>Actually, Dinosaurs weren't reptiles, they're birds!

>>8676951
It's as though there's some sort of group who sits around and comes up with what they think is the most unbelievable scenarios possible, and then markets them to idiots and laughs when they buy into them.

>See that chicken? That used to be a T-Rex!

>>8676965
>See that chicken? That used to be a T-Rex!
More like see that chicken? That used to be a small chicken-like dinosaur. You can tell due to anatomical similarities between dinosaurs and most birds such as the legs being positioned under the body rather than off to the side and feathers. We can even show that chickens used to have teeth via genes that would code for teeth but have been turned off in chickens.

File: I SURE DO LOVE MILK.jpg (63KB, 325x247px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 325x247px

>look it up
>dinosaurs are still reptiles
>but birds are dinosaurs
>mfw birds are reptiles
Bravo, science.

>>8676986
Mammals are reptiles as well anon.

>>8677008
I AIN'T NO FUCKEN REPTILE

>believing in evolution

File: you know.jpg (36KB, 168x161px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 168x161px

>>8676986
Crocodiles and Alligators are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards.

File: IFLSisforFAGS.jpg (1MB, 1500x3394px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x3394px

>>8676951

God I hate "i fucking love science"

>>8676986
The truth is that all biological classifications are ultimately arbitrary, and the more specific you get the more arbitrary they get. You could sort of argue that the Kingdoms of life are meaningful and significant distinctions, but anything more than that is pretty much just slapping labels and grouping things up based on what looks good without really good rules or reasons.

>>8677189
vertebrates vs invertebrates I would argue is pretty solid.

>>8677164
They used to be OK for a fun read-- they are such crap now.