Were dinosaurs just big birds?

Birds are okay.

Yes but not all of them. Some of them were elmos and cookie monsters

same reason we dont call grass "plants" or cats "mammals"

but life is life.

Then birds are better at being dinosaurs, and they're pretty shitty at it themselves.

We do call certain birds "raptors."

Life is an arbitrary concept that cannot be formalized without exceptions and edge cases.

Fuzzy around the edges systems are heuristics.

Life does not meaningfully exist.

true, any one have a good definition for what viruses are, or solving abiogenesis?

Wow, you don't say

Birds are just tiny dinosaurs, you mean.

Birds are only not dinosaurs because we defined them that way.

Anything you can associate with birds first appeared on dinosaurs. At what point do you call them dinosaurs and at what point do you call them birds?

Look up Terror birds and ask yourself what the difference is between them and your favorite T rexes and Velociraptors.

Na NA NANANA

look up "avian dinosaurs"

I would say most dinosaurs were feathered or had fur-like coats. Hollywood just doesn't want to acknowledge it and they control what the public believes about the subject

When you attach a weighted stick to the rear end of a chicken, the chicken then walks in a manner similar to that in which dinosaurs are thought to have walked.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088458

...

Intriguing

like they would really know how a dinosaur walked to make that comparison

Shut it ya git.

Hey, keep sticking things on a chicken if you like

You get the award for the most meaningless retort in any given conversation for the day. Congratulations.

You can tell a lot from bones mate

Birds of prey being called raptors has nothing to do with dromaeosauridae other than coincidence of shared etymology.

>Birds are only not dinosaurs because we defined them that way.
Mammals are only not fish because we defined them that way. All vertebrates are either fish or descendants of fish, after all.

People talk about how "dinosaurs evolved into birds rather than going extinct", but the reality is, one small species of dinosaur, entirely undeserving of the "terrible lizard" name or awe and adoration of schoolboys, evolved into birds, and the rest (including all the cool ones) went extinct.

If dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct, we wouldn't consider birds to be dinosaurs, any more than we consider birds to be reptiles. Rather, we would simply include the dinosaurs in the sauropsids with birds and reptiles, and in a smaller clade with the birds to show that the birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than to reptiles.

"Raptor" means "bird of prey", and the dinosaurs are named for their resemblance to such.

Raptor means "thief" in greek. Velociraptor = swift thief, Oviraptor is egg thief and so on.

If ice cores went back 65 million years. Then we could now for sure.

There could have been a Victorian level civilization before the last glacial period. Yet we will never know, because the glaciers, flooding, etc would have wiped out all traces.

Only finding ice core air samples with the kind of gases you find in heavy industry. could possibly prove the existence of intelligent civilziation before 10,000 BC.

After just one million years, would there be any trace left even of a fully modern civilization?

They might have climbed in their VR pods and just not really bothered to reproduce.

pollution products would be the best indicator.

something just don't happen in nature.

Sure, but would they survive in the environment for a million years?

The only thing I can think of that would likely be around for a million years would be ceramics. If they get buried in the right way, they should last like fossils in distinctly unnatural shapes.

>but the reality is, one small species of dinosaur, entirely undeserving of the "terrible lizard" name or awe and adoration of schoolboys
> rest (including all the cool ones) went extinct.
nope
dont know what dinos you found cool, but a lot of the popular ones are related to modern birds

well if they ever developed nuclear fission. then the spent fuel, weapon cores, and other high grade wastes would be a dead give away.

Even after they have decayed for million years or more. Their burial sites would just be these unnatural pockets of incredibly radioactive materials.

...

...

>a lot of the popular ones are related to modern birds
>related to
>not in the line of descent
They're all "related to modern birds". We're all "related to fish".

You think something as big as T. rex or even velociraptor miniaturized down to bird size? No, the big ones were all on branches that just went extinct.

That's a general rule of big animals: they're on the path to extinction. The small animals have shorter lives, evolve faster, and co-exist in greater variety, and the survivors of mass extinctions tend to be small.

There was almost certainly nothing bigger than a chicken in the line of descent from fish to bird.

>Even after they have decayed for million years or more. Their burial sites would just be these unnatural pockets of incredibly radioactive materials.
If they're "incredibly radioactive", they won't there after a million years.

Take plutonium 239, for instance. Half-life of about 25,000 years. A million years is 40 half-lives, so if there was a tonne initially in the dump, there would be a microgram at the end of it. And that's a relatively long-lived waste.

Or take something like U-236. Half-life of about 25 million years. So it's basically all still going to exist. But how are you going to notice that it's there? It's only about 20 times as radioactive as natural uranium with its decay products, and that's not very radioactive. You're probably not going to notice that unless you go looking for it specifically in the place it was buried. Besides, uranium is relatively water soluble. It may not stay where it was put for a million years.

Fission reactors aren't even exclusively artificial. The Oklo reactor happened in nature by accident.

No, dinosaurs were not birds. The only reason some people are saying this - is that we aren't finding that many new dinosaurs. So what about all the people in the field and those currently studying getting ready to look for jobs? They have to completely rewrite shit so that they have something to do. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs nothing more nothing less. They weren't fucking birds and there is no proof one way or the other. How do we know they aren't just fish that walk on land? We don't but our common sense tells us that of course they aren't fish. They were most likely a mix between various birds and reptiles but were so far removed from anything today that to call them anything like that is useless. Pretending all dinosaurs were birds with pussy fucking feathers is retarded and only being used to get more money from the government and stupid universities.

>all this bullshit
Dinosaurs were not birds, but birds are dinosaurs.
How difficult of a concept is that to understand?
There is a lot of proof concerning feathered dinosaurs. They feathers, fuzz, scales and bare skin in varying proportions. Read a book. Just because you think feathers are for pussies (what the fuck does that even mean), because it breaks the fantastical way in which you've imagined the beasts of past, doesn't mean it's false. Your post is completely moronic.

>what is taxonomy

>They're all "related to modern birds". We're all "related to fish".
How dense are you? Of course I didnt mean it in this retarded "hurr everybody is related to everybody" way.
Trex is directly and very closely related to modern birds. There are very few "branches" seperating them (unlike fish and men)

B8

Or archaeological evidence. Explain how glaciers, flooding, etc. would have wiped a Victorian civilisation, but didn't wipe hunter-gatherer camps and their mateerial culture, which survived.

Here are some examples: aerobiologicalengineering.com/wxk116/StoneAge/Habitats/

If these survived, why didn't ANY remains of a Victorian civilisation, not a single tool, artwork, house, field, settlement, temple. Not a single one.

>I don't like the facts
>therefore they are false
>my feefees rule the Universe

The problem with your analogy is modern fish and humans hold few traits in common while modern birds and dinosaurs hold many traits in common.

The better analogy would be humans and marsupials. Both of which are still considered mammals.

I'm a geology student. This isn't accurate. The world has often had glaciers and flooding. The best examples being the several Cratonic Sequences which flooded all low lying areas and nearly completely inundated the Earth.

They didn't destroy everything. That's not how geology works.

AYO
AYO HOL UP
*ruffles feathers*
WUT DEY DON'T KNOW
*grinds gizzards*
IS THAT WE
*lays egg*
WE WUZ
*eats cornmeal*
WE WUZ DINOS AND SHEEIT

Pretty much modern birds lived alongside dinosaurs

So did humans.

No birds are mutated theropods.

Earliest great ape didn't even live during Cretaceous

Birds have a close ancestor from the Triassic in Protoavis
And modern birds were alive during the Cretaceous and were around before the T-rex

modern birds are dinosaurs

Therapoda, yes.

avian dinosaurs

Avian therapoda

FlappyFlap WingMongos

youtube.com/watch?v=mFWf4Tb5m6Y

Protoavis is a chimera. What do you mean by modern birds? Eumaniraptora? Avialae? Euavialae? Pygostylia? Ornithothoraces? Euornithes?

Neognathae.

Birds are just small dinosaurs

>small

If birds are just dinosaurs why don't we just call them dinosaurs?

No. Chickens are small dinosaurs.

I humans are just apes why don't we just call them apes?

...

All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds. It is more specific. I guess you can call them avian dinosaurs if you want to be a smart ass about it

hey guys

Great post tbqh

Is this picture accurate? So they were more like big angry chickens?

If this is supposed to be a t.rex, then no

So is this how it went? I'm getting conflicting information and its confusing

Not really. I think it is more about only some of them surviving the extinction event

underrated

>rotated wrists

Could you clone a dinosaur and find out? Or is it to complicated?

> dino DNA's half life
;_;

Not all dinosaurs became birds, just the small theropods. Everything else died off. You'd be amazed to hear that the lizard hipped dinos were the ones that became the birds.

>lizard hipped dinos

What

go google saurischian vs. ornithischian

The "bird hipped" dinosaurs where the ones without bird hips.

*were

>All vertebrates are fish or descendants of fish
Lampreys would like have a word with you.

If they could, which they can't, because they have no jaws.

>Look up Terror birds and ask yourself what the difference is between them and your favorite T rexes and Velociraptors.

well off the top of my head, teeth and "arms/hands" instead of wings im sure there are plenty of other diffrences

Why don't we just call primates mammals?

I'll admit that I don't know much about classification, but I always assumed that saying mammals "came from reptiles" and reptiles/amphibians "came from fish" was falacious, and that really was equally diverged from their original ancestor. Was I just wrong?

What was beak evolution like? I always thought it kind of weird that all the dinosaurs except the beaked and feathered ones died out. I was at the zoo looking a some big as tortoises, and looking at them i realized they kind of a beak like structure, is this related to how the beak evolved? Like, did it evolve from an area of the face the remained uncovered with feathers and eventually specialized into a beak? Also, do all modern birds come from flighted ancestors? As far as I know the wing only evolved for flight, and modern birds have wings (Even though the kiwi's is vestigal)

Underrated

That picture is retarded.

Kek

also: beaks

Alright, you go back in time and take one then

You ever seen a cassowary?

Question answered