Dinosaur Thread

[believe victims]

Well first it was a baby, also the fat-man referenced there were larger ones out there in the enclosure.

 

I always assumed he was referencing other dinosaurs when he said that, not other Dilophosaurus.

 

 

The second being both the frill and spitting. Well while there is no fossil evidence to prove either of things are true, but they cannot really prove it was not. Now maybe the frill could be debunked based on possible muscle attachment points on the bones, but much like shark skeletons, there wont be any fossil evidence if a creature could spit or what substance. So this is a "poetic" license they took that really can't be proven either way.

The former is easily debunked; the skull would have attachment points and most likely even some support bones if it had a frill (you can see two bones at the bottom of the Frilled Lizard's skull where its frill is anchored.) I'm not an expert on the subject of poison, but I think there would also be some kind of supporting evidence in the skull of poison-producing organs. Regardless, with a complete absence of evidence for either, it's completely irrational to entertain either thought as being plausible.

 

 

On a side note, Saying a specimen is too small is illogical unless it is so small to be even more so than a hatchling. One can only really say one is too big, never really too small.

 

 

If it's being presented as an adult and is far below the smallest size of an adult, then a specimen is too small to be an adult. Unless specified to not be an adult, then one has made an error in specimen size.

 

 

I'm curious; would some of you think that the T-Rex had feathers at some point? Just wondering.

 

Many palaeontologists support the idea of T. rex being at least partially feathered. It would make sense, as it's in the family of dinosaurs with the most confirmed feathered species.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

I really hope I'm not stepping on some kind of mine, but I was always a fan of the big man himself: Tyrannosaurus rex. The T-Rex fascinates me. It's just so amazing and powerful.

 

I'm curious; would some of you think that the T-Rex had feathers at some point? Just wondering.

Well Feathers like we know them have evolved to function the way we know them and scientist believe that scales and modern feathers have a similar underlining structure. Sorry my vocabulary sucks but basically what that means is that feathers and scales are almost the same thing. The only thing that makes an animal have feathers or scales over the other is a gene that activates. Well after finding fossil evidence of feathers on other dinosaurs they concluded that Rex could have at some point in his lifespan have some form of feather-like structures. With the common belief that Dinosaurs like raptors and Tyrannosauredia evolved into birds it is not an unlikely idea that the king of dinosaurs was actually hatched with downy feathers not unlike modern birds.

 

Now for how long these "feathers" remained could be questioned. Until we get either an intact specimen or viable impression fossil it is all speculation. Did Rex and other large Dinosaurs have modern sized feathers down their body or like everything else I the era were they giant. I mean seeing a 45ft + Ostrich / Komodo Hybrid is going to be scary wether it had big fluffy feathers or hard scales coating its flesh. 

[Takamasaurus]

May i remind you of Yutyrannus. A Large Tyrannosaur relative that had a Full covering of Feathers and one of the Skeletons is an adult specimen that's covered in them (This Adult was 9 meters long). Feathers were used to keep this one warm, because it lived in a colder environment. However, those same feathers, that keep this dinosaur war, can also be used to make its relatives cool in hot conditions, making it possible that Tyrannosaurus had a full covering all throughout its lifetime. 

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Alright, so there is some fossil evidence of large predatory animals having feathers... That's cool to hear. Though my I offer The Bald Eagle who is not actually bald and Vultures or turkeys who are. If this evidence that I have not seen but surely exists shows the full body covered by feathers That is cool for the species in question, though one cannot say that just because one has feathers all over their body means that all related species do. The Rex could be a Giant glorified chicken / monitor hybrid or it could be more of a yeah he has feathers but they fall off as it get's bigger.

 

I do have a question regarding the Bird/Dino connection. Because it is now widely believed that Raptor's had feathers and so modern media shows them almost with claw tipped wings how would that translate to a large species of Dinosaur like Rex and alike who had them little baby arms? Could you imagine the iconic T-Rex with little baby wings flapping trying to get airborne while it chased down it's prey?

[Takamasaurus]

From what i read. The Arms would have been covered in smaller feathers that formed Wings, and would of gave the Tiny arms a use in Display for Mates.    

[Smudge8]

I really hope I'm not stepping on some kind of mine, but I was always a fan of the big man himself: Tyrannosaurus rex. The T-Rex fascinates me. It's just so amazing and powerful.

 

I'm curious; would some of you think that the T-Rex had feathers at some point? Just wondering.

I've heard theories that T-Rex hatchlings had down that they shed over time as they grew up.

 

My favorite dinosaur is Velociraptor.  But my second favorite has to be Therozinosaurus, because it looks so wierd.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Oh yes I can see it now... look at my little baby arms, they are so tiny and feathered but nicely colored, date me!

 

My favorite dinos I think were Triceratops, Velociraptor, Ankylosaurus. There were others but my mind has deviated from Dinos for years.

[believe victims]

That is cool for the species in question, though one cannot say that just because one has feathers all over their body means that all related species do.

 

What you seem to be dismissing with this is the idea of assuming that because a basal species (meaning earlier species later species evolved from) had a feature it's logical to assume the possibility (and even plausibility) of its descendants having the same features. This is an integral part of guessing the possible integument of extinct species when the fossil record is sparse.

 

It operates on a fairly logical assumption: without contrary evidence, animals within the same cladistic group will share similar features. Example: all birds are in the same group. We have evidence that all birds we know have feathers. Therefore, if we find a bird that developed after the point that feathers evolved, it's more logical to assume it did have feathers than to assume that it didn't.

 

Palaeontologists take this same approach with extinct species. Consider Smilodon fatalis, for instance. To my knowledge, we have no furred fossil specimens of Smilodon. Why, then, do we render Smilodon with fur, rather than bare skin? Because its closest extant relatives, the cats, have fur, so we make the assumption that closely-related animals have similar features.

 

This same logic applies to the idea that feathers are basal to at least coelurosaur theropods. Because we have found so many feathered coelurosaur theropods across a variety of taxons, it makes sense to assume that, unless otherwise disproven for a specific species, coelurosaur theropods were at least partially feathered; a feathered coat is just more consistent with the evidence than a scaly coat if neither is directly proven.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

While I can agree, you kind of chopped my post to make me out to believe that a feathered dino is a one-of.  I showed modern evidence that two Birds of prey have different feather coverage so based on your argument my statement still stands. Not saying rex didn't have feathers as it aged or even the quality of said feathers. Just that how much can be up for speculation based on modern evidence. Since we have such evidence that some species have feathers then good for them, they have feathers. Now sure because Rex's cousin has feathers one can/could say it did as well. On the other side no evidence is evidence. Like I said until we see an actual specimen or solid fossil evidence anything said is merely speculation.

 

Think thousands of years into the future when some sapient species finds fossils of our birds or even us. Our closes cousin the apes. Our bones and thus fossils would look very if not identical. Yes we are mostly hairless and yet are the exact opposite... So tell me again how just because a cousin species has an adaptation another should/could/would? The thing about fossils and what makes them so appealing is this fact. Plenty of room for speculation. Thus all the ongoing debates about this topic as well as if Rex was a hunter or strictly a scavenger... 

[believe victims]

While I can agree, you kind of chopped my post to make me out to believe that a feathered dino is a one-of.  I showed modern evidence that two Birds of prey have different feather coverage so based on your argument my statement still stands. Not saying rex didn't have feathers as it aged or even the quality of said feathers. Just that how much can be up for speculation based on modern evidence. Since we have such evidence that some species have feathers then good for them, they have feathers. Now sure because Rex's cousin has feathers one can/could say it did as well. On the other side no evidence is evidence. Like I said until we see an actual specimen or solid fossil evidence anything said is merely speculation.

 

Think thousands of years into the future when some sapient species finds fossils of our birds or even us. Our closes cousin the apes. Our bones and thus fossils would look very if not identical. Yes we are mostly hairless and yet are the exact opposite... So tell me again how just because a cousin species has an adaptation another should/could/would? The thing about fossils and what makes them so appealing is this fact. Plenty of room for speculation. Thus all the ongoing debates about this topic as well as if Rex was a hunter or strictly a scavenger... 

 

Well, we're definitely thinking at the margin when it comes to amounts of feathers, that's true, but I think that the possibility T. rex was featherless is far less likely than it having at least some form of feathering, simply based on the logic of cladistics. It's speculation, but not all speculation is created equal; I can speculate that Smilodon was coated in a dense coat of porcupine quills, but that doesn't make it equally as likely as it having fur.

 

Same goes with the relationship between humans and apes. We have hair. In fact, we actually have a lot of it. We just have reduced hair compared to our closest relatives, due to factors such as the climates we developed in (which is notably something palaeontologists also make sure to account for when thinking about these things!). I didn't by any means say that it was a hard and fast rule, just that it's more logical to assume a species from a family with feathers has them than to assume it doesn't. (And frankly, unless you're going to start calling for bald interpretations of all prehistoric mammals that don't specifically have hair impressions associated with them, I'm going to have to chalk some of this up to bias towards a scaly T. rex. Logical consistency and all that.)

 

Behavior is a different thing altogether from integument, since there it's very difficult to guess if an animal is unlike anything we've seen before (e.g. a several-tonne bird-like creature with reduced arms and an enormous head) and cladistics doesn't work the same behaviorally. Instead, we're left to guess based on speed estimates (which vary wildly), estimates of their sensory capabilities, and other such factors. I've personally always found the "hunter vs. scavenger" debate a bit silly, honestly, because it partly seems to rely on the idea of any animal being a pure hunter, which would mean turning its nose up at free food (something no carnivore does). The extent to which it scavenged could certainly be up for debate, but the idea that being a hunter automatically meant it didn't scavenge when it was more convenient seems odd to me, to say the least.

 

All that said, I've personally read enough to be more in favor of T. rex being predatory; even some of its slower estimates put it at fast enough to catch some of its usual prey, and we have found healed T. rex bites on Triceratops bones, suggesting a conflict when the latter was still alive. They could have all been from other disputes, true, but most likely explanation to me seems like it would be predation.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Well having a fear of chickens ever since I was little, having T-Rex have feathers or not is not really going to change my feelings on it... Well a 45ft chicken will likely require me to get new shorts maybe more than the JP Rex. not that I didn't have nightmares after I first saw the movie regardless.

[Smudge8]

Yea, it's a good thing dinosaurs went extinct.

[Takamasaurus]

Technically Dinosaurs never went extinct. Most Scientists Agree that Birds are Dinosaurs.

 

My  3 favorite Dinosaurs Are as follows

 

Dilophosaurus

 

Concavenator

 

and Saichania

Model from Creative Beast Studio

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Oh yes Dilophasoaurus is one of mine as well. Even without the JP depictions. Though I liked that version too as it was my first interaction of the species.

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

Oh yes Dilophasoaurus is one of mine as well. Even without the JP depictions. Though I liked that version too as it was my first interaction of the species.

Same here. Those structures on its head are pretty cool.

 

 

I also was very fond of Iguanadon as a kid. You can imagine how happy I was when Disney's Dinosaur came out; I mean, thumb knives and walking on six fingers, pinkies being used to grab things? That schnit' is cool xD Speaking of that movie, the Carnotaurus looked really cool. I really would not want to meet that thing.  

 

 

Does anyone else here correct people when some says Pterodactyl? It's a Pterodon!

[Smudge8]

Interesting fact about the Dilophasoaurus frills.  Some dinosaur's may have had them but we would probably never know because the bones used to support a frill like that would be too small and fragile to get properly fossilized.

[Takamasaurus]

 

Oh yes Dilophasoaurus is one of mine as well. Even without the JP depictions. Though I liked that version too as it was my first interaction of the species.

Same here. Those structures on its head are pretty cool.

 

 

I also was very fond of Iguanadon as a kid. You can imagine how happy I was when Disney's Dinosaur came out; I mean, thumb knives and walking on six fingers, pinkies being used to grab things? That schnit' is cool xD Speaking of that movie, the Carnotaurus looked really cool. I really would not want to meet that thing.

 

 

Does anyone else here correct people when some says Pterodactyl? It's a Pterodon!

 

Pterodactyl is what most people call Pterosaurs, when it reality, the word refers to one species of Pterosaur (Pterodactylus)  Pteranodon is the most commonly depicted Pterosaur in media, but many people give it Teeth when in reality it had none

[Prowl Nightwolf]

I am more interested in the species that was as big as a jet. Well the wingspan was anyway. Quetzalcoatlus, now there's a monster.

[Takamasaurus]

Quetzalcoatlus‭?  You know it ate Dinosaurs Right?

[Prowl Nightwolf]

As big as it was I guess it could eat anything it wants. I'm not going to argue with it for fear of becoming dinner myself. Though guess I'd be more of an appetizer then a full meal.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Prowl Nightwolf

[Takamasaurus]

well it is as big as a Girafe when its on land, and it preys on smaller Creatures such as baby Dinosaurs.

 

 

This model for instance has it eating a baby Alamosaurus

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

Holy karp that is pretty scary. O_o

 

Seeing that reminded me of this African legend, giant avian raptors swooping down and taking full grown elephants to the highest peaks and feasting its children with their bodies, all avian raptors being their spawn.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Iaredios

[Petewa]

IMO, (insert plural for T-rex here) should be portrayed as orange more often,

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Holy karp that is pretty scary. O_o

 

Seeing that reminded me of this African legend, giant avian raptors swooping down and taking full grown elephants to the highest peaks and feasting its children with their bodies, all avian raptors being their spawn.

 

I think I know that legend. Didn't they do a Monster Hunter episode on that?

 

IMO, (insert plural for T-rex here) should be portrayed as orange more often,

 

I am not sure here you got T-rex being orange for this comment but I don't see why the Rex could not be orange in some tint be it its skin or the feathers it may have had at some point in its life.

[Petewa]

 

Holy karp that is pretty scary. O_o

 

Seeing that reminded me of this African legend, giant avian raptors swooping down and taking full grown elephants to the highest peaks and feasting its children with their bodies, all avian raptors being their spawn.

 

I think I know that legend. Didn't they do a Monster Hunter episode on that?

 

IMO, (insert plural for T-rex here) should be portrayed as orange more often,

 

I am not sure here you got T-rex being orange for this comment but I don't see why the Rex could not be orange in some tint be it its skin or the feathers it may have had at some point in its life.

 

Yay,

[believe victims]

There's not been much activity in this topic, so I figured I should post something I found recently. There are actually dinosaur feathers preserved in amber, something I actually wasn't aware of! I figured some of the people from this topic would find this as fascinating as I have.

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

That is fine and all, but for a previous post you made, I feel the only way to combat your argument is to discuss things that break from the atheistic Darwinist religious philosophy, thus unfortunately breaking the rules of strict radical secularism of BZPower. I feel restricted by what I can say, not to mention that what you have presented appears to lead only into banned discussion. :/

[believe victims]

the atheistic Darwinist religious philosophy

 

Evolution is not a religious philosophy. Not even close. Evolution is backed up by facts, scientific theories, observations, and testable ideas. 97% of scientists are in complete agreement on evolution as the method by which animals change over time, over a wide spectrum of religious beliefs. While scientific consensus isn't guarantee of something being right, in this day and age, it definitely means no one has yet provided any better explanation that satisfies all the data, and frankly, I can't think of any better one, because to me, evolution just plain makes sense.

 

This is not a religious argument, mind you. These are plain actual facts laid on the table before you.

 

 

not to mention that what you have presented appears to lead only into banned discussion. :/

 

What I presented was pictures of dinosaur feathers preserved in amber. I fail to see the issue here.

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

And at one time everyone had believed the earth was the center of the universe and there was plenty of evidence at the time to say as such. Science updates all the time, and I personally feel that macro-evolution has overstayed its welcome.

 

Please do notice that I am being vague on purpose. Look, as much as I like to practice my Christian Apologetics skills, this website is not the place to talk about controversial subjects. Can we go back to talking about how freaky looking Oviraptors look, and other things of such? 

 

EDIT: And I apologize if it appears that I am saying things incorrectly, I am trying to be vague on purpose.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Iaredios

[believe victims]

Evolution is not a controversial subject among those who actually understand the science behind it. Geocentrism is a false equivalency, unless you're truly trying to say we have just as much information at our disposal now as we did in the Dark Ages, and nothing new has ever, ever, ever been discovered that could potentially give us more concretely correct ideas on how the world works.

 

Also macroevolution isn't a real concept in science. It's an arbitrary distinction. "Macroevolution" is "microevolution" + time.

 

But I understand your unwillingness to talk about when I'm on fairly even footing with the rules with my viewpoint and you're not. Fine. We can talk about how freaky-looking oviraptorids looked. A lot like giant birds, even. Really emphasizes the connection, I feel.

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

I will ignore your sarcasm.

 

If you wish to keep talking to me about this, please do PM me; I have a couple of notes about the subject, but I do not want to be in trouble. And to be honest, I do not have much interest, as I am working hard on the project that I am advertising in my signature.

[Makaru]

There's not been much activity in this topic, so I figured I should post something I found recently. There are actually dinosaur feathers preserved in amber, something I actually wasn't aware of! I figured some of the people from this topic would find this as fascinating as I have.

This is the coolest thing I've seen in a long time. probably one of my favourite recent discoveries.

[Tea-rex]

How didn't I see this thread before?

Well, uh, I'm kinda forced to put my favorites here I suppose?

 

Carnotaurus

It's kooky, it's weird, I love it.

 

Styracosaurus

It looks like it's wearing a floral headdress as well as being terrifying at the same time..

 

Chrichtonsaurus

I find Ankylosaurid's rather cute.

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

How didn't I see this thread before?

Well, uh, I'm kinda forced to put my favorites here I suppose?

 

Carnotaurus

It's kooky, it's weird, I love it.

 

Styracosaurus

It looks like it's wearing a floral headdress as well as being terrifying at the same time..

 

Chrichtonsaurus

I find Ankylosaurid's rather cute.

 

 

Carnotaurus is awesome looking, I would hate to see that IRL as it looks like something from our own imagination, like a fantasy story.

 

As for Styracosaurus, as a child I loved those types of dinosaurs:  protoceratops, triceratops, taurosaurus, etc. Loved seeing pictures of them and iguanadon-types fighting therapods.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Iaredios

[Prowl Nightwolf]

I think the biggest thing is that to some people religion and evolution spark too many heated disrespectful debates. That's why such subject are frowned upon here. Me I am quite religious myself but I can see where species have adapted or evolved since days past... I once seen a bumper sticker that read... "God created the universe and BANG it was there". I think it was a joke on the Big bang being proven as a viable creation of the universe where it does not outright disprove God or some all powerful being created the universe. Anyway I appreciate you two choosing to take the subject to PMs to keep the staff from needing to drop their bolt locks on this topic.

 

As for your post regarding the feather Dina, this is a very cool find. Both for you and the paleontology community as a whole. This seems on par with finding that frozen mammoth years back. Sure stones and impressions are cool and we can speculate about the environment or appearance of these seemingly extinct animals and for the most part that is what fossils are. We have no way of proving or disproving if Dinosaurs did or didn't have feathers or were scaled from head to tail. We only speculate based on the fossil evidence as we perceive it. That is why we believe Dinosaurs were large lumbering reptiles only to "evolve" our understanding they were so much more as more data is collected.

 

Now enter a preserved item such as this feather... An actual specimen from a time long past. Almost like a time machine in concept. This is not just some carving or impression in the side of a rock somewhere. This is an actual feather from a species that lived in that time...

 

@ Alijar

I am liking your choice of Dinosaurs. I too find joy in the Ankylosaurida family. Something about a walking tank with a bolder of a bone to leave predators wondering where them misplaced hours went after tangling with it.