why do we still call dinosaurs primitive?
because they were long extinct before our existance?
if we were one day to go extinct, and the world was then dominated by intelligent roaches 65 million years later, is it fair for them to call us primitive?
dinosaurs might have been one of the most if not the most advanced vertebrates ever produced. no land animal before or since has ever gotten that large, and diverse.
no land animal before or since has the growth rate of the dinosaurs.
it's physiology must have been impressive. yet we still call them primitive reptiles while turtles, crocs, tuatuas, lizards, amphibians, and even some mammals are more primitive than dinosaurs. what gives?
they were here and were the most advanced for hundreds of millions of years till they were wiped out. all that is left are the birds. we mammals just had our second real spurt in evolution after the dinosaur died out, and we are barely trying to catch their rein record.
we need to re-think what it means to be primitive.

Because they WERE primitive. They didn't understand concepts. Eat. Reproduce. Survive. That's is what dinosurs thought. Yes, they are one of the most diverse species, but that does not have to do with primitive.


No, your idea of "primitive" is wrong.

WE don't know what they did. We KNOW what they ate. THEY have concepts. Since they don't live, WE do not know how they're brain works. THEY could've been smarter than us. WE give ourselves to much credit for inventing things, when Dinosaurs could've done it long before us. I'm not saying like all this advanced technology. I mean long ago, when they were all Neandethal's and stuff. Dinosaurs could've had the same thing, but it was destroyed along with them.

dinosaurs were not primitive. they were the most advanced biomechanically. sure we are smarter, but i doubt our biomechanics or even most mammal's can function more efficiently than dinosaurs and birds.. and birds now starting being considered as modern avian therapods.
the dinos finished the race first.. the mammals are barely starting it. to say that they are primitive cus they lived long ago and died long ago is wrong. why can't an organism be advanced millions of years ago? they were advanced long before we ever became into existance.

Exactly. Why?

No they don't They lack the parts of the brain that can recognize and process concepts...


Sadly, impossible.


We call them primitive because of what I said above...they are not as intelluctually advanced. now lets look at biomechanics.

Humans have a 4 chambered heart, dinosaurs had a 3 chambered heart.
1 for Humans

Humans had opposable thumbs, dinosuars did not..
2 for humans.

Dinosaurs had a more developed Temporal, Parietal, and Olfactory lobe. Humans don't.
1 for Dinos

Humans have a much larger frontal lobe.
1 for Humans

Size does not matter, so does teeth and claws, as those are specialized.


So?

Yes, that is wrong, but its NOT wrong to say that because humans are more developed than dinosaurs.


They can... but the organism would still have to be living today...like a croc. Crocs are advanced in the way that they are the only "reptile" with a 4 chambered heart...actually, crocs are very close to birds.

If yoiu know abou evolution...the later time goes on, he more advanced the animals get. So in 2 million years, the animals then will see us as primitive compared to them...and I don't have any problem with that!

not true..
no lizard, snake, croc, turtle, ceolocanth, tuatua, snail, squid, or any animal that started before dinosaurs and are still alive today are as advanced biomechanically as the dinosaurs

So? No snail, lizard, fish alive now in not as advanced as us...They all don't have to be the same...
Bottom line is...Dinosaurs are not as advanced as humans...therefore, they are referred to as primitive.

any velociraptor can out perform a human being physically today.
they are just more advanced than us mammals.
they have a physiology similar if not the same as birds.... and birds use and metabolize oxygem more efficently than mammals.

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

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.

Exactly Burnside!

actually velociraptors are believed to have a 4 chambered heart. and have non flight feathers which insulates their body.. hollow bones with air sac chambers like birds today.
even the duck billed dinosaurs have a 4 chambered heart and they are not as closely related to birds as velociraptors. they did a CT scan on a hardrosaur mummy called "leonardo" and found it to have a 4 chambered heart.

The heart cavity left by the fossil indicates a small 3 chambered heart.
I never knew leonardo underwent a CT scan...link please. I could not find it.

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.

That's a really good point.
Just because fish breathe water deosn;t mean they're more evolved than us.
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...

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.

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

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


But they are primitve to humans.


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




Ok, fine, cheetah.

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.

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.




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.

Same function as a diaphram


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


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


They evolved as the heart evolved.


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

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.



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



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.

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.

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.

Why not?


And they are compared to humans


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


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.


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

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



And many scientist do think so...



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

Besides that isn't what I was asking:


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.



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.

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?

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.


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


We're even there


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.


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.

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"...

If you say that? ^

What makes you say this?

Sponges are practically one of the fastest growing organisms alongside kelp, plus sponges are practically immortal...does that make them more advanced then dinos? By your logic, you probably will say yes, right?

Biomechanically, humans are more advanced. Our organs are more specialized then many dinosaurs, who would have to eat every waking moment (sauropods). Humans don't. Our eyes are also more adept than dinosaur eyes, as ours ae forward facing. We have evolved to walk upright, and don't need a tail anymore. We can reproduce faster, we can convert energy more effeciently. What else do you want?

If you think humans should be humble, I would like to see you and humble yourself to a sponge, as they grow much more effieciently than dinosaurs.

Because they came before us



yes, as stated above, they came before us...see below



Source - The dictionary



IMO - yes, because we would have been first (meaning before said roaches)


Who knows, they may have been more advanced...cool for them but that doesn't mean they were not primitive to us -- but then again, this is just my opinion

That made my day.

Funny thing is, I was serious

excellent post. I applaud your logic. Of course it is rubbish to describe the dinosaurs as primitive when they were the longest lived and most evolved creature ever to have existed on this planet. I suspect that they even evolved to the point where they developed both mammalian and reptilian characteristics.. and the larger sauropods could not have lived had they not evolved a superp skeleton and physiology.
They are called 'primitive' because they are believed to have had small brains....but as we now know, a small brain doesnt mean your dumb.

biologically, the term primitive means it has changed the least in comparison to other similar creatures. the term usually has to do with the number and arrangement of teeth and stuff like that. calling something primitive is not an attack. it does not mean the creature was slow or stupid. it just means it was more similar to its ancestors than, say, the small rodents that were popping up at the time.

I beg to differ...any bird or mammal is more evolved than they are.

His logic implies that evolution does not advance a species...it does! How can you not be more advanced after evolving for 65 MYA since the last dino? Evolution improves, not degrades!

Jack Horner has been criticized for saying alot of things in order to gain attention.

Again, some people (including myself) don't consider dinosaurs to be reptiles.



But not ONLY* for display. A sail is just an extension of the vertebrea. Feathers are a far more complex modification. They are designed to lock together in order to keep in body heat. If they were only for display it would have made more sense for them to simply evolve longer, brighter scales rather than something that is so complex.

I think it is folly for us to believe that humans are far more perfect than any other creature. Humans walk upright on two legs. But guess what, there is a price. The price comes in the form of horrible back pain, hemoroids, poor speed and clumsyness. Human eyes aren't that good either, birds' eyes are better. Human hearing and scence of smell aren't that great. We are warm blooded and have large brains, but we require plunty of nutricion. Throw a group of humans out into a baren, burning desert. Do you they will fair better in that environment than snakes? I mean no offense Frogfish, but I think your creationist beliefs effect the way you view nature. You see humans as that divine spark in the universe, while I see humans as just another animal. Yes, a very special animal, but still an animal just the same.

* = keyword

dinosaurs were most advanced in strength and speed, some species of dinosaurs are proved to be extremly smart and would have been the next intelligent life if they werent wiped out.

Depends what you think as primitive...the ability to make technology and understand concepts is unsurpassed by humans.

I agree too that dinosaurs are a very special breed of archosaurs. they shouldn't even be considered as reptiles. It a common misconception that crocodillians are reptiles. They are not. They evolved on two seperate pathways/

odd that we humans in our arrogance and ignorance consider ourselves to be the most highly evolved species when we have singularly failed to create a cohesive society,or live in harmony with our environment and evolve without destroying the very source that gives us life.Hmmm I guess its the way you look at it...

Heres a cool link.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/...saurintell.html

did you actually read my post or did you just just read what you wanted to read?

Yes, I have read your post...Reptilian feature are a disadvantage towards mammals...True mammals have the full advantage over reptiles. Evolution does not "devolve" animals either...

im not implying that mammals today devolved.
im saying that mammals started their full potential during the 65 million after the dinosaurs died out... but you have to realize that for around 160 million years, the dinosaurs reined while the mammals and mammalike reptiles lived alongside them, not doing much improvement. so if you want to compare evolution between mammals and dinosaurs, you see the time difference and who outcompeted whom... if dinosaurs are truely only cold blooded reptiles they can never out compete the hot blooded mammals. no reptiles today can compete with mammals and birds in the same environment.
so if you want to compare our mammal evolution with the dinosaurs..65 million years of mammalian reign and 160 million years of dino rein.. you do the math. and if not for our stroke of luck that the asteroids hit earth or whatever disease that only affected the non avian dinosaurs...we'd still be small and possomlike...crawlking under the feet of the dinosaurs..
small brains doesn't make an animal dumb. ravens are considered one of the most intelligent animals on earth and yet their brain size cannot even be compared to the brains of a dog or a cat.... so in fact that the dinosaurs evolved "micro-processors" millions of years before us human evolved our "big clunky" brains shows that they are more advanced than we mammals are.

Your statement about mammals being the underdogs (No pun intended ) during the Mesozoic, and reptiles being the underdogs in current day, has only to do with luck of the draw. The reason mammals never evolved much during the Mesozoic is because there were larger animals who liked to snack on them, namely small dinosaurs and the like. Assuming that it was an asteroid which wiped out the dinosaurs, they simply couldn't cope with the cold (You figure out what that means) like the warm-blooded mammals could, and so mammals were free to evolve into larger creatures. By the time reptiles began to reappear in large numbers, mammals had already gotten sufficiently large to consume reptiles, which in turn stayed small just like the mammals had in the Mesozoic.

I'm sure that if a catastrophe happened which managed to wipe out mammals but allow reptiles to survive, there would be another age of the dinosaurs, or at least something very similar.

For the time being, enjoy your mammalian supremacy.

but you still are stuck in the mindset that dinosaurs are "cold blooded" reptiles like todays reptiles.. the fact that mammals remained small is not because that the dinosaurs began as bigger animals.. in fact the earliest dinosaurs were fairly small turkey sized animals... the mammal like animals were much much bigger...
the modern mammals that appeared along-side dinosaurs remained small because dinosaurs were much more physically and biologically advanced than the mammals and reptiles that competed with them.. in fact they are more like modern day birds.
dinosaurs were not your average day reptiles.. they were hot blooded, they grew fast, they out competed any other form of terrestrial life on earth when they existed.... do not consider dinosaurs as in the same group as crocs, nor lizards, nor snakes, nor turtles.
they are terrestrial form of archosaurs that birds came from.
even the giant pterosaurs who were not dinosaurs were hot blooded animals that out competed any mammal of the day.
people today just have the mental block on what dinos truely are..

1) birds / dinos (warm blooded)
2) mammal-like reptiles (gorgons)
3) mammals: placental, marsupial, monotremes (warm blooded)
4) pterosaurs (warm blooded)
5) plesiosaurs (possibly warm blooded)
6) icthiosaurs (possibly warm blooded)
7) cold blooded reptiles: 1) snakes / lizards 2) crocs 3) turtles 4) tuatuas

birds should be considered avian arcosaurs.

Ah, but you are wrong The first mammals appeared around 268 MYA ago...the therapsids. From there, began an amazing fast evolution, and one of the most spectacular evolutionary pathways on earth. Reptiles evolved into Mammals!!!! I would so say that Mammalian evolution was much more eventful and significant than Dinosaur evolution. Remeber, before the dinosaurs, reptilian like mammals ruled the earth. Mammals- 268 MYA, dinosaurs 160 MYA...YOU do the math


Life IS luck young 'un...The dinosaurs would of never evolved if the reign of giant synapsids never ended....


Or because the reign of synapsids ended...


Crocs do deserve to be grouped with dinosaurs. Crocs ARE archosaurs. Crocs are more like birds than any reptile today. I personally think crocs are more advanced than any dinosaur proven so far...




Just because they are archosaurs doen't mean they are warm-blooded. Just to tell youy again, Synapsids ruled the reptiles before dinosaurs, and mammals ruled after.

2 mammalian groups


Nope, marine reptiles were Euyrapsids..And are cold-blooded.


No proof



Crocs are archosaurs, just to tell you
According to your logic, that must mean they are warm-blooded, right? After all, they DO have a 4 chambered heart, but sorry They are cold-blooded. This should give you some insight to dinosaur physiology...They were cold-blooded too...


Birds ARE archosaurs!!!

And I personally disagree, (crocs aren't very active, low slung sprawling posture) but we already went over that.

I think pterosaurs were warm-blooded....

I highly doubt Euyrapsids were warm-blooded just based on their body sctructure. Icthiosaurs, in paticular, where much more shark-like (cold-blooded) than dolphin-like (warm-blooded).