He's right, you know. Inbreeding is bad for societies and ecosystems alike. You don't want everyone to be the same standard issue retard 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.
Do you apply the same logic to all ancient historical documents?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.
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.
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.
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.
"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 fucking lizard that breathed fire), and it is important to not think ancient peoples were stupid.
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.
Or noticing that every single religion on earth says the same basic things >anything but penis in vagina 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 fucking 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.
>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!?
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.
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"?
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.
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
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?
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
>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.
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.
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
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.
>Dude featherfags 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 featherfags are not annoying then and contrarians are just making up things to be mad about, as usual
Lol. Modern "science" is a cartoon of what modern retards think science used to look like. Alligators can't make feathers no matter what you do to them.
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.
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
3 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.
3 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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
This still doesn't explain away the longest upper teeth reaching the bottom of the mandible or exceeding it, however.
3 months ago
Anonymous
No, they can not, that’s a skull in an anatomically impossible position retard
They also have no wear indicators of liplessness.
You also don’t seem to understand that they had lizard lips, not mammal lips.
3 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.
3 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
3 months ago
Anonymous
That first image is not breaking bones. This is like the nufag 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?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Oh look an uneducated man
3 months ago
Anonymous
>That first image is not breaking bones.
lol, shooting yourself in the foot right out of the gate huh
3 months ago
Anonymous
It is breaking bones
Did you know T rex needs not just functional jaw pivots but connective tissue?
3 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.
3 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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Well they're already fucking 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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>they need to be exposed while the mouth is open for them to function
3 months ago
Anonymous
For the final time: THEROPODS ARE NOT VARANIDS.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>NO! STOP SHOWING ME HOMOLOGY
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's not homology, you fucking 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 retard and I really don't care about individual artistic interpretations that much since they are usually dramatized
And stop double replying. It's fucking annoying.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>everyone is the same person
schizo confirmed
3 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.
3 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 retard and I really don't care about individual artistic interpretations that much since they are usually dramatized
3 months ago
Anonymous
How does that work anyway? how do they use their teeth if they are buried deep in their gums?
3 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
3 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.
3 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.
3 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
3 months ago
Anonymous
It absolutely IS in dinosaurs. It's not in a lot of reptiles because they're not thecodonts outside of crocodilians.
3 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
3 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 fucking retarded?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Enjoy your gumline headcannon.
As long as you ignore facts nothing you think will ever matter to anyone but you.
3 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.
3 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
3 months ago
Anonymous
Are you seriously arguing with basic mammalian oral anatomy? Why??
3 months ago
Anonymous
Your picture shows the neck (cervix) well below the gumline
3 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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
On a 10mn tooth crown a difference of 3mm is 30%, not negligable
Why do you suck at math?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>3 mm >Calls others bad at math >Can't measure
Stupid garden gnome whore. 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 whore are both such incredible time wasters. You both HAVE to be garden gnomes. You two should engage in a murder suicide.
3 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
3 months ago
Anonymous
>It's not my job to educate you, sweaty
Damn you think you're a lot younger than you are.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Thanks for playing 🙂
Please insert 3 coins to continue
3 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?
3 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%
3 months ago
Anonymous
*occluded
*teeth
Autocorrect
3 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
3 months ago
Anonymous
the schizo is probably whining about Greg Paul's take from several years back
3 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.
3 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.
3 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
3 months ago
Anonymous
Jesus christ, thanks for adding some common fucking sense to these threads and the field in general.
3 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.
3 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.
3 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?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yes
But I'm a lizard
3 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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
He cute
3 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.
3 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.
3 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.
>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
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.
3 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.
3 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 paleochud has illustrated.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Compare.
3 months ago
Anonymous
To this. Now if you think this second one is more accurate than the first one, your brain is rotten mush.
3 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 paleochud has illustrated.
>it accurate because IT JUST IZ, OK CHUD?!?! GAAAH
Sure pal, whatever you say.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Why isn't it accurate, oh critical theory garden gnome?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not spoon-feeding you lmao.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah that tracks. Now go slit your wrists and stop being a burden on the world.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Thanks for playing 🙂
3 months ago
Anonymous
Explain how the first one is more accurate
3 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.
He's right, you know. Inbreeding is bad for societies and ecosystems alike. You don't want everyone to be the same standard issue retard 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.
So the different races should kill and eat each other?
WTF? I love diversity now.
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.
Stegosaurus
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.
or maybe, feathered theropods evolved in that area. china is very large.
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.
>they never radiated outwards at any point
Feathered dinosaurs have also been found in Europe like Sciurumimus and Juravenator.
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.
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.
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)
English translation is not 1:1 with the original Hebrew translation
"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 fucking lizard that breathed fire), and it is important to not think ancient peoples were stupid.
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.
Or noticing that every single religion on earth says the same basic things
>anything but penis in vagina 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.
yeah, primal is a documentary
Both are sick (I just like dinosaurs)
Finally, an actually good post
>You have no gas chambers, you have no mass assassination plots, you have no political power.
So far.
So far = never-ever
Why even live
The end is closer than you think.
>Diablo vs Sauron
Blizzard
Chad scaly skin that’s strong enough to stop tank shells
RETVRN TO TRADITION
>ironically might be more realistic than the skinny fast turbo-predators of yesteryear
time is a circle
Now all we need is the return of the taildragging posture
enough schizophrenia and autism on Wauf to make Mike Milbourne and David Peters blush
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:
, you've actually contributed a great deal with these three pictures.
Butterfly lizards are so bad ass.
The fire breathing one.
What lizard is this?
Diporiphora magna
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.
How would the beak factor into this? when does the beak even begin?
>when does the beak even begin?
My partial reconstruction of soft tissue. Yes, I strongly believe Ornithischians had cheek muscles similar to the buccinator.
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)
Add it to the list of shit that is painfully obvious that modern "paleontologists" are "too clever" for.
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.
on the right side of history
what is this showing?
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 fucking 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.
Ave hug
>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!?
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.
MODS MODS MODS
So you're going with every single theropod skull found with the mouth totally closed has "been crushed"?
>buried animal is in unnatural position
No really?
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.
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
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.
>FROGPOST DETECTED
>Running Analytics...
>System has found...
>REDDITOR
>Response Protocal: Treat Like Woman
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
>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.
I think tyrannosaurs are pretty cool
Trex would have no reason to have feather.
Even if it did they would be downy, not the kind meant for flight.
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! Fucking digs! Reee” for a few posts
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.
You talk like reddit.
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.
Right but with lips and more musculature. AKA reality.
T. rex wasn’t in the feathered theropod lineage no matter how much couldntfigureoutrealscience fags fuck it up
Granblue already settled this; Beta won.
they're both cool tyra tyra tyra
Holy kino design
I like feathers.
>when the T. rex is accurate
>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!"
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
>I'm gonna ignore your anti-british conspiracy and keep insisting the Piltdown Man is legitimate
I don't think she has enough IQ points to get this comment.
All those "scales" look really and a proper taphonomical analysis would be needed
feathered rexes are a meme, the theory was put to bed awhile ago
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.
whichever side has lips
The one with factual evidence so the one with scales
The side supported by direct evidence (scales)
I'm not on anybodys side because nobody is on my side.
I'm on the paleontologically accurate side.
This. I don't care about feathers or not, I like both.
That's not the paleontologically accurate side. That's the anti-science side.
>
Nah, Featherfags are annoying.
https://twitter.com/AMNH/status/777877424444809219
Feathers on T. rex aren't accurate, dipshit. Also, why the fuck would Effigia have feathers? It's not even a fucking dinosaur.
That whole joke on so call science, whining moron.
>Dude featherfags 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 featherfags are not annoying then and contrarians are just making up things to be mad about, as usual
Oh no no no! How?
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-modern-genomics-alligator-scales-birdlike.html
Lol. Modern "science" is a cartoon of what modern retards think science used to look like. Alligators can't make feathers no matter what you do to them.
So why Alligators meat taste chicken-turkey recipe?
Do they?
That looks like a real animal
So right then?
Yep.
Lips are almost certainly not accurate on dinosaurs.
No actual scientist believes in feathered baby theropods and scaly adults. Actual scientists understand why this is literally impossible.
>Lips are almost certainly not accurate on dinosaurs
Do you have a single fact to back it up
Yeah, the skull and tooth architecture. Ornithischians had cheek pouches, but no dinosaur has lips fully covering the teeth.
What?
>brainlet
Well I'm convinced. Consider all of my views changed. I'm a new man!
>the skull and tooth architecture
in what why?
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:
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
- 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.
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.
This still doesn't explain away the longest upper teeth reaching the bottom of the mandible or exceeding it, however.
No, they can not, that’s a skull in an anatomically impossible position retard
They also have no wear indicators of liplessness.
You also don’t seem to understand that they had lizard lips, not mammal lips.
>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.
>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
That first image is not breaking bones. This is like the nufag 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?
Oh look an uneducated man
>That first image is not breaking bones.
lol, shooting yourself in the foot right out of the gate huh
It is breaking bones
Did you know T rex needs not just functional jaw pivots but connective tissue?
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.
>View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Buy the articles for me and I'll tell you.
Well they're already fucking 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.
>they need to be exposed while the mouth is open for them to function
For the final time: THEROPODS ARE NOT VARANIDS.
>NO! STOP SHOWING ME HOMOLOGY
It's not homology, you fucking idiot. Stop using words you don't understand.
And stop double replying. It's fucking annoying.
>everyone is the same person
schizo confirmed
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.
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 retard and I really don't care about individual artistic interpretations that much since they are usually dramatized
How does that work anyway? how do they use their teeth if they are buried deep in their gums?
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
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 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
, 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.
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.
I've told you before, where the crown meets the root- the dental cervix- isn't the gumline in dinosaurs or most animals
It absolutely IS in dinosaurs. It's not in a lot of reptiles because they're not thecodonts outside of crocodilians.
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
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 fucking retarded?
Enjoy your gumline headcannon.
As long as you ignore facts nothing you think will ever matter to anyone but you.
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.
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
Are you seriously arguing with basic mammalian oral anatomy? Why??
Your picture shows the neck (cervix) well below the gumline
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.
On a 10mn tooth crown a difference of 3mm is 30%, not negligable
Why do you suck at math?
>3 mm
>Calls others bad at math
>Can't measure
Stupid garden gnome whore. 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.
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 whore are both such incredible time wasters. You both HAVE to be garden gnomes. You two should engage in a murder suicide.
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
>It's not my job to educate you, sweaty
Damn you think you're a lot younger than you are.
Thanks for playing 🙂
Please insert 3 coins to continue
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?
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%
*occluded
*teeth
Autocorrect
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
the schizo is probably whining about Greg Paul's take from several years back
>hyper focusing on the more derived monitor dental batteries
The derived ones happen to be the most frequently used examples like here
. 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.
>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.
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
Jesus christ, thanks for adding some common fucking sense to these threads and the field in general.
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.
It’s unlikely that the few animals fossilized would all preserve an unusual deformity.
My teeth have wear facets and I’ve got lips. I don’t find your argument compelling.
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?
Yes
But I'm a lizard
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.
He cute
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.
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.
By the way, Tegus like in your picture develop wear facets on their teeth because their teeth touch when they close their jaws.
>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
You're arguing with a Jurassic Park fag who literally never grew up
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.
I have screenshots of you admitting to believing the JP rex to be the most accurate, your stupidity is constantly documented here.
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 paleochud has illustrated.
Compare.
To this. Now if you think this second one is more accurate than the first one, your brain is rotten mush.
Literally nobody says this thing is accurate since like 6 years ago. Engh is a legitimate tard stuck in 2015
>it accurate because IT JUST IZ, OK CHUD?!?! GAAAH
Sure pal, whatever you say.
Why isn't it accurate, oh critical theory garden gnome?
Not spoon-feeding you lmao.
Yeah that tracks. Now go slit your wrists and stop being a burden on the world.
Thanks for playing 🙂
Explain how the first one is more accurate
Neither are accurate
>BUT
Cope
Show us the accurate T. rex critcial theory-kun.
Cope.
Thanks for playing again, please insert 3 coins.
This is a fucking retarded meme someone made up and now everyone endlessly repeats.
Homotherium's teeth could not be seen through their lips, Smilodon's could. Smilodon did not have jowls.