Period.

Everything is bacteria! lol

@@varanidguy Exactly! :D

@@varanidguy I am skeptical about that. Is bacteria not a monophyletic taxon then? I also saw that Eukaryotes are Archaeans. What? Taxonomy is really changing our lives.

@@Wellwtfallthenamesaretooken ?

US K-12 is really only good for learning the absolute basics of any subject. Just enough to hopefully not have blithering idiots killing themselves as soon as they are adults on their own. Practice has shown it is inadequate.

All vertabrates are closer to bony fish. An amphibian is closer to a reptile or mammal than a fish though

dinosoid2000 yes

That doesn't make it *wholly* inaccurate. Evo history is a tangled tree of trial and error, with more convergent evolution appearing all the time. The more we know, the harder it is to summarize it at a level kids can understand. Doing so pretty much requires a degree of inaccuracy, but it's still worth imparting the basic principles. Those like us who care to dig deeper later in life generally won't be mad to learn that there's more to it.

If they are saying catfish then they right

crunchyfrog63 so basically we are just a bunch of clustered microorganisms hehe

But don’t hormones and emotions change things up?

In the grand scheme of thing, everything is made up of small particles

@@luism8612 hormones too are highly derived prokaryotic proteins. And therefore the emotions are evolved prokaryotic behavioural traits. It’s turtles all the way down.

But we’re Eukaryotes.

He's misusing terms to make a point which isn't true.

@da erf Lol, the first amniotes were Linnaean reptiles. Scales, lungs, single tooth type, semi-prehensile tale, lizard hipped, quadruped. In every way, they were Linnaean reptiles. imo, Sauropsida should just be Sauropsida, not synonymous with reptile, because Sauropsida doesn't include all reptiles. Sure, mammals don't really resemble Sauropsida today, but they came from the same ancestor who was a lizard by Linnaean classification.

​@@Pistolita221mammals are synapsids not sauropods

​@@Pistolita221sauropsids*

@@pierre-samuelroux9364 you must have trouble reading, I didn't call mammals sauropsids (it's spelled sauropsid not sauropod, sauropods are a group of dinosaurs, the largest land animals ever and also closest related to therapods). But I appreciate the effort, kid.

But they were all reptiles

Great point! Birds are warm-blooded and there's lots of evidence that non-avian dinosaurs were as well. The question is when did warm-bloodedness evolve? We used to assume that the transition occurred between birds and the bird/crocodilian common ancestor, but the discovery of early crocodilians with very active looking bodies suggests that the common ancestor may have been warm-blooded and that trait has been lost in modern crocodilians. This is further supported by the fact that crocodilians, like birds and mammals and unlike other reptiles, have a 4-chambered heart.

Another thing is that people don't like to think of birds as being simple, stupid reptiles, except that lizards, turtles and crocs are actually quite behaviourally sophisticated and a lot smarter than people give credit for.

Humans came from reptiles too

This comment section is surprisingly calm and understanding. When I tried to claim that either birds are reptiles or archosaurs, such as crocodiles, are not reptiles, on reddit, people go berserk.

Birds are warm blooded though I think you mean non avian reptiles are cold blooded

So then are mammals Amphibians? ! We have a common ancestor.

@@markoproduction There comes a point a species diverge so much from their ancestors that they separate almost completely from them, one of our ancestors was an amphibian, but we diverged so much, we are a complete different specimen now. The thing with birds, is that they evolved so much from dinosaurs and common ancestors from reptiles that they may not seem like reptiles, but they still are close to them, much more than we are to amphibians, so it's not wrong to call them birds, but they haven't diverged as much as us to be called a completely separate taxonomy

not redundant but obsolete

Better than reptiles. Dinosaurs. Fucking dinosaurs, man.

I own 3 birds/ reptiles lol I love birds and now I see why I take an interest in bearded dragons

@Noah Smith That's what he said, birds are dinosaurs. And reptiles of course, since dinosaurs are.

@Noah Smith The error was classifying dinosaurs as reptiles in the first place. Birds (& dinosaurs) are a thing onto themselves.

@@trezapoioiuy Dinosaurs are NOT reptiles. Hollywood lies. Dinosaurs are simply birds that never evolved to fly and went other directions. The underlying structure is the same. The closest living relative to dinosaurs is the cassowary. Birds all have the recessive genes for the long tail, 3 fingered hands teeth etc.

Dinosaurs are culturally depicted as big and monstrous and the smaller and feathered dinosaurs are underrepresented, could be because of the hype and the obsession behind bigness and monstrosity of prehistoric animals or could be because of preservation bias, in which, smaller dossils are really hard to find because they erode easily and quickly than the larger fossils even though smaller dinosaurs should be more abundant than the larger dinosaurs, in turn, we only know a lot more about the larger ones.

What you should say is “Next time if someone says birds aren't dinosaurs, just introduce them to a cassowary”

@@amn2760 that normally would work too but i dont think they will think so far out when their opinion has the control of their minds

Thank you!

Ironically, the texbook with the Linnaean taxonomy was a creationist "science" textbook called "Science: Order and Reality" published by Abeka. They list the diagnostic features of mammals, all of which are present in humans, and classify mammals as a subset of animals. But later they contradict themselves by insisting humans are not animals. When they hit the chapter purportedly on evolution they go completely off the rails with all sorts of nonsense without once explaining how common ancestry uniquely explains the nested hierarchy of taxonomy that they presented in the earlier chapter. On one page they claim there are no transitional fossils linking birds and reptiless, yet just a couple pages later they show Archaeopteryx and Troodon, both transitional between modern birds and ancient reptiles. The opportunity to exploit creationist material to teach real science was irresistible.

Graham Christensen lol thank you!

I also hate 👉 naked mole rats, Wombats, Aardvarks, some anteaters and armadillos cause they're gross

I also hate rat. I can't get why people keep them as pets

I don't hate mammals but reptiles are better

In terms of analyizing the feasibility of things like skeletal sturctures and optimizing a species ability to survive, it has similarities

They are way more intelligent and evoluted in some ways. Most do even sing so...

Birds are dinosaurs but not lizards,lizards are squamates

So the simple answer to this question is yes, dinosaurs and birds are reptiles

s(y)napsids Current understanding has sauropsids and synapsids diverging from a common amniote ancestor. Therefore each group evolved along those respective lineages, not synapsids from sauropsids.

probably cetaceans since they have only one pair of flippers, but they still do have vestigial hindlimbs but they arent really limbs at that point since its just a couple of bones doing nothing I think. that's what I think at least I don't really know.

cetaceans (dolphins, whales and porpoises) and sirenians (dugongs and manatees). they do have vestigial bones of hindlimbs, but they are underneath the skin and don't do anything, so I don't think they are considered limbs.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that birds and mammals both have extended periods of parental care for their young while non-bird reptiles generally don't. Perhaps compassion for their young bleeds out to other individuals. Given the evidence for parental care in some non-avian dinosaurs like Maiasaura I suspect that many dinosaurs might have been capable of the sort of compassion, playfulness and bonding seen in birds.

I remember hearing certain cases of crocodilians displaying behavior that could be considered play... That may tie into your parental care hypothesis.

In the end it's one big continuum of changing life forms, so making groups is always slightly arbitrary. But you can classify each closely related group, and those nest together in bigger groups. So you can definitely identify a group "birds", just as well as you can classify "dromaeosaurids" or "snakes". Birds and dromaeosaurids can be grouped together again as the video shows, and finally you can go up to reptiles which includes all of them. You cannot make a class called reptiles that excludes the birds because the whole group nest within the reptile class.

It is not the matter of differences by morphology but a matter of different lineage provided by their genetics and overall structure. Basically, just like whales...no matter how much they evolved and change from their hairy, hoofed, terrestrial mammalian ancestors...guess what? They are still mammals. Huh. People just have a habit of finding common characteristics and grouping organisms together, which is true to an extent but not completely. The genome tells the truth and a look more to what links different groups together is the best evidence. It is a matter of staying true to the fact and pushing the traditional definition but sound stupid or staying traditional and keeping the definition the same but illogical. Or in short, keep the lineage or keep the traditional definition.

have you ever sen a chameleons foot

yea but "flatworms" is not a taxonomical clade. nephrozoa is a clade, in which flatworms sit in. also in nephrozoa sit humans. its a clade of bilaterians that divided into the protostomes and the deuterostomes, flatworms are protostomes. because during their development, mouth forms first in an embryo. in deuterostomes, anus forms first in a embryo so there was point in time during your embryiological development, when you were nothing a but an asshole so we didnt evolve from flatworms, flatworms evolved from same nephrozoan that human ancestors evolved from

They are dinosaurs

@@prosimian And dinosaurs are reptiles.

Highly specialized and highly diversed ones.

Thanks :)

omg others r like talk crap but every single word from was full of information hope u will be a popular youtuber

no, reptiles and synapsids (the only synapsids currently existing are mammalians) are two different branches of amniota. Mammalians didn't come from reptiles.

trezapoioiuy synapsids are reptiles though. We split from diapsids and anapsids.

@@CrypticlyEncrypted Only anapsids and diapsids are called reptiles. Synapsids have many traits, that distinginguish them from other amniotes and are the sister group to them, so they are no longer called reptiles. The common ancestor of all of them was a basal amniote. Amniotes did arise from a group of amphibian tetrapods that are called reptiliomorphs.

@@obiwahndagobah9543 True. but anapsids aren't reptiles? And all reptiles are diapsids, but not all diapsids are reptiles?

@@CrypticlyEncrypted Every diapsid is a reptile. and also anapsids are reptiles. Diapsids and anapsids are part of the group Sauropsida (reptiles). Sauropsida is the sister group to Synapsida. There is also a group called Captorhynids, which are basal reptiles outside of Anapsida and Diapsida, but I tried to to stay simple in my previous comment in order not to complicate things. Also some new cladistic analyses indicate that the so called "microsaurs", which are thought of to be part of the reptiliomorph lepospondyls, could be in fact be a paraphyletic grouping of the basalmost radiation of reptiles.

Only if you want to exclude the birds. But if we just redefine birds as a subgroup of reptiles, then it is monophyletic.

@@obiwahndagobah9543 Period!

I'd definitely gone over some of the things I wanted to say in my head and organized the stuff on the table in the order I wanted to go through them but I pretty much ad-libbed. I'd have to do more reading on the enantiornithes as I know little about them. I'm reading a book on tyrannosaurs and their phylogeny right now but at some point I want to plunge in depth into the avialae.

Birds are descendants of dinosaurs, therefore they are dinosaurs. You can not deny that. That is how classification works.

@@gatecharb8384 Study the growth and development of young Goshawks in the nest and as they grow will leave no doubt in your mind.They are still terrifyingly Dinosaurs!

All dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than they are to any living non-bird reptile. There has been some disagreement recently about whether sauropods or ornithischian dinosaurs are more closely related to theropods (including birds) but either way they're still closer to birds than anything else alive.

Birds are reptiles but yes, though the dinosaurs that are mostly related to birds are of course, Theropods

Please do some research before posting. What you wrote there is complete and utter nonsense.

@@tjarkschweizer My uncle was the one who discovered the connection between birds and Dinosaurs soo.... You do your research ;) If Birds are reptiles because they have a common ancestor, then we are all amphibians because we all branched off amphibians. The new extension of classification doesn't work.

@@markoproduction So instead of even considering my advice and at least fact checking yourself, you continue to be confidently incorrect. Of course birds are not reptiles because of *common* ancestry, they are reptiles because of *direct* ancestry! Birds directly descended from a reptilian ancestor but they never stopped being reptiles because you can't outgrow your ancestry. See, it is incredibly simple. The amphibian thing shows how outdated your understanding of the matter is. We did not descend from amphibians. Amphibians are a separate clade of tetrapods. We are reptiliomorphs, a sister clade to amphibians. This means that we have a common ancestor, which doesn't make us part of the other clade but it makes us both part of the larger clade Tetrapoda. Cladistics works, is easy to understand and the only classification system that accounts for the fossil record and genetics. You seem to have trouble understanding it though, which is the reason why I recommended you to do some research. It is incredibly easy to look all of this up.

@@tjarkschweizer OK Then Clades don't mix with the old class system. Also it shows direct ancestry, It doesn't mean we never outgrow our "direct" ancestry. At some point One species becomes two. At some point one Classification merges with another classification. Birds are a separate Classification that merges with Dinosaurs, which merges with Reptiles. That's evolution. Have a nice day ;)

@@markoproduction we mammals split off from dinosaurs millions of years ago.

Being amphibious and being an amphibian are two different things.

😄

"There is nothing in nature itself which is inherently already "classified". Everything in nature IS inherently classified. It's classified by its evolutionary history. This is the point of cladistic taxonomy. There is one and only one actual correct tree of relationships between every living thing that represents the actual evolutionary history of life. The goal of cladistic taxonomy is to uncover that tree and categorize everything so that all the descendants of any ancestor always remain in the same parent taxonomic category as their ancestors. For example, we might decide that a person born without limbs should be classified as a snake because they share the feature of limblessness with them. But that classification would be objectively wrong. That person is not a snake. They are human because they are descended from humans. They are not descended from snakes. No matter what traits their descendants gain or lose and how many sub-categories we create to categorize them, they will all still be human. Ancestry is a fact of nature that exists independently of our attempts at classification. Cladistic taxonomy attempts to bring our classification in line with the way things really are related. As such, some classifications are right and some are wrong. The fossil and genetic evidence strongly indicates that the classification of birds outside the group that includes crocodiles and lizards (reptiles) is wrong. If the evolutionary history we've reconstructed from the fossil and genetic data is correct, then birds are absolutely, objectively reptiles. You suggested that we could be classified as amphibians. But if amphibians are all more closely related to each other than they are to amniotes like ourselves then we absolutely cannot be considered part of that group because we are not descended from them. We could be considered amphibians if we include primitive fossil forms like icthyostega which are more distantly related to us than lissamphibians (modern "true" amphibians), but those are more properly known as basal tetrapods. Since we are descended from tetrapods we are indeed correctly classified as tetrapods along with amphibians. We are definitely fish, though. You'll notice in my diagram at the beginning of the video there are two lines leading to fish. This is illustrating that some fish are more closely related to everything else on that tree than to other fish. That means all the other vertebrate classes (the tetrapods) are actually a subset of fish for the same reason that birds were a subset of reptile because one branch of reptile is closer to birds than another. My diagram is actually oversimplified. There should be more fish lines. We are members of several different sub-categories of fish. We are chordates (all fish), gnathostomes (jawed fish), osteichthyans (bony fish) and sarcopterygiians (lobe-finned fish). We are fish many times over. You can't make a cladistic group that includes lungfish and goldfish that doesn't also include us because lungfish are more closely related to us than they are to goldfish.

But you can't just say black and white "birds are reptiles" while saying mammals and amphibians are separated because we are not closely related but also say we share in-between common ancestors. At what point a group of animals is so far distant from anther that they belong in two separate classification systems is debatable and there is no absolute. The branches from amphibians to reptiles clearly share many common ancestors but there is still a point at witch we draw a line and the grey areas are simply just that; grey areas. Everything in nature is NOT inherently classified because they are all connected and intertwined. Nature don't know it has classifications nor does it intend to do so, nature simply does what is best from the survival of the spices. classification is a measurement we use to decipher the world.

Exactly what I mean, Winged Wolf Star67. For you to say where a "split" in the ancestrial tree occurs, you also need to refer to certain criteria, and it is not objective, which criteria you choose or which split you choose as the beginning of a new species, family etc. It is a tool science uses to make sens of the world.

Just think of it as Amphibians and Amniotes are two lineages derived from Fish; our ancestors were not amphibians but fish

Just saying, every human child wich is growing in the mothers belly has gills and a tail. Just like fish