frogfish Posted January 16, 2006 #26 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Actually no Why not? The debate is if they should be considered primitive And they are compared to humans Those facts you stated sound old fashioned to me Are they so? Many scientists don't think so... 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. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizen Posted January 16, 2006 #27 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) 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. Are they so? Many scientists don't think so... And many scientist do 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. I didn't think Pangea existed by the Jurassic/Cretaceous. Besides that isn't what I was asking: 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. 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 January 16, 2006 by Kaizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus11 Posted January 16, 2006 Author #28 Share Posted January 16, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 16, 2006 #29 Share Posted January 16, 2006 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. 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. And many scientist do think so... We're even there 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus11 Posted January 16, 2006 Author #30 Share Posted January 16, 2006 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"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 16, 2006 #31 Share Posted January 16, 2006 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. If you say that? ^ What makes you say this? 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.. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 16, 2006 #32 Share Posted January 16, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
distortedpandy Posted January 16, 2006 #33 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) why do we still call dinosaurs primitive? Because they came before us because they were long extinct before our existance? yes, as stated above, they came before us...see below Adjective primitive 1. Of or pertaining to the beginning or origin, or to early times; original; primordial; primeval; first; as, primitive innocence; the primitive church. Original; primary; radical; not derived; as, primitive verb in grammar. Source - The dictionary 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? 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 Edited January 16, 2006 by distortedpandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00000000000000000000000000 Posted January 16, 2006 #34 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If you think humans should be humble, I would like to see you and humble yourself to a sponge That made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 16, 2006 #35 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Funny thing is, I was serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantazum Posted January 16, 2006 #36 Share Posted January 16, 2006 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrothyDog Posted January 17, 2006 #37 Share Posted January 17, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 17, 2006 #38 Share Posted January 17, 2006 most evolved creature ever to have existed on this planet 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizen Posted January 17, 2006 #39 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) 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. 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. 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. 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 Edited January 17, 2006 by Kaizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conspiracy Posted January 17, 2006 #40 Share Posted January 17, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 17, 2006 #41 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) 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. 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/ Edited January 17, 2006 by frogfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantazum Posted January 19, 2006 #42 Share Posted January 19, 2006 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nameless One Posted January 19, 2006 #43 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Heres a cool link. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/...saurintell.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantazum Posted January 22, 2006 #44 Share Posted January 22, 2006 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! did you actually read my post or did you just just read what you wanted to read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 22, 2006 #45 Share Posted January 22, 2006 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus11 Posted January 25, 2006 Author #46 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00000000000000000000000000 Posted January 25, 2006 #47 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) 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. Edited January 25, 2006 by angrycrustacean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus11 Posted January 26, 2006 Author #48 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 26, 2006 #49 Share Posted January 26, 2006 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. 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 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.. Life IS luck young 'un...The dinosaurs would of never evolved if the reign of giant synapsids never ended.... 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.. Or because the reign of synapsids ended... do not consider dinosaurs as in the same group as crocs, nor lizards, nor snakes, nor turtles. 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... even the giant pterosaurs who were not dinosaurs were hot blooded animals that out competed any mammal of the day. 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 5) plesiosaurs (possibly warm blooded) 6) icthiosaurs (possibly warm blooded) Nope, marine reptiles were Euyrapsids..And are cold-blooded. pterosaurs (warm blooded) No proof ) cold blooded reptiles: 1) snakes / lizards 2) crocs 3) turtles 4) tuatuas 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 should be considered avian arcosaurs. Birds ARE archosaurs!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizen Posted January 26, 2006 #50 Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) I personally think crocs are more advanced than any dinosaur proven so far... 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). Edited January 26, 2006 by Kaizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now