Well Windbag...what can say. It's not like I made this shit up.
I don't know why science makes you so angry. And yes modeling of a fossil into a lifelike rendition is a science unto itself. I'm sure you've seen the process on CSI type shows. I'm just going to paste this whole article for anybody that's interested. BTW what was the video of the walking shark supposed to prove or disprove?
How we bring fossils 'back to life'
By Adam S. Smith
"When you see a drawing or model of a dinosaur, or even a 'live' one in a movie, how do you know that that is what they really looked like? Well, here is how it's done.
The first step in restoring the life appearance of any prehistoric creature is to discover its fossil remains. These fossils are usually made up of just the hard parts such as bone and shell, although special conditions do very rarely preserve soft parts. Once a fossil has been discovered, let's say of a dinosaur, the skeleton must then be reconstructed. This may be very difficult or very easy depending on how complete the remains are. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives. This gives us a good idea of what the missing parts of the animal looked like. For example we have a large number of complete fossils of Tyrannoaurus. If a new type of tyrannosaur is found with just a few bones, we may not know exactly what it looked like, but based on Tyrannosaurus we will have a very good idea of the shapes, size and numbers of the missing bones.
Sometimes complete skeletons are found, which makes this process much simpler, and if the bones are all articulated (joined together as they were in life so the feet are attached to the legs and the legs to the hips etc.) this is even easier. The natural posture of the animal can be determined by articulating each bone in the skeleton relative to the next. Computer simulations also allow palaeontologists to calculate the most balanced stance.
The skeletal reconstruction can be accomplished in two dimensions such as in an illustration of all the bones, or in three dimensions - the most obvious and striking examples of reconstructed skeletons can be seen on display in museums. Sometimes these mounted skeletons are genuine fossils, but often they are casts taken from the fossil bones - these are much lighter and easier to construct, and this also allows the real bones to be safely stored for protection and scientific investigation.
The next step is to reconstruct the muscles of the body around the skeleton. The position and size of the muscles can be determined by looking at the muscles of living animals, and their position and size is also indicated by scars and bumps on the fossil bones where the muscles once attached. The dinosaur is now ready to put on its skin. The skin texture is sometimes known from rare fossil impressions, but the colour is almost entirely guesswork. However, it is important to think about where the creature lived and how it may have behaved -many animals are camouflaged to their surrounding, so maybe animals from a desert were yellow whereas forest-dwelling animals were green. There are other subtle details to take into account at this stage, such as the type of eye and tongue. These features can be reconstructed with some confidence by looking at the closest living relatives of the prehistoric animal.
It is possible to stop here, but we can go a step further and figure out how the animal moved and sounded. Indeed, the most complete restorations or prehistoric animals are 3D mechanical creations, and computer generated 3D animations, such as those seen in 'Walking with Dinosaurs'. Fossil footprints provide good evidence for gait and posture, and when combined with an understanding of the flexibility and strength of joints, the fossil organisms can finally be brought back to life."
And, as we learn more, our representations become ever more accurate. I can remember when dinosaurs were thought to be slow moving cold blooded lizards. Now, we believe they were warm blooded, vibrant, fast and much more complex animals.
In fact there is one line of thought that believes the birds are descended from them.
it's not a line of thought it's fact
Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?
Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. What is this evidence?
We'll spare you the exhaustive amount of available cladistic studies; those alone would make a large book if compiled. Dr. Jacques Gauthier, during his time as a graduate student of Professor Kevin Padian here at Berkeley, did his dissertation research on this subject, creating the first well accepted, detailed phylogeny of the diapsids. His work provided strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are theropod dinosaurs.
If we look back into the history of the issue, it is apparent that many comparative anatomists during the 16th through 19th centuries noticed that birds were very similar to traditional reptiles. In 1860, shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin's influential work On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, a quarry worker in Germany spotted an unusual fossil in the limestone of the Solnhofen Formation (late Jurassic period). This fossil turned out to be the famous 'London specimen' of Archaeopteryx lithographica. It was a beautiful example of a "transitional form" between two vertebrate groups (traditional reptiles and birds); just what Darwin expected would eventually be found. Archaeopteryx, generally accepted as being the oldest known bird, is an important link between birds and other coelurosaurs that has helped to illuminate the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the group. It is now widely held to be the ancestor of all living birds; this is a common misconception. In fact, recent expeditions in China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and elsewhere may uncover dinosaurs that usurp the "urvogel" status of Archaeopteryx.
Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships
