Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 9
Eat this, scaly T. rex fans!; HAHAHAHAHAAA!
Topic Started: Apr 5 2012, 04:51 AM (16,953 Views)
Eotyrannus
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyrannus-a-giant-tyrannosaur-with-feathers/#more-6682

Finally, there is good evidence that large tyrannosaurs had feathers! This is outside of the true tyrannosaurs, being more closely related to creatures such as Guanlong, but sheer size alone makes it a good bet that Tyrannosaurus had feathers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Edited by Admantus, Aug 13 2012, 02:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
But again, NOT ALL DINOSAURS WERE FEATHERY! Skin impressions have been found on various species.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Aug 13 2012, 01:39 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
No it isn´t. it´s a scientific possibility just like them being scaly!
hair in reptiles is impossible, feathers yes, but not hair...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 07:58 AM
theropod
Aug 13 2012, 01:39 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
No it isn´t. it´s a scientific possibility just like them being scaly!
hair in reptiles is impossible, feathers yes, but not hair...
Then how the fuck did pterosaurs get hair?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Posted Image
Kiwis have feathers, not hair
and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus
and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Aug 13 2012, 11:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 08:43 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 07:58 AM
theropod
Aug 13 2012, 01:39 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
No it isn´t. it´s a scientific possibility just like them being scaly!
hair in reptiles is impossible, feathers yes, but not hair...
Then how the fuck did pterosaurs get hair?
not hair, pycnofibres, it just looks like hair but is not hair, at all
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Posted Image
Kiwis have feathers, not hair
and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus
and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.

Posted Image

You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high?

And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Edited by Admantus, Aug 13 2012, 11:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Posted Image
Kiwis have feathers, not hair
and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus
and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.

Posted Image

You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high?

And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Posted Image
Kiwis have feathers, not hair
and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus
and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.

Posted Image

You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high?

And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 12:07 PM
Godzillaman
Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Posted Image
Kiwis have feathers, not hair
and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus
and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.

Posted Image

You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high?

And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized.
Alright this is getting more and more ridiculous images in my head. If big dinosaurs were built like elephants, being mostly skin, but possessing small hairs here and there, that implants horrifying images in my mind. To me, small coeulosaurs are like flightless birds, and huge sauropods are hairless lizards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Aug 13 2012, 12:13 PM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 12:07 PM
Godzillaman
Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Posted Image
Kiwis have feathers, not hair
and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus
and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.

Posted Image

You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high?

And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized.
Alright this is getting more and more ridiculous images in my head. If big dinosaurs were built like elephants, being mostly skin, but possessing small hairs here and there, that implants horrifying images in my mind. To me, small coeulosaurs are like flightless birds, and huge sauropods are hairless lizards. And that's why tetaneurans had feathers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I really don't see any reason why any multi ton dinosaur would posses more than a couple feathers much less hair. Since their bodies where large, the temperate climate, and them being endothermic a large amount of feathers/fur would have just caused them to overheat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant
Aug 13 2012, 12:54 PM
I really don't see any reason why any multi ton dinosaur would posses more than a couple feathers much less hair. Since their bodies where large, the temperate climate, and them being endothermic a large amount of feathers/fur would have just caused them to overheat.
That's why i suggested them having either a short covering of protofeathers, or having none.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 12:16 PM
Godzillaman
Aug 13 2012, 12:13 PM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 12:07 PM
Godzillaman
Aug 13 2012, 12:04 PM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 11:41 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 10:51 AM
Admantus
Aug 13 2012, 02:22 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Aug 13 2012, 01:12 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:25 PM
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.
Admantus
 
Times are changing godzillaman. The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
The evidence is leaning more towards dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

Admantus
 
dinosaurs being hairy.

lol have you went full retard somehow? dinosaurs are NOT mammals, the thought of hairy dinosaurs alone is beyond retarded
Ok broly. The view on how dinosaurs look is changing. If you're still clinging on to the scaly monsters of yesterday, then kindly cut off your fucking internet, crawl into a corner, and cry yourself to sleep. And what about pterosaurs? They were hairy. And since pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, which was very likely to have small protofeathers. It's basically like saying that ungulates and carnivorans evolved fur separately.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

And what i meant by hairy i meant the type of hair on a kiwi bird, you idiot.
Posted Image
Kiwis have feathers, not hair
and you stick to this shitty feathering trend, suddenly forgetting about all the scaly dinosaur skin impressions...and there are even scaly skin impressions from Tarbosaurus
and use the word "feathery", not "hairy", I also hate the even shittier "mammalizing" of dinosaurs, especially considering that mammals and dinosaurs aren't even related at all
Nope.

Posted Image

You clearly are the retarded one here. And "mammalizing"? what the fuck? are you high?

And you know that the viewing of dinosaurs as active, warm blooded animals was a "trend" also. So pack up your shit and leave, because you are clearly not educated enough on this topic.
Well, broly does have a point. There have been tons of skin impressions found.
True. But a lot doesn't get fossilized. Like if there were sparse, hairlike structures on a tarbosaurus, they wouldn't be fossilized.
And that's why tetaneurans had feathers
Not all tetaneurans had feathers. Megalosaurs (ignoring sciurumimus, which might have been a ceoulosaur), spinosaurs, and carnosaurs didn't have feathers. Maybe very primitive feather-like structures, but not feathers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrant
Aug 13 2012, 12:54 PM
I really don't see any reason why any multi ton dinosaur would posses more than a couple feathers much less hair. Since their bodies where large, the temperate climate, and them being endothermic a large amount of feathers/fur would have just caused them to overheat.
Some scientists believe that the large dinosaurs like sauropods were cold-blooded actually. But that makes them even more lizard-like.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 9

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.