NationStates Jolt Archive

to break away from the usual palete of Religion, Politics and Lifestyles... let's argue something different.

Dinosaurs. before, it was well established that dinosaurs were Reptiles, thundering lizards who once roamed the surface of the Earth.

however, recently, some new theories surfaced that they are more like birds. quick, fast and light on their feet... well... for a dinosaur that is...)

so what's your opinion and views of these long extinct species?

The Three Faces of the Dinosaur. (http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html)

Dinoisaurs were actually intelligent creatures who built the pyramids. They then made humans believe they were gods. Thos who could, left to colonise other planets. Every time a fossil is discovered a curse bgins.....soon Immortal Zombie Dinosaurs will roam the earth!:eek:

There's some question about the lizardness of dinosaurs, I believe. And the warm-blooded versus cold-blodded debate continues, though evidence is mounting for at least some of them being warm-blooded.

I like the way Bakker concluded his Dinosaur Heresies, saying that we should recognize the "birdness of dinosaurs and the dinosaurness of birds," so when we see the geese flying by in March, we can say, "Look! The dinsoaurs are flying north, it must be spring!" :D

As far as I was aware, they're basically lizards, and the evolutionary predeccessors of birds as well as modern lizards.

This thread blows my mind. You've given me the option to vote dinosaurs as myrthful flying mamillian reptiles from space.

I like the way Bakker concluded his Dinosaur Heresies, saying that we should recognize the "birdness of dinosaurs and the dinosaurness of birds," so when we see the geese flying by in March, we can say, "Look! The dinsoaurs are flying north, it must be spring!" :D
and you must be glad that they didn't keep their original size as they flew over your car. :D

and you must be glad that they didn't keep their original size as they flew over your car. :D

:eek: Oh, man, they're gonna charge me extra at the car wash for that!

to break away from the usual palete of Religion, Politics and Lifestyles... let's argue something different.

Dinosaurs. before, it was well established that dinosaurs were Reptiles, thundering lizards who once roamed the surface of the Earth.

however, recently, some new theories surfaced that they are more like birds. quick, fast and light on their feet... well... for a dinosaur that is...)

so what's your opinion and views of these long extinct species?

The Three Faces of the Dinosaur. (http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html)

Depends on what species of dinosaur you're talking about precisely. I would agree that the archeopteryx for example is a lot more bird-like (feathers and all) than reptilian.
However, considering that many dinosaurs had teeth, which birds, per definition, don't, I would still categorise the majority of them as reptiles.

This thread blows my mind. You've given me the option to vote dinosaurs as myrthful flying mamillian reptiles from space.

why not? for all we know, that might be true! :D

some say that dinosaurs had hollow bones, others say they moved like lizards and some still point to the Croc...

I think, they are all three. and that Dinosaurs is a blanket statement that covers three distinct species/types that would one day evolve to Repties/lizards, birds, and mammals. it's the only thing that supports all the differeing evidence and views.

I'm gonna say it depends on which dinosaur we are talking about...something like a raptor seems more birdlike, while the tyranosaurs seem more reptile.

Depends on what species of dinosaur you're talking about precisely. I would agree that the archeopteryx for example is a lot more bird-like (feathers and all) than reptilian.
However, considering that many dinosaurs had teeth, which birds, per definition, don't, I would still categorise the majority of them as reptiles.

Ahem ... modern birds, perhaps ...

Hesperornis were very large birds, reaching up to 1.50 metre (5 feet) in length. They had virtually no wings and hunted in the waters of the North American Inland Sea (Hills et al, 1999), swimming with powerful hind legs (the feet were probably lobed (not webbed!) as in today's grebes). Like other Mesozoic birds such as Ichthyornis, Hesperornis had teeth in its beak which were used to hold prey (probably mainly fish), although in the hesperornithiform lineage they were of a different arrangement than in any other known bird with the teeth sitting in a longitudinal groove rather than in individual sockets (Marsh, 1880).

why not? for all we know, that might be true! :D

some say that dinosaurs had hollow bones, others say they moved like lizards and some still point to the Croc...

I think, they are all three. and that Dinosaurs is a blanket statement that covers three distinct species/types that would one day evolve to Repties/lizards, birds, and mammals. it's the only thing that supports all the differeing evidence and views.

Mammals, no. Reptiles and birds undoubtedly.

Depends on what species of dinosaur you're talking about precisely. I would agree that the archeopteryx for example is a lot more bird-like (feathers and all) than reptilian.
However, considering that many dinosaurs had teeth, which birds, per definition, don't, I would still categorise the majority of them as reptiles.

... ever heard of an Egg Tooth? most birds have them. ;)

as for the Archeopteryx (http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html)...

The dinosaurs themselves, most of them anyways, would most likely be characterized as reptiles. Some were more bird-like, some more like modern reptiles, some even related to mammals. But, once we get to the point that species can be definitively classified as birds believed to have evolved from dinosaurs, they're no longer dinosaurs.

so what's your opinion and views of these long extinct species?

The Three Faces of the Dinosaur. (http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html)

Interesting article. As for my opinion and views of dinosaurs, I find them fascinating and see them as another source of profit and means of employment for enterprising humans.

Ahem ... modern birds, perhaps ...

Hmmm... I wonder if that refers to real teeth, as in set in gums and not connected by bone material or horn material, or does it refer to bone or horn teeth, such as geese who have beaks with a line of horn teeth?

Dinosaurs were a combination of both reptiles and birds, exhibiting characteristics of both, although with prejudices towards reptiles during the earlier years of the Mesozoic and prejudices towards birds during the later years of the Mesozoic.

Mammals, no. Reptiles and birds undoubtedly.
I dunno...

Hairy Dinosaurs (http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/newsletters/2001/200411/t20041129_17640.htm)

and other articles indicate that the dinosaurs were warmblooded... granted they laid eggs, but so does the platypus which is closer to being a Mammal then anything else.

something to think about...

It depends. Therapods dinosaurs like troodon and dromeosaurs, as well as larger carnivores like tyrannosaurs and carnosaurs, have a lot of birdlike qualities. Especially the former, who share certain bones found only in birds. However, they also have many reptilian qualities, like their hip bones which is lizard shaped. So one could make the arguement that they are a "missing link" if you will. I believe that they were reptiles, and some of them were more advanced then others, and that some started to evolve toward birds, like the dromeosaurs and archaeopteryx was the true missing link. Most of the herbivores were more reptilian, although most of them had a bird like hip.

Hmmm... I wonder if that refers to real teeth, as in set in gums and not connected by bone material or horn material, or does it refer to bone or horn teeth, such as geese who have beaks with a line of horn teeth?

Don't know, good question. I suspect real teeth, though. Even though the quote was from Wiki, I think they would have said "horn teeth" or made some distinction if there were one to make. I'll take a look in my books when I get home, there might be something in one of them.

And now, a lesson in cladistics.


Amniota
|-Synapsida
|-Sauropsida
|-Reptilia
|-Anapsida
|-Diapsida
|-Lizards and snakes and tuataras
|-Icthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs
|-Other stuff
|-Archosauria
|-Crocodylia
|-Ornithodira
|-Pterosauria
|-Dinosauromorpha
|-Marasuchus
|-Dinosauria
|-Predentata
|-Saurischia
|-Sauropodomorpha
|-Theropoda
|-Coelophysidae
|-Neotheropoda
|-Neoceratosauria
|-Tetanurae
|-Spinosauria
|-Avetheropoda
|-Carnosauria
|-Coelosauria
|-Compsognathidae
|-Tyrannoraptora
|-Arctometatarsalia
|-Mairaptora
|-Oviraptorosauria
|-Eumaniraptora
|-Deinonychosauria
|-Aves

Dinosaurs are reptiles. End of story.

So one could make the arguement that they are a "missing link" if you will. I

Ooh, clever! I never even thought of using that term!

And now, a lesson in cladistics.


Amniota
|-Synapsida
|-Sauropsida
|-Reptilia
|-Anapsida
|-Diapsida
|-Lizards and snakes and tuataras
|-Icthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs
|-Other stuff
|-Archosauria
|-Crocodylia
|-Ornithodira
|-Pterosauria
|-Dinosauromorpha
|-Marasuchus
|-Dinosauria
|-Predentata
|-Saurischia
|-Sauropodomorpha
|-Theropoda
|-Coelophysidae
|-Neotheropoda
|-Neoceratosauria
|-Tetanurae
|-Spinosauria
|-Avetheropoda
|-Carnosauria
|-Coelosauria
|-Compsognathidae
|-Tyrannoraptora
|-Arctometatarsalia
|-Mairaptora
|-Oviraptorosauria
|-Eumaniraptora
|-Deinonychosauria
|-Aves

Dinosaurs are reptiles. End of story.

Cool chart.

Ooh, clever! I never even thought of using that term!

I know! It makes me feel smart. I should patent that phrase.

I dunno...

Hairy Dinosaurs (http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/newsletters/2001/200411/t20041129_17640.htm)

and other articles indicate that the dinosaurs were warmblooded... granted they laid eggs, but so does the platypus which is closer to being a Mammal then anything else.

something to think about...

Dinosaur "hair" has no structural or chemical similarities with mammalian hair. It's structurally and chemically identical to certain types of feathers, however.

I think, they are all three. and that Dinosaurs is a blanket statement that covers three distinct species/types that would one day evolve to Repties/lizards, birds, and mammals. it's the only thing that supports all the differeing evidence and views.

If by "supports all the differing evidence and views" you means ignores every last scrap of evidence on the entire planet, all of which points to birds being the sole descendents of dinosaurs, then yes.

Dinosaur "hair" has no structural or chemical similarities with mammalian hair. It's structurally and chemically identical to certain types of feathers, however.

Chemically? And we would know what the chemical properties of something that's been replaced by minerals for millions of years how? Structural we could maybe possibly have a shot at, maybe, given a really good fossil and an electron microscope. Maybe.

The dinosaurs themselves, most of them anyways, would most likely be characterized as reptiles. Some were more bird-like, some more like modern reptiles, some even related to mammals. But, once we get to the point that species can be definitively classified as birds believed to have evolved from dinosaurs, they're no longer dinosaurs.

For the record, what dinosaurs do you think are related to mammals, aside from the whole both being amniotes thing?

All of the above.

If by "supports all the differing evidence and views" you means ignores every last scrap of evidence on the entire planet, all of which points to birds being the sole descendents of dinosaurs, then yes.
so if all evidence points to birds being te sole descendents of Dinosaurs, then how can you say they are reptiles?

Chemically? And we would know what the chemical properties of something that's been replaced by minerals for millions of years how? Structural we could maybe possibly have a shot at, maybe, given a really good fossil and an electron microscope. Maybe.

We have fossils that are preserved enough to see that chemical structure. Specifically, Shuvuuia. The integument is made out of... keratin B, I believe. It's a form of keratin found only in feathers.

For the record, what dinosaurs do you think are related to mammals, aside from the whole both being amniotes thing?

I don't know specific species very well. I just remember reading that different dinosaur groups were supposed to be precursors both to some avian and some mammalian species.

so if all evidence points to birds being te sole descendents of Dinosaurs, then how can you say they are reptiles?

Cladistics. Dinosaurs are reptiles because they fall in the clade Reptilia. Not every extinct animal is a dinosaur. Only a few sharing specific diagnostic characteristics are.

I don't know specific species very well. I just remember reading that different dinosaur groups were supposed to be precursors both to some avian and some mammalian species.

Can't think of any that could possibly qualify. It might have been an older book, that grouped mammals under Reptilia, because amniote relationships were poorly understood until maybe twenty or so years ago.

Cladistics. Dinosaurs are reptiles because they fall in the clade Reptilia. Not every extinct animal is a dinosaur. Only a few sharing specific diagnostic characteristics are.
so where are the records of other mammalian and avian (bird) species that existed with the Dinosaurs? surely there must be some.

Unless it falls back to my theory that Dinosaurs is a blanket term and that there are species of Dinosaurs that are Mammilan, others birdlike, as well as reptiles.

We have fossils that are preserved enough to see that chemical structure. Specifically, Shuvuuia. The integument is made out of... keratin B, I believe. It's a form of keratin found only in feathers.

Yes, but ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia)

Though highly deteriorated and poorly preserved, biochemical analyses later showed that these structures contain decay products of the protein beta-keratin, and more significantly, the absence of alpha-keratin. While beta-keratin is found in all integumentary (skin and feather) cells of reptiles and birds, only bird feathers completely lack alpha-keratin. These findings show that, though poorly preserved, Shuvuuia definitely possessed a coat of feathers.

so where are the records of other mammalian and avian (bird) species that existed with the Dinosaurs? surely there must be some.
Birds descended from dinosaurs, so there should be none before Dinosaurs. It's simple. And mammals first appeared at around the same time dinosaurs did.

Unless it falls back to my theory that Dinosaurs is a blanket term and that there are species of Dinosaurs that are Mammilan, others birdlike, as well as reptiles.
Name one species of dinosaur that you think is an ancestor of mammals. One. Now.

Yes, but ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia)

Right. That supports me.

Can't think of any that could possibly qualify. It might have been an older book, that grouped mammals under Reptilia, because amniote relationships were poorly understood until maybe twenty or so years ago.

No, this is much more recent. I've never heard anything that grouped mammals under Reptilia.


so where are the records of other mammalian and avian (bird) species that existed with the Dinosaurs? surely there must be some.

There are. From what I recall, most of the mammalian species that coexisted with dinosaurs were pretty small, but they did exist. I don't recall hearing of any particular birds that coexisted, but that may be due to the fact that the current idea is that all birds evolved from dinosaurs, which, themselves, died out. So you wouldn't expect to see a great deal of coexisting species. It would be more that you would see dinosaurs that still lived becoming progressively more and more bird-like until you classified them as birds.

Right. That supports me.

No, you said dino feathers aren't like bird feathers and the article says they are. Unless I read it wrong. It said the Shuvuuia structures lacked alpha-keratin, as do bird feathers, therefore they appear to be feathers. Now, does that make Shuvuuia a bird? That's a whole 'nother question, one I'll contemplate in a little while over dinner.

Birds coexisted with dinosaurs from either the Late Jurassic or the Early Cretaceous, depending on whether or not Archaeopteryx is taken as a bird or not. It's a bit difficult to determine, since on one side is hundreds of years of tradition, and on the other is a more or less complete lack of any definite avian features.

No, you said dino feathers aren't like bird feathers and the article says they are. Unless I read it wrong. It said the Shuuvia structures lacked alpha-keratin, as do bird feathers, therefore they appear to be feathers. Now, does that make Shuuvia a bird? That's a whole 'nother question, one I'll contemplate in a little while over dinner.

I said dinosaur feathers were like bird feathers. In fact, I said that they were practically identical.

I said dinosaur feathers were like bird feathers. In fact, I said that they were practically identical.

Oh. Never mind. I gotta go home.

All I know is that I wanted a Triceratops as a pet for Christmas - but apparently Santa couldn't stuff him down the chimney: It never got here. :( (And no - I wasn't naughty. Not really. I think...)

Name one species of dinosaur that you think is an ancestor of mammals. One. Now.the species that produced the Ctenospondylus, Dimetrodon, Secodontosaurus, Sphenacodon
It's theorized that they produced a branch called therapsids, which started the line of Mammals.

All I know is that I wanted a Triceratops as a pet for Christmas - but apparently Santa couldn't stuff him down the chimney: It never got here. :( (And no - I wasn't naughty. Not really. I think...)
... did you have a fire in the fireplace at the time?

If you want a dinossaur, the closest thing you can get nowadays is a parrot.

And considering parrots can talk, I think dinossaurs could too. Velociraptors could open doors (too bad doors didnt exist back then).

Anyway, how can you classify beings who existed millions of years ago, for many million years? Many looked like reptliles, many looked like birds, and many looked like mammals.

Just look at the Duck-Billed Platypus. It has a bird thing in his mouth, has eggs, doesnt have nipples yet produces milk.

If he could talk, he would be as cool as dinossaurs.

Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Cladistics. Dinosaurs are reptiles because they fall in the clade Reptilia.

Actually Dinosaurs have been classified as a seperate species ....they are no longer required to fall under one of the 3....reptile, mammal, avian. As everyone has tried to make them since the first fossils were discovered. During the time of Dinosaurs many large reptiles did exist such as Sarcosuchus imperator
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1025_supercroc.html

but they were not reptiles themselves as more and more is pointing to the fatc they were warmblooded and they are showing more and more charecteristics in no way shape and form reptilian. It is also a proven fact that all the large sea creatures during the reign of the Dinosaur were reptiles such as Ithyosaur, plesiosaur, etc, etc. But the dominant land species was Dinosaurs not Reptiles.

And this is one of the reasons I am unable to vote in the poll because it does not include the possibility allowing the Dinosaur their own distinction but instead trying to force it into some other classification. But this is a great thread.

Originally Posted by JuNii
so where are the records of other mammalian and avian (bird) species that existed with the Dinosaurs? surely there must be some.

There is fossil evidence of both....but the mammals are no larger then say a rat....and the birds are also not very large either. But there is evidence suggesting relationship of many modern avian species to Dinosaurs so there is a close relation of the two. You also stated earlier that platypus is closely related to mammals.....a platypus is a mammal....the ability to lay eggs notwithstanding.


Thank you for a wonderful thread and it is so nice after all the way to common political BS ones....and I wish everyone posting here a great day .

Dinosaurs are reptiles - most of them. However, birds are technically dinosaurs. So I put reptiles AND birds.

to break away from the usual palete of Religion, Politics and Lifestyles... let's argue something different.

Dinosaurs. before, it was well established that dinosaurs were Reptiles, thundering lizards who once roamed the surface of the Earth.

however, recently, some new theories surfaced that they are more like birds. quick, fast and light on their feet... well... for a dinosaur that is...)

so what's your opinion and views of these long extinct species?

The Three Faces of the Dinosaur. (http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html)

The dinosaurs did not evolve. They died out because they became gay, after they elected liberals to government office.

See, it doesn't matter what you talk about, Religion, Politics, and Lifestyles will catch up with you eventually.

Dinosaurs were magical beings from before the age of cheez-whiz and electric toothbrushes. They reigned over this great earth, not with an iron fist, but with one made of rather boring flesh and bone. However, the flesh and bone making up said fist was dinosaur flesh and bone, doubtless superior to the weak and flimsy flesh and bone of humans. However, upon the development of nuclear technology, they promptly had a world war and blew the hell out of themselves.

Dinosaurs were actually Cheese Doodles.

The more you know!

The dinasours are clearly our friendly nieghborhood ex-mod, Myrth.:)

There seems to be two different kinds of dinosaurs. Most of the four legged ones I could confidently class as reptiles, but the two legged varieties I’d have to put as either avian or a separate phylum.

There seems to be two different kinds of dinosaurs. Most of the four legged ones I could confidently class as reptiles, but the two legged varieties I’d have to put as either avian or a separate phylum.What a nonsense.
All of them were "Reptiles". However, not all Reptiles are the same, not even today. Technically even birds must be considered reptiles.

http://www.etsu.edu/physics/plntrm/dino/evolution.htm

to break away from the usual palete of Religion, Politics and Lifestyles... let's argue something different.

Dinosaurs. before, it was well established that dinosaurs were Reptiles, thundering lizards who once roamed the surface of the Earth.

however, recently, some new theories surfaced that they are more like birds. quick, fast and light on their feet... well... for a dinosaur that is...)

so what's your opinion and views of these long extinct species?

The Three Faces of the Dinosaur. (http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html)

A bit late to the game there. Dinosaurs were an extremely diverse group of animals, filling a wide range of roles in the ecosystem of the time.

However, about the bird thing. I took a class on the Natural History of Dinosaurs last quarter (yes, one can actually take classes that awesome), and it's pretty much been concluded that birds are descendants of small theropod (theropods being the group that included oviraptor, tyrannosaurus rex, velociraptor, deinonychus, etc.) dinosaurs. It has also been found that some dinosaurs appear to have had feathers, which suggests that the trait evolved first for keeping a consistant temperature rather than flight, and only were later adapted for the skies.

A major debate right now is not whether birds are part of the dinosaur clade, but how it is that they started flying. That is, whether they ran and jumped and eventually flew, or climbed trees to jump down and eventually flew, or both.

What a nonsense.
All of them were "Reptiles". However, not all Reptiles are the same, not even today. Technically even birds must be considered reptiles.

http://www.etsu.edu/physics/plntrm/dino/evolution.htm

Quite true. It appears actually that at first there were only the two legged variety, and as more opportunities in the triassic ecosystem appeared, the group branched and some started going down on four legs (to put it simplistically).

The earliest dinosaur fossils are of bipedal animals.

Of course, the group that birds evolved from was clearly bipedal (all Theropods were bipedal).

I do not know what this is from, but I found it on a You Tube search.:p

Here is what shall happen: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iGzEjRhHI00&mode=related&search=

.Actually Dinosaurs have been classified as a seperate species ....they are no longer required to fall under one of the 3....reptile, mammal, avian. As everyone has tried to make them since the first fossils were discovered. During the time of Dinosaurs many large reptiles did exist such as Sarcosuchus imperator
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1025_supercroc.html

but they were not reptiles themselves as more and more is pointing to the fatc they were warmblooded and they are showing more and more charecteristics in no way shape and form reptilian. It is also a proven fact that all the large sea creatures during the reign of the Dinosaur were reptiles such as Ithyosaur, plesiosaur, etc, etc. But the dominant land species was Dinosaurs not Reptiles.

And this is one of the reasons I am unable to vote in the poll because it does not include the possibility allowing the Dinosaur their own distinction but instead trying to force it into some other classification. But this is a great thread.

There is fossil evidence of both....but the mammals are no larger then say a rat....and the birds are also not very large either. But there is evidence suggesting relationship of many modern avian species to Dinosaurs so there is a close relation of the two. You also stated earlier that platypus is closely related to mammals.....a platypus is a mammal....the ability to lay eggs notwithstanding.

Thank you for a wonderful thread and it is so nice after all the way to common political BS ones....and I wish everyone posting here a great day.

I agree completely. Warm blooded with scales, after all. I'm not about to try and fit a square peg into a round hole. Good post! :)

EDIT: But I still voted in the poll. :p

Which group of dinosaurs are you talking about?

Triassic
Jurassic
or Cretacious?

They were all different, with the Triassic ones being smaller and in the other two eras they grew larger and became very different from previous generations. of

Anyways, dinosaurs were a bit of everything, or at least led to mammals, reptiles, and bird, as can be seen of the splitting of the diapsids andsynapsids from the anapsids.

The world and everything about it is just one endless cycle.
Everything repeats over and over again, except it takes many millions of years to do this, so long in fact that nothing remains of the previous time a certain occurance occured.

For instance Dinosaurs are mutated Lizards(Godzilla a perfect example) from World War IV.

World War IV was the most destructive war of all wars, it was nuclear and destroyed much of everything.
Humans ceased to exist, the earths atmosphere changed for many many many many many many many many many many many many moons, however bacteria, germs and other nasty critters continued to exist but in a different mutated form.
Eventually they evolved into other beings.

Stuff happened.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Dinosaurs emerged again, once again some became too greedy and after many millions of years destroyed the food chain by eating a crucial link.
Then an asteriod came down and turned the atmosphere upside down, a near instant ice age began and the newly emerged mammals grew thick coats to cope.

Then things calmed down after many many manym naym naym many many many many many many many moons, Wooly Mammoths turned into Elephants.
Soon Humans evolved out of an evil sect of the Smurf race and the breeding of chimps.

Africans took longer as they didn't have any smurfs about so they just had to use a monkey cimpanzee, this explains the skin colour(The Smurfs blue actually absorbed the severe cold of the European Winter and strangly turned the skin white).

Later these 'humans' learnt how to read and write and eventually turned int owhat we see today and started the fighting each other, learnt of war and began World War IV again...

As far as I was aware, they're basically lizards, and the evolutionary predeccessors of birds as well as modern lizards.

Dinosaurs and lizards aren't even closely related. Dinosaurs and other archeosaurs (crocodilians and pterosaurs for example) represent a one branch of diapsids, lizards and snakes the other.

I dunno...

Hairy Dinosaurs (http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/newsletters/2001/200411/t20041129_17640.htm)

and other articles indicate that the dinosaurs were warmblooded... granted they laid eggs, but so does the platypus which is closer to being a Mammal then anything else.

something to think about...

Dinosaurs and other archeosaurs however are not in anyway evolutionary ancestors of mammals. Synapsids are the forerunner to mammals.

so where are the records of other mammalian and avian (bird) species that existed with the Dinosaurs? surely there must be some.

Unless it falls back to my theory that Dinosaurs is a blanket term and that there are species of Dinosaurs that are Mammilan, others birdlike, as well as reptiles.

There are fossils of mammals that lived along side dinosaurs, as well as fossils of many proto-mammals (which predate dinosaurs), these are not dinosaurs...

the species that produced the Ctenospondylus, Dimetrodon, Secodontosaurus, Sphenacodon
It's theorized that they produced a branch called therapsids, which started the line of Mammals.

Yes, well researched. Now say it with me: "Dimetrodon isn't a dinosaur and people who claim it is are either ignorant or being willfully inaccurate." :)

What a nonsense.
All of them were "Reptiles". However, not all Reptiles are the same, not even today. Technically even birds must be considered reptiles.

http://www.etsu.edu/physics/plntrm/dino/evolution.htm

Mammals are reptiles too then.

Never before has Myrth been a more fitting joke option. And dinosaurs were clearly God's first attempt at humans, as evidinced by Raptor Jesus. And now, a lesson in cladistics.


|-Other stuff

Dinosaurs are reptiles. End of story.

:cool:

Never before has Myrth been a more fitting joke option. And dinosaurs were clearly God's first attempt at humans, as evidinced by Raptor Jesus.
Raptor Jesus?

Mammals are reptiles too then.Not at all.

And there are 8 retards who clicked "Mammals" in the poll?? And 27 who clicked "bridging species"? There are too many Americans on this forum...

Raptor Jesus?
Myrth as a fitting joke option?(In this case)

Myrth as a fitting joke option?(In this case)

Very fitting.

there's some confusion here. birds are not technically reptiles, but reptiles as a group is also not tehcnically a proper one. It's polyphyletic, which means that the three (four) orders that make up the reptiles (chelonia, crocodilia, squamata (and spenodontia)) have seperate evolutionary origins. This means that, although they all share the characteristics of what you would know as a reptile, they are, phylogenetically speaking, not part of the same grouping. To fix this, each of those orders needs to be seperated from the idea of a reptile group, OR, the common ancestor that DOES link those three or four orders is used as the beginning of the group. This second solution produces a group called the amniotes, which is reptiles, mammals and birds. So technically, yes, birds are in the same group as reptiles (superclass:tetrapoda, for example), but that doesnt mean they are reptiles.

And dinosaurs, were reptiles. However, the ornithischian (Bird hipped) dinosaurs (mainly herbivores with beaks, like stegasaurus), are thought to have exhibited bird like characteristics, especially around the pelvic girdle, and are the most likely candidates for the ancestors of modern birds. Saurischian dinosaurs (lizard hipped), which is the second grouping of dinosaurs (again, the group dinosaur is polyphyletic) creates difficulty. The therapod dinosaurs were saurischian, and of these many are speculated to have developed feathers and become proto-birds, archeopteryx for example. This means that either clade of dinosaur is a reasonable bet to be the ancestor of birds today.

They were, however, reptiles, NOT birds (which they gave rise to) or mammals (which evolved from reptiles as well, but not from dinosaurs).

... did you have a fire in the fireplace at the time?
I don't even have a fireplace to begin with. There's a modern heating installation at the end of the chimney.

Oh well. Maybe next near he'll just leave him on the porch?

Not at all.

Mammals decended from synapids, one branch of reptiles, so actually 'yes, completely'.

Being descended from something doesn't make you the same as it. Mammals aren't reptiles, despite common ancestry.

And dinosaurs, were reptiles. However, the ornithischian (Bird hipped) dinosaurs (mainly herbivores with beaks, like stegasaurus), are thought to have exhibited bird like characteristics, especially around the pelvic girdle, and are the most likely candidates for the ancestors of modern birds. Saurischian dinosaurs (lizard hipped), which is the second grouping of dinosaurs (again, the group dinosaur is polyphyletic) creates difficulty. The therapod dinosaurs were saurischian, and of these many are speculated to have developed feathers and become proto-birds, archeopteryx for example. This means that either clade of dinosaur is a reasonable bet to be the ancestor of birds today.

Bird hips developed seperately in 'bird hipped dinosaurs' and in birds. Birds are the only surviving coelurosaurs, which are therapods, which are sauroschians.

Being descended from something doesn't make you the same as it. Mammals aren't reptiles, despite common ancestry.

I'm not claiming mammals are actually reptiles, only pointing out that if one claims birds to be reptiles, then so are mammals.

Dinosaurs are a myth, invented by businessmen to create new opportunities for money-making. Look at all the movies made about dinosaurs (Jurassic Park I, II, and III, for example) and all the money they made, for starters.

there's some confusion here. birds are not technically reptiles, but reptiles as a group is also not tehcnically a proper one.

I dont recomend you tell that to a parrot, because otherwise he will get very angry.

Raptor Jesus?

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/raptorjesus-36752.jpg

well before god created earth there was darkness which i assume is oblivion, and going by what many dungeons and dragons like stories (such as the d&d place the abyss) and games (such as elder scrolls IV) many demons lived in oblivion and still do

therefore it's safe to assume dinosaurs were in fact demons who lived in the abyss before earth and man were made

well before god created earth there was darkness which i assume is oblivion, and going by what many dungeons and dragons like stories (such as the d&d place the abyss) and games (such as elder scrolls IV) many demons lived in oblivion and still do

therefore it's safe to assume dinosaurs were in fact demons who lived in the abyss before earth and man were made

The bible mixed with D&D? Awesome, this be winful.

The bible mixed with D&D? Awesome, this be winful.

yea i'm still trying to mix some dragonball z into it, somethin like jesus being a super saiyan 3, problem is what's the point of having a super saiyan who doesn't fight?

I said dinosaur feathers were like bird feathers. In fact, I said that they were practically identical.

Actually what you said was that Keratin B is only found in bird feathers which the article shows is false. His "yes... but" was founded and supported by the article. Your claim that the chemical is only linked to birds was not.

Now, the lack of a chemical is certainly evidence of a relativity to birds, but the lack of something so ancient is far less damning evidence than finding something.

And now, a lesson in cladistics.


Amniota
|-Synapsida
|-Sauropsida
|-Reptilia
|-Anapsida
|-Diapsida
|-Lizards and snakes and tuataras
|-Icthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs
|-Other stuff
|-Archosauria
|-Crocodylia
|-Ornithodira
|-Pterosauria
|-Dinosauromorpha
|-Marasuchus
|-Dinosauria
|-Predentata
|-Saurischia
|-Sauropodomorpha
|-Theropoda
|-Coelophysidae
|-Neotheropoda
|-Neoceratosauria
|-Tetanurae
|-Spinosauria
|-Avetheropoda
|-Carnosauria
|-Coelosauria
|-Compsognathidae
|-Tyrannoraptora
|-Arctometatarsalia
|-Mairaptora
|-Oviraptorosauria
|-Eumaniraptora
|-Deinonychosauria
|-Aves

Dinosaurs are reptiles. End of story.

It's funny that you would talk about reptiles at all as a classification and then mention cladistics. Reptilia is a flawed remnant of Linnean taxonomy. You and everyone here are mixing terms, mixing old usages with new usages, mixing lay terms and usages with scientific terms. Many of the things people are saying are correct so long as you accept common usage of the term dinosaur and forget that reptilia isn't really accepted anymore.

dinosaur behaviour is more likely to push them closer to mammals and birds than reptiles......more and more species of dinosaurs are suspected of having social behaviour, herd instinct, hunting in packs(cooperation-planning), family groups, these are not traits commonly found in reptiles.......if judged purely on behaviour they appear to have the most in common with mammals......

new evidence now theorizes that T Rex which was thought to be a solitary hunter may in fact be a pack hunter......

Dinosaurs are reptiles, plain and simple. Birds came from the dinosaurs, ergo the feathered dinosaurs. Also ergo, why birds lay eggs. o_O

Dinosaurs are reptiles, plain and simple. Birds came from the dinosaurs, ergo the feathered dinosaurs. Also ergo, why birds lay eggs. o_O

hmm.....since the even paleontologists can't agree on the relationship between, dinosaurs, reptiles, birds and mammals it's nice to know you're available to inform them :rolleyes: platypus-mammal-lays eggs-venomous

It's funny that you would talk about reptiles at all as a classification and then mention cladistics. Reptilia is a flawed remnant of Linnean taxonomy. You and everyone here are mixing terms, mixing old usages with new usages, mixing lay terms and usages with scientific terms. Many of the things people are saying are correct so long as you accept common usage of the term dinosaur and forget that reptilia isn't really accepted anymore.

Er, no. Reptilia was redefined so that it could be used in cladistics. Almost all of the old classifications were, although some were renamed. Reptilia is currently in use as a placeholder of sorts. There are no known non-Reptilian Sauropsids, but it remains because there most likely were.

hmm.....since the even paleontologists can't agree on the relationship between, dinosaurs, reptiles, birds and mammals it's nice to know you're available to inform them :rolleyes: platypus-mammal-lays eggs-venomous

No, palaeontologists agree on the relationships between dinosaurs, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Mammals decended from synapids, one branch of reptiles, so actually 'yes, completely'.

Synapsida is not a branch of Reptilia, courtesy of the redefinition. Reptilia is a subclade of Sauropsida, which is a sister clade to Synapsida.

Edit: The Tree of Life (http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990) uses Reptilia instead of Sauropsida. Considering that the Tree of Life tends to be very accurate, I'm guessing Sauropsida was just done away with in the past few years.

there's some confusion here. birds are not technically reptiles,
Yes they are.

but reptiles as a group is also not tehcnically a proper one.
False.

It's polyphyletic, which means that the three (four) orders that make up the reptiles (chelonia, crocodilia, squamata (and spenodontia)) have seperate evolutionary origins.
False. All of them share common ancestors.

However, the ornithischian (Bird hipped) dinosaurs (mainly herbivores with beaks, like stegasaurus), are thought to have exhibited bird like characteristics, especially around the pelvic girdle, and are the most likely candidates for the ancestors of modern birds.
Wrong. Ornithiscians are not thought to be the ancestors of birds. Any resemblance between their hips is superficial

Saurischian dinosaurs (lizard hipped), which is the second grouping of dinosaurs (again, the group dinosaur is polyphyletic) creates difficulty
Dinosauria is not polyphyletic. There are numerous diagnostic features that unify Saurischia and Predentata.

The therapod dinosaurs were saurischian, and of these many are speculated to have developed feathers and become proto-birds, archeopteryx for example.
Correct.

This means that either clade of dinosaur is a reasonable bet to be the ancestor of birds today.
Wrong. Theropods are definitively the ancestors of birds. No dinosaur palaeontologist disagrees. Only a handful of scientists do, and they've lost almost all of their credibility because of this.

:cool:

I forgot the name of the fourth Diaspid group, as well as what it consisted of, so I put that.

Edit: Ah, it's Icthyosauria. I wasn't sure if Icthyosaurs were with Plesiosaurs.

That part of the clade should actually read:


Diaspida
|-Archosauromorpha
|-Lepidosauromorpha
|-Sauropterygia
|-Icthyosauria

Been awhile since I did this. And there's some levels between Diaspida and those groupings, but they really aren't that important.

Er, no. Reptilia was redefined so that it could be used in cladistics. Almost all of the old classifications were, although some were renamed. Reptilia is currently in use as a placeholder of sorts. There are no known non-Reptilian Sauropsids, but it remains because there most likely were.

It was renamed because the definition of reptilia was not useful and did not fit in cladistics. Of course, you're aware that there are many animals that were classified as reptiles that were not descended from the same creatures as other reptiles. That was the problem. To pretend like reptilia is something that fits with cladistics in this day and age is what is dishonest and willfully ignorant. The terms reptile, mammal and birds were formed with complete ignorance of evolution. The terms were adjusted because they don't make sense. And, of course, you know this. That's the sad part. Becuase you come in the thread declaring that dinosaurs must be reptiles while using the term differently than the OP, insulting people for not knowing that you're misusing the term that today exists only in taxonomy because of tradition. It has no value. As you said, it's no more than a placeholder, and yet you use it in cladistics where it has no value.

This is language, we are responding to the OP using the terms he did. Dinosaurs do not fit the definition of reptiles in the way he used it. The idea that they did is outdated and NOT in line with cladistics.

To pretend like reptilia is something that fits with cladistics in this day and age is what is dishonest and willfully ignorant.


Reptilia has been redefined and now fits in. It's been used in every major cladistic chart that I've been able to find. The only one being willfully ignorant is you.

And once again, I link you to The Tree of Life (http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990).

Reptilia has been redefined and now fits in. It's been used in every major cladistic chart that I've been able to find. The only one being willfully ignorant is you.

And once again, I link you to The Tree of Life (http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990).

And what did you call it. Let's just quote you - "Reptilia is currently in use as a placeholder of sorts." It's doesn't have any use and it's there based on tradition. You and I both know that it'll be gone soon. It has no value. It is based on archaic ideas that were falsified. Pretending that the word has the same meaning it did when dinosaurs were originally considered to be reptiles is disingenuous and does not address the question of the OP.

Sauropsids doesn't even include synapsids, both would be included under the term reptile in the way the OP used it. As has been said if birds are reptiles so are mammals according to cladistics, unless you completely redefine your terms and pretend like you haven't, which is what you're doing. It's called equivocation and it's a logical fallacy.

And what did you call it. Let's just quote you - "Reptilia is currently in use as a placeholder of sorts." It's doesn't have any use and it's there based on tradition. You and I both know that it'll be gone soon. It has no value. It is based on archaic ideas that were falsified. Pretending that the word has the same meaning it did when dinosaurs were originally considered to be reptiles is disingenuous and does not address the question of the OP.

I was wrong about it being a placeholder. Follow the link. It's replacing Sauropsida, not the other way around. And anyways, even as a placeholder, it still serves a purpose, since it has a stricter definition than Sauropsida, which means that there are Sauropsids that are not Reptiles, even though we haven't found any yet. (To my knowledge. It's been at least six or so years since I last checked if there were any.) Reptilia was nonexistant under cladistics for a time. There's a reason why it was resurrected.

Edit: Anyways, a placeholder is not useless. It's very useful, since unnamed nodes in cladistics cannot be referenced as easily as named ones.

Sauropsids doesn't even include synapsids, both would be included under the term reptile in the way the OP used it. As has been said if birds are reptiles so are mammals according to cladistics, unless you completely redefine your terms and pretend like you haven't, which is what you're doing. It's called equivocation and it's a logical fallacy.

I didn't redefine reptile. Scientists did. Years ago. I'm using the definition of reptile that science uses.

I was wrong about it being a placeholder. Follow the link. It's replacing Sauropsida, not the other way around. And anyways, even as a placeholder, it still serves a purpose, since it has a stricter definition than Sauropsida, which means that there are Sauropsids that are not Reptiles, even though we haven't found any yet. (To my knowledge. It's been at least six or so years since I last checked if there were any.) Reptilia was nonexistant under cladistics for a time. There's a reason why it was resurrected.

According to what? Your inferences. It's an archaic term that was found to be erroneous. Some scientists still cling to it, but it IS basically a place-holder. It has no use it's previous form and no real use in it's current form as it's not created a classification that can't be done more meaningfully.

Animals that would fit under the term reptile based on what it meant when dinosaurs were classified as reptiles would include mammals, birds and reptiles when applying cladism. The OP was using the term in a clear way. Again, you are applying the logical fallacy called equivocation.

I didn't redefine reptile. Scientists did. Years ago. I'm using the definition of reptile that science uses.
First, irrelevant. It was not the definition used by the OP when he asked the question. That makes it a logical fallacy.

Meanwhile, scientists have essentially found the term to be archaic. It's going extinct in a very real way and you know it, which is why you called it a placeholder. Keep changing your arguments all you like, but no amount of squirming will make it look like you're not mistaken.

I was wrong about it being a placeholder. Follow the link. It's replacing Sauropsida, not the other way around. And anyways, even as a placeholder, it still serves a purpose, since it has a stricter definition than Sauropsida, which means that there are Sauropsids that are not Reptiles, even though we haven't found any yet. (To my knowledge. It's been at least six or so years since I last checked if there were any.) Reptilia was nonexistant under cladistics for a time. There's a reason why it was resurrected.

Edit: Anyways, a placeholder is not useless. It's very useful, since unnamed nodes in cladistics cannot be referenced as easily as named ones.

In reply to your edit, they are useless when there is another node that means the same thing and is applied properly and without confusion, unlike the archaic term reptile.

According to what? Your inferences. It's an archaic term that was found to be erroneous. Some scientists still cling to it, but it IS basically a place-holder. It has no use it's previous form and no real use in it's current form as it's not created a classification that can't be done more meaningfully.

Follow my link please. Reptilia is a valid cladistic classification. It wasn't before, so it was redefined. The same thing happened with Amphibia and is currently happening with Aves. (Aves no longer uses Archaeopteryx in its definition. This is because Archaeopteryx may not be closer to modern day birds than Deinonychus.)

First, irrelevant. It was not the definition used by the OP when he asked the question. That makes it a logical fallacy.

He didn't specify what he meant by reptile, so I assumed he was using the scientific definition.


Follow this link (http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990) please. I was mistaken about Reptilia being a placeholder. It's not. It's being used instead of Sauropsida.

He didn't specify what he meant by reptile, so I assumed he was using the scientific definition.


Follow this link (http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990) please. I was mistaken about Reptilia being a placeholder. It's not. It's being used instead of Sauropsida.

Um, no, it isn't. Seriously, it's amazing how you keep saying that. I know you saw a pretty picture and somehow you think that makes your point, but you'll notice the word reptilia is not used ONCE in all of the text. Perhaps you should read your own link. However, sauropsida is used in the text and it's used in place of reptilia. It appears they simply haven't updated the diagram.

Now, let's see what the site says http://www.tolweb.org/accessory/Phylogeny_and_Classification_of_Amniotes?acc_id=462

Sauropsida is defined as "reptiles plus all other amniotes more closely related to them than they are to mammals" (Gauthier, 1994). The characters supporting Sauropsida include the following:

Presence of a single coronoid. Synapsids and the diadectomorph Limnoscelis have two coronoid elements. The coronoids are bones on the dorsomedial surface of the lower jaw.
Supinator process parallel to humeral shaft and separated from it by a groove. In synapsids and diadectomorphs, the supinator process is strongly angled relative to the shaft.
Presence of a single pedal centrale. Two centralia were present in the tarsus (ankle) of synapsids and diadectomorphs.

Hmmmm... still there and it's a useful term that means more than reptilia. Reptilia is disappearing. It keeps changing and changing because a coupld of curmudgeony scientists won't let go of it, but you'll notice it's not sauropsida that keeps being redefined. Some scientists are desperately trying to save the term because in almost every form it's ever taken it was scientifically flawed and continued to carry forward mistaken and outdated theories of paleontology and taxonomy.

Meanwhile, his use was clear and several times in the thread reptiles have been referred to as cold-blooded animals, which dinosaurs almost assuredly were not.

Um, no, it isn't. Seriously, it's amazing how you keep saying that. I know you saw a pretty picture and somehow you think that makes your point, but you'll notice the word reptilia is not used ONCE in all of the text. Perhaps you should read your own link. However, sauropsida is used in the text and it's used in place of reptilia. It appears they simply haven't updated the diagram.
Well, you're right about that. My mistake. I checked the diagram to see if it still used Reptilia, saw that it did, and assumed that "reptile" was still used in the text.


Sauropsida is defined as "reptiles plus all other amniotes more closely related to them than they are to mammals" (Gauthier, 1994).
Which supports my statement of Reptilia serving a use as a node below Sauropsida.

Reptilia is disappearing. It keeps changing and changing because a coupld of curmudgeony scientists won't let go of it, but you'll notice it's not sauropsida that keeps being redefined. Some scientists are desperately trying to save the term because in almost every form it's ever taken it was scientifically flawed and continued to carry forward mistaken and outdated theories of paleontology and taxonomy.
Reptilia was redefined once. If you throw Reptilia out for that, then you have to throw out Aves*, Carnosauria†, Coelurosauria‡, and several other taxonomic groupings that were redefined after the advent of cladistics.

*Formerly everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Archaeopteryx than with Deinonychus, now everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Vultur gryphus than with Deinonychus.
†Formerly all large theropods, then (Allosaurus + Tyrannosaurus), now everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Allosaurus than with Vultur gryphus.
‡Formerly all small theropods, then something else that I can't remember, now everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Vultur gryphus than with Allosaurus.

I'll make this easy. I don't think the free resources we can cite online are going to establish either of our points conclusively. So let's end the argument that doesn't actually address the point before it creates more bickering.

What is clear, however, is that dinosaurs as reptiles is hardly as clear and you tried to play it. It's certainly debateable and has been debated heavily for decades. The question of the OP was poignant until you equivocate and act as if a reference to a mildly current application of the term ends the argument. It doesn't end it in scientific circles and it certainly won't end it here.

Well, you're right about that. My mistake. I checked the diagram to see if it still used Reptilia, saw that it did, and assumed that "reptile" was still used in the text.



Which supports my statement of Reptilia serving a use as a node below Sauropsida.


Reptilia was redefined once. If you throw Reptilia out for that, then you have to throw out Aves*, Carnosauria†, Coelurosauria‡, and several other taxonomic groupings that were redefined after the advent of cladistics.

*Formerly everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Archaeopteryx than with Deinonychus, now everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Vultur gryphus than with Deinonychus.
†Formerly all large theropods, then (Allosaurus + Tyrannosaurus), now everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Allosaurus than with Vultur gryphus.
‡Formerly all small theropods, then something else that I can't remember, now everything sharing a more recent common ancestry with Vultur gryphus than with Allosaurus.

That argument could be made (about throwing out some of the old classifications) and are being made. Reptilia even in your links is shown to move around and be redefined several times in the diagrams throughout the years. It's very controversial and the largest source of controversy is that the definition of reptilia is and was based on ignorance and it's been difficult to marry the old term with the new ideas. It's outlived it's used, but like every other group scientists are not quick to give up something they've held as true even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

No, palaeontologists agree on the relationships between dinosaurs, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

1st rule of any type of scientists; they rarely agree on anything, nothing is absolute.......there are always two, three, four or more groups of thought on anything, what becomes "generally" accepted to be true today could be totally trashed next year...... at one time before I had a career change I was studying archeology(only a hobby now), hominids only go back about 2million years(nothing compared to dinosaurs) and archaeologists still can't agree on human linage and you are trying to tell me palaeontologists absolutely agree on anything is crap and destroys any credibility your debate may have had.....

Not at all.

And there are 8 retards who clicked "Mammals" in the poll?? And 27 who clicked "bridging species"? There are too many Americans on this forum...I say to that there are to many people who are Euro trash here and who relish in the chance to assert Euro superiority. ;)

In all real sense the overall scientific analysis of the dinosaurs is currently one of no absolute conclusion. Such as the fact they may had warm blood, may have feathers before many of them began the evolution towards birds, may have been cold blooded, may have had hair, so we cannot determine the chance of them being any signal one now. Such as the platypus which lays eggs and is considered a mammal. Yet, as for myself I believe it is quite possible that they were somewhere between birds and reptiles in that they had higher blood temperatures, developed had feathers during the latter part of their evolutionary period, and probably possessed some bone features similar to those of birds.

1st rule of any type of scientists; they rarely agree on anything, nothing is absolute.......there are always two, three, four or more groups of thought on anything
Yeah, pity that isn't true. Sometimes scientists agree on things. This case is one of those.

And for the record, the hominid fossil record is far more fragmentary than that of reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. The larger the grouping, the easier it is to place. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, which evolved from reptiles, which share a common ancestor with mammals. No credible palaeontologist disagrees with this.


Also, archaeologists don't study hominid relationships. Sorry. That's the domain of palaeontologists.

Yeah, pity that isn't true. Sometimes scientists agree on things. This case is one of those.

And for the record, the hominid fossil record is far more fragmentary than that of reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. The larger the grouping, the easier it is to place. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, which evolved from reptiles, which share a common ancestor with mammals. No credible palaeontologist disagrees with this.


Also, archaeologists don't study hominid relationships. Sorry. That's the domain of palaeontologists.

archeology/palaeontology the methods are is the same. SORRY. gaps in fossil records for dinosaurs like hominids is immense, in both there is a lot of guesswork entire species created out of a single bone fragment and entire tree's of descendants and ancestors are constructed on conjecture........

"No credible palaeontologists disagree with this", who decides who is credible? you?.... 35 yrs ago no credible palaeontologists disagreed with the fact that dinosaurs were cold blooded, with your self assured logic those who supported the warm blooded theory wouldn't be credible correct?......then it was scoffed at that birds were descended dinosaurs which many now believe but unfortunately for you, some scientists do not agree, in words of one of their opponents "If they were to conclusively establish that birds are more likely descended from another group Crocodylomorpha, that would be a major upheaval in our knowledge of phylogeny."

nothing is absolute, facts change, scientists never close doors to change...you are obviously no scientist....

Yeah, pity that isn't true. Sometimes scientists agree on things. This case is one of those.

And for the record, the hominid fossil record is far more fragmentary than that of reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. The larger the grouping, the easier it is to place. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, which evolved from reptiles, which share a common ancestor with mammals. No credible palaeontologist disagrees with this.


Also, archaeologists don't study hominid relationships. Sorry. That's the domain of palaeontologists.

Ah, the true scotsman fallacy. A new one for you. Look, you're speaking in absolutes and when referring to science this is a near sure way to be shown to be wrong. As our friend pointed out, science would never change if everyone was as dogmatic as you. Some time ago, the people who thought dinosaurs might not have been warm-blooded were not credible according to you and many other dogmatic scientists. The evidence is far from conclusive and we base many of our conclusions on assumptions that often times don't bear out in reality. Unless you've got some special access to absolute truth, I'd stay away from statements like "no credible paleontologist".

Unless you've got some special access to absolute truth, I'd stay away from statements like "no credible paleontologist".
Actually, I counted all the credible palaeontologists who disagreed with the relationship I was talking about. I couldn't find any then, and I still can't find any now.

So here's your chance to prove me wrong. Name one credible palaeontologist who disagrees with the relationship I was talking about.

archeology/palaeontology the methods are is the same. SORRY. gaps in fossil records for dinosaurs like hominids is immense, in both there is a lot of guesswork entire species created out of a single bone fragment and entire tree's of descendants and ancestors are constructed on conjecture........
I suggest you do a bit more research on this, because you're wrong on pretty much all counts. There are surprisingly few gaps in the fossil record for dinosaurs, species are not created out of a single bone fragment, and those that were are not used in cladistic analyses, and cladistics are based on far more than conjecture.

35 yrs ago no credible palaeontologists disagreed with the fact that dinosaurs were cold blooded,
Except Ostrom, Bakker, and several others. And the difference then is that they had evidence on their side.

Actually, I counted all the credible palaeontologists who disagreed with the relationship I was talking about. I couldn't find any then, and I still can't find any now.

So here's your chance to prove me wrong. Name one credible palaeontologist who disagrees with the relationship I was talking about.

You defined credible as anyone who doesn't agree. It's common for the crediblity of a scientist who goes against the pack to be questioned by the scientific community at large. It's happened to many who were going against the accepted truths of the time and it was the fault of people like you who claim that only one mode of thinking is credible.

Now, let's see I just looked up dinosaur bird evolution and got this as my second link, the first didn't work. Hmmm...

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/
But not all scientists agree with the birds-from-dinosaurs link. Alan Feduccia, professor of biology at the University of North Carolina, is a noteable doubter.

But, hey, that's only the focus of his life's work. Not credible at all.

http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/feduccia/
The chair of the biology department at UNC. Hmmmm... again, not credible at all. That's just the first link I went to. Need more.

I suggest you do a bit more research on this, because you're wrong on pretty much all counts. There are surprisingly few gaps in the fossil record for dinosaurs, species are not created out of a single bone fragment, and those that were are not used in cladistic analyses, and cladistics are based on far more than conjecture.


Except Ostrom, Bakker, and several others. And the difference then is that they had evidence on their side.

Amusing. "species are not created out of a single bone fragment, and those that were" Wait, species weren't created from a single bone fragment, but you have to make an exception for those that were? I suspect this is just a problem with English, but you should know that you have damaging your credibility pretty much continuously by not understanding the standard logical fallacies and repeating them frequently and in every post.

This isn't like the debate on whether evolution occurs where we can observe it. There is a strong debate going as to the actually lines of descent. You should know this since you've presented several diagrams that exhibit that they have to keep changing the cladistic tree as a result of a change in the accepted truths. What makes you not credible is that you make a provably false claim that no debate is being had as to the origin of modern animals and as to the descendants of dinosaurs. The debate rages and it has been the cause of much good science. Good scientists relish debate, they don't try to squash it by make absolute claims.

Feduccia's not a palaeontologist. Come back when you have a palaeontologist.

And after Paul ripped every last one of his arguments to shreds, his credibility has been dubious. Plus, Feduccia, in order to prevent people from using deinonychosaurians against him, added them to Aves in his own taxonomic scheme, despite Deinonychosauria being explicitly excluded from Aves by definition. That's not the work of a credible scientist.

Amusing. "species are not created out of a single bone fragment, and those that were" Wait, species weren't created from a single bone fragment, but you have to make an exception for those that were? I suspect this is just a problem with English, but you should know that you have damaging your credibility pretty much continuously by not understanding the standard logical fallacies and repeating them frequently and in every post.

Species are not. That means now. Species were in the past. Try again, please.

Species are not. That means now. Species were in the past. Try again, please.

This is English, my friend. Do you mean that species are not at this moment being created out of a single bone fragment? You made an English mistake. A clear one. They were in the past. That was what he was addressing. You can't speak for what IS happening since you can't be everywhere. You could simply say that practice is no longer accepted but your need to speak in absolutes has once again destroyed your credibility.

Feduccia's not a palaeontologist. Come back when you have a palaeontologist.

And after Paul ripped every last one of his arguments to shreds, his credibility has been dubious. Plus, Feduccia, in order to prevent people from using deinonychosaurians against him, added them to Aves in his own taxonomic scheme, despite Deinonychosauria being explicitly excluded from Aves by definition. That's not the work of a credible scientist.

No, he's a paleobiologist specializing in the study of birds. He's the chair of a university's biology department. I think that makes him more credible than you. According to his university, Feduccia is credible. According to you, he's not. Color me surprised.

You continue to amuse me. What is not the work of a credible scientist is trying to squash debate as you've attempted to do since you've arrived.

Debate drives science. You are no scientist and you base much of your argument on blatant logical fallacies.

No, he's a paleobiologist specializing in the study of birds. He's the chair of a university's biology department. I think that makes him more credible than you. According to his university, Feduccia is credible. According to you, he's not. Color me surprised.


Not according to me. According to Paul, Bakker, Ostrom, and others.

And his lack of credibility does not stem from his opinions on the origins of birds. It stems from his arguments and methods. He continues to use arguments that have been disproven, and he redefines taxa in order to support his position. He's an embarrassment.

Edit: Read this. Underlines why Feduccia has lost his credibility. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3793/is_200304/ai_n9166691)

Not according to me. According to Paul, Bakker, Ostrom, and others.

And his lack of credibility does not stem from his opinions on the origins of birds. It stems from his arguments and methods. He continues to use arguments that have been disproven, and he redefines taxa in order to support his position. He's an embarrassment.

Edit: Read this. Underlines why Feduccia has lost his credibility. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3793/is_200304/ai_n9166691)

When a hypothesis is falsified, he reformulates it? What kind of scientist does that. Oh, right, every scientist. Every scientist is wrong from time to time.

Meanwhile, that critique suggests that one hypothesis is credible (the therapod origin) because another isn't credible, which is ludicrous and unscientific. Whether or not Feduccia has come up with the right hypothesis or even a currently falsifiable hypothesis is not material to the FACT that Feduccia raises very real concerns about the claims on how feathers developed, the claims on the ancestry of the archeopteryx, the claims on even the behavior of many of the bird ancestors. Your argument is that because he is not agreed with by *gasp* people who disagree with him, that he is not credible. But, that has been a remarkable and repeated folly of dogmatic scientists for pretty much as long as science has been performed.

No part of falsifying Feduccia's alternative hypothesis validates the therapod hypothesis, yet you pretend it does. No part of whether the alternative IS falsifiable validates the therapod hypothesis. Feduccia claims that there is not an alternative hypothesis that wouldn't make the same mistakes of the current hypothesis which is to make unsupported leaps in assumption. He's right. He's attacked for not suggesting an alternative and that has nothing to do with falsification of the therapod hypothesis or simply highlighting the folly of that hypothesis.

And again, he is a paleobiologist respected by his university. Scientists and a guy who can't stay away from logical fallacies on an internet board disagree with him, but that hardly makes him not credible. Again, you've engaged in the no true scotsman fallacy that since you don't find him credible that he doesn't count.

Meanwhile, that critique suggests that one hypothesis is credible (the therapod origin) because another isn't credible, which is ludicrous and unscientific.
No, it doesn't. I'm reading it and I'm seeing multitudes of evidence for the theropod origin. If anything, it's too much, since the purpose of the paper is to demonstrate Feduccia is no longer performing science.

Plus, I doubt you read all of it. It's twelve pages long.

No, it doesn't. I'm reading it and I'm seeing multitudes of evidence for the theropod origin. If anything, it's too much, since the purpose of the paper is to demonstrate Feduccia is no longer performing science.

Plus, I doubt you read all of it. It's twelve pages long.

No, I tend to stop reading when a paper makes a grievious error, like suggesting that a critic of a particular hypothesis must offer an alternative, which is bad science to say the least.

There is a lot of evidence for the therapod origin. There is also some flaws. To pretend like either does not exist is bad science, and the only one doing that here is you. You speak in absolutes. It pretty much guarantees you'll be wrong as you are here. You're committing logical fallacies, and it's in your interest to look them up because you'll tend to make yourself look this silly a lot less.

You can't claim that there is no credible debate of this subject and pretend as if you're not provably wrong. You simply can't. This debate is raging and has been raging for a century. There is much that we don't know and you pretend like simply because some evidence even a lot of evidence points a certain way it's the only credible conclusion. This is a mistake made by dogmatic scientist since the beginning of science and you'd be wise to learn from all of those that went before you and stop making the same tired mistakes.

No, I tend to stop reading when a paper makes a grievious error, like suggesting that a critic of a particular hypothesis must offer an alternative, which is bad science to say the least.
Which is why the paper I provided you does not say that.

There is also some flaws.

Name them.

Which is why the paper I provided you does not say that.

It doesn't. Hmmmm.... let's see if it does or doesn't.

In response to my request for an explicit alternative hypothesis of avian origin, Feduccia (2002) concluded that "there are times when there is insufficient evidence to make the formulation of a hypothesis feasible."

An opinion. An opinion he is attacked for. And of course he's correct. Hypotheses should based on observed phenomena and should incorporate all evidence. There are certainly times when a hypothesis that does both of these things that is falisifiable does not avail itself. He didn't say it was impossible to formulate a hypothesis just that he couldn't do it and have it be science. He was criticized as a scientist for this, which is called an ad hominem fallacy. His criticisms of the current hypothesis were not addressed, instead he was addressed personally. I beg of you, familiarize yourself with the fallacies. It will stop making you look silly.

Meanwhile, the author of the paper says that the majority of the paper is not focused on the criticism and since we're talking about the criticism, I didn't read the parts that were of no value to this discussion.


Name them.

Don't have to. That's not the point. You can read Feduccia if you like and deal with it. The point is that there is a debate and to deny it is to deny reality. I'm not suggesting any of the available schools of thought are necessarily correct or necessarily wrong, but that by claiming that anyone that doesn't fit your school is not credible you are committing a logical fallacy. And you undoubtedly are, since you're pretty much falling directly within the definition of that logical fallacy. You even went so far as to claim that he's not credible because he's not a paleontologist and then provide a paper aimed at ornithologists, which he is.

This is nonsense. I know it. You know it. And that's why you want to drag this conversation into the weeds and of the FACT that your arguments are fallacious.

Hey Jocabia there is an Agent Orange discussion going on which also talks about DDT. Isn't that under your area of knowledge?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513263