Well, they're distinct groups to scientists too. Nobody is saying dinosaur and bird are interchangeable terms. All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs were birds.
No one is saying that someone is saying that the terms are interchangeable :). The issue is that it’s not clear why “birds are dinosaurs” is correct but “birds evolved from dinosaurs” is not.
I don't think "birds evolved from dinosaurs" is incorrect per se, but it evokes a common misconception of what dinosaurs are, so you get people responding "birds are dinosaurs."
Consider by analogy "humans evolved from primates." Well ya, but humans also are primates.
I don’t think it’s a misconception at all, but rather science has its own definition and lay people have another. The definitions are useful to their respective camps. People who correct laypeople for using their definition are boring pedants.
I don't think that works. The lay persons definition is necessarily derived from the scientific one. "Dinosaur" wouldn't exist as a word or concept without scientific study.
Sorry to keep bringing up the same analogy, but do you also think it would be pedantic to correct "humans evolved from primates" to "humans are primates"?
The analogy doesn't apply because "primates" doesn't have a colloquial definition that excludes humans. "fish" or "reptiles" would be better examples. "Humans didn't evolve from reptiles; they are reptiles". I don't find it pertinent that the colloquial definition wouldn't exist without scientific study.
Fish and reptile aren't comparable terms to dinosaur. They started as colloquial terms and (as colloquially used) refer to groups based on traits, not phylogeny. Humans actually are not evolved from the phylogenetic group closest in content to "reptiles."
I guess you could argue the colloquial definition of dinosaur is similarly trait based, but even then... an ostrich is practically a small toothless T. rex.
