made sure I gave you a thumbs up. both for doing a pretty good job and having intelligent responses to my comments that are debatable instead of name calling. Both you and your followers are doing a good job on all the above.
Speaking of not evolving out of a clade, I heard that the Catarrhini, which includes the Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea (apes) -- and therefore humans -- used to (from 1812) be called "Old World Monkeys" (or "singes de l'Ancien Monde" in French) until humans decided they didn't like being labelled as "monkeys", despite humans being Catarrhini, and despite apes being regarded as a type of monkey since the 18th century, so now the Cercopithecoidea are called "Old World Monkeys" instead, just to pander to some discriminating humans.
Is it possible that what we call birds today are multiple groups that evolved through convergence, some evolving from dinosaurs while others evolving from another species? Like old-world vultures and new-world vultures are not actually related to each other.
Well, DNA evidence shows all birds are closer to each other than they are to any other living organisms - their nearest living relatives are crocodilians. That could still mean different birds evolved from different non-bird ancestors that were closer to modern birds than they are to crocodiles. So how do we know birds are all one group descended from one common ancestor - or, to use the technical term for that, monophyletic? The short answer is we use a method called cladistics. In cladistics we: 1) list the traits different groups - living or fossil - possess, 2) we assume they're related by having shared common ancestors but not that any one species is the direct ancestor of another - cousins rather than parents and offspring. (Of course the ancestors must have existed, but since the vast majority of organisms die without leaving any traces, we assume the fossils we find aren't those ancestors). 3) we place those groups in an evolutionary tree or cladogram by minimising the number of times shared features evolve. For example, if we assume birds are one group, then their shared features like feathers, beaks, hollow bones, a wishbone, a keeled sternum, a pygostyle etc. evolved only once, and they inherited those traits from their common ancestor. If they're two separate groups, all those identical traits would have had to evolve twice, in two separate lineages - and that's pretty unlikely. So by comparing living birds with fossil birds and other dinosaurs, we can analyse all their features and work out what evolutionary tree explains those features best by minimising the number of shared features that would have evolved independently in separate groups. tl;dr: it's not impossible birds evolved from multiple groups of dinosaurs, but by comparing the features of all living and fossil birds and other dinosaurs, an evolutionary tree where birds evolve only once and are a monophyletic group explains the features of birds best without assuming the exact same features happened to evolve in the same way in two different lineages.
Oh, and convergent evolution tends to produce similar species because their shared features are adaptations to the same lifestyle. Birds have many features in common that either aren't adaptations to the same lifestyle, or they share ways those adaptations work that could work differently in a separate lineage, e.g. how the general shape of a wing has evolved multiple times because of the physics of flight, but the details of a bird's, bat's, pterosaur's or insect's wing differ a lot because they evolved from different wingless ancestors. So the most likely explanation for birds' shared features is still inheriting them all from the same common ancestor.
@@kafuuchino3236 Got it. Does that mean all flying insects also had a common ancestor or different flying insects could have evolved from different ancestors?
@@kp29 I'm actually not sure about that, but I think all flying insects share a common ancestor too? Although like birds some are secondarily flightless. I do know that all insects in general are a monophyletic group, though! Clint's Reptiles has a video going through the insect evolutionary tree, I haven't watched it in a while though, so it probably answers your question: czcams.com/video/S0uN7kQbSMg/video.html
Um. Your description of evolution is spot on, but birds are not dinosaurs anymore then we are not whatever species primates came out of. Point being, birds evolved from dinosaurs and may all be equally related, they are not the same group they evolved out of. (group being used in the non-scientific term *added for accuracy*)
But “Dinosaur” is not a species, it’s a group consisting of the last common ancestor of Megalosaurus, Iguanodon, and Diplodocus, and all of its descendants.
@@stupendemysgeographicus5009 That is exactly what I am getting at. Or to be more accurate, Birds evolved out of a specific linage of dinosaurs. But they are still not dinosaurs.
@@loganskiwyse7823 alas no, but that's the cool thing! with cladistics all species maintain their membership of older more basal clades. so birds are, indeed, still dinosaurs in the same way that dogs are canids which are caniforms, which are carnivorans, which are mamals, which are synapsids, which are amniotes, which are cordates which are, eventually, eukaryotes. things never evolve out of the things they were but endlessly travel down the evolutionary tree sprouting new branches along the way. so yeah, birds are dinosaurs in the same way you are (at a high enough level) a fish. it's a higher level classification but it's still a correct one even if it feels weird in a "things right now" sense. taxonomy is weird, but a cool kind of weird :>
@@ConnallTara More like they didn't know what they are doing kind of weird. Like most of the history of paleontology. Which is why I stand by the above. The idea things don't evolve out of the things they used to be is mentally backwards and contrary to what we know of evolution. The naming conventions are not much use as a result. A lot of the breakdown of how we define species as a result of taxonomy, which is not a good method considering modern DNA and other methods. The rework as you are aware has been in the works for over a decade. And is why I don't use taxonomy as anything more than loose reference.
Just pretend this looped like a TikTok video :P
Ah. I was about ask. 🙂
made sure I gave you a thumbs up. both for doing a pretty good job and having intelligent responses to my comments that are debatable instead of name calling. Both you and your followers are doing a good job on all the above.
I refuse to believe that Pigeons are not the Closest Relative to T-Rex. Vicious creatures.
Fun Fact, this means that the smallest known dinosaur is alive right now. It's the Bee Hummingbird.
hummingbirds are SO cool!
I get so delighted seeing birds and realizing they are, in fact, dinosaurs.
I was once chased by a rooster as a child. They're vicious little dinosaurs.
You should try cassowaries ;-)
ripples and clades. perfect analogy
"You can't evolve out of a clade"
Whatever the lungfish says
"first bird, early, gets worm" got me.
Also, my takeaway from this (pun intended) is that KFC should be renamed "Kentucky Fried Dinosaur"
I now have a craving for some KFD.
in conclusion: and
"And-"
OMG I love this!
I think crows are my favorite dinosaur, though I'm pretty up on parrots too
much as i love the non-bird dinosaurs i think my favorite dino of all is still the albatross
A very solid choice! What draws you to that one in particular? In the meanwhile I think I'll take some stale bread to the park to feed the dinos
Nice vid. I never knew that bird dinosaurs existed alongside non bird dinosaurs. That’s really cool.
Speaking of not evolving out of a clade, I heard that the Catarrhini, which includes the Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea (apes) -- and therefore humans -- used to (from 1812) be called "Old World Monkeys" (or "singes de l'Ancien Monde" in French) until humans decided they didn't like being labelled as "monkeys", despite humans being Catarrhini, and despite apes being regarded as a type of monkey since the 18th century, so now the Cercopithecoidea are called "Old World Monkeys" instead, just to pander to some discriminating humans.
TRex is a big murder- chicken. Got it.
"And-"
And what? AND WHAT??!!?
WE NEED TO KNOW!!!
I had to do a double take i was listening to this autoplay while cooking and thought I was listening to Emma Throne for a moment. 🙂
I'm gathering that was a typo and you meant Emma Thorne
Is it possible that what we call birds today are multiple groups that evolved through convergence, some evolving from dinosaurs while others evolving from another species? Like old-world vultures and new-world vultures are not actually related to each other.
Well, DNA evidence shows all birds are closer to each other than they are to any other living organisms - their nearest living relatives are crocodilians. That could still mean different birds evolved from different non-bird ancestors that were closer to modern birds than they are to crocodiles. So how do we know birds are all one group descended from one common ancestor - or, to use the technical term for that, monophyletic?
The short answer is we use a method called cladistics. In cladistics we:
1) list the traits different groups - living or fossil - possess,
2) we assume they're related by having shared common ancestors but not that any one species is the direct ancestor of another - cousins rather than parents and offspring. (Of course the ancestors must have existed, but since the vast majority of organisms die without leaving any traces, we assume the fossils we find aren't those ancestors).
3) we place those groups in an evolutionary tree or cladogram by minimising the number of times shared features evolve. For example, if we assume birds are one group, then their shared features like feathers, beaks, hollow bones, a wishbone, a keeled sternum, a pygostyle etc. evolved only once, and they inherited those traits from their common ancestor. If they're two separate groups, all those identical traits would have had to evolve twice, in two separate lineages - and that's pretty unlikely.
So by comparing living birds with fossil birds and other dinosaurs, we can analyse all their features and work out what evolutionary tree explains those features best by minimising the number of shared features that would have evolved independently in separate groups.
tl;dr: it's not impossible birds evolved from multiple groups of dinosaurs, but by comparing the features of all living and fossil birds and other dinosaurs, an evolutionary tree where birds evolve only once and are a monophyletic group explains the features of birds best without assuming the exact same features happened to evolve in the same way in two different lineages.
Oh, and convergent evolution tends to produce similar species because their shared features are adaptations to the same lifestyle. Birds have many features in common that either aren't adaptations to the same lifestyle, or they share ways those adaptations work that could work differently in a separate lineage, e.g. how the general shape of a wing has evolved multiple times because of the physics of flight, but the details of a bird's, bat's, pterosaur's or insect's wing differ a lot because they evolved from different wingless ancestors. So the most likely explanation for birds' shared features is still inheriting them all from the same common ancestor.
@@kafuuchino3236 Understood. Thank you for the detailed explanation.
@@kafuuchino3236 Got it. Does that mean all flying insects also had a common ancestor or different flying insects could have evolved from different ancestors?
@@kp29 I'm actually not sure about that, but I think all flying insects share a common ancestor too? Although like birds some are secondarily flightless. I do know that all insects in general are a monophyletic group, though! Clint's Reptiles has a video going through the insect evolutionary tree, I haven't watched it in a while though, so it probably answers your question: czcams.com/video/S0uN7kQbSMg/video.html
Glad I subed...
And!!!!
I guess this implies that whatever caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was something that you could fly away from?
Um. Your description of evolution is spot on, but birds are not dinosaurs anymore then we are not whatever species primates came out of.
Point being, birds evolved from dinosaurs and may all be equally related, they are not the same group they evolved out of. (group being used in the non-scientific term *added for accuracy*)
But “Dinosaur” is not a species, it’s a group consisting of the last common ancestor of Megalosaurus, Iguanodon, and Diplodocus, and all of its descendants.
@@stupendemysgeographicus5009 That is exactly what I am getting at.
Or to be more accurate, Birds evolved out of a specific linage of dinosaurs. But they are still not dinosaurs.
@@loganskiwyse7823 But being descended from a dinosaur, by definition, makes them dinosaurs?
@@loganskiwyse7823 alas no, but that's the cool thing! with cladistics all species maintain their membership of older more basal clades. so birds are, indeed, still dinosaurs in the same way that dogs are canids which are caniforms, which are carnivorans, which are mamals, which are synapsids, which are amniotes, which are cordates which are, eventually, eukaryotes.
things never evolve out of the things they were but endlessly travel down the evolutionary tree sprouting new branches along the way.
so yeah, birds are dinosaurs in the same way you are (at a high enough level) a fish. it's a higher level classification but it's still a correct one even if it feels weird in a "things right now" sense.
taxonomy is weird, but a cool kind of weird :>
@@ConnallTara More like they didn't know what they are doing kind of weird. Like most of the history of paleontology. Which is why I stand by the above. The idea things don't evolve out of the things they used to be is mentally backwards and contrary to what we know of evolution. The naming conventions are not much use as a result. A lot of the breakdown of how we define species as a result of taxonomy, which is not a good method considering modern DNA and other methods.
The rework as you are aware has been in the works for over a decade. And is why I don't use taxonomy as anything more than loose reference.