There is a big divide in the scientific community about this. What do you think and why?
2006-11-16 05:35:17 · 6 answers · asked by suekiemama@sbcglobal.net 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
depends on how you see them..many see them as huge reptiles and other as the precursor to birds. I personally have always though of them as cold blooded but my opinion is now changing because of the various locations of fossils (montana, Canada, russia)..
2006-11-16 05:44:24 · answer #1 · answered by jefferson 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now Im no paleiantgoist, but Im known for not getting alot of sun. From the arugments that I've read I would have to say that Dinosaurs had a bigger chance of being cold blooded rather then being Hot Blooded, whoops Warm blooded.
But that still doesnt explain why birds which (if you believe in evo-lu-tion) are the closest thing to DINOSUARS and are warm blooded.
2006-11-16 13:50:49 · answer #2 · answered by invader_butters 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the current scientific explanation is that the little-medium dinosaurs had high warm-blooded metabolisms, and that big dinosaurs were insulated by their size and didn't need to be warm-blooded, so they were cold-blooded (they didn't have to eat as much, which at their size if they did plants would be extinct)
2006-11-16 22:00:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
personally, I think it's probable that dinos were hot blooded. There is not sufficient evidence of that, but some arguments are that they were way too big to be cold blooded.
2006-11-16 13:41:40 · answer #4 · answered by Peter pan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cold blooded
2006-11-16 16:23:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are lizards, reptiles, therefore cold blooded.
2006-11-16 13:44:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋