Evolution News

New theory: Dinosaurs were in between warm and cold blooded

Spread the love

Here:

The idea that dinosaurs fit poorly into existing categories is not entirely new. In a study published in February, researchers from the University of Mainz placed dinosaurs in the middle of their own growth-rate survey.

“Personally I don’t find the result very surprising,” commented Dr Paul Barrett from the Natural History Museum in London. But he was impressed that the new paper had convincingly added metabolic rates to the picture.

A new “mesothermic” category is proposed.

“It reminds us that living organisms don’t always show the only or best adaptations; dinosaurs did something else and what they did had many advantages – they could achieve the benefits of stable, warm body temperatures without having to eat so much.”

Interesting ideas. Bet this develops.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

21 Replies to “New theory: Dinosaurs were in between warm and cold blooded

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    Of course this happened as a result of gene duplication, the great and powerful magical ingredient of evolution.

    When the just so stories are backed up by changes in the genome, it will be time to wake up. It is amazing what grown men and women will believe.

  2. 2
    Acartia_bogart says:

    It is nice to see that ID is using one of its two only arguments against evolution. Attempt to ridicule through sarcasm.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    lukewarm blooded?

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    It is nice to see that ID is using one of its two only arguments against evolution.

    ID is not against evolution. Where did you ever get that idea? Shows a lack of understanding. Maybe you should just ask questions till you understand the issues.

  5. 5
    Querius says:

    While “warm and cold blooded” are popular terms, they are misleading. Metabolic activity is optimized at warmer temperatures, and peak output is greater.

    Fish metabolism is acclimatized to colder temperatures to some degree, reptile metabolism is acclimatized to a wide range of temperatures but often relies primarily on external sources of heat, and mammals of course generate their own heat at a cost of having to eat constantly.

    Based on evolutionary assumptions, dinosaur metabolism was originally assumed to be reptilian. Then somebody—probably a student—unfortunately asked how the largest dinosaurs managed to warm up in the morning. This was based on the assumption that these monsters were diurnal rather than sleeping in the hot sun all day.

    So the debate began. Later, as some researchers tried to fit together an evolutionary path from dinosaurs to birds, the evolution of thermal regulation needed to be considered as well. Proposing yet *another* middle or meso thermal regulation between between fish and mammals, seems to be geared toward the popular evolutionary narrative.

    —————–
    Interestingly, if you take a strict literal interpretation of the Genesis account of the appearance of animal life from the Septuagint, you would draw the following conclusions:

    DAY 5
    – Life originated from the sea
    – Living creatures originated in separate clades
    – The first clades were marine reptiles (herpeton) and featherless winged (peteinos) creatures
    – Clades of large sea monsters came next probably followed by fish
    – The next clades were feathered winged creatures that migrated to the land

    DAY 6
    – Then came clades of four-footed land creatures, clades of land-based reptiles, and clades of other wild animals and cattle
    – Originating from clay, humans were the last to appear, and had the ecological purpose of managing all life on the earth
    – All living creatures were originally vegetarian

    From an evolutionary syncretism then, fish, birds, and terrestrial reptiles evolved from marine reptiles.

    -Q

  6. 6
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Jerry. Yes I know that ID is not against evolution, sometimes. And not against non-directed evolution, sometimes. And that it accepts undirected micro evolution, sometimes. And that it accepts undirected evolution after the original creation of life, sometimes. In short, it is the theory for all theories that do not exclude an intervening god. And please don’t say that ID does not necessitate a god because any intelligence that can do this is going to be perceived by someone as a god.

    And, yes, I am aware of the irony of using sarcasm to criticize the ID tactic of using sarcasm.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    Rephrased to be more accurate

    ID is not against evolution, ever. And not against non-directed evolution, ever. And that it accepts undirected micro evolution, all the times. And that it accepts undirected evolution after the original creation of life, whenever it is shown to work. In short, it is the theory for all theories that do not exclude an intervening intelligence. And please don’t say that ID does not necessitate a highly intelligent source because any intelligence that can do this is going to be perceived by someone as very intelligent.

    Also

    ID subsumes all other valid mechanisms of change in life forms over time. Darwinian and other naturalistic processes where they work are entirely compatible with ID.

    The issue always is just what any process can physically, chemically and biologically accomplish. Because of time and environmental restrictions, most processes are essentially mathematically impossible as a valid causal mechanism for any major changes to existing life forms. Only one process does not currently have that limitation.

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    Acartia announced

    And please don’t say that ID does not necessitate a god because any intelligence that can do this is going to be perceived by someone as a god.

    Wow, so if we introduce genetically engineered extremophiles to Mars, we will be perceived as gods!

    Cool! I thought we had a ways to go yet.

    -Q

  9. 9
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Querius, thank you for demonstrating the second weapon in the ID arsenal, taking statements out of context.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Well, don’t keep us in suspense. What did you really mean by

    And please don’t say that ID does not necessitate a god because any intelligence that can do this is going to be perceived by someone as a god.

    -Q

  11. 11
    humbled says:

    Oh man, this just keeps getting better.

    Maybe, one day, the tax man will wake up and recognise Darwinism for what it really is, a pseudo religion. Once we establish that we aren’t dealing with science institutions but rather Darwinian religious groups and Evolution cults, we can pull funding and the true Darwin believers, if any remain at that point, can finance their cults with tithing and donations like most religions a required to do. It won’t be all that bad though, in many countries religion can still claim tax free status.

  12. 12
    goodusername says:

    Oh man, this just keeps getting better.

    Maybe, one day, the tax man will wake up and recognise Darwinism for what it really is, a pseudo religion.

    What is “this”? There’s nothing in this story even about Darwinism.
    I’m not sure why the theory being discussed in the op, that dinos are something in between warm and cold blooded, is being presented here as something new – it’s been a popular idea since the early 19th century. The only thing new is that apparently they are finally creating a word for it.

  13. 13
    Piotr says:

    The only thing new is that apparently they are finally creating a word for it.

    Not even that. The word “mesothermy” (used of animals, in contrast to its other applications) has been in use for some years. For example, Gregory S. Paul uses it several times (and provides a strict definition) when discussing dinosaur metabolism in his 2002 book Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds, Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. It has also been used of tuna fish, letherback sea turtles, echidnas, mole rats, and some other modern animals.

    It’s a different question if the term is applied correctly. There is a whole range of thermoregulatory strategies. I suppose “poikilothermic endotherms” would be a more satisfactory description of some dinosaurs (using metabolic heat without maintaining a stable body temperature), while others seem to have been “homeothermic endotherms” (using metabolic heat and maintaining a stable body temperature) like birds and (most) mammals. See Kara Jones’s comments under this blog:

    http://phenomena.nationalgeogr.....-echidnas/

  14. 14
    Robert Byers says:

    Dinos were not reptiles. iN fact this yEC says there are no reptiles. tHis wrong classification systems. Creatures simply have traits as they needed. Any likeness is irrelevant.
    there was never any reason to say dinos were cold blooded. In fact there were no dinos., tHere were just creatures of kinds with like traits for like reasons.
    The hot/cold thing about dinos is really just working upon a presumption that these divisions exist and have been proven to be from common descent.
    God never created divisions in nature. he created kinds. Only.

  15. 15
    Piotr says:

    Robert Byers:

    Did Noah have a pair of argentinosaurs on his ark? And a pair of edmontosaurs? And a pair of spinosaurs? Or maybe a pair of T-rexes? And a pair of stegosaurs? And a pair of triceratopses? How many different kinds od dinosaurs were there and what happened to them eventually?

  16. 16
    Barb says:

    Robert Byers,

    Dinos were not reptiles. iN fact this yEC says there are no reptiles.

    If there are no reptiles, how are alligators, lizards, and crocodiles classified?

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    Not to mention turtles. I’m not sure how broad “kinds” are, but I bet it’s pretty flexible.

    No, according to the fossil record, most dinosaurs drowned as evidenced from their opisthotonic death pose.

    http://crev.info/2011/11/111123-dinosaurs_drowned/

    -Q

  18. 18
    Acartia_bogart says:

    “No, according to the fossil record, most dinosaurs drowned as evidenced from their opisthotonic death pose.”

    Not surprising given that being rapidly covered in sediments is the most common means if fossilization. Sorry to burst your bubble Bobbie, but the fact that most fossils are found in water deposited sediment is not evidence of Noah’s flood.

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    No, I merely said they drowned. Do you know what an opisthotonic death pose is?

    -Q

  20. 20
    Robert Byers says:

    Piotr
    there are options. first these types of creatures were possibly very few kinds. not that many really different ones.
    then its possible many dinos are actually creatures who lived after the flood but are not classified accurately.
    the differences between dinos and “mammals” are not great. Possibly some mammals today are these dinos but not noticed as such.
    anyways the big thing about the ark was the clean/unclean thing. before the flood it was a unclean dominance but after it was to be a clean dominace as the ratio 6:2(7;2) indicates.

  21. 21
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    I say turtles and crocs are entirely separate kinds of creatures.
    They are not related at all. This reptile invention is simply about some like traits however its just a creator working off a like blueprint.
    likewise there are no mammals. Just kinds. Its just useful to have hair for lots of kinds.
    God didn’t create these divisions in nature. Its a optical illusion , I say, to classify them together.

Leave a Reply