Why we think dinosaurs is green and grey if we only see their bones?
342176
Most lizards are green, probably for camouflage.\n\nSince dinosaurs are lizard-like, they are expected to be green.\n\nHowever, dinosaurs are expected to be a variety of colors, green does not have much of an advantage. Lizards, though primarily green, can have a variety of colors or be able to change colors.\n\nAlso, it's easier to imagine a green dinosaur then a bright pink dinosaur. :D
470322
Chickens, being primarily diurnal (day living) birds (a group that tends to have good vision and colour acuity) probably have at least some ability to distinguish colour.\n\nThe usually drab markings of most chickens (especially wild Galliformes like grouse) are probably more for camoflage than due to an inability to see colour.  There are some Galliform avians that definitely have bright plumage for mate attraction, indicating that colour vision is present in those species (most notably Pavo cristatus - the Peacock), so it's likely that chickens can too.
840161
They're mentioned in the Bible I think in the way that a primitive society would write about dinosaurs. As giant beast and dragons and so forth.\n\nIf you listen to most Christians rhetoric about the dinosaurs, you'll realize they cannot reconcile archaeological findings with their own beliefs. Many of them deny the existence of dinosaurs all together. Some say they're not as old as science has claimed. Some even say they lived on other planets and when G*d used the material to make the earth he took the bones with it.\n\nThe fact of the matter is we are living with people who use an outdated reference guide for life. They cannot admit that they've been had. The earth is not 6000 years old. The earth is not 10,000 years old. Dinosaurs DID exist. And we evolved from a species similar to ourselves.\n\nI won't claim G*D did not create the dinosaurs....as I don't know. \nAnd I won't claim science is perfect....we all know it's not.\nBut when you take the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and throw it all out the window because of a book your mommy told you was true.....well, that's just stupid.
962220
There's a lot more evidence than that which ties dinosaurs and birds together.\n\nChemical makeup is not where the support for the "scales" of the dinosaur evolving into feather comes from. It comes from the fossilized outlines of feathers found surrounding certain fossils.\n\nThey share many skeletal features, including the shapes of their hips, a shape only found in dinosaurs and birds.\n\nThey shared very similar lung structures, which are a series of air sacs, very different than what we have.\n\nThey had four chamber hearts, again, much like birds have.\n\nCertain fossils have been found that suggest some dinosaurs slept like birds, with their heands tucked under their arms.\n\nThe use of gizzard stones was common between both species.\n\nThis is called convergence. Many different pieces of evidence that come together to support a claim. Is it airtight? Is it absolutely certain that birds evolved from dinosaurs? No. However, even if it isn't true, this is not an either/or choice. It does not mean that a god created them.\n\nOh, and birds didn't come from pterodactyls. In fact, pterodactyls aren't technically dinosaurs. The closest common ancestor between birds and dinosaurs would have come from the raptors.
1176992
It has to do with the depth of the stone when found in the mine. Blue to green would be from a specimen closer to the surface and the green to red is buried deeper within the earth. Of course light plays a roll in the color prism of the alexandrites.
595540
The popei plant came around right as the dinosaurs were going extinct... most dinosaurs has really small nasal cavities...\nmakes you think....
725060
Whoa! slow down, there is fossil evidence a transition from reptiles and birds. Most famously Archeopteryx with reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, and mainly unfused bones, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers!! In older sediments, there are theropod dinosaurs with skeletal similarities to Archeopteryx. In younger sediments, there are several fossils with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").\n\nFossils of scales and feathers are very very rarely preserved. Imprints of the Archeopteryx feathers are only preserved because the fossils are embedded in very rare, very fine limestone that used to be used in lithography. It is unreasonable to demand fossil evidence of a transition between scales and feathers. That said, there are several theropod fossils with feathers that have been recently discovered in a fine Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus.\n\nBut sure, every detail of the the transition from reptiles to birds isn't documented. Other than demanding an excessive amount of evidence, I really don't know what arguments you can use, I don't think there are any true ones. But you might find some convincing sounding ones on Creationist propaganda websites. It depends on your audience.
1127519
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm explains everything.
64165
according to the geographic history. we have lots of dinosaurs laying eggs on earth even before the chickens arrive and laye their own eggs. therefore eggs come first before chickens.. hehehe...
451973
Biology will tell you no, but think about this...\n\nI have always wondered, what if the color you see as yellow is the color I see as green?  See, we are all taught colors, so if I was seeing "green" but my parents had always told me it was "yellow,"  I would learn to call it yellow.  So colors could theoretically be relative.  We are taught that they sky is blue, but if we had always been told that they sky was orange, we would think the color blue was called orange.  See what I mean?\n\nThere is probably some biologist out there who can find some way to argue with me about wavelengths of light and ours eyes and something else to try to prove that we all see the same color, but for arguments sake, I like the theoretical argument better.
914941
I'm not too sure, but I would assume that it's green (532 nm), which is the most visible color for most humans.
622854
Dinosaurs are still the most diverse class on the planet, but we call them birds! Pretty cool huh? As an amature paleontologist I can honestly say the no professional paleontologist can honestly that any classic dinosaurs are still around. Another thing about dinos: Dinosaurs were land living animals so no dinos lived in the oceans. Sometimes fossilization is not total and some original bone is still in the fossil and sometimes it appears bleached and to the untrained eye looks fresh. Sorry, but no paleontologist has told me (I am in contact with most of them) that there is a possibility that classic dinosaurs are extant (not extinct) except for their only direct descendents - the class Aves (birds).
37162
Oddly enough there are only two pigments in birds and amphibians two, exactly the same two pigments. Yet we see birds and frogs in every colour of the rainbow. So we really shouldn’t be surprised to see a few bright mammals.\n \nThe way that animals usually generate blue and green colours is by utilising fibres arranged in rows or grids to refract light. That allows the skin to scatter the short blue and green wavelengths back to the observer while absorbing the longer reds. In the case of the mandrill the skin contains rows of collagen fibres designed to achieve exactly that purpose.\n\nThe only other blue mammal I know of is the vervet monkey, which has bright blue testicles. You can see a picture of one in the link below.
477694
It's not true.\n\nMost animals don't have much in the way of eyes at all, of course, but you're probably more interested in vertebrates.\n\nMost vertebrates have very good color vision.  The primary exception is mammals.  (Snakes are also an exception, for similar reasons.)  We got a bit shafted because our ancestors in the Mesozoic (age of dinosaurs) were all nocturnal.  Nocturnal animals don't really need color vision (black & white works better in the dark), so our ancestors mostly lost it.  Then the dinosaurs died off and mammals retook the day and have been putting color vision back together ever since.\n\nMammalian color vision is, thus, not quite as good as that of the rest of the vertebrates.  Cats and dogs do have color vision, but not as good as ours, and ours isn't as good as that of most reptiles.
967532
They can't, actually, not without mixing it with another creature. Because all cells come from cells. You'd have to put the dino DNA into a modern reptile cell. And it does matter, because it is cellular machinery that brings about gene expression - and that can have a huge effect on gene expression. (epigenetic inheritance) So you would not really know what trait was dinosaur, and what was artifact from expressing the genes in a modern reptile cell. \n\nStill and all, it would be fun, I agree!
1072062
both are right.. in science studies, they only proved that dinosaurs came first. but in the bible, we cant question it bec its gods words
1177434
There is no way that we can be 100% certain if they were warm or cold blooded.  Based on the paleontological evidence such as the structure of their bones, their rates of growth, evidence of feathers, etc. most paleontologists believe that at least some dinosaurs were warm blooded.  Birds are warm blooded and if dinosaurs are, in fact, the ancestors of birds, then most likely dinosaurs (or at least those direct ancestors of birds) were warmblooded too.\n\n"Warm blooded" and "cold blooded" are generally considered archaic as there are more than just the two methods of thermo-regulation.  However, in gernal, "cold blooded" refers to an animal who's body temperature is not constant, whereas "warm blooded" animals maintain a constant body temperature.