What? Birds are "living dinosaurs"?
In his new book Written in Stone: Evolution, the Fossil Record, and Our Place in Nature", Brian Switek wrote, "If you want to see living dinosaurs, you don't have to trek to a steaming jungle or isolated plateau. All you have to do is put up a bird feeder and look out the window." Now I have heard everything. Sick, sick, sick.
Not surprisingly, this stupid book has been endorsed by the National Center for Science Education.
Not surprisingly, this stupid book has been endorsed by the National Center for Science Education.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/05/2010 12:52:00 PM
19 Comments:
Now I have heard everything. Sick, sick, sick.
You can't be serious. Birds have been known to be dinosaurs for decades. You're JUST hearing it now?
Do you live in a cave?
I have heard that birds are descended from dinosaurs. I have never heard that birds ARE dinosaurs.
Presumably the Darwin-fans may now start saying that "mammals are reptiles," since it's generally held that mammals descended from ancient reptiles. The irrationality of those who still adhere to the ancient notions of Darwinism, seems to know few limits.
The reason birds can be called dinosaurs (rather than saying they descended from dinosaurs), is due to the different naming/grouping systems of phylogeny and cladistics. The former groups organisms into a hierarchic family tree where not all subbranches of a given group are within that group (and with a set number of hierarchic levels - order, genus etc.), while cladistics is a more modern, evolution-based approach where each clade contains all the subspecies of a common ancestor and there is no restraint on the complexity of the hierarchy (no clade is of a "higher" level than another, except being larger and older).
At least that's how I understand it.
Whatever. But as Jim Sherwood pointed out: by that line of reasoning, mammals can be called dinosaurs, too. In fact, following that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, humans can be called protozoans.
>>>>>Whatever. But as Jim Sherwood pointed out: by that line of reasoning, mammals can be called dinosaurs, too.<<<<<
Wrong. Mammals are not descended from dinosaurs; they are synapsids, whereas dinosaurs are saurapsids.
>>>>>In fact, following that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, humans can be called protozoans.<<<<<
Wrong. Protozoa is no longer considered a valid classification.
>>>>> Wrong. Mammals are not descended from dinosaurs; they are synapsids, whereas dinosaurs are saurapsids.<<<<<<
OK, so Jim Sherwood said that mammals are descended from reptiles, not dinosaurs. Big deal.
>>>>> Protozoa is no longer considered a valid classification. <<<<<
So what?
A) Reptile is no longer a valid classification.
B) I was pointing out how your logic was faulty. "Protozoan" has no meaning under the new classification, so you can't classify humans as protozoans. Or mammals as reptiles.
Scientifically, there is no reason not to consider birds dinosaurs. Objections to this arise from a conservative viewpoint (in the sense of resistance to change, not politics).
And yet again, Larry chickens out and arbitrarily censors his opposition.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> A) Reptile is no longer a valid classification.
B) I was pointing out how your logic was faulty. "Protozoan" has no meaning under the new classification, so you can't classify humans as protozoans. Or mammals as reptiles. <<<<<<
You are missing the point, bozo.
>>>>>> Scientifically, there is no reason not to consider birds dinosaurs. <<<<<<
Well, there were flying dinosaurs, but it is not claimed that birds are descended from them.
>>>>>You are missing the point, bozo.<<<<<
Actually, I pointed out the point in my comment on conservative viewpoint. But to distill it even further:
CHANGE IS TEH BAD!!!!!!11!11eleventyone!!!
I'm pointing out that it is quite silly to object to a new classification system based on a remnant of the old classification system which wasn't carried over for the reason you objected.
BTW, the pterosaurs et al. aren't dinosaurs. Just sayin'.
Anonymous, you are just a lousy pest.
Yeah, but smarter than you. HAHA!
Tou despicable dunghill.
>>>>> Well, there were flying dinosaurs, but it is not claimed that birds are descended from them. <<<<<
actually there were no flying dinosaurs. There were flying pterosaurs though which were not dinosaurs...
further more birds did not evolve from these pterosaurs but from the raptors (Dromaeosauridae) of the dinosaurs. please try and get your facts right before making yourself look even more foolish.
Get this fact straight, bozo --even if birds are descended from dinosaurs, that does not mean that birds ARE dinosaurs.
I don't think anyone said that birds are dinosaurs; those posting comments, who are far more intelligent than the blogger, rightly point out that birds are decended from dinosaurs. Mr. Fafarman is not decended from an ape, he shares a common ancestor with an ape, as do we all.
"Protozoa" is no longer an accepted zoological term; it has been replace by the term "eucaryotes".
>>>>>>I don't think anyone said that birds are dinosaurs<<<<<
You dumbshit dunghill ----read the original post--
In his new book "Written in Stone: Evolution, the Fossil Record, and Our Place in Nature", Brian Switek wrote, "If you want to see living dinosaurs, you don't have to trek to a steaming jungle or isolated plateau. All you have to do is put up a bird feeder and look out the window."
G
>>>>>"Protozoa" is no longer an accepted zoological term; it has been replace by the term "eucaryotes".<<<<
How does that affect the point I was making, doofus?
Post a Comment
<< Home