HOME | DD
Spikeheila β Logic
Published: 2012-08-29 18:27:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 4070; Favourites: 67; Downloads: 16
Redirect to original
Description
Ah,the logic among folks is baffeling.Why DON'T people draw saber toothed cats, dire wolves, etc with little tiny bits of fur on their heads,tails,and arms,while the rest is scaled or leathery? Saber Toothed Cats, to my knowledge, don't have ANY evidence for fur except maybe whiskers.
On the other hand, alot of coelurosaurs DO have feathers,to varying degrees, 'raptors' are almost entirely covered in feathers as well,some even have feathered feets!
No one complains about there not being alot of evidence in furred saber cats, FOR furred saber cats,like they go nuts on seeing feathered dinosaurs,which there is alot of evidence for
People are funny
The animals in this comic aren't meant to be quite entirely accurate.
Related content
Comments: 25
You do know thatΒ saber-toothed cats, dire wolves,Β that are mammals and everyone draws them with fur right or is this meant to be a joke of some kind
π: 1 β©: 1
It's meant to illustrate a double standard. People draw dire wolves etc. with fur because their modern relatives do, even though we've never found traces of fur.
On the other hand, many people continue to draw naked raptors, despite the fact that there's proof they had feathers and their modern relatives have feathers.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Becuz deenozurs r terribl leezards!!! Leezards dunno hav feddurz! Hav scals!"
- almost every BANDit, feather-hater or generic Creationist's quote in a stylized way... yeah...
π: 1 β©: 0
Obviously the whole thing comes from the fact that modern eutherians have fur, whereas the only dinosaurs alive are hidden in plain sight to the public, which are feathered.
π: 0 β©: 1
Show me one extant Dinosaur which isn't feathered. Some may have bald heads or tigs, but there is no Bird without feathers.
But some Eutheria don't have fur.
π: 0 β©: 2
There's that featherless chicken they developed.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
some birds that are either newly hatched or suffering a severe feather loss disease.
π: 0 β©: 0
1-You did because of me right?
2-Maybe it's because we have seriously close relatives, cave paintings, and common sense to work with when it comes to Ice Age animals.
π: 1 β©: 2
"Common sense" is indeed the relevant term here. Many would consider the idea of bracketing to be common sense, as it's based on very simple logic. Velociraptor doesn't need to be as closely related to a chicken as a Smilodon is to a lion in order for Spike's analogy to hold up. It only needs to be as closely related to other dromaeosaurs that have been found with proven feather preservation, which it is (and more: Velociraptor itself has quill knobs that must have supported feathers).
π: 0 β©: 1
True, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure not everyone's received the message.
π: 0 β©: 0
i didnt do it because of you
How is that common sense for ice age mammals and not also animals KNOWN for having feathers,and their relatives having feathers?
and cave paintings don't quite count,as they are human-made. They arent direct evidence from the animal itself,or it's remains
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs probably came in too late. We already have a good hint that Cave Lions had fur obviously because they're essentially a subspecies of Lion in general. We know Mammoth had fur because fresh, frozen bodies are constantly found across Siberia, even today. In other words, a Smilodon's more closer to a Lion than a Velociraptor is to a Chicken, because the former two are in the same family.
P.S. I say Cave Paintings should cound because they're the accurate depictions of extinct animals during that time, especially because unlike dinosaurs, Cro-Magnon Man DID encounter the animals.
π: 1 β©: 1
"Well, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs probably came in too late."
Stop and think for a moment. Does this make any sense?
This is Science. There is no deadline for discoveries. Science and our understanding of the world around us is changing and growing all the time. There is no point where we can go "This discovery was made after the 20th century, it doesn't count". We must take every new piece of evidence we find and use that to refine our understanding of the world.
Also, I'd like to point out that we've never found cave paintings from the Americas... Which is where Smilodon lived. We can only assume that Smilodon had fur because Panthera has fur... I don't see how that is any different than making the assumption that Deinonychus had feathers because we know Archaeopteryx did (And speaking of Archaeopteryx, we've known that it had feathers since 1861. Hardly "too late", if you ask me)
Another example would be Macrauchenia. This is an animal which has no living descendants (Indeed, it is about as far away from living mammals as a placental mammal can be), was never encountered by man, and does not preserve any evidence of fur... Yet it is ALWAYS depicted as having fur. We have MORE evidence that Deinonychosaurs had feathers than we do suggesting that Litopterna had fur... Yet people still reconstruct Deinonychosaurs without feathers.
I agree with Spike here, the logic is indeed baffling.
π: 1 β©: 3
π: 0 β©: 0
I have to disagree about that lithoptern, it went extinct due to humans and is a modern animal, so is extremely close to being a living mammal.
π: 0 β©: 0
You cornered me.
Let's think about it this way, people have always been, and will probably still, keep giving dinosaurs scales because they're reptiles, heck, even Dinosaur itself means "Terrible Lizard". The problem is, not many people have realized birds are dinosaurs as well. For Smilodon's defense, there's possibly a sculpture of Homotherium latidens, not exactly Smilodon, but it's still a Machairodont sabertooth. In Macrauchenia's defense, you ARE correct, it has no relatives, but there are fossils of Mesozoic mammals with fur impressions, and it's possible that their descendants, including Liptoterns, inherited this trait, of course, it's all speculation. (I learned that from you)
π: 1 β©: 1
Are you really defending scaly Velociraptors? Velociraptor's closest ancestors had feathers, Velociraptor had quill knobs, Velociraptor's closest living relative have feathers. Every evidence points to feathers, no evidence points to scales. It's common sense, really, and I expected better of you.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's what it looks like.
π: 0 β©: 1
For God's sake, if I did, I would have just flat-out said it. I know Raptors had feathers, I know it's possible Tyrannosaurus had them as well, I'm just trying to look at it from someone else's point of view.
π: 1 β©: 1
You mean like the ones who think Hodari's stuff is accurate?
π: 0 β©: 1
OK, first, would it kill you to stop that? Secondly, people want more proof of feathered dinosaurs besides imprinted fossils, in this case, a live Dromeosaur. Unfortunately for both of us, it's impossible for such a thing to happen.
π: 1 β©: 1
can't really argue that, but most of them don't even know most of the evidence supporting feathers.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, people have been feathering their raptors in media more lately, so that means that logic's starting to decrease with time.
π: 1 β©: 0