|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Dinosaurs live with man? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
foreveryoung writes:
...says the person who jumped to a completely wrong conclusion purely because of his arrogance and hatred. Yeah, don't want to reveal more of your arrogance and hatred toward fundamentalist Christians do you? Just sayin' Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
can we bicker less, and intelligently converse more?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah, don't want to reveal more of your arrogance and hatred toward fundamentalist Christians do you? Don't you think that you've attributed enough imaginary faults to me on this thread? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Don't you think its time you stopped beating your wife? Hopefully you get the analogy I'm making. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
...says the person who jumped to a completely wrong conclusion purely because of his arrogance and hatred. Just sayin'
What arrogance and hatred? Did your mom never teach you that it's wrong to lie about other people? Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Behave, or suffer the consequences.
Adminnemooseus ps - I didn't bother going back any further with the "Hide and banner" procedure. But I could have. Added by edit 2 - OK, I just realized this is in "The Free For All". Behavior is optional, but it would be nice. Still, I'm not undoing the "Hide and banner" actions. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : ps. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Also added the "(even if it is in the FFA forum)" to the subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
this is coelophysis (by jeff martz). he's one of the first dinosaurs, in the mid-to-late triassic. he shows all of the hallmarks of the things that differentiate dinosaurs from other sauropsids and even other archosaurs at the time. but more interestingly, he shows a lot of the hallmarks of modern birds. his bipedal posture (the thing that makes dinosaurs fundamentally different than lizards like the tuatara, and even other archosaurs like crocodiles) is one of those thing. he balances his weight over his hips, which are somewhere between those of a crocodile and a bird. he almost certainly had feathers. and he even has hollow bones (his name means "hollow structure") like a bird. this is one of the earliest dinosaurs. I avoided commenting on the bolded bit before, because I thought it was wildly off topic, but admin just reminded me that this is in Free for All, so fuck it. 'Almost certainly' is vastly overstating the case. It's controversial exactly where feathers arose in dinosaur evolution, but we do have preserved scaly skin impressions showing that not all dinosaurs were completely covered in feathers; and in at least one case an entire mummified dinosaur excellently preserved that shows no sign of feathers anywhere. There are a couple of examples of integument in ornithischian and sauropod dinosaurs which have been suggested to be primitive feathers, but this is controversial. Coelophysis is a theropod, but a very early theropod. Every clear example we have of feathers from the fossil record is from a coelurosaurian theropod, and Coelophysis lies outside that clade. It might have been feathered, but at the minute that's just speculation. Feathers might be a synapomorphy of Coelurosauria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
אָרַח writes:
Not really sure. I feel that male children in USA love dinosaurs, I know I had plenty of very illustrated kid’s books on Dinosaurs, and even had Dinosaur wallpaper in my room. For me this time period was the 1980s.
out of curiosity, where did you get that impression? but your misconceptions aren't too far away from the way dinosaurs were thought of 100 years ago. and without, you know really studying the subject, one might be inclined to make the same kinds of classification errors...
I just never really gave it much thought after middle school. For me dinosaur = relatively large reptiles that lived millions of years ago, and went extinct in the K-T extinction event sixty-something million years ago. There were all kinds of Dinosaurs, some flew, some were aquatic, some were carnivorous, and some were herbivores. I think due to the common knowledge of them and the huge amount of press they get I was under the impression that 100 million years ago everything was a dinosaur. You don’t hear much about the other creatures of the time and when you do they are still in the book titled Dinosaurs of the Cretaceous, or I had a book about old animals that started with Eryops (300 mya) and moved through the evolutionary line to Triceratops (65mya) and the book was a book about dinosaurs. It fostered a childhood interest in something besides He-Man and GI-Joe, and I loved going to the museum of natural history to see the Dinosaur exhibits, and fossils, but I never really gave it much thought. I heard that Crocodilians have been around since the time of the dinosaurs, and I guess I assumed they were them. It could be me, but the information given at museums and in these coffee table and kid’s books is somewhat misleading (not on evolution, that seemed a given since I could read).
nope. but there's little point in mocking someone for something they just haven't learned. i follow paleontology from my armchair (i'm not a scientist) because i find the subject of dinosaur evolution fascinating, and frankly, because i just never grew out of it from when i was a kid. i think it's exciting, and interesting, and i love learning new things so i imagine others probably would too. I can understand that. I am more an armchair earth science guy (geomorphology, hydrology, Orogenesis/plate tectonics). Though when it comes to evolution I am much more interested in Human evolution. I like cavemen.
can we bicker less, and intelligently converse more? We can it’s just difficult due to the large amount of trolls here. Best bet is not to engage them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
I just never really gave it much thought after middle school. For me dinosaur = relatively large reptiles that lived millions of years ago, and went extinct in the K-T extinction event sixty-something million years ago. There were all kinds of Dinosaurs, some flew, some were aquatic, some were carnivorous, and some were herbivores. I think due to the common knowledge of them and the huge amount of press they get I was under the impression that 100 million years ago everything was a dinosaur. You don’t hear much about the other creatures of the time and when you do they are still in the book titled Dinosaurs of the Cretaceous, or I had a book about old animals that started with Eryops (300 mya) and moved through the evolutionary line to Triceratops (65mya) and the book was a book about dinosaurs. It fostered a childhood interest in something besides He-Man and GI-Joe, and I loved going to the museum of natural history to see the Dinosaur exhibits, and fossils, but I never really gave it much thought. I heard that Crocodilians have been around since the time of the dinosaurs, and I guess I assumed they were them. It could be me, but the information given at museums and in these coffee table and kid’s books is somewhat misleading (not on evolution, that seemed a given since I could read). I think this sort of misconception is common, and is a result of marketing really. It's because the name 'dinosaur' has such name recognition - that's what sells. You want to write some popular about aetosaurs, or seymouriamorphs, or whatnot, then it won't get much attention, since nobody knows what an aetosaur or seymouriamorph is. What sells is dinosaurs; so you call your book:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, I was going to post just about exactly what caffeine just posted.
As I said, dinosaurs have pillar legs that allow them to bear their weight directly under their bodies. As a consequence, dinosaurs have a perforated acetabulum --- that is, they have holes in their hipbones into which the head of the thighbone fits, rather than a hollow in their hipbones in which it rests. (Mammals have the same arrangement, but it evolved independently.) There are other differences between dinosaurs and other reptiles --- for example, IIRC, dinosaurs have fewer fingers than the archosaurs from which they're descended. I myself only researched what a dinosaur really was a few years ago. One thing I found out which surprised me is that dinosaurs are basally bipedal. I'd envisioned some of them evolving bipedality, like humans did, but it's the other way round. Dinosaurs are descended from archosaurs which went running around on their hind legs, and then some of them got so big and heavy that they had to get down on all fours. You can see this very clearly with ceratopians --- there are little ceratopians with the characteristic neck frill and beak which were bipedal, and then as they evolved into great huge things like Triceratops they became quadrupedal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
caffeine writes: 'Almost certainly' is vastly overstating the case. It's controversial exactly where feathers arose in dinosaur evolution, i did perhaps overstate it. but in my opinion, it's controversial for rather unscientific reasons. there was a lot of controversy about depicting dinosaurs with feathers in the late 80's and early 90's, and most of those predictions have been borne out by evidence (like velociraptor above).
Every clear example we have of feathers from the fossil record is from a coelurosaurian theropod well, it depends. there's some debate over tianyulong. if its feathers prove homologous to coelurosaurian feathers, it basically pushes the most basic development of feathers back to the common ancestor of saurischia and ornithischia. perhaps to the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs, which are also fuzzy. i think it's an interesting debate. but it seems like the more we examine, the further back feathers go. it's also important to remember that dinosaurs had feathers suitable for flight by the late jurassic. these didn't just suddenly sprout from archaeopteryx, the precursors would have been further down the family tree. the only question is how far back they go. i haven't seen any good reason why tianyulong's feathers are not homologous to primitive coelurosaur feathers. i'm of the opinion that these structures are a feature that defines dinosaurs, in the way that hair defines mammals.
but we do have preserved scaly skin impressions showing that not all dinosaurs were completely covered in feathers; and in at least one case an entire mummified dinosaur excellently preserved that shows no sign of feathers anywhere. secondary loss is a pretty convincing explanation. larger mammals are similarly not covered with hair. their mass is sufficient to regulate their temperatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Artemis Entreri writes: For me this time period was the 1980s. ditto. the kid's illustrated books in the 1980's were... pretty bad. jurassic park in the early 90's was like a breath of fresh air. even though it still lagged behind the science, and was full of inaccuracies, it at least showed active, warm-blooded dinosaurs.
For me dinosaur = relatively large reptiles that lived millions of years ago, and went extinct in the K-T extinction event sixty-something million years ago. There were all kinds of Dinosaurs, some flew, some were aquatic, some were carnivorous, and some were herbivores. I think due to the common knowledge of them and the huge amount of press they get I was under the impression that 100 million years ago everything was a dinosaur. You dont hear much about the other creatures of the time and when you do they are still in the book titled Dinosaurs of the Cretaceous, yup, that's marketing for you. even the best dinosaur books included pterosaurs (which aren't dinosaurs), and sometimes aquatic reptiles (not even closely related to dinosaurs). and sometimes even synapsids like dimetrodon, which you probably wouldn't even call a "reptile".
I heard that Crocodilians have been around since the time of the dinosaurs, and I guess I assumed they were them. they are closely related. as someone above said, they are dinosaurs' closest living relatives that aren't dinosaurs. and there were some early relatives of crocodilians that were much more dinosaur-like, and walked more upright.
It could be me, but the information given at museums and in these coffee table and kids books is somewhat misleading (not on evolution, that seemed a given since I could read). it really is, yeah. but they're getting better! the ones in the 80's were particularly bad, because the whole "birds are dinosaurs" thing hadn't really hit the popular culture yet. even though jurassic park showed a bunch of plucked and naked dromaeosaurs running around, it was still largely responsible for bring this idea into the public consciousness. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Dr Adequate writes: for example, IIRC, dinosaurs have fewer fingers than the archosaurs from which they're descended. here's a diagram i've used before.
A: the ornithischian HeterodontosaurusB: the early theropod Herrerasaurus C: the neotheropod Coelophysis D: the tetanuran Allosaurus E: the coelurosaur Ornitholestes F: the Jurassic avialae Archaeopteryx G: the cretaceous enantiornithe Sinornis H: the wing of an Opisthocomus (hoatzin) hatchling I: the wing of the adult chicken Gallus J: a pterosaur (closely related archosaur) the earliest dinosaurs had five digits, but two were reduced fairly early in the theropod line. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
this is a general reply because Caffeine, Dr. Adequate and Arachnophillia, are all pretty much on the same page and my reply is to all of them.
caffeine writes:
I think this sort of misconception is common, and is a result of marketing really. It's because the name 'dinosaur' has such name recognition - that's what sells. You want to write some popular about aetosaurs, or seymouriamorphs, or whatnot, then it won't get much attention, since nobody knows what an aetosaur or seymouriamorph is. What sells is dinosaurs; so you call your book:arachnophillia writes:
yup, that's marketing for you. even the best dinosaur books included pterosaurs (which aren't dinosaurs), and sometimes aquatic reptiles (not even closely related to dinosaurs). and sometimes even synapsids like dimetrodon, which you probably wouldn't even call a "reptile".Dr Adequate writes:
And this is a problem for me. It is misleading and less informative. I would rather be a little semantic and more of a stickler for correct terms, as its not to difficult to learn new words and what they mean. As I said, dinosaurs have pillar legs that allow them to bear their weight directly under their bodies. As a consequence, dinosaurs have a perforated acetabulum --- that is, they have holes in their hipbones into which the head of the thighbone fits, rather than a hollow in their hipbones in which it rests. For example this is my local museum (also the national museum): Paleobiology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History It is the Smithsonian, it’s in Washington D,C. on the mall, a couple blocks from the white house, It’s the museum I go to, to see exhibits, and where I go when I want to see Dinosaurs. If you follow the link there are two kinds of animals on the opening homepage. The fossils of what I would call a Triceratops (a dinosaur), and a Pterodactyl (not a dinosaur) both under the heading of Dinosaurs. I must admit, I never really checked their facts I just said ok, this is the dinosaur exhibit, some flew, some swam, some had huge fins on their backs, most were big. Still though I love to watch the walking with dinosaurs type films, with CGI animals and fantastic scenes.I just take that stuff with a grain of salt now. It’s still entertaining. Thanks for the 411
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024