What about the duration of the lizards speed. Dino's had legs directly under their body. Reptiles legs are at right angles which makes chasing prey a limited effort so this mega... probably could chase its prey very far.
@Javimonotheism you should check out how dinosaurs and other reptiles are categorised scientifically. The only true decendants of dinosaurs are birds. All other reptiles are not directly related to dinosaurs.
@Javimonotheism Uhm... First of all, they're not dinosaurs. They're monitor lizards, so not even closely related to dinosaurs. Secondly, no megalania is extinct. It was very closely related to the Komodo dragon, except that it was about three to five times the size of a Komodo Dragon (estimates vary).
@weelittledragon Well if if they're not dinosaurs, but lizards then EVERY Dinosaur isnt lizard related by any chance if thats your point. I wonder what the name "Dinosaur" means than??? Hmmm guessing we'll never know. Oh Megalania was even referred to a dinosaur on the video.... Just saying.
@Javimonotheism Dinosaurs are a clade of Archosauria (the group that includes crocodiles, pterosaurs and some other, less well known extinct creatures). Lizards are a clade within Lepidosauria (the group containing lizards, snakes and tuatara). Two entirely different branches of reptiles. The word dinosaur has a very specific scientific meaning and dinosaurs are most certainly not lizards. I don't care if they called Megalania a dinosaur in the video. If they did, they were wrong.
@weelittledragon Well if they're wrong, then every paleotologist, biologist, evolutionary biologist, and archeaologist that contributed information to this video is wrong as well. Hmmm dinosaurs are not lizards.... i guess every scientific evidence doesnt suggest that then... based upon what you say. Two different branches... huh... yet reptiles are not lizards... Well im guessing your a scientist or something, you should publish a paper that challenges the well known.
@Javimonotheism And as it happens, I am an evolutionary biologist. But I'm hardly 'challenging the well known', because every scientist in the field already knows dinosaurs aren't lizards.There is absolutely NO biologist or paleontologist on the planet who claims dinosaurs are lizards. Noone has claimed this since the 19th century! Try doing a bit of research on reptile taxonomy before you claim to know what the scientific consensus on the subject is, because as it stands, you're wrong.
@weelittledragon Funny because if you truly were a evolutionary biologist, you should know that some dinosaurs were lizards and are closely related. Well im not a evolutionary scientist but i am a scientist in the environmental field. Yes, i'll admit i dont know much about dinosaurs but even i know enough to provide sufficient proof based off real scientists that study that field.
@Javimonotheism First of all, I really am an evolutionary biologist. You can believe me or not, I don't care. Whether I am a biologist does not validate or invalidate the things I'm saying anyway.
Secondly, not a single dinosaur is closely related to lizards. They are reasonably closely related to crocodiles, but NOT LIZARDS. Now, again, any basic textbook on vertebrate zoology will tell you this. What I'm saying here is nothing new, although it apparently is news to you.
@Javimonotheism Now, if you want to convince me that dinosaurs are lizards, do the following: 1) You say some dinosaurs are lizards, or closely related to lizards. Well, name them. Which dinosaurs are lizards?
2) Refer to any recent (less than 20 years old) peer reviewed scientific paper in which a paleontologist or biologist refers to dinosaurs as lizards (and not just by way of joke/metaphore/comparison), but literally as lizards (being squamate reptiles).
@Javimonotheism Dinosaurs are a clade of Archosauria (the group that includes crocodiles, pterosaurs and some other, less well known extinct creatures). Lizards are a clade within Lepidosauria (the group containing lizards, snakes and tuatara). Two entirely different branches of reptiles. The word dinosaur has a very specific scientific meaning and dinosaurs are most certainly not lizards. I don't care if they called Megalania a dinosaur in the video. If they did, they were wrong.
@jaialaigirl23 no it wasn't. Dinosaurs are now their own group of animals independent of reptiles. The animal kingdom now consists of arthropods, mollusks, fish, amphibians, reptiles, DINOSAURS, birds, mammals. In fact, many members of the the scientific community want to remove birds as their own group and reorganize them as a species of dinosaurs.
@natesdevices a more accurate word than reptile is amniote. Using this, dinosaurs are amniotes, as are birds, mammals, squemata etc. people just dont like calling birds reptiles because the word reptile conjures images of scaly lizards snakes etc. but people considr crocodilians to be reptiles.... which is silly as they are arguably closer to birds than to lizards. hence the word reptile shouldnt be used as it complicates things. and should be replaced with amniotes ^^
@haz020190 exactly, crocodilians are evolved from the archosaur genus just as dinosaurs and by extension birds so crocodilians have are more bird then lizard. How ever, the dinosauriae order has produced more individual and diverse species then mammals, amphibians, fish, arthropods, mollusks, and all the members of the other amniote group. Many speculate that there are mored dinosaurs then animals in general combined, if that don't constitute it's own independent group then i don't know what do
@haz020190 (cont) which is a part of the larger saurischia group. zoom out further and they are part of dinosauria as a whole. Which is a part of the archosaur group which in turn is part of the reptile/amniote group. then tetrapods, chrdates ec.
@haz020190 what i mean is that they should have equal status with reptiles, mammals, and birds, nstead of being thought f as an existing family of animals.
@natesdevices I think you misunderstand the reasoning for placing groups within groups and such. its all to do with the evolutionary background of the organism. hence if you look at all the groups it belongs to then you can trace the lineage back.
Being an incredibly diverse lineage (btw i think insects are more diverse) has absolutely no effect on wether that group is a genus, family, class, cade, order etc. and no matter how diverse or the group is, they will always be a subset of reptiles
@haz020190 i think being a species with an anatomy that no other group can compare two, arguably birds have the same anatomy but as they are considered dinosaurs already that really effect it. I think the traits, behavior, physiology, diversification, quantity, and the fact that they are out of sync with all known groups makes it only logical to call them there own group. By your logic, i could call mammals a subset of reptiles, and we know how odd that sounds.
@natesdevices it does sound odd i agree. but at the same time mammals ARE a subset of reptiles.
I understand the diffculty in looking at a bird and saying that its a reptile. Much has changed since the scaly four legged archosaurs. But no amount of change will ever take away the fact that dinos and birds are an offshoot from their ancestral reptile group.
it will always sound odd to call them reptiles. and that is reflected in the fact that noone ever refers to them as reptiles... (cont)
@haz020190 well by that logic, reptiles are a subset of amphibians which are a subset of fish, which are a subset of the first multicelluar creatures that swam in the oceans. if an animal which ha evolved from something is still in the same group as it's ancestor I could call a cat an amphibian and a trex a fish and go unchallenged. You need to see where the distinctions are made, if what your saying is true in theory zoologists would say reptiles are the dominant species, not mammals.
@natesdevices that is why reptile is a bad term. amniotes is better, and yes amniotes are the dominent group (on land atleast). Because saying that a mamma is a reptile makes people confused (as said people conjure images of scaly cold-blooded creatures) whereas amniotes is more accurate.
you coudnt call trex a fish, you could call it a chordate (of which the originals where fish) or a cat a tetrapod (of which the originals where lobe finned fish, ancestors of amphibians).
@haz020190 no, that won't help, we classify things for a reason. we can't use the term amniote as an all defining term because it's to broad and covers to many species, a worm and an octopus are both mollusks but an octopus is a cephalopod and a worm isn't. the term amniote covers a variety of species with a variety of substantial taxonomical differences far to prominent to ignore by calling them all amniotes. There is a real reason we call dogs mammals, geckos reptiles, and parrots dinosaurs.
@natesdevices if you accept that there are levels of taxonomy ie:
you accept that sea slugs (not worms, worms are not molluscs) and octopus are both molluscs, but that octopus also belongs to the subset of cephalopod.
why is that different to saying that dinosaurs and lizards are both amniotes, but that dinosaurs also belong to the subset of dinosauria.
we call things a certain group based on the context.
i have never referred to myself as a chordate... (cont)
@natesdevices (cont) as chordate is a vast broad term and isnt too valuable in most descriptions. but noone would argue that i AM a chordate, even if the more common term given is mammal, ape, hominid etc.
the same with birds. im not going to go walking around pointing at pidgeons and say 'look a flock of amniotes'. But im hard pressed to argue that they are not amniotes, or dinosaurs, or theropods, or chordates.
all these terms are accurate. its just that some are more specific to birds
@haz020190 look, all i want to know is this, on a less broad scale where the known animal families are classified as fish, mollusk, arthropod, amphibian, retile, mammal, (i refuse to say bird as they ARN'T their own family) would you consider dinosaurs their own family up there with all families previously mentioned, or would you consider them REPTILES, and by extension accept mammals as REPTILES, not just amniote but specifically reptiles. thats all i want to know. your opinion.
@natesdevices well if your looking to 'zoom in' to a small family scale then its like this.
birds as a whole is a 'class' in taxonomy. it contains numerous families.
Dnosauria is a superorder (in agreement with you its freakin huge) and contains atleast 2 orders, many classes (including birds) and many many more families.
so do i consider dinosaurs to be a seperate family to birds... well... no
@natesdevices (cont) are the other families within dinosauria different families to birds? ofcourse
i think the best way to please you with the angle you are looking at things, still keeping with taxonomically accuracy. is to refer to the two groups as Birds (Aves) and Non-Avian-Dinosaurs.
as for the other aspect i consider both Birds and Mammals to be reptiles (i still prefer the term amniote) as amniotes is a superclass. its not a family at all.
@natesdevices Btw the characteristics that charecterise an amniote/reptile is the use of internal fertilisation and (in all non-mammal amniotes) an egg with advanced outer layers.
also the production of young which are essentially small ersions of the adults, rather than tadpoles/larvae
so birds/dinosaurs/mammals/and modern lizards turtles etc. all fall into this group.
@haz020190 im not aging that they are amniotes, but calling over half of all know animal species by nothing other then that does not even begin to describe the various differences of the species within the amniote classification order. While reptiles and mammals are both amniotes there are severe differences between THEM SELVES. A kangaroo and a human are both bipeds, that doesn't mean their aren't extreme differences in our physiology worth of mention.
@natesdevices I dont know whats left to argue. you accept that birds/mammals/dinos are amniotes by definition. but noone (including me) is suggesting that we call them amniotes in our day-to-day lives.
as i said if i see a flock of pidgeons i call it a flock of pidgeons not a flock of amniotes.
you say "While reptiles and mammals are both amniotes there are severe differences between THEM SELVES"
id like to stress at this point that i use the word amniote INSTEAD of the word reptile (cont)
@natesdevices (cont) and so ur statement is 'mammals and amniotes are both amniotes but mammals have differences.'
ofcourse mammals have their own specific characteristics that define them. hair, lactation, varied teeth, warm bloodedness etc.
all of these distinguish them from the rest of the amniotes. Thats why mammal is a useful term, it narrows the field to animals with those characteristics. a similar thing can be done with all other groups within amniotes.
@haz020190 your not getting it, mammals are just as much amniotes as reptiles, how ever they are two very different amniotes. To say mammals and amniotes is pointless as mammals are just as much amniotes as reptiles. The term reptile isn't synonymous with amniote. Dinosaurs, are warm blooded animals possessing the genes for feathers and have legs under heir bodies, with the exception of laying eggs they are no more a reptile then a dog or cat. my point is, within the amniotes, what class would-
@natesdevices mammals and dinos are two very different amniotes. agreed. thats why we refer to them as mammals and dinos.
I think hearing what youve just said the issue is this:
you are trying to use 'reptiles' as a group different (or atleast within) amniotes. whereas I am pretty much against the use of the word reptile as it is very innacurate.
judging by your dinos reasoning, am i right in thinking that you would define a reptile as:
@natesdevices (cont) this is what i would say everyone would list as a description of reptiles.
what i am saying is that from a taxonomic perspective. using that as a group isnt useful.
amphibians match all of those categories, some extinct proto-reptiles probably had scales too.
squemata/crocadilia and testudines (along with their common ancestor) would all count as reptiles correct?? however snakes have no legs at all, and leatherback turtles are warm-blooded to a degree. (cont)
@natesdevices (cont) so should snakes and leatherbacks not be counted as reptiles (for the sae reasons you dont count dinos as reptiles).
if reptilia is a group outside of amniotes. where does it lie?? arguably it cant be a higher order than amniotes and so must lie within it. if so.... amniotes would branch into reptilia and what other group??
@haz020190 ok, let me say this one more time. reptiles are amniotes, how ever, you need to understand that they aren't the most prominent from of amniote, they share a status with mammals as the TWO main forms of amniotes. That is why the term reptile is nesecary, the factors that make an amniote a reptile that have been accepted by the SCIENTIFIC COMmUNITY are those previously mentioned. The factors that make make an amniote a dinosaur or mammal have also been stated, and they are clearly-
@natesdevices ok good so youve answered my question.
so in your understanding you would place two subgroups of amnoites. Reptilia and Mammalia.
saying that a group is accepted by the community in taxonomy is a tricky issue. there are many different styles of adding labels to the phylogenetic tree. some models dont even use the word reptile (these i prefer).
Essentially the modern scientific definition of reptile (in models that use the term) is any amniote that is not a mammal or a bird (cont)
@haz020190 (cont) the reason that i dont like that model is two fold.
firstly it is a group made by taking a large phylogenetic group (amniotes) and simpl hacking sections off that dont fit with the idilic image of a reptile. this method isnt used to create any other group in taxonomy.
second the groups you have left within reptilia are wildly diverse. a crocodile, and a snake are vastly different in terms of morphology. to the same degree that a snake is different to a bird or mammal (cont)
@haz020190 (cont) and yet it is argued that they belong to the same group and shouldnt be hacked off in the same way that mammals have and birds have.
Reptile is a useful word on the street. people know which extanct creatures u are refering to.
however in phylogenetic models and in taxonomy i feel it is a clumbsy term and is much better split into its subsets (anapsids and diapsids) and placed alongside the mammas under Amniotes.
@haz020190 and the short answer to your final question (sorry i missed your add-on) is that i consider dinosaurs to be reptiles if that term has to be used. That is going by the model where repties are all non-bird non-mammal amniotes.
the groups that are left include dinosaurs, therefore dinosaurs are reptiles.
@haz020190 ok so I'm going to argue this, dinosaurs and birds are amniotes that like mammals are outside of the species we identify to be reptiles, mainly on the grounds that they share differences with the reptilian form of amniote that are parallel with those that distinguish mammals from the reptilian amniotes, such as behavior, physiology, blood type, extreme genetic differences, skin covering potency, skeletal structure, species diversification, and lastly sharing nought but eggs with reps.
@natesdevices ok ill say to start that there is no right or wrong here. the fact that no matter what labels you put on things the structure of the tree of life stays the same.
But i will say that in my ideal system i disagree. on these grounds.
firstly there is no genetic information obtained from dinos (so thats void)
blood type you mean warm bloodedness? this is not likely to be the case in ALL dinosaurs. (cont)
@haz020190 warm bloodedness is almost definitely found in all dinosaurs and may go as far back as the reptilian archsaurs that would evolve into dinosaurs. This is my field and i stud it extensively.
@natesdevices "warm bloodedness is almost definitely found in all dinosaurs"
do you have anyhing i can red for evidence outside of theropoda??
I have read that sauropods and other large herbivores may retain heat merely by virtue o their bulk. but i dont consider that to be 'true' warm-bloodedness
@haz020190 it is well established information that a war blooded metabolism is not only nesecary but crucial to support animals such as a dinosaur, on the same grounds that the various forms mammals seen today require the same metabolism. Bulk contains heat but not nearly enough for the large populations of dinosaurs living at both poles which saw yearly frozen winters just like they do today, no offense, i mean this from a peers perspective-
@natesdevices hey no offence taken. im a marine biologist, ive studied taxonomic models but my knowledge of dinosaurs comes from a 'healthy interest' rather than a specialization in it.
I still stick to my point that when applying group names to the evolutionary tree. a label is a label and so theres no right or wrong.
I still think it would be better to do away with the term reptile atogether, as i disagree with the notion of having a group which is (cont)
@haz020190 by the way, while i can't pull up an article from recent times about dinosaurs being warm blooded, because it's kinda been accepted as the norm over recent years and an article would be old news, i can recommend wikipedia, as some one who studies these animals i can tell you that almost all the time they are correct in their data, i recommend searching brachiosaurus and going to the metabolism section, you will find it quite interesting.
@natesdevices thanks some good references on that wiki. im afraid yes i am not up to date by the looks of things, and my apologies for not continueing i had some internet issues.
to continue what i was gonna say:
i dont like the use of the Reptile model as it is essentially : 'Everything under this point.... except this part ..... or that part'
i feel this is inneficient and i prefer modes where all groups are justified as 'Everything under this point'
@haz020190 im glad you enjoyed them, if you want, i can pm you a link to a discovery documentary that elaborates on the mammal and bird like behavior of cretaceous dinosaurs. Any way, i like to classify reptilian amniotes as the cold blooded, squat, external body regulating forerunners to more advanced amniotic forms. synapisids ad archosaurs were reptilian link species that led to dinosaurs and reptiles. dinosaurs by the end of the cretaceous shared literally nothing but eggs with reptiles.
@natesdevices (cont)but if you want to split the theropods (for which this is likely) from reptilia, then i guess u have a stronger case there.
skeletal structure between the reptiles that you have left is equally as diverse as the skeletal structure between any of them and dinosaurs.
With regards to behaviour (ill stick to parenting i assume thts what ur getting at) there are dinos that did and didnt care for their young. and reptiles today that do the same.
@haz020190 my theories for behavior go far beyond parenting, i and number of paleontologists, as in a little over half actively partaking in the S community, believe that mammalian behavior is actually mirror imaging the behavior of the dines that lived millions of years prior. I subscribe to the notion that any animal species if out in the same environment as another will begin to develop the same behavior.
@natesdevices convergent evolution of behavior? interesting.
however the spectrum of behaviour would be so broad that i have concerns about using it to define a group like that.
for example look at mammals as a whole. theres every behaviour under the sun there (with common ground being parenting which is why i thort u were relating to that)
@haz020190 i believe that base groups of animals will evolve to a near same conclusion to cope with the same environment. it is because of this theory that i believe that life on an alien planet where the conditions need to be EXACTLY the same as they were here would evolve following the same astern id did here, the only real difference being, or not being, the various mass extinctions on this other world that would allow for different forms to arise.
@haz020190 continued- different from reptilian amniotes. I am going to repeat myself, mammals are just as much amniotes as reptiles, so using the term amniote synonymously with the reptilia class as though reptiles were the main form is simply incorrect. Now, lastly, in the known animal families, not orders, groups or what ever else, only the families of the animal kingdom, fish amphib arth, mollusk, rep, mamma, do you think dinosaurs are their own family ouside of reptiles, or members of-
in my opnion megalina and all those animals would still be here if it wasn't for the human wipeing them out. all though there deadly XD, there pretty cool
@69Kambash64 well i suck at geography, but what i ment is why would you wanna interview a guy whos topless, at least wear like a vest over a program xD?
@Spootchies Not just the animal life. There's the plant life, which is known for dropping branches randomly, the eucalyptus tree which under the right conditions can EXPLODE, the ground which will crumble underfoot for no reason, the sun and night sky are out to get you, and don't even mention the sea. The only animal that was actually tough enough to take on Australia and win consistantly is the human.
Fucking Australia. There just couldn't have been ONE period in history when it wasn't populated by horrifying, bloodthirsty hell-beasts, couldn't there?
I bet this is new to you guys that an Australian farmer found a full Megalania skull in his backyard, and that carbon dating revealed that it was only 300 years old...
But have you explored every inch of it? The Outback's a big place; I know, and I haven't even been there yet. It's more than big enough to hide a large animal, and I've tracked reports made throughout the last three decades of this animal being sighted. Pay attention next time the local drunk says he runs into a tree trunk and it gets up and walks away...that's probably your big lizard.
@AussieMuslimah99 You never know; they discovered the Coelocanth, didn't they? That thing should have been extinct in the Devonian period. What few people understand is how dense and jam packed a rainforest really is, and from what I understand Australia has a lot of rainforest. You can't deny the fact that a ton of people have claimed to have run into something like a log and then have it get up and walk away...
@KerianH If they had run into Megalania, they wouldn't have lived. And they wouldn't be able to resist the opportunity of an easy meal from our cattle.
@AussieMuslimah99 Cattle have been killed and disappeared in Australia often enough if I remember correctly, and plus they were in cars when it happened...
Plus, last I checked, few people ever go into an Australian Rainforest or in the Outback on their own and safely live to tell the tale. Unless you're an expert in the region or are smart enough not to travel alone, you're pretty much a target to any predator...
@KerianH Actually it was the late Cretaceous. And then it went 'Fuck that, I'mma out live sea reptiles.' And that is why the Coelecanth is still around today.
@69Kambash64 Sure, but that doesn't mean that other animals won't.
Maybe Megalania's dead, maybe it isn't. One thing's for sure, even if you're absolutely sure that it is, you're still only 99.999999999% right. There's still that tiny 0.000000001% chance that you and the rest of science is wrong. That's my point of the argument.
What about the duration of the lizards speed. Dino's had legs directly under their body. Reptiles legs are at right angles which makes chasing prey a limited effort so this mega... probably could chase its prey very far.
cellofingers 1 day ago
@Javimonotheism you should check out how dinosaurs and other reptiles are categorised scientifically. The only true decendants of dinosaurs are birds. All other reptiles are not directly related to dinosaurs.
masterknaster 2 days ago
Komodos aren't dinosaurs. They're lizards. Megalania isn't a Komodo: it's an entirely different species, Javimonotheism.
MaulDarth879 2 days ago
What is that the narrator keeping in his mouth ? Or is he chewing his own teeth while he is talking ?
sumittechkgp 2 days ago
look! komodo dragon on steriods!
MrDman729 4 days ago
Why do they highlight new zealand when talking about australia?
slackersurreal 5 days ago
yo man...shaggy boombastic...mista lova lova
wolvie041007 1 week ago
for all these nat-geo or disc. channel specials with a recreation of the extinct animal, they all use the same set.
chickenslice86 1 week ago
LoL! Looksl ike korean market at 9:56. As a korean, I wants to know where is that place. Hope to see megalania ^^
MechanicalCreatures 1 week ago
dude if that lizard walked into the store that's be fucking awesome
ChaosKirbyoLight 1 week ago
i love how erery living thing in austrailia would kill you
ninjachiken11 2 weeks ago
@ninjachiken11 yeah.....in Australia even flies are poisonous......XD
lonetiger74 1 week ago
CUTE FLUFFY ANIMALS LIKE KANGEROOS?! you walk up to a damn red kangeroo and pat it! it would fuck you up!
runswithlolwolves 2 weeks ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These dates are all wrong,invented by the white man. Earth is just a few thousand years old.
Pilgrim1411 2 weeks ago
basically everything in Australia wants to kill you
TheBlutackman 2 weeks ago
Australia is basically the land of death.
OsirisLord 2 weeks ago
@OsirisLord yup
TheAchilles9000 2 weeks ago
@OsirisLord exactly
TheAchilles9000 2 weeks ago
That guy without shirt and with the tatoos looks ridiculous for a scientific show. But it´s discovery channel, I should not be surprised.
TheWuailson 2 weeks ago
I'm Australian and that accent annoys me lol, somethings not right there it's like half american half aussie accent weird lol
Wikkedbrisbane 2 weeks ago
These dinosaurs still exist, they're called Komodo Dragons which reside on the island of Komodo.
Javimonotheism 3 weeks ago 9
@Javimonotheism Uhm... First of all, they're not dinosaurs. They're monitor lizards, so not even closely related to dinosaurs. Secondly, no megalania is extinct. It was very closely related to the Komodo dragon, except that it was about three to five times the size of a Komodo Dragon (estimates vary).
weelittledragon 3 days ago
@weelittledragon Obviously, thet should be: No, Megalania is extinct.
weelittledragon 3 days ago
@weelittledragon Well if if they're not dinosaurs, but lizards then EVERY Dinosaur isnt lizard related by any chance if thats your point. I wonder what the name "Dinosaur" means than??? Hmmm guessing we'll never know. Oh Megalania was even referred to a dinosaur on the video.... Just saying.
Javimonotheism 2 days ago
@Javimonotheism Dinosaurs are a clade of Archosauria (the group that includes crocodiles, pterosaurs and some other, less well known extinct creatures). Lizards are a clade within Lepidosauria (the group containing lizards, snakes and tuatara). Two entirely different branches of reptiles. The word dinosaur has a very specific scientific meaning and dinosaurs are most certainly not lizards. I don't care if they called Megalania a dinosaur in the video. If they did, they were wrong.
weelittledragon 2 days ago
@weelittledragon Well if they're wrong, then every paleotologist, biologist, evolutionary biologist, and archeaologist that contributed information to this video is wrong as well. Hmmm dinosaurs are not lizards.... i guess every scientific evidence doesnt suggest that then... based upon what you say. Two different branches... huh... yet reptiles are not lizards... Well im guessing your a scientist or something, you should publish a paper that challenges the well known.
Javimonotheism 2 days ago
@Javimonotheism And as it happens, I am an evolutionary biologist. But I'm hardly 'challenging the well known', because every scientist in the field already knows dinosaurs aren't lizards.There is absolutely NO biologist or paleontologist on the planet who claims dinosaurs are lizards. Noone has claimed this since the 19th century! Try doing a bit of research on reptile taxonomy before you claim to know what the scientific consensus on the subject is, because as it stands, you're wrong.
weelittledragon 1 day ago
@weelittledragon Funny because if you truly were a evolutionary biologist, you should know that some dinosaurs were lizards and are closely related. Well im not a evolutionary scientist but i am a scientist in the environmental field. Yes, i'll admit i dont know much about dinosaurs but even i know enough to provide sufficient proof based off real scientists that study that field.
Javimonotheism 1 day ago
@Javimonotheism First of all, I really am an evolutionary biologist. You can believe me or not, I don't care. Whether I am a biologist does not validate or invalidate the things I'm saying anyway.
Secondly, not a single dinosaur is closely related to lizards. They are reasonably closely related to crocodiles, but NOT LIZARDS. Now, again, any basic textbook on vertebrate zoology will tell you this. What I'm saying here is nothing new, although it apparently is news to you.
weelittledragon 21 hours ago
@Javimonotheism Now, if you want to convince me that dinosaurs are lizards, do the following: 1) You say some dinosaurs are lizards, or closely related to lizards. Well, name them. Which dinosaurs are lizards?
2) Refer to any recent (less than 20 years old) peer reviewed scientific paper in which a paleontologist or biologist refers to dinosaurs as lizards (and not just by way of joke/metaphore/comparison), but literally as lizards (being squamate reptiles).
weelittledragon 21 hours ago
@Javimonotheism Dinosaurs are a clade of Archosauria (the group that includes crocodiles, pterosaurs and some other, less well known extinct creatures). Lizards are a clade within Lepidosauria (the group containing lizards, snakes and tuatara). Two entirely different branches of reptiles. The word dinosaur has a very specific scientific meaning and dinosaurs are most certainly not lizards. I don't care if they called Megalania a dinosaur in the video. If they did, they were wrong.
weelittledragon 2 days ago
the australian accent annoys me
iizyii 3 weeks ago
@iizyii it's off putting.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
this could be the legendary bunyip
Middlerun1 1 month ago
Brian Graig baby, lets get marry!
936justme 1 month ago
9:55 <-------Click here to see Megalania attacking the store!
evar136 1 month ago
A Bull as depicted in this story is far more alert, quick and mean than the one they show here.
Methinks they slant the story a bit too much.
356butch 1 month ago
Every time they call dinosaurs reptiles in this, i die a little inside.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@dinosaurcraig777 yes, actually it was.
jaialaigirl23 1 month ago
@jaialaigirl23 no it wasn't. Dinosaurs are now their own group of animals independent of reptiles. The animal kingdom now consists of arthropods, mollusks, fish, amphibians, reptiles, DINOSAURS, birds, mammals. In fact, many members of the the scientific community want to remove birds as their own group and reorganize them as a species of dinosaurs.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices a more accurate word than reptile is amniote. Using this, dinosaurs are amniotes, as are birds, mammals, squemata etc. people just dont like calling birds reptiles because the word reptile conjures images of scaly lizards snakes etc. but people considr crocodilians to be reptiles.... which is silly as they are arguably closer to birds than to lizards. hence the word reptile shouldnt be used as it complicates things. and should be replaced with amniotes ^^
haz020190 4 weeks ago
@haz020190 exactly, crocodilians are evolved from the archosaur genus just as dinosaurs and by extension birds so crocodilians have are more bird then lizard. How ever, the dinosauriae order has produced more individual and diverse species then mammals, amphibians, fish, arthropods, mollusks, and all the members of the other amniote group. Many speculate that there are mored dinosaurs then animals in general combined, if that don't constitute it's own independent group then i don't know what do
natesdevices 4 weeks ago
@natesdevices its not that dinsaurs arent in ther own group. it just makes reptiles/amniotes into a class, taxonomicaly speaking.
it means that the lizard line, the bird line, and he mamma line (and crazy offshoots like turtles etc) are all included under the class of amniotes.
so you can have dinosaurs being their own group. its just that if you 'zoom out' then their group is part of a larger group.
birds are aves, which is a part of the theropod dinosaur group....(cont)
haz020190 4 weeks ago
@haz020190 (cont) which is a part of the larger saurischia group. zoom out further and they are part of dinosauria as a whole. Which is a part of the archosaur group which in turn is part of the reptile/amniote group. then tetrapods, chrdates ec.
haz020190 4 weeks ago
@haz020190 what i mean is that they should have equal status with reptiles, mammals, and birds, nstead of being thought f as an existing family of animals.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices I think you misunderstand the reasoning for placing groups within groups and such. its all to do with the evolutionary background of the organism. hence if you look at all the groups it belongs to then you can trace the lineage back.
Being an incredibly diverse lineage (btw i think insects are more diverse) has absolutely no effect on wether that group is a genus, family, class, cade, order etc. and no matter how diverse or the group is, they will always be a subset of reptiles
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 i think being a species with an anatomy that no other group can compare two, arguably birds have the same anatomy but as they are considered dinosaurs already that really effect it. I think the traits, behavior, physiology, diversification, quantity, and the fact that they are out of sync with all known groups makes it only logical to call them there own group. By your logic, i could call mammals a subset of reptiles, and we know how odd that sounds.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices it does sound odd i agree. but at the same time mammals ARE a subset of reptiles.
I understand the diffculty in looking at a bird and saying that its a reptile. Much has changed since the scaly four legged archosaurs. But no amount of change will ever take away the fact that dinos and birds are an offshoot from their ancestral reptile group.
it will always sound odd to call them reptiles. and that is reflected in the fact that noone ever refers to them as reptiles... (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices (cont) but that doesnt take away the fact that they technically ARE and always will be.
taxonomy is full of creatures that if you look at their ancestry it seems silly to call them that.
for example snakes are part of the tetrapod group. but have no legs.
whales are part of the ungulate group (ill have to doube check that) but have no feet.
some snakes (eg the garter snake) give birth to live young. but they are still reptiles.
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 well by that logic, reptiles are a subset of amphibians which are a subset of fish, which are a subset of the first multicelluar creatures that swam in the oceans. if an animal which ha evolved from something is still in the same group as it's ancestor I could call a cat an amphibian and a trex a fish and go unchallenged. You need to see where the distinctions are made, if what your saying is true in theory zoologists would say reptiles are the dominant species, not mammals.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices that is why reptile is a bad term. amniotes is better, and yes amniotes are the dominent group (on land atleast). Because saying that a mamma is a reptile makes people confused (as said people conjure images of scaly cold-blooded creatures) whereas amniotes is more accurate.
you coudnt call trex a fish, you could call it a chordate (of which the originals where fish) or a cat a tetrapod (of which the originals where lobe finned fish, ancestors of amphibians).
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 no, that won't help, we classify things for a reason. we can't use the term amniote as an all defining term because it's to broad and covers to many species, a worm and an octopus are both mollusks but an octopus is a cephalopod and a worm isn't. the term amniote covers a variety of species with a variety of substantial taxonomical differences far to prominent to ignore by calling them all amniotes. There is a real reason we call dogs mammals, geckos reptiles, and parrots dinosaurs.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices if you accept that there are levels of taxonomy ie:
you accept that sea slugs (not worms, worms are not molluscs) and octopus are both molluscs, but that octopus also belongs to the subset of cephalopod.
why is that different to saying that dinosaurs and lizards are both amniotes, but that dinosaurs also belong to the subset of dinosauria.
we call things a certain group based on the context.
i have never referred to myself as a chordate... (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices (cont) as chordate is a vast broad term and isnt too valuable in most descriptions. but noone would argue that i AM a chordate, even if the more common term given is mammal, ape, hominid etc.
the same with birds. im not going to go walking around pointing at pidgeons and say 'look a flock of amniotes'. But im hard pressed to argue that they are not amniotes, or dinosaurs, or theropods, or chordates.
all these terms are accurate. its just that some are more specific to birds
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 sorry correction: noone would argue that i AM NOT a chordate
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 look, all i want to know is this, on a less broad scale where the known animal families are classified as fish, mollusk, arthropod, amphibian, retile, mammal, (i refuse to say bird as they ARN'T their own family) would you consider dinosaurs their own family up there with all families previously mentioned, or would you consider them REPTILES, and by extension accept mammals as REPTILES, not just amniote but specifically reptiles. thats all i want to know. your opinion.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices well if your looking to 'zoom in' to a small family scale then its like this.
birds as a whole is a 'class' in taxonomy. it contains numerous families.
Dnosauria is a superorder (in agreement with you its freakin huge) and contains atleast 2 orders, many classes (including birds) and many many more families.
so do i consider dinosaurs to be a seperate family to birds... well... no
because dinosaurs are split into many families.
(cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices (cont) are the other families within dinosauria different families to birds? ofcourse
i think the best way to please you with the angle you are looking at things, still keeping with taxonomically accuracy. is to refer to the two groups as Birds (Aves) and Non-Avian-Dinosaurs.
as for the other aspect i consider both Birds and Mammals to be reptiles (i still prefer the term amniote) as amniotes is a superclass. its not a family at all.
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices Btw the characteristics that charecterise an amniote/reptile is the use of internal fertilisation and (in all non-mammal amniotes) an egg with advanced outer layers.
also the production of young which are essentially small ersions of the adults, rather than tadpoles/larvae
so birds/dinosaurs/mammals/and modern lizards turtles etc. all fall into this group.
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 im not aging that they are amniotes, but calling over half of all know animal species by nothing other then that does not even begin to describe the various differences of the species within the amniote classification order. While reptiles and mammals are both amniotes there are severe differences between THEM SELVES. A kangaroo and a human are both bipeds, that doesn't mean their aren't extreme differences in our physiology worth of mention.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices I dont know whats left to argue. you accept that birds/mammals/dinos are amniotes by definition. but noone (including me) is suggesting that we call them amniotes in our day-to-day lives.
as i said if i see a flock of pidgeons i call it a flock of pidgeons not a flock of amniotes.
you say "While reptiles and mammals are both amniotes there are severe differences between THEM SELVES"
id like to stress at this point that i use the word amniote INSTEAD of the word reptile (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices (cont) and so ur statement is 'mammals and amniotes are both amniotes but mammals have differences.'
ofcourse mammals have their own specific characteristics that define them. hair, lactation, varied teeth, warm bloodedness etc.
all of these distinguish them from the rest of the amniotes. Thats why mammal is a useful term, it narrows the field to animals with those characteristics. a similar thing can be done with all other groups within amniotes.
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 your not getting it, mammals are just as much amniotes as reptiles, how ever they are two very different amniotes. To say mammals and amniotes is pointless as mammals are just as much amniotes as reptiles. The term reptile isn't synonymous with amniote. Dinosaurs, are warm blooded animals possessing the genes for feathers and have legs under heir bodies, with the exception of laying eggs they are no more a reptile then a dog or cat. my point is, within the amniotes, what class would-
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices mammals and dinos are two very different amniotes. agreed. thats why we refer to them as mammals and dinos.
I think hearing what youve just said the issue is this:
you are trying to use 'reptiles' as a group different (or atleast within) amniotes. whereas I am pretty much against the use of the word reptile as it is very innacurate.
judging by your dinos reasoning, am i right in thinking that you would define a reptile as:
sprawling
cold blooded
featherless/hairless
(cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices (cont) this is what i would say everyone would list as a description of reptiles.
what i am saying is that from a taxonomic perspective. using that as a group isnt useful.
amphibians match all of those categories, some extinct proto-reptiles probably had scales too.
squemata/crocadilia and testudines (along with their common ancestor) would all count as reptiles correct?? however snakes have no legs at all, and leatherback turtles are warm-blooded to a degree. (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices (cont) so should snakes and leatherbacks not be counted as reptiles (for the sae reasons you dont count dinos as reptiles).
if reptilia is a group outside of amniotes. where does it lie?? arguably it cant be a higher order than amniotes and so must lie within it. if so.... amniotes would branch into reptilia and what other group??
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 ok, let me say this one more time. reptiles are amniotes, how ever, you need to understand that they aren't the most prominent from of amniote, they share a status with mammals as the TWO main forms of amniotes. That is why the term reptile is nesecary, the factors that make an amniote a reptile that have been accepted by the SCIENTIFIC COMmUNITY are those previously mentioned. The factors that make make an amniote a dinosaur or mammal have also been stated, and they are clearly-
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices ok good so youve answered my question.
so in your understanding you would place two subgroups of amnoites. Reptilia and Mammalia.
saying that a group is accepted by the community in taxonomy is a tricky issue. there are many different styles of adding labels to the phylogenetic tree. some models dont even use the word reptile (these i prefer).
Essentially the modern scientific definition of reptile (in models that use the term) is any amniote that is not a mammal or a bird (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 (cont) the reason that i dont like that model is two fold.
firstly it is a group made by taking a large phylogenetic group (amniotes) and simpl hacking sections off that dont fit with the idilic image of a reptile. this method isnt used to create any other group in taxonomy.
second the groups you have left within reptilia are wildly diverse. a crocodile, and a snake are vastly different in terms of morphology. to the same degree that a snake is different to a bird or mammal (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 (cont) and yet it is argued that they belong to the same group and shouldnt be hacked off in the same way that mammals have and birds have.
Reptile is a useful word on the street. people know which extanct creatures u are refering to.
however in phylogenetic models and in taxonomy i feel it is a clumbsy term and is much better split into its subsets (anapsids and diapsids) and placed alongside the mammas under Amniotes.
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 and the short answer to your final question (sorry i missed your add-on) is that i consider dinosaurs to be reptiles if that term has to be used. That is going by the model where repties are all non-bird non-mammal amniotes.
the groups that are left include dinosaurs, therefore dinosaurs are reptiles.
but i dont like that model =)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 ok so I'm going to argue this, dinosaurs and birds are amniotes that like mammals are outside of the species we identify to be reptiles, mainly on the grounds that they share differences with the reptilian form of amniote that are parallel with those that distinguish mammals from the reptilian amniotes, such as behavior, physiology, blood type, extreme genetic differences, skin covering potency, skeletal structure, species diversification, and lastly sharing nought but eggs with reps.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices ok ill say to start that there is no right or wrong here. the fact that no matter what labels you put on things the structure of the tree of life stays the same.
But i will say that in my ideal system i disagree. on these grounds.
firstly there is no genetic information obtained from dinos (so thats void)
blood type you mean warm bloodedness? this is not likely to be the case in ALL dinosaurs. (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 warm bloodedness is almost definitely found in all dinosaurs and may go as far back as the reptilian archsaurs that would evolve into dinosaurs. This is my field and i stud it extensively.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices "warm bloodedness is almost definitely found in all dinosaurs"
do you have anyhing i can red for evidence outside of theropoda??
I have read that sauropods and other large herbivores may retain heat merely by virtue o their bulk. but i dont consider that to be 'true' warm-bloodedness
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 it is well established information that a war blooded metabolism is not only nesecary but crucial to support animals such as a dinosaur, on the same grounds that the various forms mammals seen today require the same metabolism. Bulk contains heat but not nearly enough for the large populations of dinosaurs living at both poles which saw yearly frozen winters just like they do today, no offense, i mean this from a peers perspective-
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 continued- but you seem a little behind in the recent conclusions and discoveries about dinosaurs.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices hey no offence taken. im a marine biologist, ive studied taxonomic models but my knowledge of dinosaurs comes from a 'healthy interest' rather than a specialization in it.
I still stick to my point that when applying group names to the evolutionary tree. a label is a label and so theres no right or wrong.
I still think it would be better to do away with the term reptile atogether, as i disagree with the notion of having a group which is (cont)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 by the way, while i can't pull up an article from recent times about dinosaurs being warm blooded, because it's kinda been accepted as the norm over recent years and an article would be old news, i can recommend wikipedia, as some one who studies these animals i can tell you that almost all the time they are correct in their data, i recommend searching brachiosaurus and going to the metabolism section, you will find it quite interesting.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices thanks some good references on that wiki. im afraid yes i am not up to date by the looks of things, and my apologies for not continueing i had some internet issues.
to continue what i was gonna say:
i dont like the use of the Reptile model as it is essentially : 'Everything under this point.... except this part ..... or that part'
i feel this is inneficient and i prefer modes where all groups are justified as 'Everything under this point'
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 im glad you enjoyed them, if you want, i can pm you a link to a discovery documentary that elaborates on the mammal and bird like behavior of cretaceous dinosaurs. Any way, i like to classify reptilian amniotes as the cold blooded, squat, external body regulating forerunners to more advanced amniotic forms. synapisids ad archosaurs were reptilian link species that led to dinosaurs and reptiles. dinosaurs by the end of the cretaceous shared literally nothing but eggs with reptiles.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices (cont)but if you want to split the theropods (for which this is likely) from reptilia, then i guess u have a stronger case there.
skeletal structure between the reptiles that you have left is equally as diverse as the skeletal structure between any of them and dinosaurs.
With regards to behaviour (ill stick to parenting i assume thts what ur getting at) there are dinos that did and didnt care for their young. and reptiles today that do the same.
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 my theories for behavior go far beyond parenting, i and number of paleontologists, as in a little over half actively partaking in the S community, believe that mammalian behavior is actually mirror imaging the behavior of the dines that lived millions of years prior. I subscribe to the notion that any animal species if out in the same environment as another will begin to develop the same behavior.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@natesdevices convergent evolution of behavior? interesting.
however the spectrum of behaviour would be so broad that i have concerns about using it to define a group like that.
for example look at mammals as a whole. theres every behaviour under the sun there (with common ground being parenting which is why i thort u were relating to that)
haz020190 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 i believe that base groups of animals will evolve to a near same conclusion to cope with the same environment. it is because of this theory that i believe that life on an alien planet where the conditions need to be EXACTLY the same as they were here would evolve following the same astern id did here, the only real difference being, or not being, the various mass extinctions on this other world that would allow for different forms to arise.
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 continued- different from reptilian amniotes. I am going to repeat myself, mammals are just as much amniotes as reptiles, so using the term amniote synonymously with the reptilia class as though reptiles were the main form is simply incorrect. Now, lastly, in the known animal families, not orders, groups or what ever else, only the families of the animal kingdom, fish amphib arth, mollusk, rep, mamma, do you think dinosaurs are their own family ouside of reptiles, or members of-
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 continued- the reptile family?
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
@haz020190 continued-place them?
natesdevices 3 weeks ago
05:00 NO WAY! An Asteroid killed the dinosaurs!? Why haven't all the other documentaries said this before!
Darklarik 1 month ago
T-rex wasnt a reptile
dinosaurcraig777 1 month ago
i heard rumors that they were going to introudce th ekomodo dragon in austrullia to replace megalina
bladesofice63 1 month ago
in my opnion megalina and all those animals would still be here if it wasn't for the human wipeing them out. all though there deadly XD, there pretty cool
bladesofice63 1 month ago
What do you mean like a big island? We are an island! And a continent!
Orlliv 1 month ago
Is that Tim Curry narrating this video? 8O
Violent4Red 1 month ago
suppose all those mega lizards were scared of mouses ?
sesshoumaru3st 1 month ago
is that bald guy in monster bug wars?
mkocja5a 1 month ago
the guy sounds like thegamingbrit
mkocja5a 1 month ago
Comment removed
MASTERREX1011 1 month ago
It is actually a giant ripper
DinosaurKing7 1 month ago
Help Megalania
DinosaurKing7 1 month ago
i would have a made a racket if i had tape on my belly and a mic on my cheek
dogtube999 1 month ago
It moves too fast.
Skoda130 1 month ago
Comment removed
etornel79 1 month ago
ok megalania ranks with t rex who weighted 6 tones,and megashit weighted 250 kg? lol ..
MrSmigul 1 month ago
komodo dragon?
LukaszPrzek 2 months ago
"small and cute pouched mammals.." my ass -_- the modern kangaroo will ribp your abdomen out with its darn kick.
EzekielLk 2 months ago 30
@EzekielLk I guess he didn't say they were nice :/
Yceb0x 3 weeks ago
austraila suks
shehraj1000 2 months ago
@shehraj1000 not really
zooka0619 1 month ago
giant kangaroos look like giant bunnies O.O i want a mini one : D
kiraofthewasteland 2 months ago
18:43 is soooooooo not real...........
lilmissvix92 2 months ago
Comment removed
lilmissvix92 2 months ago
Megalania is a gay name for such a beast...
lilmissvix92 2 months ago
Damn nature. You scary.
ThrowDownArtists 2 months ago
It's like Salamence without wings. Imagine if it breathes fire!
TheOtherNeutrino 2 months ago
From Cryolophosaurus to Megalania to Saltwater Crocodiles, Austrailia RULES!!!!
DinoFreakUSA 2 months ago
@DinoFreakUSA oh so you're related to all those?
lilmissvix92 2 months ago
why the hell is a guy topless being questioned?
Hobnomb 2 months ago
@Hobnomb Its AUSTRALIA. Do you know how hot it gets there? Their Winter is our summer! (Assuming you live in the North)
69Kambash64 2 months ago
@69Kambash64 well i suck at geography, but what i ment is why would you wanna interview a guy whos topless, at least wear like a vest over a program xD?
Hobnomb 2 months ago
That is one bad ass lizard.
NoCutCard612 2 months ago
So its official, every animal in Australia wants you dead.
Spootchies 2 months ago 46
@Spootchies including kangaroos and carnovious koalas yep.
AustralianWolf11 2 months ago
@Spootchies Not just the animal life. There's the plant life, which is known for dropping branches randomly, the eucalyptus tree which under the right conditions can EXPLODE, the ground which will crumble underfoot for no reason, the sun and night sky are out to get you, and don't even mention the sea. The only animal that was actually tough enough to take on Australia and win consistantly is the human.
69Kambash64 2 months ago
@Spootchies not every koalas and blue tounge lizards dont want u dead and if they were to kill u its because they feel harmed
mizzcrazylol 1 month ago
@Spootchies even koalas? :P
mkocja5a 1 month ago
@mkocja5a yup it tore a mans private off ouch!
SweetestGirlxXx 1 month ago
@SweetestGirlxXx what? XD
mkocja5a 1 month ago
@mkocja5a lol ikr? it seems very weird :P
SweetestGirlxXx 1 month ago
@Spootchies Books too. Australian books are banned in Britain for being deadly edged weapons.
deektedrgg 1 month ago
i thought it kills its prey by biting and running away allowing th bacteria to kill the victim
strawdable 2 months ago
@strawdable thats komodo dragons. this is megalania
20firebird 1 month ago
Fucking Australia. There just couldn't have been ONE period in history when it wasn't populated by horrifying, bloodthirsty hell-beasts, couldn't there?
Replicaate 2 months ago
I´m gonna be a cryptozoologist, and i hope a´ll come across one of these guys.
adamgrogory 2 months ago
BUNNY KANGAROO YAAAH!!!
azcerder 3 months ago
I bet this is new to you guys that an Australian farmer found a full Megalania skull in his backyard, and that carbon dating revealed that it was only 300 years old...
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
KerianH 3 months ago
@KerianH
Source, please.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Type in Lost Tapes: Megalania, and then click on the first vid to pop up. That's where I first heard it.
KerianH 3 months ago
@KerianH
YEEEEAAAH....I ment an actual scientific source not a TV show. I like cryptozoology as much as the next guy but that answer doesn't fly with me.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
it does not still exist. i live in Australia and i guarantee you this animal is extinct
nick081980 3 months ago
@nick081980 You live in Australia...awesome...
But have you explored every inch of it? The Outback's a big place; I know, and I haven't even been there yet. It's more than big enough to hide a large animal, and I've tracked reports made throughout the last three decades of this animal being sighted. Pay attention next time the local drunk says he runs into a tree trunk and it gets up and walks away...that's probably your big lizard.
KerianH 3 months ago
@KerianH Trust me, they're extinct. Definitely. Closest to them is the Komodo dragon, and they can't hide.
AussieMuslimah99 2 months ago
@AussieMuslimah99 You never know; they discovered the Coelocanth, didn't they? That thing should have been extinct in the Devonian period. What few people understand is how dense and jam packed a rainforest really is, and from what I understand Australia has a lot of rainforest. You can't deny the fact that a ton of people have claimed to have run into something like a log and then have it get up and walk away...
KerianH 2 months ago
@KerianH If they had run into Megalania, they wouldn't have lived. And they wouldn't be able to resist the opportunity of an easy meal from our cattle.
AussieMuslimah99 2 months ago
@AussieMuslimah99 Cattle have been killed and disappeared in Australia often enough if I remember correctly, and plus they were in cars when it happened...
Plus, last I checked, few people ever go into an Australian Rainforest or in the Outback on their own and safely live to tell the tale. Unless you're an expert in the region or are smart enough not to travel alone, you're pretty much a target to any predator...
KerianH 2 months ago
@KerianH Actually it was the late Cretaceous. And then it went 'Fuck that, I'mma out live sea reptiles.' And that is why the Coelecanth is still around today.
69Kambash64 2 months ago
@69Kambash64 Sure, but that doesn't mean that other animals won't.
Maybe Megalania's dead, maybe it isn't. One thing's for sure, even if you're absolutely sure that it is, you're still only 99.999999999% right. There's still that tiny 0.000000001% chance that you and the rest of science is wrong. That's my point of the argument.
KerianH 2 months ago
it still lives
its called a komodo dragon lives in indonesia
close relative looks just like it :D
MabiPlayerOhanus 3 months ago
Evolution is a LIE. Thanks for the upload though! Really dig the Hollywood nature of this doc, lol.
Noremorse10 4 months ago
@Noremorse10 Proof that it is a lie?
clubpenguindino 3 months ago
@Noremorse10 We have evidence ranging from fossils, genetics, vestigal remnents, and comparative anatomy. Doesn't seem like a lie to me.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
Some say that Megalania still exists, inhabiting the unexplored rainforests of Australia. I think it could be possible.
Laserbeak316 4 months ago
@Laserbeak316 we better call Chuck Norris to track down Megalania then XDDD!
skeaneable 3 months ago
u took my baby
StupidMrBum 4 months ago
it just looks likes a Komodo Dragon.
hentore 4 months ago
megalania look like the long lost reptile when mammal rule would
22krismae 4 months ago
megalania is just a giant komodo dragon
SuperMendii 4 months ago
Wow Australia is scary. Look what happened to their beer. It evolved into Fosters, scaaaary....
Windows5000x 4 months ago 4
biggest? what happened to spinosaurus and charcaradontosaurus?
baa55555a 4 months ago
00:27 it ate people now thats one predator that actully battled man i'm impressed
RECKOGNING1 4 months ago
and New Zealand was ruled by BIRDS huge freakin brids , birds that still exist today
Brisingrize 4 months ago
he he new zealand was similar it had a huge eagle yikes
Brisingrize 4 months ago
Fucking Australia. There just couldn't have been one era in history when the place WASN'T populated by murderous animals, could there.
Replicaate 4 months ago
When in the hell in the evelutionary curv did giant kick-ass beasts dumb down to adorable fluffy koalas and roos?? O_O!!!!!
Umbreonluvr61391 4 months ago
@Umbreonluvr61391 less size, less need for food
Deshwat90210 4 months ago
is diprotodon a carnivore?
shakespearewhiskers5 4 months ago
@shakespearewhiskers5 no, diprotodon was herbivourous, but i think australia once harbored a giant carnivous kangaroo, though.
20firebird 1 month ago