HOME | DD
novablue — Feathers are cool
Published: 2012-03-20 08:33:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 5204; Favourites: 79; Downloads: 24
Redirect to original
Description
Even today, you will sadly see people stating that raptors and other feathered dinos look less cool with feathers. This is just beyond me because I love fluffing up my theropods, I think they look a hundred times more awesome with crests and fans and wings and what have you.... Seriously people, they weren't oversized lizards.So this is my response so that argument... Using the logic that dinosaurs look less cool with feathers, this must certainly apply to our modern dinos, like the chicken as well? Yes, there are indeed naked chickens... [link] Supposedly developed for the convenience of not needing to remove their feathers after slaughter...
(Also I have to say, even though chickens have a really poor reputation in society in general, when you sit down and look at them, they really are very pretty and impressive looking birds. Proud too (they know they look good!), and the roosters aren't afraid of attacking anyone mistreating their girls! Never mistake the commercially bred chickens for the real thing)
ETA - As a lot of people take this as meaning that I say ALL dinos (or at least ALL theropods) had feathers, I'm not. This was directed at people who won't give ANY dinos feathers (including ones where we have fossil finds of 'em) on the grounds that "it doesn't look cool". In other words, the people who still stand by the Jurassic Park view of dinos being the only correct one, kinda.
Related content
Comments: 58
That's a very generic and confusing statement, you've got to be more specific.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
///All the "scales" we have found actually were scutes and were placed on parts of the theropod's bodies where we already knew they existed.///
And your point is?
///The "scales" we found from the belly of a t.rex were actually plucked skin, extremely similar to that of an ostrich's.///
I have never heard of this, but I do know that (currently) we have only found evidence of scales (or scutes) on "theropods" (or at the very least tyrannosaurs, along with other "non-avian dinosaurs"; I would not even use these words nowadays because they jumble together many different unrelated groups of animals into a single un-existing lineage) and that there have been no actual direct evidence of any "feathers" found on any Tyrannosaurus rex specimen (or any tyrannosaur species for that matter). Can you provide a reference for this claim?
///We found feathers on yutyrannus...///
We have found an indication of hair-like filamentous fibers (whatever they may be, perhaps a new form of "skin" or "scales", much like scutes are a different form of "scales") on a broken part of the tail of a single specimen of Yutyrannus, but no actual "feathers", lacking the most basic characteristics of true feathers like barbs and a central shaft.
///We found feathers on nanqusaurus....///
We have found only a few fragmentary pieces of the skull from a single known specimen of Nanuqsaurus, and no actual direct evidence of any "feathers".
///We found feathers on dilong...///
We have found similar filamentous structures (whatever they may be) on Dilong as we did on Yutyrannus, but these aren't actual "feathers" either, also lacking the known characteristics of true feathers like barbs and a central shaft.
///We found feathers on sinosauropteryx///
We have found similar filamentous structures (whatever they may be) on Sinosauropteryx as we did on Dilong and Yutyrannus, but these are again not actual "feathers", and it was reported by the Proceedings of the Royal Society B in 2007 already that these fibers are most likely nothing more than structural collagen. Regardless of what they may be, caution should be taken, and we should not jump to conclusions.
///We found feathers on sciurumimus///
We have found similar filamentous structures (whatever they may be) on Sciurumimus as we did on Sinosauropteryx, Dilong and Yutyrannus, but these are yet again not actual "feathers".
///We found feathers on a dino tail preserved in amber///
We have found a small piece of amber containing the mid-section of a small tail consisting of 8 vertebrae covered in what evidently appears to be real feathers, but the claim that the tail belongs to a "theropod" is baseless and pure conjecture probably based upon wishful thinking and personal imagination. On closer inspection, the tail belongs most probably to nothing more than a bird similar to Archaeopteryx or Jeholornis for example. There is no real reason nor substantiation for calling this find a "dinosaur". We need to always remain critical on matters such as this, and not just swallow every deceitful claim being shoved down our throats.
Read more:
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs…
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs…
www.icr.org/article/9759
thecreationclub.com/a-new-foss…
///We found feathers on velociraptor///
We have not found any direct evidence of "feathers" on any Velociraptor specimen. We have found peculiar bumps on the forearm of a single specimen which has been hailed as possible "quill knobs" (while most other bones of Velociraptors are very smooth), but these peculiar bumps are very vague and have been found also on several other bones on many other animals, and while some may be unexplainable, others are argued as anchor points for muscles. Either way, this is far away from any concrete evidence of Velociraptor having had any actual feathers.
Read more:
creation.com/jurassic-park-fea…
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs…
www.icr.org/article/do-quill-k…
thecreationclub.com/dakotarapt…
///We found feathers on Dakotaraptor///
We have not found any direct evidence of any actual "feathers" on any Dakotaraptor specimen either. Here we also have merely claims of "quill knobs" without substantial confirmation. Read above.
///We found feathers on pyroraptor///
We have found not a single piece of evidence for "feathers" on any Pyroraptor specimen, but that is pure speculation which in turn is based upon the assumption or claim of other dromaeosaurs supposedly having feathers, where we have already established earlier in this reply of mine that there aren't even any true direct evidence of any true feathers in any known dromaeosaurs.
///We found feathers on balaur///
We have found not a single piece of evidence for "feathers" on Balaur bondoc and all we have are two partial (very incomplete) skeletons which shows very little.
///We found feathers on thousands of fossils that belonged to bird-like dinosaurs///
This is again a very generic and confusing statement, and so this is but an empty claim that I can barely respond to, so you've got to be more specific.
///We found feathers on kuliandromaeus///
We have found no direct evidence of any actual "feathers" on any specimen of Kulindadromeus, and all that we have are partial or fragmentary pieces of bones, some of which contain bristle-like structures (whatever they may be), but they don't have any of the characteristics of true feathers. We're not in a position to jump to conclusions. And this isn't even a theropod.
Read more:
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs…
///We also found scutes on rex's tail, but, wanna know why? Because kuliandromaeus had feathers almost all over its body and had a part-scaly tail!///
This statement didn't make any sense and was very incoherent. Please clarify.
///I'm too bored to mention all the other feathery finds, soooo i'll just say that all the scutes that we have discovered on theropods were either from their feet (like on birds) or tail! (Some birds still have some microscopic scales on their tail)///
I'm not going to force you to mention whichever possible "finds" you may be referring to. Don't feel pressured. But remember that if you're not going to go through with the entire discussion, why did you start a discussion at all? Think about it. And you're incorrect, for we have done various discoveries of well-preserved clear skin on various portions of the bodies of theropods, and that also raises questions like, if the skin can be so exquisitely preserved, then why not the "feathers" that certain people claim they supposedly had?
///Is that what you needed? Or should i explain something else?///
This was brutal, for you to make such ridiculous claims and for me to slaughter them. No, this is not what I "needed", and frankly, you really didn't "explain" anything. Now, don't be upset, but remain calm and focused. I don't want you to stress out over this, I just want to keep with the actual undeniable facts and promote actual fact over mere conjecture and [at the very least "Evolutionary"] deception.
I would also recommend that you refuse from using the word "protofeathers" since that very word assumes from the start that (1) they are "feathers" and (2) that Evolution (or macroevolution) is true, which is all deceptive. Note that I am not specifically against the idea of feathers on [non-avian] "theropods", but I am very skeptical, and rightfully so if I wish to reach proper scientific and critical conclusions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
///Serioisly, you scalenazis need to do MORE research.///
"scalenazis" huh? So just because I'm careful not to jump to conclusions based upon speculative assertions that supposedly makes me a "scalenazi"? I noted in my previous response that I am not even specifically against the concept of "feathered dinosaurs", but what I've been saying all along is that the evidence that [non-avian] dinosaurs supposedly had "feathers" is shaky and weak at best. That many people have personally jumped on the bandwagon and bought into the idea of "feathered dinosaurs" does NOT make it real. I do research, that's why I'm critical, and I should not expect anything less of any individual who claims to be of a scientific mind. However, young lady, you need to drop the attitude. Is this an honest discussion or a childish playground?
///By FEATHERS, i mean PROTO feathers and no, they were not scales! Just bringing up excuses that they are "scales" is not a logical statement because NOBODY IN THE WORLD HAS SAID THAT.///
Sure you do, but as I again advised you in my former reply, that word should be avoided in the first place, because it assumes the conclusion is true from the start (e.g. that Evolution must be true and that there must be such "proto-feathers" to be found on an assumed reptilian or dinosaurian "ancestor" of "birds" which also must exist - no exceptions). I never specifically claimed that these filamentous structures were actual "scales" as we understand them, but rather (like scutes) something similar to, or a different type of "scales". This is but a reasonable explanatory proposal. So, when you say that "nobody in the world has said that", you don't care to include me among them? Because, again, I never actually said they were actual scales and I never used that as an excuse for anything either. It is ironic though, that although you are so against calling these structures "scales", yet in one of the videos you linked to (regarding T-rex), the owner of the video (which you seem to have such a great respect for) states that "feathers are scales". Now, I strongly disagree, but I must wonder, what is your response to that exactly?
///Unless you're talking about the modified scales humans have in their bodies. After all, didn't we all evolve from fish?///
"modified scales"? Have you taken a really good look at your own body? Humans don't have scales, we never did, and we never will. Did we "evolve from fish"? Certainly not, that's Evolutionary fantasy, and you can't expect of me to agree on such silly nonsense.
///"Our skin is clearly scaly but the scales have evolved".///
Where? On which portion of our body can you make out the contours and structures of what we understand as "scales"? All things "evolve" in the sense that things always change. However, as for scales having supposedly "evolved" into human skin is but a nonsensical concept fabricated within the limitless boundaries of God-less men's imagination.
///This is exactly what you meant when you talked about the feathers.///
Excuse me? This statement made no sense, please clarify.
///And since your knowledge about dinosaurs is below 0 and is entirely based on some of the first-ever feather theories, please watch this helpful videos to get to know how we found feathers on velociraptor, why the feathers on dinosaurs were FEATHERS and NOT scales and why tyrannosaurids were feathered. Also some more videos to widen your knowledge.... ///
How can you so definitively state that my "knowledge about dinosaurs is below zero"? Would you not have to be God to make that sort of judgment? Is that not quite arrogant and juvenile of you to even propose? Sweetheart, insulting another person (who is also made in the same image of God as you are) will do no good to anyone, and it won't make you any more right, nor any less wrong. Sure, I will watch them and then evaluate them and respond accordingly.
///Don't try to counter these. That person specifically works with some of the most famous paleontologists in the world. Whatever you're going to say to counter these arguments is wrong, according to MODERN science and not 90's scientific "theories"///
Why would I "not attempt to counter" these videos? Wouldn't that be ignorant of me? Would I not give up my ability to critical thinking by merely conforming (without question) to whatever is communicated and promoted through the videos? When you say that "whatever" I'm going say "is wrong", isn't that irrational, unscientific and biased dogma? Are the contents of these videos communicating absolute undeniable truth? How? Science is a process of gaining knowledge or a sense of what MAY be true, not what actually IS true, and science is continually changing and reshaping ideas and previously considered scientific "fact" (i.e. what might have been considered true today could possibly be considered false tomorrow, and this is science in a healthy and proper state, and this is how we achieve progress). Surely, you must see the fallacies in your logic. But I don't blame you, you're young, and have yet to fully come to terms with the reality of our world and of our very existence. Please be careful when you think, speak or act.
On a second note, the owner of each of these videos (referring to himself as "TREY the Explainer") is nothing but an ordinary YouTuber with a fascination for (the usual stuff) dinosaurs, biology, and science etc. As far as I am aware, all that he basically does is take quotes and use images from online articles (such as Wikipedia - the Free Unreliable Encyclopedia), but your claim that he supposedly "works with some of the most famous paleontologists in the world" seems to be but nonsense, and even if he did, that would not automatically make his own claims and arguments any more reliable nor any less unreliable. For the record, he's a human being, and he too have got things wrong. He even explicitly states on his YouTube channel "Also remember: feather all dinosaurs!" which if you ask me seems like an indication that he solely seeks to promote rather than question the concept of "feathered dinosaurs", which is not an appropriate scientific motivation.
///First goes yutyrannus:///
There are many facts mixed with much fiction in this video. TREY states at least two times in the first half of the video that Yutyrannus is "currently the largest known species of dinosaur with direct evidence of feathers". But again, remember that we've already gone through this very issue in my former comment, that this tyrannosaur does NOT in fact have any "direct evidence of feathers", but these claims are again based upon these strange filamentous structures found on the fossils (which proponents of "feathered dinosaurs" attempts to interpret as supposed "protofeathers"). TREY even contradicts himself when he acknowledges that the supposed "feathers" of Yutyrannus were "much more like fuzz-covering, than feathers of modern birds".
Again, lacking the most basic characteristics of what constitutes a "feather", the fibers on Yutyrannus are NOT actual feathers. Yet again, there's no point in jumping to conclusions. The argument that these fuzzy fibers (not feathers) were used as insulation in a cold environment is also extremely speculative and questionable, and we should again not jump to conclusions while in lack of adequate data. TREY even states this himself when he says "neither of these ideas can be completely confirmed though". Again, remember that crucial principle of science, that what may be considered accurate today may be considered inaccurate tomorrow. This is how we achieve progress.
///Then goes dakotaraptor:///
This video also has many facts mixed with much fiction. TREY states here that Dakotaraptor "has irrefutable evidence that it had feathers, finally a large raptor with direct evidence" and refers then to the supposed "quill knobs" which I already addressed in my former comment. He then states that "like other raptors, Dakotaraptor was entirely covered in dino-fuzz and other types of feathers. They only stop at the mouth area, making it look like it had a beak. It also had a tail fan of feathers." but this is a flat-out lie, because we have no fossil evidence of any feathers or even filamentous structures on Dakotaraptor, but all that is used to argue that it had feathers are the supposed "quill knobs", which, as stated in my former comment, may not be actual quill knobs at all, especially considering the same kind of vague features have been found on various other animals (as for example the actually famous paleontologist Darren Naish pointed out). They could be quill knobs, but we cannot say for certain.
///Then goes velociraptor:///
This video also has many facts mixed with much fiction. One of the first major basic problems that TREY makes here is to use the word "dromaeosauroids" which denotes an umbrella term consisting of several distinctly different unrelated groups of animals, such as Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, and Zhenyuanlong, (which are birds, and not dinosaurs) which shares no ancestry with Velociraptor, yet he attempts to convey to the audience that they do, and then essentially argue that "if each of these three different species had feathers [which they undeniably do], then Velociraptor must have had them too [which it doesn't]" which is fallacious.
Remember, again, that we do not actually have direct evidence of actual feathers on any Velociraptor specimen, but all we have are claims of vague features similar to "quill knobs" on a single arm (which, yet again, as discussed several times earlier, could be anything). They, again, could be quill knobs, but we cannot say for certain, and the various usages for these hypothesized feathers are reasonable, but as TREY again points out himself, all of these behaviors "are only speculative and have zero evidence for their existence". He does then go on to say that "Velociraptor and all other dromaeosaurids definitely possessed aerodynamic pennaceous wing feathers, definitely used for some fast paced purpose" but this is not true of all groups or species mixed in within Dromaeosauridae group, for example with Velociraptor where there is no truly definitive evidence of such feathers.
After that, he leaves all fossil evidence behind and attempts to convince you with a vast amount of speculation. And his closing statement that "a Velociraptor without feathers isn't a Velociraptor" is but a personal opinion, not any definitively established fact. Again, I'm not saying that Velociraptor didn't have feathers, but all I'm saying is that there isn't enough convincing definitive evidence to say that it actually did have them. There's considerably greater amounts of speculation than there is actual evidence that can be used to substantiate said speculative assertions.
///Then goes rex:///
This video also has many facts mixed with much fiction. To respond appropriately, did Tyrannosaurus have feathers? Short answer, not that we know. Long[er] answer, we don't have any direct evidence of any feathers on any specimen of Tyrannosaurus, and the entirety of this video gets things wrong from the very start and is really just one large collection of various lines of speculation filled with various fallacious argument but completely absent of any actual direct evidential arguments, and judging by the length of the video and the amount of content featured, it's not worth going into detail on the great amount of inaccuracies displayed (it could take an entire article of my own to go through properly), because in the end, the conclusion will still be that it consist of questionable material and speculation upon speculation upon speculation, with a few facts hidden in there to seal the deal for you (deceiving you). Much has already been discussed. Again, remember the virtue of science.
///Then go... feathers:///
This video also has many facts mixed with much fiction. This video is basically the same as the earlier one and really need not be discussed any further. Indeed, much of this has already been discussed.
///~~Watch every single one of these videos BEFORE you respond to this, unless, your arguments will be invalid to me~~///
Done and done. However, why would my arguments have been "invalid to you" if I hadn't watched them? Is that not quite arrogant and ignorant? How could you then ever be sure I really did watch them? Where is your reasoning here? Is it not so that my arguments should be considered valid judging by the legitimacy of their very contents rather than by having me follow through what you personally demand of me? Ponder these issues with considerable care. God bless!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Valia, if you do not wish to talk with me, then you do not have to, and I'm not going to force you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kör svar på svenska då jag ser att du också är svensk
Intressant i sammanhanget, tycker jag, är att det verkar vara så att vi ofta är lite för fega i våra antaganden om fjädrar på dinosaurier. Man sa ju t.ex. att en Ornithomimus borde vara en för primitiv art för att ha annat än väldigt simpla, pälsliknande fjädrar (har därför ritat den så i mina tidigare teckningar) - och sen hittade man bevis på att den faktiskt var avancerad nog för riktiga "vingar". För många (men inte alla) theropoder är det nästan mer realistiskt att utgå från att de hade fjädrar i någon mån än att de inte hade det utifrån det som paleontologerna hittat hittills. Vi vet ju att även relativt primitiva theropoder hade fjädrar och att de mer avancerade arterna hade förvånansvärt avancerade skruder, har sett ett foto av ett fantastiskt fossil av en Troodon men vingar och långa fjädrar längs med hela svansen t.ex.
Carnotaurus och dess släktingar ritar jag inte fjädrar för där har vi ju fossil som visar fjäll, men för Dromaeosaurier tycker jag definitivt de ska ges fjädrar, där har vi ju t.o.m. bevis i skelettets konstruktion för vissa arter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Min poäng är dock fortfarande att man alltid skall vara försiktig med hur man väljer att illustrera en särskild art där reson och bevis för att den skulle vara beklädd med fjädrar är i själva verket mer spekulation och därmed osäkert. Det är endast realistiskt att sätta fjädrar på arter där bevis för en sådan karaktär inte kan förnekas. Snarare än "feg", så är jag försiktig och kritisk. Jag känner inte till något fossil av släktet Troodon som innehåller bevis för fjädrar, dock finns det ett fåtal fossil av arter som för nuvarande klassats som "troodontider" vilka visar möjliga bevis för fjädrar, men där blir det istället osäkert gällande det verkliga släktskapet mellan arterna.
Sedan bör man vara försiktig i hur man argumenterar i fall som dessa, då det är till exempel en sak att observera ett skeletts konstruktion, vilket är det verkliga beviset, medan man därefter måste spekulera kring hur själva levande djuret såg ut och rörde sig. Man bör alltid vara försiktig för att undvika spridning av lögner och falsarium, att alltid komma ihåg att inte blanda ihop spekulation med fakta, och att alltid hava respekt för den verkliga naturen av den vetenskapliga metoden. Fantasier och önsketänkande kan vara väldigt bedrägligt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Honestly, I really don't think that dinosaurs look more or less cool with or without feathers: A T-rex is still a T-rex even if you give it feathers or take 'em off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dinosaurs do have fingers and tails going for them which birds do not, so part of what makes a bare chicken look dumb is the stumpy-looking tail and wings (though actually, besides the wings, I think that bare rooster in the link is actually kind of gnarly-looking, kind of like some sort of weird, mini-flamingo). But I don't see that alone to be reason to not portray feathery dinosaurs, especially the ones which had actual fossilized feathers. Feathers are nature's high-fashion décor, I wouldn't see why one would knock 'em. Especially if they were from the United States, which, yannow, kind of has a national animal that is covered with feathers and considered quite badass by them.
That poor bald chicken looks so sheepish though. The rooster looks like a bit of a bully to him. Leave it to a rooster to be cocky! Neat picture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know that some dinosaur fossils have evidence of having feathers, but... I dunno, I kinda like some of them more without feathers... Maybe that's why I prefer the Triassic and Jurassic periods to the Cretaceous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
oh god my feather hater days have returned to haunt me
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh
Okay
(some of my dinosaur knowledge is kindof dated, sorry 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A big reason why I like raptors is because they have feathers.
Although I do love birds very much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like both chickens personally 
The original featherless looks pretty cool, the featherless broiler... not so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, naked chickens are supposed to be for developing nations in a tropical or desert climate to avoid a high mortality rate related to heat exhaustion. Because they're feather and scale-less, they don't have problems with overheating like their feathered cousins do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Feathers also exclude heat, so that makes very little sense to me o_O
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That sounds kinda counterproductive to me lol, considering feathers/fur tends to protect against sunburn and overheating better than one might think (I know siberian huskies which have very thick fur can do surprisingly well in hot climates). Hairless dogs and cats need to have sunlotion applied or they'll damage their skin, if they're going to be outdoors in the sun. Not to mention having less protection against bugs etc. After all, chickens originate from the Red Junglefowl which are already tropical, yet full of feathers. Overheating may well be a big factor, but I suspect that mainly applies to indoor chickens - cramped in huge complexes where they'd need the ventilation? If they were going to be outdoors, I doubt it would be very beneficial for them in the long run to lack feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Wait, I thought chickens evolved in a tropical climate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is an old comment, but red jungelfowl inhabit mangroves and prairies rather than deserts. I imagine adaptations for that sort of heat are far less efficient in arid desert conditions.
Breeding for featherlessness is still pretty baffling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you, I like Chinese too and I don't understand creating featherless varieties either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I believe it does apply to indoor chickens - it also saves processors money by doing away with the "plucking" phase of chicken butchering.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In where I live, I've seen roosters several times. They are magnificent creatures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are roosters on our farm, and they're nothing but gang rapists. No joke.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WHUT?!?!?!?! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, all of our hens lack feathers on their backs because the roosters take turns tearing into the hen's backs with their beaks to keep the hens subdued while raping.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
How many hens do you have in comparison with roosters?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yikes.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL, you should see the common pond duck in action..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heard of that happening, any videos I could watch?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
At any duck pond. Unlike other birds waterfowl have sort of penis, helps a lot when raping.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I mean "in where I live", not "in this region"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Try YouTube, search "duck rape".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How have I not come across your gallery before? Lots of great stuff here!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Excellent. Birds look awesome with feathers, why can't dinosaurs? Especially when you consider the badass/scary factor of birds like eagles, owls etc. Feathers in no way impinge on the badassery of dinosaurs.
In a few million years, chicken fossils will be reconstructed like this: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What an awful creature... who could dare to reconstruct it that way... oh, nevermind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>