Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i thought we needed a thread that talked about dinosaurs and ppl can pose questions in hopes of getting answers..

have scientist come to a conclusion that dinosaurs were warm blooded?

also i was watching star wars attack of the clones and in the clone army planet factory...

i saw a giant reptilian alien pterodactyl fly in the middle of a storm..

got me thinking did the pterodactyl use updraft to fly and could he fly in a storm?

also did the pterodactyl have proto feathers or was any recent fossils show a flight dino with proto feathers?

also when was the last final dino extinction?

Originally posted by King Castle
have scientist come to a conclusion that dinosaurs were warm blooded?

It's still somewhat in dispute. We don't exactly have a living dinosaur to look at, conclusions about them being warm-blooded or cold-blooded are very much indirect.

Originally posted by King Castle
got me thinking did the pterodactyl use updraft to fly and could he fly in a storm?

There's no way to know if they regularly flew in storms. As of 2008 it wasn't totally clear how they flew at all.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026763.800-albatross-study-suggests-pterosaurs-were-too-big-to-fly.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3352699/Pterodactyls-were-too-heavy-to-fly-scientist-claims.html

Originally posted by King Castle
also when was the last final dino extinction?

65 million years ago. But I was into dinosaurs when I was a really little kid, so it's probably closer to 66 million years ago now.

sounds to me a pterodactyl should be more afraid of me eating him then vice versa..

new question...

do we know what was the last surviving dino to die out?

pls no gator or alligator reference..

i really like to know the final legitimate dino to be considered the last one to die out..

Originally posted by King Castle

have scientist come to a conclusion that dinosaurs were warm blooded?


In The Greatest Show on Earth Richard Dawkins says that dinosaurs weren't even reptiles; that they were their own class and only somewhat related to true reptiles. He says dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds are totally seperate and not very closely related to lizards, snakes and turtles.

About being warm-blooded, he argues that some were and some weren't. That the two-legged predators were, but not the larger four-legged grazing ones. And they can tell from looking at the structure of the bone marrow. Also since birds are warm-blooded, scientists assume that the Therapods (two-legged) must have been too.

Dinosaurs' skulls change so drastically over time that they appear to be different species during different phases of life.














Edit:

Your emphasis on the "true" in "true reptiles" indicates that you have not understood him. When he says "true reptiles" he means "modern" reptiles. Dawkins is trying to dispel the myth that any modern species is descended from another modern species.

Originally posted by King Castle
i really like to know the final legitimate dino to be considered the last one to die out.. You mean like a "I Am Legend" dino?

Originally posted by King Castle
i thought we needed a thread that talked about dinosaurs and ppl can pose questions in hopes of getting answers.. The bigger ones were gigantothermal (not sure this is how it would translate back into english). Their body mass was so big they could preserve metabolic heat thanks to the volume/surface area relation and therefore keep their temperatures constant and close to optimal levels independtly of external heat sources. They may have used heat sinks to cool down though. Extant giant turtles are like this.

The thing about cold blood and warm blood is that the terms are missleading, what should be used in consideration here is wheather metabolic heat is used as a primary mean to maintain body temperature stable. Tehre are several ways to achieve this and even some fishes and plants use metabolic heat to warm up parts of their bodies for specific functions.

Originally posted by Mindship
You mean like a "I Am Legend" dino?

Spoilers!! durhulk

Originally posted by King Castle
also when was the last final dino extinction?

i really like to know the final legitimate dino to be considered the last one to die out.. kt extinction crisis was around 65 million years ago. Dinossaurs are still alive and flying. Gators and crocs ere never dinossaurs.

i saw somewhere where scientist found out that some variations of velociraptor were in fact not velociraptor but baby T-rex that their bones simply changed and were altered as they grew to their gigantic size.

Originally posted by King Castle
i saw somewhere where scientist found out that some variations of velociraptor were in fact not velociraptor but baby T-rex that their bones simply changed and were altered as they grew to their gigantic size.

That is not going to happen. However, we used to think there was a lot of different kinds of triceratops, now were realize that as a triceratops grows, it's horns change shape.

maybe its a trick being played on us by the devil

Originally posted by King Castle
maybe its a trick being played on us by the devil

The devil? Maybe it was Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Originally posted by Deadline
Spoilers!! durhulk I should've said Omegasaur?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In The Greatest Show on Earth Richard Dawkins says that dinosaurs weren't even reptiles; that they were their own class and only somewhat related to true reptiles. He says dinosaurs, crocodiles and birds are totally seperate and not very closely related to lizards, snakes and turtles.

About being warm-blooded, he argues that some were and some weren't. That the two-legged predators were, but not the larger four-legged grazing ones. And they can tell from looking at the structure of the bone marrow. Also since birds are warm-blooded, scientists assume that the Therapods (two-legged) must have been too.

I'd imagine the larger quadrupeds were too, otherwise a 50k lbs Brontosaur would have spent all day in the sun trying to warm itself just to take a couple of steps. I know it was warmer back then, but still.

Did he cover the heat-requirement issue?

What interests me is why creatures were so big in them days, was their less gravity or maybe more oxygen in the air?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
What interests me is why creatures were so big in them days, was their less gravity or maybe more oxygen in the air? Prior to the dinosaur era (before 225 mya) there was more oxygen (hence, the giant bugs). I'm not sure about once the dinos appeared. Shows I've watched have suggested environmental pressures, ie, the predators were getting bigger, so the prey adapted by getting still larger.

Of course, one could then ask, why haven't the predators gotten huge since? My understanding is, they were getting bigger long after the dinos disappeared, but then along came that nasty ice age, which intro'd new factors not conducive to supporting overly large bodies.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
What interests me is why creatures were so big in them days, was their less gravity or maybe more oxygen in the air?

God's a size queen?

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd imagine the larger quadrupeds were too, otherwise a 50k lbs Brontosaur would have spent all day in the sun trying to warm itself just to take a couple of steps. I know it was warmer back then, but still.

Did he cover the heat-requirement issue? All the big ones were gigantothermic and therefore homeothermic.

Originally posted by 753
All the big ones were gigantothermic and therefore homeothermic.

There's no way "gigantothermic" is a real word.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no way "gigantothermic" is a real word.

Did he just call them gay?

Originally posted by Mindship
Prior to the dinosaur era (before 225 mya) there was more oxygen (hence, the giant bugs). I'm not sure about once the dinos appeared. Shows I've watched have suggested environmental pressures, ie, the predators were getting bigger, so the prey adapted by getting still larger.

Of course, one could then ask, why haven't the predators gotten huge since? My understanding is, they were getting bigger long after the dinos disappeared, but then along came that nasty ice age, which intro'd new factors not conducive to supporting overly large bodies. Yes, but not only that, the extinction crisis that killed off the big dinosaurs was more likely caused by oxygen depletion after a collapse in phytoplancton population caused byt the meteor fall than by massive plant extinction and reduction of availbale food.

The humans came and killed off the mammal megafauna.

It is, in fact, a word.

753, I didn't know any of that. Thanks for the correction. (I prefer to know what I'm talking about when being pretentious, so having more facts is always helpful.)

And in fact, those two words are different. Though he obviously meant the one you posted, he just spelled it wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
And in fact, those two words are different. Though he obviously meant the one you posted, he just spelled it wrong.

Same word, different conjugation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Same word, different conjugation.

I searched before I posted.

"gigantothermic" doesn't show in Merriam-Webster

Beside proof that Dinos do exist it is uncertain to me anyway reather there was any humans in the world at that time and what happen to them.And why they are not mention in the bible.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Beside proof that Dinos do exist it is uncertain to me anyway reather there was any humans in the world at that time and what happen to them.And why they are not mention in the bible.

1. Human were not around during the time of the dinosaurs.
2. The bible does not mention the Duckbilled Platypus, yet it does exist.
3. The bible was written millions of years after the last of the dinosaurs died out.

Good points but in the bible it said that God created the world there fore it makes sence that he had created the Dinos.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Good points but in the bible it said that God created the world there fore it makes sence that he had created the Dinos.

Then the bible is wrong about the date the Earth was created.

the bible never stated the age of the earth some dude just added all the ages and guesstimated them if they had none and came up with an arbitrarily number

Originally posted by King Castle
the bible never stated the age of the earth some dude just added all the ages and guesstimated them if they had none and came up with an arbitrarily number

That still counts in my book.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Beside proof that Dinos do exist it is uncertain to me anyway reather there was any humans in the world at that time and what happen to them.And why they are not mention in the bible.

Probably because when men wrote the bible, dinosaurs were unknown.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no way "gigantothermic" is a real word. And yet it is.

Originally posted by 753
And yet it is.

As someone else proved to me, yes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That still counts in my book. the monk dude just started giving ages to the generations..

that would be like me saying oh you have a son? u had him when u were 20 and then when he died.. oh he is dead hmmm.. he must have died when he was 50 or a 100 or a 1000... its seriously flawed system..

plus that is only taking into account the human genealogy of one group what about the ones already having a city in the desert and whatnot when cain fled?

or better yet how long between creation when god was creating stuff.. the bible never really assigned dates like this takes one day and tomorrow is another day.

the 24 hour system was created by man and then they attached it to the bible creation..

i am not jewish or Zoroastrian would really like to know what was the actual translation it it was a day, epoch or whatever..

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Good points but in the bible it said that God created the world there fore it makes sence that he had created the Dinos. It's often impossible to reconcile the fossil records with what the Bible says. This is why, IMO, some parts of the Bible are best taken as metaphors, or at least, reflections of what people knew (and thought they knew) of their world then. Certainly it would seem the Bible was not meant as a scientific text, but rather as a way for Man to establish a relationship with "God," and most importantly, how people should treat each other.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That still counts in my book.

How? The Bible never explicitly gives a time or date the Earth was created.

Interesting the bible never said a date or time but it did say in the begining.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How? The Bible never explicitly gives a time or date the Earth was created.

The bible doesn't give a lot of things explicitly that people believe with all their might. What's in the bible doesn't really matter; what is in the mind does.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How? The Bible never explicitly gives a time or date the Earth was created.

IIRC, the Earth's age comes from Bibile Scholars taking in how long Moses, Abraham etc. lived; adding it up and coming up with a 6k figure.

It's all very scientific.

just started thinking about this what did pterodactyls eat and did they have teeth?

Probably the young of other dinosaurs or smaller dinosaurs.

names, i need names.

did they chew or swallow whole?

They seem related to birds, so probably ripped off pieces and swallowed.

Originally posted by King Castle
just started thinking about this what did pterodactyls eat and did they have teeth?

Most of them had teeth.

No idea what they ate. Fish maybe?

dinosaurs didn't exist. god put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith. everyone knows the earth is 4000 years old. ask any sane christian

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most of them had teeth.

No idea what they ate. Fish maybe? would it be save for it to scoop into the water

Originally posted by Deano
dinosaurs didn't exist. god put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith. everyone knows the earth is 4000 years old. ask any sane christian

Interesting thoughts.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Interesting thoughts. that has got to be sarcasm

No it is not I really do think it was interesting.

Originally posted by Deano
dinosaurs didn't exist. god put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith. everyone knows the earth is 4000 years old. ask any sane christian

No! it is 6000 years old. I can't believe that people put out such disinformation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No! it is 6000 years old. I can't believe that people put out such disinformation.

True but it is an interesting thought.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
True but it is an interesting thought.

I was being sarcastic. Sorry, but the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was being sarcastic. Sorry, but the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

That is an interesting thought.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is an interesting thought.

What's that smell?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Beside proof that Dinos do exist it is uncertain to me anyway reather there was any humans in the world at that time and what happen to them.And why they are not mention in the bible.


Because the bibles is a fairy tale written by savages who re repeated various other ancient stories ie Krishna, Mythra, egyptian boook of the dead etc. All which are near as much the same story, but a few thousand years EARLIER than the bible.

Not only that, but the bible is so hypocritical it cannot be trusted as a historical accurate book.

So you say,That is not what I believe.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
So you say,That is not what I believe.

"True but it is an interesting thought. "

It is not for what he or she was saying about it.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is not for what he or she was saying about it.

What is not?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Because the bibles is a fairy tale written by savages who re repeated various other ancient stories ie Krishna, Mythra, egyptian boook of the dead etc. All which are near as much the same story, but a few thousand years EARLIER than the bible.

Not only that, but the bible is so hypocritical it cannot be trusted as a historical accurate book.

In what he or she is saying right here.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
In what he or she is saying right here.

Oooh... So, you didn't understand the sarcasm of my statement. Sorry, you missed it.

No I missed it I thought you were just using what I had said.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No I missed it I thought you were just using what I had said.

Water under the bridge.

Ok I argee.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Not only that, but the bible is so hypocritical it cannot be trusted as a historical accurate book.

I heard a series of lectures about the history of warfare that talks about the Bible as a historical document. Apparently, if you look at it in terms of describing the warfare that was occuring between ancient Israeli and other tribes, it works a little better and is somewhat congruent with historical record.

The specifics, ie, the life of Jesus or the individual events that happened to people, or metaphorical stories like the flood, ya, totally myth.

I know its OT, but I was really interested to learn about this. Guy devoted like 15 min to talking about how to use the Bible as a decent historical source (albeit, not as good as non-religious historical sources)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
65 million years ago. But I was into dinosaurs when I was a really little kid, so it's probably closer to 66 million years ago now.

lol, awesome.

Scientifically, how many raptors would it take to beat a T-rex that knows Kung Fu?

Originally posted by Mindset
Scientifically, how many raptors would it take to beat a T-rex that knows Kung Fu? Depends if the T-rex has a decent grappling background, but from his anatomical structure I doubt he'd be able to pull guard.

Raptors via TKO round 2

Originally posted by Mindset
Scientifically, how many raptors would it take to beat a T-rex that knows Kung Fu?

Four raptors if all they know is boxing. One with a broken leg and no eyes if it gets a katana.

couldn't you describe birds as dinosaurs - i mean lots of dinosaurs had feathers - they laid eggs - had similiar bone structure.

I mean look at an ostrich is it all that different from some dinosaurs?

Originally posted by politicsguy
couldn't you describe birds as dinosaurs - i mean lots of dinosaurs had feathers - they laid eggs - had similiar bone structure.

I mean look at an ostrich is it all that different from some dinosaurs? not like dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs.