this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
876 points (98.9% liked)
shitposting
1646 readers
217 users here now
Rules •1. No Doxxing •2. No TikTok reposts •3. No Harassing •4. Post Gore at your own discretion, Depends if its funny or just gore to be an edgelord.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Crocodiles are mine. The Crocodilia order they're from survived 94 million years; they even survived the K-T event. They're some of the few creatures and probably the only legit dinos left that survived from back then. They're the closest living relatives to birds.
(I don't know if people want to debate whether crocodiles can be classified as dinosaurs, but I consider them as such)
There were some really dinosaur-like crocodiles, too. Shuvosaurus and poposaurus, for example.
But for whatever reason, they decided to define dinosaurs to exclude pterosaurs and crocodiles; they're the closest relatives of dinosaurs but are still relatives and not actual dinos.
Birds, though, are legit dinosaurs.
How the fuck does that make any sense? Birds are dinosaurs but crocodiles aren't?
Biologists like using clades to describe things, these days. A clade is all the descendants of some common ancestor on an evolutionary tree.
That particularly means that they disfavor terms that refer to almost all of the descendants of something, but exclude one branch because reasons. Which does make sense, right? "Paraphyletic groups" are like saying "The Vanderbilt family is all the descendants of Cornelius Vanderbilt... except for Anderson Cooper and his descendants".
So the technical definition of dinosaur, right now, is anything descended from the most recent common ancestor of triceratops, diplodocus, and the house sparrow.
That is dumb as fucking hell. I don't deny that is true, I just assert that it's dumb. Crocodiles are clearly dinosaurs while birds have diverged so much they can only reasonably be called descendents of dinosaurs and nothing more. You can look at them and tell.
Thanks for the insightful info though. I didn't know dinosaurs were painted with such a small brush. Does that mean pterodactyls aren't dinosaurs either?
I mean, that is not how it works. Also, crocodiles don't look like any dinosaur I can think of?
Classification is based on genetic relationships, not looks, so bats aren't birds, for example.
Crocodiles are vastly different in appearance to any dinosaur that has been discovered
Comparing them to a T-rex, I don't think so. They have the gnarly teeth and their snouts are at least sort of similar.
Look at t-rex's bird-like hips and feet. Compare them to the sprawling legs of a croc. Posture- wise, it looks way more like an ostrich than a croc.
And yeah, T-rex was almost certainly scaly, but evolved from feathered dinosaurs. Other earlier species in tyrannosauroidea like yutyrannus huali and dilong paradoxus had feathers.
🤔 So how come they're not portrayed that way in Jurassic Park? Or did the newer movies change it?
Jurassic Park came out literally 30 years ago.
Feather fossilization requires almost perfect conditions. There's a few locations where most of the fossil evidence of dinosaur feathers come from, and those fossils started to be found a few years after the movie came out. Feathered dinosaurs had been suggested long before Jurassic Park, but the evidence back then wasn't great.
More to the point, though, Jurassic Park was a mixture of the best science at the time and deliberate artistic license. Jack Horner, a paleontologist who worked with Spielberg in it, said "My job was to get a little science into Jurassic Park, but not ruin it".
For example, most of the dinos in the movie have muted colors, because Spielberg thought that colorful dinosaurs weren't scary. Modern films have deliberately kept the look and feel of the original as an artistic choice.
There are new movies in the franchise. Jurassic World Dominion came out in 2022 yet the dinosaurs still look suspiciously reptilian, with thick scales and teeth sticking out of their mouths.
Honestly, you guys need to step it up and make them show dinosaurs the way you think they look now instead of letting them abuse artistic license to basically lie to people. Most Americans are peasants, including myself, and only know about dinosaurs through that franchise, so if you want to educate people, you need to step up and get them to change it.
Yes, and Jurassic Park has always been a monster movie and not a documentary.
Honestly, what we need is an updated version of Walking With Dinosaurs.
That too. We need more dinosaur love, period.
Monster movies are typically grounded in reality specifically to avoid immersion-breaking issues like this one
they were portrayed that way though
What dinosaurs in the new movies had proto-feathers?
Not really. even for dinosaurs that are famous for being crocodile-like, its quite hard to see the resemblance
That bottom one's jaw clearly looks very similar to a crocodile's.
Based on what?
Look at a crocodile and then look at a bird.
Various extinct crocodiles like Poposaurus were initially confused with dinosaurs due to some convergent evolution.
But modern crocs lack a lot of distinctive dinosaur traits, like having their legs directly under them.
More to the point, though, look at this fossil of caihong juji and tell me it doesn't look more like a bird than a crocodile. Through a minor geologic miracle, the feathers were even preserved! It even seems like they were probably quite colorful.