>It only took us going through 120 complete specimens until we found one with feathers
>trust me bro

>>5162783
That'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

>>5162790
So where have the feathers been this whole time? Hiding?
>um, the science just evolves
The past doesn't.

>>5162795
They haven’t been fossilizing

>>5162773
>did indeed possess integuments such as feathers
where was that made explicit? according to >>5162775 its all esoteric and up in the air currently, right?

>>5162773
He's dangling the possibility before publication just like zanno dangled the possibility before publication and Larson dangled the possibility before publication

Every 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 now
T. Larson to an /an/ user named Daniel in 2017

>This specimen is providing new insights into feathers in t. Rec
T. Zanno on her museum website in 2024

In both cases the new information was that they didn't find feathers.

>>5162773
Apparently 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.

>>5162773
Crazy 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.

>>5162879
Extremely 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.

File: trexserenoblusky.png (90 KB, 758x397)

90 KB PNG

>>5162773
>>5162775
>no scales

>>5162933
That means pigment cells might be preserved. We might find out what color T rex was.

>>5162935
God i hope not because i just finished a clay T. rex i was working on for a month and gave it the WWD colors

>>5162879
so 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

>>5163039
If there are no scales, there must have been feathers.
Simple logic.

>>5163039
No 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

>>5163045
In fact we've seen a number of supposed tyrannosauroids reclassified as something else lately
Indicating the reason T. rex doesn't have feathers is probably because Tyrannosauroidea may be a bullshit taxon

>>5163047
It'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

>>5163048
Of 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.

>>5163045
Not 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".

>>5163066
Bit 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.

>>5163322
Also ignoring the fact that Tarbosaurus is found in China and is one of the common examples used to argue tyrannosaurids lack feathers.

>>5163325
You 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?

>>5162795
It's a juvenile so perhaps they lose them as they mature

>>5163583
I swear if this shit turns out to be real it's going to be so funny

>>5163584
I would die. That would be hilarious

>>5162773
Welcome to things people knew 40 years ago.

>>5163329
Doesn't that make sense actually?
>grorious zhuchengtyrannus and tarbosaurus were noble dragons with scaled
>capitalist degenerate american tyrannosaurus had feathers and was gay

>>5163582
Which ectotherms have feathers?

>>5164084
But their dragons have hair

>>5163583
Isn’t this common knowledge 50 years ago?

>>5164268
The 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

File: Archaeopteryx-fossil-850x562.jpg (97 KB, 850x562)

97 KB JPG

>>5164269
>Am I a joke to you?

>>5164271
That was considered a bird until very recently

>>5164272
It 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.

>>5164275
Yes 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 chimpanzees
They'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 chimpanzee
Uhhh, 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 not
no 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.

>>5164287
Anon 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.

>>5164308
He was talking about juvenile T. rex having feathers.

You have difficulty following conversations.

>>5162773
>It seems that the T-rex did indeed possess integuments
No, it doesn't. They (chincom troons) are searching for it like craaaaaayzies but haven't found anything yet.

File: 44ff18e16a4ad490fc6131664(...).jpg (289 KB, 1280x853)

289 KB JPG

>>5164457
They 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.

>>5164275
Birds 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.

>>5164488
Integuments 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.

>>5164591
Doesn'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.

>>5164596
There'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 agenda
We evolved more than any primate has in less time than most primates take to get slightly larger
We developed complex internal traits typical of entire LINEAGES of marine mammals in 2 million years
Someone 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 than

Modern 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 lives
Ergo, it stands to reason that immature individuals would retain some feathers

>>5163048
>It's far more likely that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclasified
Proof?

>>5164272
palaeontologists were pointing out its similarities to dinosaur fossils all the way in the 19th century, retarded schizo

>>5164712
And 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 misclasified

Something that happened thousands of times is far more likely than something that has never happened

By definition

>>5164711
Now 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.

>>5164801
Since 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.

>>5164805
The 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
>>5164808
All 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.

>>5164813
But to sum up, the current options are:
1. Tyrannosaurids secondarily lost feathers
2. A sister lineage to tyrannosaurids secondarily evolved feathers
3. Tyrannosaurids had feathers and we just haven't found them yet
4. Feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassified

Of 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

>>5164818
Now 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.

>>5164820
This 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 present
Though 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.

>>5164824
There'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 ancestral
And scales being ancestral and conserved rather than secondary would bring us right back to feathered tyrannosauroids probably being misclassified

>>5164832
The 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.

>>5164836
Human error or dishonesty is far more likely than a large sampling not being representative

>>5164837
And 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

>>5164840
Sereno saying he found T. rex skin isn't surprising

Nor 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
>integument
And
>integumentary structures
Could mean feathers or hairs or scales or osteoderms or just bare skin.

Any type of skin is integument.

>>5164843
This misunderstanding of technical jargon is exactly how scientists get funding and headlines. It's a bit dishonest but only the public is fooled

>>5164844
Scientists know
>I found T. rex integument
Just means
>I found T. rex skin
Which isn't particularly exciting or noteworthy

>>5164845
Unless 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.

>>5164846
And 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

>>5164847
People 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.

>>5164848
Of 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.

>>5164850
This 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

>>5164851
So 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.

>>5164857
This 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.

>>5164857
And 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.

>>5164861
Of 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.

>>5164864
But 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

>>5164865
Anyways,
tl;dr:
Integument just means skin and whatever is attached to it.
Bare skin is also integument
Given 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

>>5164873
OPs misunderstanding-
>integument=feathers
Is 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 feathers

I 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

>>5165131
I 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

>>5165132
I only corrected the misuse itt because OP said
>integuments such as feathers
Indicating 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

>>5165226
Just 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 person

That would be crazy

>>5165231
The 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

>>5165226
It'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
>????
>profit

But maybe that's giving him too much credit for strategic thought

>>5165245
This 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

>>5165247
The 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
>>5162828
Shut up, Trey.

File: HTU45jZbUAAUhbF.png (3.57 MB, 2006x1430)

3.57 MB PNG

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

>>5165368
This 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.

>>5162795
Three 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? And
3) 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.

File: Screenshot 2026-10-03 at (...).png (1.7 MB, 1078x948)

1.7 MB PNG

>>5164488
Does 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%A4tte
We'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.

>>5165571
Of 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.

>>5165573
The " 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 this
Nope. >>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.

>>5165606
Sure 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.

>>5165606
The problem with your lagerstatten explanation is
1. Any sediment that preserves details of the skin should preserve imprints of feathers
and
2. 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.

>>5165609
What are you even on about? What platitudes have I given you? Are you quite alright?
>>5165610
I 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.

>>5165620
The 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.

>>5165636
That's nice. : )

>>5165637
It'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.

>>5165639
Oh, 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 apes
The 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

>>5165661
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 alive
Or birds didn't descend from any known maniraptoran but they shared an ancestor that's classified as a maniraptoran

This doesn't bother you tards when it's dogs or birds but you throw a fit when the exact same situation exists with humans

>>5165661
I 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 split
2. Human ancestors went back and mated with chimp ancestors after the split
3. Chimps are much closer to the basal condition than humans are
4. All organisms belong to the clade of their ancestors

This indicates that the mrca of chimps and humans would be classified as a chimp, placing humans in any clade Pan

>>5165661
Now 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 chimp

A special pleading we don't apply to dogs or birds or literally any clade aside from humans

You aren't smart enough to understand this. It's crazy talk.

>>5165667
Out 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.

>>5165669
The 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 this
Says 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^^^^

>>5165672
You 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.

File: PXL_20261003_155314403.MP.jpg (2.18 MB, 3000x3370)

2.18 MB JPG

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

>>5165674
Zing!

I'm using it loosely just like we're using loose terms like"chimp" and "wolf" and"dog"

>>5165676
Interesting choice since tyrannosaurs are one of the few theropod groups that DON'T have bird wrists

>>5165674
Specifically 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 chimp

Bullshit 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 alive
Congrats, 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 split
As 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 are
Nothing 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 ancestors
They do, but again you're assuming that chimps are the ancestor when there is absolutey nothing to suggest so
>>5165667
No 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

>>5165687
I 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.

>>5165682
That'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. : )

>>5165691
Then 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?

>>5165691
My girl says this is a stupid argument. She's right. Give me 4 minutes.

>>5165688
Kek 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

>>5165693
Oh 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.
>>5165695
You're awfully feminine for a lesbian.

>>5165687
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1794591/

>>5165697
Nothing said here is OC

I say something one scientist published and others answer with things other scientists published

The lies aren't original to 4chan, nobody here is that smart. I'm not that smart.

>>5165698
That'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.

>>5165699
Check
>humans didn't evolve from chimps
>human ancestors didn't mate with chimp ancestors
One is a lie, the other is a twisting of words to mislead (technically true but misleading)

>>5165701
Sweetie, that wasn't the assignment. Surely, your very big, smart brain can link it ITT, can't it?

>>5165702
3/4 of this thread is just me talking to myself

Doing your job for you really

>>5165703
Still failing that assignment. You did not do well in your classes, eh Skippy?

>>5165696
>Kek I asked for your proof days ago and nothing
I get busy with stuff sometimes and have to step away. Sorry I left you hanging but I didn't see the request

>>5165704
It's the SQUARE-CUBE LAW
not 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 that

Sereno didn't find T. rex feathers, that's silly

>>5165698
This 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

>>5165712
The 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

>>5165712
Regarding 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 paper

Front running your argument

Though you did a nice job of reading and summarising

>>5165715
>The accuracy and veracity wasn't really my point of interest
It 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 actually
lol

>>5165718
The 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

>>5165719
The reason you take decades to learn anything is because you only learn from arguing on /an/ and even then only when you argue with me

Your knowledge is strictly limited by my willingness to debate you

>>5165721
>Your knowledge is strictly limited by my willingness to debate you
And your inability to follow the assignment I gave you, sweetie. Still waiting for that point out of where anyone defended creationism.
>>5165719
Just call her a silly little girl, ask her what her favourite dolly is today and send her on her way.

>>5165724
I left a mark that lasted 15 years

You'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 you
Your usual go to when you find out you were wrong
>>5165725
See 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

>>5165725
Still 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?

>>5165727
Considering I take entire years off from talking to you guys the simple fact that you recognize me is telling

There are no newfags here. That's why your board is dying

>>5165727
Not 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?

>>5165731
Newfag

>>5165573
>I remain unconvinced that all theropods had feathers and I'm not sure anyone in paleontology is arguing that point
Theropods like Carnotaurus are already agreed to be scaly so you're correct on that point.

>>5165773
T. rex is agreed to be scaled for exactly the same reasons

>>5165573
>Iforgetapods
Large ornithopods? I remember seeing art on here a while ago of a furry looking parasaurolophus and it looked so off

>>5164789
The largest birds in the world today would be small by Mesozoic standards.
We have evidence of mostly hairless mammals evolving from hairy ancestors. So there's no reason to think that it didn't also happen with dinosaurs.

>>5164820
Do you think an elephant or human's fuzz appear in a fossilized skin impression 60 million years from now?

>>5164636
That is expected when a species finds a new niche to fill.
Look at how fast Mosasaurs evolved and did so in multiple independent lineages when they found a new niche.

>>5165681
Its like the designer forgot that birds can fly.
Birds get super colorful when they either can fly away or they literally lack any competition. The former for birds all over the world, the latter for cassowaries.
Allosaurus was a member of the Mesozoic Thunderdome in an environment that frankly sounds like absolute Hell. And it wasn't even the apex predator. No way was it going to be that colorful.

>>5162881

The sparse hair in elephants helps them cool down, so I assume the same would apply to dinosaurs

File: file.jpg (155 KB, 1581x1015)

155 KB JPG

>>5162881
Baby elephants have about as much hair as the adults and are the only land animals in rex size range. Ostriches, the largest birds, aren't much different between chicks and adults either.

>>5166713
Baby elephants are way fucking bigger than a hatchling dinosaur.
>Ostriches, the largest birds, aren't much different between chicks and adults either
Yes they are?

File: serious business.jpg (92 KB, 580x753)

92 KB JPG

>>5165639
>women not having dicks is now a creationist position

>>5166397
>And it wasn't even the apex predator
Who was?

>>5167244
The view that humans didn't evolve from chimps is literally just creationist garbage

you sound like a major faggot stay out of detroit or ill kill you

>>5167282
That's just not true. There isn't even any evidence to suggest chimps existed at all 7 mya

>>5166398
How does it help them cool down?

>>5167387
Aside from the fact that portions of their DNA are mixed with ours and vice versa

And the fact that 98% of our DNA is chimp DNA

>>5167439
These were as chimpanzee as australopitheci were human.

>>5167461
Wrong. They were more chimpanzee than australopithecus was chimpanzee

>>5167475
if i ever see you i will turn you into my little chimp

>>5167534
You're not allowed anywhere I go

>>5167439
The DNA of their early ancestors* is mixed with ours. The paper you linked explains that, you should try reading it. Nobody claims those ancestors are Pan
>>5167475
Curious how you know this when the oldest chimp fossil is a quarter the age of the oldest human fossils. Its almost like this isn't true

>>5167554
yeah kick his ass

>>5167554
The paper and half a dozen it cites all state that our ancestors mated with chimpanzees

This doesn't bother you if it's dogs or birds or whales or dragonflies.
It ONLY bothers you with humans.

>>5167554
I like how you pretend the fossil record is complete regarding chimps but blissfully ignore ghost lineages in birds and dogs and almost every other species known from fossils

>>5167561
>The paper and half a dozen it cites all state that our ancestors mated with chimpanzees
Again no they don't. They only state that our early ancestors interbred. The early members of the human lineage were not human and the early ancestors of the chimp lineage were not chimps. None of those papers claim that it was true Pan around 7 mya to interbreed with humans that didn't exist yet
>This doesn't bother you if it's dogs or birds or whales or dragonflies
It doesn't bother anyone, it's just wrong. You've just misinterpreted an outdated study and calling anyone who points that fact out a creationist. That's retarded
>>5167563
But we're not talking about a ghost lineage. We're talking about a lineage with existing members but a poor fossil record. Those aren't the same thing

>>5167567
You aren't bothered if I call the mrca of dogs and wolves a wolf even though it was technically neither one and the fossils have never been found

You don't mind if I call the mrca of birds and maniraptorans a maniraptoran even though it was technically neither of them and the fossil has never been found.

The ONLY case where you object to naming the mrca for the ancestral condition is with humans and chimps. And it's the only case where you care that the fossil hasn't been found.

You're not smart enough to understand this

>>5167567
It's not that your complaints are right or wrong

It's that you ONLY complain of them for humans and chimps even though the exact same situation exists for every single species ever named.

You have a special rule that applies only to humans.

>>5167570
The fact that humans receive special treatment in taxonomy is nothing new. We even extend that special treatment to species we created. Dogs and cats and sheep and cows and horses all get special taxonomic treatment. But nobody here is smart enough to know this, let alone consider the alternative.

>>5167574
We don't call the chimp-human mrca Pan because that would piss off 80% of the taxpayers that pay our salaries. Not because it isn't true.

>>5167568
>You aren't bothered if I call the mrca of dogs and wolves a wolf even though it was technically neither one
Thats incorrect though. The ancestor of dogs was a wolf
>and the fossils have never been found
There are plenty of fossils that belong to wolf populations that are likely candidates for being ancestral to dogs. But even if it turns out that they aren't it is still far more evidence to work with than the near non existent fossil record of chimps
>You don't mind if I call the mrca of birds and maniraptorans a maniraptoran even though it was technically neither of them
Birds are within maniraptora. The ancestor of birds was a maniraptoran. There are fossils of non-bird maniraptorans that are closer to birds than they are to other maniraptorans. The same cannot be said for the chimp fossil record
>The ONLY case where you object to naming the mrca for the ancestral condition is with humans and chimps. And it's the only case where you care that the fossil hasn't been found.
And yet here I am saying that you're also wrong about wolves not being the direct ancestors of dogs. Funny how that works
>>5167570
>>5167574
See above

>>5167576
Calling chimps hominins is preferable to calling humans chimps. Because creationists know what chimps are but have no clue what a hominin is

>>5167577
You take a cladistic approach to every single species except humans.

You think you're arguing with me and you're just proving my point

And you're not smart enough to understand that either

>>5167577
I was saying the mrca was not a wolf or a maniraptoran UNDER YOUR RULE.

of course that's wrong. It's wrong when I apply your rules to wolves and it's wrong when you apply your rules to chimps.

You're not smart enough to follow this line of reasoning so you think you're proving me wrong when you're just disagreeing with your own rules

>>5167580
If you were to try a cladistic approach with chimps using what little evidence we have then you would reach the opposite conclusion that chimps came from the human lineage. Again I'm curious to know why you're so sure the human lineage evolved from chimps and not the other way around when all the fossil Hominins from around the time are bipeds. Please do tell
>>5167583
Taking a cladistic approach to birds/maniraptorans is easy because you're talking about an extremely broad clade. Identifying which maniraptoran became birds would be close to impossible, but its not hard to say that it was a maniraptoran of some sort. With dogs/wolves its even easier because we have living populations of wolves that are closer to dogs than they are to other wolf populations. There is absolutely nothing to suggest the same for chimps. Those are terrible comparisons, but you aren't smart enough to understand that

>>5167585
I've already explained.

In every case we ASSUME that certain traits are ancestral and we name the ancestral clade based on this assumption

We assume chimps are closer to the ancestral condition so we assume their ancestors existed before we split from them and under cladistics we would normally name the ancestral clade for the assumed ancestral condition.

I have to keep repeating this and you have to keep being too stupid to understand it anyways

File: Screenshot_20261011_21351(...).jpg (368 KB, 1080x1920)

368 KB JPG

>>5162783
>>It only took us going through 120 complete specimens
Dude, what?!?!

>>5167585
>There is absolutely nothing to suggest the same for chimps
Aside from the fact that chimps are our closest relatives and we mated with them repeatedly after splitting from them

>>5167588
>we would normally name the ancestral clade for the assumed ancestral condition.
Chimps are the ONLY case where we ignore morphological distance in naming the ancestral clade.

We fall back on temporal derivation saying chimps have evolved JUST AS LONG A TIME as humans have, ignoring the fact that they changed far less in that time than humans did.

This is a platitude aimed at creationists. We didn't descend from MODERN chimps. Scientists understand this is mostly bullshit. We don't do this for any other animal or any other organism of any sort.

>>5167602
Dogs didn't descend from any MODERN wolf but they came from something so similar to modern wolves we call it a wolf

Humans didn't evolve from any MODERN chimp. But they came from something so similar to modern chimps we can and often do call it a chimp.

>>5167588
>In every case we ASSUME that certain traits are ancestral and we name the ancestral clade based on this assumption
An assumption that has since been called into question with the discovery of a bunch of bipedal hominids around the time of the split. You're still yet to explain how you can be so certain about what you are now calling an assumption
>We assume chimps are closer to the ancestral condition so we assume their ancestors existed before we split from them and under cladistics we would normally name the ancestral clade for the assumed ancestral condition.
So now its "chimps are closer to the basal condition" and not "Pan is the direct ancestor of the Homo lineage". It is perfectly possible that chimps could be morphologically close to the common ancestor, but that doesn't require them to be the same thing as the common ancestor
>>5167590
Neanderthals are our closest relatives and we mated with them after our split, doesn't mean neanderthals are the direct ancestor of H. sapiens. Again early interbreeding between the Homo/Pan lineages is not the same thing as Pan being the common ancestor of both. I'm not sure how that is so hard to understand
>>5167605
>Dogs didn't descend from any MODERN wolf but they came from something so similar to modern wolves we call it a wolf
They didn't descend from any modern population of grey wolf but they do descend from the modern species of grey wolf. We don't call it a wolf just because it looked similar, we call it a wolf because it was Canis lupus aka the grey wolf
>Humans didn't evolve from any MODERN chimp. But they came from something so similar to modern chimps we can and often do call it a chimp
How can you know it was something similar to the modern chimp when there is no fossil evidence of an ancestor morphologically similar to chimps? And how do you know hominins are the ones who came from chimps and not vice versa? Again the closest fossils we have were bipeds. You're still dodging the question

>>5167602
This is the basis for the term "living fossil"

Jellyfish have been evolving EXACTLY AS LONG AS HUMANS HAVE. But jellyfish aren't flying rockets to the moon.

Chimps have been evolving just as long as humans have. But that doesn't imply they're equally derived. Chimps are much closer to the ancestral condition than humans are. So are jellyfish and sharks and voles

>>5167607
>how do you know hominins are the ones who came from chimps and not vice versa? Again the closest fossils we have were bipeds. You're still dodging the question
Genetic clocks prove that we have far more chimp DNA than chimps have human DNA

Proving that the chimp molecule existed before the human rather than after.

That's the problem with DNA that you love to ignore. It gives a much better record than fossils

>>5167607
Also stop writing novels, it just proves you don't understand the argument and can only dispute details while avoiding the body of the problem

>>5167607
>how do you know hominins are the ones who came from chimps and not vice versa?
Also, regarding details,

Chimps ARE hominins

>>5167615
>Chimps ARE hominins
The question isn't if chimps and humans are sister taxa in the same clade. This is established fact.

The question is only if that clade should be named for chimps or humans.

>>5167616
The simple fact is that we have named the chimp-human clade for humans despite the fact that chimps are MUCH closer to the ancestral condition

AND,

This is the ONLY clade not named for the ancestral condition

Meaning we have a special taxonomic rule that ONLY applies to chimps and humans

>>5167618
Though a similar situation exists with hominids and hominoids which are clearly also ancestral to humans and also named for humans.

>>5167610
This is just straight up incorrect. There is no reason to think the "chimp molecule" wasn't present in the non-chimp ancestor and was conserved in modern chimps. Which clearly it could be as it was also passed to humans. The Homo lineage having more chimp lineage admixture would just mean that there was more gene flow from the chimp ancestor into the human ancestor than the other way around. It doesn't require that Pan was that ancestor or even existed at the time. Grey wolves have more DNA from dire wolves than vice versa but neither are the other's ancestor
>That's the problem with DNA that you love to ignore. It gives a much better record than fossils
The problem is that you're deliberately misrepresenting genetic data that doesn't actually support you. Genetics clearly isn't your speed
>>5167611
Is that why you can't read the studies you cite?
>>5167615
Hominin in palaeoarchaeology refers to members of Hominina, not to Homininae. That excludes chimps
>>5167618
This is just stupidly wrong. For example the most basal member of Caninae is Urocyon, not Canis. Canis is also morphologically derived. There are probably thousands of examples. What a retarded thing to say

>>5167619
The actual problem is that we've named chimps, great apes, and apes after humans and it's not clear why we stopped there. Why not name ALL human ancestors after ourselves?

The rule isn't consistent. We name ALL clades for their ancestors EXCEPT apes.

And that's because creationists and anthropocentrism. Apes are welcome in our club but monkeys are a step too far.

>>5167621
>There are probably thousands of examples.
Out of an essentially infinite supply

man this is almost as good as the shark vs whale chimp out that ended in weird poetry. i wonder if it’s just two bots or one schizophrenic arguing with itself.

>>5167624
It's the uneducated board janny arguing with modern taxonomy. A very old pattern.

>>5167625
i enjoy watching you two fight it’s like bum fights but more autistic and gay. i couldn’t care less about the CIA or dinosaurs but this stuff makes my day.

>>5167622
>the rule isn't consistent
Probably because that isn't a rule and never was you schizo

Remember kids, this could be you in your 60s

>>5167624
The actual troll is at least 16 years old.

We're arguing formal vs informal nomenclature which gets the morons here excited for weeks months or years because they're either too stupid to recognize the crux or too motivated to get the traffic by pretending not to understand it

>>5167628
You don't understand the exception that proves the rule

Very autistic of you

>>5167631
yeah kick his ass, evolution is fake and gay

>>5167629
>Remember kids, this could be you in your 60s
Literally nobody here is that smart

>>5167631
>this rule that isn't a rule is proven by the exception that is actually a million exceptions
That's nice schizo-san, please face the wall

>>5167630
>We're arguing formal vs informal nomenclature
I say humans evolved from chimps and should be classified as chimps

He says humans didn't evolve from Pan

These are two different arguments. The chimps in the human lineage might or might not be called Pan. In fact they might just be hominins.

So we can agree on facts and spend literal decades arguing over whether or not all chimps must be Pan

>>5167634
Of the two of us you're the only one barred from entering zoos and museums

>>5167635
i ain’t no monke boy

>>5167638
If we evolveded from chimps why are there still chimps?

>>5167639
so we have food

>>5167640
Hmmmm ancestor meat

In fact the only interesting point to come from this resident board troll is that perhaps homo is being diagnosed by bipedalism and perhaps bipedalism is ancestral rather than derived.

But this ignores jet planes skyscrapers and the internet.

Even if chimps secondarily lost bipedalism that's nothing compared to the other obvious human phenotypical derivations

>>5167635
>The chimps in the human lineage might or might not be called Pan. In fact they might just be hominins.
Then they wouldn't be chimps
>So we can agree on facts
But you aren't talking facts. The facts are that there is no genetic evidence to suggest the MRCA was Pan and no fossil evidence to suggest it was an ape morphologically similar to Pan. The facts are that we don't know much of anything about chimp evolution but you are acting like you've figured it all out
>>5167644
>ok maybe chimps knuckle walking could be derived but you forgot human technology existed. Hmmm yes I'm very smart
This has nothing to do with anything that was said and now you're just rambling

>>5167644
And in fact if bipedalism is ancestral that just means Lucy is a chimp, not that humans didn't evolve from chimps.

It just rolls the split forward rather than erasing it

>>5167645
Pan isn't diagnosed genetically

We still use gross morphology for that.

So the question is, does genetic evidence indicate our mrca is closer to Pan or Homo?

And in this case both fossils and DNA indicate we bred with chimps and were essentially identical to them aside from bipedalism

>>5167647
No. Lucy is less than half as old as the Homo/chimp split
>>5167649
>We still use gross morphology for that
Except there's no morphologically chimp like fossils from 7mya to use for that
>So the question is, does genetic evidence indicate our mrca is closer to Pan or Homo?
Neither. That would require a genetic sample from the MRCA. All genetics tells us otherwise is that our ancestors interbred early after divergence and approx when that divergence occurred
>And in this case both fossils and DNA indicate we bred with chimps
Again it indicates our ancestors bred with their ancestors, it does not indicate that those ancestors were chimps
>and were essentially identical to them aside from bipedalism
If you think that's the only difference then you might want to revisit university level archaeology

>>5167645
>This has nothing to do with anything
Protip
Look into morphometrics.

I'm not sure how to compare hitting rivals with sticks vs inventing ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, but I'm pretty sure from a static metric they're nowhere near close to walking vs crawling

>>5167652
>it does not indicate that those ancestors were chimps
You get so close sometimes

Does "chimp"="Pan"?

As soon as you understand a common name isn't the same as a formal name this board dies

>>5167657
>As soon as you understand a common name isn't the same as a formal name this board dies
A cow is a type of fish

But neither cow nor fish is a formal name

>>5167659
All Bos belong to any clade osteichthyes isn't the same as all cows are fish

This board has gotten a lifetime of mileage arguing cladistics vs evolutionary taxonomy

>>5167662
When I say humans evolved from chimps I simply mean that the mrca of humans and chimps was much closer to a modern chimp than a modern human

A fact no scientist would dispute

>>5167664
Lucy has more in common with Bubbles than with Elon Musk

If we had to choose whether Lucy is chimp or human, she would certainly be classified as a weird sort of chimp

>>5167664
But if we flip it around and assume bipedalism is human AND ancestral that just means chimps are a type of human that evolved knuckle walking and avoided all the annoying language and math bullshit

Either way we evolved one from the other, no matter the order
Either humans are chimps or chimps are humans. Cladistics requires a decision

>>5167669
>Cladistics requires a decision
Not because it matters which came first, but because /an/ needs to argue about what to call it.

This is autism

It doesn't matter which is closer to the basal condition or which is most conserved or derived. All that matters is winning arguments on the internet. A very human phenotype. Chimps don't argue taxonomy online indicating they're basal, ancestral

>>5167670
The simple fact that humans have built machines to argue for them while chimps have never posted an llm to 4chan is proof enough that humans are derived and chimps basal

>>5167589
Anyways, you're correct.

There are 0 complete T. rex specimens and several thousand incomplete ones.

Maybe a couple dozen that are more than half there.

>>5167589
Also Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of census data.

I've seen several near complete T. rex specimens including juveniles sell on eBay that aren't listed on Wikipedia. ToBhonest eBay data is more accurate than the wiki

File: 1776359503257217.jpg (56 KB, 1206x622)

56 KB JPG

>>5167624
Every second 3 Indians go online for the first time.

>>5167679
Everyone itt has been here for 10-15 years straight

This board has almost no Indians because it has almost no new users

>12 replies of rambling to himself
Holy schizobabble. Do you usually talk to yourself like this?

>>5167687
Yes

None of you retards understand what I'm saying.

One of you retards is really good at criticizing details but not one of you understands principals.

You guys are disappointingly stupid. I regularly talk to myself

>>5167687
Also
>12 replies
Well over 100 posts itt are me

>>5167689
Everyone understands. This is just the point in the thread where you've realised you were wrong so you start talking to yourself in a way that makes yourself feel smart. It's a common occurence with narcissists. It's especially bad in this thread because you also got corrected halfway through your off topic ramble abput some made up "rule" of naming clades after the most basal members

>>5167693
I regularly ignore you when you're wrong.

The fact is I will die a published and recognized expert on tyrannosaur feathers and that remains one of the most boring topics to me.

lol you guys are still going, the best part is no one cares if some one is a fucking monkey or if some lizard was a tranny 69 million years ago. you guys should spend your time looking at buying the new nissan Z

>>5167693
And don't be misled

I don't say you're wrong because of any mistakes on your part

You are wrong simply because you're not smart enough to understand the opposing argument.

You're not smart enough to consider arguments against.

To win the argument you need to understand its criticisms. You are handicapped. You can't pretend to be me because you don't understand what I say.

>>5167701
I like the new Rams

>>5167705
they’re not bad though the drivers are aggressive and the only one i knew in person was a gay hairdresser or something, weird dude always wore white t shirts.

>>5167693
The thing you don't understand is that taxa are arbitrary and based on assumptions about evolution

We assume chimps are closer to basal than humans because both DNA and fossils prove it. Ignoring the entirety of the modern human phenotype proving it

Meaning we assume humans evolved from chimps rather than the other way round.

When you argue against this you argue against the very basis of evolution taxonomy and biology in general.

The assumption that humans evolved from chimps isn't disputed. The assumption that nuclear power plants are morev derived than wood spears isn't disputed

>>5167711
White t shirts show cum stains nicely but suck at hiding blood stains

>>5167693
Don't get me twisted

I was here when 4chan started and I'll be here when it ends

I'm just gonna blame you for the end

Goddamn, that's quite the schizo meltie.

>>5162773
Oh look it's sereno again going through a midlife crisis trying to relive his 15 minutes.

>>5162795
Mossad won't like this post.

>>5162775
>subadult
So adult T-Rex don't have feathers, got it.