied me for 15 years or whatever the fuck and you're still fucking 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.
>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.
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 fucking 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.
>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.
You really need to take your fucking 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.
He literally thinks everyone is just me using a dynamic IP. He's an alcoholic or schizophrenic or something legitimately mentally ill.
>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.
I am not making the threads. Take some medication and get therapy.
>i-im not the schizo, y-y-you are!
Cope
I have considered the alternative,
that me beating the fuck 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.
Now switch back to your other personality that claims to agree with everything I say.
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.
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.
>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 fucking 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.
Nobody said I did. But pretty much every modern paleopseud covers it up.
Phones change IPs constantly. I'd guess the actual census in most dino threads to be about a dozen humans
>everyone who questions feather revisionism is a bot
projecting israelite tranny detected
New IP for ban evasion.
Now watch your thread die because all the people that argue with you are also one persin
god is on my side
Jannies apparently aren't
the truth WILL win out, god is love, praise jesus
Most cellular IPs are perma banned from Wauf for various reasons. Cope harder, schizo, and get some therapy.
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
He's right and you're a fucking moron.
He (you) is obviously wrong or phone posting would be impossible because phones switch IPs constantly
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.
>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 oldfag 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.
>a nation is spending millions of dollars to troll me personally on my adopted blog nobody reads
seems likely
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
>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.
Birds are not dinosaurs
Dinosaurs are fishes.
Correct and people need to cut that shit out.
>feathered T-rex in 2023
Get on with the times old man
>why it would evolve feathers?
It evolved feathers like elephants evolved fur
No it didn't. Stop repeating this fucking patent nonsense.
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.
I mean like this guy. I wanna be like this guy (no homo).
it evolved feathers to keep warm. it lived in Canada and it is cold in Canada
it evolved scales to keep cool. it lived in Mexico and it is hot in Mexico
It didn't evolve feathers. Its distant ancestor evolved feathers.
t-rex simply kept them, at least in some places
>Its distant ancestor evolved feathers.
probably not
>t-rex simply kept them, at least in some places
apparently not
>So I understand now that scientists say that T-Rex had feathers
[citation needed]
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.
>They are basically in a similar spot to elephants and hair.
Retarded 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.
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
>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 retard doesn't understand english or evolution.
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 fucking unlikely.
>scales can be derived from feather
NO.
There are dinos with scales AND feathers together. Birds still have scales today in part of their body.
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.
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.
Do elephants have hair and scales?
Elephants use hair for cooling. It improves their cooling efficiency by 20%.
>Elephants use hair for cooling. It improves their cooling efficiency by 20%.
kek
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
can you see their mistake?
Pretend they're idiots about biology but experts at fluid thermodynamics. Their error should be obvious.
Can you see your mistake? Pretend you are expert at everything but look like an illiterate idiot.
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?
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.
>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.
>that's exactly what they're saying
The abstract refers to convection, why do you keep bringing up radiation?
>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.
>radiation happens in solids
What the fuck am I reading.
>heat move through the elephant via radiation
What the fuck am I reading.
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.
There's a word scientists and engineers use to refer to heat moving through a solid and it's not "radiation".
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.
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 fucking time, because we expect the reader to know what we're talking about.
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"?
>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.
>conduction of heat from a solid to a fluid.
That's called convection, and it is the topic of the paper.
>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.
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?
>no, convection is the movement of a fluid that causes heat to rise and cold to descend.
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.
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.
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.
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.
all of this
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%.
Also while sparse hair doesn't trap air around it, it does trap air inside it. This air has an insulating effect.
It didn't evolve them, because it's ancestors already had feathers. If anything it secondarily lost them again
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
>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?
> Tyrannosaurus rex from China
>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...
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.
>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.
Uh oh. Sounds like you just posted something rational! That simply won't do, anon.
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.
All the answers you've already gotten are wrong. The true answer is china has a fuckton 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 paleoretards are all incompetent hacks they will chase a feathered lizard to the ends of the Earth.
>scientists say that T-Rex had feathers
They're saying the opposite.
Why are there so many pictures with feathers then?
Blame retarded tumblrites and Gey the Explainer back in 2017.
>Based the Explainer* for not being some degen straggot
Why do I keep seeing this gif
Is the full some monkey torture shit
yes
Are we referring to the same guy? The guy with an OC dinosaur recolor?
Because paleontologists are bad at their jobs and furfags want everything to have feathers.
?t=2954
Paleoretards 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.
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.
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.
>There are multiple papers that claim T. rex had feathers.
cite one (1)
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.
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.
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.
>several papers just assume T. rex DID have feathers and flatly state as much with no evidence.
cite one (1)
No.
You never do because you're lying
and we both know it.
I always do, you ignore it, lie about it, then come back the next day pretending it never happened.
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.
k
Just farted. Thought you should know.
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.
I've had better debates with chatbots.
You lost a debate to a chatbot?
The bigger question is why an ESL cocksucker thinks he's qualified to critique english language science he can't even understand.
but retards gonna retard I guess.
Literal trannies drawing fan fiction.
Drawings aren’t real, just as ~~*troons*~~ aren’t real women (because they’re men).
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.
>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.
>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.
Dumb fanart
photoshop
Retards.
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.
>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.
If it’s not published, it isn’t real. You and I both know both of these things.
>If it’s not published, it isn’t real.
It was published.
you guys all missed it.
as usual.