HOME | DD
RAPHTOR — DinoHybrids - Therospinax vs. Belial
by-nc-nd
Published: 2015-08-03 15:54:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 38229; Favourites: 1258; Downloads: 418
Redirect to original
Description
This is for the Brainstorm group on facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/268049…The current challenge is to redesign Jurassic park, redesign the dinosaurs or create a new dinosaur species. Here's the third and last piece I did based on my new design: raph04art.deviantart.com/art/T…
link to the previous design:raph04art.deviantart.com/art/D…
raph04art.deviantart.com/art/D…
Here's the timelapse demo: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKxAF…
Related content
Comments: 67
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
now this, this is what JW should have been like
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
I don't agree with that
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Okay? I don't have to agree how would you feel if I just sat there and said too bad do what you think what should have happened in the movie
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd probably say,
"Yeah that is too bad, so much potential."
But JWFK wasn't that much better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just don't agree since one hybrid is enough but yes Fallen Kingdom was garbage
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Meh to me I think one indominus Rex was enough, and the indoraptor is a complete waste of time, they could have at least make it more alien like
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed.
If they wanted a hybrid they REALLY should have made the Indominus look like this... photos.app.goo.gl/A7miQfqfGQNV…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Meh, I think the indominus Rex in the movie looks fine
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
realy wanted JW to look like this... guess we can wait for Fallen Kingdom
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
its gonna look the same just raptor sized
"indoraptor"
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
While I do wish they were more creative with the designs the Indoraptor did look really cool in my opinion, and it also really terrifying all because of one scene - the smirking scene. In the scene in question the creature lures the leader of the mercenaries into it's cage by playing possum. It then repeatedly raises it's tail while he's not looking to distract him and get him to turn around. And before the final time it does this the creature smirks to the camera. The scary part of this is this implies not only was the Indoraptor smart enough to create a plan but to do derive sadistic pleasure from the thoughts of what it was going to do. What's more when it can the Indoraptor will stalk it's prey taking it's time to instill as much fear as it can savoring every minute of it's prey's suffering. All of this denotes a level of intelligence that to me is frightening to contemplate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess so, but if it had more special capabilities it would have been more terrifying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Holy smokes... It's like if Jurassic went to Skull Island!
- Take Care, Beannacht De Duit
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Found out a resent bit of information about the spinesorous in true was a water predator a swimmer that feed on aquatic pray such as fish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, nothing's been 100% proven. There's been some pretty significant evidence found in favour of the aquatic spino theory, but there are also some very big holes that many in the paleontological community have pointed out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It make sense the Find would take mass damage from trees and almost every long snouted Dinosaur turned out to be a fish eater .
what are the big holes in the theory? Please do tell love to learn something new .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One of the biggest issues with it is the possibility of a hybrid. That is to say, Ibrahim put together the current look of spinosaurus through multiple specimens of different ages and sizes since there were no complete single specimens. Many have pointed out that this could easily result in distorted scaling, which would account for the odd size of spinosaurus' legs.
Another issue is centred around spino's inability to pronate its hands. This would make the quadrupedal stance highly impractical since it would be forced to walk on the sides of its hands. The orientation of its hands would also have been unsuited to assisting with swimming, and as a predator who hunts fish as its main source of food, spino would have to have had at least some agility in water.
Virtually every long snouted dinosaur turned out to eat fish, true. However it is widely agreed upon that spinosaurs were opportunists, mainly eating fish, but also able and willing to attack and eat whatever forms of prey they came across. We can look at modern day crocodilians. Many of them do have fish as a major part of their diet, but even with their long, thin skulls, we have observed that they are opportunists, debunking the idea that spinosaurs had weak skulls and could only eat fish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love this types of talks high stimulating for the mind that for that information it does help understand theories .But how is to say that maybe it Swam as well as walk on two legs doing so would like provide advanges for it .
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Power-wise, this is what would happen in reality. T-rex would snap Spino's neck like a twig. But the fight would be epic. This is the most epic JP redesign i've ever seen. COOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except we can't really say that. We simply don't know if they ever met. But if they ever met then T-Rex would undoubtedly win in a battle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Spinosaurus is from a whole other continent, and dissapears from the fossil record, tens of millions of years before Tyrannosaurus shows up in NA. Yes we do know for a fact that they never met.
So what is your conspiracy?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They're merely found on different continents today, but they both existed on the same supercontinent (though at different locations) before the Global Flood about 4,350 years ago (which is responsible for preserving them in the rock record as it was gradually laid down over days, weeks, and months). No, we don't "know for a fact" that they never met, there is absolutely no way to make that argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yes, we do know for a fact they never met. Spinosaurus was long extinct before any tyrannosaurs began to reach sizes even remotely close to T. rex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We don't. There are no factual grounds upon which we can make such a claim. Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus both existed at the same time and went extinct at different points during the same cataclysmic year.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hundreds of years of scientific research would disagree with you. There's people who actually go out into the field to examine fossils and rock layers. The two genera are found on completely different parts of the world in completely different layers of sediment. The temporal range for Tyrannosaurus rex is between 68 - 66 mya, right before the KPG. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (I assume this is the species you are referring to) however has a range of 112 - 93.5 mya. That's two completely different epochs. It is entirely impossible for these two animals to have ever met. The whole family T.rex belongs to hadn't even evolved at the time Spinosaurus was alive
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
///Hundreds of years of scientific research would disagree with you. There's people who actually go out into the field to examine fossils and rock layers.///
I could say the same to you. How about you bring something of more substance to the table rather than just storytelling if you're actually interested in making this into an actual conversation. I for one would recommend the following resource to better introduce you to where I'm coming from; searchcreation.org/
///The two genera are found on completely different parts of the world in completely different layers of sediment.///
Did I say something different? I'm fairly sure I didn't. Here's my take! Yes, they are found on two different continents, but these continents were joined together as a single supercontinent when these animals were alive, and yes, they are found in different stratigraphic layers, and that is because they not only lived in different locations on said original supercontinent but Spinosaurus was exterminated before Tyrannosaurus as the waterlevel gradually but catastrophically rose with the rising floodwaters carrying sediments and preserving these animals for us today to study.
///The temporal range for Tyrannosaurus rex is between 68 - 66 mya, right before the KPG. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (I assume this is the species you are referring to) however has a range of 112 - 93.5 mya. That's two completely different epochs. It is entirely impossible for these two animals to have ever met. The whole family T.rex belongs to hadn't even evolved at the time Spinosaurus was alive///
This is of course, as mentioned earlier, all evolutionary storytelling, not reality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why are you bringing religion into this discussion? This is completely irrelevant to the argument. There is no such thing as "Evolutionary storytelling".
Evolution is probably the most well-established scientific theory, with evidence from multiple fields of study such as the fossil record; observable adaptation to environmental changes in extant taxa; DNA analysis and the domestication of multiple animals.
Intelligent design has one single piece of evidence: A bunch of bronze age scrolls, written in a language which we don't entirely understand because it has gone extinct and the dozens of historical translations are often contradicting eachother.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
///Why are you bringing religion into this discussion?///
Well, why are you? None of us can avoid bringing our religions into any topic, since they are a natural part of being human and they shape us, our behaviors, and our worldviews. Though I would of course argue that Christianity is the only true and good religion, having left Atheism in the dark where it belong.
///This is completely irrelevant to the argument.///
How exactly? It seems absolutely relevant.
///There is no such thing as "Evolutionary storytelling".///
There most definitely is. Don't be in denial, it won't do any good.
///Evolution is probably the most well-established scientific theory///
It's a pseudoscience more than anything, blending (1) good and genuine science such as speciation and natural selection with (2) the fantastical concept of universal common descent across aeons of unrecorded history (and this is what people refer to when they reject "evolution"), something which is even blatantly contradicted by God.
///with evidence from multiple fields of study such as the fossil record///
Noting that we all have the same evidence, but we interpret the evidence differently, and noting as well that the evidence are much more in favor of creation (or intelligent design if you will) as opposed to evolution (as previously described).
///observable adaptation to environmental changes in extant taxa; DNA analysis and the domestication of multiple animals.///
I don't disagree with any of that. Please don't resort to red herrings.
///Intelligent design has one single piece of evidence///
It has an entire universe of evidence in its favor. How about that? Cease the juvenile strawmen.
///A bunch of bronze age scrolls, written in a language which we don't entirely understand because it has gone extinct and the dozens of historical translations are often contradicting eachother.///
Considering the Bible (as the incredible and unmatched historical document that it is) is the reliable Word of God and our best source for ancient historical events, it is one of the most awesome arguments in favor of biblical creation. Noting that the Bible consists of 66 books, written by 40 different authors, in three different languages (none of which are extinct), from three different continents, over a timespan of approximately 1,500-2,000 years, and yet remains perfectly consistent, and tells the same story without any contradictions whatsoever, containing perfectly accurate historical information as well as scientific information, containing a mutlitude of specific fulfilled prophecies with the remaining 10-5% or so waiting to soon be fulfilled during the last days of the world when Jesus returns to deliver the final judgment of mankind (a time period which we have already entered), and not to mention it is the only historical document with over 24,000+ corroborrating documents and manuscripts to further demonstrate its authenticity, reliability, and perfect preservation despite many years of translations, and of course also noting the fact that it's had an astoundingly positive impact on people and cultures all over the world and having brought about our civilized Western culture as well as our modern science and also having become the number one best seller of any literary work in history (certainly not without good reason). Oh, and since we know Jesus Christ existed and He is God in the flesh and attributed the Bible as His own Word we can most certainly trust it to be true. There is no literary work in existence that is even remotely comparable to the Bible, and certainly no mere human minds could ever produce such an incredible work. As a word of advice, you better not speak on topics you actually know nothing about. Tread carefully.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Before this escalates I'll make a suggestion. I can tell that this debate will lead to nothing. We're already going off-topic and I could start going into how old hebrew went extinct and later "revived" as a new language and then I could talk about the authors lying about how Egypt build the pyramids and all of that. But I can't change your view on the topic and you can't change mine. You believe the bible to be the word of god, while I believe it to be a historical fantasy with questionable moral standarts.
So I suggest that we end this right here on good terms, not only because it saves us time and effort, but also because this has nothing to do with the actual art or artist here. It's his comment section afterall and I don't think he likes it to be filled with off-topic discussions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm ready to go, so you decide.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
After i had a look on your profile, i instantly regretted ever responding to your message.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I bet you did. Wouldn't expect anything else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Neither species existed, but that's not gonna stop ideas from being brought forth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>