Will the debate be put to rest by this new "mummy" that Paul Sereno is preparing?
>It only took us going through 120 complete specimens until we found one with feathers>trust me bro
>>5162783That's literally how science works. You develop a model as close to the truth as possible until you find new information that conflicts with that model and you make a new one.
>Lawful Good: Peach fuzz like Prehistoric Planet's T.Rex>Lawful Neutral: Saurian T.Rex (pre-redesign) levels of feathering>Lawful Evil: Croc osteoderms like nearly every JW-era design not by Frontier
>>5162790So where have the feathers been this whole time? Hiding?>um, the science just evolvesThe past doesn't.
>>5162795They haven’t been fossilizing
>>5162773>did indeed possess integuments such as featherswhere was that made explicit? according to >>5162775 its all esoteric and up in the air currently, right?
>>5162773He's dangling the possibility before publication just like zanno dangled the possibility before publication and Larson dangled the possibility before publicationEvery single time they do this it turns out they found scales and no feathers
>>5162824>We found exciting new evidence regarding feathered integument in t. Rex that we're preparing to publish right nowT. Larson to an /an/ user named Daniel in 2017>This specimen is providing new insights into feathers in t. RecT. Zanno on her museum website in 2024In both cases the new information was that they didn't find feathers.
>>5162773Apparently he started talking about this fossil in 2012, a full 14 years ago. If it has feathers we would almost certainly have seen them by now. It doesn't take 14 years to prep and describe a fossil that groundbreaking, particularly since he described the skin 14 years ago.
>>5162773Crazy how many disney fags are stuck on featherless dinosaurs kek. Intellectuals recognize all dinosaurs were feathered. It is so obvious for people with high IQ.
My takeaway from this is that, as far as anyone knows, it could be a mosaic of skin, small scales, or even sparse feathers depending on the region of the body. Due to biomechanical/thermoregulatory needs I still think it's unlikely adults would've been extensively feathered.
>>5162879Extremely unlikely. Consider the fact that mesozoic earth was like 3-4 degrees celsius hotter than of today. An animal like a rex weighting over 5 tons and with a fast metabolism and almost surely endothermic would've had serious issues dissipating heat if it were covered in plumes. Feathers would've been absolutely useless for anything other than mating rituals. But I don't see why hatchlings couldn't have had them.
>>5162773>>5162775>no scales
>>5162933That means pigment cells might be preserved. We might find out what color T rex was.
>>5162935God i hope not because i just finished a clay T. rex i was working on for a month and gave it the WWD colors
>>5162879so are we just doing the meme where we are putting feathers in places where we know they dont have scales because we have skin impressions despite the fact that doesnt make any sense and seems more like a biological impossibility and are saying the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence again
>>5163039If there are no scales, there must have been feathers.Simple logic.
>>5163039No they're saying T. rex must have descended from feathered tyrannosauroids because THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY THEY COULD HAVE MISCLASSIFIED AN EXTINCT ANIMAL, THAT HAS NEVER EVER HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF PALEONTOLOGY. Despite the fact that classifications change every few months and the fact that T. rex doesn't have feathers is sufficient proof that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassified
>>5163045In fact we've seen a number of supposed tyrannosauroids reclassified as something else latelyIndicating the reason T. rex doesn't have feathers is probably because Tyrannosauroidea may be a bullshit taxon
>>5163047It's far more likely that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclasified than that tyrannosauroids had feathers and then lost them.This is not a great answer to anyone who supports Tyrannosauroidea, but facts don't care about scientists' feelings
>>5163048Of course scientists know this even if most of them won't say it out loud.So they're under pressure to either find proof of T. rex feathers or get rid of Tyrannosauroidea.
>>5163045Not only are they claiming T-Rex descended from feathered tyranosauroids, the claim is that feathers are a basal trait to all dinosaur groups. Saurischia AND Ornithischia.The fossils out of China are repeatedly "everything had feathers", and anything found outside of China is "mysteriously no feathers, I guess they lost them".
>>5163066Bit of a bold claim I will say. I'd say Ornithischians like Marginocephalians and Saurichians like advanced Theropods separately evolved hair-like coverings as did Pterosaurs evolved Pycnofibers, perhaps in higher Archosaurs there was a genetic predisposition for similar skin specialisations not unlike Therapsids.
>>5163322Also ignoring the fact that Tarbosaurus is found in China and is one of the common examples used to argue tyrannosaurids lack feathers.
>>5163325You are right actually. If china had a conspiracy to turn people gay by adding feathers to dinosaurs, you would expect them to feather up what is essentially their own T. rex
Nothing burger study
>>5162773> trex is warm blooded > needs feathers What?
>>5162795It's a juvenile so perhaps they lose them as they mature
>>5163583I swear if this shit turns out to be real it's going to be so funny
>>5163584I would die. That would be hilarious
>>5162773Welcome to things people knew 40 years ago.
>>5163329Doesn't that make sense actually? >grorious zhuchengtyrannus and tarbosaurus were noble dragons with scaled>capitalist degenerate american tyrannosaurus had feathers and was gay
>>5163582Which ectotherms have feathers?
>>5164084But their dragons have hair
>>5163583Isn’t this common knowledge 50 years ago?
>>5164268The first dinosaur feathers were found 30 years ago.Even then the idea of feathered dinosaurs didn't become common until the last 10 or 20 years
>>5164269>Am I a joke to you?
>>5164271That was considered a bird until very recently
>>5164272It was considered "the first bird", the missing link between dinosaurs and birds - which implies dinosaur.The reality is "feathered dinosaur" is not a new concept, nor was the dinosaur-bird connection. What's new is the idea is that feathers are basal.
>>5164275Yes just like humans descended from chimpanzees and are a species of chimpanzee but you'll spend weeks arguing that they're not.50 years ago evolution wasn't widely accepted as real by most people in the U.S., and even today it may not be.
>>5164281>humans descended from chimpanzeesThey're objectively not. That's an understanding of human evolution from the 19th century. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor five million years ago, but thereafter shared no relation.>are a species of chimpanzeeUhhh, no? Homo Sapiens != Pan troglodytes. They're in the Hominidae great ape family, but Humans are not a "species" of chimps. Chimps are a modern species, not the same species from five million years ago. They are not some relic population.>you'll spend weeks arguing that they're notno u, you'll spend weeks arguing basic scientific facts with babble about namefags.>50 years ago evolution wasn't widely accepted as real by most people in the U.S., and even today it may not be.That's the fault of Protestantism, not the scientific understanding of anything. You again reveal you know nothing about the subject.
>>5164287Anon asked if it was common knowledge 50 years ago.I don't think it's common knowledge even now. Most people have even less knowledge than you do, and you wouldn't pass biology 101
>>5164293>Anon asked if it was common knowledge 50 years ago.Archeopteryx was common knowledge 50 years ago. The argument that "common knowledge is whatever a southern evangelical believes" is absurd, even within the US.
>>5164308He was talking about juvenile T. rex having feathers.You have difficulty following conversations.
>>5162773>It seems that the T-rex did indeed possess integumentsNo, it doesn't. They (chincom troons) are searching for it like craaaaaayzies but haven't found anything yet.
>>5164457They did found integuments.Also, Paul Sereno has an interesting reputation. He and his teams apparently discover lots of things, but most of the stuff in his lab get brief, cursory descriptions that are almost never followed by lengthy, detailed descriptions, and he won't let anyone else in to study the specimens. That last bit is not atypical: scientists who deal with specimens often are proprietary about them until they're published, and rightfully so, but for many of the new taxa cursorily described Sereno thus far, such as Afrovenator and Jobaria, were published in the 1990s and haven't been detailed since. (Ostensible casts of some of them have been mounted in museums, though.) Yes, it can take awhile to study specimens and write them up, but Sereno seems to be much more the "travel to exotic places, dig 'em up, revel in the hype" kind of paleontologist. He is fully capable of writing good descriptions and doing the hard science, such as with Sinornis and (kind of) Aerosteon; he just doesn't for a lot of things.What does that say about his ostensibly scale-less Tyrannosaurus mummy? Nothing, really: it may exist, it may not, or it may exist but be something other than what he claims. It may sit undescribed in his lab forever. Personally, until it's described in a rigorous way, it might as well not exist at all, scientifically, just like an undiscovered specimen. It's a rumor at best and wishful thinking at worst. Should we depend on Sereno's reputation to uphold the validity of his claim? As others have said, it's very much "trust me, bro," and that's just not quality science.
>>5164275Birds are Dinosaurs, they lived among them for millions of years. If a Crisis kills all mammals except bats, you wouldnt call the surviving bats "descendants of mammals" or "rare hairy mammals". They were and are still just mammals.
>>5164488Integuments doesn’t mean feathers. If they find scales, they have found integument. They’ve been cockteasing people with this specimen for a decade, if it had feathers, they would have already published.
>>5164591Doesn't matter.If we agree that humans split from chimps then humans belong to any clade Pan. And since humans went back and hybridized repeatedly with their pancestors it's established fact.
>>5164596There's actually nothing to suggest humans even naturally evolved besides a massive amount of people who are desperate to believe they did>Humans split from pan because uh, comparative anatomy, and this partial skeleton sort of fits the agendaWe evolved more than any primate has in less time than most primates take to get slightly largerWe developed complex internal traits typical of entire LINEAGES of marine mammals in 2 million yearsSomeone was fucking around with primate DNA
>>5164605>The only well established instances of interbreeding between archaic hominids are all within Homo.You don't know this because the genetic record doesn't allow any more resolution thanModern chimps and modern humans both show proof that after splitting, their ancestors repeatedly went back and reproduced.This says nothing about how those ancestors would be classified and you're not smart enough to understand this fact
>>5163039>tyrannosaurida descend from feathered animals>most of these animals were feathered because, being small and endothermic, they would have needed insulation>tyrannosaurids would only exceed the size range of their feathered ancestors omly later on in their livesErgo, it stands to reason that immature individuals would retain some feathers
>>5163048>It's far more likely that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclasifiedProof?
>>5164272palaeontologists were pointing out its similarities to dinosaur fossils all the way in the 19th century, retarded schizo
>>5164712And then they stopped because they didn't want to offend creationists.And as of 50 years ago nobody was talking about feathered dinosaurs
>>5164711>Proof?Out of thousands of feathered species of animals we have 0 examples that evolved from feathered ancestors but don't have ANY feathers.Meanwhile we have thousands of examples of animals that were misclasifiedSomething that happened thousands of times is far more likely than something that has never happenedBy definition
>>5164711Now having proven that it's way more likely that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassified than that tyrannosaurids completely lost their feathers, this means that technically EITHER clade could be considered misclassified.Saying tyrannosauroids may be misclassified is THE SAME THING as saying tyrannosaurids may be misclassified.However tyrannosauroids are named for their ancestral relationship to tyrannosaurids. Meaning if tyrannosauroids are NOT ancestral to tyrannosaurids, it is tyrannosauroids that must be misclasified because tyrannosauroids are by definition ancestral to tyrannosaurids.Readers here aren't generally smart enough to understand this even after it's been explained. However paleontologists understand this innately even if most won't say it out loud.
>>5164801Since tyrannosaurids MUST HAVE HAD ANCESTORS, and those ancestors are called tyrannosauroids,If feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassified that just means they're not tyrannosauroids rather than that Tyrannosauroidea doesn't exist. The clade exists by definition, whether it contains feathered dinosaurs or not.
>>5164805The other alternative aside from misclassification of feathered tyrannosauroids or secondary loss of feathers in tyrannosaurids is:Feathers evolved independently in tyrannosauroids in a sister lineage to Tyrannosauridae.However feathers evolving multiple times is just as unlikely as feathers being completely lost. So we're right back to the proven fact that it's far more likely that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassified than that feathers evolved multiple times.
>>5164789>>5164801>>5164805>>5164808All of this can easily be resolved by finding a tyrannosaurid with feathers. Which so far nobody has done.Sereno is dropping hints that he found T. rex feathers, but if that were true he presumably would have published it over a decade ago.
>>5164813But to sum up, the current options are:1. Tyrannosaurids secondarily lost feathers2. A sister lineage to tyrannosaurids secondarily evolved feathers3. Tyrannosaurids had feathers and we just haven't found them yet4. Feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassifiedOf these 4, the last 2 are far more likely than the first 2. And given the amount of tyrannosaurid skin impressions out there, it seems more likely that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassified than that tyrannosaurids had feathers and we haven't found them yet. But any of the 4 are possible, even if some are very unlikely
>>5164818Now some scientists will argue that secondary loss of feathers isn't unlikely given the size of the animals and the warmth of their environments.However even they will agree that COMPLETE loss is unlikely and replacement with scales is even less likely. Meaning they still expect to find SOME feathers even if they're sparse or isolated in small patches. This could explain why we haven't found feathers, but unless there's some preservation bias favoring the fossilization of scales over feathers it's extremely unlikely that we would find dozens of skin impressions with scales and none with feathers. And generally speaking, scientists know this.
>>5164820This brings us around to Sereno and others that argue that there aren't any scales on tyrannosaur skin impressions.Whether this is true or not, it doesn't explain the lack of feathers. It would just make secondary loss somewhat more likely if scales weren't present.
>>5164821>It would just make secondary loss somewhat more likely if scales weren't presentThough the presence of scales does not by itself preclude feathers since there's a couple dinosaurs and thousands of birds that clearly have both scales and feathers, including some that have both in the same area.
>>5164824There's also the fact that bird scales are modified feathers, meaning secondary loss of feathers and evolution of scales could have happened in a single step which is far more likely than two separate steps.Though both options are still less likely than scales simply being ancestral
>>5164827>both options are still less likely than scales simply being ancestralAnd scales being ancestral and conserved rather than secondary would bring us right back to feathered tyrannosauroids probably being misclassified
>>5164832The problem /an/ has along with some scientists is trying to deduce unknown facts based on an unproven hypothesis rather than adjusting the hypothesis to fit the facts. To some extent this is how science works since you form a hypothesis, use it to make predictions, and then see if those predictions come true.But when none of your predictions come true you may need a new hypothesis. And the willingness to change opinions or consider multiple conflicting opinions is not common on 4chan even if it's normal in science. The facts currently indicate tyrannosaurs lacked feathers, and it's generally safer to attempt to explain those facts rather than deny them.
If I watch someone pull 56 straight red marbles out of a jar it's safer to assume the next marble is going to also be red even if the person tells me most of the marbles in the jar are white, or that they pulled a white marble but just don't want to show it to me yet.
>>5164836Human error or dishonesty is far more likely than a large sampling not being representative
>>5164837And of course Sereno isn't lying since integument JUST MEANS SKIN.It includes whatever is attached to that skin, but bare skin is also integument
>>5164840Sereno saying he found T. rex skin isn't surprisingNor is the internet mistakenly assuming skin must include feathers. This is a perfectly understandable mistake for uneducated plebians to make. OP doesn't know what integument means, and Sereno wasn't at all specific about it.
>>5164841>integumentAnd>integumentary structuresCould mean feathers or hairs or scales or osteoderms or just bare skin.Any type of skin is integument.
>>5164843This misunderstanding of technical jargon is exactly how scientists get funding and headlines. It's a bit dishonest but only the public is fooled
>>5164844Scientists know>I found T. rex integumentJust means>I found T. rex skinWhich isn't particularly exciting or noteworthy
>>5164845Unless of course that T. rex skin is different from the dozens of examples in museums and hundreds of examples in private collections.But that's extremely unlikely.
>>5164846And this is another important point that /an/ and the rest of the internet tends to ignore.T. rex skin is a fairly common fossil. The very first T. rex described in 1905 likely included skin that was misidentified or destroyed. Private collectors have been finding and selling purported T. rex skin since at least the 1930s and it can often be found for sale on eBay even now.So while it's relatively new and rare in scientific publications, there's presumably tons of T. rex skin out there even if we assume much of it may be misidentified
>>5164847People like to ignore the vast number of probable T. rex skin fossils in private collections because of course all of those fossils have scales, and none of them have feathers.
>>5164848Of course if a person could find fossilized dinosaur skin with feathers in North America that would make headlines and potentially sell for millions of dollars.Simply because out of the tens of thousands of dinosaur skin impressions found in North America, none of them had feathers.
>>5164850This is the trump card that American scientists know and the rest of the public is unaware of:There are hundreds if not thousands of T. rex skin fossils in existence that can't be published because they were removed from their original context,and none of them have feathers
>>5164851So even if fossils in private collections are useless to science, they do tell us something about the likelihood of T. rex having feathers.Even if we assume 90% of the rex skin fossils in private collections are misidentified, there's still an enormous body of unpublished data confirming T. rex lacked feathers, and we're never going to find any.
>>5164857This is all new information to science and the general public,but fossil collectors have known T. rex didn't have feathers for literally 100 years now.
>>5164857And this is simply because of the legal peculiarities of the United States, where the general public has far more legal access to dinosaur fossils than scientists do.
>>5164861Of course the internet rightly ignores any fossils that aren't published. But that leaves a huge blind spot since probably 99% of T. rex fossils are in private collections when you count things like teeth and skin and individual bones and fragments.Teeth alone account for thousands of T. rex individuals in private collections. It's probably fair to say many private fossil collectors and dealers know more about T. rex than most scientists do.
>>5164864But a wise scientist knows this and pays attention to the commercial fossil markets. You watch eBay and auction houses, not necessarily looking for new discoveries, but because even common finds represent data, however tentative or unpublishable. A lot of stuff that's common knowledge among collectors has never been scientifically verified or published
>>5164865Anyways, tl;dr:Integument just means skin and whatever is attached to it.Bare skin is also integumentGiven the dozens of skin impressions in museums and potentially hundreds in private collections it's absurdly unlikely that Sereno found Tyrannosaurus feathers, or that Tyrannosaurus ever had feathers to find
>>5164873OPs misunderstanding->integument=feathersIs one of the errors I use to track paleoschizo. He's the only person that says "integument" regularly and he always uses it incorrectly to mean exclusively feathersI don't mind giving up some of his tells though. He makes dozens of similar errors.But OP, don't you find it interesting that you've been using the word "integument" incorrectly on /an/ for years and everyone saw you doing it and didn't bother to correct you?I think that probably says something about the number of posters here when everyone on the board agrees with your wrong use of words
>>5165131I mean if you have 3 different anons talking to each other, and they're all using the same wrong definition of "integument," there's a solid chance that's just one anon talking to himself
>>5165132I only corrected the misuse itt because OP said>integuments such as feathersIndicating he has learned the word doesn't exclusively mean feathers,And another anon advised him that scales are also integument.OP was very close to figuring out what the word actually means after countless years of using it incorrectly
>>5165226Just like the cat vs. dog posters would never make the same mistakes about toxoplasma infection because that would mean both sides of the argument were probably the same personThat would be crazy
>>5165231The alternative is isolated 4chan headcannon where you get several retards arguing with each other and one of them says something that's incorrect. Then the others fail to check the incorrect statement and carry on assuming it's true. Eventually the entire board agrees on some very dumb and wrong ideas that any outsider would instantly spot and comment on.But the end result is the same. You get a board that appears to be dominated by one schizophrenic asshole because everyone on the board agrees on the same wrong things
>>5165226It's also possible that paleoschizo is smart enough to realize Sereno did NOT find feathers and never said he did. Making this a useful straw man.>Sereno teases feathers>eventually admits it WASN'T feathers>epic win for the scalies>????>profitBut maybe that's giving him too much credit for strategic thought
>>5165245This one's doubtful because if Sereno has been teasing this "discovery" for 14 years there's no real reason to think he'll ever publish it
>>5165247The most obvious reason not to publish it is because it's not the revolutionary find he's hinting at. He's built it up so far it's guaranteed to disappoint
>>5162791>>5162828Shut up, Trey.
and for another culture shock for /an/:https://www.science.org/content/article/giant-sauropod-dinosaurs-may-have-sported-turtlelike-beaks?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
>>5165368This one has to be taken with a huge grain of salt since the paper hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, it's currently at "source: trust me bro" levels of plausibility.
>>5162795Three possibilities: 1) ever seen fossilised hair? No? That's why. Feathers are more likely to fossilise than hair but less likely than scale and much much much less likely than bone. 2) we don't know just how feathered things were. Were they covered like most modern birds? Sparsely feathered, like an ostrich? Completely feathered like flying birds? Somewhere in between like the vulterine guinea fowl? And3) as Anon said, we don't know if they had feathers at some developmental stages but not others, like how younger birds have down but older birds do not, in stark contrast to your Downs which is omnipresent and a burden to your family. All this said, I'm not convinced all dinosaurs were feathered. Certainly, some were and some weren't. I don't see how this is a controversial point of view.
>>5164488Does this dude with his dye job and jewelry clutching this hunk of rock he found like it's something that belongs to him look trustworthy to anyone?
>>5163066>The fossils out of China are repeatedly "everything had feathers", and anything found outside of China is "mysteriously no feathers, I guess they lost them".Simple misunderstanding of how fossilisation works.The reason we're finding fossils in China and practically nowhere else with preserved soft tissue, like skin and feathers, is because of Lagerstätten.See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tteWe've known about archaeopteryxes (is that the plural? I'm getting red squigglies under that) since, like, 1860 or something, but it took finding the incredibly fine siltstone Lagerstätten beds in Liaoning in the 1990s to finally see the feathers on distinct, ground-dwelling theropods. T Rex is a theropod. Sauropods and iforgotopods absolutely lacked feathers and had scales.>the claim is that feathers are a basal trait to all dinosaur groups.Now, as I said already, I remain unconvinced that all theropods had feathers and I'm not sure anyone in paleontology is arguing that point, anyway but it's plainly evident that sauropods and iforgetopods did not have them.
>>5165571Of course not. He's "Italian" American. I wouldn't trust anyone who can't pronounce his own surname and certainly not one descended of the poor, gypsy-like wretches of the south of Italy.
>>5165573The " feathers are basal, all dinosaurs had feathers" anon is just ragebait on roughly the same level as "all Chinese fossils are fake." And in fact both extremes may be the same person.If not, they've both been here roughly the same amount of time, they argue with each other constantly, and neither of them knows what " integument" means.But perhaps you already know this.
>>5165599>perhaps you already know thisNope. >>5165573 and >>5165567 were my first ever posts in a dinosaur thread. I'm far from some paleo expert but reading through this thread, I was just like "it seems pretty obvious to me that such and such and so on and so forth" so I looked it up, confirmed what I thought was obvious only seemed that way because of Occam's razor and posted here. The only time I've ever posted in a thread and been wrong or underresearched is when I thought dogs were descended from a non-wolf canid species and not a direct wolf descendant, like humans are descended of a non gorilla/bonobo/chimp/etc ape species but not directly descended from any of those (or any other) extant apes.
>>5165606Sure sure. Lots of new posters in every thread, they just all mysteriously believe the same questionable /an/ platitudes and oversimplifcations with aggressive certainty.It's a mystery for sure.
>>5165606The problem with your lagerstatten explanation is1. Any sediment that preserves details of the skin should preserve imprints of feathersand2. Even if for some unknown reason skin was preserved while feathers magically weren't, the skin itself would show evidence of where the feathers attached. A plucked chicken still shows obvious signs on the skin where the feathers attached.
>>5165609What are you even on about? What platitudes have I given you? Are you quite alright? >>5165610I guess? As said, I'm no expert so if that's the case, then neat. I'm not married to feathered nor featherless dinosaurs. I don't care much one way nor the other. I merely gave an explanation of why it might be plausible, why feathers aren't found everywhere and why they're found in China specifically. If that's all wrong, then okay. My jimmies remain unrustled either way.
>>5165620The beauty of /an/ headcannon is that as long as you never leave the board you'll never know which things are wrong.You're free to believe whatever you want, and you'll never once suspect it isn't true.
>>5165636That's nice. : )
>>5165637It's fabulous. A little creationist hugbox and echo chamber.It's a bit weird that most of the bullshit here is over a decade old z but that's because the one or two people that post here haven't turned over in more than a decade.
>>5165639Oh, is that so?
>>5165606>like humans are descended of a non gorilla/bonobo/chimp/etc ape species but not directly descended from any of those (or any other) extant apesThe guy youre talking to was literally posting about how humans come from chimps in this thread. He's a schizophrenic himself, don't bother engaging
>>5165661Just like dogs didn't descend from any modern wolf but genetics proves they descended from an ancestor that would be classified as a wolf if it was still aliveOr birds didn't descend from any known maniraptoran but they shared an ancestor that's classified as a maniraptoranThis doesn't bother you tards when it's dogs or birds but you throw a fit when the exact same situation exists with humans
>>5165661I never said humans descended from modern chimps.I said the mrca of humans and chimps would be classified as a chimp.And that's because:1. Chimps apparently existed before the human split2. Human ancestors went back and mated with chimp ancestors after the split3. Chimps are much closer to the basal condition than humans are4. All organisms belong to the clade of their ancestorsThis indicates that the mrca of chimps and humans would be classified as a chimp, placing humans in any clade Pan
>>5165661Now I agree that scientists are reluctant to place humans in a clade named for Pan and that has a lot to do with creationism and funding. But I've yet to meet a scientist from any discipline that considers Pan to be descendants of a human lineage, or that claims chimps are more derived morphologically.They fall back on the same stupid platitudes you do-The 2 branches are equally temporally derived and the common ancestor was neither human nor chimpA special pleading we don't apply to dogs or birds or literally any clade aside from humansYou aren't smart enough to understand this. It's crazy talk.
>>5165667Out of the nearly infinite number of possible clades across all animals and life in general,humans are the ONLY clade where the mrca is NOT named for the ancestral condition.And that says something about how we treat our understanding of evolution, and human evolution specifically.
>>5165669The fact that /an/ rabidly defends a 1950's style rejection of cladistics IN THE CASE OF HUMANS ONLY is interesting information. Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur? No problem. Dogs are wolves? That's fine.But don't you dare suggest humans are chimps, even if genetics proves our ancestors literally descended from them, split from them, and repeatedly went back and mated with them.
>>5165667>You aren't smart enough to understand thisSays the lady who keeps using the word platitude with zero understanding of what it means. But I'm sure you mean well. >^^^^that was a platitude^^^^
>>5165672You could reason that the mrca of humans and chimps remains unclassified because we haven't found it yet.But aside from contiguous clades such as ring species or chronospecies,THE MRCAs OF ALL CLADES HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND. Meaning humans are the ONLY clade where scientists refuse to classify the mrca to the ancestral condition because it hasn't been found.
Speaking of feathers I went to the edelman fossil museum in NJ and they designed the dryptosaurus model with fluffy feathered elbows/lower arms but bare skinned everywhere else which I thought was an odd choice, they had great looking models otherwise
>>5165674Zing!I'm using it loosely just like we're using loose terms like"chimp" and "wolf" and"dog"
>>5165676Interesting choice since tyrannosaurs are one of the few theropod groups that DON'T have bird wrists
>>5165674Specifically I call it a platitude because it's a lie to protect the feelings of creationists and other morons that can't handle the idea that humans aren't special
>>5165682>I DINT EVOLVED FROM NO CHIMP!You're absolutely right Bubba, you didn't evolve from (modern) chimps>MUH ANTCESTURRS WEREN'T CHIMPS!!Right again Bubba! We haven't found that ancestors so we don't call it a chimpBullshit for dumb people
>>5165663>Just like dogs didn't descend from any modern wolf but genetics proves they descended from an ancestor that would be classified as a wolf if it was still aliveCongrats, you just repeated what I told >>5165606 in that thread>>5165664>1. Chimps apparently existed before the human split>2. Human ancestors went back and mated with chimp ancestors after the splitAs i said before there is literally no evidence for either of these, genetic or fossil. The only well established interbreeding occurred within late Homo species. There is nothing to suggest interbreeding between the human and chimp lineages>3. Chimps are much closer to the basal condition than humans areNothing to support this either. This is just a long held assumption. The existence of bipedal species like Orrorin tugenensis that were present around the time of the Pan/Homo split might even suggest the opposite is true, but even that isn't much to go on>4. All organisms belong to the clade of their ancestorsThey do, but again you're assuming that chimps are the ancestor when there is absolutey nothing to suggest so>>5165667No paleoanthropologist claims anything about chimps being more derived or chimps being descended from any particular lineage because their fossil record is almost non existent. They aren't avoiding making claims because of creationism, they're avoiding making claims because any claim would just be speculation in the absence of fossil material. Yet here you are completely confident in your claims that have no support. Funny that
>>5165687I think you missed some not so recent science on the topic. Give me a couple minutes to go get laid and have a smoke and I'll post what I'm talking about.
>>5165682That's nice, sweetie. Where did anyone tell a lie to protect the feelings of creationists ITT, pray tell? Since you said that "[scientists] fall back on the same stupid platitudes [Anon does]" and you followed it up with that claim about creationists, certainly you can point out where that occurred. Otherwise, no sweetheart: you don't know what a platitude is. But you're trying your best, bless your little heart. : )
>>5165691Then why are humans the ONLY clade out of millions NOT named for the (hypothetical) ancestral condition?And the ONLY clade out of millions that users here will spend months arguing about?
>>5165691My girl says this is a stupid argument. She's right. Give me 4 minutes.
>>5165688Kek I asked for your proof days ago and nothing. I know your narcissism doesn't allow you to believe thay you're not an expert on everything but you really should try researching these things first
>>5165693Oh dear. Sweetheart, no. That wasn't the assignment, was it, kiddo? Point out where someone is defending creationists or lying to protect their feelings, sweetie. Go on. >>5165695You're awfully feminine for a lesbian.
>>5165687https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1794591/>>5165697Nothing said here is OCI say something one scientist published and others answer with things other scientists publishedThe lies aren't original to 4chan, nobody here is that smart. I'm not that smart.
>>5165698That's nice, sweetie, but wholly irrelevant to the assignment. Try again, kiddo. Point to where anyone in this thread defended creationists or creationism or lied to protect their feelings. If you can't (and it's increasingly apparent that this is the case), then you were simply using a word (platitude) incorrectly.So let's see it, sweetheart. Point out the lie in this thread that someone told to protect creationists.
>>5165699Check>humans didn't evolve from chimps>human ancestors didn't mate with chimp ancestorsOne is a lie, the other is a twisting of words to mislead (technically true but misleading)
>>5165701Sweetie, that wasn't the assignment. Surely, your very big, smart brain can link it ITT, can't it?
>>51657023/4 of this thread is just me talking to myselfDoing your job for you really
>>5165703Still failing that assignment. You did not do well in your classes, eh Skippy?
>>5165696>Kek I asked for your proof days ago and nothingI get busy with stuff sometimes and have to step away. Sorry I left you hanging but I didn't see the request
>>5165704It's the SQUARE-CUBE LAWnot the square root law.And it doesn't really explain why T. rex arms were so small
I'm such an asshole.But this is the only board truly built in my image and I don't hate thatSereno didn't find T. rex feathers, that's silly
>>5165698This study says nothing about Pan being the ancestor of Homo nor does it say that chimps existed prior to the human/chimp split. It doesn't even say Homo and Pan interbred, all it says is that the ancestors of each interbred very early on following their split. That doesn't mean the MRCA of humans and chimps was a chimp.Also this study is 20 years old, its so out of date it even mentions an "apparent lack of hybridization" between modern humans and neadnerthals. If you read anything after 2006 you would've found that incomplete lineage sorting might be responsible for some of the perceived admixture, and what is the result of interbreeding isn't even unique to chimps since the same has been found for gorillas. But that doesn't mean gorillas are the ancestors of either chimps nor humans
>>5165712The accuracy and veracity wasn't really my point of interest.I was more curious that I have read it and you apparently had not.Granted I'm a million years older than you and was actually studying vertebrate evolution when this came out, but it was and still is pretty big news
>>5165712Regarding your criticisms,I'd have to go back and check but I think you're just repeating criticisms the authors themselves stated in the review I linked.Which are noted and undoubtedly true, but didn't really change the outcome.I purposefully cited a critical review rather than the original white paperFront running your argumentThough you did a nice job of reading and summarising
>>5165715>The accuracy and veracity wasn't really my point of interestIt never is. That's why you make these mistakes so often>I was more curious that I have read it and you apparently had not.I understand that your narcissism doesn't allow you to acknowledge when you're wrong, but you should realise that you're doing it again>being 20 years behind on the field makes me smart actuallylol
>>5165718The main criticism is that it doesn't suggest anything about Pan being ancestral to Homo, genius. So I'm still waiting to hear why you so vehemently believe so
>>5165719The reason you take decades to learn anything is because you only learn from arguing on /an/ and even then only when you argue with meYour knowledge is strictly limited by my willingness to debate you
>>5165721>Your knowledge is strictly limited by my willingness to debate youAnd your inability to follow the assignment I gave you, sweetie. Still waiting for that point out of where anyone defended creationism. >>5165719Just call her a silly little girl, ask her what her favourite dolly is today and send her on her way.
>>5165724I left a mark that lasted 15 yearsYou'll probably still be showing off your scars 20 years after I'm dead.. Gratifying
>>5165721>Your knowledge is strictly limited by my willingness to debate youYour usual go to when you find out you were wrong>>5165725See this is why I call you a schizo. I haven't been posting here for half that long and I'm certain >>5165724 is a newfag. I'm not sure you're in any position to talk about scars when you always jump to believing anyone who responds is your imaginary online enemy
>>5165725Still not seeing any link to any post anywhere where anyone claimed anything that sounded anything like a defense of creationism or a lie to protect it. Why not?
>>5165727Considering I take entire years off from talking to you guys the simple fact that you recognize me is tellingThere are no newfags here. That's why your board is dying
>>5165727Not a newfag. Just new to the dinosaur threads. I stick mostly to the webm threads.Anything else you'd like to be wrong about today?
>>5165731Newfag
>>5165573>I remain unconvinced that all theropods had feathers and I'm not sure anyone in paleontology is arguing that pointTheropods like Carnotaurus are already agreed to be scaly so you're correct on that point.
>>5165773T. rex is agreed to be scaled for exactly the same reasons
>>5165573>IforgetapodsLarge ornithopods? I remember seeing art on here a while ago of a furry looking parasaurolophus and it looked so off
