Were dinosaurs just big birds?

for you

Dinosaurs were around for millions of years and never accomplished anything.
Yes, they were just big birds.

File: dinosaur_pepe.png (156KB, 500x263px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 500x263px

>>8208607
> be dinosaurs
> built a civilization
> realized the meaningless of life
> committed suicide
> 1000000 years later
> ignorant humans blab about dinosaurs never accomplished nuffin.

>>8208607
>never accomplished anything

Human-like intelligence isn't the end result of natural selection.
Dinosaurs were really great at being dinosaurs.

>Dinosaurs were really great at being dinosaurs

Wow great insight m8

>>8208632
Birds are just dinosaurs that live now.

>>8208642
Then why don't we call them Dinosaurs?

>>8208675
All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds.

>>8208675
Because they're birds.

Birds are okay.

File: birdus biggus.jpg (64KB, 630x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 630x720px

>>8208605
Yes but not all of them. Some of them were elmos and cookie monsters

>>8208675
same reason we dont call grass "plants" or cats "mammals"

>>8208761
but life is life.

>>8208642
Then birds are better at being dinosaurs, and they're pretty shitty at it themselves.

>>8208675
We do call certain birds "raptors."

>>8208772
Life is an arbitrary concept that cannot be formalized without exceptions and edge cases.

Fuzzy around the edges systems are heuristics.

Life does not meaningfully exist.

>>8208776
true, any one have a good definition for what viruses are, or solving abiogenesis?

>>8208772
Wow, you don't say

>>8208605

Birds are just tiny dinosaurs, you mean.

File: terror-bird-south-america.png (2MB, 1440x1177px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x1177px

>>8208605
Birds are only not dinosaurs because we defined them that way.

Anything you can associate with birds first appeared on dinosaurs. At what point do you call them dinosaurs and at what point do you call them birds?

Look up Terror birds and ask yourself what the difference is between them and your favorite T rexes and Velociraptors.

>>8208772
Na NA NANANA

>>8209229
look up "avian dinosaurs"

I would say most dinosaurs were feathered or had fur-like coats. Hollywood just doesn't want to acknowledge it and they control what the public believes about the subject

>>8208605
When you attach a weighted stick to the rear end of a chicken, the chicken then walks in a manner similar to that in which dinosaurs are thought to have walked.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088458

>>8209542
Intriguing

>>8209542
like they would really know how a dinosaur walked to make that comparison

>>8209802
Shut it ya git.

>>8209826
Hey, keep sticking things on a chicken if you like

>>8208772
You get the award for the most meaningless retort in any given conversation for the day. Congratulations.

>>8209802
You can tell a lot from bones mate

>>8208775
Birds of prey being called raptors has nothing to do with dromaeosauridae other than coincidence of shared etymology.

>>8209229
>Birds are only not dinosaurs because we defined them that way.
Mammals are only not fish because we defined them that way. All vertebrates are either fish or descendants of fish, after all.

People talk about how "dinosaurs evolved into birds rather than going extinct", but the reality is, one small species of dinosaur, entirely undeserving of the "terrible lizard" name or awe and adoration of schoolboys, evolved into birds, and the rest (including all the cool ones) went extinct.

If dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct, we wouldn't consider birds to be dinosaurs, any more than we consider birds to be reptiles. Rather, we would simply include the dinosaurs in the sauropsids with birds and reptiles, and in a smaller clade with the birds to show that the birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than to reptiles.

>>8208775
>>8210098
"Raptor" means "bird of prey", and the dinosaurs are named for their resemblance to such.

>>8210098
>>8210176
Raptor means "thief" in greek. Velociraptor = swift thief, Oviraptor is egg thief and so on.

>>8208607
If ice cores went back 65 million years. Then we could now for sure.

There could have been a Victorian level civilization before the last glacial period. Yet we will never know, because the glaciers, flooding, etc would have wiped out all traces.

Only finding ice core air samples with the kind of gases you find in heavy industry. could possibly prove the existence of intelligent civilziation before 10,000 BC.

>>8210188
After just one million years, would there be any trace left even of a fully modern civilization?

They might have climbed in their VR pods and just not really bothered to reproduce.

>>8210200
pollution products would be the best indicator.

something just don't happen in nature.

>>8210203
Sure, but would they survive in the environment for a million years?

The only thing I can think of that would likely be around for a million years would be ceramics. If they get buried in the right way, they should last like fossils in distinctly unnatural shapes.

>>8210168
>but the reality is, one small species of dinosaur, entirely undeserving of the "terrible lizard" name or awe and adoration of schoolboys
> rest (including all the cool ones) went extinct.
nope
dont know what dinos you found cool, but a lot of the popular ones are related to modern birds

>>8210207
well if they ever developed nuclear fission. then the spent fuel, weapon cores, and other high grade wastes would be a dead give away.

Even after they have decayed for million years or more. Their burial sites would just be these unnatural pockets of incredibly radioactive materials.

File: SUES.jpg (503KB, 1773x1254px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1773x1254px

>>8208605

>>8210210
>a lot of the popular ones are related to modern birds
>related to
>not in the line of descent
They're all "related to modern birds". We're all "related to fish".

You think something as big as T. rex or even velociraptor miniaturized down to bird size? No, the big ones were all on branches that just went extinct.

That's a general rule of big animals: they're on the path to extinction. The small animals have shorter lives, evolve faster, and co-exist in greater variety, and the survivors of mass extinctions tend to be small.

There was almost certainly nothing bigger than a chicken in the line of descent from fish to bird.

>>8210215
>Even after they have decayed for million years or more. Their burial sites would just be these unnatural pockets of incredibly radioactive materials.
If they're "incredibly radioactive", they won't there after a million years.

Take plutonium 239, for instance. Half-life of about 25,000 years. A million years is 40 half-lives, so if there was a tonne initially in the dump, there would be a microgram at the end of it. And that's a relatively long-lived waste.

Or take something like U-236. Half-life of about 25 million years. So it's basically all still going to exist. But how are you going to notice that it's there? It's only about 20 times as radioactive as natural uranium with its decay products, and that's not very radioactive. You're probably not going to notice that unless you go looking for it specifically in the place it was buried. Besides, uranium is relatively water soluble. It may not stay where it was put for a million years.

Fission reactors aren't even exclusively artificial. The Oklo reactor happened in nature by accident.

>>8208605

No, dinosaurs were not birds. The only reason some people are saying this - is that we aren't finding that many new dinosaurs. So what about all the people in the field and those currently studying getting ready to look for jobs? They have to completely rewrite shit so that they have something to do. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs nothing more nothing less. They weren't fucking birds and there is no proof one way or the other. How do we know they aren't just fish that walk on land? We don't but our common sense tells us that of course they aren't fish. They were most likely a mix between various birds and reptiles but were so far removed from anything today that to call them anything like that is useless. Pretending all dinosaurs were birds with pussy fucking feathers is retarded and only being used to get more money from the government and stupid universities.

>>8210287
>all this bullshit
Dinosaurs were not birds, but birds are dinosaurs.
How difficult of a concept is that to understand?
There is a lot of proof concerning feathered dinosaurs. They feathers, fuzz, scales and bare skin in varying proportions. Read a book. Just because you think feathers are for pussies (what the fuck does that even mean), because it breaks the fantastical way in which you've imagined the beasts of past, doesn't mean it's false. Your post is completely moronic.

>what is taxonomy

>>8210229
>They're all "related to modern birds". We're all "related to fish".
How dense are you? Of course I didnt mean it in this retarded "hurr everybody is related to everybody" way.
Trex is directly and very closely related to modern birds. There are very few "branches" seperating them (unlike fish and men)

>>8210287
B8

>>8210188

Or archaeological evidence. Explain how glaciers, flooding, etc. would have wiped a Victorian civilisation, but didn't wipe hunter-gatherer camps and their mateerial culture, which survived.

Here are some examples: http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.com/wxk116/StoneAge/Habitats/

If these survived, why didn't ANY remains of a Victorian civilisation, not a single tool, artwork, house, field, settlement, temple. Not a single one.

>>8210287
>I don't like the facts
>therefore they are false
>my feefees rule the Universe

>>8210168
The problem with your analogy is modern fish and humans hold few traits in common while modern birds and dinosaurs hold many traits in common.

The better analogy would be humans and marsupials. Both of which are still considered mammals.

File: nw0190annc.jpg (125KB, 577x600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 577x600px

>>8210188
I'm a geology student. This isn't accurate. The world has often had glaciers and flooding. The best examples being the several Cratonic Sequences which flooded all low lying areas and nearly completely inundated the Earth.

They didn't destroy everything. That's not how geology works.

File: o-BETTY-570.jpg (123KB, 570x380px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 570x380px

AYO
AYO HOL UP
*ruffles feathers*
WUT DEY DON'T KNOW
*grinds gizzards*
IS THAT WE
*lays egg*
WE WUZ
*eats cornmeal*
WE WUZ DINOS AND SHEEIT

Pretty much modern birds lived alongside dinosaurs

>>8213164
So did humans.

>>8208605
No birds are mutated theropods.

>>8213166
Earliest great ape didn't even live during Cretaceous

Birds have a close ancestor from the Triassic in Protoavis
And modern birds were alive during the Cretaceous and were around before the T-rex

>>8213164
modern birds are dinosaurs

>>8213196
Therapoda, yes.

>>8213204
avian dinosaurs

>>8213210
Avian therapoda

>>8213214
FlappyFlap WingMongos

>>8213193
Protoavis is a chimera. What do you mean by modern birds? Eumaniraptora? Avialae? Euavialae? Pygostylia? Ornithothoraces? Euornithes?

>>8213252
Neognathae.

>>8208605
Birds are just small dinosaurs

>>8214148
>small

If birds are just dinosaurs why don't we just call them dinosaurs?

No. Chickens are small dinosaurs.

>>8214446
I humans are just apes why don't we just call them apes?

>>8214446
All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds. It is more specific. I guess you can call them avian dinosaurs if you want to be a smart ass about it

File: 8sazjTA.jpg (64KB, 1133x705px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1133x705px

hey guys

>>8208736
Great post tbqh

File: ds.jpg (50KB, 660x519px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 660x519px

Is this picture accurate? So they were more like big angry chickens?

>>8214624
If this is supposed to be a t.rex, then no

File: bird.jpg (109KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x720px

So is this how it went? I'm getting conflicting information and its confusing

>>8214638
Not really. I think it is more about only some of them surviving the extinction event

>>8208606
underrated

>>8209674
>rotated wrists

Could you clone a dinosaur and find out? Or is it to complicated?

>>8214791
> dino DNA's half life
;_;

>>8208605
Not all dinosaurs became birds, just the small theropods. Everything else died off. You'd be amazed to hear that the lizard hipped dinos were the ones that became the birds.

>>8214835
>lizard hipped dinos

What

>>8214971
go google saurischian vs. ornithischian

>>8214971
The "bird hipped" dinosaurs where the ones without bird hips.

>>8215366
*were

>>8210168
>All vertebrates are fish or descendants of fish
Lampreys would like have a word with you.

If they could, which they can't, because they have no jaws.

>>8209229
>Look up Terror birds and ask yourself what the difference is between them and your favorite T rexes and Velociraptors.

well off the top of my head, teeth and "arms/hands" instead of wings im sure there are plenty of other diffrences

>>8208675
Why don't we just call primates mammals?

>>8210168
I'll admit that I don't know much about classification, but I always assumed that saying mammals "came from reptiles" and reptiles/amphibians "came from fish" was falacious, and that really was equally diverged from their original ancestor. Was I just wrong?

What was beak evolution like? I always thought it kind of weird that all the dinosaurs except the beaked and feathered ones died out. I was at the zoo looking a some big as tortoises, and looking at them i realized they kind of a beak like structure, is this related to how the beak evolved? Like, did it evolve from an area of the face the remained uncovered with feathers and eventually specialized into a beak? Also, do all modern birds come from flighted ancestors? As far as I know the wing only evolved for flight, and modern birds have wings (Even though the kiwi's is vestigal)

>>8212486
Underrated

That picture is retarded.

>>8208736
Kek

>>8216022
also: beaks

>>8216234
Alright, you go back in time and take one then

>>8208605
You ever seen a cassowary?

Question answered

>>8216953
No but iv'e seen an Emu, whats your point?

>>8208614
underrated

>>8208606
We can never know the truth.

Did the dinosaurs fly to another planet?

>>8219390
nah, they just chillin for a bit

>>8219390
How can flight exist if atmosphere doesn't exist?

File: 1468258210197.png (128KB, 611x672px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 611x672px

>>8219732

>>8209251
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGikhmjTSZI


THATS MY BRAVAAA

>>8216022
Velociraptors and plenty of other maniraptorans had arms and a lot of birds had teeth. Head isn't outside variation found in dinosaurs.

>>8216215
Wings may have evolved for sexual selection. Feathered dinosaurs surviving isn't exceptional, even Tyrannosauroidea had feathers.

>>8220553
Feathers evolved on theropods for no reason, remember evolution is just random mutations filtered by nature into something with consistency.

I can remember back in the day when dinos were considered reptiles.

I guess that's done then.

>>8212486
Laffed

Were dinosaurs light compared to the gravity in those days? Almost bird like?

>>8208605
Yeah m8

>>8220690
true