Fossil "Mummy" gives glimpse of dinosaur skin.

[AV1611VET]

No, you don't have to look far, because you're always on the lookout for your next "GOTCHA!" idea, no matter how easily it's explained to you that you are incorrect and wrong about something.

Your own myopic view is essentially nothing more than "Oh... well, I don't like/agree with that, so it's wrong." That's all it is.

Your assessment is about as accurate as those pictures.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your assessment is about as accurate as those pictures.

No, I'd say it's pretty spot on.

Honestly, AV, here's a challenge for you: find me anything in the science literature or anything science related for dinosaurs where anyone says "This is 100% definitely definitively how dinosaurs looked" or something akin to that.

If you do, then I'll retract my statement.

 

[Ophiolite]

QV this picture of an Edmontosaurus annectens:

View attachment 366545

Yet, according to the article in the OP, this guy offers us a "rare glimpse" of its skin texture.

<snip>.

If it's so rare, how did the artist get it?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of artists' impressions. In an effort, wasted on some, to make scientific discoveries more accessible to those without much of a science background such impressions are offered to the public. The attention to detail varies in quality as the relevant scientists may have minimal involvement. Indeed some such works may have had zero scientific input at all, being largely a figment of the artists imagination. Without knowing the provenance of your example, as a starting point, I would have no idea how realistic this might be considered to be.
If you spent lest time with making irrelevant posts and took the time to study the research papers directly you might actually stumble across some actual facts. Or, if you are unwilling to make that effort you could instead follow the teachings of, IIRC*, the Daza people of Chad, which roughly translated is "The most welcome wind is the silent wind."

*I don't recall correctly. I just felt it was the kind of thing they might say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, AV, here's a challenge for you: find me anything in the science literature or anything science related for dinosaurs where anyone says "This is 100% definitely definitively how dinosaurs looked" or something akin to that.

Why would they, when the artists are drawing them?

Do you consider forensic artists part of law enforcement?

Apparently you're making the point that scientists just keep their mouths shut and look the other way and let the artists do the dirty work for them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of artists' impressions. In an effort, wasted on some, to make scientific discoveries more accessible to those without much of a science background such impressions are offered to the public.

I understand that.

After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

But getting this stuff out to the public without being properly vetted is premature and misleading.

Remember Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would they, when the artists are drawing them?

Do you consider forensic artists part of law enforcement?

Apparently you're making the point that scientists just keep their mouths shut and look the other way and let the artists do the dirty work for them.

Those are your words not mine and really, it's a non-issue.

But I'll repeat this challenge for you to do; find me anything in the science literature or anything science related for dinosaurs where anyone says "This is 100% definitely definitively how dinosaurs looked" or something akin to that.

 

[Lost4words]

Here is a pic of one of my ancestors...his name was Rex

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here is a pic of one of my ancestors...his name was Rex

View attachment 366548

An abomination for sure. You need to change your jokes.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I'll repeat this challenge for you to do; find me anything in the science literature or anything science related for dinosaurs where anyone says "This is 100% definitely definitively how dinosaurs looked" or something akin to that.

Sorry.

All I can find is "This is 75% definitely definitively how dinosaurs looked."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry.

All I can find is "This is 75% definitely definitively how dinosaurs looked."

And that means that they could very likely be wrong about how dinosaurs looked. The history of paleo-art (art of paleolithic creatures and their environments) shows that and all depictions are tentative and based on the best knowledge they have at hand.

Sorry that's a negative for you, but no-one really cares what you think.

 

[sjastro]

(AI generated)​

 

[AV1611VET]

And that means that they could very likely be wrong about how dinosaurs looked. The history of paleo-art (art of paleolithic creatures and their environments) shows that and all depictions are tentative and based on the best knowledge they have at hand.

Sorry that's a negative for you, but no-one really cares what you think.

I was just being facetious.

When you demand exacting wording like that, I consider the conversation over.

 

[BCP1928]

But which one are you going to believe is the norm?

If you find another one with a rough skin -- which one is the norm?

Smooth-skinned duck-billed dinosaurs; or rough-skinned dinosaurs?

Maybe both. Why is that important?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe both. Why is that important?

It's very important.

There's pictures all over of they being rough-skinned.

Now ONE is found and interpreted as smooth-skinned, and all I said was, "Back to the drawing board."

Was my remark wrong?

Or are they going to keep showing them rough-skinned?

 

[BCP1928]

It's very important.

There's pictures all over of they being rough-skinned.

Now ONE is found and interpreted as smooth-skinned, and all I said was, "Back to the drawing board."

Was my remark wrong?

Or are they going to keep showing them rough-skinned?

There's pictures all over about lots of things. What does that have to do with what scientists are doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's pictures all over about lots of things. What does that have to do with what scientists are doing.

It's what they need to do.

As in, "back to the drawing board."

Am I right or wrong?

 

[BCP1928]

It's what they need to do.

As in, "back to the drawing board."

Am I right or wrong?

You're right. With every new discovery. That's how science works.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right. With every new discovery. That's how science works.

Then, for crying out loud, what's all this hullabaloo about?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is a pic of one of my ancestors...his name was Rex

View attachment 366548

Is this related to a croc-a-duck?

 

[BCP1928]

Why would they, when the artists are drawing them?

The drawings don't imply that, either.

Do you consider forensic artists part of law enforcement?

Apparently you're making the point that scientists just keep their mouths shut and look the other way and let the artists do the dirty work for them.

At the time the drawings were made, scientists thought that's what they looked like,