Alain wrote:
> At least once, a bird expert confused some dinosaurs skull for those of 
> actual focillised birds... And the similitudes are not only in the skulls.

Two words: Piltdown man.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

>Gaf  on date 03/04/2010 23:08 wrote:
> Happy easter for all fans of povray!
Thank you!
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Two words: Piltdown man.

And what does a poorly executed hoax have to do with anything?

(That lurch you just felt was people's eyes rolling as yet another person
dredged up that red herring.  Paleontologists suspected something from the very
beginning; it was British pride that kept that thing in cold storage all those
years.)

Post a reply to this message

On 04/05/2010 08:47 PM, Alain wrote:

>> On 04/05/2010 02:15 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>>>>    I don't know why exactly, but they look like dinosaur eggs.
>>>
>>> Technically, they *are* dinosaur eggs.  The evidence that modern
>>> birds descended
>>> from dinosaurs is pretty solid.
>>
>>    I don't think you can call them dinosaur eggs even technically. They
>> are bird eggs, not dinosaur eggs. Even if birds are descendants if
>> dinosaurs that doesn't mean birds *are* dinosaurs.
> 
> At least once, a bird expert confused some dinosaurs skull for those of
> actual focillised birds... And the similitudes are not only in the skulls.

  I didn't say that birds are not descendants of dinosaurs or that there
aren't similarities. I just said that just because birds are descendants
of dinosaurs (well, more specifically, from the dinosaur suborder of
theropods) doesn't mean that birds *are* dinosaurs.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Two words: Piltdown man.
> 
> And what does a poorly executed hoax have to do with anything?

That for 40 years it was unclear whether the skull was orangutan, human, or 
something else. That birds have similar skeletons to dinosaurs in some ways 
doesn't mean birds are dinosaurs.

Nuff said.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> On 04/05/2010 08:47 PM, Alain wrote:

> >> On 04/05/2010 02:15 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> >>> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
> >>>>    I don't know why exactly, but they look like dinosaur eggs.
> >>>
> >>> Technically, they *are* dinosaur eggs.  The evidence that modern
> >>> birds descended
> >>> from dinosaurs is pretty solid.
> >>
> >>    I don't think you can call them dinosaur eggs even technically. They
> >> are bird eggs, not dinosaur eggs. Even if birds are descendants if
> >> dinosaurs that doesn't mean birds *are* dinosaurs.
> >
> > At least once, a bird expert confused some dinosaurs skull for those of
> > actual focillised birds... And the similitudes are not only in the skulls.
>
>   I didn't say that birds are not descendants of dinosaurs or that there
> aren't similarities. I just said that just because birds are descendants
> of dinosaurs (well, more specifically, from the dinosaur suborder of
> theropods) doesn't mean that birds *are* dinosaurs.

you, you... ape! :P

Post a reply to this message

On 5-4-2010 13:55, Warp wrote:
> On 04/05/2010 02:15 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>>   I don't know why exactly, but they look like dinosaur eggs.
>> Technically, they *are* dinosaur eggs.  The evidence that modern birds descended
>> from dinosaurs is pretty solid.
> 
>   I don't think you can call them dinosaur eggs even technically. They
> are bird eggs, not dinosaur eggs. Even if birds are descendants if
> dinosaurs that doesn't mean birds *are* dinosaurs.

Actually that is exactly what descending means here. Birds are a 
subgroup of dinosaurs. It works the same as you and me being an ape, a 
monkey, a mammal etc. Although I admit that there are many people that 
think that in the case of humans all logic has to be set aside and man 
is an independent creation (and women are even created twice, 
independently, but let's not go there).

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.04.2010 11:54, schrieb andrel:

>> I don't think you can call them dinosaur eggs even technically. They
>> are bird eggs, not dinosaur eggs. Even if birds are descendants if
>> dinosaurs that doesn't mean birds *are* dinosaurs.
>
> Actually that is exactly what descending means here. Birds are a
> subgroup of dinosaurs. It works the same as you and me being an ape, a
> monkey, a mammal etc. Although I admit that there are many people that

Put that way, all the meat you may be eating - whether it be ham, pork 
or even chicken - is actually... fish!

Post a reply to this message

> Am 11.04.2010 11:54, schrieb andrel:
>
>>> I don't think you can call them dinosaur eggs even technically. They
>>> are bird eggs, not dinosaur eggs. Even if birds are descendants if
>>> dinosaurs that doesn't mean birds *are* dinosaurs.
>>
>> Actually that is exactly what descending means here. Birds are a
>> subgroup of dinosaurs. It works the same as you and me being an ape, a
>> monkey, a mammal etc. Although I admit that there are many people that
>
> Put that way, all the meat you may be eating - whether it be ham, pork
> or even chicken - is actually... fish!

In fact, everything dessend from bacterias. So, you always eat 
bacterias, or descendents of bacterias.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 11-4-2010 13:08, clipka wrote:
> Am 11.04.2010 11:54, schrieb andrel:
> 
>>> I don't think you can call them dinosaur eggs even technically. They
>>> are bird eggs, not dinosaur eggs. Even if birds are descendants if
>>> dinosaurs that doesn't mean birds *are* dinosaurs.
>>
>> Actually that is exactly what descending means here. Birds are a
>> subgroup of dinosaurs. It works the same as you and me being an ape, a
>> monkey, a mammal etc. Although I admit that there are many people that
> 
> Put that way, all the meat you may be eating - whether it be ham, pork 
> or even chicken - is actually... fish!

Not really. The name of the group that includes now-living fish as well 
as reptiles, dinosaurs, reptiles etc. is vertrebrates. Fish is a strange 
mix of all sorts of vertebrates that have two things in common. 1) they 
live in water (or at least ...) 2) they have a common ancestor with us 
earlier than the first vertebrate that got out of the water and became 
the common ancestor of the tetrapods.
If there were still dinosaurs living other than birds we might have a 
collective word that analogously describes dinosaurs except birds. As it 
happens we don't have such a word because when we realized that birds 
descent from other dinosaurs and we might need a word for the others we 
knew what the family relation was.

But your remark was much funnier.

Post a reply to this message