>Body so specialized to fly that it basically couldn't move otherwise >Only a fraction of it's body WASN'T wings >Even with what little got preserved we can tell it was more efficient than bats
if these things actually were flying around all the time, don't you think we would've found a fossil of one in midair by now? but don't worry, I'm sure chinese "paleontologists" will "find" one soon, and that it will be covered in fabulous feathers.
Actually, it'll most likely be covered in pycnofibers since advanced featherlike filaments are only known to be present in most theropods and some basal ornithischians. So while "feathers" are technically basal to archosaurs, most lost them secondarily and most of the rest just kept the simple pycnofibers instead of developing advanced and complicated structures which we would call "feathers."
Just because they are basal doesn't mean they all descended from an animal with them. In fact, the common ancestor of all dinosaurs most likely lacked feathers and was only prone to developing the mutation for pycnofibers like a lot of cats are prone to developing a mutation for extra fingers. It's simpler for dinosaurs to descend from a related animal that was close to, but not past developing pycnofibers than independently losing pycnofibers multiple times before one lineage finally got fuzzy.
If that were the case then we'd see other archodaurs (crocodilians) rarely experience a genetic mutation that gives them some limited feather-esque structures at least once in human history like dolphins with hind fins, or even just us accepting it as a possibility. Yet we know this isn't possible because the gene that gives feathers their structure is completely dormant in crocodilians which implies that they had a common ancestor with feathers but lost them independently at some point.
Crocodillians aren't avemetatarsalia. >They have the gene for feathers
No, they do not.
The problem is you are an adaptationist who believes in purposeful mutations.
They have a gene that can produce feather like structures with outside interference, but that doesn't mean it was placed there with that intent, just that if it had additional supporting biology it could grow fibers instead of scales. They have weak potential to evolve fibres. The common ancestor of avemetatarsalia most likely had a stronger genetic potential to evolve fibres. Not for any reason, but because that was just how their genes for scale development eventually mutated and it turned out to work really well for some of them.
The idea that every single dinosaur independently lost feathers is absurd. A few independently evolving them because of shared genetic potential is more likely.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why bother using ad hominems like that? I'm not denying that genetic mutations are random, in fact that's the entire point of my argument with the crocodiles, because if I believed in purposeful mutations then I'd argue they don't naturally have a mutation for developing these filaments because it would go against their lifestyle.
I also don't see why you're making such roundabout claims while simultaneously thinking that they are the simpler and more reasonable solution. It makes a lot more sense for the common ancestor of archosaurs to have had simple filaments on its body which were then lost in crocodilians and more developed ornithiscians while the filaments turned into complicated and specialized feathers on non-ceratosaurian theropods.
Again, I don't see why you think a genetic predisposition to evolve feathers is the likliest solution here when secondarily losing traits happens all the time in nature and only had to happen a couple of times at the beginnings of certain lineages rather than for each individual species like you're saying. On the flipside, if there was a genetic predisposition for feathers then there would have probably been a feathered ankylosaur or ceratopsian or even sauropodomorph that had them independently of their clades, yet there's no evidence for any of that.
>feathers are basal to archosaurs
*to Avemetatarsalia
Ornithodira even.
Rope, stage left!
Wait, are you telling me or him to off ourselves?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just because a gene can be manipulated to produce filaments, does not mean that the animals ancestors ever had them. It means its descendants possibly could.
>if there was a genetic predisposition for feathers then there would have probably been a feathered ankylosaur or ceratopsian or even sauropodomorph that had them independently of their clades, yet there's no evidence for any of that.
Crocs have "a predisposition" but where are the feathered crocs? Simply nowhere, they have a gene that can go somewhere with mutations other than just skin cancer or deformity, by chance, nothing else. Lucky them. Next they must mutate equivalents to the chicken genes the scientists placed in their eggs.
The entire point of the experiment was to show support for a theory of a gradually evolving genetic scaffold that culminated in the ability to develop feathers, from scales. Naturally reversing from pycnofibres to scales would have likely been impossible except through luck of hybridisation. Random mutations fully reverting a developmental pathway to a prior state? Lol. There are developmental timing issues that human intervention replaced here. Gators can't naturally pick up one single mutation and come out fluffy.
The language here is mistaken: >to reawaken an ancient programming that can turn scales into feathers.
The ancestors of crocodiles did not have feathers. They just evolved scales in a way that left room in the genome to develop scales into feathers.
2 months ago
Anonymous
They have scales that have dormant genes within them that lead to feather production after careful tweaking. They are not creating feathers out of nothing, the trait for filaments on the skin was there and they simply reawakened it which wouldn't be possible if they never had feathers to fill in the genes for in the first place.
Like I said, this trait was lost and it is not beneficial to have for crocodiles because most of them live semiaquatic lives. Crocodiles have also evolved to become secondarily poikilothermic as they have a four chambered heart and fossils show bone growth more akin to homeothermic animals, yet poikilothermy was more efficient than homeothermy for the sit and wait style of hunting so they went with the former.
How would reversing be impossible? Have you ever heard of Dollo's law? It's far easier for traits to be lost rather than for traits to be gained, it is far more probable that archosaurs ancestrally had simple filaments on their skin and had a few major orders lose them while a few kept and even expanded upon them over time.
Find me a shred of evidence that supports your claim, we don't know what the common ancestor for archosaurs was, and nobody's saying "crocodiles" had feathers, all that's I'm saying is that the common ancestor for archosaurs in general most likely had some limited coverings, which were subsequently lost in (most likely) all of pseudosuchia and left as a vestigial part of their genome. This is not only far more likely than feathers independently evolving in several different lineages several times because "they're disposed to it" but is also the more simple and straightforward answer with the most evidence towards it a la the parsimony principal.
They're all good and bad in some aspects. The Isle is the most beautiful graphics wise and has fluid animations, but the roster is limited, many options are boring and the devs are lazy scumbags. Path of Titans has a huge selection of prehistoric animals with several well on the way, but It lacks substance and has detestable mmo fetch quests that dont make sense, and its also quite pricey. Beasts of Bermuda has some very nice mechanics like burrowing and weather changes, but the animations are clunky and animals have literal superpowers. As for saurian i don't know it, but i guess it sucks and it's even more filled with chink hackers than the previous three.
The Isle has designs that usually shit all over the other two games outside of some real stinkers but it's also being actively sabotaged by the most moronic development team I've ever seen who don't try to address the game's real problem but rather change shit for the worse randomly like how they're trying to force the game into an almost first person view which makes half of the dinosaurs unplayable since they attack with their fricking tails
but there was also less space for the dinosaurs. They probably were only bigger in proportions to the earth back then and if you brought them to now they would be considerably smaller
The funniest thing about hategopteryx is that it's the largest flying animal of all time that lived on an island otherwise populated with dwarf dinosaurs, which it hunted. It's the avatar of manlet rage.
I still find it hard to believe these things looked like this and could fly
I know the reconstructions are the most accurate based on the fossil evidence we have, but I think it's wild that an animal the size of a giraffe could fly, definitely the one extinct animal I'd want to see irl the most
it just looks so bizarre. the head looks way too heavy for how small the body is comparatively, and seems to be in the wrong place for flight balance. maybe they folded their necks backwards like herons do in flight
Lmao there isn't even proof that it did fly
>Body so specialized to fly that it basically couldn't move otherwise
>Only a fraction of it's body WASN'T wings
>Even with what little got preserved we can tell it was more efficient than bats
if these things actually were flying around all the time, don't you think we would've found a fossil of one in midair by now? but don't worry, I'm sure chinese "paleontologists" will "find" one soon, and that it will be covered in fabulous feathers.
Actually, it'll most likely be covered in pycnofibers since advanced featherlike filaments are only known to be present in most theropods and some basal ornithischians. So while "feathers" are technically basal to archosaurs, most lost them secondarily and most of the rest just kept the simple pycnofibers instead of developing advanced and complicated structures which we would call "feathers."
Just because they are basal doesn't mean they all descended from an animal with them. In fact, the common ancestor of all dinosaurs most likely lacked feathers and was only prone to developing the mutation for pycnofibers like a lot of cats are prone to developing a mutation for extra fingers. It's simpler for dinosaurs to descend from a related animal that was close to, but not past developing pycnofibers than independently losing pycnofibers multiple times before one lineage finally got fuzzy.
If that were the case then we'd see other archodaurs (crocodilians) rarely experience a genetic mutation that gives them some limited feather-esque structures at least once in human history like dolphins with hind fins, or even just us accepting it as a possibility. Yet we know this isn't possible because the gene that gives feathers their structure is completely dormant in crocodilians which implies that they had a common ancestor with feathers but lost them independently at some point.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/35/2/523/4801217
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ede.12123
Crocodillians aren't avemetatarsalia.
>They have the gene for feathers
No, they do not.
The problem is you are an adaptationist who believes in purposeful mutations.
They have a gene that can produce feather like structures with outside interference, but that doesn't mean it was placed there with that intent, just that if it had additional supporting biology it could grow fibers instead of scales. They have weak potential to evolve fibres. The common ancestor of avemetatarsalia most likely had a stronger genetic potential to evolve fibres. Not for any reason, but because that was just how their genes for scale development eventually mutated and it turned out to work really well for some of them.
The idea that every single dinosaur independently lost feathers is absurd. A few independently evolving them because of shared genetic potential is more likely.
Why bother using ad hominems like that? I'm not denying that genetic mutations are random, in fact that's the entire point of my argument with the crocodiles, because if I believed in purposeful mutations then I'd argue they don't naturally have a mutation for developing these filaments because it would go against their lifestyle.
I also don't see why you're making such roundabout claims while simultaneously thinking that they are the simpler and more reasonable solution. It makes a lot more sense for the common ancestor of archosaurs to have had simple filaments on its body which were then lost in crocodilians and more developed ornithiscians while the filaments turned into complicated and specialized feathers on non-ceratosaurian theropods.
Again, I don't see why you think a genetic predisposition to evolve feathers is the likliest solution here when secondarily losing traits happens all the time in nature and only had to happen a couple of times at the beginnings of certain lineages rather than for each individual species like you're saying. On the flipside, if there was a genetic predisposition for feathers then there would have probably been a feathered ankylosaur or ceratopsian or even sauropodomorph that had them independently of their clades, yet there's no evidence for any of that.
Wait, are you telling me or him to off ourselves?
Just because a gene can be manipulated to produce filaments, does not mean that the animals ancestors ever had them. It means its descendants possibly could.
>if there was a genetic predisposition for feathers then there would have probably been a feathered ankylosaur or ceratopsian or even sauropodomorph that had them independently of their clades, yet there's no evidence for any of that.
Crocs have "a predisposition" but where are the feathered crocs? Simply nowhere, they have a gene that can go somewhere with mutations other than just skin cancer or deformity, by chance, nothing else. Lucky them. Next they must mutate equivalents to the chicken genes the scientists placed in their eggs.
The entire point of the experiment was to show support for a theory of a gradually evolving genetic scaffold that culminated in the ability to develop feathers, from scales. Naturally reversing from pycnofibres to scales would have likely been impossible except through luck of hybridisation. Random mutations fully reverting a developmental pathway to a prior state? Lol. There are developmental timing issues that human intervention replaced here. Gators can't naturally pick up one single mutation and come out fluffy.
The language here is mistaken:
>to reawaken an ancient programming that can turn scales into feathers.
The ancestors of crocodiles did not have feathers. They just evolved scales in a way that left room in the genome to develop scales into feathers.
They have scales that have dormant genes within them that lead to feather production after careful tweaking. They are not creating feathers out of nothing, the trait for filaments on the skin was there and they simply reawakened it which wouldn't be possible if they never had feathers to fill in the genes for in the first place.
Like I said, this trait was lost and it is not beneficial to have for crocodiles because most of them live semiaquatic lives. Crocodiles have also evolved to become secondarily poikilothermic as they have a four chambered heart and fossils show bone growth more akin to homeothermic animals, yet poikilothermy was more efficient than homeothermy for the sit and wait style of hunting so they went with the former.
How would reversing be impossible? Have you ever heard of Dollo's law? It's far easier for traits to be lost rather than for traits to be gained, it is far more probable that archosaurs ancestrally had simple filaments on their skin and had a few major orders lose them while a few kept and even expanded upon them over time.
Find me a shred of evidence that supports your claim, we don't know what the common ancestor for archosaurs was, and nobody's saying "crocodiles" had feathers, all that's I'm saying is that the common ancestor for archosaurs in general most likely had some limited coverings, which were subsequently lost in (most likely) all of pseudosuchia and left as a vestigial part of their genome. This is not only far more likely than feathers independently evolving in several different lineages several times because "they're disposed to it" but is also the more simple and straightforward answer with the most evidence towards it a la the parsimony principal.
>feathers are basal to archosaurs
*to Avemetatarsalia
Ornithodira even.
Rope, stage left!
i would so play a game with these, hellpigs, and elsamotherium... oh man
you mean the isle, path of titans, beasts of bermuda, saurian?
I wish there was an actually competent game in this genre
They're all good and bad in some aspects. The Isle is the most beautiful graphics wise and has fluid animations, but the roster is limited, many options are boring and the devs are lazy scumbags. Path of Titans has a huge selection of prehistoric animals with several well on the way, but It lacks substance and has detestable mmo fetch quests that dont make sense, and its also quite pricey. Beasts of Bermuda has some very nice mechanics like burrowing and weather changes, but the animations are clunky and animals have literal superpowers. As for saurian i don't know it, but i guess it sucks and it's even more filled with chink hackers than the previous three.
Saurian is a dead single player game that had the director literally siphon money out of the Kickstarter
The Isle has designs that usually shit all over the other two games outside of some real stinkers but it's also being actively sabotaged by the most moronic development team I've ever seen who don't try to address the game's real problem but rather change shit for the worse randomly like how they're trying to force the game into an almost first person view which makes half of the dinosaurs unplayable since they attack with their fricking tails
The isle has flying dinos now?
always had for legacy. if you play evrima there's the pteranodon. they say they'll bring back the quetzalcoatlus as well.
It has pteranodon but it's basically unplayable
Path of titans offers the TRVE azhdarchid experience, complete with dropping baby dinosaurs onto the ground while flying
People think it's a big deal that dinosaurs were so big, but the earth was smaller then, so there was less gravity. They didn't weigh that much.
but there was also less space for the dinosaurs. They probably were only bigger in proportions to the earth back then and if you brought them to now they would be considerably smaller
>quetzawhat? what is that, some kinda fruity pipsqueak?
>Where do you work out?
>Bawk
more like
The funniest thing about hategopteryx is that it's the largest flying animal of all time that lived on an island otherwise populated with dwarf dinosaurs, which it hunted. It's the avatar of manlet rage.
I still find it hard to believe these things looked like this and could fly
I know the reconstructions are the most accurate based on the fossil evidence we have, but I think it's wild that an animal the size of a giraffe could fly, definitely the one extinct animal I'd want to see irl the most
it just looks so bizarre. the head looks way too heavy for how small the body is comparatively, and seems to be in the wrong place for flight balance. maybe they folded their necks backwards like herons do in flight
Everything about azhdarchids resembles cranes, herons, and storks it's crazy.
But could it fly as fast doe
No. Not even close. It was pretty pathetic in that regard.
fricking air sacks make
No pneumatic bones or air sacks and no quadrupedal launch.
>wont shut up