If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Everything you know about dinosaurs is wrong   (cosmiclog.nbcnews.com) divider line 73
    More: Interesting, dinosaurs, Brian Switek, Allosaurus, biology, Triassic, history of science, triceratops, paleontology  
•       •       •

4906 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 May 2013 at 7:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-02 11:59:59 AM  
Meh.  Should have been "What if I told you..."
 
2013-05-02 12:03:00 PM  

Timid Goddess: pkellmey: Saying birds are "modern dinosaurs" completely misses the point of evolution and differentiation. All living things are at least distantly related to each other, but humans are not considered "modern bacteria" by most scientists.

No, but we are considered apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangatans.


If you hear the phrase "humans are modern apes" from anyone, please report them to your nearest science lab.
 
2013-05-02 12:08:37 PM  

pkellmey: Timid Goddess: pkellmey: Saying birds are "modern dinosaurs" completely misses the point of evolution and differentiation. All living things are at least distantly related to each other, but humans are not considered "modern bacteria" by most scientists.

No, but we are considered apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangatans.

If you hear the phrase "humans are modern apes" from anyone, please report them to your nearest science lab.


In other words, nothing is "modern" about humans compared to other apes. We are just related through evolutionary branches. More recent, possibly.
 
2013-05-02 12:30:40 PM  

pkellmey: Saying birds are "modern dinosaurs" completely misses the point of evolution and differentiation. All living things are at least distantly related to each other, but humans are not considered "modern bacteria" by most scientists.


But we are considered "mammals".  That's the sort of distinction we're talking about here.
 
2013-05-02 12:33:45 PM  

MayoSlather: What I do know is that a velociraptor is no match for a 13 year old girl that excels at gymnastics.


And yet, they can completely outwit a trained professional with a gun.
 
2013-05-02 12:47:09 PM  

pkellmey: pkellmey: Timid Goddess: pkellmey: Saying birds are "modern dinosaurs" completely misses the point of evolution and differentiation. All living things are at least distantly related to each other, but humans are not considered "modern bacteria" by most scientists.

No, but we are considered apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangatans.

If you hear the phrase "humans are modern apes" from anyone, please report them to your nearest science lab.

In other words, nothing is "modern" about humans compared to other apes. We are just related through evolutionary branches. More recent, possibly.


There are less modern apes so why wouldn't humans be modern apes? No one specified which species of bird was a modern dinosaur, so why shouldn't we apply the same broad principle to all current apes? It is not like the term "modern" is a zero sum game in which only one species can be called "modern."

/a chimpanzee is a modern ape
//so are gorillas
/and humans
 
2013-05-02 01:09:31 PM  

dittybopper: MayoSlather: What I do know is that a velociraptor is no match for a 13 year old girl that excels at gymnastics.

And yet, they can completely outwit a trained professional with a gun.


Clever girls.  It comes down to which girl has the most clever.
 
2013-05-02 01:59:32 PM  

MayoSlather: What I do know is that a velociraptor is no match for a 13 year old girl that excels at gymnastics.


It's brilliant strategy of just standing there watching her slowly vault her way down might have been it's Achilles heel.

/Maybe that raptor went to hunting classes on the short bus?
 
2013-05-02 02:01:09 PM  
I make a short bus joke, and then throw apostrophes around like they're going out of fashion.
Next time, preview.

*sigh*
 
2013-05-02 02:33:43 PM  

cystis: Biological classification is done through recognizing natural clades, meaning a group that contains an ancestor and all of its descendants. Scientifically, it is helpful when the names of organisms mean something specific. This definition can create problems as you mentioned- sponges are likely multiple groups meaning that we are all technically sponges, unless we split sponges into multiple phyla. The same thing goes with fish, we are all fish unless we differentiate fish into lobe-fined, cartilaginous, and ray finned.

A useful way to think of it is to imagine if all mammals went extinct except for primates, would we no longer be mammals then?

/paleontologist that just finished teaching a class on dinosaurs


Even if we differentiate fish into those groups, we're still fish.  The only way we aren't is if we make it a paraphyletic group.  I have nothing against all vertebrates being technically considered fish, but paraphyletic groups are much easier to use in daily life.  "Non-tetrapod fish" is almost as unwieldly as "non-avian dinosaurs".

As far as the mammals/primates thing, I've recently started using almost the same analogy, but using bats instead of primates.  Birds : dinosaurs :: bats : mammals (if all other mammals went extinct, at least).
 
2013-05-02 02:51:28 PM  

pkellmey: pkellmey: Timid Goddess: pkellmey: Saying birds are "modern dinosaurs" completely misses the point of evolution and differentiation. All living things are at least distantly related to each other, but humans are not considered "modern bacteria" by most scientists.

No, but we are considered apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangatans.

If you hear the phrase "humans are modern apes" from anyone, please report them to your nearest science lab.

In other words, nothing is "modern" about humans compared to other apes. We are just related through evolutionary branches. More recent, possibly.


"Extant" is probably more in line with the original intent than "modern".
 
2013-05-02 02:56:06 PM  

Ostman: MayoSlather: What I do know is that a velociraptor is no match for a 13 year old girl that excels at gymnastics.

It's brilliant strategy of just standing there watching her slowly vault her way down might have been it's Achilles heel.

/Maybe that raptor went to hunting classes on the short bus?


You know, as stupid as scene is, the lack of reaction by the raptor isn't.

Prey doesn't often come *AT* you, it runs *FROM* you.   Things that charge at you are potentially things that can hurt you.   I could easily see a predator with the brain capacity of, at most, a small cat being hesitant, or perhaps even momentarily stunned, that something is coming at them instead of running away.

Don't forget the main goal of a predator is to  eat with the minimal amount of risk to itself.
 
2013-05-02 03:04:07 PM  

Erix: cystis: Biological classification is done through recognizing natural clades, meaning a group that contains an ancestor and all of its descendants. Scientifically, it is helpful when the names of organisms mean something specific. This definition can create problems as you mentioned- sponges are likely multiple groups meaning that we are all technically sponges, unless we split sponges into multiple phyla. The same thing goes with fish, we are all fish unless we differentiate fish into lobe-fined, cartilaginous, and ray finned.

A useful way to think of it is to imagine if all mammals went extinct except for primates, would we no longer be mammals then?

/paleontologist that just finished teaching a class on dinosaurs

Even if we differentiate fish into those groups, we're still fish.  The only way we aren't is if we make it a paraphyletic group.  I have nothing against all vertebrates being technically considered fish, but paraphyletic groups are much easier to use in daily life.  "Non-tetrapod fish" is almost as unwieldly as "non-avian dinosaurs".

As far as the mammals/primates thing, I've recently started using almost the same analogy, but using bats instead of primates.  Birds : dinosaurs :: bats : mammals (if all other mammals went extinct, at least).


Well, Lobe-fin fish are going to be paraphyletic no matter what, but I thought Actinopteygii and Chondrichthyes were monopheletic.  I am really better with invert phylogenies.
 
2013-05-02 03:08:50 PM  

cystis: Erix: cystis: Biological classification is done through recognizing natural clades, meaning a group that contains an ancestor and all of its descendants. Scientifically, it is helpful when the names of organisms mean something specific. This definition can create problems as you mentioned- sponges are likely multiple groups meaning that we are all technically sponges, unless we split sponges into multiple phyla. The same thing goes with fish, we are all fish unless we differentiate fish into lobe-fined, cartilaginous, and ray finned.

A useful way to think of it is to imagine if all mammals went extinct except for primates, would we no longer be mammals then?

/paleontologist that just finished teaching a class on dinosaurs

Even if we differentiate fish into those groups, we're still fish.  The only way we aren't is if we make it a paraphyletic group.  I have nothing against all vertebrates being technically considered fish, but paraphyletic groups are much easier to use in daily life.  "Non-tetrapod fish" is almost as unwieldly as "non-avian dinosaurs".

As far as the mammals/primates thing, I've recently started using almost the same analogy, but using bats instead of primates.  Birds : dinosaurs :: bats : mammals (if all other mammals went extinct, at least).

Well, Lobe-fin fish are going to be paraphyletic no matter what, but I thought Actinopteygii and Chondrichthyes were monopheletic.  I am really better with invert phylogenies.


Oh, I get you.  I just meant that no matter how we subdivide it, the group "fish" is always going to be paraphyletic.  I'm also better with my invert paleo than the vert stuff.
 
2013-05-02 03:15:06 PM  

cystis: Well, Lobe-fin fish are going to be paraphyletic no matter what, but I thought Actinopteygii and Chondrichthyes were monopheletic. I am really better with invert phylogenies.


You're at Cincinnati?  A guy I went to PSU with recently started teaching in the geology department there.  Also, I'm amazed to see someone actually put real info in their Fark profile!
 
2013-05-02 03:23:41 PM  

Erix: cystis: Well, Lobe-fin fish are going to be paraphyletic no matter what, but I thought Actinopteygii and Chondrichthyes were monopheletic. I am really better with invert phylogenies.

You're at Cincinnati?  A guy I went to PSU with recently started teaching in the geology department there.  Also, I'm amazed to see someone actually put real info in their Fark profile!


Well, I just realized that before you mentioned it. I made this profile ~8-10 years ago (when I was attending UC) and have only use it a few times and didn't realize my contact info was in there. But then again, there is no harm in leaving a long dead email address out for people to see. I finished at UC a year before he started I think.
 
2013-05-02 03:29:52 PM  

dittybopper: Ostman: MayoSlather: What I do know is that a velociraptor is no match for a 13 year old girl that excels at gymnastics.

It's brilliant strategy of just standing there watching her slowly vault her way down might have been it's Achilles heel.

/Maybe that raptor went to hunting classes on the short bus?

You know, as stupid as scene is, the lack of reaction by the raptor isn't.

Prey doesn't often come *AT* you, it runs *FROM* you.   Things that charge at you are potentially things that can hurt you.   I could easily see a predator with the brain capacity of, at most, a small cat being hesitant, or perhaps even momentarily stunned, that something is coming at them instead of running away.

Don't forget the main goal of a predator is to  eat with the minimal amount of risk to itself.



Anything in the wild with that kind of reaction time would be dead in no time. Look at a lion being charged by "prey" animals, or larger birds of prey being chased away from their kill / scavenging by land based scavengers. They move quickly to remove themselves from danger, or they demonstrate their size or ferocity, or if things get very bad they fight back.

Nowhere do they slowly approach their prey for dramatic purposes, and then stand sideways to the threat coming towards them while ignoring the cornered prey that's literally within arms reach! I'm not sure what the raptor's master plan was, but putting itself in the worst possible position to counter either threat wasn't exactly a recipe for success.
 
2013-05-02 03:49:03 PM  

Ostman: Nowhere do they slowly approach their prey for dramatic purposes, and then stand sideways to the threat coming towards them while ignoring the cornered prey that's literally within arms reach!


I've seen frogs do that, or at least a variation on it.

/littlebopper has kept tree frogs
//You can *SEE* the programming in their brains.
///They used frog DNA in both the book and the movie to fill in the DNA gaps.
 
2013-05-02 03:56:08 PM  

MayoSlather: What I do know is that a velociraptor is no match for a 13 year old girl that excels at gymnastics.


And UNIX!
 
2013-05-02 08:10:08 PM  
You know what's awesome? Humans are related to this guy:

upload.wikimedia.org

SYNAPSIDS RULE!!
 
2013-05-03 01:19:36 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You know what's awesome? Humans are related to this guy:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x478]

SYNAPSIDS RULE!!


My hair does that, sometimes.
 
2013-05-03 08:06:02 AM  

Blargosaurus: Keizer_Ghidorah: You know what's awesome? Humans are related to this guy:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x478]

SYNAPSIDS RULE!!

My hair does that, sometimes.


Mine too (see my profile).
 
2013-05-03 01:31:56 PM  

indarwinsshadow: dittybopper: indarwinsshadow: I've always wondered about the efficiency of dino lungs. There must have been more oxygen 65 mya. Either that, or their bodies must of have been mostly lungs.

Same strategy birds use:  Unidirectional flow.

Bird lungs aren't dead-end sacks like ours.

Check out the animations on that page.  The upshot of it is that even when they are exhaling, they are extracting oxygen from the air because air only flows one way through their actual lungs.

Actually, that answered all the questions I've wondered about birds and dinosaurs. I've always wondered how dinosaurs managed to breathe enough air to keep their systems purged of co2. I guessed they must have had higher than normal heart rates and a more efficient cardiopulmonary system than modern reptiles, or, they were sluggish and mediated their body temperature and respitory rate based on movement and couldn't continue long stretches of intense excerise without reaching unacceptable levels of ketosis.


I seem to remember 10-15 years ago scientists had tested air bubbles trapped in Cretaceous Amber and found that the oxygen levels were higher than today.  The theory was there was just a shiat ton more plants pumping out oxygen at that time.
 
Displayed 23 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report