>This is how scientists think Velociraptors look like todayWhat the hell is going on?
>find raptor bones with indications of feathers>update view of velociraptor to reflect plumageit's paleontology, not rocket science
>>16828348its all fake and gay, don't ever trust a science faggot, they're just paid liars, will say anything in exchange for "muh gibes free funding"
Dude here's Tyrannosaurus rex, it's a big ostrich
>>16828348>>16828358>>16828361/pol/ might be more your speed. they have flat earth and moon landing denial threads every now and then which you may enjoy reading. and yes your intuition is flawless, it was the jews who added the feathers to the dinosaurs
>>16828348OP is only a few decades late
>>16828348Dinosaurs are slowly but steadily turning into things I could probably kill with my bare hands.
>>16828348How do you know they didn't?
>>16828361>That stupid fucking rocking chair mouth because they're trying so hard to cover the teeth with the upper lip they have to carve out the bottom lipThey need to stop doing this dumb shit.
>>16830296They need to stop pretending large Tyrannosaurids had feathers in general. We have skin samples from all over T.rex's body - none indicated feathers.
>>16830307That's a given. Nobody serious every believed T. rex had feathers, yet paleontologists were still pushing it. Thank you for saying Tyrannosaurid instead of Tyrannosauroid, btw. I've had enough veins popping out of my forehead today.
>>16830307>>16830321To be completely fair, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest rex would have likely had some amount of feathers at some point in its life cycle.If there were any left as an adult (and that's a big "if") they would have been very very sparse and anyone trying to portray otherwise is a dumbass. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the chicks had at least a noticeable amount, not unlike how even "naked" mammals have at least a little fuzz when young
>>16830329They don't and it IS absolutely unreasonable to think that. It's anti-scientific even. There is no such thing as an animal that has feathers at birth, then loses them all and grows scales to replace them. That literally doesn't even make any fucking evolutionary sense.
>>16830333Didn't they find a juvenile tyrannosaur with feather imprints? And anyways feathers and scales aren't mutually exclusive
>>16830333Roseate spoonbills lose all of the feathers on their head as they mature to reveal the naked skin underneath.How is it unreasonable to imagine an analogue where the feathers emerge from between a matrix of scales?
>>16830335No. National Geographic invented the feathered T. rex baby meme in the same issue that published the archaeoraptor hoax. There has never been a single shred of evidence to support this claim. In fact, there have only eve been to feathered dinosaurs ever found outside of china or mongolia: Archaeopteryx and Ornithomimus (which is sus).>>16830338Naked skin is not scales. Scales are not just bare skin and it's astounding how the majority of the population is too fucking retarded to grasp that scales are a separate, highly evolved integumentary structure equal to feathers or hair. Birds don't just have scales under their feathers. They have bare skin.>But muh owl feeShut the fuck up.
>>16830340>Naked skin is not scales. Scales are not just bare skin and it's astounding how the majority of the population is too fucking retarded to grasp that scales are a separate, highly evolved integumentary structure equal to feathers or hair. Birds don't just have scales under their feathers. They have bare skin.I know that, obviously, but literally the best-preserved dinosaur specimen ever found (that one Psittacosaurus) clearly depicts feathers growing from the gap between its scales, so clearly it's not impossible
>>16830333>That literally doesn't even make any fucking evolutionary sense.unlike reducing your arms to be two-fingered and tiny enough to not be good for anything, but still putting in the energy to keep them from becoming vestigial
>>16830341They're not feathers. They're plant remains.>>16830344Explaining it to you would be a waste of time, because you simply don't have the IQ to understand what I would be saying. Once an animal has feathers, there's no evolutionary advantage to reacquiring scales. Any bird that has lost feathers in a region just gains bare skin. This is true of every single bird species that has done this. NOT ONE bird species has ever grown scales in a place it's evolutionarilly lost feathers. It's not a thing.
