didn't mean to say the beak was short, just the tail was short.
Printable View
didn't mean to say the beak was short, just the tail was short.
pretty similar, it could be possible they were very distant relatives
i can't find an image of a flamingo with its wings open.
the main difference seems to be the shape of the head, the dinosaur one has a very distinct pointy shaped head. Suppose it's possible that as they became smaller the head just naturaly became the more usual shape that u see today
i think the head is on the wrong way round.
i think i love trix. she's not afraid to think outside the box. conversely, im trying to think of ways to get inside her box.
that's sweet. i don't know if i would consider it as thinking out of the box, cos i have followed the rules.
perhaps it was those palaeontologists that thought outside the box?
lol wheres our resident dinosaur enthusiast aka tetris at?
http://sharetv.org/images/guide/592585.jpg
as far as i know reptiles don't fare well in cold climates, they're more likely to be found in warmer climates.
The same can be said for females.
All dinosaurs evolved into riff raff
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o...keleton-lg.jpg
ferret
http://retrieverman.files.wordpress....k-skeleton.jpg
skunk
http://www.skeletonsandmore.com/secu...mages/CHC1.JPG
pole cat
http://www.infoplease.com/images/ESCI292ANIANA003.jpg
squirrel
http://www.skullcleaning.com/userfil...s_85_large.jpg
meercat
its a common misconception to think that birds came from pterosaurs. from study of the skeleton system pterosaurs walked on four legs and had four limbs whereas birds walk on two legs and have only two limbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
large wingspan and beak and short tail arent really good evidence that birds and pterosaurs are related.
similiar wingspan is probably a result of convergent evolution and not because pterosaurs are ancestors of birds.
im also pretty sure pterosaurs were extinct a long time before the first birds.
tbh i think most of the connections youre making are just features of convergent evolution and not because the animals are closely related.
its like trying to say salmon and dolphins are closely related because they both have similiar shaped bodies fins etc when in fact dolphins and fish belong to totally different class.
http://bioweb.wku.edu/faculty/huskey...%20dorsal2.jpg
iguana
http://www.skullcleaning.com/userfil...s_32_large.jpg
kimodo dragon
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7151/6...2afc25fc_z.jpg
lizard
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/Mokele/leo1.jpg
gecko
http://tellmewhereonearth.com/Web%20...n_lateral1.jpg
crocodile
http://ryanmcjunkin.com/wp-content/u...r-skeleton.jpg
aligator
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang
i didn't say they were closely related, the thread title says they've evolved.
a dolphin might be different to a salmon, i'm not trying to argue that. but they both swim in water in a similar fashion, the way a dolphin or salmon swims in the sea would be different to how a dog would swim in the sea.
having a beak would suggest that it's a bird. how many other types of animal are there that have beaks? if having large wingspans and a beak doesn't suggest it is bird like then what does it suggest to you?
how many reptiles have beaks and wings?
octopuses and squids also have beaks. trurtles also have beaks. as for wingspan. all vertebrates with wings have similiar wings. its because of convergent evolution. and birds usually have smaller wings than pterosaurs. so that point doesnt stand up well at all.
large wing span and beak doesnt suggest bird because ptreosaurs were extinct a long time before birds and theres no animals found that look part pterosaur part bird. theres barely any evidence to suggest that birds and pterosaurs are related.
no reptiles have both beaks and wings.
the problem youre having is that you dont understand most of these connections are because of convergent evolution.
its why bats and birds have a similiar wing structre but arent closely related.
the thread title does suggest i'm talklng about evolution.
squids, octopus and turtles might have beaks but they don't have wings as well.
the birds have smaller wings now compared to that one in the museum because of evolution? because losing its wings AND feathers AND tails is more convincing? it's not possible that the wings just got a little smaller?
ive also heard a theory that birds have beaks because beaks are lighter than a mouth full of teeth. and birds need to be lighter so they can fly more easily.
perhaps this is way pterosaurs also had beaks
what about the fact pterosaurs were agreed to be extinct long before arrival of the birds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
also the main problem is that a pterosaurs skeleton structure is very very different from a birds.
a pterosaur walks on four feet and has four limbs. very different from a bird. also theres more bird like dinosaurs unrelated to pterosaur such as microraptor mononykus and scansoriopteryx
http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4666ba00.jpg
you're telling me this walked on all four legs?
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
i'm done talking to you.
also most experts dont think that bird wings can come from pterosaur wings.
2 reasons for this is pterosaurs have 4 digits birds only have 3
and pterosaurs wings are supported by a single huge bone which was his thumb.
birds wings arent like this.
fossils show that pterosaurs walked on all four feet.
is there a possibility that the palaentologists could have placed the bones incorrectly? and so what if it had a thumb, what use is a thumb with no fingers?Quote:
Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang
fossils will not capture animals in a walking position or a flying position, just in that animals dead position.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang
reposition the arms to wrap them around the body, and tilt the spine upright it would look like a bird that i've mentioned.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../F1.medium.gif
this is a trackway of a pterosaur which show a pterosaur walked on four feet. also there are numerous footprints which implies that it was walking.
if it was deead there would be at most 4 footprints because it wouldnt be able to move. and theres also the possibility it would die on its side which means there would be no footprints.
this is the site from where the picture came http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...2009.1161.full
if the palaentologists placed the bones the wrong way then all your "research" would be wrong because youre basing all ur "research" on the skeletons constructed by these palaentologists.
the point of the huge thumb is that it makes the wings very different from the wings of birds today and therefore scientists cant see how bird wings could possibly evolve from the wings of pterosaurs.
i dont know why youre sking about fingers. i already told you that pterosaurs had 4 digits.
also why do you think pterosaurs had feet on their wings if they only walked on two feet.
just look at a bat who has feet on its wings and walks on four feet.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx...yxkuo1_500.gif
yes i was gonna say about bats, bats can walk and fly. they also have a extra bit on their wings.
the 'thumb' on the pterosaurus isn't that big that it would stop it from flying, the wing span is big enough. birds can walk, but they usually walk on two feet.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../F1.medium.gif
the footsteps in the image you've posted does not look consistent. every image of the foot in the footsteps even look different to the other, those are not the footsteps of one animal.
pterosaurs can definitely fly. when did i say they couldnt. its common knowledge that birds can walk.
theres dinosaurs that walk like birds. pterosaurs walk very differently from birds.
how do the footsteps not look consistent.
look at the shape of the footprints, they even have different labels for each set of footprints. there's several different animals footprints in that image.
do you think that if you walked in ur bare feet that every one of ur footprints ould look the same. definitely not. youd change the pressure of your feet when you walk on different terrain and such so they look different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
also this evidence is very old so the footprints couldve possibly changed slightly over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakimkoolgrapwutang
it's not on different terrain, it's a sample from one particular terrain and not that big a sample either.
terrain always changes. especially if theres lots of rocks which would mean foot pressure is constantly changingQuote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
shouldn't this be in the paleontology subforum?