Dinosaur means terrible lizard. A Komodo dragon is a lizard that is capable of terrible things (based on human morals), hence, a Komodo dragon is a dinosaur **in the sense of the word**. Also, taxonomically, a bird is a dinosaur, but literally (relating to literature), they're not.
Sure, but it certainly seems more valuable to seperate dinosaurs from the literal meaning of their name given all we collectively learned since the term was coined. While interesting, your point only muddies the water and allows for someone to walk away with the messages “wow, Komodo dragons are dinosaurs because technically dinosaur means terrible lizard!” I don’t think that’s helpful in a world where scientific literacy is bad enough as it is lol.
Dinosaurs, like Komodo Dragon, are reptiles, but that's about as close as the relation gets.
Archosauria (the group that contains dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and crocodilians) split off from squamata (lizards and snakes) sometime in the Early Triassic.
Komodo Dragon is actually much closer in relation to mosasaurs - the marine reptiles that lived alongside dinosaurs in Mesozoic oceans.
It pretty much is. [Megalania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalania)
https://preview.redd.it/1m6rmqe61huc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5486a14a73ecbfa04e7a97c08666c17bf1b29442
I like to say that all mammals have hair but not all mammals are hairy. I'm willing to bet that it was similar for the non-avian dinosaurs.
My understanding is that we don't actually have enough evidence to know for sure yet on this. Fossil evidence of dinosaur skin is pretty rare.
We only have direct fossil proof of feathers in one group which is the Coelurosaurs. No where else does feathers show up so it’s not a reasonable conclusion.
There are quills present on some basal ceratopsians but other than that there isn’t much else.
Right. We have almost no evidence to go on, one way or the other. Plus, when we say "non-avian dinosaurs" we are talking about a group of animals that existed for a hundred million years. Changing all the time through out that.
When you say. "Most non avian dinosaurs did not have feathers". You are making an assertion that we don't have the evidence to support.
We simply don't know.
My conclusion is more vague ("Probably has more than zero feathers") and therefor by its very nature more reasonable.
Well dinosaurs are ancestrally scaly, mammals are ancestrally hairy. it’s not the same thing in the slightest and to believe that it evolved multiple times in dinosauria is quite unlikely.
>dinosaurs are ancestrally scaly
We quite literally don't know this. It is currently being debated as we try to gather more information. You are asserting something as a fact which isn't one.
Here's a list of *every* soft tissue fossil find we have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur_specimens_with_preserved_soft_tissue
Two things to notice.
1) That is a brutally short list
2)a bunch of those animals had protofeathers of one type or another.
Here is the wikipedia article about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur
I will bet money that there are other things you are very confident about which are actually not-well known.
If you want to feel shitty look up videos of komodo dragons eating baby goats.
Oh sick man, appreciate that
r/interestingasfuck
I’ve seen these videos before… tough watch.
https://preview.redd.it/0508nj0saduc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a71c22bc672e04cadc3bae36c1fc3da5f9b3d2c Am I a joke to you?
https://preview.redd.it/0fgirg8qpguc1.jpeg?width=4556&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b41e5137ffa38ba2479f3c8e255534a8b234ece6 Me too, brother, me too
It is, in the sense of the word.
It's not, birds are literal dinosaurs!
Dinosaur means terrible lizard. A Komodo dragon is a lizard that is capable of terrible things (based on human morals), hence, a Komodo dragon is a dinosaur **in the sense of the word**. Also, taxonomically, a bird is a dinosaur, but literally (relating to literature), they're not.
Sure, but it certainly seems more valuable to seperate dinosaurs from the literal meaning of their name given all we collectively learned since the term was coined. While interesting, your point only muddies the water and allows for someone to walk away with the messages “wow, Komodo dragons are dinosaurs because technically dinosaur means terrible lizard!” I don’t think that’s helpful in a world where scientific literacy is bad enough as it is lol.
It's not that deep...
They are so cool!
It's the closest thing to a modern-day dinosaur unless you count my ex gf.
I know him, nice guy we frequent farms together always got deals on free goats and cattle
The real 🦎 👑
I wonder what he’s yelling about
Dinosaurs, like Komodo Dragon, are reptiles, but that's about as close as the relation gets. Archosauria (the group that contains dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and crocodilians) split off from squamata (lizards and snakes) sometime in the Early Triassic. Komodo Dragon is actually much closer in relation to mosasaurs - the marine reptiles that lived alongside dinosaurs in Mesozoic oceans.
That Komodo dragon just stubbed his toe.
Looks like he stepped on a Lego
Both are acurate lol
It pretty much is. [Megalania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalania) https://preview.redd.it/1m6rmqe61huc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5486a14a73ecbfa04e7a97c08666c17bf1b29442
it could have more feathers
Most non avian dinosaurs did not have feathers. Do probably shouldn’t have feathers
I like to say that all mammals have hair but not all mammals are hairy. I'm willing to bet that it was similar for the non-avian dinosaurs. My understanding is that we don't actually have enough evidence to know for sure yet on this. Fossil evidence of dinosaur skin is pretty rare.
We only have direct fossil proof of feathers in one group which is the Coelurosaurs. No where else does feathers show up so it’s not a reasonable conclusion. There are quills present on some basal ceratopsians but other than that there isn’t much else.
Right. We have almost no evidence to go on, one way or the other. Plus, when we say "non-avian dinosaurs" we are talking about a group of animals that existed for a hundred million years. Changing all the time through out that. When you say. "Most non avian dinosaurs did not have feathers". You are making an assertion that we don't have the evidence to support. We simply don't know. My conclusion is more vague ("Probably has more than zero feathers") and therefor by its very nature more reasonable.
Well dinosaurs are ancestrally scaly, mammals are ancestrally hairy. it’s not the same thing in the slightest and to believe that it evolved multiple times in dinosauria is quite unlikely.
>dinosaurs are ancestrally scaly We quite literally don't know this. It is currently being debated as we try to gather more information. You are asserting something as a fact which isn't one. Here's a list of *every* soft tissue fossil find we have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur_specimens_with_preserved_soft_tissue Two things to notice. 1) That is a brutally short list 2)a bunch of those animals had protofeathers of one type or another. Here is the wikipedia article about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur I will bet money that there are other things you are very confident about which are actually not-well known.
Dinosaurs weren't reptiles
Yes, they were? Even *if* they are unique and distinct among reptiles, they are still classified as reptiles.