News from ImHalfCentaur1

  1. Its to do with food and oxygen emissions more oxygen bigger the lungs bigger the body 👍

  2. This is a bot that copies popular posts. Report and downvote.

  3. We describe animals based on their evolutionary history. Birds are a lineage of archosaur, which is a magor lineage of diapsids reptiles. It’s not that complicated.

  4. I don't think that's a good system though, because that makes us fish.

  5. No, it makes us Sarcopterygians, which explains the origins of our skeletal system and are hill slits we have during development. The nested hierarchy shows the progression of traits as they appear.

  6. Let’s not bring attention to David on a sub about science.

  7. Yeah but reptiles have their own classification as well right? I really don't see why anyone would call them similar given how different they are.

  8. Reptilia is defined with the inclusion of birds. They aren’t separate, they are a lineage of archosaurian reptile just like crocs (and also maybe turtles).

  9. Chickens aren't dinosaurs though. Sure, they are very distantly related. But they are not dinosaurs. So no.

  10. Dinosauria is defined with the inclusion of birds. They are very much dinosaurs, not distantly related.

  11. Chicken World Dominian doesn't have the same ring to it now does it?

  12. Sereno, P. C. The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Systematic Biology. 54:595-619. (53)

  13. You never said anything. Dinosaurs are very much real, and we see them everyday. Birds are dinosaurs. I’m

  14. Everybody has, usually multiple times a day. Birds are dinosaurs.

  15. It’s not furry, just darker in color. It’s another species of Pygmy hippo, Hippopotamus madagascariensis.

  16. No, lack of education doesn’t make the statement less true. Birds are dinosaurs. There is no justification that makes you correct.

  17. Which is a mind-blowingly stupid argument to make in this context

  18. We don’t use classes anymore, Linnaean Taxonomy was abandoned in favor of phylogenetics.

  19. There are some definitions of Dinosauria that don't include Passer in the definition. But they are included in the clade either way.

  20. Those definitions aren’t used, however. The simplest reason for people to understand is that the group is defined with the inclusion.

  21. No, the concept of “more advanced” is arbitrary and doesn’t reflect the actual ecosystems of the Cretaceous. Yes, mammals were diversifying, but they were limited by competition from much larger dinosaurs. There is no reason to believe that dinosaurs would have been less successful had the asteroid not hit.

  22. We don't actually know for sure, just have a lot of contributing theories. The prevailing idea is that environmental factors (such as increased oxygen and co2 in the air compared to now) allowed for animals with larger lung capacity and therefore larger bodies to develop. The climate was also significantly warmer and wetter causing more vegetation to grow which provided animals with more resources than what's available today. Having more food available would allow for animals to grow larger

  23. Dinosaurs are not and have never been "birds". But some extinct birds might be called "dinosaurs".

  24. This is completely incorrect. Birds are dinosaurs in the same way you are a primate, a mammal, a tetrapod, and a vertebrate. You never escape the nested hierarchy of your classification.

  25. This really isn’t forced perspective. Saltwater crocodiles are literally dinosaurs and absolute units.

  26. Birds are dinosaurs, crocodylians are a sister lineage to them, but still united under Archosauria.

  27. It’s just fossil with a preserved fetal skeleton. Not the only one we have, it’s just very well preserved.

  28. It’s a legitimate fossil published in a legitimate paper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed