You might have a point there. It may be due to the way people assume how dinosophonts will develop "in the future" of an alternate Mesozoic, and apply the trend of reduced teeth in potential d.sophont ancestors to their line of speculation.
Okay, I know almost zilch about biology, so this might sound newbish, but . . . how are those feet and legs supposed to support that body? They look a bit scrawny. Again, I 'm a newb who's just wondering, not criticising the logic behind it.
Still, it seems like a great design and refreshing to see people refute our inherent(?) humanoid bias in designing creatures.
Yes but even accounting for the reduction in jaw size he still probablywouldn't lose all the teeth. Reason birds lost their teeth was weight saving adaptation. And the only birds that lost their teeth that I'm aware of the Neornithines or the modern style birds I could wrong 'bout that though.
of course I'm a mammal so I may not propperly understand sentience.
The blatant ignorance of that evolved troodon always astounded me. It would require complete naiviety of non-human intelligence, discounting all manner of creatures with varying body-types (including chimpanzees) who'd require little to no modification to properly manipulate tools and build things and who already display some capacity for language (in dolphins, still not being completely sure what the extent of that language is). Why that man conveniently forgot about parrots and corvids, I'll never know. It takes a special kind of anthropocentrism to imagine that.
Dammit, right. Because the only way you can manipulate objects is if you have fingers on hands. Or that intelligence depends entirely on the ability to manipulate objects (what cetaceans? I see no cetaceans!)