Jump to content
Banner by ~ The Wife of Hawks

Science Are you disappointed that dinosaurs had feathers?


Recommended Posts


Register now to remove this ad.

Not at all, I'm totally OK with feathered dinosaurs. At the same tine I find the lizard-like appearance that still prevails in most media kinda annoying - new data is here, why stick to outdated concepts? Same goes for Pluto, btw, it's not a planet and that's fine by me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Oleks said:

Not at all, I'm totally OK with feathered dinosaurs. At the same tine I find the lizard-like appearance that still prevails in most media kinda annoying - new data is here, why stick to outdated concepts? Same goes for Pluto, btw, it's not a planet and that's fine by me.

Like all things, I'm pretty sure that data is still up for debate. I've read pros and cons on the TRex being feathered, as well as the raptor. 

At the end of the day though, whenever I eat a fried chicken leg, I feel a sense of accomplishment that I've conquered Rex's closest living relative.

 

Also, there's some funny business regarding the vote that Pluto isn't a planet anymore. There's been a lot of funmy business with science in the last couple decades, honestly.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PiratePony said:

Like all things, I'm pretty sure that data is still up for debate. I've read pros and cons on the TRex being feathered, as well as the raptor. 

At the end of the day though, whenever I eat a fried chicken leg, I feel a sense of accomplishment that I've conquered Rex's closest living relative.

 

Also, there's some funny business regarding the vote that Pluto isn't a planet anymore. There's been a lot of funmy business with science in the last couple decades, honestly.

It's not only about the T-Rex and raptors. More solid evidence was found for other species, although feathered T-Rex is of course the coolest looking thing.

As for Pluto, it's a matter of classification and definition. I've heard arguments from both sides, and I think I'm good with the current state of affairs. Things in science change. It's normal.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. It works well visually on some, not on others. There're aesthetics we've gotten used to for paleontological art, and one I've only learned about recently was that there's been a tendency to show less muscle mass than there likely would have been, and have the skin semi vacuum sealed on skulls and so forth. My understanding is that most dinosaurs are thought to have not have had feathers, mostly herbivores, and that them and Pterosaurs would have had some hair like filaments, so probably somewhat resembling large herbivores of today like rhinos, elephants, and for the latter, bats. Classics like Allosaurus seem to have remained feather free.

Feathers can look fine when taken seriously.

Image result for feathered triceratops

Don't be given me Jackals from Halo.

Image result for jackal halo head

Or any of this!

Image result for feathered triceratops

Edited by SharpWit
  • Brohoof 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more pissed off at them also trying to say dinosaurs that were rather fast, large, etc

Aren't, like them trying to say the T-rex couldn't sprint like in the movies, but instead just kinda slowly power walked.

If anyone, I'm annoyed more at the believers of the "feather dino" theories, criticizing you and throwing around names / slurs because you dare defy science or some shiz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Oleks said:

Same goes for Pluto, btw, it's not a planet and that's fine by me.

That's just a change of definition, not new data on Pluto.

10 hours ago, PiratePony said:

At the end of the day though, whenever I eat a fried chicken leg, I feel a sense of accomplishment that I've conquered Rex's closest living relative.

:ButtercupLaugh:

8 hours ago, SharpWit said:

Yes and no. It works well visually on some, not on others.

Yeah, a raptor with feathers is one thing but a triceratops or brontosaurus? That's just weird!

  • Brohoof 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

2 hours ago, Fluttershutter said:

That's just a change of definition, not new data on Pluto.

A change of definition caused by new data: discovery of Eris in 2005.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No? I’m not sure why you would be disappointed by this. In my opinion, dinosaurs with plumage look just as cool as dinosaurs without them.

33130815-A704-464D-A74E-FD15EA130786.jpeg

  • Yay 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WWolf said:

What you talkin bout? They have scales! Like lizards :lie: !

*pushes glasses up nose* Birds have scales too, under their feathers. :twi: Birds are actually classified with reptiles scientifically. 

Now, pertaining to the thread, does this upset me? Nah. 

  • Laugh 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they have to redo Jurassic Park so it will be more accurate. More fluffy and colorful!

 

I don't mind. I like birds.

A naked bird looks like a dinosaur.... You know, anyone can make obvious mistakes.

  • Laugh 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a shock at first, but I am growing to appreciate the idea more and more. :fluttershy: 

On 1/1/2020 at 10:41 AM, Fluttershutter said:

I just think they look so much cooler in things like Jurassic Park and Walking With Dinosaurs.

 

On 1/3/2020 at 8:51 AM, Splashee said:

Now they have to redo Jurassic Park so it will be more accurate. More fluffy and colorful!

I actually went back and watched the original Jurassic Park movie recently. There was a line thrown in there, one that is often missed by nearly everyone. Something about how the dinosaurs are genetic modifications. They aren't meant to reflect the original dinosaurs at all! They were just clones that got as close to the original as they could get. Later movies with Chris Pratt played up the idea of these genetically modified creatures. Point is, if the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World movies are inaccurate, there is an in-story reason. :P

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Samurai Equine said:

It was a shock at first, but I am growing to appreciate the idea more and more. :fluttershy: 

 

I actually went back and watched the original Jurassic Park movie recently. There was a line thrown in there, one that is often missed by nearly everyone. Something about how the dinosaurs are genetic modifications. They aren't meant to reflect the original dinosaurs at all! They were just clones that got as close to the original as they could get. Later movies with Chris Pratt played up the idea of these genetically modified creatures. Point is, if the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World movies are inaccurate, there is an in-story reason. :P

There is a lot of dna that doesn't have any apparent purpose. "junk dna" Of course it must do something but it has nothing to do with an animal's appearance. In the book it said they had to fill in some gaps that were degraded over millions of years with dna from other animals. Still it seems very unlikely that with all the dinosaurs they made the alterations happened to strip them of feathers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

So i don't really think they all did. if i remember correctly, the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period where the ones with the most common feathering lets call it. And even that wasn't guaranteed to all dinosaurs themselves but more towards i think it was like 70%. The biggest thing i have is that i haven't looked into it in years but wasn't most of the discoveries found in China? With that in mind maybe it's the region that was there that had that (i could totally be wrong in that aspect as again, i haven't really looked into it too much. Just mostly watched some documentaries on it from Curiosity Stream and such for up to date information on it.)

I'm pretty sure Jurassic Period Dinosaurs had less feathers. Again i could be wrong but i think it just logically fell into the certain groups living more because of certain scenarios. i could be wrong but either way, my end result is.

No, it didn't really bother me. I don't think it's much of a problem, being the climates and such they lived in as parts of the world cooled and such. Feathers would have been a way for them to deal with the lack of heat (progressively for them and the world they lived in) itself and so forth. XD 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...