Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, PaulK, ringo (4 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,850 Year: 16,886/19,786 Month: 1,011/2,598 Week: 257/251 Day: 28/58 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did dinosaurs and man coexist?
DC85
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 46 of 60 (40093)
05-14-2003 2:13 PM


Man and dinosaurs do so coexist! I feed my dinosaurs Everyday! and Collect Eggs. and they Cluck at me! (if you haven't Guessed I a talking about Chickens) Birds are now considered a type of Dinosaur.
the Common misconseption that Dinosaurs are reptiles is way to common when to many things now point to warm blooded Creatures. Dinosaurs are Dinosaurs NOT reptiles!

it has been proven some footprints where forged. and your idea that Humans burned bodies etc.... still doesn't explain we have found no evidence of a settlement or any other animal fossils (like bears lions etc...)

[This message has been edited by DC85, 05-14-2003]

[This message has been edited by DC85, 05-14-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 3:32 AM DC85 has not yet responded

    
compmage
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 47 of 60 (40184)
05-15-2003 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by DC85
05-14-2003 2:13 PM


DC85 writes:

Man and dinosaurs do so coexist! I feed my dinosaurs Everyday! and Collect Eggs. and they Cluck at me! (if you haven't Guessed I a talking about Chickens) Birds are now considered a type of Dinosaur.

Unless I am seriously mistake, bird are NOT considered dinosaurs. Birds are thought to have evolved from reptiles. There is still some debate as to if these reptiles were dinosaurs or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by DC85, posted 05-14-2003 2:13 PM DC85 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 7:51 AM compmage has responded
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 10:55 AM compmage has responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 60 (40203)
05-15-2003 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by compmage
05-15-2003 3:32 AM


Hi compmage,

Unless I am seriously mistake, bird are NOT considered dinosaurs. Birds are thought to have evolved from reptiles. There is still some debate as to if these reptiles were dinosaurs or not.
I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. It's pretty sure that Longisquama was the first feathered reptile - a glider, apparently - dating to about 130 mya (or about 70 my before Archeopteryx). However, there's a huge gap (no transitional fossils ) between Longisquama and modern birds. OTOH, with the recent discovery of Sinosauropteryx (at 120 mya) - a true feathered, gliding dino - we have an example where dinos also evolved feathers. Additionally, we have close matches with pretty-much-modern birds in the Cretaceous (specifically flying Ichthyornis and flightless Hespornis), that have quite a few similarities with characteristics found in dinos like Deinonychus. Finally, we have recent microscopic evidence from collagen bundle and canaliculi patterns on dino bones (specifically coelurosaurs) that are consistent with patterns found in modern birds - but not in modern reptiles.

From gross morphology to microstructures, it appears that the dino-bird link is pretty strong (after suffering a bit of a blow with the discovery of Longisquama). So - every time you eat a chicken, just remember that the chicken's ancestors used to eat yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 3:32 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 8:27 AM Quetzal has responded

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 49 of 60 (40210)
05-15-2003 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
05-15-2003 7:51 AM


Quetzal writes:

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.

I wasn't aware that the issue had been entirely decided.

However, just as humans are not reptiles even if we descended from them, chickens (birds) are not dinosaurs, even if they descended from them.

------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 7:51 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 9:00 AM compmage has responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 50 of 60 (40213)
05-15-2003 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by compmage
05-15-2003 8:27 AM


I wasn't aware that the issue had been entirely decided.

You're right, of course. The issue hasn't been definitively decided - and maybe never will without a much better fossil assemblage. I just wanted to point out that it appears the weight of evidence is swinging back toward the dino-bird linkage rather than as you stated, the reptile-bird linkage. Every time a new fossil gets discovered from the relevant time frames, there is a re-assessment. No reason to think it won't happen again.

However, just as humans are not reptiles even if we descended from them, chickens (birds) are not dinosaurs, even if they descended from them.

Obviously true, as far as it goes. It really just depends on how far back the node is you want to play with. However, in the context of the quip about chickens as dinos, the fact that chicken ancestors diverged more recently from dino ancestors than either did from their joint diapsid reptilian ancestors makes the quip relevant (more or less). Moreover, the last time humans shared a common ancestor with ANY modern reptile - or chicken - is when we were all somewhere back in the Permian. From that point, the multiply-branching lineage that ultimately ended up in chicken - running through the dinos - and the multiply-branching lineage that ultimately ended up as us - passing through all the various stages of mammalian descent - have run in parallel. IOW, our ancestors lived in the shadow of the chicken's ancestors - hence co-existed. Now, it's the other way around, and the dino's descendants live in the shadows of Eomaia's descendants.

I admit it was a weak joke, but damn! Take it a little lighter, will you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 8:27 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 10:08 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 51 of 60 (40226)
05-15-2003 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Quetzal
05-15-2003 9:00 AM


Quetzal writes:

You're right, of course. The issue hasn't been definitively decided - and maybe never will without a much better fossil assemblage. I just wanted to point out that it appears the weight of evidence is swinging back toward the dino-bird linkage rather than as you stated, the reptile-bird linkage.

I should have been more clear. I inteded to say that there is still debate about wheather birds evolved from dinosaurs or another reptile group.

Quetzal writes:

I admit it was a weak joke, but damn! Take it a little lighter, will you?

I admit to being in a hurry and not reading the proceeding posts. I didn't realize this was ment as a joke. I appologize.

------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 9:00 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 52 of 60 (40235)
05-15-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by compmage
05-15-2003 3:32 AM


Taxonomy is being changed by the adoption of Cladistics. Under Cladism groups include all the descendants of that group - so, granting that birds are descended from dinosaurs, birds would be considered dinosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 3:32 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 11:16 AM PaulK has responded

    
compmage
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 53 of 60 (40240)
05-15-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
05-15-2003 10:55 AM


PaulK writes:

Under Cladism groups include all the descendants of that group

Would that mean that man is both a reptile and a fish?

------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 10:55 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 11:40 AM compmage has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 54 of 60 (40248)
05-15-2003 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by compmage
05-15-2003 11:16 AM


That would depend on the way the groups are drawn. The ancestors of mammals are classified as synapsids, rather than reptiles.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/synapsida.html
"These pre-mammalian groups of synapsids have at times been called "mammal-like reptiles". This term is now discouraged because although many had characteristics in common with mammals, none of them were actually reptiles"

However, "fish" seems to be a term used for the "basal vertebrates" (same site) so, on that basis humans could be classified as fish .

This site is also worth a look: http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by compmage, posted 05-15-2003 11:16 AM compmage has not yet responded

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 55 of 60 (40304)
05-15-2003 7:04 PM


Under modern Classification Birds are a type of Dinosaur. Most people Agree.
and the comment about Man being both Fish and Reptile is pretty Dumb(no offence)You know what he meant
Birds have changed little from Dinosaurs is the reason they are considered to Be Dinosaurs. and Further information Dinosaurs are also no longer considered reptiles they are Dinosaurs. so Dinosaurs are dinosaurs. alot of evidence points to them being warm blooded.
The Misconception that all Dinosaurs lived in Tropical areas needs to be put to rest Because many where found in colder climates(even then have you watched Walking with Dinosaurs? the ones from Australia and the antarctic are good examples)
so if dinosaurs where warm blooded that would mean birds haven't changed much at all(though this is Debated about birds being dinosaurs Most accept it now) (Keep up with Modern Books)

and I think as was mentioned Ancestors of Mammals(Mammals like reptiles) have got their own name or are going to right? they are not Reptiles either

[This message has been edited by DC85, 05-15-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by compmage, posted 05-16-2003 3:30 AM DC85 has not yet responded

    
compmage
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 56 of 60 (40377)
05-16-2003 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by DC85
05-15-2003 7:04 PM


DC85 writes:

Under modern Classification Birds are a type of Dinosaur. Most people Agree.
and the comment about Man being both Fish and Reptile is pretty Dumb(no offence)You know what he meant

Yes, I was just wondering what this would do the the creationist 'kinds' argument. "Man and fish are different!". Ah, but they are actually the same 'kind'. Fish.

DC85 writes:

Birds have changed little from Dinosaurs is the reason they are considered to Be Dinosaurs. and Further information Dinosaurs are also no longer considered reptiles they are Dinosaurs. so Dinosaurs are dinosaurs. alot of evidence points to them being warm blooded.

If dinosaurs are now thought to have been warm blooded they would have to be seperated from reptiles since being cold blooded is a retilian trait.

DC85 writes:

The Misconception that all Dinosaurs lived in Tropical areas needs to be put to rest Because many where found in colder climates(even then have you watched Walking with Dinosaurs?

Yes, I loved that program. Although I do remember that the did focus on some creatures that were not dinosaurs.

DC85 writes:

(Keep up with Modern Books)

You have no idea how expensive this is in my country. I can feed my family for a month on what it will cost to by just one of these books. I simply can't afford to by them and the local library takes forever to obtain them. I do the best I can given my circumstances but I am more than willing to admit that there is alot I don't know.

------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by DC85, posted 05-15-2003 7:04 PM DC85 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Peter, posted 05-19-2003 9:51 AM compmage has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 428 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 60 (40398)
05-16-2003 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by thousands_not_billions
01-17-2003 9:31 AM


based upon what evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-17-2003 9:31 AM thousands_not_billions has not yet responded

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 58 of 60 (40438)
05-16-2003 2:59 PM


schrafinator who where you talking to?
and compmage sorry about the Modern Book comment.
But in Walking with Dinosaurs there was leanosaurus(think thats the spelling) and Dwarf Allosaurus that they mentioned lived in the Cool climate.

Also Warm bloodedness is not the Only Reason they are seperating Dinosaurs from Reptiles. there are too Many differences that don't fit the Common Reptile features. 3 toes (I think is one of them) etc...
birds seem to fit very well with this Group and the Reason they can be considered Dinosaurs is Becouse they haven't had Much time to seperate from them (only 65 million years when dionsaurs ruled for 160) where as Mammals have had MUCH longer to Seperate from there Ancesters (Mammals Evolved the same time the first Dinosaurs did)

Mammal like reptiles(soon to have a another name.)Don't fit with Reptiles either. they think that these 2 Groups where Warm Blooded which would mean that Warm blood just Didn't happen when true Mammals and Birds came. Alot of things in the Dinosaur and Mammal like reptile Bones show Features in them that Only Warm Blooded animals seem to have.

[This message has been edited by DC85, 05-16-2003]


    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2182 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 59 of 60 (40638)
05-19-2003 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by compmage
05-16-2003 3:30 AM


Just a couple of comments:

I wasn't aware that dinosaurs were classified as
reptiles at all ... aren't they dinosaura ? Hopefully someone
will clear that up for me.

Warm-bloodedness for dinosaurs isn't that new. I have a dino. book
for kids that I get about twenty years or so ago that mentions
that certain traits of creatures such as T-rex suggest warm-bloodedness.

It's by no means settled that birds are a type of dinosaur (although
I think it likely myself before anyone tries to convince me ).
Ornithologists will point to which toe is missing in dino. fossils
as compared to developing bird embrios, for example (its a different
one apparently).

There are, however, fossils coming out of china that seem to show
progressive development of feathers from small straight stubs, to
something like modern bird feathers (with a number of stages
in between).

I found walking with dinosaurs very mis-informative. It focussed
on behavioural features that we just do not know. It took modern
wild-life documentaries, found a dinosaur that might have filled
that niche and re-made the show with cgi dinosaurs. Technically
nice to look at, but severely lacking in content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by compmage, posted 05-16-2003 3:30 AM compmage has not yet responded

    
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 60 (41055)
05-22-2003 8:03 PM


schrafinator who where you talking to?

Look at what message he's replying to. He's replying to the person in Message 11.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019