ncboman

I don't suscribe to the view that the dinosaurs were warm blooded or they were birds etc. Of course I could be wrong

I have followed dinosaurs with a reasonable and ongoing degree of interest since I was kid, now 56. I have also had a life long interest in reptiles.

Firstly, I think many of the views/theories being put forwads on dinosaurs are I believe biased strongly to gain increased funding hence the continuing to drive to portray dinosaurs as warm blooed birds

But lets consider a couple of things. The first thing to keep in mind is that a massive amount of detail is missing. Think how extra discoveries changed Custers Last Stand to just the opposite. Although the core has not changed, that is, Custer's men were wiped out but they either froze on the spot or ran for their lives. Now that was not all that much longer than 100 year ago as opposed to 65 to 250 million years ago

Moving on. As far as I am aware sufficient fossils have been found that indicate the small dinosaurs were furless and that early mammals had fur. Smaller warm blooded mammals need fur to survive but reptiles do not.

Next is the carnivorous dinosaur's head and teeth. In general is quite reptile like in that the head is large for the body and the teeth are quite simple. This to me indicates a method of eating that is similar to reptiles, that is, the prey is usually much smaller than the animal and is killed and eaten with basically a single bite. On the other hand, the food demands of mammals are far higher so they must be able to kill and eat animals that are much larger in relation to their own size.

A female lion and a 10 foot crocodile are good examples. On average a 10 foot crocodile which weighs about the same as a female lion, preys on very small animals and fish or it scavenges on larger animals. The nature of the large jaws of the crocodile, which spreads the force over a large area, allows it to kill smaller animals far more easily than a lion. But a lion's smaller jaws and having all the force applied to only 4 teeth allows it to be more effective with a precison bite on animals much larger than itself.

I think there will be more variation with dinosaurs than is the cae for modern reptiles. For example, there is overwhelming evidence from fossils that vegetarian dinosaurs were everywhere. However, with a few exceptions almost all modern reptiles are meat eaters.

Mike

Mike,



did you look at the links I referenced? I think the findings compelling that at least this dino was warm blooded.



You don't?

ncboman

Yes, I looked at them.

But you have to keep in mind that you are looking at something that is very limited in number of species plus the fact that it is fossils.

If you think of todays animals and reptiles there are plenty of species that if you could see them with the limitations imposed by fossils you would come up with the wrong answer.

Lets take a salt water croc as an example and let's jump forward 65 million years. One day a fossil is found and the fossil indicates that the crocodile had heavy armour on its back. That would suggest protection from predators but a salt water croc has no natural predators except for bigger croc and its body armour is usless in that situation.

Lets take the Cheeta. Say the fossil hunters have found a reasonable collection of lion and leopard. Then they find some Cheeta fossils and learn that its claws wer not retractable. Such a find might and probably would result in a description of the Cheetah that was completely wrong.

Personally, I think the dinosaurs related to reptiles in a manner that is similar to mammals and marsupials. By that I mean there are "scientific" differences between mammals and marsupials, with the marsupial's pouch being the most obvious but basically the marsupial and mammal are about the same.

Lastly, a 4 chambered heart and warm blooded does not need to go together. The primary difference between warm blooded and cold blooded is that the former is an internal combustion engine and the latter is perhaps like an external combustion engine.

Actually, I tend to go along with the view that the dinosaurs were parhaps in between the reptile and mammal BUT on the reptile side of the fence.

Mike

First, I don't believe crocodiles or alligators to be anymore closely related to dinosaurs than birds are, perhaps even more distant. Crocs just happen to look the most like dinos in our world. I don't think they are realisticly comparable.

I'd prefer to address the animal in the link as that is most factual. You do not agree that that particular dino was likely warm blooded?

As I said above a 4 chambered heart does not mandate being warm blooded.

That fossil like others is also open to a great deal of conjecture.

When you say crocodiles (and other reptiles)have the appearance of dinosaurs that is important because similar appearance suggests similar lifestyle.

Willo does not have the mouth/teeth setup for eating grains and seeds like birds, which are high calorie foods. But if he was warm blooded and grazed on grasses/leaves etc then he does not have the cheeks to hold his food and hence eat all the grass that would be necessary to sustain a warm blooded animal.

An interesting aspect of the vegetarian dinosaurs is their very small heads for their size, as well as lack of cheeks. This does not suggest a big intake of food. The sauropods are very notable examples.

Of course another thing that might enter the picture with Willo is that he is a different dinosaur, perhaps like marsupial and mammal. One needs to keep in mind at all times that the fossil finds are a microscopic percentage of the animals that were walkng around the place.

How is this for a curve ball? If you look at the basic DNA for all life on Earth, there are several markers that show that all life on Earth has common ancestry way back there somewhere. Incedentally, I am also 56 and have also been looking at Dinos with some fastination since I was a kid. To the point where I am now(for the past 2 decades) an amateur prospector/fossiker. Damn this sense of curiosity! derf

wonder where the first post went?

Bowman,

I have noticed that has happened with a few threads in the transfer.

Mike

Now I know how Charlie Brown feels trying to kick that football.

Did you notice that I listed as the thread starter.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike375:
Did you notice that I listed as the thread starter.

Mike

---

Yup.

Have you noticed some threads seem to be backbreeding?

I think a certain amount was learned from these big strange bone rocks we have dug up the last century or so, but in the absence of time travel etc. it was always going to become a case of diminishing scientific returns.

When there is a lot of money and people involved in essentially proofless opinions you have a happily functioning fashion industry.

Looks like cold blood is out this Winter

That's not to make cheap with their work. They could be right of course.

Karl.

There are at least 200 similarities in skeletons between modern birds and the Therapod dinosaurs, so many that their relationship and sescent is indisputable.

Further, in recent years, many dinosaur fossils with feathers have been found.

So many dinosaurs were in fact warm blooded. Some may not have been.

There's no such thing as 'warm blooded' or 'cold blooded'. There's ectothermic (heat largely gained from the environment) and endothermic (internally generated heat). THere's homeothermic (constant temp) and heterothermic (non constant).

Most mammals are homeothermic endotherms, but not all. Moths are heterothermic endotherms. Saguaro catci tend to be homeothermic ectotherms (e.g., could qualify as 'warm blooded'). Thus, a large enough animal (many of the large dinosaurs) could easily qualify as a homeothermic ectotherms. Depending upon how you define 'warm blooded', the answer is yes...or no....

Well I am not quite 56 yet, that don't happen till September, but I too have been interested in dinosaurs since I was a kid.

I think the big problem right now, is that there are so many new discoveries going on at this time in areas of Mongolia and China, that everything that has been accepted theroy, is getting re-written basically at the turn of a shovel.

The crocodilians, while evolvong at the same time as dinosaurs, basically evolved no further. Their basic design was hard wired from the start, a design that works was established very early in their evolution, and there was no real need for further modifacation.

Birds on the other hand, may not have descended from dinosaurs, but the two groups are related, at least some of the dinosaur group are related to birds, not all, but the markers are there in the skeletal structure.

As far as DNA testing goes, it all depends on which parts of the string the researcher looks at. Is this or that particular researcher looking for similarities or differences.

My vote is for dinosaurs, or at least some groups of them, being warm blooded, but maybe not warm blooded as we know it in animals and birds.

Because so much tissue is lost in the fossilization process, what is to say that some of the dinosaurs didn't have a network of blood veins/vessels, closer to the skin surface, and darker pigmentation, so that as the sun rose higher in the sky, their skin acted like a solar panel and with blood being in those rapidily warming layers of skin and flesh, they basically got a jump start every morning. Just a theory on part, or an idea, but as we all know ideas and opinions are like A$$holes, everybody has them and they stink.

The real questionb are;

1) Is Hillary Clinton warm blooded?

2) Does she speak with a forked tongue?

VBR,

Ted Gorsline

I'll vote No to #1, and probably to #2. JMO

I sure am worried about her and "Slick Willie" getting back in the White House.

quote:

But lets consider a couple of things. The first thing to keep in mind is that a massive amount of detail is missing. Think how extra discoveries changed Custers Last Stand to just the opposite. Although the core has not changed, that is, Custer's men were wiped out but they either froze on the spot or ran for their lives. Now that was not all that much longer than 100 year ago as opposed to 65 to 250 million years ago

If this is an example of your research (ie.watching TV) I'd have to look sideways at what you say.

As far as the Custer thing. Instead of getting your knowledge from the tube try picking up a copy of "The Custer Myth" by Graham and start from there. Came out in 1952. Plenty of reference material to go to from there.

Don

There is mounting evidence that dinos were somewhere between "cold" and "warm" blooded. They appear to have had a "turbo" mode where they shifted into warm-blooded metabolism when chasing prey or escaping predators, while remaining in cold-blooded mode at other times.

It's possible that the leaf eaters were warm blooded while the carnivores like the t-rex and alligators were cold blooded.
I don't believe that dino was related to birds either, that's like saying emu's and alligators are related.

Were dinosaurs warm blooded?

I don't have any idea. I do know that being "cold blooded" like most modern reptiles isn't scientifically possible because of the realities of thermodynamics.

a dinosaur warming itself in the sun would cook to well done while it's insides were still cold, but since they obviously lived and survived that would tend to prove that they had both SOME internal heat and means of temp regulation.

AD