Originally posted by kevcvs57 Duh! I never used to understand the need for religion but now I realise it gives the simple minded something to do in their spare time when they are not licking windows.
Originally posted by amolv06 Surely a distinction must be drawn between the dinosaurs and their descendants, if for no other reason for classification purposes alone. Or am I wrong. I know we descended from the Australopithicines (sp?), but are we Australopithicines as well? From my understanding, our classification system doesn't work this way. I was under the impression that at so ...[text shortened]... saurs. But I am not well-versed in this subject, and should read up before posting probably.
You are confusing species with larger groupings. A species is defined largely based on the ability to interbreed. Larger groupings are based on shared characteristics, and common ancestry.
I think another problem, is your understanding of 'dinosaur' is based on picture books.
If there was a tyrannosaurus in a zoo, that was descended from the dinosaurs, you would have no problem calling it a dinosaur. Birds to this day, still share most of the features that made dinosaurs different from other reptiles. As such they are in the dinosaur sub-group of reptiles. They are not tyrannosaurus', but that is why dinosaurs are divided into sub-groups, one of which is the birds.
Originally posted by twhitehead You are confusing species with larger groupings. A species is defined largely based on the ability to interbreed. Larger groupings are based on shared characteristics, and common ancestry.
I think another problem, is your understanding of 'dinosaur' is based on picture books.
If there was a tyrannosaurus in a zoo, that was descended from the dinosaurs, ...[text shortened]... nnosaurus', but that is why dinosaurs are divided into sub-groups, one of which is the birds.
Are you claiming dinosaurs had feathers over their bodies and could fly? Is so,
I am sure you must have been reading to many science fiction books or maybe
you saw it on the cartoons and other animated movies and videos for children.
Originally posted by twhitehead I think another problem, is your understanding of 'dinosaur' is based on picture books.
[/b]
Thank you so much for informing me where my understanding of dinosaurs comes from! Up until this point I was under the impression that my knowledge of dinosaurs came from the Land Before Time, and the Dinosaurs TV series.
I was ill-informed. My picture books gave me the impression that dinosaurs formed a paraphyletic group. My confusion had nothing to do with the inconsistency between classical Linnaean taxonomy, which was emphasized in school, and the more modern phylogenetic-driven nomenclature which borrows some terminology from the old model, but replaces it with a more modern definition. It also had nothing to do with the modern concept of paraphyletic taxa -- a classification I thought the dinosaurs fit. My misunderstanding had everything to do with my picture books. I would look down and see the T-Rex: a lean, mean limb-tearing, destruction machine, and think to myself "Hmm, this looks nothing like a bird so birds can't possibly be dinosaurs!" I was simply too incredulous to see the truth. But I have been corrected now. I humbly apologize for my confusion, and thank you profusely for setting me straight.
Originally posted by amolv06 Actually, it's mostly based on the Land Before Time series.
Were there any bird-like dinosaurs in that?
Note also that birds are descended from Theropods, a suborder of dinosaurs. This suggests that they are closer to some Theropod dinosaurs, than some other dinosaurs. For example Theropods (including birds) were/are bipedal and have three toes. There were dinosaurs that were four legged and did not have three toes.
Originally posted by RJHinds Are you claiming dinosaurs had feathers over their bodies and could fly? Is so,
I am sure you must have been reading to many science fiction books or maybe
you saw it on the cartoons and other animated movies and videos for children.
There is evidence suggesting feathers were a lot more widespread among the dinosaurs than is commonly believed:
Originally posted by twhitehead Were there any bird-like dinosaurs in that?
Note also that birds are descended from Theropods, a suborder of dinosaurs. This suggests that they are closer to some Theropod dinosaurs, than some other dinosaurs. For example Theropods (including birds) were/are bipedal and have three toes. There were dinosaurs that were four legged and did not have three toes.
So it has nothing to do with the feathers and wings, but the toes that make
birds dinosaurs?
Originally posted by twhitehead Were there any bird-like dinosaurs in that?
Note also that birds are descended from Theropods, a suborder of dinosaurs. This suggests that they are closer to some Theropod dinosaurs, than some other dinosaurs. For example Theropods (including birds) were/are bipedal and have three toes. There were dinosaurs that were four legged and did not have three toes.
Petri was a baller, and was very bird-like. Except he could talk. And kicked major ass.
I understand the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs -- at least at an interested amateur's level. My question's were more oriented at the naming schemes we use.
Originally posted by RJHinds So it has nothing to do with the feathers and wings, but the toes that make
birds dinosaurs?
Where does he say that?!
He was trying to explain the intricate relationship between birds and the (other) dinosaurs to me. He used the toes to make a point -- but said nothing even remotely close to what you said. Why do you post here?
Originally posted by amolv06 Where does he say that?!
He was trying to explain the intricate relationship between birds and the (other) dinosaurs to me. He used the toes to make a point -- but said nothing even remotely close to what you said. Why do you post here?
Sorry, I thought you wanted to learn the truth. I wasn't aware that you liked science fiction, too.
I'll answer the question for you. You post here to troll. And the moderators are either oblivious that this is going on or don't care. What a sad state of affairs.
Originally posted by amolv06 I understand the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs -- at least at an interested amateur's level. My question's were more oriented at the naming schemes we use.
And my point is that modern birds are closer anatomically to the T-Rex, than some other dinosaurs were.
I realize that historically, 'dinosaur' has referred a group of animals in the past, but that was mostly due to the fact that it was not known at the time that birds were descents of that group. Amphibians, reptiles and mammals from that period do not have one name for the historical species and another for modern ones.
Originally posted by utherpendragon If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes ?
Are you truly this stupid and ignorant or are you trolling?
Genes are like IP. Stealing it from another species doesn't destroy their copy. If it did, there wouldn't be both plants and animals, so mention of "apes" in this context is misleading to say the least.
Becoming Human - a documentary series
07 Mar '12 01:50
Back to Top