|
|
Post by kingkazma on Jun 24, 2015 3:03:43 GMT 5
gonna see this tomorrow. the hype is real.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 24, 2015 15:22:40 GMT 5
I know that this is not the right place to discuss this, but phylogeny strongly suggests it was, as feathers are known from all corners of Paraves. But there is no strong or solid evidence for it. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 24, 2015 16:06:40 GMT 5
No proof of the opposition etheir.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Jun 24, 2015 18:34:21 GMT 5
But there is no strong or solid evidence for it. Yes there is. Some of the most basal paravians show clear evidence of being fully feathered. There is no reason to think that more derived paravians would loose that feather coat unless we specifically have evidence showing them to have done so. What we instead see is every time we find evidence of what any paravians' body was covered in, it is always feathers. We don't need to find the leg bones of a theropod to know that it had legs when alive, just as we don't need to find feathers on a paravian to know it had feathers when alive. Deinonychus is a paravian btw. |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Jun 24, 2015 18:47:32 GMT 5
No proof of the opposition etheir. It's up to the person claiming dinosaurs had feathers to take their burden of proof and provide evidence. It doesn't matter if there is no evidence of the "opposition". You're basically saying that a proposition (dinosaurs had feathers) is true because it has not been proven false ("no proof of the opposition"). Btw, your statement just admitted that there is no evidence for dinosaurs having feathers. I don't agree with Allosaurusatrox and I do believe that dinosaurs had feathers. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 24, 2015 19:32:52 GMT 5
I was saying there is no true proof that they didn't have feathers. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Jun 24, 2015 19:39:01 GMT 5
I was saying there is no true proof that they didn't have feathers. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Oh, I knew that's what you were saying. I understood perfectly. My comment still applies. You're basically saying that the proposition that dinosaurs had feathers is true because there is no proof they didn't. In other words, a proposition is true because it has not been proven false. It doesn't matter if there was no evidence that dinosaurs didn't have feathers. Also wasn't saying they didn't. Allo was saying there is no proof that they did. Again, not trying to say Allosaurusatrox is correct. Allo's claim is false. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 24, 2015 19:48:58 GMT 5
I know there is proof. I was just using allos "logic" against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 24, 2015 20:14:29 GMT 5
The thing is, mechafire wanted to say that the "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" phrase may work sometimes, but is in general no good idea to support a point and probably not even a good idea to defeat someone with his own weapons.
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 24, 2015 20:26:58 GMT 5
Ok Ya. Let's stop this.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 24, 2015 20:51:08 GMT 5
I was saying there is no true proof that they didn't have feathers. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Oh, I knew that's what you were saying. I understood perfectly. My comment still applies. You're basically saying that the proposition that dinosaurs had feathers is true because there is no proof they didn't. In other words, a proposition is true because it has not been proven false. It doesn't matter if there was no evidence that dinosaurs didn't have feathers. Also wasn't saying they didn't. Allo was saying there is no proof that they did. Again, not trying to say Allosaurusatrox is correct. Allo's claim is false. Well actually, its the claim that Deinonychus had feathers, and for it skorpiovenators reasoning is perfectly correct. There is NO evidence that it did not have feathers, and all it's relatives have them. Ergo, if direct findings are lacking it has to be assumed to have been feathered (see the example from my last post). |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 24, 2015 22:40:02 GMT 5
What I really liked about the movie was that the little kid that liked dinosaurs was not completely stupid like the kid in the first movie. It knew the names of the dinosaurs and it asked questions which very much ressembled the queastions I would ask at that age (How much does the island weigh?).
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 25, 2015 4:57:46 GMT 5
What I really liked about the movie was that the little kid that liked dinosaurs was not completely stupid like the kid in the first movie. It knew the names of the dinosaurs and it asked questions which very much ressembled the queastions I would ask at that age (How much does the island weigh?). It is suggested the kid is autistic, his thing with numbers ("How much does the island weigh ?" "we need more teeth !") |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 25, 2015 5:20:08 GMT 5
Not everybody with a thing for numbers is automatically autistic...
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 25, 2015 5:29:16 GMT 5
|
|
