what's the problem with modern paleontology? and how does it compare to its old self?
what's the problem with modern paleontology? and how does it compare to its old self?
what's the problem with modern paleontology? and how does it compare to its old self?
>this thread
America needs to add lithium to its water.
Stop going off your medication.
>NO, they literally fucking did not. This is a bullshit "theory" that one retard made up and everyone just repeats. There is ZERO and I want to know that you understand this, THERE IS FUCKING ZERO ACTUAL, PHYSICAL, FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM. IT'S NOT REAL.
Picrel
I believe that Paleoshizo is actually Jack Horner.
Why are grown ass adults so fascinated
Although, to be honest, it’s probably the one same autist who makes all these threads
>to be honest, it’s probably the one same autist who makes all these threads
yep
I imagine he lives in a wheelchair and channels his sexual frustration into opinions about dinosaur cartoons.
strong opinions.
Imagine being so horny for scaly porn that you go into a multi-thread crusade against modern academia (somewhere he never stepped a foot into) in an obscure board of a mongolian basket weaving forum.
He makes me laugh.
I like when he says he's a scientist but bitches about competing hypotheses which he confuses for some disjointed synthesis. Or treats any and all science as authoritative. Or bitches about progressives in science. Or any of the other hundreds of little misunderstandings that mark him clearly as an outsider. It's good fun and it makes me think about how a stupid person might succeed in passing as a not-stupid one if they were so inclined.
not even the biggest featherfag thinks the t.rex looked like this (i hope)
>Feathers CAN NOT TURN INTO SCALES
The scutes on bird feet are feathers that became scales
1. feathers evolved into scales in birds, so we know for a fact that it can happen and has happened.
2. the most likely explanation is simply that Yutyrannus isn't an ancestor of T. rex, and possibly no tyrannosauroids are ancestors of T. rex.
these facts escape your notice, so you're just as stupid and dogmatic as the creationists.
i cant believe that not only is nick longrich posting on Wauf, but he railed this guys mother.
How do the chinese fake feather impressions again?
Mad sharpie skills?
Usually when people have a meltdown they are very right or very wrong. In this case they are very wrong.
>Mad sharpie skills?
You believe their skills are that good? What a gay. Are you Nick Longrich?
Yes. I am Nick Longrich. And I fucked your mother.
I doubt you fucked my mother, but you do seem retarded enough to actually be Longrich.
Not that your mother's standards are high enough to make that an issue. I mean, just look at you.
My taste for retardation is becoming quite sensitive. How are all those false names coming that literally nobody cares about and everyone ignores?
The problem is that paleontology used to be mostly about brachiopods, but most modern enthusiasts don't even know what a brachiopod is.
Ancient animals most likely didn't look like our modern reconstructions at all, pic related
dunno, I find that color scheme rather nice. I persoanlly envision the rex along those lines with a deep neonish red and and white zebra like pattern.
Basically, University used to be about either the wealthiest eccentrics or literal genius level types advancing the sciences. The people that attend University these days are so retarded they can only do so through social means because they aren't intelligent enough to actually push science forward. On top of this they rely on common consensus, they don't challenge the narrative and they do not question their peers but rather fall in line lest they be blacklisted. It gets very political the deeper you look at it, University has long since stopped being about the scientific method and since become about trusting THE science. The approved science. This is why the chinks have an artificial sun and we have retards teaching young boys that they have female biology.
The consensus horseshit is really getting on my nerves. Papers now are NEVER criticized. Even if they totally contradict established theories in their field, all those gays in that field just accept the new bullshit and try to cram it all together like they're new authors of biblical books. Every field is full of totally contradictory theory now. It's fucking appalling.
What are some good recent examples of this?
The fact that they came up with the size of the limbs in the spinosaurus by literally scaling them proportionally to a single hip bone without having any idea of what they were doing, making the animal look like it could hardly sustain itself, much less walk? Nobody said anything on the matter, everyone praised it instead, because the spinosaurus is just a big crocodile for them, and that's how they want to portray it.
How much of those "scalings" are derived from data on modern animals whose complete skeletal structure and behavior is known?
And how accurate/consistent is that scaling when applied to said modern animals?
I get the desire to come up with a complete construction for ancient creatures, and that scaling/proxy systems can be anything from pretty accurate to not very accurate within science. I hope they at least make it clear which parts are known and which are estimations, like in the image.
If only they had limbs from Baryonyx, Suchomimus, Irritator and other relatives they could use to extrapolate from.
he's lying, the leg bones were found along with the hip. And lots of people, in fact most people, have argued that they're too small to fit with the rest of the skeleton.
>will likely bring down modern paleontology
kek
>believing someone named "Ibrahim"
The T. rex / Yutyrannus clusterfuck is probably the best example and will likely bring down modern paleontology. The feathergay fiasco in general is this in a nutshell. ALL evidence points to scales being the ancestral condition of Dinosaurs, yet everyone and their dog is trying to claim otherwise - a belief that shits all over all ACTUAL, PHYSICAL evidence we have. These gays have made it their life's work to replace physical, paleontological evidence with cockamamie DNA experiments and guesswork. In living species, there are many papers making arguments for naming new species from existing populations of species that contradict other evidence BLATANTLY, but nobody cares because nobody critically reviews anyone's work anymore. Modern physics is the most famous example of this though. That's how we get dark matter and dark energy, which are totally fake. Because the theories don't match the observations, but the "REAL SCIENTISTS™" utterly refuse to abandon fucking nonsense like the big bang - a LITERAL christian mythological position created by a catholic priest.
You don't seem to understand that making shit up is how underpaid wagies try to get ahead. They're the same people.
>The T. rex / Yutyrannus clusterfuck is probably the best example
The Yutyrannus paper says that T. rex did NOT have feathers, and proposes a couple reasons why it didn't.
In fact it's retards like you that can't read that are the actual problem, not paleontology.
>being both a chink and a chud
Never read that before, and the topic is really interesting
What is the reason why scales can not develop from feather-bearing tissue? I guess so, but is it the same case with hair? What is the difference between "scales" and whatever Armadillos have?
Also, which Dinosaur clades have been found with fossil remains of feathers? Besides birds, of course
>What is the reason why scales can not develop from feather-bearing tissue?
Noone really knows to be honest, we just know that feather and hair-like structures have evolved from scales multiple times. But never the other way around. Dollo's Law seems to come into play. For whatever reason, pavement scale just seems to be too difficult to evolve again once lost. I'm sure it's possible, but it would likely take the right conditions and we've never seen this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility
>but is it the same case with hair?
Not quite. Hair possibly(?) didn't evolve from scales - the jury's still kind of out on that. The old theory is that it did, but newer ideas claim it didn't, so it's hard to know. And the changeover from reptile to mammal is MUCH less distinct and takes up a longer span of time from reptile to bird. Nufags don't even think mammalian ancestors were reptiles (they were).
>I guess so, but is it the same case with hair? What is the difference between "scales" and whatever Armadillos have?
This is where language gets people into trouble. When most people say "scales", they're talking about a very specific integumentary structure that evolved as a body armor in reptiles (or fish, depending on context). Colloquially, all sorts of things can be called "scales" including the covering structures of pangolins, but they're very different structures from reptilian or bird scales.
Interesting shit, thanks anon!
I'm always happy to actually discuss the actual details. Most of Wauf like most blue boards is full of retards that either don't know anything about the topic or are careerist parasites actively harming the science to make money.
*THAN from reptile to bird
dropped a word
>Also, which Dinosaur clades have been found with fossil remains of feathers? Besides birds, of course
A select group of closely related later Theropods. And the birds that descend from this group. Basically "Coelurosaurs", although this word doesn't really mean much scientifically since cladists made it up and cladists change what their clades mean about daily at this point. T. rex is supposedly a "Coelurosaur" which is why ever retard and their dog IS STILL CONVINCED it has feathers (it's just peachfuzz now and THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED! T. REX "CHICKS" HAVE FEATHERS!!!!!!).
There has been a massive propaganda campaign by feathergays to claim that everything from Sauropods to Ankylosaurs had feathers, but none of them really ever did. One of the ways they get away with this is by calling literally everything feathers. Unfortunately for them, we have scale impressions from every major group: Thyreophorans, Sauropods, the overwhelming majority of Theropods, Marginocephalians, Ornithopods (lots of these - anyone claiming something like Hadrosaurs had feathers will nearly get executed even by their own feathergay peers).
YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST
YOU DID NOT GO TO UNIVERSITY
YOU HAVE NO DEGREES
YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS EVEN COMMENTING ON THIS TOPIC
There’s this massive problem that involves a certain fag constantly making threads seething about dead animals being depicted in a way that offends him on a certain board
>another milliennial assmad that science is progressing and that their childhood memories are literally being raped
IT GOES IN ALL FIELDS
Bitch you don't even know what science is.
I swear to fucking god if these jannies don't do something about all these fucking animalfuckers on this board, there are going to be consequences.
It's the same problem with all the sciences these days. gay soientists are much more worried about advancing their careers than devoting themselves to the fucking work. And stupid shit, outrageous headlines and contrarianism get attention. Not only that, but making a bunch of made up synonyms for animals that already exist, living or extinct is a super easy way to advance your career in the life sciences. Basically, all the bad behaviors are being rewarded by our society and none of the good ones.
Making bullshit up and being hypercompetitive was more of a thing of the past. Modern researchers are underpaid wagies that slave away for those old boomers that wrestled their way to the desk either through connections or catching lightning in a bottle like Jack Horner that became a celebrity for being the consultant behind Jurassic Park (even though he absolutely loathes the t rex).