Thread:107.77.90.53/@comment-2118191-20171015181326/@comment-2118191-20171016174105

Could be? No, he was definitely wrong. Crocodiles (and all archosaurs) are diapsids. There's nothing "could be" about it. His statements just spit in the face of what we know about the natural world.

I will admit, I got a little snappy, but that was only because he keeps jumping onto my talk page every time I delete something, even when I have a reason, and it was annoying. Also because he's done this before and it was debunked then.

I'd like to have at least think I've calmed down now, but his article is still wrong and still faulty, because he's made all these claims yet completely ignored the obvious - limb structure. The structure of a crocodilian's limbs are very different from that of a dinosaur's. He can say about the sensory pores and the swimming and the sail maybe being a hump all he wants, but when the structure of Spinosaurus' limbs are clearly that of a dinosaur, it means nothing.

Also, the pore thing...yes, crocodiles have those sensory pores, but so do sharks. Does that mean sharks are crocodiles? Or crocodiles are sharks? No, it doesn't. It's convergent evolution. Same for any feathers or lack-thereof....sauropods probably didn't have feathers, but they're not crocodiles. It's like how whales don't have fur, one of the key mammal traits, but they're still mammals.