Something I always wondered about when I was a kid. How come there were no Dinosaurs the size of mice, or at least none found? There were dinosaurs the size of chickens, but I was led to believe that was about as small as they got. Certainly there were other animals that were tiny during the time period and it's hard to believe that tiny mammals, reptiles, and amphibians managed to out compete tiny Dinosaurs every time and every place for 100 million years.
Where do you draw the scientific boundary between the skeleton of a reptile and a tiny dinosaur?
Because mouse-sized dinosaurs are just lizards.
They were all eaten.
Dinosaurs weren't lizards.
Quote from: Tamas on February 23, 2012, 09:51:09 AM
Where do you draw the scientific boundary between the skeleton of a reptile and a tiny dinosaur?
I don't know where to begin here. :(
Oh and to clarify, I mean Dinosaurs during the Triassic-Cretatious period. Not later avians like Hummingbirds.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 09:49:38 AM
Something I always wondered about when I was a kid. How come there were no Dinosaurs the size of mice, or at least none found? There were dinosaurs the size of chickens, but I was led to believe that was about as small as they got. Certainly there were other animals that were tiny during the time period and it's hard to believe that tiny mammals, reptiles, and amphibians managed to out compete tiny Dinosaurs every time and every place for 100 million years.
A few moments of googling show that there are a few dinosaurs more the size of squirrels.
I give you Nemicolopterus.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/11/pterodactyl-dinosaur.html
We call them Birds.
Damn it, you pre-empted me.
we don't have many fossils for small complex animals like this one, the size of a rat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis_huxleyi
we don't have fossils for mammals and reptiles of that age and size either. This one is smaller than an adult rat but larger than an adult mouse. So small dinosaurs did exist.
There's a tiny pterosaur (probably called Tony) in this list that weighed just a few ounces.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm)
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 10:07:03 AM
A few moments of googling show that there are a few dinosaurs more the size of squirrels.
I give you Nemicolopterus.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/11/pterodactyl-dinosaur.html
Pterodactyls (which are pterosaurs) are not dinosaurs, so no. But if you are uninformed idiot by choice like Raz this might not matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur
QuotePterosaurs are often referred to in the popular media and by the general public as flying dinosaurs, but this is incorrect. The term "dinosaur" is properly restricted to a certain group of reptiles with a unique upright stance (clade Dinosauria, which includes birds), and therefore excludes the pterosaurs, as well as the various groups of extinct marine reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.
Quote from: Brazen on February 23, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
There's a tiny pterosaur (probably called Tony) in this list that weighed just a few ounces.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm)
Strange that a page named the 5 smallest dinosaurs has a list of 10 animals of which only 1,2,3,5 and 7 are actually dinosaurs. Nrs 8 and 9 are actually mammals and in no colloquial sense dinosaurs.
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 23, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
There's a tiny pterosaur (probably called Tony) in this list that weighed just a few ounces.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm)
Strange that a page named the 5 smallest dinosaurs has a list of 10 animals of which only 1,2,3,5 and 7 are actually dinosaurs. Nrs 8 and 9 are actually mammals and in no colloquial sense dinosaurs.
"Here's a list of the 10 smallest prehistoric animals"
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 23, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
There's a tiny pterosaur (probably called Tony) in this list that weighed just a few ounces.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm)
Strange that a page named the 5 smallest dinosaurs has a list of 10 animals of which only 1,2,3,5 and 7 are actually dinosaurs. Nrs 8 and 9 are actually mammals and in no colloquial sense dinosaurs.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2012, 10:24:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 23, 2012, 10:07:03 AM
A few moments of googling show that there are a few dinosaurs more the size of squirrels.
I give you Nemicolopterus.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/11/pterodactyl-dinosaur.html
Pterodactyls (which are pterosaurs) are not dinosaurs, so no. But if you are uninformed idiot by choice like Raz this might not matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur
QuotePterosaurs are often referred to in the popular media and by the general public as flying dinosaurs, but this is incorrect. The term "dinosaur" is properly restricted to a certain group of reptiles with a unique upright stance (clade Dinosauria, which includes birds), and therefore excludes the pterosaurs, as well as the various groups of extinct marine reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.
Why the fuck are you attacking me?
Here's an example of a small mammal from the period of the Dinosaurs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6176061.stm It flies to boot.
Here's a news story on an even smaller one. http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/10/02/tec_240709.shtml I know that very small animals are difficult to find as fossils, but they do occur. Dinosaurs had a good run, so you'd expect
something to turn up.
Anyway, my uninformed idiot guess is that if Dinosaurs really were warm blooded they have had a lower limit on how small they could be. A very tiny Dinosaur would have such a great surface area compared to total volume they would rapidly lose heat. Mammals and birds can overcome this by having a layer of fur or feather to act as insulation, and lizards, snakes and amphibians are cold blooded so they don't have to worry about this as much. Dinosaurs may not have had a layer of insulation, and so couldn't get very small. Just my unscientific guess.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 11:17:55 AM
Why the fuck are you attacking me?
Because you so richly deserve it.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 11:17:55 AM
Here's an example of a small mammal from the period of the Dinosaurs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6176061.stm It flies to boot.
Here's a news story on an even smaller one. http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/10/02/tec_240709.shtml I know that very small animals are difficult to find as fossils, but they do occur. Dinosaurs had a good run, so you'd expect something to turn up.
Good thing I referred you to a 100g dinosaur from the same period as your 70g gliding mammal.
110 g dinosaur actually. Just out of curiosity, why did you call me "uninformed idiot by choice"?
Quote from: HVC on February 23, 2012, 10:29:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 23, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
There's a tiny pterosaur (probably called Tony) in this list that weighed just a few ounces.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm)
Strange that a page named the 5 smallest dinosaurs has a list of 10 animals of which only 1,2,3,5 and 7 are actually dinosaurs. Nrs 8 and 9 are actually mammals and in no colloquial sense dinosaurs.
"Here's a list of the 10 smallest prehistoric animals"
I can think of plenty smaller.
Yeah didn't Raz just ask a question with this thread? :huh:
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 23, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
There's a tiny pterosaur (probably called Tony) in this list that weighed just a few ounces.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm (http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm)
Strange that a page named the 5 smallest dinosaurs has a list of 10 animals of which only 1,2,3,5 and 7 are actually dinosaurs. Nrs 8 and 9 are actually mammals and in no colloquial sense dinosaurs.
Umm, the subheading and intro paragraph actually state differently so it is probably just a case of a poorly chosen title on about.com. Oh noes!!!
"Was Cleopatra a dinosaur?"
One theory for why dinosaurs tended to be excluded from small sizes is that they had avian-style respiratory systems. These are more efficient than those of mammals, but they also take up more space (with air sacs). Space is at a premium at smaller sizes, so this could have been a disadvantage for them. But there isn't evidence that all dinosaurs had that style of respiratory system.
It does seem that land mammals are excluded from the general design of some of the largest dinosaurs, because of limitations of the respiratory systems.
Didn't mammals already have the mouse niche covered even back then?
Were the Incan torpedo boats pulled by pleisosaurs?
Did anyone mention Mediterranean house geckos yet?
Dinosaurs. Right there on the side of my house. IDGAF about what anyone says about birds or whatever.
Those things are pretty cool in the summer when all the bugs are flying around the back porch light. They just hang out picking off bugs right near the light for maximum entertainment value.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa2%2FHemidactylus_turcicus.jpg&hash=520d1a20a396790389e43af7742a98d12e20e05b)
IT'S A MONSTd'awwwww
That's not a dinosaur.
Quote from: Neil on February 24, 2012, 08:29:14 AM
That's not a dinosaur.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2F2a6p5s5.jpg&hash=d5f855ec74cdb070b84832d06fa9cc10f1879628)
I disagree.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 24, 2012, 08:34:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 24, 2012, 08:29:14 AM
That's not a dinosaur.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gallery.fanserviceftw.com%2Fgallery%2F_images%2F6db13de5d405deb6bffee13e1f254564%2F5192%2520-%2520animated_gif%2520futurama%2520narrow_eyes%2520phi%2520philip_j_fry%2520reaction_image%2520stare.gif&hash=17518daee6b6a758404744ec785232834303db85)
I disagree.
Hemidactylus turcicus isn't even an archosaur.
Your science-speak doesn't phase me! I can see through your lies!
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 24, 2012, 08:50:39 AM
Your science-speak doesn't phase me! I can see through your lies!
Words have meaning duude.
Quote from: Viking on February 24, 2012, 09:18:54 AM
Words have meaning duude.
Well I was going to say something about pictures being more meaningful and finding another photo of geckos and something some such, but ugh
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2012, 05:21:55 AM
One theory for why dinosaurs tended to be excluded from small sizes is that they had avian-style respiratory systems. These are more efficient than those of mammals, but they also take up more space (with air sacs). Space is at a premium at smaller sizes, so this could have been a disadvantage for them. But there isn't evidence that all dinosaurs had that style of respiratory system.
It does seem that land mammals are excluded from the general design of some of the largest dinosaurs, because of limitations of the respiratory systems.
Interesting, but birds can get pretty small. Like Humming birds.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 24, 2012, 09:21:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 24, 2012, 09:18:54 AM
Words have meaning duude.
Well I was going to say something about pictures being more meaningful and finding another photo of geckos and something some such, but ugh
The thing is we have dinosaurs living today, they are called birds. So if you had used this picture
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Hnvrz-Uumbc%2FTEkUksA1mHI%2FAAAAAAAABnU%2FMd9nDcgkwyc%2Fs1600%2Fgay_penguin.jpg&hash=31159c8e57e88805dd730f392b08867890ea6171)
then you would have a point.
Quote from: Viking on February 24, 2012, 09:45:20 AM
The thing is we have dinosaurs living today, they are called birds. So if you had used this picture
a fucking picture of penguins for gods sake
then you would have a point.
:bash:
e: oh I hope that Fry gif works now.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2012, 09:31:41 AM
Interesting, but birds can get pretty small. Like Humming birds.
Birds are a special case, because flying requires high oxygen useage and is benefited by low body weight and a lack of side to side movement in flight. I think they are strong evidence of the theory, actually. Dinosaur descendants exist, but in the smaller variety are relegated to a specialized niche that the respiration system seems tailored for (the flightless birds tend to be large).
The theory is the respiration system evolved when oxygen levels were much lower than today.
When was the oxygen levels lower?
Quote from: Viking on February 24, 2012, 09:45:20 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Hnvrz-Uumbc%2FTEkUksA1mHI%2FAAAAAAAABnU%2FMd9nDcgkwyc%2Fs1600%2Fgay_penguin.jpg&hash=31159c8e57e88805dd730f392b08867890ea6171)
That one... when she looks at you, you can see she's working things out.
I believe it was much,much higher during the Permian and Cretaceous.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2012, 11:28:13 AM
When was the oxygen levels lower?
Right after the PT extinction event about 250 million years ago (the beginning of the triassic). Initially mammal like animals were more prevelant, but these were replaced by antecedents of dinosaurs.
I should emphasize that I'm not a scientist and I'm probably full of crap--this is just my lay understanding.
Why aren't you a scientist?
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2012, 12:20:34 PM
Why aren't you a scientist?
When I was in school the scientist path promised harder classes, many more years in school, and then crappy pay. On the plus side I could look smart whenever topics regarding dinosaur physiology came up, but at the time I didn't think that outweighed the horrors of a biochemistry class.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2012, 12:43:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2012, 12:20:34 PM
Why aren't you a scientist?
When I was in school the scientist path promised harder classes, many more years in school, and then crappy pay. On the plus side I could look smart whenever topics regarding dinosaur physiology came up, but at the time I didn't think that outweighed the horrors of a biochemistry class.
You better move on. No use wishing you'd done things differently.
I find a lot of uses for it.
We're slowly evolving from angry young men to bitter old ones.
Yes. For some of us though, it is only a difference of degrees. grumbler and PDH were old when we began this journey.
And some of us have been bitter since birth.
Or angry.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 24, 2012, 03:23:45 PM
We're slowly evolving from angry young men to bitter old ones.
Speak for yourself, I came here fully formed as old and bitter.
I was young and foolish.
Quote from: garbon on February 24, 2012, 03:58:13 PM
And some of us have been bitter since birth.
Maybe your mom shouldn't have drank much pale ale during the pregnancy.
Generally speaking AR is right, but I think that one of the dinosaur's primary advantages was the way their hip was constructed; two legs directly underneath the body with a then-unrivaled degree of freedom of movement, allowing for greater dexterity, the evolution of two-leg locomotion, and after a certain size an erect posture makes a lot of sense.
In comparison, all the truly tiny vertebrates I can think of today-rodents, lizards-have a sprawling posture.
Dinosaurs never existed.
Sure ya do.
I want to have the last word in this thread.
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
serious question, what do you think fossils are? a test of faith, a misundertanding?
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs exist today.
Quote from: HVC on February 27, 2012, 08:59:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
serious question, what do you think fossils are? a test of faith, a misundertanding?
Oddly shaped rocks.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2012, 09:49:38 AM
How come there were no Dinosaurs the size of mice, or at least none found?
wich is more terrifying:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.pictureshunt.com%2Fpics%2Fc%2Fcute_mouse-8551.jpg&hash=36d62fe1ee93164437820b692faff45d8de3a2d6)
or
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ddmcdn.com%2Fgif%2Ft-rex-predator-or-scavenger-1.jpg&hash=341d0dd283de95e907f05fd8c43f25a4ab407891)
This is why tv does not focus on small dinos.
Quote from: viper37 on February 28, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
This is why tv does not focus on small dinos.
How is that relevant to his question? :huh:
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:12:55 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs exist today.
Birds don't necessarily have to be dinosaurs. You could always be paraphyletic about the whole thing. Taxonomy tends to break down over very long timescales.
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2012, 03:56:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:12:55 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs exist today.
Birds don't necessarily have to be dinosaurs. You could always be paraphyletic about the whole thing. Taxonomy tends to break down over very long timescales.
Taxonomy isn't best practice anymore. Cladistics is the method of classifying animals now. Biology basically gave up on Taxonomy when the taxonomic groups started multiplying out of control.
Quote from: HVC on February 27, 2012, 08:59:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
serious question, what do you think fossils are? a test of faith, a misundertanding?
What fossils?
All that crap is a liberal conspiracy.
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2012, 03:56:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:12:55 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs exist today.
Birds don't necessarily have to be dinosaurs. You could always be paraphyletic about the whole thing. Taxonomy tends to break down over very long timescales.
This has always caused misconceptions in biology. Since things like evolution happen fairly slowly, it seems to us that species and classifications are static. This is not the case. Mammals 100 million years ago were different then mammals today. If we had mammals from 100 million years ago walking around with modern mammals we probably wouldn't have put them in the same category.
Quote from: Siege on February 28, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 27, 2012, 08:59:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
serious question, what do you think fossils are? a test of faith, a misundertanding?
What fossils?
All that crap is a liberal conspiracy.
I can never tell if you are serious. I have a fossil. A little trilobite. He's so cute. Don't even have to feed him. Got him when I was a kid. I used to find fossils in the backyard (not trilobites, crinoids mostly and a few shell impressions).
440 million years ago, my property was a shallow tropical reef covered with clam beds. Today, I have literally thousands of fossils laying around. I have two or three exposed rocky outcrops back in the woods that are nothing but solid blocks of clam fossils (or 'brachiopods' if you want to get technical). I'm pretty sure liberals didn't plant all that stuff on my property in an effort to deceive me.
Quote from: Caliga on February 28, 2012, 09:14:44 PM
440 million years ago, my property was a shallow tropical reef covered with clam beds. Today, I have literally thousands of fossils laying around. I have two or three exposed rocky outcrops back in the woods that are nothing but solid blocks of clam fossils (or 'brachiopods' if you want to get technical). I'm pretty sure liberals didn't plant all that stuff on my property in an effort to deceive me.
Jimmy carter has plenty of spare time to do it.
Jimmy Carter wants nothing to do with me as long as I'm not a homeless guy or a Palestinian. :)
You know, it's too bad I can't unfossilize all these damn stone clams. I could have one hell of a clambake. :licklips:
I really enjoy trilobites.
I've never found any of those on my property.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2012, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 28, 2012, 09:14:44 PM
440 million years ago, my property was a shallow tropical reef covered with clam beds. Today, I have literally thousands of fossils laying around. I have two or three exposed rocky outcrops back in the woods that are nothing but solid blocks of clam fossils (or 'brachiopods' if you want to get technical). I'm pretty sure liberals didn't plant all that stuff on my property in an effort to deceive me.
Jimmy carter has plenty of spare time to do it.
Jimmy Carter was around there when those clams were alive.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 09:40:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2012, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 28, 2012, 09:14:44 PM
440 million years ago, my property was a shallow tropical reef covered with clam beds. Today, I have literally thousands of fossils laying around. I have two or three exposed rocky outcrops back in the woods that are nothing but solid blocks of clam fossils (or 'brachiopods' if you want to get technical). I'm pretty sure liberals didn't plant all that stuff on my property in an effort to deceive me.
Jimmy carter has plenty of spare time to do it.
Jimmy Carter was around there when those clams were alive.
Heh. Him and Billy.
Need some Billy Beer for the clambake.
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2012, 09:37:22 PM
I really enjoy trilobites.
I had this card set, when I was a kid, that told the story of a dinosaur/extinct animal invasion. It was extraordinarily gruesome in a hilarious way, and my favorite card was the trilobites eating a guy's face.
Well, either that or the plesiosaur crushing the Statue of Liberty with its coiled neck.
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2012, 09:37:22 PM
I really enjoy trilobites.
My grandfather use to go out collecting those fossils in the desert. Several of us have a few.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 28, 2012, 11:44:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2012, 09:37:22 PM
I really enjoy trilobites.
I had this card set, when I was a kid, that told the story of a dinosaur/extinct animal invasion. It was extraordinarily gruesome in a hilarious way, and my favorite card was the trilobites eating a guy's face.
Well, either that or the plesiosaur crushing the Statue of Liberty with its coiled neck.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-mockery.com%2Fhalloween%2Fbag%2Fpics%2Fdinosaurs-attack15.jpg&hash=5b4caaf0c23fa9c8bb7a57d63c78bb2b504b45a9)
That settles it, the Trilobite is now the official animal of Languish.
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2012, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 28, 2012, 11:44:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2012, 09:37:22 PM
I really enjoy trilobites.
I had this card set, when I was a kid, that told the story of a dinosaur/extinct animal invasion. It was extraordinarily gruesome in a hilarious way, and my favorite card was the trilobites eating a guy's face.
Well, either that or the plesiosaur crushing the Statue of Liberty with its coiled neck.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-mockery.com%2Fhalloween%2Fbag%2Fpics%2Fdinosaurs-attack15.jpg&hash=5b4caaf0c23fa9c8bb7a57d63c78bb2b504b45a9)
FUCK YES. You're a beautiful human being, garbo.
That picture reminds me of the illustrated inserts in those old "Where in Time/the World/whatever is Carmen Sandiego" books from the early 90s.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2012, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 28, 2012, 09:14:44 PM
440 million years ago, my property was a shallow tropical reef covered with clam beds. Today, I have literally thousands of fossils laying around. I have two or three exposed rocky outcrops back in the woods that are nothing but solid blocks of clam fossils (or 'brachiopods' if you want to get technical). I'm pretty sure liberals didn't plant all that stuff on my property in an effort to deceive me.
Jimmy carter has plenty of spare time to do it.
Maybe Grumbler did it? Or saw who did it? :p
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 07:25:25 PM
This has always caused misconceptions in biology. Since things like evolution happen fairly slowly, it seems to us that species and classifications are static. This is not the case. Mammals 100 million years ago were different then mammals today. If we had mammals from 100 million years ago walking around with modern mammals we probably wouldn't have put them in the same category.
Yes, Synapsids are Mammals in the same way Humans are Monkeys.
I'm constantly disappointed by your lack of knowledge concerning evolutionary biology. :(
Dinosaurs Attack is available in its entirety on the interweb.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2012, 07:28:41 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 28, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 27, 2012, 08:59:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Dinosaurs never existed.
serious question, what do you think fossils are? a test of faith, a misundertanding?
What fossils?
All that crap is a liberal conspiracy.
I can never tell if you are serious.
I am always serious.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 06:46:07 AM
I'm constantly disappointed by your lack of knowledge concerning evolutionary biology. :(
Evolutionary biology?
What a waste.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 28, 2012, 11:44:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2012, 09:37:22 PM
I really enjoy trilobites.
I had this card set, when I was a kid, that told the story of a dinosaur/extinct animal invasion. It was extraordinarily gruesome in a hilarious way, and my favorite card was the trilobites eating a guy's face.
Well, either that or the plesiosaur crushing the Statue of Liberty with its coiled neck.
Behold the terror of the horseshoe crab!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Limulus_polyphemus.jpg
Actually, these things are kinda scary, I can kinda imagine them eating your face:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_isopod.jpg
Those are rocks, dude.
Here is a truly heartwarming story of a rescue of an animal from total extinction - the gigantic stick insect, thought extinct for 80 years (!) makes a reappearance ...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years
Well, yes they are hideous and gigantic. But still, amazing.
Quote from: Malthus on February 29, 2012, 06:43:28 PM
Here is a truly heartwarming story of a rescue of an animal from total extinction - the gigantic stick insect, thought extinct for 80 years (!) makes a reappearance ...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years
Well, yes they are hideous and gigantic. But still, amazing.
M. thanks for that, I bet your son liked the story ?
Quote from: Malthus on February 29, 2012, 06:43:28 PM
Here is a truly heartwarming story of a rescue of an animal from total extinction - the gigantic stick insect, thought extinct for 80 years (!) makes a reappearance ...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years
Well, yes they are hideous and gigantic. But still, amazing.
Weird that this is showing up on NPR now... I read about that discovery years ago. For some reason I want to visit Lord Howe Island/Ball's Pyramid. :)
Hey Cal, I liked your post about the evidence literally sitting about in your back lot, kinda in your face for any creationists who'd care to ask your or take a look. :)
Yeah, there are so many of them I really don't pay much attention to them anymore. :blush: My dog likes to dig them up and I've played catch with him and individual fossilized clams before. Last spring I was digging a hole to plant some blackberry brambles in and I dug up a huge rock o' clams, and just tossed it aside. I guess it's probably sitting at the base of the osage orange tree I was digging under still. I also gave my mom a bunch of them when she was here last to give to science teachers at her high school.
If cal allows creationists on his property, they might try to dunk him in any standing body of water.
Quote from: Siege on February 29, 2012, 06:40:57 PM
Those are rocks, dude.
So, your Judaism is so Arabic that you don't even believe in arthropods?
Quote from: Neil on February 29, 2012, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 29, 2012, 06:40:57 PM
Those are rocks, dude.
So, your Judaism is so Arabic that you don't even believe in arthropods?
Arabs believe in arthropods. They eat them. :huh:
Quote from: Queequeg on February 29, 2012, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 29, 2012, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 29, 2012, 06:40:57 PM
Those are rocks, dude.
So, your Judaism is so Arabic that you don't even believe in arthropods?
Arabs believe in arthropods. They eat them. :huh:
Animals feeding upon animals. It's the circle of life.
Quote from: Neil on February 29, 2012, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 29, 2012, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 29, 2012, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 29, 2012, 06:40:57 PM
Those are rocks, dude.
So, your Judaism is so Arabic that you don't even believe in arthropods?
Arabs believe in arthropods. They eat them. :huh:
Animals feeding upon animals. It's the circle of life.
Funniest post by you by far.
You are annoying most of the time.
Well, almost all the time.
Ok, all the time.
ALL THE FUCKING TIME!!!
Are you drinking again? You are going to have to stop getting so shit faced if you are going be a father.
Nonsense, he's not the one that's pregnant.
I know. My wife gave me a dealine already.
I have to make use of the time I got left.
And I am not drunk.
Yet.