Could you explain why native Americans knew about dinosaurs dont evolutionist believe that people and dinosaurs [never breathed the same air] to quote several preachers from the past lol.
why did birds and dinosaurs co exist there is proof that people knew about dinosaurs in prehistoric times not only carvings but proof that they coexisted just like how they have proven that people have pretty much always been the same
the statement that birds = dinosaurs is the same as reptiles = amphibians. Somewhere along the line the ancestors of reptiles stopped being amphibians. There's no point trying to draw a line here. It is simply useful today to distinguish birds from dinosaurs.. in the same way that it is useful to distinguish reptiles from amphibians.
@28crucis No. What you are doing is arbitrary, which is why paraphyletic groups are discouraged. If you're going to say that birds are not reptiles, then you should say the same about dinosaurs because they are warm blooded like birds, many of them had feathers like birds, and many of them had bone structures that are very similar to birds. For the record, Amphibia sensu lato IS a paraphyletic group. Tetrapoda is monophyletic, which reptiles are part of.
Wow, i was so proud of your other videos then i saw this and thought, WTF!...but yet again you prove your worth by decimating yet another falsehood. Congrats.
in the course of evolution, former genes stay in the bodies ,only they are turned off,....now scientist are so sure about this that they are trying to turn on or wake up those dormant dinosaur genes in birds and recreate dinosaurs...google this : "Jurassic Park comes true: How scientists are bringing dinosaurs back to life with the help of the humble chicken"
The way we classify animals seems to me to be kind of messed up, I've never been able to tell why Birds aren't reptiles any more than I can tell why we aren't reptiles. I understand that we lack the defining traits but it seems like saying we're drawing arbitrary lines in the dirt. We both came from reptiles, after all. There were haired reptiles at one point, too. I seem to recall AronRa having a video going over something like that, what do you think of it? Also, which dinosaurs flew exactly?
So we're all descendants of amphibians then? I had assumed we began as reptiles too due to the scaley way I always see animals like Dimetrodon depicted.
@EnigmaHood humans didnt came from monkeys -_- the Bomb i made got into 3 women and they started producing 25 babies each year now u understand i bet u do birds came from the moon duhh reptiles came from planet 52megala i live there i got prooof 2
Actually birds have scales too. On their feet, there is scaly skin which is, in a way, "genetic leftovers" (pardon the unprofessional term) from their ancestors. This is similar to how we humans have an vermiform appendix that our ancestors had. However you're presentation was well founded, as a tip to you, I suggest adding a bit more evidence as to why birds are dinosaurs. I have a PhD in paleontology, and if you would like any help I would gladly help contribute.
This has got to be the smartest group of youtubers I've ever seen. I would not call birds actual dinosaurs, simply because of the enormous amount of derived characteristics they have since evolved, but I certainly would consider them the extant group of animals that is most closely related to them. Dinosaurs were a sort of branch off of reptiles, and birds a branch off of dinosaurs. For that reason, I also would not say that reptiles and birds are that closely related. Great video, though!
@MelyssaAKASkittlez What you're saying doesn't make sense. Derived characteristics means they inherited those characteristics from their non-avian ancestors, that's more reason to consider them dinosaurs and reptiles. Some non-avian dinosaurs had feathers, some had beaks, some could even fly. In any case, your criteria is rather arbitrary. Dinosaurs and birds are directly descended from reptiles, so they are considered as such. To not include them, makes reptilia a paraphyletic group.
@EnigmaHood Derived means a trait was inherited, but has since changed. Birds inherited feathers from dinosaurs, but asymmetrical flight feathers are derived because they evolved later. Beaks the way they are now were likely different in even the first birds, so they are not directly inherited, either. Wings contain 3 digits like dinosaurs did, but those joints and their positions are different. Too much has changed physically to phyletically call birds dinosaurs, that's all I'm saying.
No, that's not what it means, it means it was inherited from its ancestors. Other dinosaurs were probably capable of flight like the microraptor. So what if their beaks are different? So what of their digit positions are different? Our ancestors had different digit positions too, does that mean we aren't primates? For the record, dinosaurs had varying numbers of digits. It also doesn't matter if they changed a lot or a little, if they are directly descended from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs.
@EnigmaHood I am taking a biological science class now. We just studied shared primitive and shared derived characteristics. Yes it matters how much they changed; that's the difference between the two. Dinosaurs did not fly; if it flew, it was already a bird. Your taxonomy is mixed up, too. Aves (birds) is a class and primata is an order. These are different levels and can't be compared in this situation. It's like comparing a lion and a wolf because both are of the order carnivora.
@MelyssaAKASkittlez Good for you, but you're wrong. No it doesn't matter how much they have changed. That's your own, arbitrary, pointless, and stupid criteria. SOME DINOSAURS FLEW FOR THE THIRD TIME. Should we classify penguins as different from aves since they can't fly? Actually no, my taxonomy isn't mixed up, BECAUSE I WASN'T SAYING PRIMATES WAS A CLASS YOU MORON. I was making a point to show you that your digits argument was idiotic. Just having a slight change in the digit placement..
... doesn't suddenly make it a new group of animals. In fact, my example is even more appropriate because Orders are a more specific taxonomic group that allows for less genetic variation than a broader group like Classes. I don't even have to be that broad, Hominids are an even more specific group, a family that includes chimps and gorillas which have different digit placement than we do, yet we are still Hominids. You are an imbecile, and imbeciles don't get to post on my channel, good bye.
@EnigmaHood Also,it is irrelevant in this discussion how many digits other dinos had because birds did not evolve from all dinos;they evolved from therapods.The therapods birds are believed to have evolved from had 3digits.Primitive and derived characteristsics are relative depending on what ancestor you are comparing to.I forgot to mention that.So 3digits in birds is derived compared to a 4digit ancestor,and is primitive compared to therapods.But wings are always derived since dinos didn't fly.
@MelyssaAKASkittlez Not all theropods had three digits, so no you're wrong still. Again no, some dinosaurs probably flew, like the microraptor, I already told you that.
@EnigmaHood all land animals evolved from amphibians...are we still amphibians? Birds and dinosaurs are related in the same way. birds all have a common ancestor of dinosaur and they can never leave that ancestry, however they have accumulated enough differences to have changed basic classifications. also not all dinosaurs had avian hip bones.
@JEL625 Geeze you're a fucking idiot. We didn't evolve from amphibians, we evolved from amniotes, which we are. No, you are making up your own retarded, stupid, arbitrary rules that HAVE NO PLACE IN SCIENCE. I blocked you again because I don't argue with fools.
@KillerBee256 Amphibians refers to modern day amphibians. Whether the tetrapods that lived back then were virtually identical to amphibians or not is currently unknown. If it is true that they were identical to modern day amphibians then amphibia would be a paraphyletic group.
@EnigmaHood okay I understand, early tetapods without a doubt had the same reproduction strategy as modern amphibians, at least the base line ones did. So I think of them as amphibians, but in truth amphibians are just baseline tetapods.
@ma049 There is a lot of debate within the scientific community about whether or not dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. There are many scientists who believe that birds evolved from tree-dwelling reptiles that had nothing to do with the dinosaurs. Also, the idea that the fossils of dinosaurs with "feathers" on them actually had feathers has been disputed, and refuted. There is no real evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, just tabloid journalism. They print whatever sells.
@EnigmaHood There is a huge controversy about this in the ornithologist community, and I am not even talking about the scientists who advocate creation or intelligent design, I am talking about ardent evolutionists who do not agree with what tabloids like National Geographic have published. Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian is an example of the NGEO critics. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina is another example of a dino-to-bird critic.
@GreenSlugg No there isn't. There's only a controversy among creationist idiots who believe in god, even though it's unscientific and was just made up by morons who knew nothing about science.
@EnigmaHood Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian is an example of the NGEO critics. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina is another example of a dino-to-bird critic.
"No there isn't. There's only a controversy among creationist idiots who believe in god, even though it's unscientific and was just made up by morons who knew nothing about science." - EnigmaHood
Are these scientists from highly respected universities morons who know nothing about science?
@GreenSlugg Yes they are morons because birds not only evolved from dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs, and that is accepted within the scientific community and is supported by peer reviewed scientific journals.
ok. birds are dinosaurs. specifically they are a subset of therapod dinosaur. dinosaurs are subset of reptile. mammals evolved from reptiles too. they are sometimes referred to as proto mammals (see synapsids eg dimetrodon). so cladistically speaking birds are dinosaurs and never stopped being dinosaurs. the exact same way that snakes are still lizards and humans and apes are still monkeys, by both definition and derivation.
Saying that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs because they are dinosaurs is pretty weak. That's like saying that humans didn't evolve from some kind of proto-bacteria because we are bacteria. Evolution is change over time. Dinosaurs changed into birds. That's evolution.
I do like your other videos though. This one just doesn't make sense.
@CCKsoldier I didn't say that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. The first line in the video said, "while this statement is technically true..."
It's just a title, don't get too hung up over it. It would also be nice if you read some of the comments. The comment at the top of the page here already addressed your concern.
I wouldn't think this is such a bad misconception. I mean it's far worse to believe that birds didn't evolve at all, than to believe they are a separate group that evolved from another group. It's mostly a matter of semantics.
Yes, yes, yes, sorry, sorry. But it still seems too much to call it a "misconception". The actual misconception is that people tend to believe that you can evolve OUT of a clade.
When someone asks me why i say birds are dinos i answer "For pretty much the same reason a T-Rex is a dino: a bird is the son, grandson and great grandson of a dino". So what you evolved from makes you what you are.
Perhaps it would be better to expand the title. Or to change it to "Birds USED to be dinos"
@MartianSanta That proposal is idiotic. No you can't, because mammals did not evolve from reptiles. I don't really care what you prefer I say, what you prefer is not science. All of the animals in the group reptiles, are reptiles, but not all of them are cold blooded, nor do they need to be.
@EnigmaHood "... because mammals did not evolve from reptiles." According to any evolutionist source, mammals did indeed evolve from reptiles. Also, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and amphibians evolved from fish. Fish evolved from worms (with a lot of stages in between). Worms evolved from sponges, (with a lot of stages in between). Of course, sponges evolved from bacteria (with a lot of stages in between), and bacteria evolved from archaea, which somehow came from nonliving chemicals.
@GreenSlugg Can you stop saying "evolutionist"? There's no such thing as an evolutionist, just like there's no such thing as a gravitationalist. And no, mammals did not evolve from reptiles, they evolved from an earlier ancestor called synapsids.
@EnigmaHood synapsids were supposed to be part of the transition from reptiles to mammals. Reptiles evolved into synapsids, which evolved into mammals as we would define a mammal. You can send any of my comments to any paleontologist and ask them to double check my accuracy if you do not believe me. (According to mainstream evolutionary ideas.) Send it to a Harvard professor. Ask them.
@GreenSlugg Reptiles did NOT evolve into synapsids. The common ancestor between mammals and reptiles is amniotes. True reptiles evolved later. You should really study phylogenetics. Birds are considered reptiles because they directly descended from them. Mammals did not, they descended from synapsids, so they are considered as such. I don't need to waste my time or a paleontologist's time with this. All of the pertinent information can be found online with proper references.
@ORCA4312 dinosaurs have blood viens in there fossils like bird at least the preditors were warm blooded it seems to me that your studing 40 yr old info
Creationist? Ok pal, name calling's a sure sign that you've run out of intelligent things to say so i'll leave you be. And creationists are inflexible to other possibilities. Sound familiar? Lol
@clb393 You said something that a creationist would say, I was stating a fact so if you're butthurt over it, then you can only blame yourself. You seem to think that science is open to debate from laymans. It's not. You're not a scientist so your baseless speculation is really not on the same level as the peer reviewed literature that is published. You haven't said a single intelligent thing this entire time so I'll do better and just block you to save both of us from wasting any more time.
I tend to believe that dinosaurs and birds are close cousins sharing a common ancestor, though if i had to choose i'd say dinosaurs evolved from birds instead of the other way around. It just seems to make more sense that way, since Archaeopteryx appears with fully developed flight feathers and younger feathered dinos appear flightless. Of course this can and probably will change in either direction of thinking as we discover more fossils
@AH - highly debatable, until more proof is discovered. The only feathered dinosaur discovered that's older than Archaeopteryx, 4-winged Anchiornis, shows evidence that a terrestrial lifestyle would have been extremely difficult for it. Yet if birds evolved from dinos they would have evolved from the ground up instead of the opposite. Bottom line is at this point you, me or anyone else can't state conclusively one way or the other. Unless you were there and saw it with your own eyes, that is.
@clb393 No actually it's not highly debatable. This is the consensus reached within the scientific community. You don't need to have been there in order to know how things evolved. That absurd argument is something a creationist would say. We have evidence and from the evidence we can draw conclusions.
I think you are getting a little bit too caught up trying to group things in your mind by labeling them with words to understand the world. Evolution is the same as change... The only thing that doesn't change is that everything changes. Its good though that you would seek information rather than accept someone elses opinion purely based on its popularity. The fact that we're so good at abstract conceptualization is part of our nature as humans and helps us survive, but may also be our undoing
@UncleBallantine This is how science classifies them. I'm not the one doing it. But actually, knowing that birds are dinosaurs gives us a much better idea of what both birds and dinosaurs actually are. No one really thought of birds as being reptiles until the connection to dinosaurs was made. It's just they are so different, warm blooded, have feathers, can fly, etc. These are not traits that any modern reptile has. But dinosaurs had them (and yes some of them could fly).
@ORCA4312 Go read a scientific article on the microraptor. That will tell you. I don't have time to entertain idiots who think paleontology has faith involved.
Monophyletic or not, birds are considered Class Aves while (Modern) Reptiles are considered Class Reptilia. If you wish, you can claim that all dinosaurs actually belong in class Aves rather than class reptillia, there is however no mainstream scientific movement to rename the (modern) birds into Class dinosauria. Class by the by, convention or otherwise is NOT a monophletic system.
Linnean classification doesn't work like modern phylogenetics/cladistics. Note how we are not class Teleoste
There is no confusion among scientists. Most are fully aware that birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs and their relatives are united as archosaurs. It gets a hell of alot more complicated from there on, but thats the basic theory going by the fossil record.
everything here is correct but the picture at 0:35.it shows mammals as the amniotes that evolved directly from the first amniote.actually synapsids evolved from the first reptile and splitted in different group from sauropsids(modern reptiles)about 6000000 years after first real reptile lived(i forgot the names of the species of the first reptile,first synapsid and first sauropsid)
@TheRaptorsaur From what I heard synapsids evolved before true reptiles existed. We might be splitting a hair on what is a "reptile" but from my understanding, true reptiles evolved later.
@EnigmaHood Ifound this about hylonomus(the first reptile)on wikipedia:Fossils of the basal pelycosaur Archaeothyris and the basal diapsid Petrolacosaurus are also found in the same region of Nova Scotia, although from a higher stratum, dated approximately 6 million years later.
Interesting - the narrator tells us he is wrong.Reptiles, Dinosaurs, Birds - he ends by saying that Dinosaurs were far more like birds and less like reptiles than even all scientists agree. But he insists on calling them reptiles.His problem! Reptiles came out of amphibians - but they are not amphibians. Dinosaurs came from reptiles - but were not reptiles. Mammals came from reptiles in parallel. Birds came from dinosaurs or are a specialized sub-group that expanded when the monsters died.
@Saiaton No you idiot. Dinosaurs are indeed reptiles, I never said they weren't. But birds are dinosaurs too, and if you don't include birds as reptiles, then reptilia is a paraphyletic group which is discouraged in phylogentetics. Reptiles did not "come out of" amphibians, they evolved from synapsids. Mammals didn't come from reptiles, they also evolved from synapsids. Birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs, but they are also dinosaurs too.
@EnigmaHood Actually, dinosaurs didn't evolve from synapsids. Neither did mammals. mammals are synapsids. And dinosaurs aren't even synapsids. They are sauropsids. Synapsids are a group of animal which include mammals and other close relatives of mammals. Sauropsids are a group of animals that includes reptiles and their relatives. Sauropsid and synapsids both evolved from a common ancestor, which are reptiliomorphs, which are reptile-like amphibians.
@PatrioticEagle50 Yeah you're right, I stand corrected. It looks like the common ancestor between reptiles and mammals are amniotes, which they both are. Thanks for the correction.
@yogurtking Dinosaurs are indeed reptiles. Why don't you, I don't know, get an education? You are severely confused. I'm not a creationist, I don't even believe in god. I accept the theory of evolution, which should have been fairly obvious with this video, among pretty much every other video I ever made. Did your mother drop you on your head as a child?
To retain use of Reptilia as a monophyletic taxon and one that applies to reptiles as we know them today as distinct reletive to birds and mamals as you describe at 1:22, it would need to be relocated from before the testudine split on your chart at 0:35 to after the divergence of saurians between archasaur and lepidasaur.
Crcodiles would not be considered reptiles, nor dinosaurs; nor turtles. Sauropsida would be the supergroup to which they all belong.
Darwin himself concluded that the distinction between species and varieties is vague and based on the lack of intermediate forms known to man.
You could perhaps say that the dinosaurs are the intermediate forms between reptiles and birds or that birds (avian dinosaurs) evolved from non-avian dinosaurs.
I understand your point but I think that technically speaking, both assumptions are right. Birds are avian dinosaurs and dinosaurs are often classified as reptiles but birds are still classified as a different genus than reptiles. Saying birds are reptiles is almost like saying mammals are still reptiles. If you take it really far, you can also say that all vertebrates are fish.
Misconception 2: we can no longer classify birds into reptiles since many characteristics of birds are no longer reptilian. It is true that birds evolved from reptiles, as well as mammals. Since most reptilian characteristics were no longer manifested by birds, they are classified under separate taxon from reptiles
@Lejjaeem Reptile is no longer a truly valid taxon. Although crocodiles have many charactistics of reptiles, they have a four-chambered heart, like a bird, and they are more closely related to birds then they are lizards and other reptiles.
misconception 1: humans not jsut evolved from mammals but humans are indeed mammals.
Kingdom Animalia Phylum Chordata Class MAMMALIA Order Primates (Mammals with opposable thumb) Family Homonidae (Humans) Genus Homo Species Homo sapiens (Modern Man)
@TheChaosthegreat Can you actually respond to the guy who wrote that comment to you instead of making a new post? He won't see that you responded to him otherwise.
@PatrioticEagle50 No its not a star that lives in the ocean, but it resembles how people make ornament stars like on christmas trees,etc.. So thats why they call it that. People call dinosaurs lizards because they are lizards.
@TheChaosthegreat What about a velocirapter? Its name has raptor in it, and they had feathers. Does that make them raptors? According to your logic, yes.
@PatrioticEagle50 The latin root for raptor is to seize;and carry away. That works out great for me. I can believe that the birds of prey, and the theropod dinosaurs fit that category.
@TheChaosthegreat The bible gives a list of birds you cannot eat. One of those birds are bats.Bats are mammals, not birds. The bible also says that god created man, then beast.But in another part,it says god created beast, then man. Another part of the bible says adam and eve were both created from dirt,then another part says woman was created from mans rib. Another part,god told noah to put 2 of every animal on the ark, plus 7 of each sacrificial, in another part, he says put 7 of every animal.
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
@PatrioticEagle50 GOD MADE THE EARTH AND ALL THE ANIMALS IN GENESIS 1. GENESIS 2 GOD MADE THE GARDEN; THE TREES FOR THE GARDEN THE ANIMALS FOR THE GARDEN.
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
@TheChaosthegreat Their are over 10 million species on this planet. You couldn't even fit 1% of the animal species on the ark, even if their were only one individual. How do you explain how noah got two of every animal on the ark, which wasn't even very big. Even the biggest ship ever made couldn't even fit every animal species. An aircraft carrier would sink. Your logic is obsurd. It is time to wake up. This is the 21st century, not midaevil times. We no longer burn witches, or homosexuals.
@PatrioticEagle50 Noah took two of every kind,not species. He didn't bring 2 lions,2 leopards. He brought 2 cats,two dogs,two hippos,two elephants.He didn't have to bring animals that lived in the water. And he didn't have to bring any bugs. Only the animals with the breath of life on dry land. GENESIS 7 talks about that. And more than likely he brought babies and juveniles.
@TheChaosthegreat Except that's not what the bible says. Even the traditional Christian bible disagrees with the Jewish-Protestant about whether it was 'two' or 'two pair'. And why wouldn't air-breathing bugs need protection from a world flood? Try reading your fairy stories before revealing your ignorance of science and spiritual religion. It's a non-argument: if species like leopards & lions evolve from Noah's cats (surely t'other way round!) then why not all species from older ancestors?
@TheChaosthegreat But, you don't believe in evolution. How do you explained how a house cat turned into a lion? Or a wolf turned into a coyote? Oh, and cats and dogs aren't kinds. Their are felines and canines, but a wolf is not a dog. Neither is a coyote. Both are canines, but not dog. Explain how a three-toed-sloth, and animal that takes a week to walk 300 meters, traveled from south america, through panama, across north america, across alaska, into russia, through china, to the middle east?
@TheChaosthegreat ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
@PatrioticEagle50 in Deuteronomy verse 14-16 talks about how not to treat your hired servants. Isaiah 14 is talking about babylon and what will happen to the people who live there. Read these chapters for yourself. Don't go off some website or app trying to make the Bible look bad. Read a King James Version(Authorized Version).
@TheChaosthegreat How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
@PatrioticEagle50 The King James was written in 1611. King James gave permission to the people to have the Bible. So they went to places like China,Middle East and they noticed from the Bibles they collected that they were all identical. I believe they collected over 5000 bibles from around the world.This is the time of great persecution,when it was illegal to own a Bible in many parts of the world. God promised to persevere his Word. So they concluded that this is the promised Word of God.
@TheChaosthegreat You know why the bibles from china, middle east, and other areas were very similar? Because they all originated from the same book. They were all the christian bible, just translated into different languages. That is why they are very similar. It doesn;t take a genious to see that different languages of the same book are very similar, if not, identical. That is just logical. But then explain how their were religions, which lasted longer then christianity, and are older?
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
@TheChaosthegreat How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
Adam named all the KINDS of animals. The world was all ready full with animals and trees,but the second chapter is talking about what happened in the garden of Eden. Then after he named the critters there was no companion for Adam. God put Adam to sleep took his lower rib and created his wife. Adam named her woman,because she came out of a wound of a man.
As for the bible you are referring to the first and second chapter of genesis. I'll explain what happened. God made everything in six days and rested on the seventh. The second chapter explains what happen during the creation. God made the world filled it with trees and animals,made the man. Then the second chapter explains God made the man,he put him in Eden then he made all the trees for the garden,then he made all the animals for Adam to name.
America becoming an atheist nation. I strongly agree,they haven't destroyed the biblical philosophy yet and they didn't win the people. I don't think that they will ever fully win the people,but they shut the christens up and corrupt the young.
Velociraptor is in every respect a lizard. Their is a hummingbird that have teeth forgot the name of it yahoo it. To qualify as a bird you need to change the lungs,heart,bones,the nature of the animal etc. Besides it's kind of hard to say what they were like if all you find are the bones. And as far as the population different websites are saying different things. The one I went on and what i hear on tv is 92%.nt
You do realise that "lizard" is a pretty specific word refering to a pretty specific group of squamata reptiles. That group does NOT include dinosaurs, it's not even close. The look pretty drastically different especially in their stance, as the video pointed out. Velociraptor is *not* a bird, no one is claiming that. Though velociraptor and the birds to share a close common dinosaur ancestor.
@TheChaosthegreat Velociraptor can't be a lizard. There are many reasons why. One major characteristic is the legs. Lizards and other reptiles have them sprawled out. Velociraptor and every single other dinosaur had them straight down. This is what make dinosaurs unique. It is why they are not lizards. It was this innovation that sepreated them from lizards.
@tyrantslayer24 Dinosaurs (dragons) were just bipedal lizards. Think about this,image velociraptor sleeping with his legs sprawled out. Wouldn't he look like a regular lizard then. I kept lizards as pets and after looking at their anatomy they both look the same. Thanks for responding kindly.
@TheChaosthegreat No problem, I'm on both sides on these kind of debates. I believe creation and evolution. Yes, it is true that dinosaurs had the ability to sprawl their legs out. But their skeletons were not built that way as lizards are.
@tyrantslayer24 How can you believe in both creation and evolution? That doesn't make sense, unless you believe "god" (which there's no evidence of) created the seeds of life. There's absolutely no evidence supporting creation at all.
@EnigmaHood I never said there was tangible evidence for god. It is not uncommon to see scientists have their own religious beliefs. Robert Bakker is also a preacher, and one of the firsts to propose the dinosaur to bird theory. My biology teacher used to go to the same church I went to. Evolution doesn't equal atheism. When you explain evolution to someone and describe what it does and how it works, it never says there is no god.
@tyrantslayer24 I didn't say evolution equals atheism, I said there's no evidence for creationism or god. I don't care how many scientists believe in god, that does not mean god exists. And I also don't know how you can believe in creationism if you also accept evolution. Explain that.
@EnigmaHood If you'r asking how I can believe in god and everything in the bible and fully accept the theory of evolution (if I'm wrong correct me) that is not I'm saying. I believe in god because I think the universe has meaning, but there are things in the bible I don't agree with. Such as the earth being 6,000 years old. I don't believe that because when you take every species that has ever been on this planet, from the Precambrian until now, TBC
@EnigmaHood continued..... I don't believe the earth could support that many species at one time. Also transitional fossils are a big reason why I accept evolution.
@tyrantslayer24 No, I'm asking you how you can believe in creationism and evolution at the same time. Do you know what creationism means? It means you believe god created all the lifeforms on this planet. If you believe that, then it doesn't make sense to also accept evolution, because that theory directly contradicts the claim that god created all the lifeforms as we see them today.
@EnigmaHood I believe that G'd wrote the laws of nature that physics discovers and which chemisty obeys. Therefore even Abiogenesis would be following "G'd's plan" as it is a result of the natural/physical laws of the universe as written by G'd.
Yes, I know there is multiverse theory that says this universe is one of many each with different physical laws; but folk like me and mine will then move to "G'd created the multiverse". Despite any supporting evidence for this.
@EnigmaHood We don't need 'evidence to believe in G'd; or anything else that there is no evidence for but may nevertheless be real in spite of that fact.
Evolution however is indisputably real to anyone with at least a 5th grade science education. Therefore people like me and apparently tyrantslayer must adapt our belief system to include G'd somewhere in the equation of life, the universe, and everything, whilst still taking into accout the fact that life adapts to changing environments.
@tyrantslayer24 I think most dinosaurs would break their hips if they sprawled out. I'm pretty sure their legs and pelvises evolved to transfer weight through the length of the leg only, so sprawling them would likely tear tendons and ligaments as they tried to support weight at angles they weren't built for. How long it would take for this damage to occur depends on the bulk of the animal and its leg bone structure. Saurapod: immediate. Therapod: maybe a bit of squatting before damage occurs.
For a velociraptor to sleep like that, it would require its legs to be disconnected at the hip. I.E. A dislocation. Your comparison is worse than ignorant.
Big cats and small cats are the same kind. A Cat. Dinos and dragons (green water dragon,bearded dragon) are the same kind. A lizard. Crocs yea they look very similar but I will say no. Raptor in latin means on who seizes from rapere. To seize. That fits the description of the birds of prey. As well as certain lizards. I think they oth fit the meaning of the word raptor. But that doesn't mean that they are related.
A 2% difference. I give you better let's say that they are 1.6% different. 1.6 difference is around 48,000,000 nucleotides. And a change in 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. But you know your family better than me and if your grandpa was a chimp I'll take your word for it but everybody in my family are human. But if want to prove that your related go in the woods find a chimp have sex with it and if you can bring baby chimp/human babies I'll believe.
Dinosaurs aren't birds. You are making these conclusions based on bones people found in the dirt. Go around and ask people are dinos birds and I'm sure you will get my point of view. You only believe that because some idiot taught you that. That's not natural God given commonsense. If these voodoo scientist weren't preaching this nonsense you wouldn't believe that. You would use commonsense agree with the obvious.
That is correct. And Monkeys are humans. And Mammals aren't dogs....
Okay now that we got that out of the way. lets try to not get confused about simple logical statements.
Birds ARE dinosaurs. That is true. But that does not mean the reverse is true, that dinosaurs are birds. Some dinosaurs are birds but not all. ALL birds are dinosaurs, because birds are decedents of dinosaurs.
Confusing this is like thinking Jesus gave birth to Mary.
@SirMildredPierce Sorry but not convinced. There are to many differences in their organs,and a very small change in their internal anatomy would be harmful. Sorry it took so long to respond.
@TheChaosthegreat I say this with all due respect to a fellow human being: You are fucking retarded. In all my time on youtube I have never had to say that, but you really are that dumb. And if your god does exist, may he have mercy on your soul.
I agree that crocs have a four chambered heart,but so do we I guess were all related. Just look at the dinos ,use commonsense,then comment again. Ok. God Bless.
@TheChaosthegreat Good. Your getting it. All life on earth is related. Our DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzees. Our DNA is 70% identical to mice. Out DNA is 50% identical to fruit flies. Our DNA is 18% identical to plants, and other forms of life. Why do we all have DNA? DNA is proof that we are all related. All life on earth has DNA. Why? All life uses DNA and RNA. But their are other genetic materials that work just as well as DNA. So you just proved my point. All life is related.
By the way if your brain is a collection of chemicals that came together by random chance,how can you trust your thoughts and your reasoning process. Maybe you got a few screws loose. I can understand why you think that they are birds,you have a few screws loose. Commonsense and evolution don't mix. By the way 92% of Americans are Christians and the other 8% are of other religion or atheist. You can yahoo it. Birds are dinosaurs you need help to be that dumb. Ask the 92% they can tell you.
@TheChaosthegreat Okay. Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are reptiles. Birds are reptiles. Science has changed. People back then use to think dinosaurs walked like lizards, then they changed them to walking on two feet with their tail dragging on the ground, then they corrected by making them walk with their tail strait out. Common sense will tell you that birds are dinosaurs. Velociraptor had a withbone, birds have a wishbone. T-Rex had scales, birds have scales. (yes they do, look at their feet)
@TheChaosthegreat The 92% of who? Those who trust the words of a 2000 year old book, instead of what science is showing them. It doesn't matter to science or evolution if the religious fail to accept it. And even if evolution was proved false tomorrow, that still doesn't mean god did it! Dinosaurs are birds. Can you name any other animal (other than a bird) that has a wishbone? Or feathers? Or scales on its feet? Next you'll be saying that bats are birds!
Why so angry. And it's not just a name that's what they are. You see the people who named those lizards had commonsense. As far as the phylogenic tree I think it's just garbage that somebody put on paper. The animals you described like the mountain goat and mountain lion,they were given those names because they strongly resemble goats,and the mountain lion a lion. Now if we classify them differently then so be it. The platypus is unique in it's own way,no other animal quite like it.
@TheChaosthegreat Do you agree that big cats and small cats are both cats? Or do they just look like each other and that they aren't really cats? A dinosaur looks nothing like a lizard. But a crocodile does. Are crocodiles all the sudden lizards? No. They are reptiles, like birds. Yes. Birds are reptiles. And not all dinosaurs have lizard in their name. What about Velociraptor? Its name means swift thief. Is it a burgler all the sudden? And what about eagles, their raptors.
Could you explain why native Americans knew about dinosaurs dont evolutionist believe that people and dinosaurs [never breathed the same air] to quote several preachers from the past lol.
redmagician1000 2 weeks ago
@redmagician1000 I had a feeling you were a dumbass creationist. Go away dumbfuck.
EnigmaHood 2 weeks ago
why did birds and dinosaurs co exist there is proof that people knew about dinosaurs in prehistoric times not only carvings but proof that they coexisted just like how they have proven that people have pretty much always been the same
redmagician1000 2 weeks ago
@redmagician1000 No one said they didn't co-exist. Birds were flying around during the time t.rex roamed the Earth.
EnigmaHood 2 weeks ago
the statement that birds = dinosaurs is the same as reptiles = amphibians. Somewhere along the line the ancestors of reptiles stopped being amphibians. There's no point trying to draw a line here. It is simply useful today to distinguish birds from dinosaurs.. in the same way that it is useful to distinguish reptiles from amphibians.
28crucis 3 weeks ago
@28crucis No. What you are doing is arbitrary, which is why paraphyletic groups are discouraged. If you're going to say that birds are not reptiles, then you should say the same about dinosaurs because they are warm blooded like birds, many of them had feathers like birds, and many of them had bone structures that are very similar to birds. For the record, Amphibia sensu lato IS a paraphyletic group. Tetrapoda is monophyletic, which reptiles are part of.
EnigmaHood 3 weeks ago
Wow, i was so proud of your other videos then i saw this and thought, WTF!...but yet again you prove your worth by decimating yet another falsehood. Congrats.
greiteneis 3 weeks ago
@greiteneis Thank you :)
EnigmaHood 3 weeks ago
in the course of evolution, former genes stay in the bodies ,only they are turned off,....now scientist are so sure about this that they are trying to turn on or wake up those dormant dinosaur genes in birds and recreate dinosaurs...google this : "Jurassic Park comes true: How scientists are bringing dinosaurs back to life with the help of the humble chicken"
jaydayb 2 months ago
The way we classify animals seems to me to be kind of messed up, I've never been able to tell why Birds aren't reptiles any more than I can tell why we aren't reptiles. I understand that we lack the defining traits but it seems like saying we're drawing arbitrary lines in the dirt. We both came from reptiles, after all. There were haired reptiles at one point, too. I seem to recall AronRa having a video going over something like that, what do you think of it? Also, which dinosaurs flew exactly?
onigojira 2 months ago
@onigojira We didn't come from reptiles actually, we came from something called synapsids.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood
So we're all descendants of amphibians then? I had assumed we began as reptiles too due to the scaley way I always see animals like Dimetrodon depicted.
onigojira 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood humans didnt came from monkeys -_- the Bomb i made got into 3 women and they started producing 25 babies each year now u understand i bet u do birds came from the moon duhh reptiles came from planet 52megala i live there i got prooof 2
rddtdx444444ex 1 month ago
@onigojira It's a matter of convince, if you think about it we are all "land fish" as all Tetrapods come from fish.
KillerBee256 9 hours ago
Actually birds have scales too. On their feet, there is scaly skin which is, in a way, "genetic leftovers" (pardon the unprofessional term) from their ancestors. This is similar to how we humans have an vermiform appendix that our ancestors had. However you're presentation was well founded, as a tip to you, I suggest adding a bit more evidence as to why birds are dinosaurs. I have a PhD in paleontology, and if you would like any help I would gladly help contribute.
MrHudDakNic12271990 3 months ago
This has got to be the smartest group of youtubers I've ever seen. I would not call birds actual dinosaurs, simply because of the enormous amount of derived characteristics they have since evolved, but I certainly would consider them the extant group of animals that is most closely related to them. Dinosaurs were a sort of branch off of reptiles, and birds a branch off of dinosaurs. For that reason, I also would not say that reptiles and birds are that closely related. Great video, though!
MelyssaAKASkittlez 3 months ago
@MelyssaAKASkittlez What you're saying doesn't make sense. Derived characteristics means they inherited those characteristics from their non-avian ancestors, that's more reason to consider them dinosaurs and reptiles. Some non-avian dinosaurs had feathers, some had beaks, some could even fly. In any case, your criteria is rather arbitrary. Dinosaurs and birds are directly descended from reptiles, so they are considered as such. To not include them, makes reptilia a paraphyletic group.
EnigmaHood 3 months ago
@EnigmaHood Derived means a trait was inherited, but has since changed. Birds inherited feathers from dinosaurs, but asymmetrical flight feathers are derived because they evolved later. Beaks the way they are now were likely different in even the first birds, so they are not directly inherited, either. Wings contain 3 digits like dinosaurs did, but those joints and their positions are different. Too much has changed physically to phyletically call birds dinosaurs, that's all I'm saying.
MelyssaAKASkittlez 3 months ago
No, that's not what it means, it means it was inherited from its ancestors. Other dinosaurs were probably capable of flight like the microraptor. So what if their beaks are different? So what of their digit positions are different? Our ancestors had different digit positions too, does that mean we aren't primates? For the record, dinosaurs had varying numbers of digits. It also doesn't matter if they changed a lot or a little, if they are directly descended from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs.
EnigmaHood 3 months ago
@EnigmaHood I am taking a biological science class now. We just studied shared primitive and shared derived characteristics. Yes it matters how much they changed; that's the difference between the two. Dinosaurs did not fly; if it flew, it was already a bird. Your taxonomy is mixed up, too. Aves (birds) is a class and primata is an order. These are different levels and can't be compared in this situation. It's like comparing a lion and a wolf because both are of the order carnivora.
MelyssaAKASkittlez 3 months ago
@MelyssaAKASkittlez Good for you, but you're wrong. No it doesn't matter how much they have changed. That's your own, arbitrary, pointless, and stupid criteria. SOME DINOSAURS FLEW FOR THE THIRD TIME. Should we classify penguins as different from aves since they can't fly? Actually no, my taxonomy isn't mixed up, BECAUSE I WASN'T SAYING PRIMATES WAS A CLASS YOU MORON. I was making a point to show you that your digits argument was idiotic. Just having a slight change in the digit placement..
EnigmaHood 3 months ago
... doesn't suddenly make it a new group of animals. In fact, my example is even more appropriate because Orders are a more specific taxonomic group that allows for less genetic variation than a broader group like Classes. I don't even have to be that broad, Hominids are an even more specific group, a family that includes chimps and gorillas which have different digit placement than we do, yet we are still Hominids. You are an imbecile, and imbeciles don't get to post on my channel, good bye.
EnigmaHood 3 months ago
@EnigmaHood Also,it is irrelevant in this discussion how many digits other dinos had because birds did not evolve from all dinos;they evolved from therapods.The therapods birds are believed to have evolved from had 3digits.Primitive and derived characteristsics are relative depending on what ancestor you are comparing to.I forgot to mention that.So 3digits in birds is derived compared to a 4digit ancestor,and is primitive compared to therapods.But wings are always derived since dinos didn't fly.
MelyssaAKASkittlez 3 months ago
@MelyssaAKASkittlez Not all theropods had three digits, so no you're wrong still. Again no, some dinosaurs probably flew, like the microraptor, I already told you that.
EnigmaHood 3 months ago
@EnigmaHood all land animals evolved from amphibians...are we still amphibians? Birds and dinosaurs are related in the same way. birds all have a common ancestor of dinosaur and they can never leave that ancestry, however they have accumulated enough differences to have changed basic classifications. also not all dinosaurs had avian hip bones.
JEL625 3 months ago
@JEL625 Geeze you're a fucking idiot. We didn't evolve from amphibians, we evolved from amniotes, which we are. No, you are making up your own retarded, stupid, arbitrary rules that HAVE NO PLACE IN SCIENCE. I blocked you again because I don't argue with fools.
EnigmaHood 3 months ago
@EnigmaHood amniotes came from amphibians...
KillerBee256 7 hours ago
@KillerBee256 Amphibians refers to modern day amphibians. Whether the tetrapods that lived back then were virtually identical to amphibians or not is currently unknown. If it is true that they were identical to modern day amphibians then amphibia would be a paraphyletic group.
EnigmaHood 7 hours ago
@EnigmaHood okay I understand, early tetapods without a doubt had the same reproduction strategy as modern amphibians, at least the base line ones did. So I think of them as amphibians, but in truth amphibians are just baseline tetapods.
KillerBee256 3 hours ago
No they definately did evolve from dinosaurs.
ma049 4 months ago
@ma049 You definitely didn't watch my video.
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
@ma049 There is a lot of debate within the scientific community about whether or not dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. There are many scientists who believe that birds evolved from tree-dwelling reptiles that had nothing to do with the dinosaurs. Also, the idea that the fossils of dinosaurs with "feathers" on them actually had feathers has been disputed, and refuted. There is no real evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, just tabloid journalism. They print whatever sells.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg No... There is no controversy. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, this is what is accepted in the scientific community.
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
@EnigmaHood There is a huge controversy about this in the ornithologist community, and I am not even talking about the scientists who advocate creation or intelligent design, I am talking about ardent evolutionists who do not agree with what tabloids like National Geographic have published. Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian is an example of the NGEO critics. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina is another example of a dino-to-bird critic.
Google cursorial and arborial theory.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg No there isn't. There's only a controversy among creationist idiots who believe in god, even though it's unscientific and was just made up by morons who knew nothing about science.
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EnigmaHood Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian is an example of the NGEO critics. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina is another example of a dino-to-bird critic.
"No there isn't. There's only a controversy among creationist idiots who believe in god, even though it's unscientific and was just made up by morons who knew nothing about science." - EnigmaHood
Are these scientists from highly respected universities morons who know nothing about science?
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg Yes they are morons because birds not only evolved from dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs, and that is accepted within the scientific community and is supported by peer reviewed scientific journals.
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
ok. birds are dinosaurs. specifically they are a subset of therapod dinosaur. dinosaurs are subset of reptile. mammals evolved from reptiles too. they are sometimes referred to as proto mammals (see synapsids eg dimetrodon). so cladistically speaking birds are dinosaurs and never stopped being dinosaurs. the exact same way that snakes are still lizards and humans and apes are still monkeys, by both definition and derivation.
londonoverground 5 months ago
Saying that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs because they are dinosaurs is pretty weak. That's like saying that humans didn't evolve from some kind of proto-bacteria because we are bacteria. Evolution is change over time. Dinosaurs changed into birds. That's evolution.
I do like your other videos though. This one just doesn't make sense.
CCKsoldier 5 months ago
@CCKsoldier I didn't say that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. The first line in the video said, "while this statement is technically true..."
It's just a title, don't get too hung up over it. It would also be nice if you read some of the comments. The comment at the top of the page here already addressed your concern.
EnigmaHood 5 months ago
When I have grandchildren I'm going to tell them stories about how I chased dinosaurs around...w00t
chicarbiomed 5 months ago
Hehe....... "Erect stance"
seeb85 5 months ago
I wouldn't think this is such a bad misconception. I mean it's far worse to believe that birds didn't evolve at all, than to believe they are a separate group that evolved from another group. It's mostly a matter of semantics.
TheBigBluePixel 5 months ago
Well, birds did evolve from dinosaurs, which makes them dinosaurs. Same with us and apes/primates/mammals/tetrapods/etc., which we will forever be.
lardhat 5 months ago
@lardhat That's the first thing I said in the video.
EnigmaHood 5 months ago
@EnigmaHood
Yes, yes, yes, sorry, sorry. But it still seems too much to call it a "misconception". The actual misconception is that people tend to believe that you can evolve OUT of a clade.
When someone asks me why i say birds are dinos i answer "For pretty much the same reason a T-Rex is a dino: a bird is the son, grandson and great grandson of a dino". So what you evolved from makes you what you are.
Perhaps it would be better to expand the title. Or to change it to "Birds USED to be dinos"
lardhat 5 months ago
@lardhat This title gets more attention I think.
EnigmaHood 5 months ago
You should make a video regarding the difference between the USSR and Russia. Just a thought.
Gneisenau 6 months ago
@Gneisenau Not a bad idea.
EnigmaHood 6 months ago
just don't use the definition of reptile
you could argue that all mammals are reptiles as well... as we all share common ancestor and have some common characteristics
that's why we don't use the Linnaean classification any more
their are so many definitions today
i'd rather you say that all lizards, snakes, crocodiles, dinosaurs and bids are Diapsid, rather then reptiles.
not all the animals in the category are "reptiles" as not all of them are cold blooded.
MartianSanta 6 months ago
@MartianSanta That proposal is idiotic. No you can't, because mammals did not evolve from reptiles. I don't really care what you prefer I say, what you prefer is not science. All of the animals in the group reptiles, are reptiles, but not all of them are cold blooded, nor do they need to be.
EnigmaHood 6 months ago
@EnigmaHood "... because mammals did not evolve from reptiles." According to any evolutionist source, mammals did indeed evolve from reptiles. Also, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and amphibians evolved from fish. Fish evolved from worms (with a lot of stages in between). Worms evolved from sponges, (with a lot of stages in between). Of course, sponges evolved from bacteria (with a lot of stages in between), and bacteria evolved from archaea, which somehow came from nonliving chemicals.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg Can you stop saying "evolutionist"? There's no such thing as an evolutionist, just like there's no such thing as a gravitationalist. And no, mammals did not evolve from reptiles, they evolved from an earlier ancestor called synapsids.
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
@EnigmaHood synapsids were supposed to be part of the transition from reptiles to mammals. Reptiles evolved into synapsids, which evolved into mammals as we would define a mammal. You can send any of my comments to any paleontologist and ask them to double check my accuracy if you do not believe me. (According to mainstream evolutionary ideas.) Send it to a Harvard professor. Ask them.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
@GreenSlugg Reptiles did NOT evolve into synapsids. The common ancestor between mammals and reptiles is amniotes. True reptiles evolved later. You should really study phylogenetics. Birds are considered reptiles because they directly descended from them. Mammals did not, they descended from synapsids, so they are considered as such. I don't need to waste my time or a paleontologist's time with this. All of the pertinent information can be found online with proper references.
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
Good little presentation.
MrMajungatholus1 7 months ago
I have been following paleontology informally for about 40 years, and have yet to hear a convincing argument for dinosaurs being warm-blooded.
Grouping birds with dinosaurs due to an aesthetic bias (preference of elegance) is not science.
What I will grant is that birds developed in parallel with dinosaurs, and some dinosaurs may have been mis-classified (raptors)p
Still not convinced.
ORCA4312 8 months ago
@ORCA4312 dinosaurs have blood viens in there fossils like bird at least the preditors were warm blooded it seems to me that your studing 40 yr old info
do501 6 months ago in playlist Dinos and such
Creationist? Ok pal, name calling's a sure sign that you've run out of intelligent things to say so i'll leave you be. And creationists are inflexible to other possibilities. Sound familiar? Lol
clb393 8 months ago
@clb393 You said something that a creationist would say, I was stating a fact so if you're butthurt over it, then you can only blame yourself. You seem to think that science is open to debate from laymans. It's not. You're not a scientist so your baseless speculation is really not on the same level as the peer reviewed literature that is published. You haven't said a single intelligent thing this entire time so I'll do better and just block you to save both of us from wasting any more time.
EnigmaHood 8 months ago
I tend to believe that dinosaurs and birds are close cousins sharing a common ancestor, though if i had to choose i'd say dinosaurs evolved from birds instead of the other way around. It just seems to make more sense that way, since Archaeopteryx appears with fully developed flight feathers and younger feathered dinos appear flightless. Of course this can and probably will change in either direction of thinking as we discover more fossils
clb393 8 months ago
@clb393 No, birds are dinosaurs. Non-avian dinosaurs did not evolve from birds. Avians evolved from theropod dinosaurs most likely.
EnigmaHood 8 months ago
@AH - highly debatable, until more proof is discovered. The only feathered dinosaur discovered that's older than Archaeopteryx, 4-winged Anchiornis, shows evidence that a terrestrial lifestyle would have been extremely difficult for it. Yet if birds evolved from dinos they would have evolved from the ground up instead of the opposite. Bottom line is at this point you, me or anyone else can't state conclusively one way or the other. Unless you were there and saw it with your own eyes, that is.
clb393 8 months ago
@clb393 No actually it's not highly debatable. This is the consensus reached within the scientific community. You don't need to have been there in order to know how things evolved. That absurd argument is something a creationist would say. We have evidence and from the evidence we can draw conclusions.
EnigmaHood 8 months ago
@EnigmaHood Actually, paleontology is rife with flim flam men and huge leaps of faith. Very little of the 'science' is based in hard evidence.
ORCA4312 8 months ago
@ORCA4312 Actually no there are no leaps of faith, and all of it is based on fossil evidence.
EnigmaHood 8 months ago
I think you are getting a little bit too caught up trying to group things in your mind by labeling them with words to understand the world. Evolution is the same as change... The only thing that doesn't change is that everything changes. Its good though that you would seek information rather than accept someone elses opinion purely based on its popularity. The fact that we're so good at abstract conceptualization is part of our nature as humans and helps us survive, but may also be our undoing
UncleBallantine 8 months ago
@UncleBallantine This is how science classifies them. I'm not the one doing it. But actually, knowing that birds are dinosaurs gives us a much better idea of what both birds and dinosaurs actually are. No one really thought of birds as being reptiles until the connection to dinosaurs was made. It's just they are so different, warm blooded, have feathers, can fly, etc. These are not traits that any modern reptile has. But dinosaurs had them (and yes some of them could fly).
EnigmaHood 8 months ago
@EnigmaHood What proof is there that dinosaurs flew? There were flying reptiles, but they weren't dinosaurs.
A bat is warm blooded and can fly, but it isn't a bird.
ORCA4312 8 months ago
@ORCA4312 Go read a scientific article on the microraptor. That will tell you. I don't have time to entertain idiots who think paleontology has faith involved.
EnigmaHood 8 months ago
@ORCA4312 yea but bats are mamals and have hair so there gos your comback
do501 6 months ago in playlist Dinos and such
Micro-raptors scare me.
rmcdaniel423 8 months ago
I looked this up, but for some reason am getting error messages when I try to post links. If you search wiki for Reptiles, Sauropsida, & Sauria
Class Reptialia is not a monophyletic taxon.
It applies to synapsid/therapsid amniots but not mamals and also anapsid, diapsid, and euryapsid amniots, but not birds.
The monophyletic group that contains birds and all non-synapsid amniots together is sauropsida.
Sauria is the last group before the split between Archosaurs and Lepidosaurs. (morphas)
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
Monophyletic or not, birds are considered Class Aves while (Modern) Reptiles are considered Class Reptilia. If you wish, you can claim that all dinosaurs actually belong in class Aves rather than class reptillia, there is however no mainstream scientific movement to rename the (modern) birds into Class dinosauria. Class by the by, convention or otherwise is NOT a monophletic system.
Linnean classification doesn't work like modern phylogenetics/cladistics. Note how we are not class Teleoste
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
There is no confusion among scientists. Most are fully aware that birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs and their relatives are united as archosaurs. It gets a hell of alot more complicated from there on, but thats the basic theory going by the fossil record.
EddieCubillo 10 months ago
everything here is correct but the picture at 0:35.it shows mammals as the amniotes that evolved directly from the first amniote.actually synapsids evolved from the first reptile and splitted in different group from sauropsids(modern reptiles)about 6000000 years after first real reptile lived(i forgot the names of the species of the first reptile,first synapsid and first sauropsid)
TheRaptorsaur 10 months ago
@TheRaptorsaur From what I heard synapsids evolved before true reptiles existed. We might be splitting a hair on what is a "reptile" but from my understanding, true reptiles evolved later.
EnigmaHood 10 months ago
@EnigmaHood Ifound this about hylonomus(the first reptile)on wikipedia:Fossils of the basal pelycosaur Archaeothyris and the basal diapsid Petrolacosaurus are also found in the same region of Nova Scotia, although from a higher stratum, dated approximately 6 million years later.
TheRaptorsaur 10 months ago
Comment removed
yogurtking 1 year ago
Interesting - the narrator tells us he is wrong.Reptiles, Dinosaurs, Birds - he ends by saying that Dinosaurs were far more like birds and less like reptiles than even all scientists agree. But he insists on calling them reptiles.His problem! Reptiles came out of amphibians - but they are not amphibians. Dinosaurs came from reptiles - but were not reptiles. Mammals came from reptiles in parallel. Birds came from dinosaurs or are a specialized sub-group that expanded when the monsters died.
Saiaton 1 year ago
@Saiaton No you idiot. Dinosaurs are indeed reptiles, I never said they weren't. But birds are dinosaurs too, and if you don't include birds as reptiles, then reptilia is a paraphyletic group which is discouraged in phylogentetics. Reptiles did not "come out of" amphibians, they evolved from synapsids. Mammals didn't come from reptiles, they also evolved from synapsids. Birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs, but they are also dinosaurs too.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood Actually, dinosaurs didn't evolve from synapsids. Neither did mammals. mammals are synapsids. And dinosaurs aren't even synapsids. They are sauropsids. Synapsids are a group of animal which include mammals and other close relatives of mammals. Sauropsids are a group of animals that includes reptiles and their relatives. Sauropsid and synapsids both evolved from a common ancestor, which are reptiliomorphs, which are reptile-like amphibians.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 Yeah you're right, I stand corrected. It looks like the common ancestor between reptiles and mammals are amniotes, which they both are. Thanks for the correction.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood Your welcome! Happy to help, friend,
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood um, they aren't reptiles. why don't you, I don't know, buy a book? Wednesday night creationism class isn't doing a thing for you.
yogurtking 1 year ago
@yogurtking Dinosaurs are indeed reptiles. Why don't you, I don't know, get an education? You are severely confused. I'm not a creationist, I don't even believe in god. I accept the theory of evolution, which should have been fairly obvious with this video, among pretty much every other video I ever made. Did your mother drop you on your head as a child?
EnigmaHood 1 year ago 3
@EnigmaHood perhaps she did. actually, I was trying to find my comments to retract them. My apologies.
Though dinosaurs aren't technically "lizards."
yogurtking 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood cont.
To retain use of Reptilia as a monophyletic taxon and one that applies to reptiles as we know them today as distinct reletive to birds and mamals as you describe at 1:22, it would need to be relocated from before the testudine split on your chart at 0:35 to after the divergence of saurians between archasaur and lepidasaur.
Crcodiles would not be considered reptiles, nor dinosaurs; nor turtles. Sauropsida would be the supergroup to which they all belong.
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
@EnigmaHood what are you stupid hes right bird are dinosaurus your the one that was droped on your head!
do501 6 months ago in playlist Dinos and such
Darwin himself concluded that the distinction between species and varieties is vague and based on the lack of intermediate forms known to man.
You could perhaps say that the dinosaurs are the intermediate forms between reptiles and birds or that birds (avian dinosaurs) evolved from non-avian dinosaurs.
Pssybart 1 year ago
I understand your point but I think that technically speaking, both assumptions are right. Birds are avian dinosaurs and dinosaurs are often classified as reptiles but birds are still classified as a different genus than reptiles. Saying birds are reptiles is almost like saying mammals are still reptiles. If you take it really far, you can also say that all vertebrates are fish.
Pssybart 1 year ago
Misconception 2: we can no longer classify birds into reptiles since many characteristics of birds are no longer reptilian. It is true that birds evolved from reptiles, as well as mammals. Since most reptilian characteristics were no longer manifested by birds, they are classified under separate taxon from reptiles
Lejjaeem 1 year ago
@Lejjaeem Reptile is no longer a truly valid taxon. Although crocodiles have many charactistics of reptiles, they have a four-chambered heart, like a bird, and they are more closely related to birds then they are lizards and other reptiles.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
misconception 1: humans not jsut evolved from mammals but humans are indeed mammals.
Lejjaeem 1 year ago
misconception 1: humans not jsut evolved from mammals but humans are indeed mammals.
Kingdom Animalia Phylum Chordata Class MAMMALIA Order Primates (Mammals with opposable thumb) Family Homonidae (Humans) Genus Homo Species Homo sapiens (Modern Man)
Lejjaeem 1 year ago
the panda bear is a bear,and sea star is the term. Don't abandon your commonsense. Sorry it took so long to respond.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Can you actually respond to the guy who wrote that comment to you instead of making a new post? He won't see that you responded to him otherwise.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood ok i thought i did
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Is a sea star a star that lives in the ocean?
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 No its not a star that lives in the ocean, but it resembles how people make ornament stars like on christmas trees,etc.. So thats why they call it that. People call dinosaurs lizards because they are lizards.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat What about a velocirapter? Its name has raptor in it, and they had feathers. Does that make them raptors? According to your logic, yes.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 The latin root for raptor is to seize;and carry away. That works out great for me. I can believe that the birds of prey, and the theropod dinosaurs fit that category.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
The bible doesn't contradict itself. If it does show me. What plot wholes,how is it different from the way it was.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat The bible gives a list of birds you cannot eat. One of those birds are bats.Bats are mammals, not birds. The bible also says that god created man, then beast.But in another part,it says god created beast, then man. Another part of the bible says adam and eve were both created from dirt,then another part says woman was created from mans rib. Another part,god told noah to put 2 of every animal on the ark, plus 7 of each sacrificial, in another part, he says put 7 of every animal.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 Tell me the verse,chapter,book,and which version are you reading from.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 GOD MADE THE EARTH AND ALL THE ANIMALS IN GENESIS 1. GENESIS 2 GOD MADE THE GARDEN; THE TREES FOR THE GARDEN THE ANIMALS FOR THE GARDEN.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 Noah took 7 clean,and two unclean. Seems simple to me.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Their are over 10 million species on this planet. You couldn't even fit 1% of the animal species on the ark, even if their were only one individual. How do you explain how noah got two of every animal on the ark, which wasn't even very big. Even the biggest ship ever made couldn't even fit every animal species. An aircraft carrier would sink. Your logic is obsurd. It is time to wake up. This is the 21st century, not midaevil times. We no longer burn witches, or homosexuals.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 Noah took two of every kind,not species. He didn't bring 2 lions,2 leopards. He brought 2 cats,two dogs,two hippos,two elephants.He didn't have to bring animals that lived in the water. And he didn't have to bring any bugs. Only the animals with the breath of life on dry land. GENESIS 7 talks about that. And more than likely he brought babies and juveniles.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Except that's not what the bible says. Even the traditional Christian bible disagrees with the Jewish-Protestant about whether it was 'two' or 'two pair'. And why wouldn't air-breathing bugs need protection from a world flood? Try reading your fairy stories before revealing your ignorance of science and spiritual religion. It's a non-argument: if species like leopards & lions evolve from Noah's cats (surely t'other way round!) then why not all species from older ancestors?
Saiaton 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat But, you don't believe in evolution. How do you explained how a house cat turned into a lion? Or a wolf turned into a coyote? Oh, and cats and dogs aren't kinds. Their are felines and canines, but a wolf is not a dog. Neither is a coyote. Both are canines, but not dog. Explain how a three-toed-sloth, and animal that takes a week to walk 300 meters, traveled from south america, through panama, across north america, across alaska, into russia, through china, to the middle east?
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 in Deuteronomy verse 14-16 talks about how not to treat your hired servants. Isaiah 14 is talking about babylon and what will happen to the people who live there. Read these chapters for yourself. Don't go off some website or app trying to make the Bible look bad. Read a King James Version(Authorized Version).
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
Big contadiction here.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 This would be a contradiction if it wasn't for the word unto. I can say i didn't eat unto i got home.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheChaosthegreat Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
Big contradiction here.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat King James? You mean the one written over 1,000 years after the death of jesus? Great source of information.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 The King James was written in 1611. King James gave permission to the people to have the Bible. So they went to places like China,Middle East and they noticed from the Bibles they collected that they were all identical. I believe they collected over 5000 bibles from around the world.This is the time of great persecution,when it was illegal to own a Bible in many parts of the world. God promised to persevere his Word. So they concluded that this is the promised Word of God.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat You know why the bibles from china, middle east, and other areas were very similar? Because they all originated from the same book. They were all the christian bible, just translated into different languages. That is why they are very similar. It doesn;t take a genious to see that different languages of the same book are very similar, if not, identical. That is just logical. But then explain how their were religions, which lasted longer then christianity, and are older?
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Snakes don't eat dirt.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
Is god merciful, or not?
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
Why didn't Jesus Christ write the books himself,because he didn't have to.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
Adam named all the KINDS of animals. The world was all ready full with animals and trees,but the second chapter is talking about what happened in the garden of Eden. Then after he named the critters there was no companion for Adam. God put Adam to sleep took his lower rib and created his wife. Adam named her woman,because she came out of a wound of a man.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
As for the bible you are referring to the first and second chapter of genesis. I'll explain what happened. God made everything in six days and rested on the seventh. The second chapter explains what happen during the creation. God made the world filled it with trees and animals,made the man. Then the second chapter explains God made the man,he put him in Eden then he made all the trees for the garden,then he made all the animals for Adam to name.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
America becoming an atheist nation. I strongly agree,they haven't destroyed the biblical philosophy yet and they didn't win the people. I don't think that they will ever fully win the people,but they shut the christens up and corrupt the young.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
Velociraptor is in every respect a lizard. Their is a hummingbird that have teeth forgot the name of it yahoo it. To qualify as a bird you need to change the lungs,heart,bones,the nature of the animal etc. Besides it's kind of hard to say what they were like if all you find are the bones. And as far as the population different websites are saying different things. The one I went on and what i hear on tv is 92%.nt
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat "Velociraptor is in every respect a lizard."
You do realise that "lizard" is a pretty specific word refering to a pretty specific group of squamata reptiles. That group does NOT include dinosaurs, it's not even close. The look pretty drastically different especially in their stance, as the video pointed out. Velociraptor is *not* a bird, no one is claiming that. Though velociraptor and the birds to share a close common dinosaur ancestor.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Velociraptor can't be a lizard. There are many reasons why. One major characteristic is the legs. Lizards and other reptiles have them sprawled out. Velociraptor and every single other dinosaur had them straight down. This is what make dinosaurs unique. It is why they are not lizards. It was this innovation that sepreated them from lizards.
tyrantslayer24 10 months ago
@tyrantslayer24 Dinosaurs (dragons) were just bipedal lizards. Think about this,image velociraptor sleeping with his legs sprawled out. Wouldn't he look like a regular lizard then. I kept lizards as pets and after looking at their anatomy they both look the same. Thanks for responding kindly.
TheChaosthegreat 10 months ago
@TheChaosthegreat No problem, I'm on both sides on these kind of debates. I believe creation and evolution. Yes, it is true that dinosaurs had the ability to sprawl their legs out. But their skeletons were not built that way as lizards are.
tyrantslayer24 10 months ago
@tyrantslayer24 How can you believe in both creation and evolution? That doesn't make sense, unless you believe "god" (which there's no evidence of) created the seeds of life. There's absolutely no evidence supporting creation at all.
EnigmaHood 10 months ago
@EnigmaHood I never said there was tangible evidence for god. It is not uncommon to see scientists have their own religious beliefs. Robert Bakker is also a preacher, and one of the firsts to propose the dinosaur to bird theory. My biology teacher used to go to the same church I went to. Evolution doesn't equal atheism. When you explain evolution to someone and describe what it does and how it works, it never says there is no god.
tyrantslayer24 10 months ago
@tyrantslayer24 I didn't say evolution equals atheism, I said there's no evidence for creationism or god. I don't care how many scientists believe in god, that does not mean god exists. And I also don't know how you can believe in creationism if you also accept evolution. Explain that.
EnigmaHood 10 months ago
@EnigmaHood If you'r asking how I can believe in god and everything in the bible and fully accept the theory of evolution (if I'm wrong correct me) that is not I'm saying. I believe in god because I think the universe has meaning, but there are things in the bible I don't agree with. Such as the earth being 6,000 years old. I don't believe that because when you take every species that has ever been on this planet, from the Precambrian until now, TBC
tyrantslayer24 10 months ago
@EnigmaHood continued..... I don't believe the earth could support that many species at one time. Also transitional fossils are a big reason why I accept evolution.
tyrantslayer24 10 months ago
@tyrantslayer24 No, I'm asking you how you can believe in creationism and evolution at the same time. Do you know what creationism means? It means you believe god created all the lifeforms on this planet. If you believe that, then it doesn't make sense to also accept evolution, because that theory directly contradicts the claim that god created all the lifeforms as we see them today.
EnigmaHood 10 months ago
@EnigmaHood In that case no, I believe god made the single celled organisms and beyond that it's evolution. Which I know there is no evidence for.
tyrantslayer24 10 months ago
@tyrantslayer24 And why would he do that
EnigmaHood 10 months ago
@EnigmaHood I believe that G'd wrote the laws of nature that physics discovers and which chemisty obeys. Therefore even Abiogenesis would be following "G'd's plan" as it is a result of the natural/physical laws of the universe as written by G'd.
Yes, I know there is multiverse theory that says this universe is one of many each with different physical laws; but folk like me and mine will then move to "G'd created the multiverse". Despite any supporting evidence for this.
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
@EnigmaHood We don't need 'evidence to believe in G'd; or anything else that there is no evidence for but may nevertheless be real in spite of that fact.
Evolution however is indisputably real to anyone with at least a 5th grade science education. Therefore people like me and apparently tyrantslayer must adapt our belief system to include G'd somewhere in the equation of life, the universe, and everything, whilst still taking into accout the fact that life adapts to changing environments.
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
@tyrantslayer24 I think most dinosaurs would break their hips if they sprawled out. I'm pretty sure their legs and pelvises evolved to transfer weight through the length of the leg only, so sprawling them would likely tear tendons and ligaments as they tried to support weight at angles they weren't built for. How long it would take for this damage to occur depends on the bulk of the animal and its leg bone structure. Saurapod: immediate. Therapod: maybe a bit of squatting before damage occurs.
MelyssaAKASkittlez 3 months ago
@TheChaosthegreat
For a velociraptor to sleep like that, it would require its legs to be disconnected at the hip. I.E. A dislocation. Your comparison is worse than ignorant.
kylioneXsushi 10 months ago
Big cats and small cats are the same kind. A Cat. Dinos and dragons (green water dragon,bearded dragon) are the same kind. A lizard. Crocs yea they look very similar but I will say no. Raptor in latin means on who seizes from rapere. To seize. That fits the description of the birds of prey. As well as certain lizards. I think they oth fit the meaning of the word raptor. But that doesn't mean that they are related.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
A 2% difference. I give you better let's say that they are 1.6% different. 1.6 difference is around 48,000,000 nucleotides. And a change in 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. But you know your family better than me and if your grandpa was a chimp I'll take your word for it but everybody in my family are human. But if want to prove that your related go in the woods find a chimp have sex with it and if you can bring baby chimp/human babies I'll believe.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
Dinosaurs aren't birds. You are making these conclusions based on bones people found in the dirt. Go around and ask people are dinos birds and I'm sure you will get my point of view. You only believe that because some idiot taught you that. That's not natural God given commonsense. If these voodoo scientist weren't preaching this nonsense you wouldn't believe that. You would use commonsense agree with the obvious.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat "Dinosaurs aren't birds."
That is correct. And Monkeys are humans. And Mammals aren't dogs....
Okay now that we got that out of the way. lets try to not get confused about simple logical statements.
Birds ARE dinosaurs. That is true. But that does not mean the reverse is true, that dinosaurs are birds. Some dinosaurs are birds but not all. ALL birds are dinosaurs, because birds are decedents of dinosaurs.
Confusing this is like thinking Jesus gave birth to Mary.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce Sorry but not convinced. There are to many differences in their organs,and a very small change in their internal anatomy would be harmful. Sorry it took so long to respond.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat I say this with all due respect to a fellow human being: You are fucking retarded. In all my time on youtube I have never had to say that, but you really are that dumb. And if your god does exist, may he have mercy on your soul.
EddieCubillo 10 months ago
I agree that crocs have a four chambered heart,but so do we I guess were all related. Just look at the dinos ,use commonsense,then comment again. Ok. God Bless.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Good. Your getting it. All life on earth is related. Our DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzees. Our DNA is 70% identical to mice. Out DNA is 50% identical to fruit flies. Our DNA is 18% identical to plants, and other forms of life. Why do we all have DNA? DNA is proof that we are all related. All life on earth has DNA. Why? All life uses DNA and RNA. But their are other genetic materials that work just as well as DNA. So you just proved my point. All life is related.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
By the way if your brain is a collection of chemicals that came together by random chance,how can you trust your thoughts and your reasoning process. Maybe you got a few screws loose. I can understand why you think that they are birds,you have a few screws loose. Commonsense and evolution don't mix. By the way 92% of Americans are Christians and the other 8% are of other religion or atheist. You can yahoo it. Birds are dinosaurs you need help to be that dumb. Ask the 92% they can tell you.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Okay. Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are reptiles. Birds are reptiles. Science has changed. People back then use to think dinosaurs walked like lizards, then they changed them to walking on two feet with their tail dragging on the ground, then they corrected by making them walk with their tail strait out. Common sense will tell you that birds are dinosaurs. Velociraptor had a withbone, birds have a wishbone. T-Rex had scales, birds have scales. (yes they do, look at their feet)
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat One more thing. An ornithomimus looks like an ostrich. Is it an ostrich?
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat The 92% of who? Those who trust the words of a 2000 year old book, instead of what science is showing them. It doesn't matter to science or evolution if the religious fail to accept it. And even if evolution was proved false tomorrow, that still doesn't mean god did it! Dinosaurs are birds. Can you name any other animal (other than a bird) that has a wishbone? Or feathers? Or scales on its feet? Next you'll be saying that bats are birds!
Linkacious1 1 year ago
Why so angry. And it's not just a name that's what they are. You see the people who named those lizards had commonsense. As far as the phylogenic tree I think it's just garbage that somebody put on paper. The animals you described like the mountain goat and mountain lion,they were given those names because they strongly resemble goats,and the mountain lion a lion. Now if we classify them differently then so be it. The platypus is unique in it's own way,no other animal quite like it.
TheChaosthegreat 1 year ago
@TheChaosthegreat Do you agree that big cats and small cats are both cats? Or do they just look like each other and that they aren't really cats? A dinosaur looks nothing like a lizard. But a crocodile does. Are crocodiles all the sudden lizards? No. They are reptiles, like birds. Yes. Birds are reptiles. And not all dinosaurs have lizard in their name. What about Velociraptor? Its name means swift thief. Is it a burgler all the sudden? And what about eagles, their raptors.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago