Lol every prehistoric creature was lame as hell

>>5010265 (OP)
Notice it's only the ones popular with young White boys that get this treatment.

>>5010267
what's a prehistoric animal that's popular with old black females

>>5010277
Trilobites.
Source: i once had an hour long conversation with an old black woman about trilobites and she fucking loved it

>>5010267
Correct, and if you review these papers they're clearly bullshit. No arthrodire has body proportions like this. NONE of them. The old model is the correct one.

>>5010267
Tell that to megalodon and T rex

>>5010305
Megalodon sure, but T. rex, you mean the dinosaur they're literally breaking paleontology over their knee to keep festooning with feathers?

>>5010305
They tried to make megalodon into a fat clam eater a couple years back but nobody bought it so they memoryholed the whole thing.

>>5010313
No they didn’t. Blimp Meg was a meme like elephant seal spinosaurus

>>5010308
Because giving it feathers overrides making it the smartest, biggest, strongest and most agile large theropod

>>5010308
The feather thing has mostly been debunked, outside of Twitter fags you only see juvenile T.rex with feathers these days. At most very sparse feathering in adults.

>>5010335
No, because it didn't have feathers, you fucking idiot and continuously trying to force the issue is anti-scientific.

>>5010342
Cut this shit now. Paleontologists still commission "artists" like dumbshit engh to illustrate inaccurate dinosaur reconstructions in their own papers. I know because I fucking read papers AND YOU DON'T.

>>5010279
Based beyond any comprehension

>>5010305
>Megalodon
It's been getting the 'not as big as we thought' treatment off and on for a good decade.
>T-Rex
You mean the dinosaur they tried to meme into being 'just a scavenger' based off of nothing other than it having a good sense of smell and allegedly poor eyesight? You know, like wolves - known obligate scavengers?

>>5010369
That's far from the worst thing that's been done to it.

>>5010371
I actually don't care about this nonsense, paleoartists do this for attention and should be regarded as the same sort of ilk as "artists" who put religious symbols in piss just to be edgy. They're not actually saying anything, they just want you to say something to the tune of "HOW UNORTHODOX!"
It's not like Spino reconstruction memes where they're actually serious.

>>5010372
>Um axchually I don't care
Then I don't care to read your post.

>>5010373
>thinking what is basically deviantart garbage is doing any real damage to a dinosaur's reputation or scientific perception
Do you complain about children's drawings of dinosaurs as well?

No, sorry. No more patience left for bad faith actors. I've put up with an entire lifetime of propaganda. I shan't tolerate one word more.

>>5010375
Yes.

>>5010345
It had feathers
>oy vey this is anti scientific
No dude it had feathers

>>5010386
dont bother hes a feather schizo.

>>5010334
They also tried to turn it into a fat sand tiger at one point not too long ago because
>because...well, who's to say it wasn't?!

>>5010335
A good 90% of the seething over feathers is just because it doesn't look as ferocious.

>>5010555
>just because it doesn't look as ferocious.
Funny, you just described the main motivation for giving it them to begin with.

>>5010559
See?

>>5010265 (OP)
It literally still has a guillotine from a face. Only thing that's changed is that it's shaped like a tuna now

>>5010265 (OP)
Why do they depict its body going upwards at the back? Having your head fixed straight ahead while your body goes diagonally up doesn't seem very hydrodynamic

>>5010615
Because it's stupid, and therefore gets attention. That's basically all modern "science" even is at this point: tabloid garbage. What technology has actually progressed in the past decade? Anything? Oh boy now graphics cards are helicopters and nobody can afford them.

>>5010615
Did it need to be hydrodynamic vs strong neck muscles? If it's prey wasn't darting about at high speed, it might've prioritised a sturdy build instead.

>>5010636
Why do we have to constantly put up with this special pleading horseshit? I don't have to come up with mental acrobatics for why something looks stupid in paleontology. That's the fucking paleontologist's job. You want to make something ignorant? YOU need to explain it to the class.

>>5010638
Okay so why does it need to be hydrodynamic rather than sturdy?

>>5010639
Because it lives in the ocean, you fucktoilet. Jesus christ are we discussing physics here or which policy to fuck the goyim over in the newest version of the weimar republic. You can't even think scientifically at this point.

>>5010640
You didn't answer. Why does it need to be hydrodynamic rather than a slower, sturdier build?

>>5010642
I did answer. You were simply too stupid to be able to process the words you saw on the screen in any way other than to output pre-planned responses.

>>5010645
No you didn't give any reasons. Plenty of awkward, clumsy looking creatures live in the sea, like the Sunfish I posted. But you don't seem to have any reasoning why the Dunk needs to be particularly hydrodynamic. What did it eat, what was the sea like, depth, tides, currents, what was the coastline line to effect that, was the seafloor a flat sandy expanse or rocky and volleyed, etc etc. These are all valid questions to understand an extinct creature and how it lived and looked.

>>5010265 (OP)
Lol every prehistoric creature was lame as hell

Spinosaurusbros why did they kill our boy?

>>5010265 (OP)
how's elementary school going, kid? animals ain't supposed to look "cool". They are/were what they are/were

>>5010265 (OP)
The reverse is happening to the megalodon. They're now saying it was way bigger than they thought before.
Also, Dunkleosteus is still the coolest animal ever.

>>5010727
Do you use this same "logic" when you incorrectly put feathers on T. rex? Or does it only apply to your perceived enemies?

>>5010756
>enemies
It's not that serious.

>>5010760
Only when it's advantageous to you, right? Why are your subhuman kind everywhere these days?

>>5010765
Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them my enemy, it just means they think something different, which we can then discuss.

>>5010769
>Um excuse me, but I have more smug to di-
Nobody cares. Go huff your own farts somewhere else. This board is for science.

>>5010774
Science is discussion and debate.

>>5010780
No. It's not. Just being a dumb argumentative asshole isn't science.

>>5010783
There's only a few people here being argumentative, for example >>5010650
never received a calm and logical answer, and previous to that was insulted several times. The person >>5010640 here is obviously illogical, emotional and argumentative, as they can't even explain their own opinion.

>>5010267
jesus christ cool it with the race baiting

>>5010787
Your question was answered. Your lack of IQ points doesn't negate the answer.

>>5010800
There's no post I can see explaining anyone's thoughts on Dunkleosteus' environment being a factor into it's body composition.

>>5010791
But he's right. Same way entertainment that white men like is specifically targeted for destruction. Stop interfering with our lives and we'll stop noticing you're interfering with our lives. Let's also not forget you're rushing to the defense of nu-sci bullshit that's clearly published as clickbait for....? So you're obviously not arguing in good faith to start with.

>>5010802
Name a dinosaur popular with middle-aged Pakistani women.

>>5010802
Okay but >>5010800 is too hormonal & bitchy to be a white man surely.

>>5010636
If it was a top predator like scientists say it was then I'd imagine it would need to be speedy and more hydrodynamic. >>5010650
Nta but sunfish aren't exactly going after/chasing anything even near their size, they're passive feeders

>>5010814
That's true, but there are fish like groupers, bass, piranha, etc that are carnivorous and active mobile hunters but have blocky, even squared-off bodies. Dunkleosteus obviously relived on it's bite, so picturing it similar to a Pitbull with hunched powerful compact muscles does make sense.

>>5010806
>Why would anyone be annoyed by the constant low IQ reddit takes on blue boards tho?
I can't fucking imagine.

>>5010818
What is this absolutely bizarre compulsion for midwits to come up with excuses for obviously false nu-sci pop clickbait? Is this part of an undiagnosed mental disorder?

The simple answer is that the author is full of shit. Not ass-pulling "um maybe"s for why "um this could be the case".

>>5010827
>Rambles like a hysterical woman without any opinion of 'his' own.

>>5010756
>incorrectly put feathers on T. rex
it's not incorrect though,no matter how much it upsets you. It's not about taking sides,it's about biological accuracy
ignorant kid

>>5010837
It is incorrect. This isn't a matter of opinion or up for debate. You lost. Crawl back in your hole.

>>5010842
You should've told him to fly back to his nest if he was that obsessed with feathers...

>>5010843
>Slither back into your dirty bedroom in your fursuit

>>5010650
God you're stupid.

>>5010856
>Slither
>Fursuit
?

>>5010870
Yes, the real life subhuman demon (tranny) slithers, it just happens to wear a fursuit.

>>5010842
stupid ignorant moron
thank God science is not filled with cretins like you

>>5010265 (OP)
Love this chunky little bloke.

>>5010369
>they
You mean literally just Jack Horner?

>>5010267
Nigger, when the fuck has Jamiriqious ever had an interest in paleozoology. Only white young males have any interest in ANY of them

>>5010615
Because the artist for that paper can't draw worth a shit. Plenty of other people have made shrunk Dunks look more functional then the paper illustration.

>>5010299
>No arthrodire has body proportions like this. NONE of them
All of the arthrodires with preserved postcrania are small bottom feeders and not even remotely comparable to a top predator like dunkleosteus. Arthrodira is as broad a term as Chondrichthyan. That’s like trying to predict the body shape of a great white based on a deep sea chimaera
>The old model is the correct one.
Even ignoring the proportions the old model is not correct. It’s way oversized, even the preserved elements are depicted as larger than what they are in reality

>>5010969
Yeah this model looks more sensical body-wise

>>5010969
He looks so cheerful like :D

>>5010803
How do you completely miss such a simple and clearly stated point? Abhumans don't care about dinosaurs at all. Straight white children love them, but they obviously care more about T. Rex than they do about Fagodactylus cocksuckerii. Which is why your people are trying to make Rex fat and give it a yas kween feather boa and promotion earning collagen lips.

>>5011146
>Abhumans don't care about dinosaurs at all.
>Notice it's only the ones popular with young White boys
>only the ones
Reading comprehension, the original post clearly stated 'the ones' insinuating there are ones that are not 'the ones'.

>>5011148
You're incredibly stupid Abdul, fuck off and work on your English.

>>5010888
NTA, but I've never seen evidence for T-rex feathers. It's all just "Well, they probably had it, I think"

>>5011146
I'm gay and I've loved dinosaurs since infancy.

>>5011172
Yeah, you're an autistic fag. That's why you never grew out of caring about dinosaurs like a normal grown-ass man.

>>5010969
back end feels kinda tuna-like which makes sense for a large predatory fish

>>5011168
There is no evidence for feathers and plenty of evidence for no feathers, some people just don’t know when to give up.

>>5011466
Idk why they latch onto trex having scrotum hairs when nanuqsaurus is right there

>>5010308
T.rex has a massive disingenuous shill campaign. Its fanboys get into palaeontology and then fabricate papers to upscale it while downscaling every other theropod.

>>5010305
>>5010308
>>5010371
>>5010756
>>5012789
I am less worked up over the idea of T Rex having some barely noticeable feather strands on its skin than the way its height is portrayed. They're always portrayed in a way where it feels like you can reach its chin. Even in museums, they are always mounted in a crouching position.

Then again, this might just be my Jurassic Park addled brain coping.

>>5010969
wasn't the tail more accurate before thought? it was based on it's relatives like coccosteus
>>5010856
nta, projecting much, faggot?

>>5012740
because nanuqsaurus is fragmentary and therefore isn't worthy of consideration
weirdly enough most of prince creek dinosaurs are treated like this despite there being no reason to exclude the idea of species or subspecies adapted to a colder environement

>>5012963
>it was based on it's relatives like coccosteus
Yeah but coccosteus is only distantly related and fills a completely different niche. You’d have better luck using an epaulette shark to predict the tail shape of a whale shark

>>5012963
The problem with that is that Dunky is an big, open water apex predator whilst Coccosteus was a dinky little freshwater bottom dweller.

>>5012967
It wasn't really "colder". It was *cooler*. It's like comparing Central Florida to Seattle. Don't think for a second there was snow cover, because there wasn't.

>>5013228
There are multiple Arthrodires known from mostly complete specimens and they all have the same body plan.

>>5013277
>There are multiple Arthrodires known from mostly complete specimens and they all have the same body plan
And none of those are huge active predators, all of them are small benthic fish

>>5010265 (OP)
All the pearl clutching over exact size estimates in paleontology never made sense to me. These are species that existed over a time span of millions of years bare minimum while also not having to deal with humans/civilizations that filter large animals. Fossils are so fragmentary we barely get more than a glimpse into the window of what these animals were. Both those Dunks probably existed at some point, if you're gonna throw it into a video game or movie just make it however you want it to be.

>>5013277
obviously there wasn't snow cover, but pretending animals at northern latitudes aren't different from those living at the equator is dumb
surely some adaptations must had taken place
>>5013308
underrated statement, also one of the reason i believe talking about species and subspecies being a thing or not is dumb as shit, like the ugruunaluk debacle. what's not to say it was just a regional subspecies that existed in that timeframe in it's own environement?

>>5013296
Oh here we go with the X of the gaps bullshit again. We MUST ignore all positive evidence we do have so you can advance some stupid lookame attention seeking behavior over evidence we don't have.

>>5013385
T. rex didn't live at the equator, dumb-dumb. Wyoming is already pretty fucking far north. The kinds of animals found in northern North American formations are identical or nearly identical to those found a few hundred miles south from the same time frame.

>>5013308
This isn't "pearl clutching over exact size estimates", you moron. This is one retard trying to shit all over a field, as usual to get attention and advance his own career, by intentionally making something popular look stupid for attention. You'd think with how frequently this shit happens reddit would have caught on by now.

>>5013391
>There was no reason to believe T. rex ever had scales, yutyrannus isn’t even closely related
>How dare you ignore coccosteus. It is clearly evidence of an eel like tail in dunkleosteus even though not a single active pelagic predatory fish has a tail like that and it makes no sense for the animal’s lifestyle
lol

>>5013667
Bitch you're retarded.

>>5012789
If you look at its skeleton from the front next to charcharadontosaurids you can immediately tell its just got more mass.

>>5010642
ts nigga really pulled out this r-selected chew toy and compared its lifestyle to a dunkleosteus just to defend some basedentists speculative suggestion.

>>5013742
Sure did and you can never actually respond to any point, you just insult people like a child having a tantrum.

>>5013747
You're comparing mushrooms to oranges and confused why people don't take you seriously.

>>5013748
You don't compare or offer anything at all, which is why you sound like you're having a tantrum all the time.

>>5010369
>they
Holy shit, i didn't know Jack Horner is one of (them)

>>5013750
Is that why you still give your full focus over to any Tom, Dick and Stanley calling you a retard despite insisting they aren't presenting real arguments? Either you are emotionally invested or have no respect for your own time. You're even seeing your past bullies from earlier in the thread in me despite this being our first dick measuring contest.
To help you along I will say when you propose such a specialized design with no evidence you are not really talking about the Dunkleosteus but some improbable character in your head that you approved yourself. No better than someones deviantart OC.
Next time elaborate why the Sunfish-esque form is more plausible than the streamlined one instead of expecting strange men online to make your own arguments for you.

>>5013759
Yeah hes a groomer.

>>5013750
Actually, you've been reminded several times why you're wrong and your only counter basically amounts to special pleading for why Dunk has to be different than all of its relatives...because, okay!?!?

These animals lived thousands of years ago, I'm never going to interact with one, it doesn't fucking matter

>>5013794

>>5013391
You do realise that the shape of a fish’s tail is first and foremost influenced by its lifestyle, not its phylogeny right? There is a reason why a mako shark has a more similar tail shape to a tuna than to a nurse shark

>>5012789
schizoid latam ape-man drivel, you're just coping because your thirdworldosaurus isn't as big as Rex

>>5013792
>Actually, you've been reminded several times why you're wrong
Pot, kettle. Name one active, pelagic, macropredatory fish with an eel tail

>>5013761
Still no discussion here, just insults.

>>5012958
No, get out of there Karen!
It will crap on your head

>>5013870
Are you under the impression that Arthrodires are still around? Would explain your confusion.

>>5013918
Could just say 'No'

>>5013918
>no answer
Sounds about right. An eel tail for dunkleosteus makes zero sense. Using phylogenetic bracketing to try guess tail shapes of distantly related fish in completely different niches is retarded. You are retarded

>>5013919
>>5013925
>Mad retards seething after being reminded they're going off-reservation again with their wild ass speculation

>>5013928
cope

>>5013932
I'm not the one coping here, retard.

So what was the argument for Dunkleosteus having that form over something more streamlined again?

>>5013970
Subversion. If you read the paper they come up with some bullshit about Dunk having a different body ratio to other Arthrodires.

Then if you actually examine the data yourself it turns out the total opposite is the case and it fits right in.

Same thing nufags did with Archaeopteryx "axchually" being a Dromaeosaur (It's not and it's not related to them either), because it has swollen toe knuckles that only the authors of that paper ever noticed in the entire history of studying Archaeopteryx. Foolishly, they included photos in their paper and it very obviously doesn't have swollen toe knuckles in the slightest. It's all bullshit to try to shoehorn theropods into being chickens.

woah...

>>5014066
>lagiacrus got shrunk down and sissified in milds
the long nose strikes again

>>5013933
>still can’t name one eel-tailed pelagic predator
You are though

>>5013970
The paper was about the length of the body, not about the shape. It’s just bad art. It would’ve been streamlined like >>5010969

>>5013277
>There are multiple Arthrodires known from mostly complete specimens and they all have the same body plan
Except for the ones that don’t. Amazichthys has a forked tail and it’s much closer related to Dunkleosteus than Coccosteus

>PALENTOLOGISTS WANT TO MAKE COOL DINOSAURS I LIKED AS A CHILD GAY AS PART OF A JEWISH CONSPIRACY TO HUMILIATE ME!!!!
Allowing schizo retards onto 4chan and not instantly banning them has been devastating to this website.

Comments like this >>5010377 really just go to show how bad modern 4chan has gotten. Just retards spewing shit at the wall and lashing out at everything in some perceived notion of being "based" (really, just retarded).

>>5014252
This is not reddit. Get the fuck out.

>>5014208
>this kills the paleoschizo

>>5014208
>>5014267
Let's be clear, I never said anything about the tail shape. If you want to throw a tantrum about it, go through my posts and quote me. I was referring to the dimensions, which the authors lied about being abnormal for Dunkleosteus compared to other Arthrodires. And notice the proportions.

>>5014202
This

>>5014202
Oh looks like the illustrator was being an attention whore.

>>5014278
>I was referring to the dimensions
Then why did you respond to so many replies about tail shape without specifying that? Also why wouldn’t talking about proportions include whether or not it has a long tail?
>I was referring to the dimensions
Which you’re still wrong about. Amazichthys has a similar body shape to new dunk, not an elongated body like coccosteus. Its also more closely related to dunk and has a more similar lifestyle. Using a small bottom dweller like coccosteus as your basis is retarded. Be honest and just say you want dunkleosteus to look like the one from your childhood picture books

>>5014208
I guess that's that, then.
>HUMBLED

>>5014278
>Let's be clear, I never said anything about the tail shape
You were literally replying to people talking about whether or not the tail shape was correct before

>>5010265 (OP)
lol all of your bait threads are lame as hell

>>5013393
I wouldn't know, as i'm not a schizophrenic nor do I browse Reddit.
Faggot.

>>5010267
So what dinos are popular with non-young white boys?

>>5014635
Took you over two days to reply, lmao.

>>5014066
>Mosasaurus - 16 meters
Who’s gonna tell him?

>>5010265 (OP)
Did Deinonychus ever get this treatment? I want to know because it's my favorite

>>5015072
No, it’s still the most dromaeosaur to dromaeosaur

>>5010265 (OP)
It depends on how far back you go. Only 65 million years ago there were no such things as passerines or primates.

>>5010369
>You mean the dinosaur they tried to meme into being 'just a scavenger'
>they
It was one paleontologist Jack Horner and nobody took him seriously.

>>5015072
Jack Hoerner got up on stage and told a lecture hall of over 2000 students that deinonychus was "probably even smarter than today's corvids" and would have found humans attractive.

Ever since then his career has been in the dumps and they started calling him jack horny.

On the bright side he was right. T. Rex was a scavenger. It raided deinonychus' garbage cans at night.

>>5014668
nigersaurus

>>5015837
That's because it was an intentional shittake aimed at faggots and he was right to do it.

>>5013932
Marsh

>>5010265 (OP)
So is there any actual refutation of the idea that Dunk was smaller than we thought? You guys have such an infantile, anti-intellectual approach to things
>um NO it cannot be true because that's not what I grew up on!!! it's not le awesome!!!!

>>5020850
No. The only thing even close to an argument against it was making a comparison to other arthrodires with known postcrania with dissimilar proportions. But that is comparing tiny freshwater bottom dwellers to a huge oceanic predator and was wrong from the start because >>5014208 exists

>>5010969

Needs lips

>>5010721
2025 has a grandma face.

>>5015846
At least it wasn't as bad as the time he insisted that Torosaurus transitioned into Tiarasaurus

>>5011146
Meds

>>5014252
Trvke

Why does every prehistoric predatory fish need to look like a god dam shark?
Bluefin tuna are some of the largest predatory fish alive today and they look like this

>>5014108
It's also 40 times faster so if it was the same size as before it would be unplayable

>>5021332
lmao look at this derpy looking ass bitch

>>5021332
Trevally are another one, even more squat than Tuna though. I think a lot of the schizo Dinosaur fans don't actually go out into nature & only know popular animals from documentaries.

>>5021332
Because sharks look cool and these wankers mostly care about their favorite creature looking cool?

>>5021332
Because it doesn't elicit the same fear reaction that sharks do. If I saw that thing coming towards me I'd laugh and think of sashimi

>>5010555
Exactly. I don't want my dinosaurs to look gay and flamboyant.

>>5021928
It’s a good thing that what you want is irrelevant then