Tyrannosaurus rex had lips

[suspsy]

The first response of the "lipless camp" against this paper is here as well, just check the end of this video which in itself makes some interesting points against theropods having lips:

Tracy Ford has long been against theropod lips. However, he has also denied anthropogenic climate change and vehemently insisted that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Plus he threw a tantrum on Facebook last year because he refused to accept the notion of a father T. rex caring for its offspring and swimming in the ocean. As such I'm really not inclined to pay him much heed on any science topic. I'll stick with the real paleontologists who publish their findings in the scientific literature as opposed to YouTube videos.

[Bread]

The first response of the "lipless camp" against this paper is here as well, just check the end of this video which in itself makes some interesting points against theropods having lips:

I've seen his take on no lips before. Not so much convinced. He has made the argument that Tyrannosaurus teeth are too big to be sealed by lips, which clearly has been countered.

I haven't seen this video but going into it I don't doubt he's going to bring up the same points.

[Bread]

To add to this Tracy Lee Ford video, I watched it this morning, and a majority of his arguments can be seen as hypocritical, if that's the correct use of his assessments.

He states how Tyrannosaurus teeth are too large to be concealed by lips. Then he shows multiple pictures of comparisons with numerous reptiles. One of which are lizards with considerable large teeth, which have lips obviously.

Another is how he tries to point out that Witton and other colleagues use the comparison of lizards, and how they are not related to therapods, and dinosaurs in general. Which I want to note that Witton and other colleagues have never stated to be the case of therapods being displayed with lips. Then he goes to go on and on about Alligators being related to therapods and dinosaurs in general, which seems hypocritical as Alligators and Crocodilians are not dinosaurs! With this in mind, you can consider how they do share relations, but should not be displayed with exact features.

I could go on, but @suspsy best explains how Tracy Lee Ford has his opinions...

Which I want to add, I am not against lips, nor Tracy Lee Ford, but his theories and facts are repeated by the use of Alligators and crocodilians as direct comparisons. Another thing is his slight "jab" at Witton and the other colleagues towards the last 2 minutes or less at the end of the video. Maybe others will notice it too.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I think Tracy Ford does great work in his articles for Prehistoric Times, and I consider him to generally be a credible source. And I also don't like to dismiss authors who aren't associated with "official" academia since I have friends who have contributed to science as hobbyists. That being said, I do not agree on his stance on lips. There's nothing wrong with a healthy amount of skepticism whenever a new paper comes out, but his reasoning for lipless theropods doesn't seem to make much sense.

[andrewsaurus rex]

I've never really had an opinion one way or the other about lips on theropods, but my feeling is until a mummified tyrannosaur face is found the debate will go on.........however this paper certainly tilts things in favour of camp lips.  And I think generalizations that because one group of theropods had lips means all theropods had lips is unwise.

[Faelrin]

@Sim While checking the paper's supplementary material today, I saw the Daspletosaurus was listed as D. sp. So it is from a species that has yet to be described.

I also saw they had included a table with data for total basal skull length, and largest maxillary crown height, from several other theropods including a few dromaeosaurids, Sinosaurus, and Coelophysis, etc, for what it's worth.

[Sim]

Thanks @Faelrin!

[Aerosteon]

The first response of the "lipless camp" against this paper is here as well, just check the end of this video which in itself makes some interesting points against theropods having lips:

Tracy Ford has long been against theropod lips. However, he has also denied anthropogenic climate change and vehemently insisted that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Plus he threw a tantrum on Facebook last year because he refused to accept the notion of a father T. rex caring for its offspring and swimming in the ocean. As such I'm really not inclined to pay him much heed on any science topic. I'll stick with the real paleontologists who publish their findings in the scientific literature as opposed to YouTube videos.

The study that once again has the whole world revolutionized. I have already read it and there are things that do not convince me. Comparing the mouth structure of a lizard (Lepidosauria) with that of the Archosaurs, as derived as theropods, is an absurd comparison, the same as comparing the wear of a tooth of crocodile with that of a Theropod or a lizard, the shape, orientation and use that a crocodile tooth may have has nothing to do with that of a lizard or theropod, this together with the comparison of tooth enamel wear of crocodiles is ridiculous, since this wear and tear is not comparable either, crocodiles do not separate their heads from the ground a span and their mouth is more exposed to blows due to the environment in which they live.
Theropods had to have something totally different from lizards and snakes, something that would lead to the beaks of birds, and Tracy's explanation about the maxillary coverage seems to me to be something more in line with what could later give way to a beak. In my opinion, it is what suits me the most, the archosaurs that exist today have a natural tendency to lose their oral structures to replace them with horny coverings, such as ranphotheca, and this is seen in crocodiles and turtles, in addition to seeing this trend in dinosaur numbers. .

On Tracy Lee Ford's opinions on whether the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, if there are studies that prove her right:

https://expose-news.com/2023/02/19/covid-is-a-pandemic-of-the-wealthier-vaccinated/

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/03/ivermectin-cuts-covid-mortality-by-92-major-study-finds-why-is-it-still-not-approved/

And anthropogenic climate change is not a consensus opinion in science and there are numerous scientists who do not agree with this.

Even so, using her opinions and positions on other issues to discredit her arguments on this issue is an ad hominem fallacy.

[Eatmycar]

Frankly, I can't say I'm a fan of pseudoscience like justification for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as COVID treatments being peddled here.

Weird back-corner-of-the-internet websites that say "nuh-uh!" are not legitimate scientific research and learning venues.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I love those names. "EXPOSE NEWS" and "Daily Skeptic." Distinctly J. Jonah Jameson.

[suspsy]

On Tracy Lee Ford's opinions on whether the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, if there are studies that prove her right:

https://expose-news.com/2023/02/19/covid-is-a-pandemic-of-the-wealthier-vaccinated/

"Expose News." That's the first red flag right there. The second one is when you click on the link and the site immediately begs you to contribute money. And the third and biggest red flag of all is that the much vaunted study is actually a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, let alone published. Conclusion: nope.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/03/ivermectin-cuts-covid-mortality-by-92-major-study-finds-why-is-it-still-not-approved/

"Daily Sceptic." Another immediate red flag. And needless to say, the Brazilian study has been found to be grossly flawed. This was very easy to look up. It took me less than two minutes.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/study-claiming-ivermectin-reduces-covid-19-mortality-by-92-has-important-methodological-problems/
https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/study-finds-no-benefit-taking-ivermectin-covid-19-symptoms
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089809588/ivermectin-covid-treatment-brazil-study
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/09/scicheck-clinical-trials-show-ivermectin-does-not-benefit-covid-19-patients-contrary-to-social-media-claims/

And anthropogenic climate change is not a consensus opinion in science and there are numerous scientists who do not agree with this.

Who are these scientists? Where and when did they publish their findings which showed that anthropogenic climate change is false? And what about the fact that the IPCC found that the probability that human activity has caused the planet to warm over the past 50 years is more than 95%?

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Even so, using her opinions and positions on other issues to discredit her arguments on this issue is an ad hominem fallacy.

Not at all. The fact that Ford has so willingly advocated demonstrable pseudoscience is strongly indicative of many things. Bias. Ignorance. Carelessness. Gullibility. Dishonesty. Or worse yet, a combination of all of those vices. Thus, I don't perceive Ford as a reliable authority on theropod lips or pretty much any science topic. Similarly, I wouldn't put any faith in a physicist who advocated phrenology or a heart surgeon who advocated geocentrism or an epidemiologist who advocated that our planet is flat. For an argument against theropod lips, I'd much sooner listen to someone like Thomas Carr, who is an actual paleontologist and who does not subscribe to pseudoscience as far as I am aware. Although so far, the only comment he's had regarding the Cullen study is that it's "utterly unconvincing," which is itself not a particularly convincing rebuttal. Hopefully he will have more to say in future.

Oh, and last time I checked, Ford is male.

[Dusty Wren]

Neither hydroxychloroquine nor ivermectin has been shown to be an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite numerous clinical trials that have tested both. Here are summaries of the results of 12 major clinical trials that have looked at ivermectin, and there are more studies listed in the references if you care to read them.

Anyone arguing for those drugs at this point is not basing their arguments on the evidence.

[Stegotyranno420]

I support both sides/am neutral. But I tend to gravitate a few degrees towards lipless depictions so I don't have to go back and paste lips onto all my figures and artworks, though most if not all are partially lipped to some degree, and it is a relatively easy modification.

Interestingly, my brother, an ex-dinosaur enthusiast, prefers lipped dinosaurs as they look more natural, but still isn't over feathers...

[andrewsaurus rex]

sorry to see that conspiracy theories and pseudoscience (which I think is too flattering a term for what it is) has crept into this forum.  I thought it was immune to that nonsense.  Hopefully this occurrence of it will be a one time thing.

[SRF]

I'm sorry for sharing Tracy Fords standpoint on theropod lips here then. Since I'm European, I'm not aware on who's who in the debates surrounding COVID-19 treatments overseas. We have our own conspiracy theorists back here in Europe who keep us busy debunking their pseudoscience nonsense.

[Bread]

I'm sorry for sharing Tracy Fords standpoint on theropod lips here then.

I don't think it was unnecessary to show Tracy Ford's lipless discussion. He has his theories, it's an interesting standpoint, even if there's disagreement. So don't apologize @SRF

[Aerosteon]

On Tracy Lee Ford's opinions on whether the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19, if there are studies that prove her right:

https://expose-news.com/2023/02/19/covid-is-a-pandemic-of-the-wealthier-vaccinated/

"Expose News." That's the first red flag right there. The second one is when you click on the link and the site immediately begs you to contribute money. And the third and biggest red flag of all is that the much vaunted study is actually a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, let alone published. Conclusion: nope.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/03/ivermectin-cuts-covid-mortality-by-92-major-study-finds-why-is-it-still-not-approved/

"Daily Sceptic." Another immediate red flag. And needless to say, the Brazilian study has been found to be grossly flawed. This was very easy to look up. It took me less than two minutes.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/study-claiming-ivermectin-reduces-covid-19-mortality-by-92-has-important-methodological-problems/
https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/study-finds-no-benefit-taking-ivermectin-covid-19-symptoms
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089809588/ivermectin-covid-treatment-brazil-study
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/09/scicheck-clinical-trials-show-ivermectin-does-not-benefit-covid-19-patients-contrary-to-social-media-claims/

And anthropogenic climate change is not a consensus opinion in science and there are numerous scientists who do not agree with this.

Who are these scientists? Where and when did they publish their findings which showed that anthropogenic climate change is false? And what about the fact that the IPCC found that the probability that human activity has caused the planet to warm over the past 50 years is more than 95%?

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Even so, using her opinions and positions on other issues to discredit her arguments on this issue is an ad hominem fallacy.

Not at all. The fact that Ford has so willingly advocated demonstrable pseudoscience is strongly indicative of many things. Bias. Ignorance. Carelessness. Gullibility. Dishonesty. Or worse yet, a combination of all of those vices. Thus, I don't perceive Ford as a reliable authority on theropod lips or pretty much any science topic. Similarly, I wouldn't put any faith in a physicist who advocated phrenology or a heart surgeon who advocated geocentrism or an epidemiologist who advocated that our planet is flat. For an argument against theropod lips, I'd much sooner listen to someone like Thomas Carr, who is an actual paleontologist and who does not subscribe to pseudoscience as far as I am aware. Although so far, the only comment he's had regarding the Cullen study is that it's "utterly unconvincing," which is itself not a particularly convincing rebuttal. Hopefully he will have more to say in future.

Oh, and last time I checked, Ford is male.

English is not my native language so I make an effort to understand. Science is not something that is written in stone, what today is demonstrated by studies, not tomorrow, so until definitive proof is found, any study that is based on speculation and sophisticated projections does not stop being a theory.
The comparisons of this study, in my opinion, are quite absurd and crude, since it compares totally different animals, with different ways of living and different biologies, comparing teeth and foramina, ignoring other anatomical structures of the skull and uses of these teeth. A study shows that it is strong trying to see its weak points and seeing what it kills, such as the replacement time of the teeth in theropods, which in T.Rex was 777 days but in Majungasaurs it was 56 days or in Allosaurus of 104 days but the study only focuses on T.Rex because it is the most popular and extrapolates all its results to all theropods.
I have seen how marginal opinions have been proven to be true or studies that are only done to reaffirm a trend. I believe that archosaurs have a natural tendency to lose oral structures to replace them with horny coverings such as ranphothecas and Tracy Ford's arguments in this case seem more solid to me.
The fact that studies are published in scientific journals does not validate the conclusions of the studies, only the results.

[suspsy]

English is not my native language so I make an effort to understand. Science is not something that is written in stone, what today is demonstrated by studies, not tomorrow, so until definitive proof is found, any study that is based on speculation and sophisticated projections does not stop being a theory.

Shall I interpret that to mean that you did not bother to click on any of the links I shared last night, let alone read them? I strongly urge you to.

Also, it sounds like you're misusing the term 'theory' as it pertains to science.

The comparisons of this study, in my opinion, are quite absurd and crude, since it compares totally different animals, with different ways of living and different biologies

As opposed to directly comparing theropod skulls to those of modern pseudosuchians?

A study shows that it is strong trying to see its weak points and seeing what it kills, such as the replacement time of the teeth in theropods, which in T.Rex was 777 days but in Majungasaurs it was 56 days or in Allosaurus of 104 days but the study only focuses on T.Rex because it is the most popular and extrapolates all its results to all theropods.

None of that refutes lips on theropods.

I have seen how marginal opinions have been proven to be true or studies that are only done to reaffirm a trend.

Nor does this.

I believe that archosaurs have a natural tendency to lose oral structures to replace them with horny coverings such as ranphothecas and Tracy Ford's arguments in this case seem more solid to me.

Ford has never been able to demonstrate such a tendency. No one has.

The fact that studies are published in scientific journals does not validate the conclusions of the studies, only the results.

And this just sounds like special pleading.

[TaranUlas]

The comparisons of this study, in my opinion, are quite absurd and crude, since it compares totally different animals, with different ways of living and different biologies, comparing teeth and foramina, ignoring other anatomical structures of the skull and uses of these teeth.

We have four samples for figuring out how flight works to make a jet. We have penguins, bees, Hatzegopteryx, and bats. According to you, we should not use any of these to figure how flight works because they are not living similar lifestyles and have different wing setups. That is what you are suggesting and I am putting it in this simple of an example because I want you to understand why that idea does not work.

A study shows that it is strong trying to see its weak points and seeing what it kills, such as the replacement time of the teeth in theropods, which in T.Rex was 777 days but in Majungasaurs it was 56 days or in Allosaurus of 104 days but the study only focuses on T.Rex because it is the most popular and extrapolates all its results to all theropods.

The reasoning for lips is not to secure teeth within the mouth when biting, but to avoid them drying out too much from the air around them. Animals with exposed teeth typically have stronger layers of enamel or live in aquatic habitats where the concept of drying out is impossible because there is water surrounding them. Animals with lips typically have layers of enamel that are lighter. The point of the study was to test that with Tyrannosaurid teeth such as Tyrannosaurus rex and Daspletosaurus by comparing the enamel layers in the teeth to living monitors and crocodilians since they are the closest living relatives to Dinosaurs without beaks. One is heavily aquatic unlike Tyrannosaurids and one is land-based like Tyrannosaurids. If the enamel is similar, that points to the mouth covering likely being similar. The study found that Tyrannosaurid enamel matches up closer to the monitors than it does to crocodilians. This indicates that we should consider the monitor lips more likely.

[DinoToyForum]

sorry to see that conspiracy theories and pseudoscience (which I think is too flattering a term for what it is) has crept into this forum.  I thought it was immune to that nonsense.  Hopefully this occurrence of it will be a one time thing.

Indeed, we have a rule against it, because when it comes to medical pseudoscience it can be plain dangerous:

Rule 10. Do not promote or endorse anti-vaccination, medicine conspiracies, or other anti-scientific misinformation about healthcare.

However, since the peddling of misinformation has seemingly run its short-lived course in this thread, I won't take any moderator action on this occasion. But let's all stick to the lips in this topic going forward, thanks all!