How did Birds survive when other Dinosaurs types couldn't?
Also, birds are warm blooded, but I thought dinosaurs are cold blooded, any idea when this change might of happened? I'm trying to figure out if some other Dinosaurs types might of them been warm blooded, or if other Birds might of been Cold blooded, etc.
Is there any website or tracking of what the dominant or submissive traits are? Like which one is more dominant than another?
@Pikachu I believe the Greenland Shark also has some sort of antifreeze in their blood which allows them to keep moving in water that's colder than other Sharks
@sstronaut Yeah there are many adaptations and honestly the biggest one is that most ectothermic animals do not live in climates where frostbite is an issue lol
I think that when we go into the work-place and quietly observe, we can note the dominance hierarchies that go on, we can note what it is that drives people, what people talk about, what excites them. In that moment, I think, yup, we are animals alright.
Very insightful. I think you're right about that to a very large degree. I think we like to imagine that we're far more reasoned and logical than we actually are but the fact is that we make a lot of instinctive decisions which we later rationalize.
@SW-User The key is that they have no predators trying to eat them. So they just have to survive humans and each other.
Just sit and eat. The biggest risk to them is human destroying all their food.
Not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't even heard of a Panda attacking a human, not even in self defense or baby defense like I have with most other bears.
SW-User
@Pikachu 'suppose, there's others like sloths and koalas that have the slow digestion also known to be lazy f#ckers of the animal kingdom, but here they are...🧐
@SW-User Because there is both evolution and there is devolution... and yes it's possible to do both at the same time, and/or one might be stronger than the other.
I believe some eels and other animals trapped deep in the caves of New Zealand started losing their eyes as they had no need for them as there was no light there.
Also, people often mistakenly believe evolution means improvement, but the reality is that it just means new change, and that change can be good or bad, and often times it's neutral.
Also, there is the survival of the fittest, which man in 1st world counties have done their best to prevent, which it's good to help people.... but at the same time, this means less desirable traits are left to easier spread and the less desirable thing, or medical condition potential could spread and become more and more common.
There's no such thing as 'race', and ethnicity is merely a social distinction.
That's a good opinion but there are hundreds of millions (if not several billion) people who disagree with it. The male head hair pattern just indicates that people are basically identical.
Which part of my comment do you feel they disagree with?
"There's no such thing as 'race', and ethnicity is merely a social distinction."
Most, if not all, societies have been based on the idea that the dominant ethnic group in the society is more special than the others. That is one of the main ideas in the Bible.
@Greyjedi Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
Some people claim that the Theory of Evolution is not a real theory because ‘it cannot be falsified’. This is a nonsense. So, what would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Well, if we opened up a stratum of the Earth’s crust that was laid down, say, 100 million years ago and found there the fossilised remains of a modern-day giraffe, then the Theory of Evolution would have a fatal problem. The same would apply if we found fossils out of place in the Earth’s strata. Every single fossil puts the Theory of Evolution at risk, and yet, despite the hundreds of millions of fossils on the record, the Theory still stands. We never see a ‘modern’ rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. The Theory of Evolution completely, coherently, and consistently, explains what we obseve… and the evidence we continue to gather consistently fails to falsify it... but we continue to look.
