Technically dinosaurs are classified in Reptilia. By extension, birds are as well. (Though from what I've heard there might be a bit of confusion regarding the real classifications of some things in Reptilia, especially with crocodilians being more closely related to birds than lizards.
Dinosaurs are classified as their own species. They are dinosaurs. In a general sense (and I mean extremely general) reptiles, birds, and dinosaurs all more or less developed from the same ancestors. They are related, however, they are separate from each other. Just as we are separate from say a spider monkey. At some point in our past we shared a common link, but we are very separate species.
If you consider the Darwin's theory of evolution which happens to remain in the realm of theory... besides the huge gaps they have yet to fill in that theory. Dinosaurs could very well have been reptiles, but at the same time, they could have just been mammals with scaled skin.
It bugs me when people confuse the meaning of the word theory.
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
Essential difference .
There's no "huge gaps" in the theory of evolution. The theory works (else it wouldn't be an accepted scientific theory), it's elegant and beautiful: [link]
No, they weren't. Reptilia includes Dinosauria, which includes Aves (birds). You are trying to classify them with what you know of modern reptiles, which is like trying to classify what you know about dinosaurs with what you know about birds.
It was recently discovered that what we once thought were a reptilian race are actually Avian (Birds). Most Raptors, T - Rexes, and smaller animals of the like actually had feathers and soft bodies. However the question is a little twisted, as certain other dinosaurs like Triceratops and Stegosaurus are genuine reptiles.
There is no solid proof of your statement of those animals all having feathers. Perhaps when they were juveniles. And you are obviously confused with scientific classification. Reptilia includes Dinosauria, which includes Aves. Thus all dinosaurs are reptiles, and all birds are dinosaurs (and technically a form of reptile).
While they did develop feathers, many of those same species shed them in maturity and had reptilian like skin. There is a relatively accepted theory that birds evolved out of dinosaurs, however proof is arising that, in fact, birds developed from a distinct class related to dinosaurs but not actually dinosaurs. No dinosaurs are genuine reptiles. They share many reptilian characteristics, however so did mammals of the time. The fact that reptiles evolved separate from and along side dinosaurs is more evidence that dinosaurs are their own distinct species.
I once saw a documentary about a man who raised a litter of wild turkeys, and they were just like little dinosours, walking around the fields hunting for grasshoppers. It was really easy to imagine that the turkeys were in fact some sort of ornithomimosaurs or other two-legged dinos. On the other hand - turkeys doesn't really look like sauropods...
Regarding some of the flightless species of bird such as the cassowary and the emu, I believe that some types of dinos did evolve into birds. I think the earliest species of bird was called the Archaeopteryx, whose german name is Urvogel meaning "original bird" or "first bird"
Yes. But altogether different from modern reptiles. Sometimes I think it would be more accurate to classify them as something else, though. Something not quite mammal, bird, or reptile; something unique because they were unique lifeforms.
I am pretty sure modern science defines dinosaurs as reptiles. I've read the arguments presented here and while I agree with most of them, labels are labels. I suppose in that sense, no one is technically wrong ("I believe it should be" vs. "I believe it is").
Hell, we called Pluto a planet for the longest time, even though it was pretty obvious that it was just more of the same from the Kuiper belt.
None were mammals. Mammals differentiate from birds and reptiles in having hair, three middle ear bones, mammary glands in females, and a neocortex. By "mammals", you probably are referring to the theory that some or all dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
no, i was reffering to the ones that came toward the end of the dinosaur age, i suppose they're not considered dinosaurs. i guess i just think of them that way because they lived around the same time as the dinosaurs.
the mammals that lived alongside the dinosaurs, they came, as i said toward the end of the dinosaurs. like the Eomaia: [link] or the Fruitafossor [link]. and as i said, they technically weren't dinosaurs, they were the first mammals.
There is no need to say "technically dinosaurs". They were entirely separate (sorry if it seems like I'm wasting my time, but some people vaguely refer to any pre-paleogene animal as a dinosaur). Also, dinosaurs and mammals evolved at about the same time. The obvious group just became dominant until the K-Pg extinction.
There's conflicting opinions regarding just how dinosaurs fit into everything. Dinosaurs are not birds, but birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are very closely related to reptiles, more so than birds, but are not 'technically' reptiles. The term 'reptile' itself has come to have a very flexible meaning. However, some are putting forward the theory that both dinosaurs and birds are technically in the reptile group.
Scientifically speaking, all dinosaurs (and by extension birds) are a form of Reptilia. It's their classification, not a theory. Too many people think too narrowly, almost entirely because of the confusion brought up by common names, like "birds" instead of "Aves".
Yes dinosaurs are classified under Reptilia by their evolution so they are reptiles. It has now been realized that birds did evolve from them at some point which technically means birds are a form of reptile. The Reptilia Class incoproates many different types of creatures. After the Reptilia class there are several orders that then contain several several families.
Some of the orders in Reptilia are Crocodilia, Testudines (ex: turtles), Sphenodontia (lizards that are considered ancient fossils), Squamata (snakes, lizards, and worm lizards), and Sauropsida. the last one includes dinosaurs and as you move down the line birds as well. At least this is how current taxonomy has them placed. Taxonomy is changing all the time as new information like DNA is revealed although since such information is what got birds moved under Reptilia in the first place I don't see them being moved back out any time soon.
I'm a bio major so I need to know this kind of stuff and keep up to date with it. Of course what each individual thinks is up to them. After all the scientific community is just another opinion. Admittedly an opinion I like to follow normally but not everyone does.
Well when I was little I knew lizard feet and birdy feet could look scaley and similar sometimes. Honestly, I don't think they can be associated with a modern species's class so easily. I'd rather say it was evolution at it's most epic! (or maybe something in between)
Yes. Most people say dinosaurs are birds, not reptiles. First, it's not that dinosaurs are birds, birds are dinosaurs. Literally, they're classified as a type of theropod dinosaur. Second, dinosaurs are reptiles. While they are a strange behaving group, dinosaurs are so diverse, it's hard to judge. Some are more caring to young, some are reptile-hipped, some are herbivores, others carnivores, some omnivores. Overall, dinosaurs ARE scientifically classified into reptiles. Of course, classification boundaries are always fuzzy. But, from what we know right now, yes they are reptiles. And birds are dinosaurs, so birds ARE reptiles. Just strange ones. But then again, when has any class been generic?
They were reptiles, but the earth's condition selected only the ones who were closer to birds to survive, so these survivors evolved into today's birds... So I think there were dinosaurs who can be considered reptiles, and ones who can be birds
That's pretty difficult to define since the word "dinosaur" spans many species and eras, and had many different characteristics. Modern science sees dinosaurs as being more bird-like, although before they were more seen like reptiles. So the definition has changed over time as new evidence gives rise to new theories. Personally, I agree with the opinion that birds are dinosaurs. It's not only a way more fun way to look at birds, but a much more interesting way to look at dinosaurs and may give us more insight into the way they lived.
All I was saying was that the definition and view of "dinosaurs" has changed over time (and will likely change even more as time continues on). Birds were not always classified as dinosaurs, though they are now. There are still those in the scientific and paleontology communities who don't agree with this viewpoint (you can never convince everyone), though I do agree with the majority view that birds are dinosaurs, as I stated. It'll be interesting to see what new discoveries are made and how the view changes over time, though.