this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
131 points (94.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36169 readers
1552 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When I was a kid, I learned about Dinosaur being "giant lizard", and it's been may-be 10 years, that I hear "Birds are dinosaurs".

I am curious on how the concept evolve, both among paleontologists, and among the general public.

all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork 93 points 6 months ago (4 children)

As I understand it, it's due to advances in the technology that supports biology and paleontology. When all scientists had to go on were fossils, the bone structure of dinosaurs more closely resembled giant lizards, so thats the conclusion they came to. But recent techniques, including genetic analysis on currently existing species, clearly shows the link between birds and dinosaurs. (And, in fact, alligators are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards.)

I found this article which seems to explain it well:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

It's really weird to think I put out feed to attract the colorful cousins of alligators to my back yard.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 8 points 6 months ago

alligators are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards.

Well that's a cool TIL

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Or heres a good youtube channel/ vid on it that goes into detial

Or if your interested in paleontology discoverys/theorys they also do monthy reviews about new papers that have came out! And i feel like raptor chatter explains it simple enough to me to understand even with no background in the field 😅

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Thank you for actually providing an explanation beyond stating the word "science"

[–] geogle 54 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's both!

Triassic: Giant Lizards --> Cretaceous: Giant Birds

[–] chonglibloodsport 44 points 6 months ago (1 children)

All dinosaurs are reptiles, including birds. The major clade of dinosaurs to which birds belong is called theropods. The other well-known dinosaurs, sauropods (including all the huge quadrupedal herbivores), are totally extinct and have only very distant ancestry with birds and other reptiles.

By the way, crocodilians have been around for 250 million years, so they shared the earth with the huge dinosaurs of old! But they are not dinosaurs themselves.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] VelvetGentleman 11 points 6 months ago

This is fairly recent bird lore. Like late 80s to 90s. It takes a while for schools to catch up so I missed it as well.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

gasp and they were squamates

[–] Bluetreefrog 33 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I saw some documentary that suggested that they used to chip straight through fossilized feathers and skin to get to the bones because they didn't realise what they were.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Do you remember the name? I haven’t watched a dinosaur documentary in many years.

[–] Bluetreefrog 3 points 6 months ago

Sorry, I don't.

[–] Kelly 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The idea is quite old:

Shortly after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley proposed that birds were descendants of dinosaurs. He compared the skeletal structure of Compsognathus, a small theropod dinosaur, and the "first bird" Archaeopteryx lithographica (both of which were found in the Upper Jurassic Bavarian limestone of Solnhofen). He showed that, apart from its hands and feathers, Archaeopteryx was quite similar to Compsognathus.

But having fossil evidence is quite young:

One of the earliest discoveries of possible feather impressions by non-avian dinosaurs is a trace fossil (Fulicopus lyellii) of the 195–199 million year old Portland Formation in the northeastern United States. Gierlinski (1996, 1997, 1998) and Kundrát (2004) have interpreted traces between two footprints in this fossil as feather impressions from the belly of a squatting dilophosaurid. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

[–] TexasDrunk 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's too bad T.H. Huxley was such a racist POS. He was a great paleontologist and I like his style of agnosticism.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I just read his Wikipedia page. Under the conditions of his time, how was he a racist? The article says he opposed slavery, opposed “scientific racists” of the time who argued polygenism and that some races were “transitional” between animal and man, and he asserted that science could never excuse the atrocities of slave owners.

He did have incomplete theories about a racial hierarchy of intelligence, which was a common idea at the time. The article doesn’t suggest that he was a primary champion of that theory, or that it heavily featured in most of his work.

In my opinion, he seems like a man who was doing what he could to expand his understanding of his observations, even if he was limited and misled by the prevailing methods and attitudes of his lifetime. Perhaps he should be judged against his peers rather than modern sensitivities, particularly without any evidence of malice in his work.

[–] TexasDrunk 6 points 6 months ago

You're right, and he softened his stance with age (as well as his stance on sexism). To add to it on a personal level, I also enjoy the works of H.P. Lovecraft and he was wildly racist even compared to his peers.

It's less about judging him by today's standards than it is about lamenting that I'll never be able to think of his work without remembering his racist views. I also can't watch Call Girl of Cthulhu without remembering Lovecraft's cat's name. I can separate the art and science from the artist and scientist, especially if they're dead so that they can't benefit from it, but because of my own past (I was raised with a lot of passive racism by well meaning people) I can't forget what they said.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Science got rid of Pluto as a planet tho. 😭

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Pluto wasn't demoted. It didn't get a pay cut or see a loss of benefits.

Our vocabulary has gotten richer and more specific as we've explored Pluto and things like it. As we launch missions like New Horizons out there, we're going to need new terms to talk about the things we find. We sent a whole probe to Pluto; Uranus and Neptune had to share.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that is quite accurate.

We discovered many more Pluto-or-larger sized things that were closer to the sun than Pluto. It became increasingly obvious that there was nothing special about Pluto and we either needed to add hundreds of planets or "demote" Pluto.

[–] deadlyduplicate -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't believe that is accurate. Beside moons (which don't orbit the sun), Pluto is the largest and closest dwarf planet.

[–] accideath 6 points 6 months ago

Not the closest. Ceres is a dwarf planet inside the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Holy shit science vanished a whole dwarf planet that’s insane 😱

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Jurassic Park in fucking 1993 has a scene where Alan Grant messes with an annoying kid, and he clearly tells the audience that they are similar to God damn birds, you silly goose. You are that kid in the film in real life.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

It's not X turning into Y when it comes to evolution. There were all kinds of different dinosaurs, that evolved I to all kinds of different niches. Most of those then went extinct due to rocks falling from the sky, or the entirety of India turning into a huge volcano etc.

So it's not that a T-Rex turned into a chicken, it's that T-Rexs lived alongside other dinosaurs that developed feathers and filled more niches etc. those that survived eventually became birds. (Have you ever seen an Emu up close?!? No wonder the Australians lost to them 🤣)

Disclaimer: I have no specific knowledge. Also, remember this happened over (~~billions?~~ hundreds of millions) of years.

Other comments about just not noticing feathers are valid too.

[–] geogle 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

*over 100s of Millions, but what's an extra zero amongst Internet friends

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Ugh, life took ages to get started. Lazy bacteria!

It's still a hell of a long time if you consider that the entirety of recorded (ish) history is only a few thousand years long.

Updated comment to remove an order of magnitude.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Approximately four and a half billion years ago, some rocks and shit became friends and hugged each other so tight that they created the earth.

After a few hundreds of millions of years, life appeared on earth.

Then, four-ish billion years later, Nyasasaurus was like, "roar y'all."

And now there are birds. They're like, "caw y'all," and we're all like, "yo, that's a bird." Then the lizards are like, "me too bro."

The end.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

You think emus look prehistoric, take a look at our cassowary!

[–] scootypuff 6 points 6 months ago

it's not that a T-Rex turned into a chicken

As a chicken owner, I can assure you chickens absolutely are tiny T-Rexes. Tiny, ferocious, bloodthirsty little T-Rexes that poop everywhere.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

or the entirety of India turning into a huge volcano etc.

Er, I’m . . what?

Huh. Well I’ll be danged.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I was more thinking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

More than 1 million cubic kilometres of lava. Enough gasses to cause a mass extinction event.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 2 points 6 months ago

Ah, well that makes sense too

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago
[–] Contramuffin 14 points 6 months ago

Not a paleontologist, but I think it's a mix of both wrong information being spread back then and also new info being discovered.

I'm pretty sure people knew that birds were dinosaurs for a while, but people just liked the idea that dinosaurs were monstrous lizards. Giant monsters just capture the imagination in a way that giant birds can't.

And then paleontologists started finding fossils that had imprints of feathers still on the body, and it became really hard to ignore that dinosaurs were a lot more bird-like than people would like to believe.

My impression has generally been that once dinosaurs started to be viewed as bird-like, people started to see them as animals rather than as monsters, and that just kinda snowballed into dinosaurs becoming more and more bird-like

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Everyone wants a cool origin story I guess.

Also we moved from "that looks similar-ish" to analysis of fossiles and their evolution + genetic research.

But I, and thats a fact, know very little about that, and come from times when dinosaurs did not wear any fancy feathers.

[–] Taniwha420 8 points 6 months ago

Birds are reptiles.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A large part of the confusion is that dinosaurs did not emerge from birds in the same way that humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees (nor monkeys) - but rather, both groups in those pairs evolved from a common ancestor (but different ones:-).

Birds have feathers and for the most part fly, while alligators not so much. In attempting to simplify, e.g. Avians to "birds", it causes confusion. Alligators also are not warm-blooded as birds are, not do they have beaks, all hallmarks of modern birds, but they do have four legs, long body with a tail, moveable eyelids - and don't they have external ear openings as well? - all hallmarks of modern lizards.

Scientists use precision language like "non-Avian theropod", but those don't map perfectly to common words like "birds", which everyone knows are just government drones anyway:-P.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Government drones aren't real!

[–] wanderer 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We had known that birds are descended from dinosaurs well before the general public and the majority of paleontologists starting saying "birds are dinosaurs". So simply saying that "we discovered that birds are descended from dinosaurs" is not sufficient to answering your question.

Traditional taxonomy allows for paraphyletic groups, meaning that not all of the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of the group are required to be in that group. So in this case, even though it was known that birds are descended from dinosaurs, they continued to be considered two separate groups, with dinosaurs being a paraphyletic group. Birds were known first, dinosaurs were later discovered and were considered a distinct group, then the link between the the two groups was discovered, but how they were grouped did not immediately change. That birds were not considered to be dinosaurs was a rather arbitrary effect based on how they were discovered and not on any scientific basis.

One book on dinosaurs from 1997 wrote:

In a phylogenetic sense, dinosaurs are not extinct, for birds are theropodan descendants (but see Feduccia 1996 for a dissenting view). For the purposes of this review, however, the term dinosaur connotes what cladists might term "non-avian dinosauromorph." We thus (unrepentantly) use a paraphyletic rather than monophyletic (holophyletic) "Dinosauria." Whatever the scientific merits of the latter, the former is widely understood, and avoids such circumlocutions as "non-avian dinosaur."

A later edition of that same book from 2012 not only uses "non-avian dinosaur" extensively, it also has an entire section on birds.

So why the change? There is a trend in science to prefer cladistic classification, which requires every group to be a clade, meaning that all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of a group are in the group. This effectively means that paraphyletic grouping is being abandoned. So with cladistic taxonomy birds are dinosaurs.

There are other traditionally paraphyletic groups that are still in the process of changing. For example traditionally monkeys were a paraphyletic group, but any clade that includes all monkeys necessarily includes the apes, so in cladistics apes are monkeys. Though, you will still hear many people say 'apes are not monkeys'. Fish was also a paraphyletic group, which included all vertebrates except tetrapods, but of course in cladistics, tetrapods are fish.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

tetrapods are fish

I like this particularly because it allows you to tell people that whales are fish, which is generally going to get a much stronger response than if you said "people are fish". Because in the latter, they know you're up to something weird, but in the former they're not sure if you might just be wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I remember in my childhood in the 90s reading it as a possibility. So it was already on people's radar. And as far as I know in the book Jurassic Park they do have feathers. Haven't watched the newer movies, but I heard that in Jurassic World it was explained by the frog DNA that they didn't have feathers.

[–] tnarg42 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure Jurassic Park (the movie) coming out was when it became common knowledge to the general public. A few hardcore dinosaur nerds (and readers of the Jurassic Park novel) were generally aware beforehand, but it was the movie that pushed it into common knowledge. (Source: I was 14 when Jurassic Park (the movie) came out)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I saw an interesting thing where they wanted that raptor chase scene, but raptors are only knee height, which isn't very intimidating. Then, while filming, someone discovered a raptor skeleton that was human sized, so they took it. It apparently didn't look anything like the ones in the movie, but they really wanted it and had an excuse to use it.

[–] XeroxCool 1 points 6 months ago

Was that the Urahraptor? Discovered in 1993, estimated 5-6ft tall and 16-20ft long according to wiki