Birds should have evolved from flying reptiles such as pterosaurs, and there is no need to create a separate "Archaeopteryx". They use their body temperature to protect their eggs and young birds from severe cold, an important transition from cold-blooded animals to mammals. There is also an important proof and an important transition in the platypus although oviparous but suckling (oviparous mammals). The platypus has no breasts and nipples, but milks the young on the sides of the abdomen. This is also an important transition from cold-blooded animals to mammals.
There are also marsupial mammals such as kangaroos, which are relatively primitive mammals. Their way of protecting their young from the cold is by sacking them. Perhaps because the warmer climate of mainland Australia prevented the further evolution of kangaroos. I can fully imagine that other continents originally had kangaroos, and the relative coldness of the climate prompted them to further evolve, resulting in a theoretical false extinction.
Because I don't have a lot of evidence to prove it, this can only be said to be an assumption of mine. But advanced assumptions are often so important that they influence the use of historical evidence. Many biologists use the study of geological layers to imagine the past, but perhaps they have only developed a small page of historical evolution. The presence of certain animal fossils, such as dinosaur fossils, is not sufficient proof that such animals would suddenly die out.
I think in the Cretaceous or many ancient times, because of the colder temperatures, many cold-blooded animals could not withstand the cold and gave birth to hair, and many large animals began to dormant, burrowed to have more time to breastfeed their eggs, and because of lack of exercise, they shrank in size, Continue their consistent footsteps towards mammalian evolution. Or return to the water to withstand the severe cold, which can be said to be a self-degeneration, like a crocodile.
Many oviparous animals may be able to carry eggs and migrate through the body during reproduction, giving birth to more viviparous animals. Or inhabiting other creatures like the egg-laying animals in Alien, of course, things in the movies are always exaggerated, but it is definitely a good idea, this kind of thing may not exist on our planet, but it does not mean that it is in other It does not exist on the planet, the key is whether this parasitic behavior is feasible.
There are also some views in the biological world now that some dinosaurs have hair on their bodies and are warm-blooded. This really does not coincide with me.
Regarding the biological world calling "Archaeopteryx" and "Archaeopteryx", I disagree very much. There is no such thing as an "ancestor" at all. Biological evolution comes from bacteria, and then becomes unicellular and multicellular... To say the ancestor, can it be said that bacteria are the ancestor? And where did the bacteria come from? Perhaps the alienation or accidental combination of elements. And because of the diversity of cosmic elements, all kinds of "ancestral bacteria" are the real ancestors. In my opinion, any living thing is made up of chemical elements, and most of the human body is composed of water and calcium. How to evolve inorganic matter into organic matter, perhaps we should start with the proposition of "using elements to create new bacteria".
In the process of the earth's own evolution, in different periods, master creators like nature use different elements to produce more new bacteria under the new environmental variation, and under suitable conditions, they continue to evolve new biological populations . But it is absolutely impossible to have a large-bodied "ancestral animal" as an ancestor. The intelligence of each species is the criterion for judging their evolutionary age. From this I deduce that humans are the oldest creatures.
There will always be survivors of many mass extinction events, and they will evolve due to their environment. Nuclear radiation can deform offspring, and a deformity is a mutation. Changes such as the generation of radioactive elements due to migration, soil and water changes, and nuclear explosions are persistent. And various influences may be an encouragement to cold-blooded animals and primitive creatures with low IQ.
In my opinion, the diet of organisms played a decisive role in the evolution of organisms. (It should be called the "food chain" in the biological world.) It is obvious that herbivores are more likely to survive than carnivores. Pandas are a good example. A long time ago, pandas were carnivores, but they eventually evolved into herbivores. This is a natural adaptation to the environment. Pandas are still called carnivores because they are in the process of evolution.
The reproductive capacity of carnivores is obviously not as strong as that of herbivores. Easterners eat less meat than Westerners, so their reproductive drive is always strong. In the animal kingdom, carnivores always occupy a small proportion, at least their feeding base is much smaller than that of herbivores. If they want to eat other animals, they must be counterattacked by other animals, so they must reflect on the danger and cost of this counterattack. Even if carnivores eat up other animals, they will inevitably change their eating habits due to the difficulty of finding food, and then eat grasses that are easier to find.
Many biologists believe that the Big Bang or climate change has caused the extinction of a single feeder many times in history. I don't think this demise will be "abrupt", and it won't be extinction, but "decrease in numbers." It is said that many animals such as amphibians survived by feeding on the omnivores on the banks of the river. Now we can fully imagine that animals close to the water may return to the water to survive and evolve into amphibians. In the history of the biological world, it is difficult to completely distinguish the herbivorous carnivory of animals in ancient times. Perhaps there is no complete single herbivorous carnivory, but which way is easier to eat. Omnivorous, insectivorous, and scavenger are more likely to survive. People can eat people when they are hungry, and they can also eat mud, feces and maggots. Domestic pigs evolved from wild boars, do they only eat pig grass? Perhaps the world is more likely to survive mud-eating creatures, such as earthworms and plants. Just because plants cannot move quickly and accept environmental changes.
Herb-eating necessarily changes temperament. Herb-eating reduces the aggression of animals, but perhaps enables them to use their minds better. At the same time, if it is herbivorous and can live in groups, this reproductive ability is quite strong.
Now I think the ancestor of man, let's say it was called "ape", was quite aggressive. They eat meat, hunt, and they live in groups out of fear. In the process of thinking about the difficulty of eating meat, they also eat grass, and then improve and improve the grass valley. Because of eating grass, the survival ability of human beings is greatly enhanced. Due to the difference in the proportion of herbivorous and meat-eating, the corresponding races have different physiques and temperaments. Orientals are smaller than Westerners, which may be the direction of the evolution of large animals to small animals. Many people say that dwarfs are smarter (which excludes deformed dwarfs), and perhaps their ancestors evolved long enough. And perhaps herbivores are more likely to secrete emulsions, which may also be the key to the evolution of cold-blooded animals to mammals.
From these assumptions I have deduced, it can be seen that the evolution of Easterners is much more accelerated than that of Westerners. Therefore, the wisdom of the oriental people has more shining points. But because meat-eating is aggressive, many acts of aggression in history have been from the north to the south and the west to the east. Because there are many herbivores in the south and east, but in the end the herbivores can survive and replace the carnivores. This is also my theory of evolution, because carnivores do not only kill herbivores, but herbivores have a strong desire to survive and have excellent counterattack wisdom!
And I imagine that aggressive creatures are all carnivores. From this, it can be affirmed that the aliens in "Alien" are carnivorous creatures.
Some biologists believe that the influence of atmospheric composition has a great effect on biological evolution. I agree, hypothetically, if the earth is getting more and more oxygen, will human beings evolve faster. But I heard that animal husbandry produces more greenhouse gases, and many experts call for human beings to be vegetarians. Ha, is this the inevitable course of human evolution destined in the dark?
There is a saying in the biological world that dinosaur eggs were often eaten by other animals, which led to the extinction of dinosaurs. I think, first of all, this might force cold-blooded oviparous animals to evolve more towards mammals. Or, as in the movie Alien, evolve into alien eggs that can attack and parasitize thieves. Mammals are parasitic eggs in the mother's body, but the name is changed, it is called viviparous.
In addition, the filming of the "Alien" series of movies can completely see the regression of science fiction movies. It is a mistake and failure to pay more and more attention to realism and to be close to modern military technology, and to reduce the assumption and reliance on future science. In this film, a significant change is that the flamethrower has become more realistic, but it is still an open flame of blue flame. Maybe the flamethrower without open flame will be used in the future. In fact, the flamethrower should not be used in the first "Alien". musket. But the "Alien" series is definitely a classic sci-fi movie, and "Alien 2" is very exciting.
View more about Aliens reviews
