What's with his hands?

Why are they supinated like he's literally swing dancing? How is he supposed to grasp his prey when his hands can only push it away? If he does not need hands, then why are they so big and with such tenacious claws? Is there any real evidence for such position of the hands, other than the sedimented pieces of dirt that another low-iq glowie mistook for the prints of the Dilophosaurus knuckles?
So many questions, so little answers.

(At least they are no longer bird-like crippled, which can already be called progress in the glowies "brain activity".)

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reminder that we have feathered theropod fossils from the US, in fact the ones that best support that feathers are basal to theropods.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I got curious and just googled "China fake fossils" and found this
    >https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/

    You coulda just been normal and linked a real article BEFORE rambling for like 17 paragraphs about how all of paleontology is fake, because of the communists or whatever.
    Tip to not appear deranged in the future.

    I don't see anything about a feather craze in this link, but I don't know what Chinese farmers are up to.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This guy insisted this a fossil was fake without ever providing a source, and when he finally provided a source, it was a screenshot, not a link. He is really insistent on being the least trustworthy person on Wauf.

    but just because one fossil was *partially* faked does not mean all were. the west has its own history of fakes and flat earther gays claim that the fakes prove that all fossils are fakes planted by the servants of satan, when we all know that the bible is a tome of lies and mayan mythology is actually the one true faith.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You have been informed that it is a common problem with chinese fossils. At this point, you've literally been handed the evidence multiple times. It is your DECISION to remain ignorant on the subject now. You no longer have any excuse.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You have been informed that it is a common problem with *fossils. Evolution is a lie. GOD created the earth 6000 years ago.

        Seriously, if you believe in this, you must necessarily believe that all fossils are plants and every fossil you have ever seen was either a very well made fake or only 6000 years old.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, but it does make my eye even more critical, which is a good thing. I now question even feathered raptors. Congratulations, you played yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I state that westerners can also lie about fossils
            >But I only question chinese fossils that are inconvenient for my narrative!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The chinese lie the most about them. I don't see the issue.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The chinese, despite being more intelligent and having a culture built on honor and hating trannies, lie the most
                >The garden gnome-controlled westerners who lie about men becoming women are totally telling the truth though, even though they are heavily invested in discrediting all religion so they can replace it with arbitrary state sponsored morality
                your story is that the chinese faked fossils because westerners will proudly claim that faked fossils are real, ergo, you should not believe any western fossils represent animals that actually existed or at least that they are far younger than claimed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The chinese, despite being more intelligent and having a culture built on honor and hating trannies
                Been chasing the dragon there, buddy?

                I got curious and just googled "China fake fossils" and found this
                >https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/

                You coulda just been normal and linked a real article BEFORE rambling for like 17 paragraphs about how all of paleontology is fake, because of the communists or whatever.
                Tip to not appear deranged in the future.

                I don't see anything about a feather craze in this link, but I don't know what Chinese farmers are up to.

                You fucking idiot, I literally posted an image of that very headline and one of the fake Psittacosaurus WITH link. You're a gay. Don't blame me. I didn't raise you.

                reminder that we have feathered theropod fossils from the US, in fact the ones that best support that feathers are basal to theropods.

                There's literally only one that I can think of and that's Ornithomimus, minus actual birds.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No response? I'll repeat this again so you can answer the question

                >The garden gnome-controlled westerners who lie about men becoming women are totally telling the truth though, even though they are heavily invested in discrediting all religion so they can replace it with arbitrary state sponsored morality
                your story is that the chinese faked fossils because westerners will proudly claim that faked fossils are real, ergo, you should not believe any western fossils represent animals that actually existed or at least that they are far younger than claimed, correct?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Could this mean that the t-rex scales could have been faked?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Don't fight conspiracies with conspiracies.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >BEFORE rambling for like 17 paragraphs
                Wow you posted a SCREENSHOT of a HEADLINE 250 replies in

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You have been informed that it is a common problem with *fossils. Evolution is a lie. GOD created the earth 6000 years ago.

      Seriously, if you believe in this, you must necessarily believe that all fossils are plants and every fossil you have ever seen was either a very well made fake or only 6000 years old.

      Classic astro-turfing posts. Get fucked.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >be the guy that comes out and proves that like a quarter of the dino fossil record is fake
    >become a household name and redefine paleontology
    >infinite book or documentary sales if nothing else
    If some guy on Wauf knows about this sceme, there has to be untold dozens of experts who have realized what's going on, right?
    Where is Edward Snowdino and why is he on Wauf schizoposting?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Let's say the Chinese are inventing and lying about fossils to push the Feather agenda.
    Why?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not him, and I tried to ask how they do it, but he didn't answer, but the guy says they do it because there was a group of paleontologists in the 90's (after JP) liked the idea of dinosaurs with feathers and got really excited about it. So when they went to china to look for more feathery dinosaurs, the Chinese fossil black market indulged them and started churning out fake feather fossils. Apparently, this scheme got so big actual Chinese paleontologists started doing it to their own discoveries. The guy will site an infographic once in a while showing all the dinosaurs named by this one Chink, Xu Xing and how they almost all had feathers (as apposed to similar specimens over in the west which we didn't think had any until the guy found it).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Surely it isn't happening!
        >Surely I can't be fooled!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I only tried to explain your point to the best of my memory. I never made a judgement about your shit. I've been following this back and fourth for a couple months now for fun. I'd just like to know what instruments or techniques they use to fake the feathers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            he does not know. he just says they do, because it's the first explanation he came up with to cope with how he thinks feathers are gay and it is the hill he will die on.

            he will never accept any other explanation and he will call all proof against him a lie because of his schizo hatred for chinese people and anyone who has found a fossil with feathers

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You have no other explanation, retard. This has been explained to you in great detail. You dun fucked up with Yutyrannus. All that other half-bird shit nobody cared about. Yutyrannus was a little too much. A bit too brazen. And it fucks up noticeable branches of the dinosaur family tree to too great of a degree.

              AND IT DOES NOT FIT ANYWHERE. Either chinks literally have dragon magic...OR they're fucking liars. The problem for your lot is we already know the dragon bone trade is full of fraud. The fact that you keep trying to claim this is not true proves how painful the cognitive dissonance is crushing your tiny mind.

              >be the guy that comes out and proves that like a quarter of the dino fossil record is fake
              >become a household name and redefine paleontology
              >infinite book or documentary sales if nothing else
              If some guy on Wauf knows about this sceme, there has to be untold dozens of experts who have realized what's going on, right?
              Where is Edward Snowdino and why is he on Wauf schizoposting?

              Of course there are. I've literally posted fucking images of news articles in the last 20 posts that show it. Nobody cares. Most humans in this age are complete NPC. If someone says don't worry about that man behind the curtain, they don't worry about that man behind the curtain. Case closed. And paleongologists are already deep in the shit. They can't back out now because their field will collapse. Go ask Wauf about this - typically the number of "heretics" in a given field is TINY compared to the mindnumbed masses in that field who just go with the flow. There are all kinds of heretical videos and books about modern physics being wrong, but most life scientists are dullards. It's extremely rare to find one that isn't a total moron. I'm not a total moron and I happen to be very invested in the life sciences. Your argument is fucking retarded. There is truth exposed to the masses on every subject, yet American culture is built entirely around lies. People don't fucking read. And the ones that do are invested in the lies. As I said, it is very rare to find anyone who can read on these subjects, understand them AND disagree with the lies.

              Nothing in this image suggests faking. Just retarded assumptions.

              It was a fake, dipshit. Look it up. Kind of proving you can be fooled, retard.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't like them puttin feathers in the fossil record that turn the freakin nerds gay!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's already been explained.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I wannna see a video made on this.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh that's never going to happen. Chinese fossil fraud is the lynchpin in modern paleontology. When it gets pulled, the entire thing collapses. Not enough "conspiracy theorists" have enough knowledge of dinosaurs to make such a video, and it would have to be the "schizo" camp making a youtube video, because NOBODY in the mainstream dares question the chinese narrative.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        1: I really, really doubt this.
        2: Just because the most primitive discovered theropods are feathered does not mean it is basal to the group. To say it is would be pure speculation. The fossil record is not a complete picture of life. Thus you can not say it has feathers for sure until you find them. Are people really too dumb to get that?

        Well apparently people are stupid enough to think that because a crocodile has no lips, a raptor from 100 million years ago can't either...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >1: I really, really doubt this.
          Your loss. The truth is available whenever you're willing to accept it. The chinks doctor fossils literally all the time. And now the entire fossil industry is heavily shifting back into the hands of private collectors and treasure hunters, with zero oversight. This will only make the issue worse.

          >Just because the most primitive discovered theropods are feathered
          The most primitive theropods discovered do NOT have feathers. What you meant to say is the most primitive supposed "Tyrannosauroids" have feathers. And even that is questionable. There is absolutely no feasible dinosaur family tree that includes a separate branch of feathered Tyrannosaur-look alikes, and also the branch that includes Archaeopteryx evolving feathers separately. Feathers evolved once. I would stake my life on it. They're far too complex a structure to shake out more than once in the same group of animals. It's like the idiots that believe Silesaurids aren't early Ornithischians, despite having a predentary bone and arising at exactly the same time as Ornithischians should and some accepted Ornithischians like Pisanosaurus bouncing between "Ornithischia" and "Silesauridae". Yutyrannus is clearly related to one of the major large Theropod lineages - likely a decently close relative of Allosaurus, but Allosaurus and every other large Theropod lineage is scaled - Tyrannosaurs, Carcharodontosaurs, Allosaurs, etc. and we have the scales to prove it.

          I only tried to explain your point to the best of my memory. I never made a judgement about your shit. I've been following this back and fourth for a couple months now for fun. I'd just like to know what instruments or techniques they use to fake the feathers.

          he does not know. he just says they do, because it's the first explanation he came up with to cope with how he thinks feathers are gay and it is the hill he will die on.

          he will never accept any other explanation and he will call all proof against him a lie because of his schizo hatred for chinese people and anyone who has found a fossil with feathers

          Who cares? We know they fake fossils and the species they've brought to light fuck up the entire dinosaur family tree to the point it can't be reconciled. Either at least some of the chinese species are fraud, or we live in 1984 and the dinosaur family tree has to contain contradictions everyone just accepts for no good reason.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing in this image suggests faking. Just retarded assumptions.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Here's the paper. Boy did I have to dig to find it. There is exactly ONE blogpost that references it, but fortunately the wikipedia article cites it. That's the only actual link to it I can find on the internet.

              https://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app20120128.html

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              What a wiki search got me
              >a 2013 paper pointed out that the adult specimen did not belong with the nest, its skull having no sedimentary connection to the main slab where the juveniles occurred, but had been glued onto it. This artificial association led to the inference that the skull belonged to an individual, possibly a "mother", that was providing parental care for the 34 juveniles—a claim that is unfounded. Furthermore, the adult was also shown to be six years old, whereas histological studies have shown P. mongoliensis was unable to breed until it reached ten years of age. It is also unlikely that a single female would have so many offspring at one time.
              huh...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I've updated the image.

                If most people had any idea how often shit like this happens in paleontology, they'd never believe a fucking word a paleontologist said.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lol I just noticed Xu Xing is a co-author on the paper. How utterly ironic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If a bad gluejob can fool western scientists for 9 fucking years (2004 to 2013), shits gotta be bad.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is what I've been trying to explain to you guys. Not only CAN western paleontologists be fooled. They WANT to be fooled. Feathered dinosaurs and chinkshit are all the rage in paleontology. It's the milk that baby paleontologists are weaned on. They're brainwashed these days by mass media, pop sci and even mainstream paleontologists these days that all this fantasy horseshit is real.

                It's nothing more than a puppet show.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wait, where did you get 2004?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >In 2004, a specimen found in the Yixian Formation was claimed as evidence for parental care in dinosaurs. The specimen DNHM D2156 consists of 34 articulated juvenile Psittacosaurus skeletons, closely associated with the skull of an adult.
                Right above what i posted in the wiki article.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ah, I see. The actual paper wasn't published until 2014 though. But still, yes that's bad.

                This guy insisted this a fossil was fake without ever providing a source, and when he finally provided a source, it was a screenshot, not a link. He is really insistent on being the least trustworthy person on Wauf.

                but just because one fossil was *partially* faked does not mean all were. the west has its own history of fakes and flat earther gays claim that the fakes prove that all fossils are fakes planted by the servants of satan, when we all know that the bible is a tome of lies and mayan mythology is actually the one true faith.

                I linked it too, dipshit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wait, where did you get 2004?

                Anyway, the timespan is irrelevant. This shit literally happens all the time. And like I said, the entire dinosaur field is moving out of the hands of professionally trained paleontologists and into the hands of private fossil hunters and private buyers with zero studious oversight.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you should provide real sources because the first results say nothing about it being fake.
            >You have no other explanation
            The fossils are real. The existing family trees are inaccurate and are missing massive pieces.

            Not reading the rest of your schizophrenic drivel. Just like your wife who left you because of this.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              See:

              Here's the paper. Boy did I have to dig to find it. There is exactly ONE blogpost that references it, but fortunately the wikipedia article cites it. That's the only actual link to it I can find on the internet.

              https://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app20120128.html

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I found this paper saying the larger individual is positively associated with the base fossil, but it is paywalled so I can't see the whole methodology.
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667114001347?via%3Dihub

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That was the original paper describing the fossil assemblage and giving it a seal of approval. You know shit's bad when western paleontologists are pogggers over a chink fossil but it's fucking Xu Xing himself, master of chink deception that's exposing it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >western paleontologists
                name some names

                I'm putting together a collection of your slander to see if I can get you sued. The more people you trash the more likely your mom is to lose her house.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Brandon Hedrick and Peter Dodson

                Since you're a mad retard who can't read, I'm sure you won't know why I've chosen these two.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm sure you won't know why I've chosen these two.
                explain

                I'll forward what you have to say to them and they can decide to sue you and hiroshimoot or not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Try reading, dumb moron.

                I mean at some point mods have to decide if it's worth having you here slandering people if it's going to potentially cost Wauf millions of dollars.

                you can plead insanity but that's just going to result in you being permanently blocked from the internet.

                >Um excuse me sweaty, did you just disagree with the experts™? Okay, this is problematic. Time to cancel you.

                This is Wauf bitch. Go to twitter or reddit. That's more your speed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                disagreeing with the experts is legal

                accusing specific experts of fraud is illegal.
                you're breaking the law. If you think Wauf is ok with that you're in for a surprise.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well if you're trying to be a moron with armchair "legal language", I didn't accuse these retards of fraud. I accused them of being duped and certifying fraud, which is literally what they did.

                Tell me whether or not this is illegal: FUCKING have a nice day.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it's fucking Xu Xing himself, master of chink deception
                you slander one particular person in almost every thread.

                I don't know the guy but I'd laugh my ass off if he got Wauf to rangeban you or your mom to take your wifi password away. The internet would certainly be better off without you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Also, it would be libel, not slander, stupid. Stop acting like an adult when you can't master basics of life outside of academia.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                both are illegal.

                one of them leaves a record. You're on the record breaking US law daily for over a year now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Please shut the fuck up now. Not since the SRS raids on 4chan has there been this level of liberal whining. Literally touch grass. Go outside. Experience reality. And for god's sake TAKE YOUR FUCKING MEDS.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm going to fuck you for the lulz.

                get screenshots of some of your more specific posts and email them to the people you talk shit about all day. I bet one or two of them have insurance that will take you down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your micropenis is not getting anywhere near me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'll post proof in one of your threads after I email some paleopeople. Should be good times.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Please do. Sounds like fun for the entire field.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >FUCKING have a nice day.
                would you like to kill me, big guy?
                how would you do it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Btw, thanks for confirming for everyrone you can't read. Not that anyone was in doubt a crazy college educated liberal was illiterate.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean at some point mods have to decide if it's worth having you here slandering people if it's going to potentially cost Wauf millions of dollars.

                you can plead insanity but that's just going to result in you being permanently blocked from the internet.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >open dinosaur thread
    >it's gay
    Well I never

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I clicked on something I didn't like and now I'm mad
      >how could this happen to me.jpg?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I clicked on a dinosaur thread not a taxonomy thread retard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          what's the difference?

          oh, you think dinosaurs are lizard monsters roaming the jungle

          I'm sorry, dinosaurs are rocks found in deserts and then classified by taxonomists. Often incorrectly.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And its lower jaw is very narrow. Similar to the lower jaw of a sperm whale.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's just no way that this animal has lizard lips. Too deep bite. The lip on the lower jaw would be thicker than the jaw itself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The lip on the lower jaw would be thicker than the jaw itself.
      so you think that's impossible or something?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >that's impossible or something?
        That's just the way it is. Having too much meat on your face with no muscle tissue makes no sense and will just turn your head into a blob, as in this pic

        [...]

        (remember that irl the lower jaw of a tyrannosaurus is much smaller, lighter and narrower than the upper part of the skull).

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Finally got my two velociraptor skulls.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone who makes posts like this and contributes to posts like this is a Palaeontology Fan and not an actual palaeontologist.
    Please fuck off, listen to actual palaeontologists, and stop making useless threads that go nowhere.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Hates cladistics
    >Instantly brings up communists
    Do you see what I mean?

    Are there people that argue against cladistics that aren't also schizos?
    Honestly asking, I remember off handedly saying "birds are reptiles" and some guy showed up super mad about "cladists" and also gnomish people in the same breath.

    The appendix is vestigial. Totally useless. Not important to your fitness. That's why it's in the process of degenerating into an weird lump that will also be useless - because such degenerations as they accumulate don't affect you. Its only supposed function in humans is retaining some shit if you go on antibiotics.

    You could also say the degenerated eyes of a cave fish are useful because they can perceive night and day for a period of their life, but if they never see it, so what use is that?

    the human appendix is beyond vestigial. it's harmful. we just normally breed before we get appendicitis.

    The appendix is part of your gut immune system, as a harbor for beneficial flora and immune cells for the digestive system.
    You are far more likely to suffer gut infections (and reinfections) without an appendix.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Hates cladistics
      >Instantly brings up communists
      Literally the same behavior, and given this shit always comes from American college campuses, it's also the same """people""". "Schizo" these days is just a synonym for noticing things.

      [...]
      I dunno, just having your voice heard by a wider audience sounds like a better idea.
      Are there any papers that back your reasonings? Any colleagues who share your opinion?

      Your voice won't be heard at all on reddit. That's kind of my point. Your post won't even show up for anyone but you. It's the most dishonest form of censorship on the entire internet.

      >Are there any papers that back your reasonings?
      Yes, like the paper that showed everyone T. rex had only scales.

      >Are there any papers that back your reasonings? Any colleagues who share your opinion?
      kek'd
      The man would be laughed out of any scientific circles. Might do ok with creationists though. Sadly creationists aren't known for their science.

      But what difference does it make? your retarded side just says whatever it wants regardless of what the evidence says. The problem is, cretins like you AREN'T laughed out of academia after saying shit like "you can't prove it didn't have feathers!"

      Everyone who makes posts like this and contributes to posts like this is a Palaeontology Fan and not an actual palaeontologist.
      Please fuck off, listen to actual palaeontologists, and stop making useless threads that go nowhere.

      Well most "paleontologists" these days aren't actually paleontologists. See pic related:

      https://i.imgur.com/BgjxtdE.png

      Both Brian Engh and Mark Witton have illustrated Sauropods with feathers. Not sure how many other famous paleopseuds have, but it's no small amount.

      What the absolute fuck... I just downloaded a skeletal he made for my collection and he's posting that shit?

      Mark Witton was always a fucking idiot. You just now noticed? Also, I love how dishonest his "old style" brachiosaur is. As if people were shrinkwrapping them to the point of showing cervical vertebrae. What a dishonest fuck.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"Schizo" these days is just a synonym for noticing things.
        no, it means you have unprovoked delusions and hallucinations.

        It also generally means you're paranoid and have an extremely unusual way of thinking

        you are schizophrenic
        there's nothing wrong with this, it is not an insult
        it is an illness that tortures you and everyone you talk to.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm so glad we have so many internet psychologists to diagnose literally everyone who disagrees with them on Wauf with schizophrenia. FINALLY all these people who don't parrot your beliefs can get the help they so desperately need.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm so glad we have so many internet psychologists to diagnose literally everyone who disagrees with them on Wauf with schizophrenia.
            I'm just going off what he's reported in the past.

            iirc he said he has a schizophrenia diagnosis, which is correct from what I've seen.

            of course I can't diagnose him. Nor does it really matter. Being literally schizo is almost a requirement to use Wauf.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              "He" is me. And I don't have schizophrenia.

              Any other papers?
              Also, are there others in the scientific community that share your views? If so, could you inform us some of them?
              >Your voice won't be heard at all on reddit. That's kind of my point. Your post won't even show up for anyone but you. It's the most dishonest form of censorship on the entire internet.
              Even if Reddit isn't up to the task, there's also Twitter.
              Or is Twitter also a censorship hellhole?

              >Any other papers?
              Papers are like the bible. It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe, you can always find a paper that agrees with you. I mean if you have a specific question I might be able to offer a paper on that topic.

              >Also, are there others in the scientific community that share your views?
              If there are they don't speak up. Insanity has taken over the life sciences. It's not just paleontology. It's like twitter cancel culture except instead of posting insane pronouns, you make up the weirdest speculative sci-fi story you can and everyone claps and pats you on the back and you try to kill anyone who says the emperor's naked. In other fields you're just a lobbyist cocksleave and basically just mouth whatever a hunter, farmer or rich donor wants you to. Basically like being a politician but doing it for near-free.

              >are there others in the scientific community that share your views? If so, could you inform us some of them?
              I helped with the paper he keeps citing, so yeah. I agree with him on T. rex skin

              or more correctly, HE agrees with ME.

              before that paper nobody on Wauf agreed with me on that topic though.

              >HE agrees with ME.
              Honey everyone knew T. rex didn't have feathers outside of the pop sci crowd. Modern paleopseuds are just so credulous that they worked up a fantasy for themselves that T. rex "must have" had feathers...uh because phylogenetic bracketing. BELIEVE ALL CHINESE!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't have schizophrenia.
                kek
                >Honey everyone knew T. rex didn't have feathers outside of the pop sci crowd
                then why didn't you publish it?
                very sweet of you to let me and Larson and others take the credit.

                personally I think you didn't publish because either:
                1. you were in diapers
                2. you didn't know

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody fucking cares who gets credit that's worth a damn. That's why naming species after individual humans should be illegal.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Paleonerds were always autistic contrarians. That's the entire appeal.

                you're the autistic contrarian against the rest of the contrarians. You're the ultimate NPC. You dislike ideas because other NPC's like them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >then why didn't you publish it?
                Even commiepedia admits it, you brain damaged autogynephiliac retard.

                >A 2017 study reviewed known skin impressions of tyrannosaurids, including those of a Tyrannosaurus specimen nicknamed "Wyrex" (BHI 6230) which preserves patches of mosaic scales on the tail, hip, and neck.[5] The study concluded that feather covering of large tyrannosaurids such as Tyrannosaurus was, if present, limited to the upper side of the trunk.[101]

                >However, a study in 2017 published by a team of researchers in Biology Letters described tyrannosaurid skin impressions collected in Alberta, Montana and Mongolia, which came from five genera (Tyrannosaurus, Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus and Tarbosaurus).[83] Although the skin impressions are small, they are widely dispersed across the post-cranium, being collectively located on the abdomen, thoracic region, ilium, pelvis, tail and neck. They show a tight pattern of fine, non-overlapping pebbly scales (which co-author Scott Persons compared to those seen on the flanks of a crocodile[84]) and preserve no hints of feathering. The basic texture is composed of tiny "basement scales" approximately 1 to 2 mm in diameter, with some impressions showing 7 mm "feature scales" interspersed between them. Additional scales can be seen in tyrannosaurid footprints[85] and potential osteological correlates for scales are present on the skull.[86]

                >Bell et al. performed an ancestral character reconstruction based on what is known about integument distribution in tyrannosauroids. Despite an 89% probability that tyrannosauroids started out with feathers, they determined that scaly tyrannosaurids have a 97% probability of being true. The data "provides compelling evidence of an entirely squamous covering in Tyrannosaurus," the team wrote, although they conceded that plumage may have still been present on the dorsal region where skin impressions haven't been found yet.[83]

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >1. you were in diapers
                Obvious chud furfag projecting his degenerate fetishes.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You haven't posted your thoughts on Twitter. Why not post there, so people can support you further?
                Also, don't you think Wauf would be more appropriate to spread your ideas? Seeing as the main view there involves somewhat conservative and controversial takes, such as skepticism towards global warming, I believe your ideas might be accepted there and stay relevant.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I believe your ideas might be accepted there and stay relevant.
                most of his ideas are valid, but his methods for reaching them are stupid and unscientific.

                >I don't like the way it looks
                is not a valid scientific argument. It never was. If he accepts valid scientific arguments that agree with his preferences while rejecting those that disagree he will be quickly laughed out of any Wauf discussion and banned repeatedly. he can at least avoid getting banned here. Nobody respects his thoughts, but nobody is reporting him either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you recommending retarded echo chambers for dissident beliefs? Oh wait, because you want them policed into non-existence. No thanks.

                >Also, don't you think Wauf would be more appropriate to spread your ideas?
                Oh absolutely. Wauf has a lot more actual STEMfags than Wauf, which is mostly armchair retards. It's easy to get Wauf to agree with you that most modern science is batshit retarded. But dinosaurs are animals, so this is a more specific board for them. Although, perhaps Wauf actually is a better forum for this.

                >skepticism towards global warming
                What are you talking about?

                Paleonerds were always autistic contrarians. That's the entire appeal.

                you're the autistic contrarian against the rest of the contrarians. You're the ultimate NPC. You dislike ideas because other NPC's like them.

                >t. NPC
                Things are either correct or they're not, dipshit. If your theory contains contradictions, it's a bad theory.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Things are either correct or they're not, dipshit
                there's the retard I love

                no gradients,
                only dichotomies

                you are a literal retard. Even children know that some statements are neither correct or incorrect. I guess your cognitive development stopped around age 8.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                and again, for about the thousandth time

                you are retarded
                if you spot a "contradiction" in some science it's almost certainly because you can't read. Self-contradicting science doesn't get published. Retards like you might think it does though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not talking about a paper contradicting itself. I'm talking about a slow accumulation of bad science that eventually creates a contradictory world view - like Tyrannosaurs having feathers, but T. rex not having them so coming up with a bullshit theory that it lost feathers and gained scales, which is incredibly unlikely, but refusing to abandon the phylogeny or faith in the purity of chinese fossils. You LITERALLY can't have both, but that doesn't stop modern paleopseuds. You're not nearly as clever as you think.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Tyrannosaurs having feathers
                I've told you dozens of times before

                Tyrannosaurs IS T. rex. There are no other tyrannosaurs than T. rex.

                the word you struggle to find is "tyrannosauroids."

                also again for the thousandth time, science is contrarian. Scientists literally get paid to contradict each other. You think it's an authority so it blows your tiny fucking NPC mind when your authority contradicts itself

                you are very very stupid.
                painfully dumb

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >tyrannosauroids
                What the fuck do you think I was talking about you pedantic moron?

                >science is contrarian
                Not good fucking science. Science is contrarian when someone is WRONG.

                >Scientists literally get paid to contradict each other
                You don't see a problem with that? Cause it sounds to me like you're agreeing with everything I'm saying. I think you just like to argue.

                >You think it's an authority so
                No, stupid, it's just that all the authorities of this world are massive frauds because every system we live under rewards chicanery, dishonesty and criminal behavior.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What the fuck do you think I was talking about you pedantic moron?
                when you say "tyrannosaurs" I assume you mean T. rex since that's what the word means.
                >You don't see a problem with that?
                of course not

                how is anyone going to learn anything new if we just go around agreeing with each other all the time? Science is an argument. Not your form of argument, but one based on a narrowly harvested set of facts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >how is anyone going to learn anything new if we just go around agreeing with each other all the time?
                You're missing the point. That is LITERALLY what you dumb fucks are currently doing. Contradictions and all. THAT is precisely the problem.

                >it's just that all the authorities of this world are massive frauds because every system we live under rewards chicanery, dishonesty and criminal behavior.
                I assume you mean scientists

                scientists aren't authorities.

                that's your main error. It marks you as uneducated and incapable of thought. You need someone to tell you what to think and it scares you when those people disagree. Even though they're SUPPOSED to disagree.

                >I assume you mean scientists
                I mean anyone that could be called "an authority" on anything. Don't fool yourself. It's not because they're authorities that they're wrong, that just alerts you to incoming bullshit. They're wrong because they're wrong.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >THAT is precisely the problem.
                If you were right I'd steal your ideas and publish them.

                sadly you're not.
                but keep trying! you come up with some gems sometimes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Explain how ancestral TyrannosaurOIDs (which rhymes with foid, which you apparently are) had feathers but T. rex has scales. And do it in a way that makes any fucking sense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >do it in a way that makes any fucking sense.
                I've been doing it on Wauf since 2009

                the diagnoses of Allosauroidea and Tyrannosauroidea are indistinguishable outside of the Late Cretaceous, and may both be wastebasket taxa

                Yutyrannus and Dilong are probably not tyrannosauroids
                Concavenator is probably not an allosauroid.

                when your classification disagrees with reality, it is the classification that's probably wrong, not reality.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the diagnoses of Allosauroidea and Tyrannosauroidea are indistinguishable outside of the Late Cretaceous, and may both be wastebasket taxa
                Agreed.

                >Yutyrannus and Dilong are probably not tyrannosauroids
                I honestly don't think that makes any difference. Especially with Yutyrannus. Any group it's going to be related to would be large carnivorous Theropods and ZERO of those had feathers. Yutyrannus should not exist. And it looks like a straight up fucking Allosaurus so there's no fucking way it's in some bizarre offshoot that's so incredibly divergent from all other large carnivorous Theropod groups that it alone has feathers. Yutyrannus is the death knell of modern paleontology. It shouldn't exist. By ANY theory. The only way it can is by ignoring major issues like re-scaling or incorrect phylogenetic bracketing or the fact that no other large carnivorous dinosaur has feathers and we have scale imprints from all major groups including Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Carcharodontosaurs, etc. And again, we return over and over again to the fact that THIS SHIT ONLY APPEARS IN CHINA. Even for similar groups, when we find those animals outside of china THEY HAVE SCALES. But everything in china has feathers. Odd.

                Concavenator is a Carcharodontosaur.

                >when your classification disagrees with reality, it is the classification that's probably wrong, not reality.
                I totally WOULD agree, if it weren't for the fact that we have skin impressions from ALL of these groups. And they all have SCALES, so it literally doesn't matter what group Yutyrannus belongs to. Something is wrong with it.

                Keep in mind, with a character matrix derived from Madsen, the leading expert on Allosaurus,

                Allosaurus is actually a tyrannosauroid, not an allosauroid.

                this is good indication that Tyrannosauroidea is trash outside the Late Cretaceous, and the only reason it works there is because of actual tyrannosaurIDs

                >Allosaurus is actually a tyrannosauroid, not an allosauroid.
                wut

                I'll have to look into that, but that seems kind of wrong by definition unless Allosauridae doesn't exist. I don't have much faith in Superfamilies of dinosaurs being valid to begin with.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we have skin impressions from ALL of these groups. And they all have SCALES, so it literally doesn't matter what group Yutyrannus belongs to.
                almost there

                what we're suggesting is a new group. possibly several of them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Which, as I already stated is wrong. There's no way this is THAT convergent of evolution. The last common ancestor of feathered dinosaurs and whatever Yutyrannus is supposed to be would be so far back that somehow a Compsognathus like animal gave rise to an Allosaurus like animal TWICE. I don't think so. Even the various large Theropod groups that currently exist are markedly different.

                >that seems kind of wrong by definition unless Allosauridae doesn't exist
                or Tyrannosauroidea doesn't

                Allosaurus would still be an Allosaurid though. Does anyone even hold to Allosauroidea??

                >everything in china has feathers
                less than 10% of species in china have feathers
                less than 1% of specimens

                this number is fairly close to global averages.

                You know what I fucking mean. All the relevant groups when compared to those outside of china. The ones in china have feathers. Those outside china have scales.

                the conclusion from this is NOT that Allosaurus is a tyrannosauroid

                it's that Tyrannosauroidea is bullshit.

                Well that I would agree with.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Even the various large Theropod groups that currently exist are markedly different.
                at the gross level maybe, but at the level of individual bones they're identical.
                >Those outside china have scales.
                except all the ones that don't.
                which you deny, so your worldview works for you
                the problem is scientists aren't allowed to ignore evidence just because you don't like it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You mean individual bones like the skull?

                >except all the ones that don't.
                You know of a large carnivorous Theropod with feathers outside of china?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You know of a large carnivorous Theropod with feathers outside of china?
                Dakotaraptor and Appalachiosaurus

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Post the fucking fossils then.
                Oh, wait! You're just making shit up, you CCP spy!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What the fuck is this? It only seems to appear on quora and is never labeled. It doesn't look anything like Dakotaraptor. Also, who the fuck is the Hurr durr I troll you retard that keeps entering these threads and mislabeling feathered dinosaurs?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It appears to be Anchiornis.

                [...]
                Found it.

                https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/556544

                This is literally a bird, anon, from the avialae clade.

                He's fucking with you

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He's fucking with his own micropenis. And he's proving we can spot fake bullshit immediately.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he's proving we can spot fake bullshit immediately
                He's done this in like 3 threads though and you weren't able to see it. Using google lens is not a big accomplishment

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Reverse image search didn't work, dipshit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Then that's your own fault for being incapable of clicking a mouse a couple times

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I literally already figured out what it was. Stop being a moron and stop shitting up threads.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I literally already figured out what it was
                That wasn't my point
                >stop shitting up threads
                You mean like how a dozen other threads over the past couple months have been getting shat up by the same couple people? Like the anky thread that's up now?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOO DON'T DISCUSS DINOSAURS IN DINOSAUR THREADS!!
                >NOOO DON'T POINT OUT ERRORS IN PALEONTOLOGY! TRUST THE EXPERTS!!
                Shut the fuck up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOO DON'T DISCUSS DINOSAURS IN DINOSAUR THREADS!!
                Derailing a thread to screech about feathers or lips or whatever other pointless bullshit is not on topic, especially when there's 3 other threads for that shit up at the same time

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The lips thread was literally ABOUT lips. Most of the feathers comments have been in threads ABOUT THAT TOPIC. You're the retard who refuses to stay on topic and gets buttflustered derailing threads INTENTIONALLY.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The lips thread was literally ABOUT lips
                I'm not talking about the lips thread. I'm talking about any time it gets brought up in any other thread
                >Most of the feathers comments have been in threads ABOUT THAT TOPIC
                Except for when its not, like the 100 or so replies about it in the anky thread. I don't even really care whether they had lips or feathers or not, I just care that there's a colossal gay making thread after thread on this shit or bringing into other threads

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not talking about the lips thread.
                You literally just brought it up. Theropod lips aren't brought up that often and it's mostly one guy.

                >Except for when its not, like the 100 or so replies about it in the anky thread
                The comment chain lead in that direction. Perhaps if SOME PEOPLE hadn't spent the past 30 years gluing chicken feathers to every dinosaur they could get their grubby hands on, then that not being good enough and turning the shit into a literal fucking cult, we wouldn't be having this problem. Don't like your ass then complain about the taste of shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You literally just brought it up
                I brought up lips, not the lips thread. Lip arguments pollute other threads just like the feathers shit does
                >Perhaps if SOME PEOPLE hadn't spent the past 30 years gluing chicken feathers to every dinosaur they could get their grubby hands on
                Perhaps if you weren't a complete dreg who spends all day screeching about what pose the hands of a dead lizard monster were in or whether or not it had feathers we wouldn't be having this problem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Just because some theropods were big and masculine and did not wave around drag queen feathers or blow kiss with big fleshy lips does not mean you they were homophobic or that you need to feel scared and intimidated, sweatie.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >does not mean you they were homophobic
                Yes it does, bigot. This shouldn't even need to be explained

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Man, unironically please make it a bit more obvious next time, we live in way post-Poe's Law [CURRENT YEAR]s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're not entirely wrong but ever tried not being a furry chud chincom gay? or at least trying to keep a low profile over your fetishes in unrelated paleontology threads?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What sort of gayry is this

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >289 posts
                >40 unique IP
                a resident schizo talking to himself

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You say this every thread.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And now that you know that I know that you know, you can stop, ok buddy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Get fucked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >289 posts
                >40 unique IP
                wtf people are having drawn out petty arguments with each other on the internet, how is that possible

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Also, I'm the one that's always pointing it out. He did it with some other feathered dinosaur that he said was Archaeopteryx I believe and then another one with no name attached that was scales.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It appears to be Anchiornis.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It appears to be Anchiornis.

                Found it.

                https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/556544

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is literally a bird, anon, from the avialae clade.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's no evidence of feathers on Appalachiosaurus and I wasn't talking about raptors. I meant the groups I previously mentioned. Something that was anything like Yutyrannus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the problem is scientists aren't allowed to ignore evidence just because you don't like it.
                That's how you end up with bullshit theories like dark energy and the big bang. Some data is bullshit. Your kind have yet to accept this truth.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Your kind have yet to accept this truth.
                bullshit

                we KNOW that everything we suggest is bullshit at some level

                we're trying to find the least bullshitty bullshit

                meanwhile you're just making stuff up

                both methods are bullshit, science is just much better bullshit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that seems kind of wrong by definition unless Allosauridae doesn't exist
                or Tyrannosauroidea doesn't

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >everything in china has feathers
                less than 10% of species in china have feathers
                less than 1% of specimens

                this number is fairly close to global averages.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >wut
                specifically
                >maxillary fenestra present
                >antorbital fenestra enlarged
                >antorbital fossa extends to maxillary margin
                >jugal fenestra present
                >jugal pneumaticized
                >ventrodistal orientation of the occipital face
                >D-shaped premaxillary tooth basal cross section
                >both premaxillary carinae on the lingual facet
                >fore-aft heterodonty
                These are diagnostic cranial characters of Tyrannosauroidea, and all of them but one are present in Allosaurus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >all of them but one are present in Allosaurus.
                for comparison, tyrannosauroids are usually diagnosed by one of these character states. Maybe a couple.

                almost no tyrannosauroid found has as many tyrannosauroid cranial features as Allosaurus does. Not even T. rex has as many tyrannosauroid cranial features as Allosaurus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the conclusion from this is NOT that Allosaurus is a tyrannosauroid

                it's that Tyrannosauroidea is bullshit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the problem with this-

                >do it in a way that makes any fucking sense.
                I've been doing it on Wauf since 2009

                the diagnoses of Allosauroidea and Tyrannosauroidea are indistinguishable outside of the Late Cretaceous, and may both be wastebasket taxa

                Yutyrannus and Dilong are probably not tyrannosauroids
                Concavenator is probably not an allosauroid.

                when your classification disagrees with reality, it is the classification that's probably wrong, not reality.

                is that it has already been published.

                It's not a new idea and it's not entirely my idea.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Keep in mind, with a character matrix derived from Madsen, the leading expert on Allosaurus,

                Allosaurus is actually a tyrannosauroid, not an allosauroid.

                this is good indication that Tyrannosauroidea is trash outside the Late Cretaceous, and the only reason it works there is because of actual tyrannosaurIDs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it's just that all the authorities of this world are massive frauds because every system we live under rewards chicanery, dishonesty and criminal behavior.
                I assume you mean scientists

                scientists aren't authorities.

                that's your main error. It marks you as uneducated and incapable of thought. You need someone to tell you what to think and it scares you when those people disagree. Even though they're SUPPOSED to disagree.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            also, I don't diagnose everyone here with schizophrenia. It's remarkably common in dinosaur threads and on Wauf, but it's rare enough in real life that I assume most of the actual schizos here are one or maybe two people.

            and I don't disagree with him.

            whether he's right or wrong has nothing to do with his schizophrenia. Schizophrenics are often right. They're just really fucking annoying to be around.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I love how dishonest his "old style" brachiosaur is. As if people were shrinkwrapping them to the point of showing cervical vertebrae.
        Yeah that shit is pretty fucking stupid.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Any other papers?
        Also, are there others in the scientific community that share your views? If so, could you inform us some of them?
        >Your voice won't be heard at all on reddit. That's kind of my point. Your post won't even show up for anyone but you. It's the most dishonest form of censorship on the entire internet.
        Even if Reddit isn't up to the task, there's also Twitter.
        Or is Twitter also a censorship hellhole?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >are there others in the scientific community that share your views? If so, could you inform us some of them?
          I helped with the paper he keeps citing, so yeah. I agree with him on T. rex skin

          or more correctly, HE agrees with ME.

          before that paper nobody on Wauf agreed with me on that topic though.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Are you a retard?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Also, are there others in the scientific community that share your views?
          So that you can report them to the Party, Lysenko-kun?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe Allosaurs use their forelimbs when they wrestle with each other. As dramatic as the image of two theropods biting each other is, it's probably more likely that they just try to push each other until one gives up (biting still happens but it's mostly mass vs mass)

    The forelimbs would allow one to grab and throw their opponent.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Heard that craniumfag is now a furry chud.

    Fuck, we truly live in [CURRENT YEAR].

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Disgusting that furries disgrace animals with anthro bullshit AND chud bullshit

      The animals are already plenty sexy exactly how god made them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Heard that craniumfag is now a furry chud
      that'll be the day.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Amen. Excrpt for:
    >I'm sure it walked on its knuckles when outside of water
    If you speak without sarcasm, you are most likely mistaken. I think its surrealism lies only in the incompletely assembled skeleton and incorrectly interpreted finds. Ibrahim just has Down Syndrome. A creature as grotesque as he depicted simply could not exist in nature (let alone survive).

    Actual previous thread:

    [...]

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nerve gas

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think people are putting the cart before the reins. It seems like they think that birds having supinated hands for waving to fly means this was previously developed by terrestrial dinosaurs. But what was the pressure for that? Why would bipedal dinosaurs supinate when their cuadruped predecesors didn't? I agree its likely that one ancestor may have developed supination because it wouldn't hinder it much, and this adaptation later translated to the use of wings. But picturing all theropods like this? Its retarded.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    who says feathers are basal to theropods? is there any evidence ALL theropods came from these little feathered microraptors and that there wasn't a second line of descent from closely related animals without feathers? why should we assume the second line doesn't exist? why argue for feathers degenerating back into scales when t. rex could have just never had feathers and neither did its ancestors?

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >be me
    >fluffy tree lizard
    >die and fall in a mud puddle
    >bugs and random animals eat most of my skin
    >some animal flips me around and the other half of my body gets picked clean
    >i now have a mohawk in death, formed from the fuzz that was covered by the mud puddle
    >get fossilized like this
    >humans find me
    >"due to the distribution of filaments we believe they were entirely ornamental"

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why cant paleofags be reasonable for once

    >this animal seems to have had useless, deformed arms
    alright, so they were a vestigial trait they barely got any significant use out of. they were used for being there, but not there for being used. perhaps it could use them to hold on to a chunk of leg while scraping the meat from the bone, but they didn't need them to do that. These mostly useless liimbs were free to accumulate deformities as the generations went on because they simply weren't important to survival.
    >ACTUALLY THEY WERE SPECIALLY SHAPED TO CLIMB TREES
    >NO WAY THIS SPECIFIC ANIMAL MUST BE A DIRECT ANCESTOR OF THE CHICKEN THEY'RE BASICALLY WINGS ALREADY

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Are there people that argue against cladistics that aren't also schizos?
    Honestly asking, I remember off handedly saying "birds are reptiles" and some guy showed up super mad about "cladists" and also gnomish people in the same breath.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone who goes against the mainstream is a "schizo". It's a compliment at this point. It's basically a synonym for player character.

      >the past few decades
      Inference has been a thing for much longer than that.

      Inference REPLACING actual hard evidence is recent.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Everyone who goes against the mainstream is a "schizo"
        no, more just the ones who think the government is out to ruin their big lizards

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is nothing wrong with cladistics. Cladistics was introduced in the 70s, when scientists were still real scientists.
      Idiocracy and absurdity began only at the end of the 2000s - the beginning of the 2010s, when the generation of low iq leftists, nurtured by negative selection, decided to monkeying as "scientists".

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ha ha ha HA HA HA

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >reddit cancerposter is really a reddit cancerposter
      Ok. Saved. Thanks for the sincere confession. Now, go back to:

      [...]

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bros, I think most theropods had feathers, and I just got this

    What now?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We don't know exactly how wolves kill and grasp their prey with their pronated hands. But we know they do because they have claws.

    anything else doesn't make sense.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wtf are you even arguing OP?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's this retarded view in paleontology right now that Theropods couldn't have their hands palms facing down or back. It's false, but it's widely believed. It's gotten so bad that """artists""" have even begun putting Theropod hands on BACKWARDS because they're so afraid of putting the hands in a pronated position.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        most theropods couldn't pronate, plus it makes little since for them to be able to because there arm movements were similar to a birds they had limited forward backward motion in their arms and could much better "flap" there arms so having hand that could "clap" made more since things like allosaurs, Spinosaurus and megaraptorids slashed by "hugging their pray.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >most theropods couldn't pronate
          Literally a religious belief. Not science.

          >there arm movements were similar to a birds
          1: No they're not.
          2: Birds pronate.

          Theropods are not birds.

          https://i.imgur.com/SU5DSUr.jpg

          We don't know exactly how wolves kill and grasp their prey with their pronated hands. But we know they do because they have claws.

          anything else doesn't make sense.

          Wolves are clearly quadrupeds, retard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Wolves are clearly quadrupeds, retard.
            kek

            you're too stupid to understand why it's funny

            Let me explain.

            wolves don't use their hands to kill or capture prey.

            It's possible that theropods also didn't use their hands to kill or capture prey.

            you're too stupid to understand this, and it's funny. Dumb people are funny.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              NOOO IF THEY EXIST THERE HAS TO BE AN EVOLUTIONARY REASON FOR IT! EVOLUTION DOESN'T JUST GROW USELESS ORGANS!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                kek
                right?
                there's no possible way an animal might be in the process of losing a useless organ
                nor could they possibly find a different use for an organ other than what it evolved for.

                that's satanic and homosexual thinking there!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                At what point in Theropod evolution are their hands "useful", since you seem to think they're always useless. The earliest Theropods had hands very similar to the latest ones. And before that they didn't have hands because they were quadrupeds.

                fuck off

                Eat shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The earliest Theropods had hands very similar to the latest ones

                You do know birds are technically theropods? Right? So the latest theropods would be all extant birds.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Um, excuse me, I don't speak to sarcopterygians. Be humble, sweaty.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >before that they didn't have hands because they were quadrupeds.

                >The manus (Latin for hand)

                >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_(anatomy)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >EVOLUTION DOESN'T JUST GROW USELESS ORGANS!
                Yes, my illiterate queeranon. Evolution is just the selection from an infinite number of mutations those that benefit the organism and give it an advantage over the rest. Evolution never works in vain.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                evolution doesn't actually do that. tons of useless and even harmful shit can persist or develop simply because it does not make the animal any worse than its competition in its niche. nature is not a fine tuned machine. if there is an intelligent designer with his hands in even some of it, he isn't much smarter than his human equivalent.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >tons of useless
                name 1 useless mutation in 5 different animals

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >It's possible that theropods also didn't use their hands to kill or capture prey.
              Theropods like abelisaurs and tyrannosaurs, yeah, no shit.
              Things like Allosaurus? Look at the hands and claws of that animal and tell me they would not have been using those meat hooks on prey.
              The bigger issue here for all your "you don't understand why it's funny" bluster is that...it wasn't funny. And I did know exactly what you meant. You are not funny.
              Smarmy autist humor is never funny.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Look at the hands and claws of that animal and tell me they would not have been using those meat hooks on prey.
                maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

                it would be extremely difficult for them to lift or hold anything of size because their head would be in the way. And we know they ate huge animals. We have tons of teeth marks from Allosaurus on bone. We have 0 claw marks. We find tons of broken Allosaurus teeth at kill sites. We find 0 broken claws.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it would be extremely difficult for them to lift or hold anything of size because their head would be in the way.
                That's just it, they could've been lifting smaller prey up, where their head would not be getting in the way.
                >And we know they ate huge animals. We have tons of teeth marks from Allosaurus on bone. We have 0 claw marks. We find tons of broken Allosaurus teeth at kill sites. We find 0 broken claws
                Theropod teeth are easily shed and easily broken, and the jaws were probably being used at much greater force than their hands. They could have also been using those claws to hook into a meaty part of a big sauropod (with no nearby bones to scar) and clamber up where their jaws would be doing the real work. At the very least they were probably using those claws to help dismember and feed on their kills.
                Are these ideas of mine all conjecture? Sure. But the bottom line is animals don't evolve claws that big for the hell of it. They were obviously being selected for. They were using them for something. Even when compared to their descendants the carcharodontosaurids, the arms, hands and claws of allosaurids were huge.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >they could've been lifting smaller prey up,
                we have 0 evidence of them eating smaller prey and literal tons of evidence of them eating larger prey. This is partly because of preservation and collection biases, but it's probably also just facts.
                >They could have also been using those claws to hook into a meaty part of a big sauropod (with no nearby bones
                that's not really how hunting works. Thus all the broken teeth.
                >the bottom line is animals don't evolve claws that big for the hell of it
                unless they were in the process of losing them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we have 0 evidence of them eating smaller prey and literal tons of evidence of them eating larger prey.
                Yes, I would assume that prey small enough to be eaten completely would leave less evidence behind than a fucking sauropod. Although I'm glad you at least acknowledge that Allosaurus was a big game hunter. I remember a few years ago the whims of fashion of thought that paleontology is so vulnerable to were that Allosaurus was AKSHUALLY too small and shitty to be a sauropod hunter and sauropods effectively had no predators. Exactly what it was that was supposed to be keeping the population of these potentially ecologically destructive giga-herbivores in check was a question no one was asking, of course.
                >that's not really how hunting works.
                It's not about "hunting", my idea is I mean they literally used their claws as hooks to climb a sauropod's flank while they pulled themselves up with their jaws.
                >unless they were in the process of losing them.
                Just look at the fucking skeleton. Does this look like an animal that was in the process of losing its arms? Are you proposing some ghost lineage of allosaur ancestors that had even bigger arms?
                Just from eyeballing reconstructions of their skeletons, it seems like the metriacanthosaurids (the base of the allosauroid clade unless something has changed I don't know about) had smaller arms than true allosaurids as well. Allosaur arms were getting bigger over time, not smaller, until the true allosaurids became extinct and carcharodontosaurids took over.
                Maybe THEY didn't need the longer arms anymore because they were simply too big to climb and clamber up onto their prey, and/or their prey was getting even bigger and attacking in that way was just too risky.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't believe Allosaurus arms would support even a tiny fraction of their weight while climbing, they'd at best just be stabilizing the animal as it used legs and teeth to climb

                which probably isn't possible on the boneless flank of a sauropod since that also wouldn't support the weight of an Allosaurus

                there's also the question of how they'd start that climb without their tail being in the way.

                but it's a fun idea I guess.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >they'd at best just be stabilizing the animal as it used legs and teeth to climb
                Well that's pretty much what I meant. That they would just hook in and stabilize. Not that the allosaur would be doing a pull-up, as amusing a visual as that may be.
                > since that also wouldn't support the weight of an Allosaurus
                Well if the sauropod tips over, so much the better for the allosaur. As long as it tips away from it of course.
                >there's also the question of how they'd start that climb without their tail being in the way.
                I figured it would jump.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The ironic part is at least some of these retards will try to claim that Theropod hands don't need to be pronated because it's okay for them to be useless, but that T. rex's hands had a utilitarian function.

                Why the fuck would I ever want to post on reddit? Forget the userbase; the format of the site itself is unusable.

                Even if you do post, it won't matter. Your post won't show up if it voices the incorrect opinion.

                he wouldn't last 5 minutes on any site that can ban him. Not because he questions dogma, but because he replaces it with his own dogma that has no evidence.

                >Um we need to ban everyone who disagrees with us. That means we're right.
                GET YE THE FUCK BACK TO THAT UNHOLY SITE SPAWNED FROM THE DEVIL'S OWN LOINS.

                >Look at the hands and claws of that animal and tell me they would not have been using those meat hooks on prey.
                maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

                it would be extremely difficult for them to lift or hold anything of size because their head would be in the way. And we know they ate huge animals. We have tons of teeth marks from Allosaurus on bone. We have 0 claw marks. We find tons of broken Allosaurus teeth at kill sites. We find 0 broken claws.

                You do realize that teeth preserve much better than nails, right?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The ironic part is at least some of these retards will try to claim that Theropod hands don't need to be pronated because it's okay for them to be useless, but that T. rex's hands had a utilitarian function.
                What bothers me the most is that they make it seem like these amazing animals in their own right were mere aberrant speed bumps on the pre-destined road to birds, no matter how distantly related. We've gone full circle back to the doldrums of the early/middle 20th century. From "dinos were magnificently successful animals and in fact birds are their descendants!" back in the dino renaissance days of the 80s and 90s to "lol theropods were just shitty bird prototypes and they all had useless dangling arms because you know some of them would give rise to birds some day so even before that they all needed to have shitty useless proto-wings"

                > Your post won't show up if it voices the incorrect opinion.
                Oh, they want that here too. Look at Mr. Selfie next door in the ankylosaur thread casually bragging about trying to slide it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What bothers me is you can state a vague opinion pointing out the absurdity of an argument that the retard ITT can ascribe to some other opinion and be called morrison the glowie running EDGE for it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >were mere aberrant speed bumps on the pre-destined road to birds
                That shit really pisses me off and why we need to get rid of feathergays by purging all traces of that bullshit from paleontology.

                https://i.imgur.com/fa4JcA1.jpg

                why cant paleofags be reasonable for once

                >this animal seems to have had useless, deformed arms
                alright, so they were a vestigial trait they barely got any significant use out of. they were used for being there, but not there for being used. perhaps it could use them to hold on to a chunk of leg while scraping the meat from the bone, but they didn't need them to do that. These mostly useless liimbs were free to accumulate deformities as the generations went on because they simply weren't important to survival.
                >ACTUALLY THEY WERE SPECIALLY SHAPED TO CLIMB TREES
                >NO WAY THIS SPECIFIC ANIMAL MUST BE A DIRECT ANCESTOR OF THE CHICKEN THEY'RE BASICALLY WINGS ALREADY

                Allosaurus DOES NOT HAVE vestigial arms. They have fully functional, adequately sized forelimbs. They're not Tyrannosaurids. And the person saying they used them to "climb sauropods" is fucking stupid.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They look pretty fucking vestigial to me. Definitely used for being there, not there for being used.

                >Muh feathers
                Feathers are not just plausible but there is strong evidence that some theropods had them. Just not T-rex or most of the large ones that lived in north america. Idiots say that feathers can not degenerate back into the "scales" they came from or be lost to reveal bare skin, but we have plenty of evidence of both, as well as synapsid examples of lost coverings. I really doubt utahraptor had complex feathers and fucking wings, for instance.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >feathers can not degenerate back into the "scales" they came from
                They can't.

                >or be lost to reveal bare skin
                You stupid bitch, this literally happens with birds now.

                >but we have plenty of evidence of both
                Name literally ONE piece of evidence other than that one bullshit paper claiming scales come from feathers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They can't
                Yes, they can degenerate into a keratin lump, as well as becoming scales.
                >That happens with birds now.
                Yes, we know. Birds have naked skin as well as scales. If one were large enough and dealt with enough danger there would be evolutionary pressure to convert most if not all of its feathers to scales.
                >Scales came from feathers
                They co-evolved but are related structures that can be swapped around at will. It would be more accurate to say that feathers are a type of scale.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Feathers can just become scales any time!
                Okay retard. It's just never happened for some reason.

                >They co-evolved
                NO. That is NOT what fucking happened. They were never SWAPPED. Scales above the feet evolved into feathers. That's it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Scales above the feet evolved into feathers
                The scales on the feet on current theropods are degenerated feathers that never made it. We can force crocodiles to grow protofeathers with a single gene. Feathers are a type of scale. The scales and feathers on theropods evolved simultaneously. The ancestor of all feathered theropods was a most likely a hideous prickly fuck with not a scale on its entire body, just bare feet and "hair".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They look pretty fucking vestigial to me.
                Vestigial compared to what? A quadruped?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >they look pretty fucking vestigial to me
                Because you're an illiterate LGBTQ+ cancerposter from Reddit, who doesn't have any education in biology?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                anon those are clearly in the early stages of being totally vestigial. while they could have developed further from there, they only became less useful with time, and were not at their peak. the arms of large theropods are well known for their degeneration.

                >tons of useless
                name 1 useless mutation in 5 different animals

                why do you need people to list vestigial traits, spandrels, and examples of genetic hitchhiking to you? because you're a retard who skipped freshman biology and need basic concepts explained to you like you're a toddler? evolution has no reason. it is simple: if an organism has a trait that give it an advantage in its niche, it will inevitably out-breed its competition. that could even be an organism that is awful in its niche being better at breeding, which is really why so many animals are completely and utterly pathetic and seem to only exist to be eaten by better lifeforms.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                because even appendix the is not vestigial, so if you cant name listed some off, it means youre full of shit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The appendix is vestigial. Totally useless. Not important to your fitness. That's why it's in the process of degenerating into an weird lump that will also be useless - because such degenerations as they accumulate don't affect you. Its only supposed function in humans is retaining some shit if you go on antibiotics.

                You could also say the degenerated eyes of a cave fish are useful because they can perceive night and day for a period of their life, but if they never see it, so what use is that?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the human appendix is beyond vestigial. it's harmful. we just normally breed before we get appendicitis.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The difference is the appendix is just a reduced caecum. Theropod hands are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from their Proterosuchid ancestors. Completely different. They EVOLVED INTO the shape that Theropods have BECAUSE THEY WERE USED FOR SOMETHING.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >early stages of being totally vestigial
                Okay, to make it even more interesting let's abstract from the dromaeosaurs. Meet the megaraptors (picrel). Paleontologists have not yet reached a consensus on whether they are a branch of carnosaurs or coelurosaurs (too much convergent evolution), but this does not really matter. Since this group of theropods survived until the very Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction having a very pronounced feature of all classic theropods that are not abelisaurus/tyrannosaurs - developed forelimbs. Moreover, their arms are even more developed than of other carnosaurs/proceratosaurs, with a lighter and weaker skull. And at the same time, unlike some dromaeosaurids, they were large animals and top predators of their biotopes.
                That is, theropods had almost three times more time than it took from their extinction to the present day to get rid of their "rudimentary" limbs, but apart from highly specialized abelisaurids, tyrannosaurids and birds, all groups of theropods retained their hands, and some even developed them further.
                I can't find any explanation for this in terms of your "logic", but I still can quite easily explain your "logic" itself. See:

                >they look pretty fucking vestigial to me
                Because you're an illiterate LGBTQ+ cancerposter from Reddit, who doesn't have any education in biology?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lol I forgot that Megaraptor was one of the species that had been illustrated with totally, painfully backwards hands. Enjoy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus. Why did they draw this poor animal like it's doing an underhand barbell row?
                It's not just the at this point fully supinated hands. Why is it holding its arms like that? Oh right, let me answer my own question...to reinforce the idea that this was yet another failed evolutionary experiment, a sideshow on the road to birds. An agenda is in place, and it must be maintained.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Also: missing lips for full glowie-cringe bingo.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The difference is the appendix is just a reduced caecum. Theropod hands are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from their Proterosuchid ancestors. Completely different. They EVOLVED INTO the shape that Theropods have BECAUSE THEY WERE USED FOR SOMETHING.

                They're obviously vestigial you nutjob. They evolved into a shape and then devolved because the shape wasn't actually that important later on duh.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                When did Theropods NOT have "vestigial" hands, retard? Allosaurus is Jurassic, so it has to be before that. It also means you have to explain the hands of raptors, Therizinosaurs, etc that all had highly developed forelimbs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ok schizo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He's arguing that this pic is scientifically inaccurate and it's all scientists' fault.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That he's a moron. Something about how he can't separate university students and deviantart nerds from actual paleontology. A moron of the type that saw the history channel and now believes there is an alternate universe where he got laid at least once. This guy is always sperging out over random deviantart and youtube shit in multiple threads at once. He'll even make the same thread two or three times because he's just that mentally ill.

      Just post a dog and something about bigfoot being a hoax if you don't want to argue with a pigeon but still want to see it flap its wings and be on your way.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What you pseuds can't grasp is that your stupid "theories" lead to deviantart's nonsense. Your insistence that feathers are an ancestral trait are why paleoartists draw feathered silesaurids, your insistance that Theropods couldn't pronate their hands is why deviantart makes Theropods with backwards hands (backwards hands are even in the Carpenter paper, btw). All the stupid shit paleoartists do is a direct result of bad paleontology. When you point a finger you have 3 more pointing back at you.

        >Wolves are clearly quadrupeds, retard.
        kek

        you're too stupid to understand why it's funny

        Let me explain.

        wolves don't use their hands to kill or capture prey.

        It's possible that theropods also didn't use their hands to kill or capture prey.

        you're too stupid to understand this, and it's funny. Dumb people are funny.

        Theropods don't walk with their forelimbs, retard. And all dinosaurs that DO pronate their hands.

        https://i.imgur.com/19NotrA.jpg

        NOOO IF THEY EXIST THERE HAS TO BE AN EVOLUTIONARY REASON FOR IT! EVOLUTION DOESN'T JUST GROW USELESS ORGANS!

        Typically that's correct. Sexual selection isn't useless.

        https://i.imgur.com/MeMABEX.png

        Bros, I think most theropods had feathers, and I just got this

        What now?

        Sounds about right.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          fuck off

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Here he goes histrionically strawmanning a totally unrelated "you" group again lmao

          This dumb gay is just here to hear himself talk. Too bad he doesn't know what he's talking about.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Actually I'm just talking to you, paleoperiod.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Who? Sounds like they psyopped you pretty bad if you think every random Wauf poster that thinks you're a raving moron is them. Or maybe you're just a paranoid schizophrenic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/OYq90OW.png

                ha ha ha HA HA HA

                I think he finally had to take his meds after that one, boys.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah at first I couldn't figure out what he's doing but I think he's off trolling other threads and then comes back and mass trolls the one he was neglecting.

            very efficient, except nobody reads his responses and only 1 in 10 reply to them. I think it's one reason everyone is sick of his shit. He's lazy

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              i notice that when he's really active in these dino threads other stuff like lemur posting and the catfucker/"d*g" hater guy momentarily drop off the board and come back when the dino threads die down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >i notice that when he's really active in these dino threads other stuff like lemur posting and the catfucker/"d*g" hater guy momentarily drop off the board and come back when the dino threads die down.
                Yeah he rotates his attention. One day this gay is going to have a stroke and Wauf will cease to exist.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You know those air sacs weren't full of helium, right?
    Ohh
    Retard...
    Do you think bird bones are hollow so they can store helium?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, but bird bones being hollow DOES reduce their weight. Spinosaurus wasn't built like a bird and its larger than an elephant.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We have physical evidence of bird like air sacs and respiratory systems in theropods and sauropods, with other dinosaurs being closely related enough that we can reasonably expect they may have had such structures as well.
        It's not just balance and weight saving, or thermal management, birdlike respiration is extremely efficient vs simpler systems.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >We have physical evidence of bird like air sacs and respiratory systems in theropods
          definitely
          >and sauropods
          weak evidence that isn't broadly accepted.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >We have physical evidence of bird like air sacs and respiratory systems in theropods and sauropods
          And? That still doesn't mean a creature the size of several elephants was walking around on toothpicks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I was arguing against "how does it balance" not "how does it stand up at all" because obviously it did retard
            Unless for some reason someone keeps switching out the limbs of spinosaurus specimens for smaller/mismatched ones, something which doesn't seem to happen to any other dinosaur

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >something which doesn't seem to happen to any other dinosaur
              happens constantly but you don't hear about it because we either take appropriately sized bones from other skeletons or just make a cast of one of the legs in reverse so we have a matched set.

              I haven't seen the measurements on that particular animal, but its extremely unlikely that both legs were the same size even if they went to the same animal.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >pronated hands
    Is there any evidence for this posture here? Is it even possible for this dinosaur to pronate its hands like this?

    What were paleontologists thinking?

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dino hands grasped with very little flexibility beyond that. they weren't very dexterous.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sure. But anatomy shows that they could spread them widely to the side, and at least raise them to the head. Together with developed claws, this by itself indicates their use in hunting (banal grasp of prey).
      But this is not possible with supinated or bird-like folded hands, as in these examples

      https://i.imgur.com/hJRJIXj.jpg

      Why are they supinated like he's literally swing dancing? How is he supposed to grasp his prey when his hands can only push it away? If he does not need hands, then why are they so big and with such tenacious claws? Is there any real evidence for such position of the hands, other than the sedimented pieces of dirt that another low-iq glowie mistook for the prints of the Dilophosaurus knuckles?
      So many questions, so little answers.

      (At least they are no longer bird-like crippled, which can already be called progress in the glowies "brain activity".)

      https://i.imgur.com/m7YJO4f.jpg

      I thought it was supposed to be like this

      In this case, the limbs become just rudiments that increase the weight of the body and do not allow increasing the size of the skull.
      And yet, only abelisaurids and tyrannosaurids went through the complete rejection of the forelimbs. All other groups of theropods, for some reason, have kept their arms in an advanced state. And this reason is quite obvious.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I thought it was supposed to be like this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Glowies just have bipolar disorder. And both of their states are far from sane and healthy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >actual schizophrenic calling literally anyone else mentally ill
        stones. glass houses.
        meds, now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moron no. That thing looks like evolved from a bird. Allosaurids didn't evolve from or into birds, so there's not a reason for wrists like that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I still don’t agree with OP and theropod hands being pronated but this is just absurd, supination wasn’t possible either and most theropods didn’t keep their arms folded in their resting state like birds did.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        OP's pic was made by an artist, not a scientists

        It contains a number of huge inaccuracies, the hands aren't even the most obvious.

        The real question is why OP is searching the entire internet to find pictures of dinosaurs to get mad about.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I never said that they should be pronated. Their position most likely was as in the picrel, as can be seen from these fossils:

        https://i.imgur.com/UpSb6RA.jpg

        Previous: [...]

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it looks like they were only good for grasping things that were already dead and were well on their way to degenerating into nubs.

    plausible.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because evolution does not care about what is needed or not.It doesn't care about anything. The minute amount of energy wasted growing mostly useless appendages is not a significant selective pressure. Rather there is just no pressure to grow functional arms so it just takes one deformed fuck to spread further deformities around as long as those deformities don't matter in practicality, leading to things like cave animals with useless eyes and bald apes even though having fur is objectively better regardless of the climate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Because evolution does not care about what is needed or not
      Actually, it literally does. Evolution harshly punishes shit that doesn't work like backwards fucking hands. That's why animals don't have them outside of the minds of paleopseuds.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Evolution harshly punishes shit that doesn't work like backwards fucking hands.
        birds have backwards fucking hands and are the most successful group of vertebrates on land.

        checkmate idiot.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Birds DO NOT have backwards hands. Birds do not have hands of any kind. They have wings. Even baby Hoatzins. But even if you ignore that, their hands STILL aren't fucking attached backwards. They're literally pronated.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You need to trust the science and stop believing your own lying eyes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So basically you're admitting that birds can have non-functional hands and there is no penalty.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Braindead moron. Wings of flightless birds are vestiges. Dilophosaurus/Allosaurus/Velociraptor hands - are not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A majority of paleontologists disagree. Post your degree or shut up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >reddit queer accuses you of lack of education
                Kek. In fact, the weakness of the Dilophosaurus jaws relative to body size is a generally accepted axiom. Stop monkeying around on Wauf and go back to your gender identity brethren.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >still no degree
                You obviously are unqualified to have opinions on this subject.
                Also, fuck off back to 4chan. You will not be missed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                he's not talking about flightless birds you fucking worthless cunt.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's okay to be wrong sometimes, anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                fuck off out of here

                just leave

                you always leave when you get proven wrong. Just leave forever.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                fuck off out of here
                (reddit spacing)
                just leave
                (reddit spacing 2)
                you always cancerposting when you get proven wrong. Just leave forever.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >REEEEE DOUBLESPACING!
                You're a moron, btw.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                literal bot posts

                >reddit queer accuses you of lack of education
                Kek. In fact, the weakness of the Dilophosaurus jaws relative to body size is a generally accepted axiom. Stop monkeying around on Wauf and go back to your gender identity brethren.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ironic to hear this from a hysterical reddit glowie, who each time leaves ~5 (you)s in a row under every post which publicly exposes him a moron. Begone already ---->

                [...]

                (Display of IDs on this board is still vitaly important.)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                OH NO, DID HE JUST DOUBLESPACE? REDDIT! WE GOT A REDDITOR HERE!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >REDDITCAPS

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's called PS, reddit retard.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Learn what a vestigial trait is brainlet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >evolution does not care about what is needed or not.
      That's not how it works. If your mutation is not viable and harms you - you will simply die, losing the evolutionary race to your normal counterparts. THAT'S how evolution works.
      Keeping huge ballast limbs with developed claws and not using them will only interfere with your role. You either lose them completely and become a big-headed runner, like abelisaurids or tyrannosaurids. Or you keep their functionality and remaining a highly specialized predator, like carnosaurs(+ megaraptors?), proceratosaurs or dromaeosaurs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Or you keep their functionality
        the problem is you guys can only imagine one functionality

        as long as that's true none of this will make sense to you

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is what OP wants, right? I'm not even trying to be an asshole here. Is this what you think dinosaurs should look like?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, this is what the new generation of "paleontologists" trying to lead dinosaurs to. Animals are becoming more and more surreal and caricatured. More like retro reconstructions from a time when science and methods were still in their infancy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That last one makes the most sense by far tbqh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/XKl62aC.jpg

          I know it's a meme now, but the idea of Spino as some sort of huge Dinosaur Elephant Seal equivalent is pretty fun to imagine. It would've been terrifying.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/XKl62aC.jpg

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I’d love to see an argument from you idiots past “it looks silly”

        Have you looked at animals? They look fucking whack all the time. I’m not saying this specific reconstruction is unassailable, I’m saying that “it looks funky” is a shit argument

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "It looks silly" is a perfectly valid argument.

          >Have you looked at animals?
          Yes, they follow rules. The overwhelming majority of animals look perfectly reasonable. If you see a fossil that looks insane, you SHOULD suspect it's wrong. It's called "pattern recognition". I realize NPCs can't use that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The overwhelming majority of animals look perfectly reasonable
            what the fuck does this even mean

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It means they don't have bizarre shit hanging off their chins or legs that are insanely long with tiny heads. We don't see a lot of rabbits with scales or whales with cockscombs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And by shit hanging off their chins I mean bone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It means they don't have bizarre shit hanging off their chins or legs that are insanely long with tiny heads
                There's loads of animals with this sort of shit what do you mean.
                >whales with cockscombs
                There are whales with weird huge fleshy growths on their faces though that don't seem to have much of a purpose that are kind of comparable to a comb

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There's loads of animals with this sort of shit what do you mean.
                There really aren't. That's the point. They are the exception, not the rule.

                >There are whales with weird huge fleshy growths on their faces though that don't seem to have much of a purpose that are kind of comparable to a comb
                Callosities aren't flappy cockscombs, stupid.

                Stop arguing just to argue.

                >hanging off their chins or legs that are insanely long with tiny heads
                >And by shit hanging off their chins I mean bone
                Are you specifying this because there's too many examples of animals with weird soft tissue so you need to make it extremely narrow so nobody posts a modern example?

                You can't see soft tissue in fossils unless it's fossilized or you have an imprint. So the point about soft tissue is moot. And generally when we DO find soft or non-bone tissue, it's exactly what you would expect to find. Gastroliths in herbivores that don't chew, heavily masticated fibers in animals that do, scales on Dinosaurs, etc.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well I mean gastroliths aren't tissues, per se, but you know what I mean.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Callosities aren't flappy cockscombs, stupid
                That's why I said comparable to a comb, not are combs
                >And generally when we DO find soft or non-bone tissue, it's exactly what you would expect to find
                Like feathers on a bird like animal?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You just like arguing because you're a gay. I repeat: "THIS LOOKS FUNNY" IS AN EXCELLENT WAY TO SPOT BULLSHIT.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You argue more than anyone else here so you must be the end boss of gays then

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't argue to argue. I have a purpose.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >my purpose is to make a million threads screeching about how some literally who drew fingers on the dinosaur
                kinda unfortunate

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >hanging off their chins or legs that are insanely long with tiny heads
                >And by shit hanging off their chins I mean bone
                Are you specifying this because there's too many examples of animals with weird soft tissue so you need to make it extremely narrow so nobody posts a modern example?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cute art, the etchy style reminds me of the moomins.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Aww, look at how happy they all are getting to hang out together

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We need a horror game with this aesthetic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That sounds fun as hell. Like a horror survival game with old Harryhausen/Edwardian dinosaurs in a misty, dark prediluvian jungle sounds cool.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          would play/10

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is based

      https://i.imgur.com/czqvoh3.jpg

      Actually, this is what the new generation of "paleontologists" trying to lead dinosaurs to. Animals are becoming more and more surreal and caricatured. More like retro reconstructions from a time when science and methods were still in their infancy.

      this is stupid and gay. How does this thing hold balance? Why are the claws so retarded in the last two pics? Only the first one (except the stupid ass pose) looks like a real animal, the other two look like laughable pokemoncreatures. those pseudo"Paleontologists" are ful of shit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >How does this thing hold balance?
        A big ol tail and big ol lung sacs.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_sac

        Or maybe in five years spinosaurus will have another pair of legs like an insect.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Spinosaurus is aquatic, it doesn't need to maintain bipedal balancr.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Like I said, paleopseuds became so paranoid about Theropods supposedly not being able to pronate their hands, they started LITERALLY putting their fucking hands on backwards.

      Honestly this old ass shit is more accurate than ~85% of modern paleo"art". That's the part that burns nufag paleopseuds up the most.

      We need a horror game with this aesthetic.

      That actually sounds neat. I'm sure some gay will steal the idea from this thread and fuck it up by making it pay to play and cram it full of broken gameplay and woke bullshit.

      This is based

      [...]
      this is stupid and gay. How does this thing hold balance? Why are the claws so retarded in the last two pics? Only the first one (except the stupid ass pose) looks like a real animal, the other two look like laughable pokemoncreatures. those pseudo"Paleontologists" are ful of shit.

      It couldn't. That's how you know it's wrong. It's bullshit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Kek, that fucking feathered sauropod cracks me up every time I see it.
        I remember joking like 10 years ago or so at the height of the feather craze that it would never be enough and someone would start drawing feathers on a sauropod one day. I was joking; it wasn't supposed to actually happen.
        Yet here we are.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Both Brian Engh and Mark Witton have illustrated Sauropods with feathers. Not sure how many other famous paleopseuds have, but it's no small amount.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I love his reasoning on full display here.
            >yeah I mean sure we have no evidence...but who's to say they DIDN'T have feathers?!
            >better slap some on then!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              This is the shit I've been talking about. Paleontologists have literally become creationists. Their arguments are literally just making shit up and expecting other people to falsify their unfalsifiable claims.

              >Oh uh well, how do you know T. rex didn't have feathers that weren't preserved OVER their scales!?!

              Feathergays can never grasp that it is THEIR responsibility to prove evidence of feathers. They are not permitted to just "infer" them. Inference has become extremely popular among lazy shit moron soientists the past few decades and they use it to justify all sorts of bullshit for which they have no actual evidence. It's very irritating.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but muh phylogenetic bracketing!
                Don't you also love how when they perform a "cladistics analysis" that they just feed data into a computer that some other sperg programmed to analyze in a specific way? Literally garbage in, garbage out. And self-fulfilling prophecy.
                You would think the fact that 3 teams of scientists can perform an analysis of the same data and get 3 very different cladograms spit back at them would tip some people off into realizing that maybe this method doesn't work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is why cladistics is also cancer.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Also yes, I've been thinking about that lately. How the entire process is automated and is entirely based on 1: the information they feed the model and 2: how the software processes it.

                That's why the fucking idiots that tried to resurrect Ornithoscelida called Eoraptor a "Theropod" and didn't even include Silesaurids in Dinosauria.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but muh phylogenetic bracketing!
                Don't you also love how when they perform a "cladistics analysis" that they just feed data into a computer that some other sperg programmed to analyze in a specific way? Literally garbage in, garbage out. And self-fulfilling prophecy.
                You would think the fact that 3 teams of scientists can perform an analysis of the same data and get 3 very different cladograms spit back at them would tip some people off into realizing that maybe this method doesn't work.

                This is why cladistics is also cancer.

                Haven't you tried posting on more mainstream websites like Reddit? Why post on a irrelevant website like Wauf?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Reddit just shadowbans anyone that doesn't parrot sub party lines. It's not an accident that a site run by the US government popularized the term "echo chamber".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You really are schizophrenic huh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why the fuck would I ever want to post on reddit? Forget the userbase; the format of the site itself is unusable.

                I dunno, just having your voice heard by a wider audience sounds like a better idea.
                Are there any papers that back your reasonings? Any colleagues who share your opinion?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Are there any papers that back your reasonings? Any colleagues who share your opinion?
                kek'd
                The man would be laughed out of any scientific circles. Might do ok with creationists though. Sadly creationists aren't known for their science.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Is reddit really that much wider an audience though? Everyone who knows of reddit also knows of Wauf. Anyone who doesn't hang out online for a good chunk of their time has never heard of either.
                I know it's tempting to think of Wauf as some "cool" underground alternative to reddit but that isn't really the case.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_visited_websites

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What am I looking at? Reddit barely cracking the top 20?
                I'm not saying it's not bigger than Wauf, but that's for the site as a whole. There are X amount of boards on Wauf, there is literally a sub-reddit for everything you can think of under the sun. Are any of the dino/paleo boards on there (and there are many) really that much bigger than Wauf?
                In any case, the site is cancer no matter how many people visit it and it is simply not worth posting there. Years ago the format was at least readable but today we can't even say that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Reddit barely cracking the top 20?
                Top 20 globally by visitors
                Wauf is ranked 764

                >Are any of the dino/paleo boards on there (and there are many) really that much bigger than Wauf?
                Yeah
                >Paleontology -125,000
                >Dinosaurs -180,000

                >Is reddit really that much wider an audience though? Everyone who knows of reddit also knows of Wauf.
                If you don't want to use it that's fine, you just shouldn't be clueless and say something like this.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why the fuck would I ever want to post on reddit? Forget the userbase; the format of the site itself is unusable.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                he wouldn't last 5 minutes on any site that can ban him. Not because he questions dogma, but because he replaces it with his own dogma that has no evidence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >because he replaces it with his own dogma that has no evidence.
                So you're saying he fits right in with a lot of modern paleontologists then?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >So you're saying he fits right in with a lot of modern paleontologists then?
                your failure to comprehend an argument does not invalidate it.
                It's possible the argument is valid and you're just dumb.
                If you've never considered this possibility, you are in fact dumb.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's possible the argument is valid and you're just dumb.
                It's possible, sure. But alas for you, that is not what's happening here.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the past few decades
                Inference has been a thing for much longer than that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What the absolute fuck... I just downloaded a skeletal he made for my collection and he's posting that shit?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you have no idea how great things really are

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Dinosaurs breathe fire, cope

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Previous:

    [...]

Your email address will not be published.