Which side are you on?

Which side are you on?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      He's right, you know. Inbreeding is bad for societies and ecosystems alike. You don't want everyone to be the same standard issue moron exactly like their other 500 cousins.

      Any form of homogenization should be avoided. You need to maintain separate, diverse species to maximize the potential for adaptation. Imagine if you combined all canids together into one medium sized wolf-jackal. Either the alleles would slowly filter back out into something like the original species, or being poorly adapted to all environments, most of the animals would die out.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      So the different races should kill and eat each other?
      WTF? I love diversity now.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Do you apply the same logic to all ancient historical documents? Who cares what they say? Not worth studying the past? Seems like an ignorant mindset, regardless of whether you believe in the religion it represents.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stegosaurus

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I want to believe it, but the fact that most of the evidence for feathers has come out of China leads me to believe that they were largely scaly.
    The Chinese lie.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      or maybe, feathered theropods evolved in that area. china is very large.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Uh huh. And they never radiated outwards at any point even though everything else from there did. Sure thing Ping Ling.

        I suppose you can't call me racist here because I'll just say yes so this is the best argument you have.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >they never radiated outwards at any point
          Feathered dinosaurs have also been found in Europe like Sciurumimus and Juravenator.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's because feathers only fossilize in very specific condition were fine ashes/sediments quickly cover the body after death, and China has one or maybe two formations that allowed this process to happen more frequently.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just a reminder we've had evidence of early birds for about 150 years, and feathered dinosaurs for only around 10. The difference? Early birds are from the rest of the world, and feathered dinosaurs are China only.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are dinosaurs what the biblical authors were referring to when they describe leviathan, dragons, behemoths etc?

    "You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters." (Psalm 74:13, NRSV)

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      English translation is not 1:1 with the original Hebrew translation

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      "Leviathan, dragon, behemoth" could have referred to any number of things. Leviathan is almost certainly whales, dragons are a complicated topic (dragons basically represent everything humans find powerful, it's more of an idealized creature than an actual one; similar to the griffin which was a combination of the "king" of each kind of animal, lion = king of beasts, eagle = king of birds), and behemoth probably either referred to elephants or hippos or something.

      It's very complex. Dinosaur bones were almost certainly used as proof of their existence, but their origin is likely separate from dinosaurs. There is a difference between misidentification (see whale, do not know what whale is, "leviathan?") and fantasy (you know what would be really scary? a fricking lizard that breathed fire), and it is important to not think ancient peoples were stupid.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are dinosaurs what the biblical authors were referring to when they describe leviathan, dragons, behemoths etc?

        "You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters." (Psalm 74:13, NRSV)

        It's just shit a bunch of early bronze age rabbis made up between trying to keep their local illiterate sub-80 IQ gruel-fed citizenry under control (oy vey i got sick eating clams they're cursed!) and explaining to kids why they eat this but not that. Any references to fantastic beasts early on were most certainly third, fourth, etc hand accounts of things like whales, dolphins, whale dicks seen off the coast, elephants, rhinos, etc, "dragon bones" (the odd fossil and partial elephant skeletons), you name it. The religion is so blatantly made up that it's not really worth worrying about
        >uses two names for their god
        >one is also the name for a local hebrew deity, el shaddai
        >the other is the name for a vedic deity, YHWH, aligning with how heebs likely had a cultural exchange with some brahmins
        >the basic idea for the religion was ripped off from zoroaster
        >before that it was a generic pagan faith
        >claims that changing it whenever they want is ok because "the prophet said that people were wrong and now he's setting the record straight and he's the prophet because he said so and we agree so there
        There is nothing to be gained from reading the bible but some vague historical clues regarding some smaller events in middle eastern history. You'd find more interesting shit in hinduism, like an indication that the gompothere might have persisted for about 3 million years longer than thought and its last holdout just wasn't conducive to any sort of preservation.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Or noticing that every single religion on earth says the same basic things
          >anything but penis in vegana is at least worth making fun of
          >dont kill unless the chief/god says so
          >dont steal
          >obey elders
          >obey tribe chief
          >have kids good
          >build house good
          >you work or we kick you out
          >man who people work for share or we want to kick him out but cant so we pretend he get kicked into fire when he die
          Humans are just born knowing this stuff. You could raise a population with a sterilized langauge designed to be areligious and they could come up with all of this independently and attribute it to their leader communicating with the moon.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      yeah, primal is a documentary

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Both are sick (I just like dinosaurs)

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Finally, an actually good post

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You have no gas chambers, you have no mass assassination plots, you have no political power.
    So far.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      So far = never-ever
      Why even live

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The end is closer than you think.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Diablo vs Sauron
    Blizzard

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Chad scaly skin that’s strong enough to stop tank shells

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    RETVRN TO TRADITION

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ironically might be more realistic than the skinny fast turbo-predators of yesteryear
      time is a circle

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Now all we need is the return of the taildragging posture

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    enough schizophrenia and autism on Wauf to make Mike Milbourne and David Peters blush

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      And this actually shows how a Proterosuchid may theoretically have had lips covering the teeth, though I don't believe they did. Despite the fact that I think you also posted this rubbish:

      https://i.imgur.com/Gfc83HW.jpg

      , you've actually contributed a great deal with these three pictures.

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Butterfly lizards are so bad ass.

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The fire breathing one.

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      What lizard is this?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Diporiphora magna

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/ga4fPuf.jpg

      Hmm...very similar to the front of the mouth in Heterodontosaurs. I mean, minus the beak and beginnings of the cheeks. Still. Good illustration of how this fang arrangement would be hidden by lips in a reptile.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        How would the beak factor into this? when does the beak even begin?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >when does the beak even begin?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/qjX5SA0.jpg

          >when does the beak even begin?

          My partial reconstruction of soft tissue. Yes, I strongly believe Ornithischians had cheek muscles similar to the buccinator.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ornithischians having cheeks is so painfully obvious that it makes me cringe every time i see a reconstruction that doesn't have them (Except for Pachycephalosaurs maybe because their mouths are really weird)

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Add it to the list of shit that is painfully obvious that modern "paleontologists" are "too clever" for.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Also, if anything wouldn't have cheeks it would be Stegosaurs, but we know for a FACT that Nodosaurs had cheeks because they literally have a cheek pouch BONE called a buccal osteoderm. Pachycephalosaurs just have a more primitive Ornithischian mouth construction. It's pretty likely that all Ornithischians had cheek pouches and they evolved partway through the Silesaurids along with the predentary.

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    on the right side of history

  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      what is this showing?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        He and every other paleopseud *believe* it shows that scales evolved from feathers. They're too stupid to realize there's a much simpler and cleaner explanation that matches paleontological evidence: that feathers evolved from scales, birds evolved a simple mechanism to change scales to feathers at a very early stage of development, and that they developed a secondary suppressant mechanism to STOP feathers from appearing on the scaled feet. This explains why just fricking with the chemical pathways a bit gives you feathered bird legs, but there is no force under heaven which can give you a scaly bird.

  18. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ave hug

  19. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >i know better than this auburn professor and seven other PhD holders because uh... i saw a picture of the fossil on the interwebs and figgered wut looked about right an wut dint.
    >jurassic park got et good, idjits, this is a conspiracy fo... sumtin! china!?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's so pathetic and yet hilarious to watch them deny some of the most well supported and reasoned paleontology from this century because it clashes with the depictions in their toys and vintage dinosaurs books and no other reason.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        MODS MODS MODS

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/3obm4KC.jpg

      It's so pathetic and yet hilarious to watch them deny some of the most well supported and reasoned paleontology from this century because it clashes with the depictions in their toys and vintage dinosaurs books and no other reason.

      So you're going with every single theropod skull found with the mouth totally closed has "been crushed"?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >buried animal is in unnatural position
        No really?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          How come mammals and modern lizards are never found with their "skulls crushed" like this? Weird how the skull is only found "crushed" like this in animals where the mandible and cranium are interlocking like Theropods or Gorgonopsids.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            they are actually, anatomically modern diapsids have been found with their skulls crushed in-situ in exactly the same fashion as fossilized theropods despite being restored exactly the same way as extant lizards, i.e. with the internal skull "open" while the mouth is closed

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Crushed in a way that the jaw and cranium become perfectly interlocking? In this Mesozoic Era? On this girl's website? Contained entirely within your own head? May we see it?

              No.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >FROGPOST DETECTED
        >Running Analytics...
        >System has found...
        >REDDITOR
        >Response Protocal: Treat Like Woman

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't there dialogue in Jurassic Park where the park scientists argue in favor of feathers but just went with scales because that's popular with the public

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >trolling this poorly
        The line was just general "we designed them how you wanted them to look", which probably was more to do with marketability rather than feathers specifically. Big grey triceratops, scary T-Rex, etc.

  20. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think tyrannosaurs are pretty cool

  21. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Trex would have no reason to have feather.
    Even if it did they would be downy, not the kind meant for flight.

  22. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like we’re up to like, 6 active dinosaur threads and “i hate dogs” threads are pretty dead/deleted

    The Wauf troll cycle. It’s all one guy.
    >that one where the dino schizo lapsed back into “womans are hating cats! Fricking digs! Reee” for a few posts

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah that post made it obvious. He wasn’t fully out of his delirious meltdown over the dog-cat console war that is 100% him.

      [...]

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      You talk like reddit.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Reddit talks like Wauf. The only defining quality of reddit is that they copy whatever we did yesterday. If you dont talk like reddit, you’re from twitter, faceberg, or some shitty boomer forum.

  23. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Right but with lips and more musculature. AKA reality.

    T. rex wasn’t in the feathered theropod lineage no matter how much couldntfigureoutrealscience gays frick it up

  24. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Granblue already settled this; Beta won.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      they're both cool tyra tyra tyra

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Holy kino design

  25. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like feathers.

  26. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >when the T. rex is accurate

  27. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >muh god of gaps
    >muh "feathers were anywhere we haven't found skin samples"
    >muh "but what about the fossils from and only from china!"

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm gonna ignore your anti-china dinosaur conspiracy but agree with you on the fact that Yutyrannus means nothing for T. rex.
      proceratosaurs and tyrannosaurs clearly went in two very different ways evolutionary. ffs Yutyrannus has a long and slender snout and long arms with 3 fingers. It clearly isn't closely related to Tyrannosaurus

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm gonna ignore your anti-british conspiracy and keep insisting the Piltdown Man is legitimate

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think she has enough IQ points to get this comment.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      All those "scales" look really and a proper taphonomical analysis would be needed

  28. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    feathered rexes are a meme, the theory was put to bed awhile ago

  29. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neither are accurate. Scientists think that if Tyrannosaurs had feathers it would've only been the young, similar to how young whales and dolphins have hair that they eventually shed.

  30. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
  31. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    whichever side has lips

  32. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The one with factual evidence so the one with scales

  33. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The side supported by direct evidence (scales)

  34. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not on anybodys side because nobody is on my side.

  35. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm on the paleontologically accurate side.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. I don't care about feathers or not, I like both.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not the paleontologically accurate side. That's the anti-science side.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, Feathergays are annoying.

      https://twitter.com/AMNH/status/777877424444809219

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Feathers on T. rex aren't accurate, dipshit. Also, why the frick would Effigia have feathers? It's not even a fricking dinosaur.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          That whole joke on so call science, whining moron.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >brainlet

            >Dude feathergays are so annoying they slap feathers on everything!
            >But they don't slap feathers on this particular animals
            >T-that's t-the joke!!
            So feathergays are not annoying then and contrarians are just making up things to be mad about, as usual

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oh no no no! How?

          https://phys.org/news/2017-11-modern-genomics-alligator-scales-birdlike.html

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol. Modern "science" is a cartoon of what modern morons think science used to look like. Alligators can't make feathers no matter what you do to them.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              So why Alligators meat taste chicken-turkey recipe?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do they?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        That looks like a real animal

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      So right then?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yep.

        whichever side has lips

        Lips are almost certainly not accurate on dinosaurs.

        Neither are accurate. Scientists think that if Tyrannosaurs had feathers it would've only been the young, similar to how young whales and dolphins have hair that they eventually shed.

        No actual scientist believes in feathered baby theropods and scaly adults. Actual scientists understand why this is literally impossible.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Lips are almost certainly not accurate on dinosaurs
          Do you have a single fact to back it up

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the skull and tooth architecture. Ornithischians had cheek pouches, but no dinosaur has lips fully covering the teeth.

            That whole joke on so call science, whining moron.

            What?

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >brainlet

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well I'm convinced. Consider all of my views changed. I'm a new man!

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the skull and tooth architecture
              in what why?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's pretty involved. We have a LOT of information about the construction of theropod (and dinosaur in general) jaws and teeth.

                - Theropods can totally close their mouths to the point that the mandible BONE is TOUCHING the cranium. See:

                https://i.imgur.com/q7TgKIf.jpg

                Yeah, the skull and tooth architecture. Ornithischians had cheek pouches, but no dinosaur has lips fully covering the teeth.

                [...]
                What?

                That's not supposed to be "allowed" to happen, because everyone is obsessed with reconstructing T. rex and other theropods as mammals or lizards, both of which do not do this because their teeth are not in two overlapping rows, or are only slighly so, but meet in the middle of the mouth.
                - Some theropods like T. rex and Dilophosaurus have teeth that end at or BELOW their jawbones when you fully close their mouths. In the case of Dilophosaurus, the jaw is so unusually shaped that they may have had an adapted resting jaw stance just to contain their teeth in their head. But their jaw shape isn't that different from Proterosuchids, which all dinosaurs descend from to begin with. So however their lips are constructed is almost certainly the way the Proterosuchids' are.
                - T. rex and other large theropods have little teeth in the front of their maxilla which were used to scrape meat from bone. We know they didn't have soft, mammal-like lips like a wolf or cat that would retract to do this, so those front teeth HAD to be partly exposed to do their job, which totally precludes any possibility of fleshy lips covering the teeth

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                - Sauropods present a similar problem. They used the front and to some degree the side teeth to scrape foliage off of branches, which they swallowed whole, unlike Ornithischians, that chewed their food. If their teeth were totally covered by lips, they couldn't really do their job.
                - Sauropods have a STRONG corollary in living animals: marine fish. Marine angelfish, surgeons, butterflyfish and Moorish Idols all have a similar jaw and teeth arrangement that leaves their mouths partly open and their teeth partly exposed because they eat somewhat similarly to sauropods and Diplodocus specifically has a nearly identical mouth architecture to these animals.

                The problem is most paleontologists, like most college-educated morons can't actually think, so they just paste modern animals over dinosaurs and call it a day, then claim "these are like real animals!", which is true, because they've based them on real living animals, which dinosaurs AREN'T. They're all too much of brainlets to realize that dinosaurs are pretty unique in a lot of ways and you can't use modern corollaries to figure out their appearance in life.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I will say, however, their MAY be one alternative explanation in Theropods (but probably not in Sauropods): the teeth may have been fully enclosed in lips while the mouth was closed, but the bottom lip would have covered more of the teeth than the upper lip. This IS possible, but we don't really have any direct evidence for it. This is how a lot of lipped reconstructions of Theropods look and they're not awful looking. But the ones that try to enclose the cranial/maxillary teeth entirely in the upper lip are just FLAT WRONG.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                This still doesn't explain away the longest upper teeth reaching the bottom of the mandible or exceeding it, however.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, they can not, that’s a skull in an anatomically impossible position moron

                They also have no wear indicators of liplessness.

                You also don’t seem to understand that they had lizard lips, not mammal lips.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that’s a skull in an anatomically impossible position
                It's literally how the skulls are found. I assure you, it's not anatomically in accurate. That's like saying finding a human skull with the teeth touching is "inaccurate". Go yell at the rock.

                >You also don’t seem to understand that they had lizard lips, not mammal lips.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Theropods can totally close their mouths to the point that the mandible BONE is TOUCHING the cranium.
                no they can't, not without breaking the bones; which incidentally is exactly what happens after death when thousands of tons of rocks forcibly compress them into that position

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                That first image is not breaking bones. This is like the nugay obsession with theropods not being able to pronate their hands and claiming you're breaking their wrists if you do so (you're not), then LITERALLY breaking their wrists to attach their hands in a way that looks to you like a bird. What these idiot authors are claiming is that every theropod skull found in a closed position is "crushed". Really? Every single one?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh look an uneducated man

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That first image is not breaking bones.
                lol, shooting yourself in the foot right out of the gate huh

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It is breaking bones

                Did you know T rex needs not just functional jaw pivots but connective tissue?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's breaking so many bones that the skull just naturally falls into place like that. Quick question. WHICH bones are being broken? Be specific.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
                Buy the articles for me and I'll tell you.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well they're already fricking up because if T. rex HAD lips covering the upper teeth it wouldn't look like that. It would be mostly the LOWER lips covering them because they need to be exposed while the mouth is open for them to function.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they need to be exposed while the mouth is open for them to function

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                For the final time: THEROPODS ARE NOT VARANIDS.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >NO! STOP SHOWING ME HOMOLOGY

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not homology, you fricking idiot. Stop using words you don't understand.

                So? You argued that it wasn't functionally feasible as if that would invalidate the strong anatomical evidence for the teeth being partially covered. Varanids demonstrate that this is false.

                although I agree the lips are too long and the gums are too short there you are just a moron and I really don't care about individual artistic interpretations that much since they are usually dramatized

                And stop double replying. It's fricking annoying.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >everyone is the same person
                schizo confirmed

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not homology. T.rex has wear facets appearing on even the smallest teeth at the front which would have made the "toothless lizard" look impossible.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                So? You argued that it wasn't functionally feasible as if that would invalidate the strong anatomical evidence for the teeth being partially covered. Varanids demonstrate that this is false.

                although I agree the lips are too long and the gums are too short there you are just a moron and I really don't care about individual artistic interpretations that much since they are usually dramatized

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                How does that work anyway? how do they use their teeth if they are buried deep in their gums?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                the gums press down, causing the teeth to come up, it can do some serious lacerations, and something something about venom glands since monitor lizards are venomous with a nasty hemotoxin, unlike the paralytics or necrotic found in snakes, which is something people have forgotten about

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Some monitors have dental batteries like that, notably AWMs, Komodos, and Crocodile monitors, but many do not (like the tree monitor posted above).

                Komodo’s in particular have a very derived dental battery, with little teeth (compared to their skull, maxing out at about an inch) that are very swiftly replaced (as often as every 30 days) and with multiple rows of developing teeth behind the ones that have crowned (as many as 4 sets of teeth).

                The point is that excessive gum tissue like in monitor lizards is highly unlikely in an animal that had its small front teeth grinding against each other. A T.rex would be constantly pulverizing its own gum tissue whenever it opens and closes its mouth.
                The lizards on the other hand only have to really worry about gum damage when biting things.
                [...]
                The tips touch but the teeth don't slide past one another like they did for many theropods.

                The complaint about tooth wear only makes sense if you’re hyper focusing on the more derived monitor dental batteries, and ignoring the other monitors with permanently erupted teeth, the wear facets are not to the root of the teeth, at least for the occlusional wear facets as defined by Schubert and Unger, they are on the upper third of the tooth, and would not preclude gums or lips.

                I can agree with you that it’s unlikely that tyrannosaur teeth are fully encased in oral tissue and not just hidden by lips, but none of the art you’re sperging about (including the art used in the paper

                https://i.imgur.com/LQARRX3.jpg

                >View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
                Buy the articles for me and I'll tell you.

                , or the life restorations of Blue Rhino Studeos show fully encased teeth, so you’re raging at a strawman you’ve constructed out of an autistic misreading of the paper.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't Varanids also show little indication of where the "gumline" is on the tooth (i.e. where the crown hits the root)? In dinosaurs this line is VERY distinct, as it is in mammals.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've told you before, where the crown meets the root- the dental cervix- isn't the gumline in dinosaurs or most animals

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It absolutely IS in dinosaurs. It's not in a lot of reptiles because they're not thecodonts outside of crocodilians.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not here to argue with you, I don't care that you're wrong and look ignorant to anyone with an education

                I'm telling you in case you want to correct your ignorance

                I see you're trying to copy what I taught you about PM wear facets

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I seem to vaguely recall this debate a few years ago and you being proven wrong. And in mammals the gumline ABSOLUTELY occurs at the juncture between crown and root. Are you fricking moronic?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Enjoy your gumline headcannon.
                As long as you ignore facts nothing you think will ever matter to anyone but you.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't understand how you're denying basic facts. Literally just google images of human, dog or pig gumlines. It's easy to see that this is true, because even the slightest gum recession reveals the root.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Either that or any recession that reveals the root is major
                And you're not trained to recognize any recession less than a major one

                Also you're not smart enough to consider this possibility without me to guide you and you're to stubborn to learn

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you seriously arguing with basic mammalian oral anatomy? Why??

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your picture shows the neck (cervix) well below the gumline

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's literally at the gumline, dipshit. There is a slight amount of mounded up gumline around it, but that's negligibly higher. Why don't you draw on the image where you believe the cervical line is.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                On a 10mn tooth crown a difference of 3mm is 30%, not negligable

                Why do you suck at math?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >3 mm
                >Calls others bad at math
                >Can't measure
                Stupid israelite prostitute. Here, I'll draw the line for you. I swear I've done this before. You're shit at basic arithmetic. This is NOT "30%" difference between the gumline and cervical line.

                Why are you trying to use mammals as analogs for dinosaur anatomy when you can just look at dinosaur teeth and see the marks on the enamel where the gumline was?

                Stop moving the goal posts. Mammals were only referenced as being similar to dinosaurs in having a distinct cervical line.

                >marks on the enamel where the gumline was
                Oh please, even one image would be nice for a change.

                God damn, you and your prostitute are both such incredible time wasters. You both HAVE to be israelites. You two should engage in a murder suicide.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Again, not my hob to teach you

                I just tell you when you're wrong in case you want to teach yourself

                Usually you figure out I was right all along. It takes years but you can learn

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's not my job to educate you, sweaty
                Damn you think you're a lot younger than you are.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for playing 🙂
                Please insert 3 coins to continue

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you trying to use mammals as analogs for dinosaur anatomy when you can just look at dinosaur teeth and see the marks on the enamel where the gumline was?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Specifically the ventral margin of the maxilla bows ventally at the midline so if the anterior teeth occurred 100% the team behind them concluded even more than 100%

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                *occluded
                *teeth
                Autocorrect

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you want to learn more know that gums leave marks on the enamel of the crown, usually called an abfraction
                This line generally occurs above the cingulum if present and well above the cervical line

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                the schizo is probably whining about Greg Paul's take from several years back

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hyper focusing on the more derived monitor dental batteries
                The derived ones happen to be the most frequently used examples like here

                https://i.imgur.com/kYs4aBs.jpg

                >they need to be exposed while the mouth is open for them to function

                . My initial argument was in response to this being homologous to T.rex.
                That's what my "sperging" was about.
                I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether they had lips or not in the generalized sense that you're referring to. This is due to the lack of explicit evidence like there have been for feathers or scales.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >1
                Crocodilians live near riversides and are more likely to have their teeth worn down by sediment and small rocks. Testing this on Spinosaurus may yield interesting results.
                >2
                I agree with this but I'd also like to note that crocodilians don't have exceptionally massive teeth either.
                >3
                This obsession with foramina count is the most autistic part of the arguments surrounding this issue. I've seen people bring it up regardless of whether they are arguing for or against the presence of lips in dinosaurs. The truth is that it doesn't actually say much about it. Some animals such as certain fish and river dolphins don't have many foramina but are still lipless despite that. On the other hand, you have an entire group of amphibians with perforated, crocodile-like skulls (pic related) but they still have lips covering their teeth.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                thats not how fossilization works, because then you would see stress fractures on the fossil, not to mention the bones are LATERALLY compressed not vertically

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus christ, thanks for adding some common fricking sense to these threads and the field in general.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                If we can find some human with funky teeth, why wouldn't we find some T-Rex in the same case? Why some wouldn't just have the Jurassic Park teeth? Maybe not all but some. Because T-rexes didn't have braces.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It’s unlikely that the few animals fossilized would all preserve an unusual deformity.

                Not homology. T.rex has wear facets appearing on even the smallest teeth at the front which would have made the "toothless lizard" look impossible.

                My teeth have wear facets and I’ve got lips. I don’t find your argument compelling.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                My argument was that T.rex didn't have its teeth covered in gums like a monitor lizard.
                Are your teeth covered in gums like picrel?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes

                But I'm a lizard

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I thought the argument was about lips. That tegu's teeth erupt from his gums. So do monitor lizards. the flesh is just close to the color of the teeth so you don't notice. Do you not understand what monitor lizard mouths look like? Just because people claim there is homology and convergent evolution in the oral tissues doesn't mean that anyone's claiming that the dental batteries are identical.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                He cute

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've got a pile of leftover plywood in my garage that I periodically look at and think "I could make an 8x4x10 tree monitor enclosure out of this" but I don't have the space in my house for a cage that big, and I wouldn't want to go smaller.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The point is that excessive gum tissue like in monitor lizards is highly unlikely in an animal that had its small front teeth grinding against each other. A T.rex would be constantly pulverizing its own gum tissue whenever it opens and closes its mouth.
                The lizards on the other hand only have to really worry about gum damage when biting things.

                https://i.imgur.com/m4iFE9C.jpg

                By the way, Tegus like in your picture develop wear facets on their teeth because their teeth touch when they close their jaws.

                The tips touch but the teeth don't slide past one another like they did for many theropods.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                By the way, Tegus like in your picture develop wear facets on their teeth because their teeth touch when they close their jaws.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Lips are almost certainly not accurate on dinosaurs.
          There is a reason why the animals that have bareteeth all spent most of their time in the water.
          >Inb4 le innacurate sabretooth cat recreation

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're arguing with a Jurassic Park gay who literally never grew up

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Just saying "Jurassic Park" doesn't win you a paleontological debate. The models of the dinosaurs in that film were created back when anatomical rigor was still a thing. The only non-scientific details were KNOWN to be wrong (or were speculative) and were included in the movie for their own reasons, many based on the book, like the Dilophosaurus frill and small size or the chewing Brachiosaurs. Now "paleontologists" just make up bullshit not based on ANY fossil evidence, like neck balloons and fat dinosaurs and declare they've asserted absolute truth and you're an "-ist" if you disagree.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have screenshots of you admitting to believing the JP rex to be the most accurate, your stupidity is constantly documented here.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                It is. Take another one. The Jurassic Park T. rex (aside from the weirdly large feet) is FAR more accurate than anything engh or witton or any other paleotroony has illustrated.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Compare.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                To this. Now if you think this second one is more accurate than the first one, your brain is rotten mush.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Literally nobody says this thing is accurate since like 6 years ago. Engh is a legitimate tard stuck in 2015

                It is. Take another one. The Jurassic Park T. rex (aside from the weirdly large feet) is FAR more accurate than anything engh or witton or any other paleotroony has illustrated.

                >it accurate because IT JUST IZ, OK CHUD?!?! GAAAH
                Sure pal, whatever you say.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why isn't it accurate, oh critical theory israelite?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not spoon-feeding you lmao.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah that tracks. Now go slit your wrists and stop being a burden on the world.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for playing 🙂

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Explain how the first one is more accurate

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

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

                To this. Now if you think this second one is more accurate than the first one, your brain is rotten mush.

                Neither are accurate
                >BUT
                Cope

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Show us the accurate T. rex critcial theory-kun.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous
            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Cope.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for playing again, please insert 3 coins.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is a fricking moronic meme someone made up and now everyone endlessly repeats.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Homotherium's teeth could not be seen through their lips, Smilodon's could. Smilodon did not have jowls.

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