1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri May 17, 2013 3:58 am UTC

I might have sharks, but we do not have gigantic armoured superpredators.

But you could argue that sharks are made of teeth, which is awesome.

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Fri May 17, 2013 4:45 am UTC

dogemperor wrote:
Misanthropic Scott wrote:BTW, for really scary animals, we should note that the largest carnivorous animal that ever lived is still alive. In fact, it is a carnivore (the behavior, not the clade) that is the largest animal of any kind that has ever lived. This is an animal so scary it can eat up to 40 million prey animals per day! At 170 metric tons, this behemoth can snarf up 3,600 kg of prey every day.

If that's not enough to scare you, the males have the largest penis in the animal kingdom, up to 3 meters (10') long with a girth of 36 cm (14")!

Of course, by now, you've probably guessed that this is the blue whale. I'll be going back to sulk in my inferiority complex now.


Oh, and for additional nightmare fuel on that basis...keep in mind that we're now pretty sure that the closest land-based relatives of whales are hippos (which are widely regarded as the most dangerous mammal in Africa, even more so than cape buffalo or apex predators)...and the whole whale clade pretty much evolved from creatures that were essentially carnivorous hippos that had been successful land predators before going to the seas...again, as basically SWIMMING carnivorous hippos living like giant sea lions from hell.

(Not joking, either. Whales are now considered ungulates, and in fact the whale and hippo clades have been recently joined; the whale-anthracothere clade (hippos later evolved from anthracotheres) pretty much went to the sea shortly after artiodactyls (the clade of ungulates that includes pretty much most of the mammals we consider to be food--cows, pigs, sheep, deer, and so on--as well as whales and hippos) split from mesonychids (a clade of FREAKING PREDATORY UNGULATES that have been generally given the nickname of "wolves with hooves"--which lived wolf-like and hyena-like lifestyles). The toothed whales--like your bottlenosed dolphins and your orcas that are disturbingly effective predators--are actually the MORE PRIMITIVE members of the whale clade...)

I had to google this. Looks like the dust hasn't settled on the idea yet. However, it does seem to have some serious support. I learned two new proposed clades from googling this, Cetartiodactyla and the even cooler name Whippomorpha. This is very cool new info for me. Thanks for sharing. I knew whales were ungulates but didn't realize that they are specifically closely related to hippos.

I do have to correct a misconception though. Saying that hippos are the most dangerous mammal in Africa ignores two factors:

1. Hippos are the second most dangerous animal in Africa, second to humans. Hippos kill more humans in Africa than any other non-human animal.
2. Above I said animal. Yes. Hippos kill more humans in Africa every year than Nile crocodiles or black mambas. Actually, hippos can and do kill crocs as well. Some guides say they can bite a croc in half. Others disagree. None dispute that hippos kill crocs on at least a semi-regular basis. In Africa, only humans kill more humans than hippos do ... a lot more ... many many times more.

ijuin
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby ijuin » Fri May 17, 2013 5:39 am UTC

Which just goes to show that the most dangerous animal . . . is Man.

The Cat

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby The Cat » Fri May 17, 2013 11:13 am UTC

Ack.


Right! I cringe thinking about scrapping a hull.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Klear » Fri May 17, 2013 10:25 pm UTC

Misanthropic Scott wrote:1. Hippos are the second most dangerous animal in Africa, second to humans. Hippos kill more humans in Africa than any other non-human animal.
2. Above I said animal. Yes. Hippos kill more humans in Africa every year than Nile crocodiles or black mambas. Actually, hippos can and do kill crocs as well. Some guides say they can bite a croc in half. Others disagree. None dispute that hippos kill crocs on at least a semi-regular basis. In Africa, only humans kill more humans than hippos do ... a lot more ... many many times more.


Which, BTW, shows, that being a merciless killing machine doesn't automatically make an animal cool.

The Cat

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby The Cat » Fri May 17, 2013 11:34 pm UTC

Edit: wrong thread...
Last edited by The Cat on Sat May 18, 2013 10:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Sat May 18, 2013 2:03 am UTC

Klear wrote:Which, BTW, shows, that being a merciless killing machine doesn't automatically make an animal cool.

You must know by my blog moniker that I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one.

User avatar
netsplit
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:34 am UTC
Location: Z̈̓̾̾̀̉ͬ̅ͯͪͬ̚͢͏̴̝̝̩̳͙͘a̷̧̰̥̯͎͍͍̻̮͔̭̰̗̺̩̐̀͛͐ͥ͐ͨ͆̀̉̐̌̅͑ͣ͟ͅľ̸̠̟̭̲̜̹̗͎͍̗̤͖̤͕̣̝̀̊̑ͯͬ͌̍ͬ͂ͤ͛̀̚g̍̅́ͮ̌̏ͣ́̀͏͍

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby netsplit » Sat May 18, 2013 1:52 pm UTC

To be a classhole, I'll point out that while the we still have dinosaurs thing is amazing, that likewise there is no reasonable definition of fish that includes lobe finned fish, but doesn't include mammals such as people.

The conclusion of this is you're unarguable scientific proof that your mom most likely fucked an actual fish.


Further surf and turf is really just surf.
from da craddle to da grave, geek life 4 eva
better show hardcore respect ya'll

JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat May 18, 2013 2:40 pm UTC

Surf and turf explicitly refers to habitat, not clade, and therefore remains properly named unless cows return to the water just as the cow-like ancestors of whales did.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Sat May 18, 2013 8:06 pm UTC

netsplit wrote:To be a classhole, I'll point out that while the we still have dinosaurs thing is amazing, that likewise there is no reasonable definition of fish that includes lobe finned fish, but doesn't include mammals such as people.

The conclusion of this is you're unarguable scientific proof that your mom most likely fucked an actual fish.


Further surf and turf is really just surf.

Well said indeed!

Image

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby webgiant » Sun May 19, 2013 9:07 am UTC

Clayh wrote:I've actually had an ongoing argument with my brother about this for the past few months. He insists that birds ARE dinosaurs, while I have remained adamant that they are just closely related, but definitely not the same kind of animal. Tonight, the battle's over. You win, little brother, you win.

The new Jurassic Park movie will not have dinosaurs with feathers, even though all of them probably did have feathers.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun May 19, 2013 6:22 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:
Clayh wrote:I've actually had an ongoing argument with my brother about this for the past few months. He insists that birds ARE dinosaurs, while I have remained adamant that they are just closely related, but definitely not the same kind of animal. Tonight, the battle's over. You win, little brother, you win.

The new Jurassic Park movie will not have dinosaurs with feathers, even though all of them probably did have feathers.

It is certainly not the case that all dinosaurs had feathers. Velociraptor did though, and Tyrannosaurus might have, too.

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Mon May 20, 2013 2:54 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
webgiant wrote:
Clayh wrote:I've actually had an ongoing argument with my brother about this for the past few months. He insists that birds ARE dinosaurs, while I have remained adamant that they are just closely related, but definitely not the same kind of animal. Tonight, the battle's over. You win, little brother, you win.

The new Jurassic Park movie will not have dinosaurs with feathers, even though all of them probably did have feathers.

It is certainly not the case that all dinosaurs had feathers. Velociraptor did though, and Tyrannosaurus might have, too.

What about Utah Raptor? Since the "velociraptors" in the film were actually Utah Raptors because Spielberg didn't think a chicken sized raptor was vicious enough, we should really be asking about Utah Raptors.

(google break)

I apologize. They were neither Utahraptors nor Velociraptors, but somewhere in between in size. Utahraptor did apparently have feathers though. So, either way, the raptors in the film should have feathers. For a good discussion of what Spielberg did to the raptors, check this link.

http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Utahraptor

Mostly, in my opinion, having read the book, the movie was a complete and utter disaster. It was awful. It covered only a small amount of the book, had the chaos expert say things no chaos expert would ever say, modified the survivor list, and had a really stupid little DNA cartoon. And, of course, the velociraptors weren't. In short, the film was a total butcher job of a very good book.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon May 20, 2013 3:02 am UTC

The "velociraptors" were the same size in the book as in the movie.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Mon May 20, 2013 4:39 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The "velociraptors" were the same size in the book as in the movie.

If so, then I retract my statement. Both sucked. But, I don't really remember the book specifying a size for the raptors. Here's what reality would look like.

Image

Given that a wolverine can and occasionally does take down an adult caribou or scare a grizzly off a kill, I can well imagine that highly intelligent velociraptors, especially in groups, could be very scary and dangerous to unarmed humans.

ijuin
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby ijuin » Mon May 20, 2013 5:02 am UTC

I could imagine a pack of relatively intelligent velociraptors being like a pack of rather vicious dogs--a minor threat individually but able to tear a person apart as a group.

As far as Jurassic Park goes, remember they filled in the gaps in the DNA with frog genes instead of bird genes, so that's probably why the dinosaurs came out more green and scaly than the species they were meant to resemble.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon May 20, 2013 6:24 am UTC

Psst. Frogs don't have scales. = )
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon May 20, 2013 9:28 am UTC

Misanthropic Scott wrote:the "velociraptors" in the film were actually Utah Raptors because Spielberg didn't think a chicken sized raptor was vicious enough

I don't know of many chickens that weigh 15 kg and are 2 m long.

But yes, the velociraptors in the movie were much larger than life.

Titanium Dragon
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:35 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Titanium Dragon » Mon May 20, 2013 10:04 am UTC

The real problem with seperating out dinosaurs from birds is that it seems fairly likely that some things which we see as "dinosaurs" are, in fact, birds. Primitive birds, perhaps, but birds nonetheless.

The truth is that for most practical intents and purposes it is largely irrelevant; birds are all that are left of the dinosaurs, and calling them dinosaurs is merely less precise than calling them birds. Birds are the only dinosaurs still alive, but "dinosaur" calls to mind a wide variety of things, whereas "birds" are much more narrow.

All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. And to be fair, while people often think of dinosaurs as being big cool things, let's face it: a lot of dinosaurs were small, ugly, and stupid looking.

Pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and pleseiosaurs were never considered dinosaurs. Some lay people made that mistake. But, it was always fairly well known among even only moderately educated lay people that this was not the case. This is why it was termed the age of reptiles then the age of dinosaurs. Personally, I find such ages silly. It has always been the age of bacteria from the first life form on the planet until the present day. But, since we pay attention only to the large species and ignore reality we see the ages as belonging to the largest species rather than the dominant species. Even today, while bacteria reign supreme, people call it the age of mammals. But, even if we're only looking at the multicellular life on the planet, extant dinosaur species still outnumber extant mammal species 2 to 1.


Ehhh... people love to bring up the sheer prevalence of bacteria, but while they are common as dirt, its kind of meaningless really. If you look at the actual planet, it is primarily shaped by plants and animals, not bacteria. Sure, bacteria do have an impact, but if you look at the planet as a whole, it is plants and animals which largely form (and reform) the landscape. Look at the Earth from space, and you see plants, not bacteria. Even if you land, you're hard-pressed to percieve the bacteria, while percieving plants and animals is easy.

Back in the Mesozoic era, you'd find lots of dinosaurs and other large reptiles around. Nowadays, you wander around the planet, you find lots of mammals and birds, with almost all the large things being mammals. You also find snakes, lizards, and amphibians, but they are mostly not nearly as impressive, save down in the tropics, where you do sometimes find very large lizards (crocodiles and big snakes). There are also plenty of insects, obviously. Go into the ocean and you find the fish, the sharks, mammals, and various shelled creatures, most of which are fairly small (though squid and octopi can get quite large, and there are some other exceptions as well, like coral).

Unquestionably, today is the age of Man. Look at the Earth at night, and man is one of the very few lifeforms that you percieve. Look at the Earth by day, and you can see how much he has changed things. You can see our structures from space, and see the things we have done.

It matters little that we are out-massed by, say, conifers. We are the dominant lifeform on the planet, without question, and we have reshaped it to suit ourselves.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon May 20, 2013 10:53 am UTC

We'll see if the civilization fad lasts long enough to think of it on the geological scale. It's got 10,000 years going so far.

The real problem with seperating out dinosaurs from birds is that it seems fairly likely that some things which we see as "dinosaurs" are, in fact, birds. Primitive birds, perhaps, but birds nonetheless.


Not really. The things scientifically defined as birds all look very much like birds. There are maniraptoran dinosaurs that are not birds but which, at a glance, most folks would simply think of as birds.

All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. And to be fair, while people often think of dinosaurs as being big cool things, let's face it: a lot of dinosaurs were small, ugly, and stupid looking.


This makes them only adorable.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Mon May 20, 2013 4:55 pm UTC

Titanium Dragon wrote:Ehhh... people love to bring up the sheer prevalence of bacteria, but while they are common as dirt, its kind of meaningless really. If you look at the actual planet, it is primarily shaped by plants and animals, not bacteria. Sure, bacteria do have an impact, but if you look at the planet as a whole, it is plants and animals which largely form (and reform) the landscape. Look at the Earth from space, and you see plants, not bacteria. Even if you land, you're hard-pressed to percieve the bacteria, while percieving plants and animals is easy.

Meanwhile, remove all of the bacteria and there are no more plants and animals, period.

Can you perceive the bacteria? Perhaps not easily. But, you could perceive their absence very easily. There would, quite literally, be not a single plant or animal left on the planet. You would not last very long at all without the 90% of the cells in and on you that are bacteria. You need these bacteria to digest your food. Your depend on a food chain that starts with bacteria and works it long and tortuous way up to you. No bacteria; no humans.

By contrast, remove all of the multicellular life on the planet, and the bacteria continue to thrive as they did for the first 3+ billion years of life on this planet.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5478
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon May 20, 2013 6:59 pm UTC

Here's a little more fuel to throw on the para/monophyletic fire: the word "animals" has a common lay sense which is exclusive of humans, despite the fact that humans are animals by any reasonable definition.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon May 20, 2013 8:03 pm UTC

Misanthropic Scott wrote:By contrast, remove all of the multicellular life on the planet, and the bacteria continue to thrive as they did for the first 3+ billion years of life on this planet.

That's the point -- the bacteria would continue.

It's the age of man because we could sterilize the entire planet if we get upset. It's the age of man because we've lit up the world in a way nothing short of volcanic events could have done in the past.

Similarly, the dinosaurs and their activities shaped biomes in their time.

Saying it's the age of bacteria, you might as well say it's the "age of the sun" or the "age of gravity". Yes, it's absolutely fundamental in the same way that frycooks are absolutely fundamental to a McDonald's, but if you're talking about who actually holds the reins of history, it ain't them.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 21, 2013 12:48 am UTC

Misanthropic Scott wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The "velociraptors" were the same size in the book as in the movie.

If so, then I retract my statement. Both sucked. But, I don't really remember the book specifying a size for the raptors.
1.8m tall according to the same wikia you linked earlier.

Misanthropic Scott wrote:It's the age of man because we could sterilize the entire planet if we get upset. It's the age of man because we've lit up the world in a way nothing short of volcanic events could have done in the past.
And early oxygen-producing bacteria filled Earth's atmosphere with poison gas in a way we are to this day completely incapable of matching.

Also, we're a long way from being capable of sterilizing even the surface of the planet, let alone the deep oceans and under ground.

Now I will grant that "bacteria" describes such a huge range of life that it's not exactly fair to compare it to tiny little clades like dinosaurs or mammals. You're probably right that the environmental impact humans have on today's planet is far greater than that of any other group with such recent common ancestors.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Tue May 21, 2013 2:39 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Here's a little more fuel to throw on the para/monophyletic fire: the word "animals" has a common lay sense which is exclusive of humans, despite the fact that humans are animals by any reasonable definition.

Animal, vegetable, or mineral? I'm an animal.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5478
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue May 21, 2013 2:49 am UTC

I used to be a party animal, but now I'm just a fungi.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Misanthropic Scott
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misanthropic Scott » Tue May 21, 2013 9:28 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Misanthropic Scott wrote:By contrast, remove all of the multicellular life on the planet, and the bacteria continue to thrive as they did for the first 3+ billion years of life on this planet.

That's the point -- the bacteria would continue.

That's your point. Mine is that without the bacteria, we would not continue. Does that really carry no weight with you? They can live without us. We cannot live without them. They reign supreme.

Their short reproductive cycle even makes their biological evolution outpace our cultural evolution. We come up with antibiotics. They laugh. 60% of all infections picked up in hospitals are now drug resistant strains.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Klear » Tue May 21, 2013 9:45 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Here's a little more fuel to throw on the para/monophyletic fire: the word "animals" has a common lay sense which is exclusive of humans, despite the fact that humans are animals by any reasonable definition.


Good point. And I'm sure we can all agree that "animal shelter" doesn't equal "homeless shelter". Even though humans are animals, in a lot of contexts using the word animal as opposed to us is useful.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue May 21, 2013 2:15 pm UTC

Misanthropic Scott wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:
Misanthropic Scott wrote:By contrast, remove all of the multicellular life on the planet, and the bacteria continue to thrive as they did for the first 3+ billion years of life on this planet.

That's the point -- the bacteria would continue.

That's your point. Mine is that without the bacteria, we would not continue. Does that really carry no weight with you? They can live without us. We cannot live without them. They reign supreme.

Their short reproductive cycle even makes their biological evolution outpace our cultural evolution. We come up with antibiotics. They laugh. 60% of all infections picked up in hospitals are now drug resistant strains.

Holy shit-barbecue, that's a hell of a strawman argument you've got going there.

I'm explaining why the current era is called the Age of Man. Because it is called that, so let's not make up any BS about it being my invention or anything.

Man is currently the one reshaping the world. And yes, gmalivuk, back when bacteria was the one reshaping the world, it would be the Age of Bacteria. But they're not anymore, at least not nearly as much as mankind is.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

ijuin
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby ijuin » Wed May 22, 2013 4:11 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Misanthropic Scott wrote:Their short reproductive cycle even makes their biological evolution outpace our cultural evolution. We come up with antibiotics. They laugh. 60% of all infections picked up in hospitals are now drug resistant strains.


I'm explaining why the current era is called the Age of Man. Because it is called that, so let's not make up any BS about it being my invention or anything.

Man is currently the one reshaping the world. And yes, gmalivuk, back when bacteria was the one reshaping the world, it would be the Age of Bacteria. But they're not anymore, at least not nearly as much as mankind is.


Speaking of how fast bacteria vs. humans do things, it took tens of millions of years of photosynthesis before an appreciable shift in the Earth's atmosphere and climate happened from the new free oxygen. On the other hand, we are singlehandedly stopping the next ice age over a span of a few HUNDRED years, and we are only likely to get MORE powerful in the future. We may not be able to wipe out all life on the planet yet, but we can still cause (and are causing) a mass extinction on the scale of what a 10-km asteroid strike could do, also on a scale of hundreds to thousands of years.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed May 22, 2013 5:36 am UTC

ijuin wrote:We may not be able to wipe out all life on the planet yet, but we can still cause (and are causing) a mass extinction on the scale of what a 10-km asteroid strike could do, also on a scale of hundreds to thousands of years.

What an achievement!

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed May 22, 2013 5:41 am UTC

Let's be fair here. The Oxygen Catastrophe turned out to be an okay deal. Someone might be thanking us in a few Ma.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

mbromber
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:01 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby mbromber » Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:04 pm UTC

rwaldron wrote:The Cassowary is closest thing living today to a triassic period dino.


I created an account to spread the word of the Southern Cassowary. Glad you beat me to it! Everyone I know who's familiar with the cassowary calls it a "dinosaur-bird." In fact, I forgot what its name was, and found it through a Google Images search for dinosaur bird.

Misamoto
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:00 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misamoto » Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:06 pm UTC

So, I've go through some registration hell to post this comment.
Was pretty surprised while going through that topic that noone commented on that before me.
So:
Birds coming from dinosaurs gives a pretty cool answer to a philisophical problem:

- Which came first, chicken or egg?
- DINOSAUR!

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:52 pm UTC

Misamoto wrote: - Which came first, chicken or egg?
- DINOSAUR!

I don't get it. (Non-avian) dinosaurs are neither chickens nor eggs. It doesn't answer the question.

Although, of course eggs predate chickens. But do chicken eggs predate chickens? It's not a question you can answer.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:40 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Misamoto wrote: - Which came first, chicken or egg?
- DINOSAUR!

I don't get it. (Non-avian) dinosaurs are neither chickens nor eggs. It doesn't answer the question.

Although, of course eggs predate chickens. But do chicken eggs predate chickens? It's not a question you can answer.

Nonsense. If you define a "chicken egg" as "an egg containing a chicken", then the egg came first. If you define a "chicken egg" as "an egg laid by a chicken", then the chicken came first.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:44 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
Misamoto wrote: - Which came first, chicken or egg?
- DINOSAUR!

I don't get it. (Non-avian) dinosaurs are neither chickens nor eggs. It doesn't answer the question.

Although, of course eggs predate chickens. But do chicken eggs predate chickens? It's not a question you can answer.

Nonsense. If you define a "chicken egg" as "an egg containing a chicken", then the egg came first. If you define a "chicken egg" as "an egg laid by a chicken", then the chicken came first.

That's false. If you in fact define "chicken egg" literally as "an egg containing a chicken," then the chicken must have come first, or at least at the same time as the chicken egg, because you cannot have a chicken egg without a chicken inside it. However, if you define "chicken egg" as an egg containing a chicken embryo, and a "chicken" as an adult form, as is generally supposed, then you can't reach a meaningful answer, because the term "chicken" is still ambiguous. There was no "first chicken" or "first chicken egg."

Misamoto
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:00 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Misamoto » Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:52 pm UTC

Well, if birds are dinosaurs, then there was a "Protochicken dinosaur" which came before BOTH chicken egg and chicken. Which is my proposition of an answer.

Surely it doesn't answer the question itself, but it does in my opinion put a dot on the argument - since, who cares what came first if it came from dinosaur?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:22 pm UTC

That's true. I suppose a Creationist would believe the chicken came before the egg.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:41 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:That's true. I suppose a Creationist would believe the chicken came before the egg.

Yup! (The traditional answer is "God couldn't lay an egg", as in fail.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BytEfLUSh, gmalivuk and 106 guests