True colours of Dinosaurs revealed

[Scar]

It's something we've been discussing on another forum , feather's insulating ability in colder weather makes plenty of sense for me...on tyrannosaurs..I don't know though.

I wish. Believe me I do. I really like the possibilities of what a feathered T.rex could have looked like with a full feather coat. Unfortunately we don't have any evidence that a feathered T.rex would have existed even as the earth began to cool, and actually have evidence based on existing skin impressions that they were largely devoid of feathers.

It's much more likely that the animals would have begun migrating, because otherwise all dinosaurs would have had to have evolved drastically different internal anatomy and adapted extremely quickly for countercurrent heat exchange in their extremities as well as feathered evolution for a reason accessory to ornamentation. We know that in modern birds feathers are a catch-all for display, insulation, and flight mechanics. Those organisms with them survived the most capably. Dinosaurs as a whole never went extinct, they just continued to evolve into what we know today as birds. A vast number of species did die out, including the regal T.rex, but certainly not all, including the smaller species with proto-feathers which had that accessory advantage which also developed more with changes in the earth's climate. It's very cool stuff.

 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Would those smaller ( compared to Rex ) dromeosaurs/Raptors have lived in colder climates as the seasons began to change more ?

Bakker showed several species of dromeosaur , segnosaur, sauropod, ect.. in Raptor Red, living in a higher forested area that experienced seasonal changes like snow...I don't believe he mentioned them as having any feathers though. I've read a lot of the prehistoric mountain areas we just don't have fossils for since the area wasn't suited to fossil formation..so we have no idea what lived there really...sounds pretty mysterious and cool... heh heh

 

[Superman]

I wish. Believe me I do. I really like the possibilities of what a feathered T.rex could have looked like with a full feather coat. Unfortunately we don't have any evidence that a feathered T.rex would have existed even as the earth began to cool, and actually have evidence based on existing skin impressions that they were largely devoid of feathers.

It's much more likely that the animals would have begun migrating, because otherwise all dinosaurs would have had to have evolved drastically different internal anatomy and adapted extremely quickly for countercurrent heat exchange in their extremities as well as feathered evolution for a reason accessory to ornamentation. We know that in modern birds feathers are a catch-all for display, insulation, and flight mechanics. Those organisms with them survived the most capably. Dinosaurs as a whole never went extinct, they just continued to evolve into what we know today as birds. A vast number of species did die out, including the regal T.rex, but certainly not all, including the smaller species with proto-feathers which had that accessory advantage which also developed more with changes in the earth's climate. It's very cool stuff.

I have to disagree with you on that one. There is no proof that the T-rex evolved through time into some species of birds for example. There would have been fossils showing the transition. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one.. I have to believe they did become extinct at some point just like many species have become extinct during our short lifetimes within the past 100 years.

 

[Scar]

I have to disagree with you on that one. There is no proof that the T-rex evolved through time into some species of birds for example. There would have been fossils showing the transition. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one.. I have to believe they did become extinct at some point just like many species have become extinct during our short lifetimes within the past 100 years.

Just throwing this out there...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060922094617.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028205650.htm



The lines are directly, directly correlated, otherwise modern volant birds are anomalous without a further ancestral basis, which is just patently false. No species that were alive in the late Cretaceous exist today, but some organisms derived from those same lines most certainly do. We can trace the evolution of certain features in modern birds back to theropods. For example, the presence of a medullary bone in extinct organisms as well as today's bird species. Unless you're contending that all of these features and complex anatomical features just sprung up independently in the fossil record again (I hope you're not trying to imply that ). How do you account for the dinosaur species described in the articles above? Or Archaeopteryx? Or the transitional anatomy of terror birds? It's a continual evolutionary track. Just because we can't pinpoint an individual dinosaur species which gave rise to modern bird species doesn't mean dinosaurs and birds do not share the same phylogenetic track. We can account for features in either group by exploring the other. They're not exclusive in terms of elucidating in Darwinian terms.

Unless you don't mean to imply that and that you think I was implying that there's a species of modern bird directly descended from T.rex itself, in which case you're misreading the comment. T.rex as a species never evolved into a bird; its evolutionary path ceased with the KT event. It was the most derived species of tyrannosaurid. It was the zenith of its line. However, phylogenetically it was closely related to a number of species from which it is believed modern birds have originated. Species of small theropods over time did continue to evolve and proto-feathers continued to adapt to differential purposes in a number of species. Proto-feathers aside, we have several fully-feathered dinosaur fossils for organisms which would have been capable of achieving flight. Going to have to go right back and disagree with you.

 

[Scar]

Would those smaller ( compared to Rex ) dromeosaurs/Raptors have lived in colder climates as the seasons began to change more ?

Bakker showed several species of dromeosaur , segnosaur, sauropod, ect.. in Raptor Red, living in a higher forested area that experienced seasonal changes like snow...I don't believe he mentioned them as having any feathers though. I've read a lot of the prehistoric mountain areas we just don't have fossils for since the area wasn't suited to fossil formation..so we have no idea what lived there really...sounds pretty mysterious and cool... heh heh

Not saying that those smaller species would have lived in such climates, but that they were certainly better adapted. I'd certainly say they were capable.

 

[Superman]

Just throwing this out there...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060922094617.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617171816.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028205650.htm



The lines are directly, directly correlated, otherwise modern volant birds are anomalous without a further ancestral basis, which is just patently false. No species that were alive in the late Cretaceous exist today, but some organisms derived from those same lines most certainly do. We can trace the evolution of certain features in modern birds back to theropods. For example, the presence of a medullary bone in extinct organisms as well as today's bird species. Unless you're contending that all of these features and complex anatomical features just sprung up independently in the fossil record again (I hope you're not trying to imply that ). How do you account for the dinosaur species described in the articles above? Or Archaeopteryx? Or the transitional anatomy of terror birds? It's a continual evolutionary track. Just because we can't pinpoint an individual dinosaur species which gave rise to modern bird species doesn't mean dinosaurs and birds do not share the same phylogenetic track. We can account for features in either group by exploring the other. They're not exclusive in terms of elucidating in Darwinian terms.

Unless you don't mean to imply that and that you think I was implying that there's a species of modern bird directly descended from T.rex itself, in which case you're misreading the comment. T.rex as a species never evolved into a bird; its evolutionary path ceased with the KT event. It was the most derived species of tyrannosaurid. It was the zenith of its line. However, phylogenetically it was closely related to a number of species from which it is believed modern birds have originated. Species of small theropods over time did continue to evolve and proto-feathers continued to adapt to differential purposes in a number of species. Proto-feathers aside, we have several fully-feathered dinosaur fossils for organisms which would have been capable of achieving flight. Going to have to go right back and disagree with you.

With all the fossil's that have been discovered, why no evidence to support evolution. All the evolution models are theories and artist's filling in the gaps of missing fossil's which show the evolution taking place? Scientists usually start doing what you're doing which is speaking as if all you are saying is fact and what happened. I wish more scientists would explain that everything their are talking about could actually be 100% false as very little evidence supports what they are talking about. Just like Global Warming. That theory got so bad, scientists had to make up data and twist data just to keep the theory alive. SHow me fossil evidence of evolution of any carnivore, herbivore or omnivore is all I ask. Where is this slow evolution that has occurred over millions of years? SHouldn't we have many fossils to support these theories? You have to understand that the majority of the science you have learned could be 100% false that is spoken as truth and agreed upon as truth.

 

[Scar]

With all the fossil's that have been discovered, why no evidence to support evolution. All the evolution models are theories and artist's filling in the gaps of missing fossil's which show the evolution taking place? Scientists usually start doing what you're doing which is speaking as if all you are saying is fact and what happened. I wish more scientists would explain that everything their are talking about could actually be 100% false as very little evidence supports what they are talking about. Just like Global Warming. That theory got so bad, scientists had to make up data and twist data just to keep the theory alive. Show me fossil evidence of evolution of any carnivore, herbivore or omnivore is all I ask. Where is this slow evolution that has occurred over millions of years? SHouldn't we have many fossils to support these theories? You have to understand that the majority of the science you have learned could be 100% false that is spoken as truth and agreed upon as truth.

I'm guessing you never took a basic biology course, and probably that you didn't attend college. Sorry to bust your bubble, mate. But we have quite a number of fossils of small theropods which have feathers, and the earliest known bird shares more characteristics of prehistoric theropods than it does of today's birds. Particularly the growth dynamics. By studying the vascularization of fossil bones with CT scans, we can tell that Archaeopteryx matured at a rate far more common with extinct troodontids than extant volant birds. Just for fun (even though I suspect you won't read it) -
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144422.htm

For all others who have posted in this thread, check out that link! Second dinosaur for which we have definitively deduced the coloration! Anchiornis huxleyi!

You want to see proof that extant fauna evolved over time? Really? Really? You don't believe in evolution...? So there's absolutely no reason to have the field of comparative vertebrate biology, and phylogenetics is all hooey, is that right?

So scientists don't actually explain what it is they're doing and most is probably 100% false? Reeeeeally? So, you didn't actually read any of those articles I linked you to, did you? I see, so you think all we do is sit in a room doodling and playing with ourselves instead of doing, you know, research, and trying to explain the natural world. My mistake. Here I thought my work has been genuine all this time. I know I'm layering the sarcasm nice and thick here for ya. Consider it a layer cake of deception on the part of a wicked member of the science community. I hope you don't actually go to the doctor, because those people rely on science too! Can't have that. Those people have absolutely no basis for what they're doing. Just pretty much make it up as they go along. Wouldn't trust them if I were you. Nor the biochemists, physicists, electrical engineers, virologists, geologists, etc., and least of all we foul biologists. Not in any capacity. We're all a vicious lot.

Soooooooo of all the fossils we've found, none support evolution? Ooooooh, I see what you're saying. We're not really related to other primates at all, and fossils were put in the ground by the devil to trick us. Sorry, I'm going to sign off here so as not to get contentious. I deleted about eleven paragraphs of the more caustic portions of my diatribe and trimmed this rant down to about 1/3 the size so as not to get too pernicious.

We really are coming at this from two TOTALLY different schools of thought. I believe in evolution, and you do not. So there's no point in me trying to convince you otherwise with any abundance of scientific evidence, because I fear the appellation "scientific" would cause you do filter it regardless since I'm not orating from a podium under stain glass. I could if you'd like, but I'd prefer not to. This regression of an educational post disgusts me. If you aren't an advocate of scientific research, don't respond in a science-related post for the sheer purpose of being acrimonious.

 

[jonny88]

and the bible says the world is only 6000 years old,some ones full of it,LOL.

 

[xr6.turbo]

Hey superman what about the coelacanths.

The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period. They were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938. They are, therefore, aLAZARUS TAXON(see below). Since 1938, Latimeria chalumnae have been found in the Comoros, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar, and in iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Kwazulu-Natal in South Africa. The second extant species, L. menadoensis, was described from Sulawesi, Indonesia in 1999 by Pouyaud et al.[1] based on a specimen discovered by Erdmann in 1998[2] and deposited in Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI). The first specimen of this species was only photographed at a local market by Arnaz and Mark Erdmann before being bought by a shopper. The coelacanth has no real commercial value, apart from being coveted by museums and private collectors.

Maybe just maybe they haven't found every living species on this earth and we may never know where and when some animals evolved.

Lazarus taxon (plural taxa) is a taxon that disappears from one or more periods of the fossil record, only to appear again later. The term refers to the account in the Gospel of John, in which Jesus is claimed to have raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus taxa are observational artifacts that appear to occur either because of (local) extinction, later resupplied, or as a sampling artifact. If the extinction is conclusively found to be total (global or worldwide) and the supplanting species is not a lookalike (an Elvis species), the observational artifact is overcome. The fossil record is inherently imperfect (only a very small fraction of organisms become fossilized) and contains gaps not necessarily caused by extinction, particularly when the number of individuals in a taxon becomes very low. If these gaps are filled by new fossil discoveries, a taxon will no longer be classified as a Lazarus taxon.

 

[xr6.turbo]

theory of evolution

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[1] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns which followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[2] Indeed, Archaeopteryx (See Below) was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then and it is now considered that there is abundant evidence of how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.

Archaeopteryx lived in the late Jurassic Period around 150–145 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now.
Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.
The features above make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.
The first complete specimen of Archaeopteryx was announced in 1861, only two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, and it became a key piece of evidence in the debate over evolution. Over the years, nine more fossils of Archaeopteryx have surfaced. Despite variation among these fossils, most experts regard all the remains that have been discovered as belonging to a single species, though this is still debated.
Many of these eleven fossils include impressions of feathers—among the oldest (if not the oldest) direct evidence of feathers. Moreover, because these feathers are an advanced form (flight feathers), these fossils are evidence that feathers had been evolving for quite some time.

 

[Scar]

Bless you, Turbo, for having the patience to attempt to elucidate such things instead of doing what I usually do - raucously laughing when I realize my point is falling on deaf ears with each opposing rebuttal, and posting something like this...

Moving on, again, this was the link to the article regarding the color pattern for Anchiornis huxleyi!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144422.htm