The reading and lecturer are both talking about classifying the dinosaurs under the endothermic animals or not; which, got an agreement of the reading and disagreement the lecture that both opinion has been supported by the argument of each one of them.
The reading consider that the dinosaurs are endothermic; that explained through two reasons: the fossils of the dinosaurs that found in the polar areas; where, in such a weather conditions, the active animals could adapt with the low temperature.
Moreover, the underneath leg position of the dinosaurs; which, enable it from running in order to keep them warmer. Another reason, is the bone structure which called the Haversian canals. The Haversian canals is responsible about the rapidly growth of the animals; which, is one of the indicators about the endothermic.
The lecturer has totally refutes the fact the the dinosaurs were endothermic and he gave the following reasons as a contradiction with the reading: The fossils is not a reason for being dinosaurs endothermic since they are look like the other animals affect by warm and can migrate to the places that would have such a weather. Furthermore, being the dinosaurs has their legs under their bodies doesn't mean they are high energy and endothermic; but, its only for running. The body structure of the dinosaurs supports their weight; while, the legs under their body give advantage for having a large size. The advantage of the large body doesn't need for the dinosaurs to be endothermic & running in order to support the idea of putting their legs under-their bodies. The Haversian canals that named as the bone growth rings: is the thickning of the bone that indicate the periods of time for the growth of the dinosaurs; which, would be rapidly then slow and vise versa. The rapid and slowing pattern of the growth is not an evidence about being the dinosaurs an endothermic animals: which should be having a constant body temperature and growing rapidly even if the temperature is cold.
Finally, the passage and the lecturer both refutes each other; where, each one of them has its own arguments that we should in the previous comparison.