Dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
That article is hardly evidence of anything. It's pretty much just saying they might have been warm blooded since those bone structures can be found in warm blooded creatures as well. The article doesn't present any evidence to suggest they actually are warm blooded. Just to clear that up. Good ol' speculation from sources that aren't really scientific.
edit on 29-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
While more evidence is needed to confirm whether or not ALL dinosaurs were warm blooded, we know for sure that the bird-like dinosaurs were warm blooded as their modern descendants are.

Some dinosaurs seem built for speed and agility, like Raptors and T-Rex, implying a high metabolic rate and therefore being warm-blooded. Some dinosaurs fossils are found in arctic areas. Even though it was warmer then, cold-blooded animals would still have a hard time living in colder environments.

My bet is that they were all warm blooded, but this is just speculation at this point.



With regards to dinosaurs evolving intelligence, maybe. They were on their way, bipedal, expanding brain, two arms etc. Whether we will find "Smart Dinosaurs May Be Inhabiting Other Planets", maybe not. Here's why.

Long before the dinosaurs lived, during the Permian period (290 to 248 million years ago) there were "mammal-like reptiles":




To me, it looks these animals were on their way to evolving into "real mammals".

Around 251 million years ago, the greatest extinction level event on earth ever occurred. Over 90 percent of all species on earth died, including the mammal-like reptiles. They are still trying to figure out if it was caused by a super-volcano eruption in modern day Siberia or an asteroid strike. Regardless, it took life 30 million years to recover from the "Great Dying".

After this extinction event the dinosaurs started to appear. If the Great Dying had not occurred, dinosaurs may not have evolved and mammals would have been the dominant life form. I find it ironic that first an ELE killed off mammals and gave dinosaurs a chance to thrive, then another ELE killed off the dinosaurs and gave mammals a chance to thrive.

So we may not find intelligent dinosaurs, or even dumb ones, on other planets since mammals seem to be on the evolutionary fast track, at least on earth.

dsc.discovery.com...
www.nhm.ac.uk...

edit on 29-6-2012 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Their period of existance lasted much longer than ours has, it would be logical to make the assumption that their intelligence was much higher than our present theories account for.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Are you sure Slayer


Did you know that Crocodiles are cold blooded animals..
and dinosaurs closest link are crocodiles ?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Their period of existance lasted much longer than ours has, it would be logical to make the assumption that their intelligence was much higher than our present theories account for.


That's not necessarily true, although it's certainly possible. Evolutionary changes happen out of necessity to survive. If a dinosaur was built well enough to fend off most attackers physically, high intelligence is not really necessary. Don't get me wrong, we know there were some semi smart dinosaurs, but comparing to human development is a bit off, since we needed intelligence to survive rather than brute strength, sharp teeth and armor like skin. It's possible that a line could have evolved somewhere that had higher intelligence, though. 100 million years is a very long time.
edit on 29-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
That article is hardly evidence of anything. It's pretty much just saying they might have been warm blooded since those bone structures can be found in warm blooded creatures as well. The article doesn't present any evidence to suggest they actually are warm blooded. Just to clear that up. Good ol' speculation from sources that aren't really scientific.
edit on 29-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


There is more and ongoing research that adds to the evidence that some well known dinosaurs were warm blooded and these are scientific.
Comparing the size of holes in bone nutrient foramen from living mammals and reptiles, and their metabolic rates.

"The results were unequivocal. The sizes of the holes were related closely to the maximum metabolic rates during peak movement in mammals and reptiles," Professor Seymour says. "The holes found in mammals were about 10 times larger than those in reptiles."

Link


"On a relative comparison to eliminate the differences in body size, all of the dinosaurs had holes in their thigh bones larger than those of mammals," Professor Seymour says. "The dinosaurs appeared to be even more active than the mammals. We certainly didn't expect to see that. These results provide additional weight to theories that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and highly active creatures, rather than cold-blooded and sluggish."



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Their period of existance lasted much longer than ours has, it would be logical to make the assumption that their intelligence was much higher than our present theories account for.


That's not necessarily true, although it's certainly possible. Evolutionary changes happen out of necessity to survive. If a dinosaur was built well enough to fend off most attackers physically, high intelligence is not really necessary. Don't get me wrong, we know there were some semi smart dinosaurs, but comparing to human development is a bit off, since we needed intelligence to survive rather than brute strength, sharp teeth and armor like skin. It's possible that a line could have evolved somewhere that had higher intelligence, though. 100 million years is a very long time.
edit on 29-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Yes, unless there was a need, evolutionary changes probably didn't happen with much frequency, although, there is that possibility you mentioned and a very interesting one to contemplate!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Yes, have known that for some time, years ago there was a documentary on this. They have more blood vessels in their bones than birds, and that has to do with warm blooded. Reptiles have far less than mammals and mammals less than birds.

Its quite possible they wore feathers.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join