People say "birds are dinosaurs". Is this really true

>>1993699
>Is this really true
yeah.
>if we're to say they ARE dinosaurs, then shouldn't we also say we're some sort of shrew thing?
we are.

File: dino.jpg (146KB, 1800x955px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1800x955px

They belong to the clade Dinosauria, making them Dinosaurs.

birds are dinosaurs, but it is especially true since modern birds are closer related to "true" dinosaurs than half of them were to each other.

>But if we're to say they ARE dinosaurs, then shouldn't we also say we're some sort of shrew thing?
No, but you can say that we might have been one at some point. Birds might have been a fish or a reptile before, but we aren't going to call them that now.

There is still a lot of similarities between modern birds and avian dinosaurs. They're basically just dinosaurs that shrank and took to the sky.

>>1993709
>No, but you can say that we might have been one at some point
this is incorrect under modern taxonomy.

you no longer evolve into something and stop being what you were.

Humans are now considered a certain type of bony fish. The type that wandered onto land and grew fur and tits and started writing books and driving cars.

Birds are dinosaurs just like how humans are apes.

>>1993710

>everything is archaea

File: Archaeopteryx_lithographica_(Berlin_specimen).jpg (241KB, 800x1081px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 800x1081px

>>1993699
>to sensationalise science
paleontologists realized birds evolved from dinosaurs in 1862.
they formally classified birds as dinosaurs in 1975.

this isn't some new hot topic. It's ancient history.

Mostly here people are just repeating "birds are dinosaurs". I'm asking how we can reasonably make that claim.

>>1993707
This guy makes a good point. Maybe the only one. But it seems to me that we have a problem with our definition of "dinosaur" if birds are classified as such.

>>1993704
This is totally arbitrary.

>>1993711
Those two things aren't comparable. Humans are apes no matter which way you look at it. We're not just a species that evolved from apes, we're clearly part of the much more modern family Hominidae.

>>1993714
I'm not sure how you think this means it's nothing to do with sensationalism.

>>1993718
>We're not just a species that evolved from apes, we're clearly part of the much more modern family Hominidae.

the same goes for birds, or did you never look past the T. rex.

it's very obvious that birds are dinosaurs.

>>1993718
>it seems to me that we have a problem with our definition of "dinosaur" if birds are classified as such.
are you familiar with the "definition" of dinosaurs?

in taxonomy it's called a diagnosis, not a definition.

every trait in the diagnosis is found in birds.

>>1993721
shed some light for me on this.

I was reading the reptile wiki and saw this >Reptiles are a group (Reptilia) of tetrapod animals comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, tuatara, and their extinct relatives

so if it includes ALL of their extinct relatives, wouldn't that mean bacteria are reptiles now.

>>1993724
I'm guessing when they say "relatives" they mean sister taxa, not ancestors.

>>1993725
that's vague as fuck, you'd figure the wiki autists would try harder.

>>1993727
they aren't writing for scientists. They try to dumb it down for the public.

it is vague, but you can usually get more detail by reading the work they cite.

>>1993728
the public likes reading complex articles and pretend to understand them.

besides, you'd figure the only people that look these things up are people that understand it.

>>1993729
I don't know, I never look this stuff up unless someone questions me on it.

I know it, there's no need to look it up. Wikipedia is a great source for broad knowledge but is often pretty weak for very specific knowledge. I've spent a good 20 years studying Allosaurus for example. I know everything in the wiki article, and I know which parts of it are wrong. I could probably write the entire article from memory and add to it if I wanted to.

but what's in that article is only the tip of the iceberg. You could easily write a few thousand pages about Allosaurus alone, and lots of people have.

>>1993731
why did you spend 20 years of your life studying the most boring branch of dinosaurs.

>>1993733
they're common where I live.
it's easy to find work studying the stuff in your own back yard.

>>1993719
The difference being that apes are relatively new and a much smaller classification than dinosaurs, which span a huge range of difference species and a few hundred million years. Determining that a human and a gorilla are related is a bit different from doing the same for a sparrow and a stegosaurus.

>>1993735
>Determining that a human and a gorilla are related is a bit different from doing the same for a sparrow and a stegosaurus.
not really.
the first dinosaur formally described was named based on a synsacrum, a trait found in birds. The relationship was obvious literally from the moment the Dinosauria was erected.

>>1993734
I know the feel, I prefer native plants for that reason.

>>1993741
Then you know what I'm saying.
Allosaurus was really common too. It was the cockroach of the Jurassic, they were everywhere.

I'm off to sleep. Enjoy your day.

>>1993737
Really the point is that just saying "it's no different from..." is not a real explanation.

There has only been one real, good answer to this question here, and mostly the rest is just "y is equal to x because x=y".

>>1993721
>are you familiar with the "definition" of dinosaurs?
I'm familiar with the fact that birds are included in the meaning of "dinosaur" by taxonomists (unsurprising since that's what this thread is about) which is where the problem lies.

It's more complicated than pure taxonomy, because the word "dinosaur" doesn't belong exclusively to taxonomists. While it might be technically correct from a certain perspective to say "birds are dinosaurs", that ignores the more well-known meaning of the word "dinosaur" and, in my opinion, adds no clarity. If anything, it removes clarity. It makes more sense to me to use a different name to refer to the group including dinosaurs and birds, and leave "dinosaur" as a somewhat less technical term that retains the common meaning - excluding extant species.

Is there a word for what most people mean most of the time by "dinosaur", i.e. the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic?

>>1993756
>that ignores the more well-known meaning of the word "dinosaur"
this is a scientific discussion not a public speech.

there's no need to use unscientific definitions and there's no need to dumb it down.

>>1993757
It's not about dumbing down. There are good reasons for scientific meanings to retain similarity with common meanings, partly because science does not exist in a vacuum.

>>1993765
if we go by what the public thinks is a dinosaur we'd have to include every single ancient reptile.

>>1993756
Scientific definitions conflict with layman ones all the time. It's stupid to try and say that science is wrong because it doesn't adhere to what's popular.

>>1993699
No. Birds are actually, really, genuinely evolved Theropod Dinosaurs.

We're all just amoebas

>>1993838
tree tunicates.

Why couldn't big ground birds compete with other land animals?

>>1993839
Anaerobes

>>1993839
>tree tunicates

Wtf are "tree" tunicates?

>>1993846
Do you mean aerobes, shitmuffin?

>>1993710
Is the "you are what you were" approach actually useful in taxonomy studies? It seems needlessly convoluted.

>>1993724
Shouldn't you be complaining about how reptiles don't exist?

>>1993724
>taking wikipedia this literally
see, this is why everybody thinks you're a turdmuffin

>>1993714
>paleontologists realized birds evolved from dinosaurs in 1862.

Then they forgot and started saying they evolved from reptiles with feathers for a long ass time.

>>1993765
>science does not exist in a vacuum.
It really does.

you're allowed to look at it.
you might understand it, you might not.

but nothing you say or do will have any effect on it.

and that's good. Because when we get down to it your complaints here are based on your own misunderstandings, not on science. We shouldn't have to correct the body of human knowledge to make it line up with your ignorances.

>>1993925
>Is the "you are what you were" approach actually useful in taxonomy studies?
yes.
it irons out inconsistency, (e.g., fish evolve into amphibians, they stop being fish but continue to be vertebrates. This is inconsistent. If they stop being one thing they were they should stop being all things they were, and vice versa.)
It tells you at a glance what an animal evolved from.
Most importantly it gives us a mathematical construct to use statistics to determine relatedness.

instead of just guessing how related things are by looks, now we use math and computer programs to measure exactly.

>>1993925
I want reptiles as a clade for one so atleast it's clear, but that's not going to happen.
>>1993937
wiki is pretty accurate for the most part.

>>1993975
>I haven't ever set my foot in a university
No matter which discipline you study, the first thing you learn about "science" when you do so will be the critical perspective, and precisely that science doesn't exist in a vacuum. You'll also learn that there is amultitude of conflicting ideas/interpretations within any given field, and no such thing as a universal "Science" whose authority you can appeal to.

>>1993990
you're talking to someone who gives lectures in universities.

>>1993990
I'm not talking about science as a monolithic authority.

I'm talking about the barriers to entry.

Anon here complaining about birds being called dinosaurs will have absolutely no effect on that which he complains about. He's barred at the door, he doesn't have access to the inner workings of the process.

Science isn't democratic any more than your favorite sports team is. Just because you can read it doesn't mean you can change it.

>>1993990
A better metaphor might be the novel.
I really hate how Steven King ended the Dark Tower series.

but nothing I say is going to change his ending. I have no say in that.

Science is the exact same. Unless you're getting paid to write it, you aren't going to change it.

>>1993994
>my sides
What kind of university has such low self esteem?

>>1994001
bugguy is being way too kind.
I'm just an adjunct professor at my community college.

File: birdsdinosaurs.jpg (205KB, 1360x566px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1360x566px

>>1993699
I see the atheists are at it again
Do these two look similar to you, OP?

>>1994002
Okay then, I thought he's talking about himself. Was scared for the dutch education for a moment.

File: shitty example.png (418KB, 728x265px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 728x265px

>>1994010
I see the creationists are at it again.
Do these look similar to you?

Also, pick two theropods next time.

>>1993724
>extinct relatives
Idk, when I see that I think of ancient /extinct turtles and crocodiles only, because they were directly related to them?

>>1994010

You are retarded.

Can an ape and a human make a baby?

>>1993718
The anon you responded to may not have been entirely accurate, but they do have a valid point. Birds are dinosaurs the same way humans are mammals. True, you can't really compare a robin with a T Rex, but then you can't really compare a human with a synapsid.

>>1994141
>you can't really compare a robin with a T Rex
of course you can.
they both have perforate acetabulum, three or more fused sacra, reduction of manual and pedal digits, fused cannon bone, ascending process of the astragalus, semi-lunate carpal, furculae, pleurocoels, single occipital condyle, antorbital fenestrae, sharp fourth trochanter, radius <80% humerus, exoccipitals participate in the foramen magnum but don't meet, anterolateral cnemial crest of the tibia, pubic boot, osseous sclerotic ring, etc, etc.

>>1994086
There was a scientist who tried to impregnate female chimps with male sperm. It's rumored that he was successful and the religious organizations at the time used their paid men in the government to shut him down and lock up his creations.

Whether he created genuine hybrid I doubt, but his experiments aren't classified, you can google it if you want. At one point he even had a human female volunteer that he tried to impregnate with orangutan sperm.

>>1994157
>the religious organizations at the time used their paid men in the government to shut him down and lock up his creations.
wasn't religion illegal in Soviet Russia?