|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 26, 2008 0:49:28 GMT
Thanks TP! I appreciate it. Moms are like that, yes, they don't really know what to make of diosaur drawings. And good point, but birds and reptiles both have tongues and eyes, so its safe to assume they had them lol. As for not having feathers, he was an early model of a raptor. He was to far behind on the evolutionary track. Besides, we have no physical evidence of feathers, feather-like inbeddings in the rock, or even small spur type things on the arms that tell us that feathers might have grown. but if you go with the theory that raptors came from a group of jusrassic "birds" , that would mean that utahraptor would be one of the closest raptors to birds, and would have had feathers. And- no scale impressions have been found either- Is it safe to assume that it was actually amphibious, and it spent it's time in the water sp that it wouldn't dry out?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 26, 2008 1:26:25 GMT
Thanks TP! I appreciate it. Moms are like that, yes, they don't really know what to make of diosaur drawings. And good point, but birds and reptiles both have tongues and eyes, so its safe to assume they had them lol. As for not having feathers, he was an early model of a raptor. He was to far behind on the evolutionary track. Besides, we have no physical evidence of feathers, feather-like inbeddings in the rock, or even small spur type things on the arms that tell us that feathers might have grown. but if you go with the theory that raptors came from a group of jusrassic "birds" , that would mean that utahraptor would be one of the closest raptors to birds, and would have had feathers. And- no scale impressions have been found either- Is it safe to assume that it was actually amphibious, and it spent it's time in the water sp that it wouldn't dry out? Interesting, but very unlikely Ct. However, the Jurassic bird theory......you're saying a small bird could change into something as large as a utahraptor in only a few million years?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 26, 2008 3:48:28 GMT
Thanks TP! I appreciate it. Moms are like that, yes, they don't really know what to make of diosaur drawings. And good point, but birds and reptiles both have tongues and eyes, so its safe to assume they had them lol. As for not having feathers, he was an early model of a raptor. He was to far behind on the evolutionary track. Besides, we have no physical evidence of feathers, feather-like inbeddings in the rock, or even small spur type things on the arms that tell us that feathers might have grown. but if you go with the theory that raptors came from a group of jusrassic "birds" , that would mean that utahraptor would be one of the closest raptors to birds, and would have had feathers. And- no scale impressions have been found either- Is it safe to assume that it was actually amphibious, and it spent it's time in the water sp that it wouldn't dry out? Um, that 'theory', better referred to as 'poorly supported hypothesis' (please people, these words have very specific meanings) has been suggested by very few people,and I can't think of any actual support that exists to support it. I won't even name the main proponent, since the last time that name came up, people got very angry (not a direct cause though).
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 26, 2008 16:32:27 GMT
Interesting, but very unlikely Ct. However, the Jurassic bird theory......you're saying a small bird could change into something as large as a utahraptor in only a few million years? It happened to moas didn't it? And ostriches. And Gastornis. And terror birds. Small birds evolve into giant ones all the time actually... All those examples are 'a few million years'. The very latest that the split between dromies, troodonts, and other birds could have happened was the early Tithonian, 150 million years ago. Utahraptor lived 125 million years ago. The time between the earliest birds in the mid-late Jurassic to Utahraptor in the late Barremian is *25 million years*. 25 million years ago, you were a monkey
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 26, 2008 20:09:44 GMT
My understanding has been that small theropod dinosaurs with feathers evolved into what we wouild refer to as 'birds' i.e. a Compsognathus-like animal that then evolved feathery coverings. The group containing this animal would have also been at the nodal ancestry of the feathered dinosaurs that did not become birds per se, but intead became the other maniraptoran dinos. In other words, birds are not ancestral, but a sister group to the maniraptors, including dromaeosaurs . They share a common ancestry, but went in two directions with it (one more successful over the long term, of course). I don't think maniraptors are thought to have evolved directly from birds.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 26, 2008 21:10:52 GMT
"It happened to moas didn't it? And ostriches. And Gastornis. And terror birds. Small birds evolve into giant ones all the time actually..."
And many other species, including the "modern" lineages, like the passerines, when you consider the size of a thickbilled raven to its ancestral forms...
"I don't think maniraptors are thought to have evolved directly from birds."
That interests me as well...though, I am pretty sure it takes us back to the "what exactly denotes a bird as being a bird compared to a dinosaur" discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 26, 2008 22:29:10 GMT
Interesting, but very unlikely Ct. However, the Jurassic bird theory......you're saying a small bird could change into something as large as a utahraptor in only a few million years? It happened to moas didn't it? And ostriches. And Gastornis. And terror birds. Small birds evolve into giant ones all the time actually... All those examples are 'a few million years'. The very latest that the split between dromies, troodonts, and other birds could have happened was the early Tithonian, 150 million years ago. Utahraptor lived 125 million years ago. The time between the earliest birds in the mid-late Jurassic to Utahraptor in the late Barremian is *25 million years*. 25 million years ago, you were a monkey Thag, I hav egot to take you down a peg for that monkey comment (I didn't notice it before--I don't usually see what's going on indouble-quote posts). Monkeys did not become humans. That is how a certain loud segment of the population refers to evolution (let's just say it rhymes with 'reationists'). The lineage that includes hominoids (humans and apes) shares a common ancestor with catarrhine monkeys. At some point, there was a species that had the genetic potential to go either way; some event caused the genes in that species to split into two functions. And that ancestor could not be a monkey, because a monkey is defined as the first monkey, and all descendants. No ancestors allowed. Ergo, humans are a sister group with monkeys. Please everyone, get into those phylogenetics classes!
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 26, 2008 23:15:26 GMT
I am pretty sure thag was joking.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 27, 2008 6:17:16 GMT
I don't like complaining, but this is my Drawing thread, not a Bird-Dinosaur Comparison thread. Derailing to the extreme
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 27, 2008 18:34:18 GMT
"I don't like complaining, but this is my Drawing thread, not a Bird-Dinosaur Comparison thread. Derailing to the extreme" May I suggest complaining about derailment of your thread much earlier on then, when the question first comes up ? It seems you were contributing to the convo, and helping it progress intially, which is confusing if you did not want it to be detailed on this thread ? Feathers on a dinosaur that likely had them was what started the discussion. On the monkey comment, I think that takes us to a new converstation like the bird one..."what exactly denotes a monkey being called a monkey, vrs something else " Us apes really have to work on these details
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 27, 2008 20:52:52 GMT
I don't like complaining, but this is my Drawing thread, not a Bird-Dinosaur Comparison thread. Derailing to the extreme ;D Quick then draw something without feathers not related to birds before they take over the whole thread Tyrannax!
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 28, 2008 1:58:21 GMT
I don't like complaining, but this is my Drawing thread, not a Bird-Dinosaur Comparison thread. Derailing to the extreme ;D Quick then draw something without feathers not related to birds before they take over the whole thread Tyrannax! Rofl, good idea. Sorry crazycrowman, I was so interested in the conversation that I didn't notice until now.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 30, 2008 12:07:57 GMT
It happened to moas didn't it? And ostriches. And Gastornis. And terror birds. Small birds evolve into giant ones all the time actually... All those examples are 'a few million years'. The very latest that the split between dromies, troodonts, and other birds could have happened was the early Tithonian, 150 million years ago. Utahraptor lived 125 million years ago. The time between the earliest birds in the mid-late Jurassic to Utahraptor in the late Barremian is *25 million years*. 25 million years ago, you were a monkey Thag, I hav egot to take you down a peg for that monkey comment (I didn't notice it before--I don't usually see what's going on indouble-quote posts). Monkeys did not become humans. That is how a certain loud segment of the population refers to evolution (let's just say it rhymes with 'reationists'). The lineage that includes hominoids (humans and apes) shares a common ancestor with catarrhine monkeys. At some point, there was a species that had the genetic potential to go either way; some event caused the genes in that species to split into two functions. And that ancestor could not be a monkey, because a monkey is defined as the first monkey, and all descendants. No ancestors allowed. Ergo, humans are a sister group with monkeys. Please everyone, get into those phylogenetics classes! "Monkey" is not a phylogenetic term. There's no clade Monkia. It's like saying we came from fish. If you made the same argument about "ape", orangutangs, gorillas and gibbons would no longer be apes! If I anted to be all monophyletic about it, I could say 25ma ago, you were a basal haplorrhinine. But it's easier to write monkey in casual convo.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 30, 2008 13:48:39 GMT
Thag, I have got to take you down a peg for that monkey comment (I didn't notice it before--I don't usually see what's going on in double-quote posts). Monkeys did not become humans. That is how a certain loud segment of the population refers to evolution (let's just say it rhymes with 'reationists'). The lineage that includes hominoids (humans and apes) shares a common ancestor with catarrhine monkeys. At some point, there was a species that had the genetic potential to go either way; some event caused the genes in that species to split into two functions. And that ancestor could not be a monkey, because a monkey is defined as the first monkey, and all descendants. No ancestors allowed. Ergo, humans are a sister group with monkeys. Please everyone, get into those phylogenetics classes! "Monkey" is not a phylogenetic term. There's no clade Monkia. It's like saying we came from fish. If you made the same argument about "ape", orangutangs, gorillas and gibbons would no longer be apes! If I anted to be all monophyletic about it, I could say 25ma ago, you were a basal haplorrhinine. But it's easier to write monkey in casual convo. And some people claim that the term 'ape' is meaningless anyway (Jared Diamond has a whole book in that spirit). And a clade is not defined by the name you give it, but by the taxa contained within. So I should have first corrected the word monkey as Cercopithecoid first. Heart of the matter is that monkeys are not ancestral to humans.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 30, 2008 22:09:03 GMT
;D So does that mean Thag called you a Baboon. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 30, 2008 23:01:19 GMT
;D So does that mean Thag called you a Baboon. ;D I suppose so, but only because he rewrote his stuff to 'basal haplorhine'. And of course, on a technicality, I myself was not one--the ancestor of the species that includes myself (and, I'm assuming, pretty much everyone else on this board) was a basal haplorhine. I think everyone should read Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestors' Tale". It explains it all very nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Oct 16, 2008 8:19:39 GMT
My latest: Spinosaurus! (Shocking) The arch nemesis of T-Rex! (Gasp) For Cordylus- I know how much you like your spinosaurs...
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 16, 2008 13:38:49 GMT
I suggest adding the "hook" at the front of the mouth, it seems as though you rubbed it all off. The dewlap could use some wrinkles, and the body cold use some more muscle detailing, but overall, good job!
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Oct 16, 2008 19:07:48 GMT
I suggest adding the "hook" at the front of the mouth, it seems as though you rubbed it all off. The dewlap could use some wrinkles, and the body cold use some more muscle detailing, but overall, good job! I looked at the skull, but then decided to go with the JP3 skull because I thought it looked cooler, lol. Wanted to make my Spino look less like a fish eater with a thin snout...so I made him with a bulky snout.
|
|
|
Post by bolesey on Oct 16, 2008 23:17:46 GMT
Hey I think your work is improving... good job! ;D
|
|