|
Post by kuni on Dec 10, 2008 5:30:30 GMT
No, but it was announced to the world in National Geographic. Not a science paper, and -- as we've discussed ad nauseum -- was not a very "conservative" move on their part, and they've suffered for it.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 10, 2008 5:33:44 GMT
They have a hard time classifying it but hey, who cares? Let's put feathers on a (possibly) related animal! I find that unscientific. Again, it's not only the looks (I admit I don't like them) it also has to do with the zeal people put in connecting dinosaurs with feathers. That's why the T-Rex 'proteins' disaster took place. Xing has had business with Chinese fossil dealers, he got the other parts of Microraptor that way, I thought that was illegal or at least immoral? Having a closed mind doesn't help tomhet. Don't you think its even remotely possible for a large relative of modern day birds to have some sort of feather at some point in its life? We are closely related to apes but we are not completely covered with fur. Heck, crocs are related to birds, but they don't have feathers. Dunno. I may not be COMPLETELY covered with fur, but I AM pretty d**n hairy. What about those " dogboy" mutations? The people completely covered with hair. Isn't that just old unused genes kicking in? I am SO sick of us all arguing the same frikin' points over and over. God!
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Dec 10, 2008 5:35:37 GMT
Again, where's the evidence? It was just speculation. ...reasonable speculation. Tyrannosaurus is more closely related to birds than it is to any living reptile. All paleoart by neccessity has speculative aspects. Don't kid yourself otherwise. There's room in the fossil record for interpretation. Either we throw up our hands and say it's impossible to even attempt a reconstruction, or we try something that fits with in the realm of possibility. Feathers are within that realm whether you like it or not. Any reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus, or any extinct animal; you can't truly hold up a picture and say this is what it looked like, you can only say this is how it may have looked.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 10, 2008 5:39:39 GMT
;D Exactly. It is a science all based on maybes, and could--have--beens. And, adjusting to possibilities we may not like, but could have been. Hey, I don't find the platypus attractive asthetically, and think it SHOULDN'T look like it does. Doesn't change the way the animal IS.
Hmmm, STILL can't spell tonight....
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 10, 2008 5:53:51 GMT
Again, where's the evidence? It was just speculation. ...reasonable speculation. Tyrannosaurus is more closely related to birds than it is to any living reptile. All paleoart by neccessity has speculative aspects. Don't kid yourself otherwise. There's room in the fossil record for interpretation. Either we throw up our hands and say it's impossible to even attempt a reconstruction, or we try something that fits with in the realm of possibility. Feathers are within that realm whether you like it or not. Any reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus, or any extinct animal; you can't truly hold up a picture and say this is what it looked like, you can only say this is how it may have looked. T-Rex was a dead end. It is not the direct decendent of any modern reptile or bird. T-Rex is a reptile not a bird! ;D
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Dec 10, 2008 5:59:17 GMT
it doesn't have to be a link in the evolutionary chain of birds to be closely related to them. They have common ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Dec 10, 2008 7:53:41 GMT
;D Exactly. It is a science all based on maybes, and could--have--beens. And, adjusting to possibilities we may not like, but could have been. Hey, I don't find the platypus attractive asthetically, and think it SHOULDN'T look like it does. Doesn't change the way the animal IS. Hmmm, STILL can't spell tonight.... Haven't you read the last posts? Doesn't 'speculation' ring a bell? We know how a freaking platypus looks, we don't know how T-Rex WAS. Not scientifically - better that science describe them than they sit with a private collector. (That being said, of course you want to go over those sorts of fossils with a fine-tooth comb, and by "comb" I mean of the CTscan variety ) Really? So you're justifying that he acted unethically? What about taphomic integrity? And I didn't mention Archaeoraptor, I mentioned Microraptor, which is already sanctioned by the paleos. I'm not throwing up my hands, I'm saying stick to the evidence, T-Rex skin impressions are scaly. Again, we all have a common ancestor, but we don't have gills.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Dec 10, 2008 8:27:05 GMT
"Besides, Archaeopteryx and Caudipteryx have nothing to do with tyrannosaurids." Besides being not to distantly related theropod dinosaurs ? "We are closely related to apes but we are not completely covered with fur." Its hair, and yes we are completely covered with it unless we shave. We have nearly as much hair per square inch on our bodies as the other great apes. For most of us it just happens to be finer and light in color. It also, like in our ape relatives follows patterns of change through our lives (males heads thinning, with denser hair coming in along the back and shoulders) Unless you are one of the folks who has a full coat of hair like the guy above - very chimp-E - it tends to be ignored. (unless you are a lady and like smooth legs and a smooth bikini line!) I am sure I have posted this info before, along with photos of the fuzzy elephant calf and dolphin "wishers". "Why does it excite people to hear that dinosaurs were feathered? I guess people who want dinosaurs to look the way they wish they looked will do anything to those ends." Hahaha. No, not really. It does not "excite me" specifically that dinosaurs were feathered. It just brings them to light as they really were. Just like when we stopped representing them dragging their tails about with legs splayed out to the sides. You can repeat that "way they wish they looked" all you want, but really - that is your boat. If it came to light that a fully to mostly scaled pebbly skinned rex was found, then so be it, rex was scaly, and so likely were its closest relatives. If you notice, my representation of T rex in the art contest was scaly, not feathered, simply because I do not feel enough evidence has been brought to light to cover it definitively in feathers. I will not attempt to overreach like some folks, and make bogus claims like they could not have sported feathers, because...we don't know, and its quite possible they did. I tend to represent most tyrannosaurids traditionally out of personal preference. That will probably change if new information comes to light that says otherwise. I see that for some reason you have a hard time with changing as new information is discovered and found. I find that unfortunate. Its very like many of the folks I have bumped into are with religion. There is no room for "new" if it disrupts the comfortable "old" "Their protein 'study' determined that Rexy was closely related to chickens, but what they had found was slime" And you continue to quote pilty..."Slime" and "archeoraptor" aside, do you really have anything worth bringing to the table ? Overeagerness and potentially bad "studys" do not somehow invalidate all of the good information and evidence on feathered dinosaurs that has come to light over the years. Crocodilians are archosaurs, and though they are related to birds the are also related to pterosaurs, and they lack fine hair like structures that are present on many of those. As for... "Well, there is evidence it is a relative--since all land animals evolved from the same primitive sea creatures, we are all related. Humans are related to T-rex, and T-rex to birds, and cheetahs to turtles" Well...in a very wide brush...sort of...Understanding what is closest in relation to what else is very important for understanding how things are and came to be. Your comparisons are not the ones I would use. "Humans are closer related to cheetahs, T rex closer to birds and turtles closer to t rex and birds then us and cheetahs, and wayyy back we all share a common ancestor" would be more in like with our currently knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 10, 2008 16:21:25 GMT
All that is being said is that T-Rex isn't the missing link to birds. Is there anyone else beside Tyrannax that things that T-Rex's evolved into birds. ;D Of course Tyrannosaurus isn't the missing link to birds, but he was related to them. ;D Like he is related to an Alligator? ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Dec 10, 2008 16:46:27 GMT
;D Exactly. It is a science all based on maybes, and could--have--beens. And, adjusting to possibilities we may not like, but could have been. Hey, I don't find the platypus attractive asthetically, and think it SHOULDN'T look like it does. Doesn't change the way the animal IS. Hmmm, STILL can't spell tonight.... Haven't you read the last posts? Doesn't 'speculation' ring a bell? We know how a freaking platypus looks, we don't know how T-Rex WAS. Not scientifically - better that science describe them than they sit with a private collector. (That being said, of course you want to go over those sorts of fossils with a fine-tooth comb, and by "comb" I mean of the CTscan variety ) Really? So you're justifying that he acted unethically? What about taphomic integrity? And I didn't mention Archaeoraptor, I mentioned Microraptor, which is already sanctioned by the paleos. I'm not throwing up my hands, I'm saying stick to the evidence, T-Rex skin impressions are scaly. Again, we all have a common ancestor, but we don't have gills. We do embryonically--they just turn into our ear bones. And why did you start this Cordy? Seriously, it just angries up people's blood.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 10, 2008 17:01:30 GMT
Haven't you read the last posts? Doesn't 'speculation' ring a bell? We know how a freaking platypus looks, we don't know how T-Rex WAS. Really? So you're justifying that he acted unethically? What about taphomic integrity? And I didn't mention Archaeoraptor, I mentioned Microraptor, which is already sanctioned by the paleos. I'm not throwing up my hands, I'm saying stick to the evidence, T-Rex skin impressions are scaly. Again, we all have a common ancestor, but we don't have gills. We do embryonically--they just turn into our ear bones. And why did you start this Cordy? Seriously, it just angries up people's blood. ;D Forgive him for he knows not what he does!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 10, 2008 17:14:03 GMT
Totally agree with Tomhet As i said (i don't even know how much times!): Tyrannosaurids with feathers? BAH!
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Dec 10, 2008 17:29:41 GMT
sbell's right, I'm closing this thread.
|
|