74 replies to this topic

[Kaizen]

Quote

Plus the world has changed so much in 65 million years that it's crazy for us to say their primitive when their not even comparable to our time now

Yep...

[angrycrustacean]

Quote

I agree with cyrus.  I don't know anything about the fossilized heart cavity (source?)  but I do know that there is evidence that they had may have had a diaphram like mammals.  Besides, the skeletal structure of alot of dinosars indicate that they must have been quite active.  Compare their skeletons to any reptile today.  All reptiles have a low-slung sprawling posture.  Far from anything like velociraptor and any dinosaur like it.  Infact, I don't even consider dinosaurs to be reptiles.

Just because they died out does not mean that they were any more primitive than most animals alive today.

Good point about the low-slung skeletons; Most ancient crocodilians had straight-up legs, if I'm not mistaken. I wonder then if the sauropod hip structure more closely represents the reptile structure of today? Tell me if I'm way off, frogfish, I was into all this stuff when I was small and I don't remember it much anymore.  

[ShaunZero]

Quote

Any dog can out run a human today. Are they more advanced than humans?

I don't agree with that. I've seen many people outrun a dog. Including myself.

[frogfish]

Quote

I do know that there is evidence that they had may have had a diaphram like mammals

Almost all animals have diaphrams...its what lets us breathe!

Quote

Just because they died out does not mean that they were any more primitive than most animals alive today.

But they are primitve to humans.

Quote

All reptiles have a low-slung sprawling posture. Far from anything like velociraptor and any dinosaur like it. Infact, I don't even consider dinosaurs to be reptiles.

Yes, but this doesn't matter. They are more primitve to humans.

Quote

I don't agree with that. I've seen many people outrun a dog. Including myself.

Ok, fine, cheetah.

[artymoon]

Primitive isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean their stupid.
It just implies a simplistic form, actually more defined and to the point.

[Kaizen]

Quote

Almost all animals have diaphrams...its what lets us breathe!

If I'm not mistaken reptiles don't have a wall of muscle between the lungs and stomach.  Instead, the lungs are pulled by muscles attached to the ribs.

Quote

Yes, but this doesn't matter. They are more primitve to humans.

I'm not arguing you about that.  I'm just saying that their posture makes them quite different from any cold blooded animal existing today.  

Perhaps those prehistoric crocodilians were warmblooded?  Why aren't modern crocidillians warmblooded?  Rather than decending from them, maybe they instead only shared a common ancestor.    Curiously the ancestors of mammals were sprawling creatures.  But maybe warmloodedness in mammals evolved later.

Edited by Kaizen, 15 January 2006 - 01:15 AM.

[frogfish]

Quote

Instead, the lungs are pulled by muscles attached to the ribs.

Same function as a diaphram

Quote

I'm not arguing you about that. I'm just saying that their posture makes them quite different from any cold blooded animal existing today.

I agree...so? What does that have to do with them being primiive compared to humans?

Quote

Perhaps those prehistoric crocodilians were warmblooded? Why aren't modern crocidillians warmblooded?

No, as modern crocs are parctically the same as prehistoric crocs.

Quote

But maybe warmloodedness in mammals evolved later.

They evolved as the heart evolved.

Quote

I'm just saying that their posture makes them quite different from any cold blooded animal existing today.

Duh, they were a differnt kind of reptile. Remeber, snakes, tuataras, lizards, and turtles/tortoise lived alongside the dinos.

[Kaizen]

Quote

Same function as a diaphram

Correct.  But a diaphram divides the body cavity.  Reptiles' lungs are concroled by muscles between the lungs and the ribs.  A diaphram is more efficient.

Quote

I agree...so? What does that have to do with them being primiive compared to humans?

Nothing.  You said dinosaurs were cold blooded.   I'm merely trying to point out were more advanced than any reptiles living today.

Quote

Duh, they were a differnt kind of reptile. Remeber, snakes, tuataras, lizards, and turtles/tortoise lived alongside the dinos.

But for me, it leans toward the fact that dinosaurs were NOT cold blooded.


By the way Frogfish, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk down to me.  I'm not a dumbass, so it isn't necessary.  Sure, I may be be going off topic a we bit, I'm just arguing a couple statements you made earlier.

Edited by Kaizen, 15 January 2006 - 05:53 AM.

[frogfish]

Ok, let me state several facts about dinosaurs against warm-bloodedness.

-Dinosaurs are reptiles, and reptiles are cold-blooded...Therefore, dinosaurs are cold-blooded.
-Many dinosaurs had sails on their body, most likely for thermoregulation. No warm-blooded animal needs this. Osme of these dinos were Spinosaurus, Ournanosaurus, and Amaragasaurus.
-They don't have 4 chambered hearts.
-The number of dinosaurs dropped as Pangea broke apart and drifted more north and south. Possibly meaning they could not survive colder temperatures. (Cold-blooded)

Plus, your point that they are more advanced over modern reptiles is off-topic. This is about humans and dinos.

[Kaizen]

Actually no.  The debate is if they should be considered primitive.  Those facts you stated sound old fashioned to me.  You are making them out to be way more primitive than they actually were.

From what I have read, the fossilized heart was four chambered with a single aorta like birds and mammals.

My sources:
Here
And here
Ooooo!  And looky here

Where is your source Frogfish?

Some dinosaurs had feathers.  What is the point of insulation if an animal is coldblooded? As for the sails, it is likely that they were used for display.

Edited by Kaizen, 15 January 2006 - 08:54 PM.

[frogfish]

Quote

Actually no

Why not?

Quote

The debate is if they should be considered primitive

And they are compared to humans

Quote

Those facts you stated sound old fashioned to me

Are they so? Many scientists don't think so...

Quote

Where is your source Frogfish

My source is that the fact that Pangea DID lie on the equator. That sails are more likely for thermoregulation than attracting mates, as the sails hold vessels.

Quote

Some dinosaurs had feathers. What is the point of insulation if an animal is coldblooded? As for the sails, it is likely that they were used for display.

If you think sails are for display, what makes you think feathers were not?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?

[Kaizen]

Quote

And they are compared to humans

But not as primitive compared to humans as you say they were.   Things are not always so black and white, Frogfish.

Quote

Are they so? Many scientists don't think so...

And many scientist do think so...

Quote

My source is that the fact that Pangea DID lie on the equator. That sails are more likely for thermoregulation than attracting mates, as the sails hold vessels.

I didn't think Pangea existed by the Jurassic/Cretaceous.  

Besides that isn't what I was asking:

Quote

No, we have the same. Velociraptors are no like birds in he first place.  The have a 3 CHAMBERED HEART...which means they are cold-blooded and don't utilize oxygen and energy as effecien as mammals and birds.

How do you know that they had a 3 chambered heart, Frogfish?  YOu make it sound like it's absolutely true, so where is your source?  This is the third time I asked and so far you have failed to come through.  

Quote

If you think sails are for display, what makes you think feathers were not?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?

If they covered most of the body, I think it would be very UNLIKELY that they were used for ONLY for display.  Why evolve something so complex, something that lies against the body and has an interlocking structure if it only for dislplay?  A sail is just a row of overly enlargered neural spines on the vertebrea.

Edited by Kaizen, 16 January 2006 - 03:08 AM.

[cyrus11]

someone said that being primitive is being more simple in form or function.
i do not believe that dinosaurs and their biology is more primitive than ours.. they might even be more advanced than us mammals. one can compare us to reptiles, fishes, and worms.. yes.. they are more primitive than us... with worms being the most, then fishes, then reptiles... their extinction really does not reflect how primitive they are, for if they had not died out from whatever disaster, mammals would still be crawling around under dinosaur rule... and that the dinosaurs out competed the mammals and took control after the permian mass extinction is a great example that they are more advanced than the mammals..
during the late permian era, most mammals and mammal-like reptiles were significantly larger than the first dinosaurs. so you cannot explain the fact that dinosaurs got their dominance because they were larger than mammals to begin with.
another point of mine..
thru DNA studies, it was said that the first humans came to existance somewhere in africa 200 thousand years ago.. they found that out by comparing mutations in our y chromosome genes.. the genes that passes from father to son...(everyone else on earth share similar mutations in their y chromosome).. anyways, there are little diversity in the y chromosome shared mongst the population of people on earth.... however, the people with the most diversity in their genes are the ones in africa.. which stated that they started being "modern human" earlier than the rest of the people.... now if those of you who imply that anything that lived in the far past are considered more primitive than the present... are you saying that the african people are more "primitive" than other races of man?
or do you not consider them primitive because that particular race did not go extinct?
what if for some awful tragic event whether by the act of god, nature, disease, or man-made genocide that wiped out the whole black race, and 100 years from that even... people look back and say oh.. compared to us, they are primitive.  is that fair? or is that bilogically justified?

[frogfish]

Quote

is that fair? or is that bilogically justified?

No and yes. No becasue they are the same species. Yes because they might have developed advanced technology.

Do I have to sTate this again? Humans are more advanced biologically. We have opposable thumbs, larger frontail lobes, larger brains period, larger eyes, and the ability to understand concepts.

Quote

But not as primitive compared to humans as you say they were.  Things are not always so black and white, Frogfish.

They're still primitve to humans...fine, they have their bright spots.

Quote

And many scientist do think so...

We're even there

Quote

No, we have the same. Velociraptors are no like birds in he first place. The have a 3 CHAMBERED HEART...which means they are cold-blooded and don't utilize oxygen and energy as effecien as mammals and birds.


How do you know that they had a 3 chambered heart, Frogfish? YOu make it sound like it's absolutely true, so where is your source? This is the third time I asked and so far you have failed to come through.  

My sources is the opinion of many respected scientists, as Kirland and Horner. Also the fact that they're reptiles. Just because one species of dino has a 4 chambered heart doesn't mean all do. Crocs have 4-chambered hearts...they're still cold-blooded.

Quote

If they covered most of the body, I think it would be very UNLIKELY that they were used for ONLY for display. Why evolve something so complex, something that lies against the body and has an interlocking structure if it only for dislplay? A sail is just a row of overly enlargered neural spines on the vertebrea.

Actually it would be very possible for display. Just as much as the sail. They both evolved for some purpose. the more area covered with feathers, the more youyr potential mate can see....just like how bigger horns for a impala today wins mates.

[cyrus11]

first of all.. dinosaurs are not primitive reptiles.. they are more advanced than any modern, well i should say (surviving) reptiles.

having opposable thumbs does not mean we are more advanced. it just means that thumb helps us do what humans do better than anthing, else.. that we know of yet..

bigger brains does not mean we are more advanced..(neanderthals have bigger brains and they were extinct also)

bigger eyes doesn't make a creature more advanced... squids have eyes bigger than our own in comparison to bodymass... and they are not more advanced than a bat.

what i mean by advanced is that total metabolism and the transferrance of energy and growth rate and whatever biomechanical that help the animal grow, live, move, whatever..

no dinosaur exhibit any signs of growth pattern in bones that shows it is like that of surviving reptiles today, but they do exhibit the growth patterns of todays mammals and birds. so it is widely assumed, for now, that even the biggest sauropods are warm blooded... and that they even reached their size from hatchlings, as in apotasaurs, in 15 years... no animals before and since can re-produce that physiology and performance..  no creature that exceptional can be considered as primitive... so be humble.. don't think that just because we have a "more" specialized brain than most animals, that we are the most advanced creature to ever evolved...we are just merely a biological "swiss army knife"...