Dinosaurs v. Mammals: The Final Conflict

[jimmy olsen]

Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.

Mammals were already stepping up in the late Cretaceous.  For small animals, the Age of Dinosaurs ended in the middle Cretaceous.

Don't birds count as small animals and as dinosaurs? There were a lot of them in the late Cretaceous.

[Neil]

Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.

Mammals were already stepping up in the late Cretaceous.  For small animals, the Age of Dinosaurs ended in the middle Cretaceous.

Don't birds count as small animals and as dinosaurs? There were a lot of them in the late Cretaceous.

True, but birds mostly avoided being land animals, and dinosaurs never ruled the skies.

[alfred russel]

An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds?

I buy into the argument that bacteria are actually more evolved than we are--just because they don't have structures that we consider advanced doesn't change that they evolve just like everything else. And their shorter generation times mean there has been much more opportunity for natural selection to take place.

[The Brain]

An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds?

I buy into the argument that bacteria are actually more evolved than we are--just because they don't have structures that we consider advanced doesn't change that they evolve just like everything else. And their shorter generation times mean there has been much more opportunity for natural selection to take place.

Sure, but we have created war, New York and Harry Potter. Who is really superior?

[alfred russel]

Sure, but we have created war, New York and Harry Potter. Who is really superior?

I could repost a few Lettow classics to show that e. coli have the edge.

[Viking]

An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds?

I buy into the argument that bacteria are actually more evolved than we are--just because they don't have structures that we consider advanced doesn't change that they evolve just like everything else. And their shorter generation times mean there has been much more opportunity for natural selection to take place.

I don't accept the concept "more evolved". I can accept the concept "better suited to it's environment", but that is only determined when one species has gone extinct and the other hasn't.

[Queequeg]

I don't accept the concept "more evolved". I can accept the concept "better suited to it's environment", but that is only determined when one species has gone extinct and the other hasn't.

This is true and it isn't.  One of the earliest amphibians would probably not do all that well in a cenozoic swamp; it would be a total anachronism.  Similarly, I think some of the earliest dinosaurs would not do so hot in the Cretaceous.  But it is obviously difficult to be sure; I don't think Possums have changed that much in form the time of the Dinosaurs, but they are still resilient fuckers. 

We probably shouldn't use the term "more evolved".  "Basal", meaning conservative of form, is probably more accurate, and compare it to derived/advanced. 

AR, have you seen the Field Museum's remodeled paleontology wing?   Afraid that I haven't.  I was a huge dinosaur nut as a little kid, and my parents got a ticket to the opening night of the last remodeling (when they had the old ABC Newscaster who now does A&E biography talking about events in the Paleozoic).  One of the best nights of my childhood.   Still remember how excited I was that I was able to make a sound like some kind of big ornithopod.     

[alfred russel]

I don't accept the concept "more evolved". I can accept the concept "better suited to it's environment", but that is only determined when one species has gone extinct and the other hasn't.

This is true and it isn't.  One of the earliest amphibians would probably not do all that well in a cenozoic swamp; it would be a total anachronism.  Similarly, I think some of the earliest dinosaurs would not do so hot in the Cretaceous. 

We probably shouldn't use the term "more evolved".  "Basal", meaning conservative of form, is probably more accurate, and compare it to derived/advanced.

AR, have you seen the Field Museum's remodeled paleontology wing?   Afraid that I haven't.  I was a huge dinosaur nut as a little kid, and my parents got a ticket to the opening night of the last remodeling (when they had the old ABC Newscaster who now does A&E biography talking about events in the Paleozoic).  One of the best nights of my childhood.   Still remember how excited I was that I was able to make a sound like some kind of big ornithopod.   

I haven't seen it.

"More evolved" might be a terrible phrase, but if evolve means "to undergo evolutionary change" then I'd say bacteria are "more evolved" than mammals. But that is arguable.

[HVC]

I thought this was one of the most interesting questions; why is it that we kind of took over the small terrestrial land niches in the mid-late Cretaceous, along with the birds? 

IIRC insect and the insect explosion brought about by flowering plants.

[Queequeg]

"More evolved" might be a terrible phrase, but if evolve means "to undergo evolutionary change" then I'd say bacteria are "more evolved" than mammals. But that is arguable.

Considering that bacteria exist in symbiosis with all forms of multicellular life with which I am familiar, I'm inclined to think of these things as just in a different category.  Like comparing orange chicken with a single orange. 

[Viking]

This is true and it isn't. 

How is it not true?

[Queequeg]

How is it not true?

A human being is a more complex organism than a Myllokunmingia.  I don't think "more evolved" would be unfair. 

[Razgovory]

How is it not true?

A human being is a more complex organism than a Myllokunmingia.  I don't think "more evolved" would be unfair.

I think it would be.

[Barrister]

Just reminded by this thread: over Christmas I had opportunity to visit the Beringia Centre in Whitehorse.  There are some spectacular fossil finds in northern Yukon of Ice Age remains, since it was the center of the Beringia Land Bridge.  The bones and models they had on display were very cool.

[The Brain]

Why am I not surprised that there is a Beria Centre in Whitehorse?