>>2069026 Its the older/stronger sibling(s) that attack, wound and weaker the others. Then in favor of the stronger one, the parents raise that one. Infanticide and siblicide happens with a shitton of animals.
>>2069530 >>2071513 Suprised anyone's still getting to grips with the idea of feathery dinos, we've had examples of fluff, quills and fuzz from all different kinds of non avian dinosaurs for years. Its just pop culture that clings on to rubbery lizards.
>>2072602 Is intended to be silly, but in all seriousness even protoceratops has been found to have had butt quills like a porcupine. The image anon is whining about is probably pretty accurate, neck frill aside. Even the colouration is probably quite likely. We've been able to determine from certain well preserved fossils that some small fuzzy theropods were decked out in shades of stripy brown.
>>2072822 >that's still relatively recent it's older than the vast majority of dinosaurs. >can you really consider proto-birds, actual birds? I'm just counting from when flight evolved. >we don't know how many early dinosaurs there were, and we will never know. again, we know of 10 birds for every non-avian dinosaur, and that 10:1 ratio is true from the mid-Cretaceous on.
there's no reason whatsoever to think dinosaurs ever outnumbered birds. They didn't even outnumber birds most of the time they existed.
>>2072825 >it's older than the vast majority of dinosaurs. that depends on how many dinosaur species there were at the time. >I'm just counting from when flight evolved. not everything that flies is a bird though. >They didn't even outnumber birds most of the time they existed. you don't know that either.
>>2072830 you're trying an argument from ignorance, the problem is you're ignorant while paleontologists in general know.
I've read the censuses, I know for a fact Cretaceous bird species outnumber non-avian dinosaurs 10 to 1.
you can argue that there are some dinosaur species that haven't been discovered, but knowing that bird are less likely to be preserved and found that just indicates that unknown birds outnumber other dinosaurs by far more than 10 to 1.
either way, an argument from ignorance doesn't work so long as we assume the bird:dinosaur ratio of 10:1 is either accurate or low. There's no reason to think otherwise.
let me know if I'm going to fast for you, I can try to break it down since you don't seem to get what I'm saying.
we know for a fact bird species outnumbered non-avian dinosaurs since at least the Cretaceous.
>>2072832 meanwhile you're trying to pull a appeal to probability. >I know for a fact facts don't exist in science, you know this. >but knowing that bird are less likely to be preserved another appeal to probability.
>>2072837 >science starts with facts. science starts with a consensus.
'facts' aren't a thing, there's no 100% certainty in anything. >the ratio of known birds to non-avian dinosaurs is a fact. it's also entirely useless because we're never going to know how many non-avian dinosaurs there were in the first place. >you'd need a fucking miracle for your claim to be true. what claim, you're reading in statics because you're an autist unable to have a normal conversation.
maybe you should just pull a argumentum ergo decedo like you usually do.
>>2072869 >that's because we're never going to find most of them by every modern estimate we already have found most of them. >what makes you think birds don't preserve as well as non-bird dinosaurs. size. the smaller the dinosaur the fewer examples of it we find.
also comparison of bones to teeth.
for example there are 0 bird species known from bones in Texas.
there are somewhere between 5 and 10 bird species known from teeth in the same area.
this indicates that birds were present but not preserved. In contrast the same study only shows 1 species of non-avian dinosaur that was present according to tooth counts but not known from bones.
>>2072873 >by every modern estimate and those are based on what? >the smaller the dinosaur the fewer examples of it we find. isn't it based more on the thickness of the bones. >there are somewhere between 5 and 10 bird species known from teeth in the same area. how do they know it's 5-10 species and not just one species with a lot of retarded teeth.
>>2072820 >>2072815 no avian dinos were around for 160 million years, surely there should be at least 100,000 species? I know only about 1% of them will be discovered, but the estimates seem really low.
>>2072886 >surely there should be at least 100,000 species? Yeah, if they had diversity and turnover similar to mammals or birds we'd expect over 100k species out there and something like 10k species known.
both numbers are well over ten times what we actually see. >I know only about 1% of them will be discovered, but the estimates seem really low. their diversity was apparently very very low.
many of their species covered half of the globe, and a lot of them were so large that other species simply couldn't survive next to them.
I'd have to go back and check, but I think we know of something like ten times more mammals from the Mesozoic than we do non-avian dinosaurs.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.