Whales did descend from wolf-like animals. However, I agree with you, saying whales ARE wolves is nonsense.
Raising Money For The Real Jack Horner's Dino-chicken Project
- Thread starter MHill
- Start date
Well... It's often said this way, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Whales aren't closely related to wolves at all. Wolves, being canids are closely related to cats, bears and such. These are all in the order of Carnivora.
Whales are technically hoofed animals. As in, they are belong to the clade Ungulata. Of course whales don't have any hooves, but their ancestors did. These ancestors were more closely related to sheep than to wolves. But they were predators that filled a similar niche as wolves do today, which is why it's often said these animals were wolf-like even though they aren't closely related.
I never said dinosaurs didn't have feathers. Some of them did. We found the feathers. So it's a fact. I never stated otherwise. Don't know why you thought that was relevant to bring up...
Majority of paleontology is assumptions. We can never study these animals, so we're making assumptions based off their bones. That's the stonecold truth. The only fact is, we have found bones and feathers.
And yes if my cousin doesn't have kids, she's not directly related to my kids. She has the family blood, but not from my kids. They are still family, sure, but that link is not a direct link.
Why is it a miscredit to scientists? They chose their field of expertise. It's the same with a philosopher. They assume things, and that's part of the job. That's not discredit. I'm not hating on the job, I'm just saying they are working with a lot of assumptions they can't prove for sure. Like alot of physicists. It is what it is. It's like me playing basketball and want to be called a footballer. I chose basketball so that's what it is. That's not a discredit. And that has nothing to do with how hard they work either. It's still theories and assumptions that are human made. Like it or not...
And a theory certainly doesn't always rely on facts. If a theory were facts, they would not be called theory. They would be called facts. Hence they are two different words, with different meanings. They can be based on facts, sure, but they are still theories... After a theory is proven, it becomes a fact.
And I never wrote whales in general. I wrote killer whales aka orcas. They are more related to wolves than other whales according to our theories. Especially if you want to believe the paleontology. That also goes for dolphins. 50 million years ago, Orcas where wolves that started hunting fish by the riverbeds. And they evolved into the orcas we have today. That's why they have teeth for example and all other whales do not.
Last edited:
So orcas being wolves is nonsense, but dinosaurs being birds is affirmative... So you just choose what's nonsense because of the animals you like the most? That must be nice.
Last edited:
Again you are downplaying the discoveries that have been made. You said 2 in 700 species. So I listed a few more.
The assumptions and inferences are based on observation. We ARE studying these animals. Just not all of it since they are dead. We have bones and feather impressions yes. We also have coprolites, footprints, bitemarks and many more examples of actual behaviour. Yes, it is borderline offensive to say it's mostly just assumptions that they can't prove. Yes there will be many things we cannot ever know for sure. But again, there are many things we can know for sure. You are downplaying hundreds of years of hard work of thousands of people that have results in our current knowledge base.
You are also twisting my words. I did not say directly related. I said closely related, which they are. Your cousins will still be fairly closely related to you and your kids. In the same way that all dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than crocodiles or lizards.
This is completely false.
I explained this already. There are facts. One tries to explain these facts with a hypothesis that is testable. After you have proven it, this idea becomes a theory, not a moment before. Theories do not become facts. This is nonsense. Theories explain why facts are the way they are. We know germs exist, but it's still called germ theory. Same as the theory of gravity. It's thoroughly tested idea that explains the fact that is the theory. So yes, a scientific theory necessarily has it's foundation in facts.
At least, this is the way it is in science. In colloquial use theory is often used as a term of "just a wild idea". Applying that use of the term in the realm of science has no value at all.
Orcas are a subset of whales, which are a subset of ungulates. They are not more closely related to wolves. Wolves do not enter into it at all. Reread my previous comment about whales.So orcas being wolves is nonsense, but dinosaurs being birds is affirmative... So you just choose what's nonsense because of the animals you like the most? That must be nice.
And I already said in my previous post as well that not all dinosaurs are birds. Are you deliberately ignoring these comments and straw-manning others? No one here said that all dinosaurs are birds. Because that would be nonsense. What exactly are you playing at?
I said 2 out of 700 as a response to the other guys post, because he only listed 2? That has nothing to do with me. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm just saying when you're studying something that doesn't exist, most of it is assumptions. That's a straight fact. That's no downplay. It is what it is. And scientists would tell you the same thing themselves... And I never said the discoveries made were not relevant, so where's the downplay here? Borderline offensive... Haha. To zoom out and see the bigger picture. Then call me offensive every day of the week. I'm not going to be blinded by some people with a jobtitle. Doctors said 20 years ago, you shouldn't swim on an empty stomach. Now they are saying you should eat right before swimming. Stuff in science changes rapidly from one thing to the other, so I'm not going to trust anything blindly, just because a professor said so. They make mistakes all the time. Scientists even thought dinosaurs were reptiles years ago. And then they changed that to birds, so nothing is certain anyway. That's why we can't talk about alot of facts with these animals. That was all I said to begin with.
And germ theory and gravity theory got their names, before the stuff was proven. We just kept the term afterwards. "A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of contemplative and rational thinking often is associated with such processes like observational study, research. " Means it's a theory when it's in the state of being proven. So no, theories are def not facts. They can become afterwards. So when you use the term, "That's my theory" it means it's something you have proven? No. It's something you say when you assume something...
"The Mesonychids were similar in size to a wolf, but their feet were ungulates. Looking for food they started getting deeper into the water and in an evolutionary process that took millions of years, they developed fins, lost the fur, and the shape of their teeth modified until they reach an anatomical design fully adapted to marine life. "
I think he means animals like Pakicetus, but he's still wrong because they weren't wolves
Just stop trying, you've lost.
Bahahahah. When did a forum become a competition.
I haven't lost anything. I'm more amused by the fact, that dino nerds thinks everything scientists tells us are facts, when there are numerous examples throughout history, that science is just plain wrong.
Spontaneous generation, transmutation of species, vitalism, maternal impression, preformationism, recapitulation theory, telegony, out of Asia theory, scientific racism, mendelian genetics, germ line theory... And these are only in the biology field... All of these were accepted by scientists and the public until later debunked. Scientists told us, all dinosaurs had scales, were cold-blooded, Iguanodon had the spike on the nose instead of the thumb, dinosaurs lived for over 100 of years to grow full size, Sauropods were limited to living in water, Pterosaurs were dinosaurs, T-Rex could reach speeds of 50 km/h... But sure believe anything you want. That has nothing to do with it. But let's stop using the word facts around animals we have never witnessed or had the chance to study. Around 20% of dinosaur knowledge is facts. Maybe even less. The rest is assumption... If you guys believe in everything you read or hear, you are the ones that lost.
Last edited:
Ok awesomebroBahahahah. When did a forum become a competition.
I haven't lost anything. I'm more amused by the fact, that dino nerds thinks everything scientists tells us are facts, when there are numerous examples throughout history, that science is just plain wrong.
Spontaneous generation, transmutation of species, vitalism, maternal impression, preformationism, recapitulation theory, telegony, out of Asia theory, scientific racism, mendelian genetics, germ line theory... And these are only in the biology field... All of these were accepted by scientists and the public until later debunked. Scientists told us, all dinosaurs had scales, were cold-blooded, Iguanodon had the spike on the nose instead of the thumb, dinosaurs lived for over 100 of years to grow full size, Sauropods were limited to living in water, Pterosaurs were dinosaurs, T-Rex could reach speeds of 50 km/h... But sure believe anything you want. That has nothing to do with it. But let's stop using the word facts around animals we have never witnessed or had the chance to study. Around 20% of dinosaur knowledge is facts. Maybe even less. The rest is assumption... If you guys believe in everything you read or hear, you are the ones that lost.
Please just stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself MarcWP. You clearly aren't even properly reading the replies and are repeating the same straw-men over and over as if that has any point.
I'm done with this.
I'm done with this.
I think the movie Carnivores was a little less scientific then that, having them as woman parasites I think (basically ripping off Alien), though I've only seen reviews on it.
literally what you're doing right now
I mean, it's more realistic than the "science" in the Jurassic franchise. We can't clone dinosaurs because the chance to find good DNA is just so incredibly slim it's just impossible right now.
But recreating something that looks like a prehistoric dinosaur from a chicken is theoretically possible. It's not the same as it would technically still be a chicken. But it would be a chicken that's altered because certain genes have turned on that are normally turned off.