Monsters/Living Dinosaurs. Proof?

[Lord Valumart]

Originally Posted by SupermanBeyond

Not Dinosaurs, but new species.

thing i don;t get it is "The new lizard is adapted for savanna life. The absence of legs and the sharply pointed snout help it move over sandy soil." surely it's a snake

[Leto Atrides]

Originally Posted by Lord Valumart

thing i don;t get it is "The new lizard is adapted for savanna life. The absence of legs and the sharply pointed snout help it move over sandy soil." surely it's a snake

It might be from some other part of the lizards, that evolved to have no legs independently of the snakes.

It's like how sirenians (manatees and dugongs), pinnipeds (seals and walruses) and ceteceans (whales and dolphins) look like they should be closely related but they're from totally different lineages of mammals. Whales are from the same family as deer and pigs, seals in a group with bears and dogs, and manatees with elephants.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Lord Valumart

thing i don;t get it is "The new lizard is adapted for savanna life. The absence of legs and the sharply pointed snout help it move over sandy soil." surely it's a snake

its alot thicker then a snake, and it's head is that of a lizard

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by Lord Valumart

thing i don;t get it is "The new lizard is adapted for savanna life. The absence of legs and the sharply pointed snout help it move over sandy soil." surely it's a snake

...no. Just no.

Originally Posted by Leto Atrides

It might be from some other part of the lizards, that evolved to have no legs independently of the snakes.

It's like how sirenians (manatees and dugongs), pinnipeds (seals and walruses) and ceteceans (whales and dolphins) look like they should be closely related but they're from totally different lineages of mammals. Whales are from the same family as deer and pigs, seals in a group with bears and dogs, and manatees with elephants.

Snakes also have very different eye morphology, having re-evolved them (their ancestors actually had extremely reduced eyes as a result of a subterranean lifestyle).

By the way, the term for what you've just described is parallel adaptive radiation...if anybody's interested, that is.

[bullets]

it's a dragon

[Carcharodon]

With respect to the topic of the thread: the term, "dinosaurs," is thrown around waaaaayyyy too loosely. The fact of the matter is that true dinosaurs were a very specific taxonomical grouping, and most creatures that people today call, "dinosaurs," were, in fact, not dinosaurs.

Pterodactyls, for example, were NOT dinosaurs (as a matter of fact, I believe they were archosaurs).

With respect to the concept of, "living fossils": I think it's certainly possible that some creatures (macroorganisms) once thought extinct do live today. The coelocanth is a great example.

Still, we can say that some organisms are extinct with some degree of certainty; the fabled Carcharodon megalodon, for example, is popularly fancied to still be alive today. The truth, however, is that every single C. megalodon tooth that has been dredged from the ocean bottom is fossilized to some extent. There has never, ever been a white Meg tooth found.

I guess the point is that most of the speculation is complete ********. Some of it, however, could have some merrit...

[Asteroid-Man]

Originally Posted by TEDDY

Isn't there a TEDDY supposedly living in the Hype?

Fail.

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by bullets

it's a dragon

[Leto Atrides]

Originally Posted by Carcharodon

By the way, the term for what you've just described is parallel adaptive radiation...if anybody's interested, that is.

See, I was going to drop "convergent evolution" and you totally one-upped me.

[TEDDY]

Originally Posted by A-Man

Fail.

YOU FAIL!!!


TEDDY!!!

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by WhatA.Tool

but how about ancient creatures??

[The Lizard]

Originally Posted by Carcharodon

With respect to the topic of the thread: the term, "dinosaurs," is thrown around waaaaayyyy too loosely. The fact of the matter is that true dinosaurs were a very specific taxonomical grouping, and most creatures that people today call, "dinosaurs," were, in fact, not dinosaurs.

Pterodactyls, for example, were NOT dinosaurs (as a matter of fact, I believe they were archosaurs).

I don't know about "most" of the creatures the public calls dinosaurs not being such, but it is correct that pterosaurs are an example of that. Plesiosaurs (the aquatic, long-necked "Nessie" types) are another example of a non-dinosaur, as well as mosasaurs and pelycosaurs.

The most generally well-known creatures however (eg: stegosaurus, apatosaurus, t-rex, velociraptor, etc) were indeed dinosaurs.

[Leto Atrides]

Originally Posted by The Lizard

I don't know about "most" of the creatures the public calls dinosaurs not being such, but it is correct that pterosaurs are an example of that. Plesiosaurs (the aquatic, long-necked "Nessie" types) are another example of a non-dinosaur, as well as mosasaurs and pelycosaurs.

The most generally well-known creatures however (eg: stegosaurus, apatosaurus, t-rex, velociraptor, etc) were indeed dinosaurs.

Even wider than that though, people tend to use it for any creature as old (or older) than dinosaurs. I've heard crocodiles and other reptiles, coelacanth, horseshoe crabs, trilobites, sharks, even extinct giant mammals be referred to as dinosaurs. It's mostly intended in a metaphorical sense so it's not really that much of a problem, but it does get used enough that it gets more fuzzy than it probably should be.

What confusion does bug me is BRONTOSAURUS DOESN'T EXIST. IT NEVER DID. THEY FIGURED THIS OUT 100+ YEARS AGO. STOP USING IT AS A GENERIC NAME FOR SAUROPODS.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Originally Posted by Leto Atrides

What confusion does bug me is BRONTOSAURUS DOESN'T EXIST. IT NEVER DID. THEY FIGURED THIS OUT 100+ YEARS AGO. STOP USING IT AS A GENERIC NAME FOR SAUROPODS.

I hate that, how fake "facts" become "true" through repetition.
It reminds me of how all reputable historians agree that 6 Million Jews being killed in the Holocaust is too high a number, but everyone says, "Bush is no Hitler. He hasn't killed SIX MILLION IRAQIS!"

It's just reflex, "6 million...6 million Jews"...and no one knowledgeable believes that...and all experts agree that the Nazis never made lampshades out of human skin, or soap out of Jews.

Stupid world.

[The Lizard]

Originally Posted by Leto Atrides

What confusion does bug me is BRONTOSAURUS DOESN'T EXIST. IT NEVER DID. THEY FIGURED THIS OUT 100+ YEARS AGO. STOP USING IT AS A GENERIC NAME FOR SAUROPODS.

Brontosaurus has more of a memorable ring to it than apatosaurus, I suppose. I remember that there were still plenty of dinosaur books even when I was a kid ('70s) that still featured brontosaurus. Chalk it up to the cool-sounding translation of "thunder -lizard", or maybe the Bronte sisters.

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm-Scream

I hate that, how fake "facts" become "true" through repetition.
It reminds me of how all reputable historians agree that 6 Million Jews being killed in the Holocaust is too high a number, but everyone says, "Bush is no Hitler. He hasn't killed SIX MILLION IRAQIS!"

It's just reflex, "6 million...6 million Jews"...and no one knowledgeable believes that...and all experts agree that the Nazis never made lampshades out of human skin, or soap out of Jews.

Stupid world.

Hooray for Nazis! \o/

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by The Lizard

Brontosaurus has more of a memorable ring to it than apatosaurus, I suppose. I remember that there were still plenty of dinosaur books even when I was a kid ('70s) that still featured brontosaurus. Chalk it up to the cool-sounding translation of "thunder -lizard", or maybe the Bronte sisters.

it's just a name to me anyway... its not like we stare at a dog and call it a canine or a cat a feline... those are it's scientific names. we usually just call them cat and dog.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Originally Posted by WhatA.Tool

Ive always believed that there are thousands..perhaps millions of undiscovered organisms on earth...

but how about ancient creatures??
why not?
if the Coelacanth can still be around....why not dino's or other sea creatures.

Not millions,I would say around in the hundreds..or a few dozen at least. But it's in parts of the world that have minimal or no human contact in.

[Venomfan]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm-Scream

I hate that, how fake "facts" become "true" through repetition.
It reminds me of how all reputable historians agree that 6 Million Jews being killed in the Holocaust is too high a number, but everyone says, "Bush is no Hitler. He hasn't killed SIX MILLION IRAQIS!"

It's just reflex, "6 million...6 million Jews"...and no one knowledgeable believes that...and all experts agree that the Nazis never made lampshades out of human skin, or soap out of Jews.

Stupid world.

i work with a guy from Germany, he was telling me about this and how if you get caught talking about it in Germany you can be arrested

[Leto Atrides]

Originally Posted by Venomfan

i work with a guy from Germany, he was telling me about this and how if you get caught talking about it in Germany you can be arrested

It's a big thing with Nazi sympathizers to say, "The Holocaust wasn't that bad, the number is way too high, not that many Jews died" without any proof, just because they want to make the Nazis look better. So even if it is completely true, verified by someone completely different who was a real historian, they wouldn't want to hear about it.

This is of course because being a Nazi revivalist, Neo-Nazi, etc. in general is illegal in Germany. I'm assuming trying to publish it or something is illegal if it actually is, I very much doubt you could get arrested because a cop overheard you saying it.

[redmarvel]

Originally Posted by Lord Valumart

thing i don;t get it is "The new lizard is adapted for savanna life. The absence of legs and the sharply pointed snout help it move over sandy soil." surely it's a snake

A Panda Bear looks like a bear, but it's actually a member of the Raccoon family. Go figure.

[WhatA.Tool]

teh lochness monsterz iz in mi pantzz

[FoxTrot]

I still believe that Dragons WERE real and there still is one or two alive, somewhere.

[KSD]

Originally Posted by redmarvel

A Panda Bear looks like a bear, but it's actually a member of the Raccoon family. Go figure.

No. A giant panda is a bear (Ursidae). People used to think it was a Procyonid (racoon family) but it isn't.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by FoxTrot

I still believe that Dragons WERE real and there still is one or two alive, somewhere.

i sorta believe that too... it explains why there were dragons in every culture.... maybe they just have weird bones that decay to easily and leave no evidence behind? lol