That's not believed--OneShotHelpful is wrong. Read their Wikipedia link carefully--there's no support for the claim. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithischia

>Ornithischia (/ˌɔːrnəˈθɪski.ə/) is an extinct order of mainly herbivorous dinosaurs characterized by a pelvic structure superficially similar to that of birds.

The key word here being "superficially".

>However, birds are only distantly related to this group as birds are theropod dinosaurs.[3] Ornithischians with well known anatomical adaptations include the ceratopsians or "horn-faced" dinosaurs (e.g. Triceratops), the pachycephalosaurs or "thick-headed" dinosaurs, the armored dinosaurs (Thyreophora) such as stegosaurs and ankylosaurs, and the ornithopods.

Only the last of those was bipedal. And of course all of these bipeds had quadrupedal ancestors--we're all tetrapods.

Daniel Dennett--a champion of the theory of evolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea )--has written extensively on why the word is warranted (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Bacteria_to_Bach_and_Back).

Strawman ... no one came anywhere near to saying anything about evidence of the absence of intelligence. A claim that X is not evidence of Y is very different from a claim that X is evidence of not Y.

> Every model of intelligence I'm familiar with includes memory as a significant component

Fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. Intelligence is a sign that there is memory, not v.v.

P.S. No, I did not commit a fallacy of denying the antecedent (which is the contrapositive of and thus logical equivalent of affirmation of the consequent), and it's not a game. And you just committed the same fallacy again ... yes models of intelligence include memory -- that's what I said. But memory does not entail intelligence -- again, that inversion is your fallacy.

Exactly. But that doesn't mean that the radiation is "safe", which is what I responded to.

Who said it's safe? Risk is relative.

Note that that is not the question that you actually asked--in fact, it is much different, because even if "bats have the virus" that wouldn't tell us which bats were the original source ... surely the answer you're looking for as to "which animal" isn't simply "bats".

Precision is important in science. Speaking of which: COVID-19 is a disease. You presumably want to know about the origin of the virus, SARS-CoV-2. This distinction is particularly relevant to your question because an animal might well harbor the virus without having any disease symptoms, or it could have disease symptoms different from those that present in humans.

As for the origin: note that it took 14 years from the first case of SARS-1 until the originating bat population was stumbled upon. For numerous reasons, such a discovery may well never happen for SARS-CoV-2. (One of those possible reasons is something I dare not mention here, but you're likely to run across it if you google "Alina Chan".)

I would edit that to remove "coronavirus-2 or" -- it's not nearly the second coronavirus ever detected and I don't think it's ever been referred to by that label (other than in your comment). Wikipedia says "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2)" -- you can't just drop the first 4 words.

That's a different question that should be asked separately, it's a public health question, not a virology question, and it shouldn't be limited to coronaviruses.

No, that does not follow. Consider that rational fractions like 1/7 have infinite decimal expansions but only a very small number of patterns occur. Even for irrational numbers with non-repeating expansions like pi or sqrt (2) we can't be certain that every pattern occurs.

No, it's not something we evolved to do ... that we can do it is a side effect of adaptations, it's not an adaptation itself.

AIDS is a disease; HIV is the cause. Similarly, COVID-19 is a disease and SARS-CoV-2 is the cause. COVID-19 is obviously not a symptom; coughing etc. are. For AIDS, weight loss and night sweats are among the symptoms.

Spider behavior is considerably more complex than what's being described here.