Added: 2 years ago
From: NationalGeographic
Views: 10,504
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (100)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Cool looking spkey dinosaurs. I wonder how long it will take for the new PREHISTORIC CHANNEL to be available on dish network.

  • Sure, the plates were for display, but the spikes were weapons.

    McWhinney LA, Rothschild BM & Carpenter K (2001). "Posttraumatic Chronic Osteomyelitis in Stegosaurus dermal spikes". in Carpenter, Kenneth(ed). The Armored Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. pp. 141156. ISBN 0-253-33964-2.

    Shut up, Horner.

  • It's why I lift weights. I never want to beat anyone up, and hope I am never faced with that situation (because I would probably loose regardless) I do it because the ladies often like a fit body.

  • the triceratops is awesome!

  • cool i love this chanle

  • dinosaurs are a lie, no evidence

  • ya thare is dino bones :)

  • Comment removed

  • "an animal does not have to defend itself every year, but it does have to mate every year" was that guy serious...? it's more like - an animal have to defend itself every sec, but does not have to mate every year.

  • its all about sex

  • good

  • i'm sick of those GIECO ads

  • fart poop fuck. :)

  • Sexy.

  • makes alot of sence to me !

  • you know what doesn't? Your horrific spelling of the word "sense"

  • waw it didnt know it was a crime to spell a word wrong !

  • you'd think they'd get the hand postures right....This is very cool.

  • KOOKIES!!!

  • Oh yeah also, I thought this video was pretty neat. It's difficult to decide on which theory works best without the stegosauruses being alive today obviously. This is an example of an argument that would be made so much easier with a time machine haha

  • (following up from below) into RNA, and go through chemical evolution. These chemicals are theorized to come from very earthly processes (volcanoes, atmoshperic gases, etc.) and the earth came from cosmological forces (very simply put). However, I still believe in God, and still believe in all of this scientific information, but I do not identify God as being the same "being" that many religions identify. Science is man's attempt (often times successful) at understanding God.

  • Awesome video!

  • I don't think this video is denying Gods existence but I understand how threatened you must feel at the very sight of a (gulp) dinosaur.

  • dang...imagine if that happens to humans in the human context..that means all the ugly ppl would die off b/c their display is not good enough.

    n sadly..i think im one of em,lol

  • lmao displays of your personality or monetary value also work, it happens all the time, so no worries mate

  • interesting

  • 1) There are thousands of transitional fossils, here is large list of just some of them: tinyurl*com/FossilEvidence

    2) No one says complex systems happened by random chance, this is a straw-man. Natural selection by definition is a non-random process

    3) Things like vestigial structures show ID is actually not written all over throughout animals

    4) The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution = biology, big bang = physical cosmology - two completely different subjects

  • I agree in the sense that natural selection is non-random, however, the genetic diversity produced in an individual species is very random, and the possibility of one individual getting a certain set of genes with so many available is very random. Also, I feel like even though biology and physical cosmology are different sciences they still relate to this earth, and how life developed on this earth. Before any life formed on earth it took basic molecules to arrange themselves...

  • basically to me:

    Science (evolution)

    and religion are two different things, two different stories

  • "Intelligent design is written all over and throughout humans, animals, and earth"

    where?

    and who says evolution is random chance?

  • Thanks for the response. The complex systems of the mind, senses, eco-system, nervous system, respiratory system, cardio vascular system, reproduction, ability to learn, feeling, and emotion are tip of the iceberg of the wisdom and greatness of the greatest inventor of History.

  • ok...

    great...

    but how? what is your proof?  how do all things you mentioned prove a designer?

  • lies all lies

  • TheGeneral159: Responding with a counter question. How does it not show a designer? For instance if we viewed the monalisa & said the paint over LONG LONG LONG periods of TIME because of its ENVIRONMENT formed this stunning resemblance of a woman. Utterly ridiculous! No one in their right mind would believe that! Functioning in a logical manner presupposes a designer. Therefore should we deny the beauty and depth of wisdom in its being, because we cannot see it's creator?.... second post...

  • Its easy not to deny the monalisa's creator because it has no effect on whats happening now. I fear, that some(Christians,Religious folk,agnostics, & atheists)don't act rationally. The fear of having to change ones self. If intelligent design isn't true then there would be no absolute moral standard, no laws of logic, ex.... giving no accountability to a creator. Thus instead of following logic and ration, they follow the desires of their heart, even though they know it not as truth.

  • but we can prove that the mona lisa was created, we have evidence. your evidence consists of a logical fallacy known as appeal to emotion.

    and absolute moral standard? there are no absolutes.

    and its not the evironment that forms the individuals, but rather natural selection choosing which ones will be best suited to the environment.

    you dont see fish in a desert for a reason.

  • To The General159 thank you for the response. I enjoy our conversation! You stated, "there are no absolutes. " are you absolutely sure?

    "your evidence consists of a logical fallacy known as appeal to emotion" I agree that this does happened. I believe it is not a sound teaching and truly wrong. BUT to think that every single time someone mentions God is an appeal to emotion is Poisoning the Well and shows that one lacks the knowledge (science) to defend a correct view of the topic at hand.

  • "are you absolutely sure? "

    can you prove that i am wrong?

    "BUT to think that every single time someone mentions God is an appeal to emotion is Poisoning the Well and shows that one lacks the knowledge (science) to defend a correct view of the topic at hand."

    oh yea? then WHY do you think that there is just ONE god? how do you know there is not multiple gods?

    how do you know it was not aliens? why is it only one god the designer? why must it be a god? is it the only god?

  • Indeed, it's guided by natural selection, survival of the fittest genes, sexual selection, etc.

    Meanwhile there's so many things wrong that if there were a designer it/she/he must have been blind or nearly so. The universe and life itself are far from finely tuned (even now I am suffering from my wisdom teeth!) Irreducible complexity has been refuted. Evolution best fits what we see today.

  • Then where did we come from? What did we evolve from? How many changes did we go through? How long did these evolution cycles take? How come I cant see any of our ancestors bones? What are we evolving into?

  • Woohoo!!! High five!

  • goddiditgoddiditgoddiditgoddid­itgoddiditgoddidigoddiditgoddi­ditgoddidittgoddiditgoddiditgo­ddiditgoddiditgoddiditgoddidit­goddiditgoddiditgoddiditgoddid­itgoddiditgoddiditgoddiditgodd­iditgoddiditgoddiditgoddiditgo­ddiditgoddiditgoddiditgoddidit­goddiditgoddiditgoddiditgoddid­itgoddiditgoddiditgoddiditgodd­iditgoddidigoddiditgoddiditgod­didittgoddiditgoddiditgoddidit­goddiditgoddiditgoddiditgoddid­itgoddiditgoddiditgoddiditgodd­iditgoddiditgoddidit You certainly have said enough! YOU! OUTTA THE GENE POOL!

  • If God were real, then It created your brain. Wouldn't God also want you to use it?

  • Logical fallacy - false dichotomy

    One can believe in God while accepting evolution - many people of all religions do.

  • haha lolwut??? proof?

  • Well.. some lizards today still have these features.. example the iguana (to a lesser extent). The same could go for them: why do they grow those useless spikes along their back?

    Not everything truly serves a vital purpose.. humans survive just find without their appendix, actually most of the time they are better off!

    These plates are the same way, people put too much thought into it. They are for attracting mates, or for no reason whatsoever.

  • it ain't the size of the spikes its the motion in the ocean XD

  • Doh! o_O LOL!!!

  • I think mating would be a biological purpose.

  • In my opinion I think it was a combination of both. Used to cool/heat the animals and Used for display for mating/attracting the opposite sex.....But who knows??

  • I love how badly lit the 3D models are in this clip...

  • Most predators were taller than these guys, maybe theyy usually attacked from the top?

    It still looks cool...

  • They talk about the plates and spike on the stegosaurs being for sex...they must have had to mate VERY CAREFULLY!  Ouch!!!

  • Some animals like it rough.  Google for "cat penis".

  • ouch

  • um... if it was for display then we get results like peacocks' tails... not horns n stuff -.- the horns helped the dino's surrive to then be able to have sex >_>

  • why wud u think that? different animals have different displays. u dont see us with beautiful peacock feathers.

  • im saying some features are for display while others are for attack or defence. humans' pretty face for ex... display or defence? sharp horns... display or defence... peacock tails.. display or defence?... i think my point is clear.

  • Yeah true, but also some things may be for competition between males of a species for the females. With horns and antlers it may be hard to distinguish between defense and mate competition without more evidence of how they were primarily used. But of course there are things with obvious applications in defense like a porcupines quills.

  • actually its not clear. because you dont know dinosaurs. yuv never seen one or anything so who are you to say that its not possible? what ELSE do stegs have for attractiveness?

  • almost anything is possiable but i mean the chances are small. and attractiveness is mainly determained by health... u may find a girl with a healthy body attractive but can u tell if an animal other than human is attractive to the oppsite sex of that species? no u cant. but members of that species of anime prob can. what animals can tell apart from attractiveness is weapons... an animal weather human or pig can tell long sharp teeth is for attacking and a rhino horn is for.. well im sure u know

  • Wait, wait, wait.... I thought dinosaurs laid eggs?!?!?

    What the fuck.... they're reptiles, reptiles do lay eggs!!!

  • so do birds... and some mammals... look it up...

  • fucking geiko ads piss me the fuck off, I hate them!

  • science is fake, there were no dinosaurs, there are no fossils, there is no evolution!!! find jesus or BURN HEATHENS!!!

    lol jk

  • what u arent seeing is maybe there were for scaring off rather then fighting jeez it not that hard to see

  • he did say that they could have been to say " i am bigger and stronger than you"

  • no i was talking to the guy that said dinosaurs were defeneless

  • Display in the end is all about sex...:D

  • get sum ov dat dino poon tang

  • sex sells back then & even today

    it s all about sex

  • Yeah cuz you no they had money and paid whores back then...retard

  • *they had money & paid whores back then*

    u don t think when u type, do u? LOL

  • Neither do you....ever herd of sarcasm???!!

  • Comment removed

  • Cool! I love dinosaurs!!

  • "All about sex" didn't see that coming .

  • If Sarah Palin were there she might have explained that cavewomen used those dino head knobs for personal pleasure.

  • Makes sense. Look at modern birds. Many have colorings and feathers that serve no purpose other than attracting mates.

  • this kinda ruined dinosaurs for me!!! I'm gonna keep saying that it was for fighting!

    "it was all for sex"?! booooooo, you suck!

  • No kidding. How the heck are we gonna argue over who would win between a stegasaurus and a triceratops if if all they want to do is fuck?

  • I think the big plates were to pick up the AM/FM bands...

  • those plates were probably heat sinks.

  • interesting...

  • i was a dinosaur once.

  • lmao

  • I see the peanut sized brain certainly has carried over =P

  • 4:22

    epic "Science Sex Term" fail

    in OTHER words

    "Hey i got a bigger boner then that guy"

  • Hmm, interesting.

  • is that peter cullen?

  • THANK YOU i new those plates were worthless most animals attack by the side not to mention the plates sharpness and thiness it would not provide much defense against areal attacks. my opinion is the plates used as regulators do to the blood vessals the end spikes at the tail might actuall provide some weapon defense. overall the plates look intimidating to a potencial foe. although as defeseless then it really is not so bright preditors might have seen that as a prey item to strong for them.

  • 2

    haha

  • yay for you.

  • Great Video, really interesting :)

Loading...
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more