/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15154860]

Why is "dinosaurs were cooler before they had feathers" a controversial opinion?

[Anonymous No.15154968]

>>15154860
I think colour and feathers make them cooler.

[Anonymous No.15154971]

Looks more like a 6 foot turkey

[Anonymous No.15155179]

>>15154860
Rawr m a turkey brain travelling through the universe

[Anonymous No.15157100]

>>15154968
The real controversial opinion

[Anonymous No.15157105]

Here's something to think about. If they had feathers, then some of them probably had the same behavioral problems as modern birds and plucked their own feathers out. Meaning that in theory there were probably at least a few giant predators running around looking like sentient ballsacks.

[Anonymous No.15157135]

>>15154968

[Anonymous No.15157341]

>>15157105
A hairless parrot is no substitute for a velociraptor
A proper velociraptor I mean, not one of those little ones from "real life"

[Anonymous No.15158045]

>>15154860
Someone please unironically explain to me why soientists decided dinosaurs have feathers. I'm not going to google this.

[Anonymous No.15158831]

>>15158045
New Science dropped.

[Anonymous No.15158834]

>>15158045
They hate you and they want to take away everything you hold dear

[Anonymous No.15158898]

>>15158045
Because they started finding a bunch with feathers

[Anonymous No.15158993]

>>15158045
They want to ruin our childhoods, anon.

[Anonymous No.15159072]

>>15158834
>>15158993
I fucking knew it.

[Anonymous No.15159144]

>>15158045
The same reason they tell us that Pluto isn't a real planet.

[Anonymous No.15159149]

>>15158898
Either post proof or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15159332]

>>15159149
>bible.ca
Kek

[Anonymous No.15159336]

>>15159332

[Anonymous No.15159364]

>>15159336
Looks more like keratin fur to me. What was the temperature like in its habitat?

[Anonymous No.15159368]

>faggot scientists can't secure funding
>find some small dinos with some feather-like structures
>faggots suggest every dino was feathered
>muh bird ancestors
>secures funding for more faggoty "research"

[Anonymous No.15159372]

>can't explain the existence of dino soft tissue found in fossils
>throws in feather "controversy" to divert attention

[Anonymous No.15159595]

>>15154860
No.

[Anonymous No.15159601]

>>15154860
Because it highlights the grift of palaeontologists. Basically most dinosaurs are made up, they find a small chunk of bone or a single fragment of tooth and they make up the entire rest out of their ass, biggest scam on science, they are paid to do this shit

[Anonymous No.15159604]

>>15158045
Birds are, no shit, dinosaurs.

[Anonymous No.15159874]

>>15159144
you mean some uppity coon from new york shilled against it?

[Anonymous No.15160123]

>>15154860
>>15158045
>>15159149
>>15159332
>>15159336
>>15159372

Reminder that most "fossils" of "dinosaurs" with "feathers" come from China, a place where they openly fabricate "fossils" as commodities.

[Anonymous No.15160194]

If they had feathers they could have survived the global cooling. No dinosaur could live europe outdoors now

[Anonymous No.15161032]

>>15159372
Is this another "talking snake believer can't tell the difference between fossilized soft tissues and unfossilized meat" episode?

[Anonymous No.15161050]

>>15154860
I don't think it is

[Anonymous No.15161216]

>>15161032
>fossilized soft tissue
>multi-million years old
>fossilized
>soft
>tissue

Time to grow a brain, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15161232]

>>15160123
It’s not even from China
>>15159364
>keratin fur
All fur is keratin fur. It’s a dinosaur, it doesn’t have fur. Kiwi birds look like they have fur but that doesn’t make it fur

[Anonymous No.15161238]

>>15159372
>>15161216
>soft tissue
Read the paper and not the first creation.com site you find the picture on brainlet

[Anonymous No.15161244]

>>15161238
https://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur.htm

[Anonymous No.15161266]

>>15161244
>https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Might want to read the second one

[Anonymous No.15161272]

>>15161244
>soft tissue fossilized before it could decay
Thank you for proving my point. Another epic fail for creationists.

[Anonymous No.15161281]

>>15161266
A retarded damage control-tier explanation which falls apart. Her shitty test was conducted in a lab with room control temps, and while "recognizable" it was still deteriorating. Do that or any experiment in trying to replicate the "fossilization" of soft tissue against the exposed elements and microbes of the ground. And also, the rexy is just one of dozens of fossils with soft tissue which come from a variety of fossils from a many different environments and many different eras.

The lie is falling apart. Will you hang from the street lamps when hell breaks loose, or will you find truth before its to late.

[Anonymous No.15161288]

>>15161281
>just one of dozens of fossils with soft tissue
There’s not dozens lmao. More like a handful, but one is from China so couldn’t possibly be real
>Her shitty test was conducted in a lab with room control temps, and while "recognizable" it was still deteriorating
You’re the one using her “shitty test” as the basis for young earth shit though. We’ve got a couple specimens with barely preserved molecules of soft tissue, but if they were around so recently where’s all the fully mummified specimens with intact DNA and unfossilised organs like we see with mammoths, wooly rhinos, etc?

[Anonymous No.15161289]

>>15161266

[Anonymous No.15161298]

>>15161288
Look at it recoil.
>uh there was no soft tissue!
>uh the tests prove it actually fossilized!
>but muh wooly mammoth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

Tick-tock

[Anonymous No.15161303]

>>15158045
It's not all dinos, just lineages closely related to birds.

[Anonymous No.15161308]

>>15161289
>it is too late, for I have already depicted you in a bad light within this drawing
>picrel
>>15161298
Why is it you people are so retarded you always dogleg into some other topic that boils your balls. If you don’t have an answer to what’s been said you can just not continue arguing
>starts posting about soft tissue when the discussion is about feathers
>starts posting about evolution when the discussion is about soft tissue

[Anonymous No.15161323]

>>15161308
Learn some more biochemistry beyond highschool biology and maybe some physics too before talking with the big boys about why "couple specimens with barely preserved molecules of soft tissue" is a bigger deal than you realize.

[Anonymous No.15161328]

>>15161323
>is a bigger deal than you realize
Oh I know it’s a big deal. But it’s not a big deal because that means there were dinosaurs walking around when the pyramids were being built like you seem to think

[Anonymous No.15161330]

>>15161328
No, you're just a knuckle dragging nigger.

[Anonymous No.15161336]

>>15161330
Damn bro, I can’t imagine how bad it must be for you then. My condolences

[Anonymous No.15161337]

>>15161232
Picrel is a feather. I see no structures in the pictured fossil which resemble feathers.

[Anonymous No.15161349]

>>15161337
Then what do you think it is, fucking hair? A feather is just a filament on a bird or some other theropod. Take away the vanes on your feather image and all of a sudden you’ve got a single long strand like in the fossil, we see that sort of long strand in some modern birds too

[Anonymous No.15161398]

>>15161349
>Semantics.

Whatever. I believe it's misleading to say dinosaurs had feathers.

If they just had a bunch of feather shafts sticking out of their skin, they could have been used for cooling and not keeping warm.

[Anonymous No.15161444]

>>15161398
What does whether or not theyre used for cooling or warmth change whether or not it’s a feather? That’s not the definition of a feather. Besides even if that one only had basic feathers, that doesn’t change the fact there’s winged dinosaurs with feathers exactly like your image

[Anonymous No.15161459]

>>15161444
It's not a feather if it's only the shaft of a feather. What it may have developed into later may have been more like a feather.

I find the implications more interesting than the definitions. Not really interested in arguing semantics.

[Anonymous No.15161525]

>>15154860
Because birds are cool.

[Anonymous No.15161597]

Will soientists ever come clean and admit that the existence of giant lizards disproves their pathetic ideas about "tectonic plates"? Or will we have to endure more decades of blathering about how dinosaurs were ackshually giant flightless birds?

[Anonymous No.15161629]

>>15161459
>It's not a feather if it's only the shaft of a feather
Yes it is, that’s what you call a type 1 feather. Also you’re assuming that it’s just the feather shaft, and that it wouldn’t have small branches if you looked at it closer. Just because cassowary feathers look like hair doesn’t mean they arent feathers
>Not really interested in arguing semantics
Then why are you arguing semantics

[Anonymous No.15161707]

>>15161629
I'm not. You are.

Why are all the trolls unimaginative and boring.

[Anonymous No.15161727]

>>15154860
Being born before or after 2000

[Anonymous No.15161734]

>>15161629
>a harder and thicker hair is a feather
boy you dumb

[Anonymous No.15161877]

>>15154860
Dinosaurs above 100kg especially in tropical regions (the entire world was tropical) still don't have feathers/filaments.
It's almost like the principle behind thermoregulation applies to big tropical mammals of today as well.

[Anonymous No.15162296]

>>15161707
>I'm not. You are
>looks more like keratin fur to me
Yes you are
>>15161734
Dinosaurs didn’t have hair. I suppose cassowaries have hair and not feathers too

[Anonymous No.15162298]

>>15154860
It's not a controversial opinion, they were definitely cooler. But some dinosaurs did have feathers, cool or not

[Anonymous No.15164372]

>>15162298
Unfortunately, they did, but we knew that since fucking Archaeopteryx, which is nothing but a dumb dromaeosaur flapping around posing as a bird. It's onlöy theropods, though, which had feathers. Some ornithopods had bristles, like psitaccosaurs, and that late heterodontosaurid. But Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Brontosaurus and many other childhoodfavourites sure didn't. Neither did the carnosaurs, as evidenced by the skin preservation of Carnotaurus. Tyrannosaurids may have had, though, but they are just giant coelurosaurs after all.