Talk:Evolution of dinosaurs

message: I am creating this article because I think it should be.  Please edit this as for now it includes only the subsection of the dinosaur page with the same title.  I will add more soon.
Rynosaur (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

message: The text says, "It is clear from this figure that early saurischian resembled early ornithischia, but not modern crocodiles." It is not clear at all unless a drawing of a crocodile pelvis is included for comparison.
68.221.53.60 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is clear from this figure 

message: The text says, "Most stegosaurs, but not stregosaurus, also have a spine over each shoulder." Do you mean Stegosaurus instead of "stregosaurus"?
68.221.53.60 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is stregosaurus? 

message: Might I ask why there isn't a criticism section? Afterall, Evolution is only a theory in the first place, is yet to be proven anywhere in any way, shape, or form, the missing links are far too vast (and not a single one found), and that the Earth is only 6-8,000 years old... this faces some challenging leaps of faith. Colonel Marksman (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no criticism section because there's no criticism of the overall science of evolution in dinosaur literature; peer-reviewed papers about dinosaur taxa do not discuss religious beliefs, as they are describing something else entirely (our understanding of Dinosauria). A criticism of evolution in general doesn't belong in this article, because this article isn't about evolution in general. Nor, truly, is it even about "missing links", or "leaps of faith". It's about the evolution of dinosaurs; there may be an appropriate place for a discussion of criticism of evolutionary science, but that's not in this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, evolution has been proven multiple times.  Yes it is a theory, but it is also a fact.  I suggest checking out the article Evolution as a theory and fact or something along those lines.  Your other criticisms are patently false (and very very old too) Farsight001 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages 

message: The "Body size" section states that "Archaeopteryx was below 10 kg in weight". As an upper bound this figure seems improbably high; the Archaeopteryx page gives a figure of 0.8 - 1 kg.  Mike Capp (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeopteryx weight 

message: Looking at the graphs of Length versus Time, and Skull length versus time, note the gap between 180 mllion years ago, and about 169 million years ago.
There is a large change is Sauropod lengths, and thus a far larger change in Sauropod Volumes from before 180 million years ago and after 180 million years ago. Lengths this side of 180 MYa are around 2.5 times the lengths before 180 MYa, so the Volumes could have increased by more than 15 times the prior 
Pro-Sauropod Volumes.  After comparing this, go look at the Marie Tharp geological-geophysical Map, and note that Major Earth Rifting occurred in the Atlantic, and Pacific at 180 MYa, and is continuing until now in all of the oceanic spreading centers.  For animals to reach a Volumetric Maximum of around 15 Male African Elephant Volumes, they need a profound amount of Nutrients, like Calcium, and Potassium.  These are provided periodically by Volcanoes, and the drift of volcanic ash from the Pacific Rim, and other locations, onto the continents.  To get as big as the largest sauropods, they needed to be supplied with lots of very good food. Note that the largest animals now are less that 7 percent of the Volume of the largest animals when Suropods reached their maximum Volume. Sauropods maxed out at about 85.23 Cubic Meters of Volumetric Displacement, while a large Male African Elephant is around 5.682 Cubic meters of Volumetric displacement.  What is even more interesting is that the largest Sauropod footprints are less than 15.9 square feet in surface area, and the ULTIMATE soil bearing capacity, under one large foot only, is about 4800 lbs per square foot. This means that the largest sauropods "only" weighed less that 76,300 lbs. With this information..... What was the lowest surface gravity of the Earth when Sauropods reached their Maximum Volumetric Displacement of 85.23 Cubic Meters of Water? 98.245.216.62 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Importance of Sauropod Size, and the change in Sauropod Sizes 

message: Nyasasaurus, as far as I know, has not yet been confirmed as a dinosaur as the page suggests. Its fossilised remains do not include bones that establish the trademark circular hole where the hip bones connect. Although it has a number of other criteria that strongly suggest it is a dinosaur (see https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/discovered-probably-the-worlds-earliest-dinosaur/265942/). Also, the fossils are said to have been found in an area that dates to the Anisian age, which, according to the ICS (http://www.stratigraphy.org/icschart/chronostratchart2016-12.pdf) implies 244.6 ± 2.6 Ma. Thangalin (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed dinosaur fossils 

message: I didn't tag anything at this point - I'm a little surprised, since we keep the articles on Dinosauria pretty documented with in-line citations.  I can reference the extinction event section now - but a quick glance will show it needs references in several spots. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs more references