Yes it does actually, that's how names work. As long as it's English context, T-rex is not incorrect, I can't believe this is a thing but apparently it is. Animals are given common names based on usage, where those names came from is irrelevant. That's why Mountain Lions have over 40 English names, they're known as Mountain lion, Cougar Catamounts, Puma, Florida Panther, Painter, Mountain cat, American Panther, Deer tiger, American Lion, etc. Many of these names are no longer in use such as Catamount, a name often used for the lions living in Vermont (who'm are currently extinct). Puma is the one I'll focus on. That word comes from the Spanish term for the animal, but it appears in English writings and under English context on a regular basis, therefore it is considered an English name for the animal as well. The Spanish origins are just that, Spanish origins. T-rex is the exact same thing, it's a name that is derived from T.rex, the scientific name of the animal, but as it too has appeared numerous times in English works, it is considered an acceptable name for the animal as well. It is no less valid than referring to the animal as Tyrannosaurus and it is not a misspelled version of T.rex because that name is specifically referring to Tyrannosaurus rex, the animal's scientific name. It is just a common name that is derived from the Scientific name, which in my opinion makes it one of the most valid common names in existence.



Also, "nature doesn't really care about not looking weird" You need to drop this nonsense, as does everybody else in the "Scientific community", it's a horrible argument and quite frankly, very unscientific way of looking at things. That is just a way to shut people up and you know it. Science has two rules in play that you are effectively denying them from using:

1) For something to become a theory, it must make it through the Scientific method, the first step is observation followed by a Hypothesis. I can look at this, the observation, and say, "I don't believe it looked like that. I think something like that would be only harmful and would have no practical uses to an apex predator, therefore they didn't look like that." That is a Hypothesis, end of story. You are essentially telling them they can't partake in the Scientific Theory, which I think is ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous to me looking at a rainy sky and saying, "I don't think a rain god 'caused that." and you jumping in and saying, "Rain gods don't care what you think."

2) The reason the Scientific method is demanded is because it ensures everybody uses the same system to conduct experiments, ergo work can be tested and re-evaluated very easily. Therefore, all theories must be able to survive scrutiny. Saying that doesn't make sense, I don't think they look liked that is scrutiny in action. You are telling them to blindly except this based on absolutely nothing, when science demands you do the complete opposite. Science says you should look at everything told to you with a skeptical eye and evaluate the evidence for yourself.



You want the proper response a scientifically minded person should give? Here it is:

"I don't think that looks right." Skeptic says.

"And why do you think that?" Scientifically minded persons responds with.

"Just doesn't look right to me" Skeptic responds.

"Well in that case, perhaps you are unaware of some studies that have been conducted, would you like to see them?"



There you go, that is the correct response right there. Science should welcome questions and counter proposals, not get hostile and try to drive them away. If the person's opinion is from a lack of information, then you provide that information. If they refuse it, well then that's there problem. If it isn't, then you debate with them, reanalyze the evidence you do have, and come to your own conclusion. Present that to the Scientific community and they'll put it under scrutiny and test it for themselves. Then, they'll either accept it and/or present their own counter proposal(s). If you get a counter proposal, Take that, test it, form a new proposal, present it again, etc. That is how it is supposed to work, that is how you get closer and closer to the correct answer. You test ideas and claims again and again, widdling out the wrong or misunderstood bits till you end up with a correct answer.