Also - those hadrosaur bone crests: could they really be used as sounding devices given that dinosaurs have no secondary palates? How do you make a crest like reverberate unless you can close off the nasal passage? Not saying they didn't have soft tissue muscles that could accomplish that - but something would have had to allow for the air to be forced into the crest.
A fascinating talk. Pity about the missing part: Could we ever know how dinosaurs thought? To my understanding, every extinct animal thought the same way that extant animals of today do: First they sensed and perceived their environment, in what features of the latter were phylogenially interesting to them. Availability or lack of resources, presence or absence of dangers, relatives, prospective mates, competitors, such things are present in the environment and important to individuals in various degrees across species. The purpose of cognition universally is to understand the environment (body included), and then configure the body and guide behaviour accordingly in a way tendant to preserve, reduce, change, or avoid the current state of the environment as might be convenient. The above interest, conveniency, sensing, perception, understanding, and behaviour are phylogenially established, through natural selection, to increase the species' chances of survival over those provided by sheer luck.
Yes, the climatic and atmospheric changes that resulted from the Biblical Flood resulted in the dinosaurs being unable to thrive and adapt. Many did survive, however, even up into fairly modern times.
When we are able to engineer a time machine, then it might be possible to know how dinosaurs behave. However, even with that unlikely invention, I do not think we could know how they think unless we learn to speak their language. In the mean time, chickens are perhaps our best proxies to decipher their behavior.
Why is it that the Kaga impact in Russia 4 million years DEFORE Chixculub and about 3/4 as powerful, with a crater 75 miles across, had none of the aspects of Chix: no mass dino deaths, no iridium, no forest fires or nuclear winter. The Manicouagan impact in Ontario preceded Chix by 150 million years, but was still well within the age of dinosaurs. Left a 62 mile wide crater, but again no widespread dino massacre, no iridium, forest fires or nuclear winter. Then we have the Acraman Crater in S. Australia. This was 8 millin years AFTER Chix, left a 56 milewide crater, but no extinctions, iridium, forest fires or nuclear winter! It seems to me that the reduced megatonnage of these explosions is not enough to explain their negligible effect on the environment.
@The Richest Man In Babylon The point I was making is that there were several impacts around that time almost as powerful as Chix, but without any Chix symptoms. Chix could not have caused forest fires on the other side of the globe. True tropical rainforest is fireproof. If you walked thro the Malaysian rainforest with a flametrower trying to set it alight, you would fail. There must have been some other factor at work, most likely the Deccan Traps supervolcano. T think the dino extinction was a lot more drawn out than they say, and didn't happen overnight. At Vredefort in S.Africa ther was an impact far more powerful than Chix, but 2 billion years ago there were only micro organisms. Here again, there was no iridium layer. For the Chix iridium evidence, we depend on a few locations in America,
@@bernardedwards8461 Hi. Absolutely ignorant person here but might the location of Chix had an sorry "impact" on what happened? Specifically, could water based impact have had a different effect than a landbased impact?
@@shawnporter5109 For every mega-meteorite impact on land, there are two in the sea. At high speeds, water is as solid as concrete. One difference between a land strike and a sea strike is that in the sea it would leave a smaller crater, and in very deep water probably no crater at all. This would produce an explosion like an atomic bomb, there would be a flash and radiated heat, but exactly how the effects on land animals would differ, I'm not quite sure. A deep ocean impact would probably mean that land animals were a long way away, but there would be one hell of a tsunami. A lot of water, sodium and chlorine would be put into the atmosphere. The composition of the meteorite would have a bearing on its effects.
@@bernardedwards8461 Gracias Senor. Picked an an entirely different field to consult in. But when I was 7 , ,I wanted to be a rock star, astronaut and/or a paleontologist. .....Fast forward a few decades and I stilll wanna be a rock star, an astronaut and a paleontologist :)
Anyone who thinks non-avian dinosaurs, as a whole, would have been outcompeted by other animal groups without the prompting of a mass extinction event and simply due to some gradual climactic change is woefully out of date in his understanding of evolution and adaptation. But I suppose I should what expect that from someone who uses diagrams of theropods with pronated hands in a lecture.
It never occurred to me until this lecture why we need two genders, I was always like why not just one? But for some reason it become so obvious when he was talking about selection, like of course, we need two genders so they can be selective and pass on good genes and then 'naturally' evolve and adapt.
Sex is generally considered to have evolved to ensure that genes get properly copied into offspring without harmful mutation. Cancer is an example of what happens when errors build up in repeated cell reproduction. It's not really something that evolved in order to get "good genes" passed on like that. And why two? In order for two sex cells to merge, it helps if one is big and the other is small. That way one can go inside the other and release its genetic material. So the female sex is the one that has big sex cells, which are less mobile on account of their size, and why the offspring generally develops in the female body rather than the male body. But many single-celled organism seem to get along perfectly fine without sexes, so sex really isn't evolutionarily necessary. It's basically just an interesting way to prevent a xerox of a xerox of a xerox from becoming garbage.
@Pasquale Gelardi i agree with the sentiment of what your saying; gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder. But, sex and gender are different things.
It is Anatomically impossible [to the point of being utterly ridiculous] for Dinosaurs to evolve into Birds....or for Scales to evolve into Feathers. See...ARE BIRDS DINOSAURS on youtube.
It never occurred to me until this lecture why we need two genders, I was always like why not just one? But for some reason it become so obvious when he was talking about selection, like of course, we need two genders so they can be selective and pass on good genes and then 'naturally' evolve and adapt.
