Birds are Dinosaurs - How Taxonomy Works
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2023
- We often get comments which argue that birds aren't dinosaurs, or otherwise totally misunderstand how scientists research how animals are related to one another. That's the process of taxonomy, where researchers look for different traits, run some statistical tests, and then get a phylogeny. And from that scientists try to piece together the history of life.
It's dangerous to go alone, check out our Links!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/raptorchatter
Twitter: raptor_chatter
Redbubble: www.redbubble.com/people/RaptorChatter/shop
Discord: / discord - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I don't get what's hard to understand for skeptics about how lineages split off from others, sharing common ancestors etc. Birds are just one lineage of maniraptoran theropods. I dislike when people just call birds descendants of dinosaurs which is incorrect when birds literally are dinosaurs
It's technically correct I mean you're the same species as your grandparents (normally :p) but you're still their descendants. But yeah, it's a little imprecise ^^
I guess phylogeny just makes some people uncomfortable. But also, Creationists have in general come around to the idea that dinosaurs are real (and even described in the Bible) but because they dont believe in evolution, they will never accept that birds are dinosaurs. So there is a great deal of pushback from that group that may be adding confusion to members of the public.
@@patreekotime4578 Dinosaurs are not described in the Bible. Mythical creatures with very, very superficial resemblances to dinosaurs are described in the Bible.
I just want to know about it in more detail. It amazes me that they can come up with an identification off of a toe bone.
@@Animalco Im not a Creationist. Im just reporting what Ive gleaned from living in the Bible belt. No need to argue those points with me.
The fact birds are dinosaurs means those frozen dino nuggets are pieces of fried dinosaur meat in the shape of dinosaurs.
HOLY SHIT HOW DID I NOT THINK OF THIS
Now I can scientifically say dino nuggets are actually made of dinosaurs
They're not just descended from dinos, they ARE dino nuggies.
Omg you're right... Excluding the pterodactyls lol
@@fenekku.kitsune "um ackshuallee they are um pteranodons"-🤓
@@IMADINOSAURNOTABIRD Pteranodon is a genus, not the entire order. Pterosaur is the correct term. I just out-nerded you. 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
If a whale can be a mammal, I see no problem with birds being classified as dinosaurs.
I actually learned that whales evolved from dog like things a year ago it baffles me
@@4gravez They actually evolved from even-toed ungulates, so they would be more like deer or pigs.
@@Skellaton29 I looked up a image and it's crazy to see how the mouth shape is the same
@@Skellaton29they were pretty dog-looking deer tho
i really want to know what Linnaeus was doing classifying minerals in the same way as animals lol
He tried doing all nature, because obviously all of nature should work the same way. At least according to the 18th century mind. Now that we have better microscopes to actually look at the structures of different things, even small organisms it's much easier to distinguish that they should be treated differently than anything in biology.
@@RaptorChatter i'd love to know more, but i feel it's a bit out of your scope
There is a snide half-joke saying that Linnaeus grew up in Småland, Sweden, a farmland region on rocky soil where rocks seem to rise into the fields to be collected and carried off to form walls along the edges.
It’s easy to imagine an early scientist assigning the sentience to rocks that we now assign to viruses and bacteria. Yes, we know it’s wrong today, but thinking stones alive (and possibly malicious) just slow makes for a starting theory
Maybe Linnaeus intended his system to be used for naturalia cabinets.
He also just lazily labeled most aquatic invertebrates as "worms".
We can't pin point when dinosaurs started becoming birds in the fossil record, because it's a rule in evolution that there isn't a first of... anything. This is because the offspring of one organisms and the parents of the same organism, look indistinguishable from one another, and you have to really be looking, to spot any differences.
Exactly. Also all organisms are in constant change
Well, there is a short list of obvious features that are common to modern birds but missing in other maniraptorans. The wild thing is that that list gets shorter all the time and its basically just down to the structure of the tail and the toothless beak. There are of course many non-obvious features, but those are the biggies.
@@patreekotime4578 There were plenty of long tailed and toothed organisms that are classified as true avians though.
Actually, you can, because there's huge gaps in the fossils, and the time scales are huge.
Before beak, not birds, after, birds. Of course, of that miniraptor lineage that's ancestor to birds. More precisely aves.
Technically, if a sister group of aves also developed beaks independently, they wouldn't be aves but I'd call them birds.
But people usually don't point to the fossil record because genetic clocks are way better for that.
Suppose someone had a time machine that would allow the user to perfectly map out the ancestry of all life. Would scientists still use the term species?
im just a person , who dont have a education in theese fields. im a bricklayer. even i understand, that birds evolved from non avian dinosaurs. even my small brain can understand that.
I am certain your brain is perfectly average.
Your brain is not small my friend! Don't put yourself down like that, you're curious and learning new things :D
However, consider punctuation.
@@jeniocallaghan5112 Consider your attitude first.
Specific physics, and chemistry combined at a high level to produce brick construction..
You have room temperature, temporarily liquid stone!! Thats science!!!
To be honest, the thing that irks most me about the bird and Dino is sort of the opposite of the comments shown in the video. And is comments saying that “Chickens are the closest relative or descendant of Trex” which is flawed. Birds were already starting to appear way before trex or raptors showed up and diverged.
there are also better examples of birds when comparisons to theropods have to be made. Eagles or Hawks for example because they too are predators.
Or Cassowarys, who still look very dino-like.
@@LontEnCaras Yeah, true. I've seen plenty of people bring those up too. I just think, when it comes to non-avian dinosaurs and birds, divergence and origins need to be brought up and properly explained before making claims, like the one I previously stated.
@@LontEnCaras Cassowarys and oviraptosaurs are so similar an amateur wouldn't even see the difference, unless you removed the feathers.
Birds are the living descendants of theropods.
@@ominous-omnipresent-they Yes, SPECIFIC ones. Theropods are diverse. Some have descendants, some don't. T-rex and many other theropods don't have any DIRECT descendant, that was my point. As stated, bird appeared way before T-rex and many other theropods.
When I throw out chips in parking lots, I tell people:
"I'm feeding the dinosaurs".
A significant number of people who come to the biology and evolution channel are actually creationists. They hold a very human-oriented view of the world, and for them, it is almost impossible to think that humans are not the center of the universe. At the basic level, everything is always subject to change as the environment changes.
A human-oriented view that's simultaneously misanthropic.
And anti-doing the job we initially were made to do according to the Bible. Can't rule over what you refuse to understand.
That was a nicely balanced assessment of taxonomy, which is sometimes imprecise and fungible depending on the available fossils. And as you pointed out with the dire wolf, convergent evolution can mislead even diligent biologists. I enjoyed the example of the flatbread cladistic tree as an example. That was fun.
You also wisely chose eukaryotes for your focus. At the microbial level it gets more challenging since there is a lot of gene swapping with plasmids and other genetic bits being traded between organisms. And new microbes can evolve in weeks. What determines a new "species" of E. coli often comes down to a consensus opinion among infectious disease specialists but it may not be black and white phylogenetically.
What you mean fungible?
@Ken Hamms cousin it means replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable
“If it looks like a bird, and acts like a bird, it *must* be a dinosaur.”
If you know, you know.
do you think dinosaurs would have actually acted like a mix of mammal & bird?
also, triceratops looks nothing like a bird
Based Dinosaur Planet reference.
@@MB32904 dromaeosaurs and a handful of other theropods do look like birds though. Birds are theropod dinosaurs, triceratops is just simply a different dinosaur.
Pterosaurs would like to chat
@@MB32904 hey at least triceratops has a beak and bird like hip bones
Correction: Birbs are perfectly tasty and consumable dinosaurs! Speaking of... were the theropods themselves edible is truly an unspoken topic /s
obviously they were?
@@joema500 Idk if an Utahraptor was edible though! T rexes were quite likely tasty
All animals are edible being that you can eat them, whether they taste good or will kill you doesn't matter...
Literally all animals are edible as long as they don't have poison in them. No idea what you're even trying to say. If it's alive, it can be eaten.
@@thedoruk6324 What the f*ck are you talking about? They were just animals? Obviously they were edible.
I don't understand why we even need videos explaining the taxonomy behind it, because birds resemble a typical theropod more than a whale does to a typical mammal. People shouldn't need to ask why birds are dinosaurs if they have eyes. They should be able to look at a picture of a velociraptor and then a picture of an eagle and go "Oh, ok." but they can't for some reason.
Because birds are very different from dinosaurs. There's many ressemblances with say a velociraptors but very little compared to say a T-Rex or a sauropods.
@@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine Saying “birds are different from dinosaurs” would be incorrect since it is already established that birds ARE dinosaurs. The dinosauria clade is also extremely varied and unique, so there are going to be some obvious differences between even related species. Birds are a part of the theropoda group that includes your aforementioned Velociraptor and T. rex. While, yes, birds are closer related to the Velociraptor than to the T. rex, they are all also coelurosaurs, which includes all theropod dinosaurs who are related to birds (including birds themselves).
@@WarriorLionstripe Birds came from dinosaur that's true but as a whole, are very different. They'll have a few close parents (obviously) but most dinosaurs are not going to be bird-like are even closely related be it genetically or morphologically.
@@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine I agree with that. Not every dinosaur is going to be bird-like because **not all dinosaurs are birds**. The main argument is simply that all birds are dinosaurs, but some people tend to not understand that, and they confuse it as people saying that all dinosaurs are birds. Obviously, a Triceratops is not a bird. A Dromaeosaurus (the Velociraptor’s close North American relative) is not a bird. Birds are just simply dinosaurs just like the Dromaeosaurus and Triceratops. It really puts into perspective just how varied the dinosauria clade really is, and that we are only seeing a small scope of the dinosauria clade’s true size.
@@WarriorLionstripe Birds are not dinosaurs. Kinda. Really depend on how you see things because dinosaurs are not really anything. They don't fit with reptiles because they're warm blooded and they don't fit with the birds because they lack feathered wings.
I honestly see dinosaurs more as a hodge podge group and not a real categorization like birds, reptiles and mammals due to the sheer diversity and lack of overall shared characteristics.
I feel another thing that people have a hard time grasping is the concept of Natural Selection being indeterministic and the contemplating genetic changes over time. Like when we say Crocodiles are Prehistoric but don’t say the same for Birds? People say, uhhhh Horseshoe Crabs have survived like all Mass Extinctions same with Nautiloids but so did we.. our ancestors have survived every extinction so far but people in general have a hard time wrapping our heads around the idea of what ‘change’ looks like.
I think it is simply because people place too much emphasis on explainable stories we love telling ourselves like the Carcinization meme about every body plan converging on that of a crab like it is some self-fulfilling prophecy when it isn’t really. Niches have plenty of different ways of being exploited.
Well, a "living fossil" is different than just survival.. the implication is that it is something that has survived "unchanged" for hundreds of millions of years. But this is of course actually nonsense. Today's horseshoe crabs are just as "evolved" as any other crustation. It's just that they appear *superficially* unchanged. We cannot observe their ancient DNA. We cannot observe their ancient behaviors, coloration, social activity, etc. We also cannot observe their full evolutionary history... it is entirely possible that some "living fossils" had intermediate anscestors who had a different appearance and for whatever reasons they revolved convergent features similar to an anscestral state! That is certainly the case with many crocodilians which have re-evolved similar shapes to ancient forms again and again.
"I feel another thing that people have a hard time grasping is the concept of Natural Selection being indeterministic"
- in context, define indeterministic! If you mean 'it has no direction, you can't predict what will happen, that's not so
"People say, uhhhh Horseshoe Crabs have survived like all Mass Extinctions same with Nautiloids but so did we.." (1) "our ancestors have survived every extinction so far" (2)
(1) your flaw here is naming groups of species ('horseshoe crabs' and 'nautiloids') as having prevailed compared to 'us' which is one species! No single species of those 2 groups has prevailed over such time scale
(2) reflect upon the contradiction of first saying 'us or 'we'', but then continuing with 'ancestors'! The same applies to the other groups; chains of ancestors survived forming distinct species over that time!
@@patreekotime4578 Yeah, the term living fossil is so weird, it just confuses people.
The problem with saying so did we is defining what is meant by we. If you mean humans, then I understand that we in that case are too young to have done so, whether a narrow or more broad usage of the term. If you're referring to apes, then sure, at least one or 2 of them I'd assume. If you go to large enough groups, then literally all of us have in some way, from kingdom all the way up to order, if my understanding of the classifications are correct
@@christophermonteith2774 Kingdom is a much higher, more inclusive level than order. You likely mean species to order.
I was just listening to a podcast about Gigantopithecus blacki, and apparently that thing is also basically just a large number of teeth - and few mandibles I think. The holotype itself is it seems just an isolated lower molar, and not even found in situ but bought in a Hong Kong drugstore being sold as "dragon bones".
Yet the researchers speaking about it were relatively happy with having the teeth! They'd like more of the animal ofc, but literally said - if I had to pick between having just a bone or a tooth, I'd rather have a tooth, and continued explaining how teeth actually and perhaps counterintuitively tell a lot about the animal.
Is it because they're mammals that the teeth are much more diagnostic than in the case of troodon or else - why the different attitude?
With apes there's clearly a lot more information to be gleaned from extant taxa including their teeth when they die. Gorillas and orangutans in particular are an invaluable resource comparison for an extinct close relative.
Teeth are great in diagnostics; they can easily be attributed to a type of animal, carnivore, herbivore, ape, feline, canine, even down to more specific levels. Also for deducing the size of an animal; teeth size require a certain jaw size, jaw to skull, skull to the rest of the body. A bone fragment may or may not offer this level of diagnostics, typically less.
Right. Spinosaurs are closre relatives of megalosaurs for example. You'd never know you'd gotten a spinosaur if you'd found say a single isolated part of a fingerbone. Might aswell be a megalosaur or another carnosaur.
The comment saying that lizards are descendants of dinosaurs is frustrating. Lizards did not come from dinosaurs. When we dug up dinosaur fossils, we saw that they were reptiles and attributed lizard-like qualities to them based on limited information. We now know that many dinosaurs had feathers, were warm-blooded, and cared for their young, just as birds do today.
Back in eleventh grade I got in an argument with some classmates in art class who insisted that crocodilians are dinosaurs and I kept telling them that they aren't.
@@bunnybird9342Crocodilians are not dinosaurs, but they are the closest relatives of dinosaurs. They're more closely related to the Dinosauria (including birds) than they are to other reptiles. 🤯
This is a really good breakdown, and I'm definitely going to be using the term "fancy lungfish" in the future, particularly when describing certain people.
Ah yes, I remember as a kid in the 90s watching Paleoworld on The Discovery Channel when the debate on whether or not dinosaurs were birds was raging.
I am so delighted to have learned that birds are actually dinosaurs. Every day I go out in the yard and say "Hello, little therapods" to the birds in my trees.
Very cool introduction taxonomy.
Sometimes I hear "paraphyletic" and "monophyletic tree" in those paleo videos and I generally don't understand what they mean by that. Do you you plan to do a second video to extend on those kinds of challenges met by paleontologists that you generally don't learn about in highschool (it is the last time I studied biology) ?
A polyphyletic group has multiple origins.
A paraphyletic group has a single origin, but doesn't include all of the groups which would be nested within it.
A monophyletic group has a single origin, and includes all of the groups nested within it.
For example, there's a common origin for jawless fish. Then later on jawed fish emerged from within there-- I think closer to lampreys and to ostracoderms than to hagfish. So you have a monophyletic group (chordata), which includes a paraphyletic group of jawless fish (cyclostoma), and a monophyletic group of jawed vertebrates (gnathostoma).
@Master Baiter Yup. Bird of prey is more of a description of the shape of the animal than of its ancestry and genetics. Falcons are closer to songbirds than to hawks or eagles.
Polyphyletic means that a taxa emerged multiple times, and is thus not often recognized as a taxa.
(Example, eyebearers. Anything with an eye. Eyes have emerged independently many times)
Paraphyletic means that it is defined by ancestry, but unnecessarily excludes certain descendants for no good reason. While a large portion of scientists will consider paraphyletic taxa as legitimate, a strict cladist (like me) will argue that either the groups excluded from the taxa should not be excluded, or that there’s no way to make the catagory a viable taxa.
(Example, monkey. Monkey refers to all animals in the Clade Simiiformes, but traditionally excludes apes. A cladist will tell you that apes actually are monkeys, and consequentially so are we. This reasoning doesn’t really work for fish, so a cladist will demand that taxonomist use “chordate” or “vertebrate” instead.)
Monophyletic means that all descendents are included with zero exception, even if they lose the trait that would otherwise define them. This kind of taxa is also often referred to as a Clade.
(Example, vertebrates are defined by creatures with a vertebrae, however hagfish, who lost the vertebrae, still count as a vertebrate because of their evident ancestry, making Hagfish the worlds only invertebrate vertebrate)
@Master Baiter birds of prey is a great example becuase falcons are actually more closely related to parrots than eagles or owls.
An excellent example of a paraphyletic clade is monkeys. Monkeys includes all simiforms except apes. So new world monkeys and then just the none ape old world monkeys.
Non-avian dinosaurs being a more frequently used term does well to highlight this.
I try to use it as much as possible, especially with the KPg extinction, but it can be hard, because it presumes some understanding from the audience
there are still some confusion about Non-Avian Dinosaurs, because other true birds that extinct at KPg extinction sometimes considered to be as non-Avian dinosaurs aswell, and Avian dinosaurs solely used for all living birds only.
I consider the term meaningless as the only distinction between Dromaeosaurs and "birds" is one created by the Avian/non Avian artificial division. They are fundamentally and functionally Dromaeosaurs better adapted to flight than their brethren like Deinonychus, who survived to the present day and we call them "Birds"!
@@RaptorChatter It's really okay as it's a false and artificial division anyway. Yours is the more accurate way of looking at it anyway, they are merely a type of Maniraptoran dinosaur, probably some sort of Dromaeosaurid, exceptionally adapted for the ability to fly who happened to survive to the modern era, while the rest of their relatives closer than Crocodilians perished, mostly at the end Cretaceous mass extinction event. If it were up to me, I would do away with the "Avian"/"non Avian" division entirely as it isn't real genetically. As you very well made clear, they are just a single group of that major type of organisms of many groups that survived to our time while all the others did not. Of course, we "Mammals" are in a similar situation, all of the extant groups are very closely related, not just the Placentals and Marsupials, but the Monotremes as well, so it was just a single Cynodont type who left descendants, which became Placentals, Marsupials, and Monotremes. Diapsids clearly were the more successful Amniotes, the Synapsids barely survived, and only a single type survived, we modern "Mammals". Diapsids have the greater diversity, all the Squamata, Crocodilians, "Birds", maybe even Testudines.
@@jonathancummings6400 They aren’t evolved from specifically dromaeosaurs
It always kinda throws me off to hear or say that birds are reptiles. I realized that they were about a year ago, but they just don't have the connotations that tend to come with the word "reptile" like scaly skin and ectothermic metabolism. But they do excrete waste like reptiles (like was said in the video), and another trait that actually seems pretty reptilian when I think about it is the beak. Most of the other animals that I think of with beaks are reptiles, including non-avian dinosaurs like ceratopsians and hadrosaurs, as well as turtles and tortoises. Besides reptiles, the only other animals that I can think of with beaks or bills are the platypus, dicynodonts, certain types of fish, and mollusks like cephalopods and nudibranchs. Maybe it's just coincidence, but I do wonder if reptiles are more prone to evolving beaks than other lineages of tetrapods.
Edit: some other reptile groups that evolved beaks that I forgot about earlier: pterosaurs, stegosaurs, ankylosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, and therizinosaurs. I'm sure there's other animals that I'm either forgetting about or don't know about, however these are yet more dinosaur and reptile lineages that evolved beaks (although I don't know if beaks evolved multiple times within thyreophora and within marginocephalia or just once in each group)
I’ve always been confused as to why people say birds aren’t scaly as their feet & toes are 100% scaled. Plus, feathers are basically just long branching scales.
@@calebrey They literally use ostrich legs as an alternative to alligator leather!
Foot scales aside, it can help you to consider them reptiles if you remember that many other reptiles used to be extremely similar to birds, and you'd have no problem considering those animals reptiles. It only feels weird because they're modern animals so you're comparing them to what you'd expect from a modern reptile. But you don't hold the same standard with extinct reptiles, and you should hold birds to the standard you hold extinct ones to.
Pterosaurs for example were even less like modern reptiles than birds, because they had all the same traits birds have that make them feel non reptilian to you, except they also lacked scales entirely as far as we know. They were then, by that metric, even less reptile-like. But I know you don't think that when seeing pictures of them. So, just remind yourself of that each time you struggle to view birds as reptiles. It will eventually come second nature to you just like any other reptile. When someone tells you to think of a reptile, birds will start to feel like an option without even needing to force it... I know because my sister accidentally confused another player in a game of Headbanz without considering the player wouldn't understand how the answer to "Am I a reptile" could be "yes" if their headband had a bird on it, LOL. She genuinely did not consider it. She's not even a fan of taxonomy. She learned this fact from me and just got used to it.
Also another trait that birds share with other reptiles is four-color vision, we humans only have three..
Actually no, both birds and crocodillians have scutes, not scales like what lizards and snakes have. Also, while crocodilians superficially look like they have a sprawled posture like lizards, actually watching them run will reveal that they can stand up straight, and their spine moves in an up and down motion like birds and mammals rather than in a serpentine motion like lizards. Their resemblance to lizards is convergent evolution.
I’d say that tortillas are more an example of convergent evolution, considering that they originated in the Americas while most other flatbreads have a more Eurasian ancestry. But other than that, I’d say the flatbread analogy is quite sound.
I really honestly think the vast majority of the backlash is from Creationists, many whom now accept that dinosaurs existed (although not as long ago as palenontolgist and geologists say). But they will never accept that birds came from dinosaurs because that goes against their very literal interpretations of Genesis. I suppose this is some progress from when I was a kid and the argument was that Satan buried dinosaur bones to confuse and mislead humanity. 🤷
I've at least seen people in my comments arguing that they still aren't because they've changed too much, so shouldn't count, which is just not the way that taxonomy works. So it was something I wanted to address specifically.
@@RaptorChatter It will probably just take time. It is still a relatively new idea, especially for older people. And it's also difficult for some people to accept that science is constantly moving and won't always be the same as when they were young. Unfortunately science messaging in news media often does a bad job explaining, or just has a blatantly wrong interpretation of it.
@@patreekotime4578The idea that birds are dinosaurs isn't new at all. Its been around since at least the mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900s with Thomas Henry Huxely noting close similarities between Archaeopteryx and Compsognathus as well as William Beebe's hypothetical "Tetrapteryx." The discovery of Deinonychus in the 1960s only furthered hypotheses about bird-dinosaur relationships and even as early as the early 1990s (three decades ago) it was pretty well established idea that birds evolved from the dinosaurs, with discoveries of feathered dinosaurs in China.
@@SciFyerGaming And none of that stuff was in anyone's highschool science books or the books we got from book faires prior to the early 2000s. For the general public it is a VERY new idea, and as far as I know, scientific consensus is also relatively new.
Archaeopteryx was billed as "the first bird" but the more controversial idea that it was a "missing link" was usually not mentioned. Now, having seen a cast for myself in a museum case, it is really obviously just a feathered dinosaur and not even a bird at all.
It's dumb by any metric. They believe animals are related due to physical characteristics rather than ancestry. Birds match the physical characteristics of dinosaurs perfectly, so creationists should have no problem accepting it. I think a lot of people just don't want to admit that what they really fear is change. We're told from day 1 that dinosaurs are extinct. If anyone says otherwise, it means a large part of what they knew about the world is wrong, and they deny it because of that, even though this kind of change should be a welcome one. I say this as someone who used to be creationist and wholeheartedly accepted that birds were dinosaurs when I was told as such, because it made perfect sense. I looked at images of dinosaurs. I looked at images of birds. I listened to videos describing their shared traits to verify it even further. It was plain as day- birds are dinosaurs, and birds are reptiles. One just needs to open their ears and eyes to see it.
birds are literally one of many flying dinos, lots flew without flight feathers. it took a while for me to wrap my head around it, but is absolutley wonderful
Pretty sure all flying dinos had feathers
@@brownowl4706 check new research, most flying dinos had wings like a bat. flight feathers were not the norm. if you read my post instead of skimming you would see "flight" feathers
yes all flying dinos had feathers, so did a lot of non flying dinos
@@user-yl5rl7tg2j correct me if i'm wrong but the only dinosaurs that had bat-like wings were scansoriopterygid dinosaurs, and only two species in that group have direct evidence for them, those being Yi qi, and Ambopteryx longibrachium. you're correct that flight feathers aren't the norm in nature, but they're pretty common in maniraptoran dinosaurs (think dromaeosaurids, troodontids, and avians), and bat-like wings are pretty rare in the dinosaurian fossil record
@@user-yl5rl7tg2j most flying dinosaurs didn’t have wings like bats though. Only two had bat-like wings, Yi qi and Ambopteryx, which were Scansoriopterygids. They didn’t even last very long; the family lasted around 9 million years. I feel like you’re talking about pterosaurs instead, since that clade would be the closest to what you consider bat-like wings without bringing in the two unique dinosaurs I mentioned earlier. People also commonly mistake pterosaurs for dinosaurs, and refer to them as ‘flying dinosaurs’ when that’s simply untrue.
@@user-yl5rl7tg2j i would also like to not that i did not skim your post, many non-flying dinosaurs had flight feathers as well. flight feathers didn't initially evolve for flight, but rather for balance and maneuverability. though i will admit i was wrong. Yi and Ambopteryx didn't have flight feathers, but primitive feathering.
"But if we come from apes, how come there are still apes?"
Common ancestors
But if I exist why do my parents exist?
Crazy to see read those comments 😆
And many of them are getting angry by their own.
Cladistics makes wayyy more sense than paraphyly most of the time, which is why i strongly agree with “birds are dinosaurs”. Paraphyly is mostly a consequence of the methods we had to classify in the past, and shouldnt be continued into the present.
Terms like “fish” are examples of paraphyly, where they describe an animal based off of features more so than their actual evolutionary (and sometimes even physical) relationships. They also mean that people kind of generalise those animals more and dont focus on how insanely diverse fish are. Fish dont look as diverse as tetrapods from our perspective and yet they are miles more diverse than all tetrapods when you really look into it. Probably because we have already divided the tetrapods into neat little categories that we are all familiar with (reptiles, mammals, amphibians) through paraphyly. Im not saying paraphyly should be completely destroyed and we should never talk of fish as “fish” and all that, but that we should make an effort not to continue it for newly discovered animals. Paraphyly doesnt even follow its own rules, because the points at which we distinguish animals can be quite arbitrary.
And thats where dinosaurs come in. When new discoveries in understanding dinosaurs and such came through, cladistics was already really picking up and became the new, and way more useful way to classify animals, and the term “dinosaur” became more mainstream. It was from that we quickly understood that birds are a modern lineage of dinosaurs that have continued into the present, so surely we should have just called birds dinosaurs from the beginning, but even now most people make the distinction rather than saying “non avian dinosaurs”.
Its even weird to think about them being seperate things when you realise avian and non avian dinosaurs coexisted for millions of years, they didnt just suddenly appear when non avian dinosaurs went extinct. Birds were a normal part of the ecosystem and lived among other dinosaurs, if they didnt survive into the present we wouldnt make the distinction. Its just because they “look different” people get funny about, even though some of the close relatives of birds (like jeholornis, or even closer hesperornis) were getting equally heavily adapted to specific niches, and it becomes really weird to say birds arnt dinosaurs but those arguably even stranger animals are. I think saying birds arnt dinosaurs is almost like saying whales arnt mammals.
Paraphyly is just another way of classifying animals. Why are evolutionar lines the only valid form of categorization? Who decided that?
@@ummelofilo9642 for most situations its the most useful. If youre in a situation where the characteristics of animals are more important, then sure. But for most topics as well for the average person whos just curious, its better to sort animals by their evolutionary and genetic relationship.
@@ummelofilo9642except it’s one that’s not based on how animals are actually related, it’s own based on surface level perceptions.
That is, it doesn’t actually exist.
This is why we should start calling apes monkeys. Monkey should just be a common name for the Simian group. There’s no good reason to exclude apes. There are plenty situations with other terms where there are obvious reasons to talk about the groups animals, and think about them in different ways. Birds and reptiles have completely different areas of study, it’s a useful way of talking about them. But that doesn’t hold up for monkeys and apes.
0:10 The comment at the bottom gave me brain damage.
Fish are amphibians XD
"They hate god" is the clue. It's Creationist nonsense.
Yeah, I think that was from the thread that made me decide to make this video. I wanted a single place I could point any taxonomy complaints towards lol.
The one fourth from the top was the worst IMO . Dude admits that birds are theropods, then says birds aren't reptiles, then says that dinosaurs are reptiles, all in the same sentence. You don't need to be Phd-holding evolutionary biologist to see how that kind of Schrodinger's Cat logic is contradictory and dumb.
@@SciFyerGaming Perhaps it's like those creationists that call Velociraptor and other feathered dinosaurs "birds" and admit they have feathers and other characteristics extremely like those of Archaeopteryx, but treat them as separate from all the other "true dinosaurs" which to them are scaly cold blooded big lizards (disregarding the fact that Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus have feathers and are as far removed from birds as any dinosaur can be). Except apparently now theropods are not reptiles but dinosaurs are? What do they think theropods are?
My other guess they think there's an imaginary line where the bird lineage stopped being reptiles, probably at Avialae, although IMO, this line would be better placed at Ornithodira, since that's when both the fully straight limbs (the name "reptile" comes from the latin word for crawl, because modern reptiles have sprawling postures) AND the appearance of protofeathers happen, as well as being right after the split from crocodilians. Calling stuff like pterosaurs "reptiles", even though it's technically true has always been kinda strange to me seeing how they're superficially much more like birds and bats than to lizards, being fuzzy and warm blooded.
I don't mind the word reptile being used excluding birds, it's a useful word like "fish", but when discussing evolution, but the commenter just seems to conflate the colloquial meaning of reptile with the fact that birds are evolutionarily, inside of the clade containing all modern reptiles.
Very clear and well laid out explanation. Great video!
I've been putting a DINOSAUR CARCASS on my Thanksgiving table all these years? OMG! I'm switching to something nicer, like a swine leg. Spiral cut! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Also, not all lizards have overlapping scales, monitor lizards just have scales next to each other, while Iguanas have both (I'm pretty sure)
My little budgies think they're little raptors. I love my birbs.
They are *mani* raptors
My cockatiels aswell. Love those littel raptor feet.
Birb parent here. Love my little dinosaurs ❤
I don’t understand how people can disagree that birds are dinosaurs. Anyone who has spent any meaningful amount of time around chickens will realize that they’re dinosaurs, and they are very aware of the fact that they are dinosaurs.
Excellent video. I find it to be a great topic.
I like to see all the fossils we find as small snapshots in time. They're points in a line
fabulous overview, thanks
Tunicates are related to me. Not the pelagic ones, though. That would be revolting!
I am just here for the Flat Bread content.
10:59/11:02 Have there been any recent trips to the Judith River Formation where they may have found post dental & cranial material that belong to those aforementioned tooth taxa?
Cause if not, hopefully there are people who might go out there and solve this issue.
I need help navigating Mesquite! I am a Biology teacher and I would love to have my kids screen put on cladograms . Do you have any tutorials? Or any ideas?
I was barely able to make the ones I did. I'm far from an expert. I wish I could help more, but I basically clicked around until I got it to make some trees. The default was 100 so I just stuck with that and chose two of them at random before picking the concensus tree.
No one belives me when I tell them this. Literally whenever I mention it in a TH-cam comment I have to say google it of you don't believe me.
you narration is very soothing and engaging. You should narrate more videos in other subjects as well
I’m currently doing a literature review titled ‘there’s no such thing as a fish..’ which is about clades and taxonomy.
It feels like the whole issue comes from the perspective of perceiving change of the evolution of certain organisms.
When people think of dinosaurs, they think of things like sauropods, ornithopods, ceratopsians, and theropods. So when you say that birds are dinosaurs, it can confuse a lot of people.
I think the best way is to say that birds are theropods, and by extension are dinosaurs, since dinosaurs in general are incredibly diverse when birds only part of one particular group.
I think the main confusion stems from how we name things traditionally and how we generalise them such as fish, amphibians, and reptiles. It would be a bit better if we named every clade as fairly as possible, and educate more people into how taxonomy and evolution work, so people can get a better understanding in how taxonomy work.
Because it seems like going around calling everyone a fish without clear context is fuelling the anger of the public’s traditional thinking.
Thanks for the info!
Something I've been wanting your opinion. Saurophaganax, same genus (notice I didn't say species) as Allosaurus? Mapusaurus, same genus as Giganotosaurus?
No. Mapusaurus and Gigantosaurus are definitely distinct from each other. There are some subtle differences in the skulls that distuinguish the two as well as the fact that the former is nearly five million years younger than the latter. There is some disagreement on the state of Saurophaganax, but most paleontologists tend to agree that its probably a distinct genus from Allosaurus based on some distinct features in the vertebrae
Saurophaganax IS the genus, not the species. Saurophaganax maximus (S. maximus) is the species. Same thing with Allosaurus, Mapusaurus, etc. The names that we use o refer to dinosaurs is most often the genus and not the species, the main exception really just being T. rex, since thats just the specific (Species) name, but we call most dinosaurs by their generic (Genus) name. But granted, most non avian dinosaur genuses don't really have more than 1 species that we know of, and the genuses tend to have more recognizable names than the species, especially since some species from different genuses may have similar or the same species name despite being completely different animals.
Never thought I'd see a Flatbread Phylogeny tree in a video about birds being dinosaurs clarification; fuckin fantastic stuff.
Great video! Very well explained!
"Science doesn't know everything, religion doesn't know anything." - Aron Ra -
What’s your favorite dinosaur and tell me about it
@B0LKEK• Also my favorite. Several hang out around my house. Such amazing animals.
Allosaurus, Spinosaurus, Cassowary, and Ostrich.
T rex
Great video, keep up the great work.
Thanks!
Finally, someone mentioned the dino train character when they talked about the trodon
Mitochondria - The powerhouse of the cell. 😂
I think you meant keratin (a protein) not beta-carotene (a red-orange hydrocarbon pigment). Even so.
It's Beta-keratin which makes up the skin in reptiles. Mammals also have keratin in their skin, but that keratin lacks the same beta structures, and is instead alpha-keratin. It does sound super similar though.
like number 1000. that feels cooler than i expected
the fact that people would rather blindly follow a mythical person with magic powers that lives in the sky but won't even dare look into evolution is bizarre to me genuinely. creatures changing to better survive in their environment or to develop resistance to weather, disease, etc is immensely more feasible than a sky wizard. people are weird as fuck.
That one comment that's calling dinosaurs lizards is so ignorant why doesn't he just go directly to crocodiles
"why doesn't he just go directly to crocodiles"
- your point?
My accountant is licensed in taxonomy.
most the people making those complaints deny evolution.
Or worse they do accept evolution, but don't even bother to understand how it works and then proceed to say dumb uniformed stuff
@@SciFyerGaming Many people think its about replacement of plesiomorphic forms when more often its sympatric or allopatric speciation. Its diversification of life afterall.
I've actually encountered more people who believe in it but think birds are 'too different' and so are a different clade now, despite the fact that this is both not true (birds are typical dinosaurs really) and that even if it were this isn't how clades work.
The confusion tends to arise from people misinterpreting a clade as a species. Which you wouldn't think they'd do, because they know there were different species of dinosaurs, but these types tend to have two separate definitions of "dinosaur" in their mind while they argue because they HAVE to insist dinosaurs are extinct no matter what. They are convinced dinosaur is a species, and that since birds evolved they therefore are not the same species anymore, because that's how it works. But then at the same time they think there were somehow thousands of species within that... species... and also that birds can't just be one of those subspecies themselves, because... uh.. um... they look different, I guess? Let's ignore the fact that birds are actually quite a lot more similar to the ancestral condition of dinosaurs than sauropods or ankylosaurs were...
Because you know, everyone knows the oldest dinosaurs we've discovered were scaly, stood on four legs, and herbivorous.
Okay, I'm lying. They were feathery- probably ENTIRELY feathery with no scales at all, actually- they stood on two legs, and they were carnivorous. You know, kind of like most birds, except birds do have scales on their legs and not all are carnivores. Still, there are a lot more carnivorous birds than there were carnivorous sauropods, and sauropods weren't exactly known for their luscious plumage... Or their bipedal gait.
@@catpoke9557 I tell them that all birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds.
I think the issue arises when someone uses a colloquial term describing a single species to describe the entire group. Like I will die on the mosasaur lizard hill.
Both mosasaurs and lizards are squamates but ‘lizard’ fails to describe the derived anatomy shared by all mosasaurs but absent in other squamates including snakes and varanids.
I will die on that hill, because it is correct. I have supporting evidence, I am not denying cladistics. I am simply saying a mosasaur is not a lizard in the same way a bird is not a t.rex.
Birds are dinosaurs and mosasaurs are squamates. However a bird is not a herrerasaurus as a mosasaur is not a komodo dragon. I will die on this hill because the apomorphic traits are relevant. Ignoring them will result in failure to accurately describe the animal.
@@catpoke9557 I think the issue is people either entirely focus on the derived traits or entirely on ancestry when both are important. People forget the tree of life is fractal, and the patterns repeat no matter the scale.
Just as both humans and tunicates are chordates but a human is not a tunicate, mosasaurs and varanids are both squamates but the mosasaur is not a varanid.
Very interesting but your example with the flatbreads made me very hungry.
B I r d
Bird
I really enjoy taxonomy and learning a species origins.
0:09 whoever @Degew is, praise!
HELP ME MY SCIENCE TEACHER THINKS SHARKS ARE INVERTEBRATES BECAUSE THEIR BONES ARE MADE OF CARTILAGE HELPPP MEEEEEEEEEEEE
Ease them into it. Start with; 'the vertebral column doesn't have to be made of bone to be a vertebral column'!
@@Dr.IanPlect that is what my friend told me
Officially, cartilagenous fishes and lampreys are both in subphylum Vertebrata. But when you think about it, the distinction between non vertabrate chordates and vertabrate chordates is already fairly arbitrary. Some people consider Hagfish to be vertebrates, while others consider them to be invertebrates (as of now they are in their own subphylum). Only considering Ostichthyes to be "true vertebrates" since they have a vertebral column made of bone can be considered valid. You could go the other way and draw the line at lancelets if you want, since they are the most basal Chordates we know of that keep their notochords their entire lives, and only exclude tunicates. Or even just say screw it and just throw the whole term "vertabrate" out the window and just refer to Chordates as a whole.
@@dimetrodon2250 finally the language of my people
@@euantheyutyrannus And it's valid!
I agree that birds are indeed dinosaurs. But to me, there are 2 domains of life: Prokarya and Eukarya. In turn, there are 6 kingdoms of life (Archaea, Bacteria, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia).
Archea are more closely related to Eukaryotes than they are to Bacteria though, so it wouldnt be a monophyletic group. Then again, its still common to use Kingdom Protista, which is a wastebasket for everything that isn't a plant, animal, or fungus, and is therefore also not monophyletic.
Your thoughts don't align with current biology.
It's currently more like Archaea and Bacteria. Eukaryotes are from Archaea mainly, then went chimera in real life like absorbing other organisms to create organelles, like Mitochondria. Viruses are also something strange involved but their origin is truly a mystery.
@tossupeater Clearly, there are 6 kingdoms of life, 2 prokaryotic and 4 eukaryotic. Try to stick to the program!
@tossupeater You know what? Make fun of me all you want. Just don't ever talk to me again.
So interesting-thank you
what is the software program called for taxonomy im writing a paper bout it
Mesquite
@@RaptorChatter thank you so much!
Birds are also reptiles.
True!
It's also worth mentioning that strictly speaking, taxonomy doesn't depend on evolution. Birds are dinosaurs because of a pattern of shared traits, regardless of how that came to be.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not questioning evolution. I'm just pointing out that taxonomy is purely a method of classification. It doesn't assume anything.
Maybe in Linnean taxonomy, but modern taxonomy is based purely on evolution and common ancestry; morphological traits do not matter any longer except for inferring evolutionary relationships.
Well, evolution is the most logical explanation for why taxonomy even works.
@@accelerationquanta5816 Yes, but we only were only able to find out birds are dinosaurs because of their shared traits. When it comes to grouping an animal with extinct relatives, we do sometimes need to look to shared traits to figure out where they lie, unless we find a gradient of their ancestors leading up to the present animal which no longer has any of its ancestral traits. However, even if this did happen, we'd only be able to figure out this gradient by seeing the shared traits of the animal's ANCESTORS instead.
So, birds are not dinosaurs because of their shared traits, however we KNOW they're dinosaurs because of their shared traits.
Now if you don't believe in evolution, you can easily just throw away the reason we consider birds dinosaurs, and just define a dinosaur as an animal with those certain traits, and clearly see birds are dinosaurs for the same reason you'd see whales are mammals even without believing evolution. You can get the reasoning wrong and still get the verdict right based on shared traits, usually. Not always. Sometimes genetic analysis is needed, like in horseshoe crabs, which are no longer considered crustaceans.
@@catpoke9557 Morphology can be misleading. A number of clades were rendered paraphyletic by the discovery and implimentation of gene sequencing.
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that for those species (extant ones and those that recently went extict) for which we have DNA, it's a lot easier to establish a more or less definitive "phylogeny of descent".
Where things necessarily get speculative is where all we have are physical traits from fossils. In those cases, the many cases of convergent evolution we see in life forms today (and that undoubtedly occurred in eons past) undoubtedly don't perfectly match the true genetic phylogenies, but we'll likely never know where...
Little leopard gecko looked like he was wearing a costume of himself 😂
You know don't worry that much about what these people think Izzy, people who deny that birds are dinosaurs (and by extent reptiles) are at best extremely ignorant and at worst simply morons, stay with the great work 😄
"By extent reptiles"? What are you on?
@@nautilus2612 On facts, from the looks of it. Dinosaurs are reptiles, and birds being dinosaurs makes them reptiles too. They're just a bit weird because any close relative they had that looked closer to other reptile groups died a long time ago, considering the closest relatives of birds today are crocodiles, and those split from the family tree back in the triassic, maybe even during the end permian, but that might be a stretch.
@@nautilus2612 my man, do you even know the meaning of the phrase "by extent"?
@@shinygamer3424 they are literally reptiles, birds are avemetatarsals, a group of archosaurian reptiles, it isn't hard to understand lmao, it's literally the topic of the video
@@cabinessence_timely_hello
Thats what I'm saying!!!
I think the debate about whether birds are dinosaurs comes from different people having different ideas about groups of living organisms really are. I'm sure you will have very little opposition in saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but to start saying that they ARE dinosaurs because of that is where the opposition comes from.
If you say that birds are dinosaurs, you have to say that trees are algea, humans are lungfish as you said, eukaryotes are prokaryotes, there's at least one single celled organism that's a dog, monocots are dicots, etc.
And when these groups are all defined based on morphological traits, these definitions get all messed up when grouping them purely on evolutionary relationships like this.
I think there's a difference of opinion on how groups of living things should be organized on a fundamental level.
The confusion comes from the ambiguity as to weather you're using the word "dinosaur" cladistically, IE a member of the clade Dinosauria, or if you're using the word "dinosaur" to mean a big reptile from the Mesozoic that's not a crocodile or a squamate. By the former definition birds are dinosaurs and pteosaurs are not, by the latter definition birds are not dinosaurs but pterosaurs are.
The former definition is more accurate scientifically, but the latter is still useful for casual conversation.
Do you agree that whales are mammals?
No, by that logic it would be like saying humans aren't apes or aren't mammals. We're much farther away in the evolutionary tree then birds are from the last theropods, yet we are mammals.
@@birbdad1842 Homie I agree with you but genuinely what the fuck are you talking about?
"We're much farther away in the evolutionary tree then birds are from the last theropods"
Like what does this sentence mean? how the hell can one species be "farther" from the evolutionary tree when every species is inside of it by definition?
@@joshuasgameplays9850 I think what they're trying to say is birds are much more similar to the ancestral dinosaur than humans are to the ancestral therian mammal? Not sure on primates and the ancestral mammal, but birds definitely resemble the ancestral dinosaur much more than something like Ankylosaurus.
Though, like you're saying, this doesn't mean they're "closer" or "farther" from being a dinosaur. If they're in Dinosauria, they should be called dinosaurs, both cladistically and in the vernacular.
Those comments shown at the start made me physically ache.
The fact that insects poop is why flies disgust me so much.
It is also why mice disgust me. They pee on everything too.
Those comments made me weep for mankind... holy shit how can people be so stupid...
The "birds are reptiles" thing is meaningless nonsense, though. Reptile is a grade, not a clade, it's paraphyletic. If birds are reptiles, then so are mammals, which... makes reptiles synonymous with amniotes. Which, if that's how you wanna play it, sure, go for it, but at that point what you're describing as "a reptile" is no longer a reptilian trait, it's an amniote trait, and skin shedding is not an amniote trait. They are sauropsids, diapsids, saurians, archelosaurs, archosaurs, avemetarsalians, etc., but "reptile" is as taxonomically valid as monkey (which excludes apes despite apes being derived monkeys), prosauropods (which includes all sauropods), or fish. I know you said that thing about the "fancy lungfish," which is true, but we aren't literally fish, fish is a grade. The closest you can come is "osteichthyes" which has "fish" in it after a fashion, however people tend to use "euteleostomes" which is cladistically synonymous just to avoid indirectly calling people fish.
Also, this video as a whole is kind of misleading in the way it talks about Linnean taxonomy, and if you didn't know better you might come away thinking that that's still what we use and how we talk about relationships between organisms. Linnean taxonomy is fundamentally different in nature and purpose from modern cladistics. It only seeks to group like things into categories, it never had any kind of explanatory or predictive power, nor was it ever meant to, because it's was purely a curiosity. Some things are more like others, I mean he classified rocks the same way, he thought rocks were exactly as related to each other as living things. The ancient convention of "domains" and "kingdoms" and all that crap are vestigal leftovers from a system people have scrapped for parts. What taxonomic ranks is the group containing all bilaterally symmetrical animals? It doesn't HAVE one, because those are ancient cave man ideas, real life taxonomy does not have "ranks" because that's not how nature works. Evolution is a process that continually changes perpetually, not one that organizes itself into progressively smaller groups before magically transforming into something else.
Reptile excludes birds, Reptilia includes birds.
Reptilia was only considered a grade in pre-cladistics taxonomy. In modern cladistics, it's defined as either Sauropsida as a whole or the crown-group Archosauromorpha + Lepidosauromorpha (some of the groups you mentioned). Either way, Reptilia nowadays is a monophyletic clade birds are deeply nested within; we just don't know whether to use it for Sauropsida or just the crown-group clade (Sauria).
As for in the vernacular, I do encourage referring to birds as reptiles. Reptiles get a bad rep, being thought of as "primitive and lesser" vertebrates, despite the fact their intelligence does match up with mammals (they simply respond to things differently; the intelligence tests that concurred they were less intelligent were specifically tailored towards mammal responses and hence would of course provide biased results). I think correctly calling birds reptiles could possibly aid in making reptile intelligence more widely accepted by the general public.
Aside from that, with the same logic, cetaceans shouldn't be called mammals in the vernacular. Cetaceans have only been correctly called mammals in the vernacular for roughly a SINGLE century, possibly less. Even in the early-1900s you'd see people referring to them as fish rather than mammals. Shifting the vernacular to call birds reptiles outside of a scientific context wouldn't be any more drastic a change.
Princessmaly, give yourself a hand. That was the best explonation as to why the Linnean classification system is so flawed that I've ever read. The examples you used to explain why reptilia is an unatural grouping were spot on. FANTASTIC job all around.
I have chickens and they're definitely dinosaurs because they're clever girls.
OK, one of them is kinda stupid but the others are like, dog smart.
intelligence doesn't define groups in taxonomy
@@Dr.IanPlect Jesus Christ. 😆
@@Scrinwaipwr doesn't exist....we can do this all day! You make a point and I'll literal the shit out of it!
Ah, see?
@@Dr.IanPlect most of those letters are round, not pointy.
@@Scrinwaipwr Wrong again; it's not cold enough to snow.
Muted.
My zoology professor once said in a lecture, "Never trust a comfortable taxonomist."
Great advice honestly. I'm just waiting for a movie where a biologist is standing guard over something, and to distract them some one asks "what is a species?"
I think it’s more so a matter of cladistics than it is a matter of taxonomy.
Fantastic video black power!
That's funny, just yesterday I was telling someone that birds are dinosaurs and the very next day I see this.
I would also like to suggest that crocodiles are considered to be as distant from lizards and snakes as are birds. Obviously, they are, but we lump crocs in with these other reptiles despite them being archosaurs like their feathered counterparts. It’s easy to see why; exothermy and greenish scales, but the single biggest thing for me is the complex circulatory system and that the current metabolism of the extant suchians appears to be an evolutionary adaptation from historic endothermy (or mesothermy).
There was a great example of this on the BBC science page today, lauding the parthenogenesis of a captive croc, observed (rarely) in other groups including birds. It went on to discuss the significant implication this could also have for dinosaurs with whom they had a shared ancestry… Seemingly missing the elephant bird in the room that this event has already been witnessed in real living dinosaurs 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
In general though, there are no hard lines in nature, no demarcation where one thing becomes someone else, it’s just a spectrum, so says this supposed H. sapiens carrying a 2% payload of H. neanderthalensis, the offspring of who knows what earlier hominids and australopiths…
Those comments at the 00:10 mark are hilariously sad....it should be common knowledge, but as we can see, it is not....
hummingbird taxonomy, oh my...
ahahahah those screenshots made me laugh my ass out... not only those people are arrogantly stating that birds are not dinos, while from at least a few decades it's universally accepted that they actually undoubtedly ARE, but they're even talking about god and creationism. LOL
Imagine being that 4th commenter on 0:09 who got that birds descended from theropods (and thus are theropods) but not that theropods (including Tyranno-fucking-saurus rex) are dinosaurs.
It’s not that weird, there are a lot of terms that do work that way. If you use the word fish in the same way dinosaur is used, then birds are also fish. Except fish is what’s called a paraphyletic term meaning it excludes part of its descendants. The reason for excluding them is just because of the traditional use of the word. The word that includes everything we call fish is just Vertebrate. Dinosaur is a term that works more like vertebrate.
Well done
Just got into an argument with my dad (neither of us are biologists), and he said calling birds dinosaurs is like calling all mammals gorillas. I can’t 😐
Honestly I wonder if adding "glorified lungfish" in my dating bio self-description would change anything. I must think of a decent hypothesis before the experiment tho...
I mean if you put the "We're all glorified lungfish" text as part of it you'll eliminate a lot of people who wouldn't be accepting of evolution lol
The way you pronounced "naturate" sounds like the Italian language scene from Inglorious Bastards... Arrivederci becoming "a river there chief"
How is the troodon my favorite dinosaur, and I never knew that it was only a tooth?
Dubious
This discussion is about semantics at its core this is why everyone is confused even specialists about these fields. Main dicussion revolves between Ortnithologs and Paleanthologs
i remember hearing not too long ago that eukaryota emerged from asgard archeae
Yes. it seems there are two major divisions, Achaea and Bacteria, and Eukaryotes are just an Archaea that absorbed some parasite organism attempts to become organelles, which changed the game for them/us.
If Ur still confused somehow, birds are dinosaurs but (not all) dinosaurs are birds because the dinosaurs that are birds are avian therapods dinosaurs while dinosaurs have 3 main lineages and birds evolved from one of them. Which are non avian therapod dinosaur dependants
Birds are also fish as well.
“No strategy better than te other, eh?” We’ll just see who survives the next extinction event, Lungfish. Or should I say, CHUMPfish!? It’s ON!!
First, respect to Zeek for the immense amount of highly-informative, up-to-date material he makes accessible.
He's a big-hearted guy, who wears his heart upon his sleeve. I'm grateful for his perspectives on the ethics of science. It's possible to be detached from the world and merely fascinated by the information it offers. He shows us that there is another, human dimension. Big respect.
But if you wear your heart upon your sleeve, daws are going to PECK at it! The litany of illnesses, forest-fires, wasp-stingings etc make me think WOW, this guy's parents must really have PISSED OFF some old gypsy woman!! No wonder he looks worried!
But, to the point of this talk .... I think that palaeontologists are dazzled by the recent confirmation that the birds are descended from the dinosaurs. Ergo the constant reference to the "non-avian" dinosaurs. But is there any way in which a bird is a dinosaur in which T. Rex is not a fish? Zeek skirts round the issue by saying that, actually, we are LUNGFISH. "Fish" are clearly a paraphyletic group. Nobody ever says "the non-tetrapod fish". Zeek himself has used the word "fish", and nobody thinks that he's talking about zebras, T. Regina or KITTENS!!
Point being, even specialists use words in ways which are not strictly cladistic. Fish are blah-de-blah that live in water. Dinosaurs are blah-de-blah which died out at the end of the Cretaceous. These terms are meaningful and everybody knows what they mean.
Is there a point at which creatures become their own thing, biologically or ecologically, and it is not particularly meaningful or helpful to refer to them in terms of their ultimate ancestry?
i thought i would get a brain aneurysm when i read some of the comments that reta... i mean sceptics left under your videos
I have a heron that hunts chipmunks in my backyard and that thing is dinosaur as hell.
thank you for saying that bird are tech reptiles i needed that.