The change is illogical

>microraptor fossils have feather impression
>Archaeopteryx is dino bird transition
>velociraptor fossils has quill knobs

Attached: microraptor.png (400x348, 121K)

>196615470
>That dinosaur doesn't look as scary with feathers

>Walking through the forest 65 million years ago
>Feel a strong vibration in your spine
>It gets stronger, making it harder for you to walk and maneuver yourself
>hear the snapping for branches and trees
>look up
>See this looking at you through the trees and bushes

Attached: TRex.jpg (1000x1000, 137K)

Attached: FB_IMG_1544772237065.jpg (700x612, 30K)

looks like Monster Hunter.

Does anyone know how a bird heart structure differs from a reptile's? It's a pretty big difference.

It is over.

Agreed.

Nobody is saying that Tyrannosaurs had flight feathers. Tyrannosaur feathers were more primitive.

Some birds nowadays (such as penguins and kiwis) have feathers that resemble hair. It's highly unlikely that every feathered dinosaur was like a peacock.

Dinosaurs didn't exist. They're a fabrication to draw mankind further away from God.

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/09/dinosaur-hoax-dinosaurs-never-existed.html?m=1

>It sucks because a superior reptilian race could have evolved
But it did.

There was a lot of evolution between primitive reptiles and dinosaurs though. Dinosaur hearts were likely more like bird hearts.

wtf are you on about memeflag. I said no such thing.
IF you are calling microraptors birds you are a brainlet.

No. They were planted in the ground by aliens from Uranus!

Attached: Reptilian.gif (900x600, 396K)

>Because they have bird feet.
>means they got feathers
The math totally adds up. I also guess their related to horses because most of their legs are bent like L's fuckin' kys.

The power of Christianity, everyone.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=GsyBtm5g52M

Ew. At least if you're gonna be like this then at least use a realistic aproximation of dromeosaur covering.

Attached: 79ff47cd3a98b1fab53d72447eff67af.jpg (500x640, 65K)

transitional fossils dont....exist

Attached: Archaeopteryx.jpg (500x375, 24K)

You're a retard. No retards allowed.

I clearly said that the link between bird and dinosaurs was initially SUSPECTED on the basis of leg structure. In recent years, fossils of more birdlike dinosaurs have been found. That's how the link between bird and dinosaur was finally conformed.

Dinosaurs do not exist at all.. lmfao

Yes. All animals with skeletons have a common ancestor. So horses and dinosaurs are distantly related.

It actually just came out with skin impressions that T-rex specifically did not have feathers at all.

Isn't it amazing how dinosaurs were hypothesized right as evolution began to be pushed and then immediately after bones began to be discovered? What a cohencidence!

VERY distantly.

The last common ancestor of dinosaurs and horses lived back in the Carboniferous Period and looked like pic related.

Attached: Archaeothyris_NT_small.jpg (561x141, 31K)

It would look scarier with no feathers

This still raises questions about other tyrannosaur species, given that feather impressions have been found on smaller dinosaur remains.

>Jurrasic Park was a documentary.

i kind of like the feathered dino aesthetic

Attached: wayward swordtooth.jpg (1296x942, 239K)

Why did dinosaurs get feathers? What purpose did it serve? They seem like a big waste unless you are utilizing them.

It's a cutie :3

You're a moron.

The first dinosaur to be described by science was Megalosaurus back in 1824. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. 35 years later.

Whatever. I don't like movies that make dinosaurs act like Godzilla. That's what Godzilla is for.

Dinosaurs were just animals.

That was probably the best Magic expansion ever.

Pirates + Dinosaurs = Manly!

"Sexual display" is an easy handwave to a significant number of anomalous features even in modern species, but it's persistence has a reason. An animal like the peacock is literally weighed down by it's massive tail, on the surface it seems like a massive resource sink and evolutionary detriment, but it's effective at wooing the ladies so it gets a pass. But feathers have more than a few advantages beyond just sex appeal. Theres probably a reasonable argument for it's use in communication and certainly as a way to retain heat with sufficient body coverage.

Thermoregulation.

This also explains why some large dinosaurs lost feathers. Giant animals hold in heat more easily.

Most likely they served somewhat of a similar purpose to hairs in mammals i.e insulation, display, ect. Alot of relatively recent evidence seems to suggest feathering is a ancestral trait to dinosaurs in general and were actually the default, as in the first dinosaurs/dinosauromorphs had feather like coverings around their body. But those feathers were way different from your typical bird feathers and resembled hairs a lot more than actual flight feathers

Attached: image_2079e-Kulindadromeus-zabaikalicus_d514.jpg (900x575, 157K)

>It's time for hot monkey dick

Monkeys never coexisted with tyrannosaurs.

>never a complete skeleton
>some species fabricated just from teeth
>bones somehow never discovered prior to the 1800s
>no disinterested parties ever seem to find them by accident, it's always fossil hunters

because it made them look funny and therefore make predators leave them alone provided the could tell mildly amusing knock knock jokes

Ignorance is forgivable but willful ignorance is deplorable. Everything in your post is wrong.

>Another problem with dinosaurs is their unnatural structural dynamics. Many dinosaur skeletons and reconstructions feature bipedal monsters like the T-Rex with a forward-leaning torso and head far larger and heavier than its counter-balancing tail. Many museum displays cannot even stand up under their own weight; it is highly unlikely that beasts this large and disproportionate could exist at all. The loads acting on their skeletons are so great that calculations indicate the bones of the largest dinosaurs would buckle and crack under their own immense weight! Experts have also pointed out that dinosaurs would have to have moved much slower than portrayed in movies to prevent sudden shocks to their skeletons.
>“This idea of slow moving animals does not agree with the bio-mechanical analysis of dinosaurs, which indicate that the Dinosaurs were agile, active creatures. This is the paradox between the Dinosaurs size and lifestyle. Many displays and drawings of dinosaurs appear to be an absurdity, showing a two-legged animal that would be totally off-balance, with the weight of head and abdomen much greater than weight of tail, which is supposed to act as a counter-balance. Is the dinosaur industry a case of science trying to meet public desires or expectations? The movie Jurassic Park is an example of showing dinosaurs much larger than any current displays in museums. After the movie came out, it is interesting to note that many articles were written asking ‘Is this possible?’ I can recall a report of dinosaur DNA being discovered preserved in amber, which later turned out to be false.” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

Warmth. The earth was already getting colder when they popped up. It was hot as fuck for a very long time.

>never a complete skeleton

Complete dinosaurs skeletons have been found several times.

>some species fabricated just from teeth

They only do this if they can find a dinosaur with similar teeth that is known from a complete skeleton.

>bones somehow never discovered prior to the 1800s

They were found, but they were mistaken for "dragon bones" because science hadn't really taken off yet.

>no disinterested parties ever seem to find them by accident, it's always fossil hunters

Nope. Mamenchisaurus was accidentally discovered on a construction site.

Prove it.

>Chinese found them and called them dragons or bone oracles
>deeply rooted in Chinese culture

>indiscriminate middle age Europeans dig them up
>call them dragons or wyverns

>Africans dug them up
>calls it a local crypto

Remember this is before people had even a remote idea of a dinosaur was retard

Didn't the media try to make Gingrich look like an idiot that time he said birds were dinosaurs?

Other user was less lazy than I.

Aww, gwumpy 5 o'clock shadow dino forgot to shave

Is it just me or does the face kinda look like some sort of apes.

>Another problem with dinosaurs is their unnatural structural dynamics. Many dinosaur skeletons and reconstructions feature bipedal monsters like the T-Rex with a forward-leaning torso and head far larger and heavier than its counter-balancing tail.

Dinosaurs often had hollow bones to keep the weight down.

>Many museum displays cannot even stand up under their own weight

They could stand up under their own weight if they had artificial muscles … but that would defeat the purpose of a fossil display.

>Experts have also pointed out that dinosaurs would have to have moved much slower than portrayed in movies to prevent sudden shocks to their skeletons.

What? Which expert said this?

I doubt that Wozney is a reliable source.

Greek mythology is also suspected to have resulted from them finding large bones and skeletons.

Well … there are plenty of better reasons to hate Newt Gingrich anyway.

They found one small bird like fossil which had feathers so now apparently every single dinosaur over a period of millions of years did

and aren't they back to saying Brontosaurus actually existed?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

agreed i played hearthstone for awhile and i always thought about getting into magic then ixalan came out actually the art was so good i had to build a dinosaur deck

Attached: gishath.jpg (1440x1058, 361K)

They have found dozens of small bird like fossils with impressions of feathers Archaeopteryx was just the most well known.

are you gonna sauce on that?

Um … no. Several others have been found.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

They found a fossil that was guranteed to had feathers. Found similar evidence on other creatures of size like Velociraptors. Debated reasons as to why they would have feathers. Reasoned it was for either thermoregulation or display. Applied that to other dinosaurs and badda bing badda boom it makes sense somewhat

I wish I had a pet raptor

>thinking God and evolution are mutually exclusive
>being this obtuse
WEW
E
W

No. The animal has always been real. It's just that back then there was a habit of naming anything we found in the dirt immediately, but later scientist noted that brontosaurus and apatosaurus were the same genus due to similarities in their bone structure yadah, yadah, but recent evidence suggest the difference between the two was a lot bigger than previously thought so the speciment warrented it's own genus name and since brontosaurus was up for grab, well...

It's complicated.

Brontosaurus was described in 1879 by Othniel Charles Marsh. Later, in 1903, it was determined that Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus were actually in the same genus. The name Apatosaurus was given priority as it was coined first - in 1877.

Even more recently, some scientists have argued that Brontosaurus was distinct enough from Apatosaurus to be considered a distinct genus … though not everyone in the scientific community agrees with this.

Are you an paleontologist or is this like a hobby. You seem very well educated in this subject and news relating to it.

uh, wasn't there some confusion though that the wrong skull had been put on the wrong skeleton or some shit when the first decided Brontosaurus "wasn't real"?

It's worth noting that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus were both named by Othniel Charles Marsh. Marsh was notorious for his rivalry with Edward Drinker Cope. The two of them were in a lifelong conflict to see who could discover the most dinosaur genera.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Wars

For a long time, the scientific community assumed that Marsh had placed Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus in separate genera in order to artificially inflate his "score".

npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed

It's just a hobby.

I live in Ottawa. There aren't any good dinosaur courses here. Maybe I'll move to Alberta someday.

Oh yeah! That was a big thing back in the day. Bone wars was lots of fun.

any of you guys watch viperkeeper btw?

>it did
Just look at the Clintons.

You're thinking of the incident in 1905 when the American Museum of Natural History mounted a Brontosaurus skeleton … but put a Camarasaurus head on it.

SO ARE YOU SAYING HUMANZ WUZ DINOSAURZ?

RIP Harambe

Putting Clintons on the same level as reptiles is an insult to reptiles.

The Clintons are corporate whores who promote perpetual warfare and then argue "I pay lip service to feminism, so that makes me a liberal."

That's the worst kind of politician in my opinion.

No. I'm saying that humans and dinosaurs are both amniotes.

aren't crocodiles more related to birds than lizards or some crazy shit? Or maybe it's alligators?

Is that anzu?

my ancestor

Godspeed. Hope you do. Keep on educating literal retards. fundamentalists. and Chinks looking to make their dick bigger

news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html

Crocodiles are more related to birds than they are to other reptiles.

Maybe it's because it has nothing to do with a Jewish conspiracy? We have just found alot of evidence for it.

Yes, elephants exist, and elephants are large. However, an elephant, which is a fraction of the size of a Brontosaurus, has to eat for 18 hours every day in order to survive. However, even in ancient times, there was still only 24 hours within each 24 hour period (basic logic).

Since an elephant can't survive without eating 18 hours per day every day, and a Brontosaurus was supposedly 5 to 10 times larger than an elephant, then a brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per day. Yes, you read that right, and it's not a typo. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day.

Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close. That means that it could never even reach full size. That would be impossible. It makes no sense for a creature which could never get larger than a baby to even exist in the first place.

However, this isn't even the real problem with the existence of giant plant-eating creatures. The real problem is that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).

Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. The rapid spread of the rabbit led to the destruction of large tracts of vegetation, leading to the extinction of many plant species. Loss of vegetation leads to soil erosion as the exposed soil is washed or blown away, removing valuable soil nutrients required for new plants to develop. This soil is typically deposited in waterways, causing siltation and destroying aquatic ecosystems.

Consider the effect of just these tiny creatures. Now consider the daily consumption of one single plant-eating dinosaur. At 13 tons, a Mamenchisaurus, similar to a Brontosaurus, would have to have eaten 1,150 pounds of vegetation per day. This is probably equivalent to about 10,000 rabbits, maybe more (that number is just an educated guess).

If a few thousand rabbits can destroy entire ecosystems, then consider what billions of rabbits would do. There would be nothing left, for anyone. All plants would go extinct. That's what would happen if these massive dinosaurs roamed the Earth. There would not be any plants left to eat. Most plant species would go extinct.

They were related to birds. Birds are the clade of dinosaurs that survive. Birds were a type of dino like apes are a type of mammal.

I am glad these threads are booming, End Times and all that, Proofed that being suicidal from age 12-23 was indeed not me losing my mind that society REALLY has been plagued by the Devil ( as i previously thought i only LARPED that)

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Attached: MisledPeople.jpg (868x704, 95K)

He looks fuzzy

Attached: 5D569453-454B-4D3B-96CB-7BD9E46EE0BF.jpg (103x120, 13K)

Checked and thanks for that red pill.

Attached: WheniBlackpilled.gif (740x900, 1012K)

Okay 56% explain where birds came from. They didn't just grow feathers over night.

An elephant gets by on around 40kg of plant matter per day. The climate was also considerably different in the Mesozoic, plants grew larger and considerably faster in the higher concentration of CO2 found in the atmosphere at the time. Energy requirement is estimated to be about 28KJ per ton of dinosaur, which could be easily consumed from as little as 24kg of plant matter.