Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 139 of 139
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: "Why did the dinosaurs die out?"

  1. #101  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    If this is true, then why did only mammals survive the mass extinction and not small dinosaurs? I thought that mammals survived largely because they were endothermic and didn't need to rely on external temperatures as much (and they could burrow and hibernate, etc). Or did small mammals simply outcompete the small dinosaurs which survived...or did they go extinct earlier on and weren't even there to compete with in the first place?
    As Strange said, birds are left over from Dinosaurs. Even in some dinosaur finds they're beginning to find evidence of feathers. Velociraptors, the famous monsters from the book "Jurassic Park" are an example.

    Contrary to the book's description of them, they are currently believed to have looked more like this:




    Velociraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    If this is true, then why did only mammals survive the mass extinction and not small dinosaurs?
    Birds are (descendants of [small?]) dinosaurs.
    Well, yes. I should have clarified. I meant why didn't a larger number of specie survive?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepotter84 View Post
    If this is true, then why did only mammals survive the mass extinction and not small dinosaurs?
    Birds are (descendants of [small?]) dinosaurs.
    Well, yes. I should have clarified. I meant why didn't a larger number of specie survive?
    The generalists are most likely the ones to survive and spread into other niches after the event. In many places Birds did dominate for a while, but the mammals were faster at reproducing.

    And no, there still isnt any evidence of notable selective pressures from egg predation
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And no, there still isnt any evidence of notable selective pressures from egg predation
    but in general we should be able to establish the effect of egg predation on the reproduction strategies of current egg-laying species ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    Is a Jurassic Park possible? It seems a bit odd that the annhilation of dinos was so complete. Something must have survived somewhere. Somewhere where we havent looked.
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Something must have survived somewhere.
    any particular reason why this should be so ? after all, there's loads of animal groups that once flourished and are now extinct
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Is a Jurassic Park possible? It seems a bit odd that the annhilation of dinos was so complete. Something must have survived somewhere. Somewhere where we havent looked.
    Where would you suggest that is unexplored enough to host a viable population of at least 500-1000 dinosaurs?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Is a Jurassic Park possible? It seems a bit odd that the annhilation of dinos was so complete. Something must have survived somewhere. Somewhere where we havent looked.
    It's not odd, but I'm sure it is frightening. We could easily join them as the next totally extinct species.

    Anyway, there is nowhere left to look that holds any promise. A giant dinosaur would need to live where there is lots and lots of vegetation, and humans like to live in those places as well.

    It would be quite a surprise for one to exist and yet not have heard about it from any natives.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Is a Jurassic Park possible? It seems a bit odd that the annhilation of dinos was so complete. Something must have survived somewhere. Somewhere where we havent looked.
    99% or more of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Not being extinct is an oddity. (Humans are doing their best to reduce the number of oddities.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman Tyrannosaurus Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    62
    Hi everyone,

    I didn't want to open new thread(if i should tell me)so i will ask here.
    How did Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in bone of T-Rex if they are old 68 million years ago?
    This is my 3th question about dinosaurs,sorry im boring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And no, there still isnt any evidence of notable selective pressures from egg predation
    but in general we should be able to establish the effect of egg predation on the reproduction strategies of current egg-laying species ?
    I lack a decisive answer. Pong's hypothesis is more broadly "offspring predation" to which hard eggs are just one solution - live birth being yet another.

    "To establish the effect of egg predation on the reproduction strategies of current egg-laying species" ... I'm thinking about clownfish. One could say a resistance to anemone sting is an adaptation of the adult clownfish, simply for the survival of the adult clownfish. But in line with my hypothesis, we should say the adaptation is "mostly for" keeping eggs and young in the safety of anenomes; the adult's survival being less important. This is kinda like saying flighted dinosaurs were mostly doing it to nest in safe locations; advantages of flight to the adult being secondary. I think that is demonstrated by the majority of birds, where normal activity does not require flight, but they use flight to crucial advantage where seasonal and protected nesting is concerned.

    Alternately we could go back in time and look at why reptiles happened in the first place. If I'm not mistaken the original advantage was eggs that didn't dry out, so they could be deposited in relative safety, then, on land. Later (compare wings) the opportunity to live as a dedicated terrestrial proved fruitful. This of course would lead to a resurgence in offspring predation... but that's how it goes, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    (after the event) In many places Birds did dominate for a while, but the mammals were faster at reproducing.
    Why faster? I think you're saying mammals reach sexual maturity earlier, so evolve faster...? IDK... modern fowl and mammals of comparable size breed at about the same age. Besides at the smaller sizes most are constrained to breed no sooner than next summer.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And no, there still isnt any evidence of notable selective pressures from egg predation
    but in general we should be able to establish the effect of egg predation on the reproduction strategies of current egg-laying species ?
    I lack a decisive answer. Pong's hypothesis is more broadly "offspring predation" to which hard eggs are just one solution - live birth being yet another.

    "To establish the effect of egg predation on the reproduction strategies of current egg-laying species" ... I'm thinking about clownfish. One could say a resistance to anemone sting is an adaptation of the adult clownfish, simply for the survival of the adult clownfish. But in line with my hypothesis, we should say the adaptation is "mostly for" keeping eggs and young in the safety of anenomes; the adult's survival being less important. This is kinda like saying flighted dinosaurs were mostly doing it to nest in safe locations; advantages of flight to the adult being secondary. I think that is demonstrated by the majority of birds, where normal activity does not require flight, but they use flight to crucial advantage where seasonal and protected nesting is concerned.

    Alternately we could go back in time and look at why reptiles happened in the first place. If I'm not mistaken the original advantage was eggs that didn't dry out, so they could be deposited in relative safety, then, on land. Later (compare wings) the opportunity to live as a dedicated terrestrial proved fruitful. This of course would lead to a resurgence in offspring predation... but that's how it goes, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    (after the event) In many places Birds did dominate for a while, but the mammals were faster at reproducing.
    Why faster? I think you're saying mammals reach sexual maturity earlier, so evolve faster...? IDK... modern fowl and mammals of comparable size breed at about the same age. Besides at the smaller sizes most are constrained to breed no sooner than next summer.
    Its not the breeding age you need to look at, its the gestation time of the eggs, small mammals are likely to have a shorter gestation time, and are more mobile while pregnant before birthing.

    And you have still not provided evidence of you hypothesis, rather lots of analogies to modern times, which have notable distinctions that make the comparisons tenuous.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    (mammals were faster at reproducing) Its not the breeding age you need to look at, its the gestation time of the eggs, small mammals are likely to have a shorter gestation time, and are more mobile while pregnant before birthing.
    Um, I think it boils down to the time between generations. The time from conception to sexual maturity. This tends to diminish with size in all organisms, but with terrestrial plants and animals the advantages of breeding in season (e.g. summer) generally locks them to the same rate: one generation per year. Most small birds and mammals conform to this same calendar.

    Multiply by number of eggs or babies. But mammals obviously can't support more offspring than they have teats. That rules out the strategy of spawning a great number of low-odds offspring, for mammals.

    Sorry, I'm not wanting to argue your statement. But neither am I convinced yet.

    I do agree that generalist mammals could occupy fresh niches better than birds/dinosaurs that were specialized for ones destroyed.

    It seems to me that explanations for why mammals survived, are unnecessarily indirect. Why not the simplest answer, that is primary to mammals: live birth...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And you have still not provided evidence of you hypothesis, rather lots of analogies to modern times, which have notable distinctions that make the comparisons tenuous.
    OK you won't let modern examples support my hypothesis. Could you please answer these non-rhetorical questions:

    1) Would you agree that the salient trait of the first reptiles (or amniotes if you like) was having eggs that could be deposited on land?

    2) When all vertebrates were aquatic, what was the most obvious advantage to putting eggs out of the water?

    3) Would you agree that this paved the way for a completely terrestrial life cycle?



    I believe that after answering those questions honestly, one must conclude this major step in evolution - from water to land - was initiated by an adaptation to reduce offspring predation. Then one logically supposes the same evolutionary driver could apply to other eras. My hypothesis, to repeat, is that major surviving adaptations of the mesozoic era, such as hard eggshell, flight, and live birth, initially served to reduce offspring predation. Additionally, I propose that species lacking these defenses were stressed and less likely to survive a cataclysm.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,506
    Last edited by Strange; July 24th, 2013 at 05:06 PM. Reason: inline image
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21
    parag - I'm sure...that on some far-away planet in our universe --- on some planet that supports carbon based life --- dinosaurs are living somewhere. After the asteroid impact about 65 million years ago, available plant life on sea/land took a major plunge, giving the dinosaurs with major meat/plant appetites a distinct disadvantage over the smaller mammalians. I tend to speculate that the dinosaurs came first in Earth history, because of size and meat plant eating capabilities advantages over the mammals.
    "Energy and persistence conquer all things." - Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Came first in comparison to what?

    And Dinosaurs are unique to earth, the amount of variables needed to create them most likely can't have occurred twice.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21
    Paleoichneum - I tend to speculate...that on typical Earth type planets in our universe --- based on evolution from Earth's history --- the odds tend to favor {barring any large cosmic collisions or catastrophes after life has gained a major foothold for bipedal and quadrupedal creatures of the dinosaur family tree; because basically --- the dinosaurs are superior to the mammals --- because they would have eaten any mammals running around with ease.
    "Energy and persistence conquer all things." - Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Ahhh, so in that case, dinosaurs would NOT have gained a foothold and life would have taken a Very different course of evolution on ALL the worlds as they would not have gone through the Cambrian, Silurian and Permian extinction events (all environmental and specific to this planet) that cleared the way for small reptiles to diversify into dinosaurs and mammals.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,506
    And, of course, there is no reason to assume that another planet, however Earth-like, would have anything resembling reptiles or mammals never mind anything as specific as dinosaurs. Even if you replayed evolution on Earth, under the same conditions, you could end up with something completely different.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21
    I like to play the odds. The odds...I believe, will support the evolution of highly intelligent life --- on typical Earth type planets --- be it in the dinosaur or mammalian family tree's. Granted, any previous Earth epoch's of primitive life forms, that could have justifiably had there chance on the evolutionary life scale, but I'll still tend to hedge my bet's on the success of evolution with the dinosaur/mammal family tree; on typical Earth type planets --- such is my hope. Cheers, Erno
    "Energy and persistence conquer all things." - Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21
    Strange -- I'll also speculate: That on many typical Earth-type planet's in our universe {that supports carbon based life}, with the proper nutrition --- will evolve highly intelligent life --- of the bipedal variety...be they dinosauroid or humanoid; because of bipedal dexterity and intelligence.
    "Energy and persistence conquer all things." - Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    he odds...I believe, will support the evolution of highly intelligent life
    Care to show how you calculate these odds based, no doubt, on your in-depth knowledge of evolutionary theory, exo-biology and the geochemistry of alien worlds?

    be it in the dinosaur or mammalian family tree's
    How can they be in the "dinosaur or mammalian family trees" when they are not related? The absolute best you could hope for is that they may look vaguely similar. Beyond that, not a chance.

    It is even possible that evolution would not work in the same way on another planet.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    Strange -- I'll also speculate: That on many typical Earth-type planet's in our universe {that supports carbon based life}, with the proper nutrition --- will evolve highly intelligent life --- of the bipedal variety...be they dinosauroid or humanoid; because of bipedal dexterity and intelligence.
    Your speculation fails utterly after your exo-worlds pass the point in time that earth was in its "snowball earth" period. ALL life and evolution after that will diverge massively from what happened on earth. You can root for dinosaurs or mammals all you want because they are sexy to you, but they would not evolve, period.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Erno, I'm curious as to what leads you to suspect that evolution would produce such seemingly familiar forms as dinosaurs and mammals on other planets. What is the basis for this suspicion? It is an interesting one. Do you have any solid reason to support it that might persaude others to take a second look at it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    parag - I'm sure...
    oh for the joys of fact-free certainty, for there is nothing that can budge it

    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    I like to play the odds. The odds...I believe, ...
    if you had any feel for probability, you would put your money on a planet having no life, and if it did, the highest probability is for life to be of the prokaryotic kind

    imagine : if no bacterium had discovered a way to photsynthesize, chances are that there would be no eukaryotes
    no eukaryotes, no multicellular life - no multicellular life, no dinosaurs

    so much for probability
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Erno, I'm curious as to what leads you to suspect that evolution would produce such seemingly familiar forms as dinosaurs and mammals on other planets. What is the basis for this suspicion? It is an interesting one. Do you have any solid reason to support it that might persaude others to take a second look at it?
    The basic evolutionary physical and intelligent traits of the human body and mind, support the odds that other similar biological life on other similar habitable planets {given the time and luck}, exist as well. One of my other reasons... is my own {and other's as well}, visual sighting/sighting's of otherworlder starships, cavorting around in our atmosphere; here on Earth.
    "Energy and persistence conquer all things." - Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    The basic evolutionary physical and intelligent traits of the human body and mind, support the odds that other similar biological life on other similar habitable planets {given the time and luck}, exist as well.
    You can't conclude that from a sample size of 1.

    One of my other reasons... is my own {and other's as well}, visual sighting/sighting's of otherworlder starships, cavorting around in our atmosphere here on Earth.
    You have not seen "otherworlder starships". (Apart from the fact there is no evidence for such things visiting Earth, your ridiculous pronouncements on this forum mean that anything you say has zero credibility.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    The basic evolutionary physical and intelligent traits of the human body and mind, support the odds that other similar biological life on other similar habitable planets {given the time and luck}, exist as well.
    All you've doen here is make (another) unsubstantiated claim.
    You've explained nothing.

    One of my other reasons... is my own {and other's as well}, visual sighting/sighting's of otherworlder starships, cavorting around in our atmosphere; here on Earth.
    There have been no sightings of "otherworlder starships".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Erno, I'm curious as to what leads you to suspect that evolution would produce such seemingly familiar forms as dinosaurs and mammals on other planets. What is the basis for this suspicion? It is an interesting one. Do you have any solid reason to support it that might persaude others to take a second look at it?
    The basic evolutionary physical and intelligent traits of the human body and mind, support the odds that other similar biological life on other similar habitable planets {given the time and luck}, exist as well. One of my other reasons... is my own {and other's as well}, visual sighting/sighting's of otherworlder starships, cavorting around in our atmosphere; here on Earth.

    Neither of these pronouncements are actually viable. And you have YET to acknowledge that your own initial caveat of "
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86
    barring any large cosmic collisions or catastrophes


    Has been shown to invalidate your own speculation due to the multiple environmentally caused extinction events BEFORE the dinosaurs even evolved.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Hey! But if the dinosaurs evolved into birds and so there are no dinosaurs around any more ... how come we evolved from monkeys but there are still monkeys around !?!!1!?
    No, the theory says that:
    monkeys + missing link = Human
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    The reason that no aliens have contacted us is because of our ghosts. The aliens arrive in their UFO's and the ghosts scare them away. Earth has tough ghosts!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by noah0010 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Hey! But if the dinosaurs evolved into birds and so there are no dinosaurs around any more ... how come we evolved from monkeys but there are still monkeys around !?!!1!?
    No, the theory says that:
    monkeys + missing link = Human
    No, the theory does not say that. The sequence is actually last common ancestor + genetic drift + mutation + time = humans AND monkeys

    Claiming its monkeys and a missing link is incorrect.
    Neverfly likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,506
    Quote Originally Posted by noah0010 View Post
    No, the theory says that:
    monkeys + missing link = Human
    Oh good grief. Where do they keep coming from.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by noah0010 View Post
    No, the theory says that:
    monkeys + missing link = Human
    You listen only to your Pastor and never bothered to do independent research:
    Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
    Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Erno86 View Post
    One of my other reasons... is my own {and other's as well}, visual sighting/sighting's of otherworlder starships, cavorting around in our atmosphere; here on Earth.
    There you go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Oh good grief. Where do they keep coming from.
    Monkeys. Do try to pay attention.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    13
    As far as I'm concerned they didn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    women dinosaurs got educated and discovered birth control
    population growth stopped, then reversed
    by the time of the asteroid, they were so few that they couldn't recover
    ...............
    alternately,
    they discovered how to make fire, but never learned how to control it
    and our ancestors ancestors dined on roast dinosaur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    The reason that no aliens have contacted us is because of our ghosts. The aliens arrive in their UFO's and the ghosts scare them away. Earth has tough ghosts!
    Does this mean you have read Eric Frank Russell's Next of Kin? If not, you should.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,660
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Does this mean you have read Eric Frank Russell's Next of Kin? If not, you should.
    My Willy and I agree.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 1st, 2013, 08:16 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 12:11 AM
  3. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 12:31 AM
  4. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  5. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •