Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: IF the dinosaurs had lived...

  1. #1 IF the dinosaurs had lived... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    What if [Jupiter] caught the asteroid posited to have caused the KT boundary! Would the dinosaurs have developed larger brains sooner than the mammals did? Have 3 beers and discuss. In another thread, dammit.
    Maybe this is just revisiting the 25 year old concept of a large brained intelligent dinosaur, but I find it fascinating.



    It's fun to speculate, (especially after having a few); would they be as hostile and aggressive as humans can be to one another? Or would they have evolved beyond that? Would they have technology that is more in harmony with the natural world, or would they plunder resources without regard, too? Would intelligent dinosaurids think differently from intelligent primates, since the most intelligent birds have a different area of their brain giving rise to their intelligence?

    In the little experience I have had with parrot intelligence, there seems to be no difference in the results. My cockatiel, not a parrot but a parrotlet is at least as intelligent as a medium-brained dog. Does it matter how they reason things out if the behavioural results are the same?

    A good place to start in talking about this in this relaxed thread would be to posit how intelligent (more like how dumb) dinosaurs really were. One of my favorite cartoons is Gary Larson's "Far Side" titled "Dinosaur Cranial Capacity"
    Where a Stegosaurus walks in many directions, yet still bonks into a tree.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    the problem i have with the picture of the dinosauroid is that it looks too much like a humanoid

    for instance, no non-avian dinosaurs have been known to have lost their tail, since it's an essential part of the counterbalance in their stance - hence my conclusion is that even intelligent dinosauroids would have a semi-horizontal back and a counter-balancing tail, and not the type of erect stance typical of humans


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

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    I honestly and truely doubt it, the sauren age focused on the bigger and badder ladder of evolution, with the animals growing steadily larger to avoid predators, followed by predators getting bigger with sharper teeth to catch the new animal etc,

    if the comet hadn't hit we would still be hiding underground and dinosaurs would be truely massive behemoths with truck sized teeth






    ......

    that or they would have all frozen to death in the ice age
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Dromaeosaurs persisted right up to the KT so far as I know...

    and they were smaller scale predators - exactly the type of animal this model is based on - Troodon, I think. While I would agree that the tail would likely stay, it could become stunted - who knows which pathways evolution would favor for nascent tool users?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Add to the above my comment below about feathers and homeothermy.

    Lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and it appears likely they were warm blooded also. The advantage of both traits in an animal en route to intelligence is so clear cut that it is likely that any intelligent dinosaur would have both traits.

    So re-draw that beast with a tail, a pose leaning forward (the natural balance to a tail), and with brightly coloured feathers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    with a tail, a pose leaning forward (the natural balance to a tail)...
    There's a bad attitude if it'll need to grasp objects with nimble paws while seeing what it's manipulating. That dinosaur must have ungainly long arms (crappy weapons) and probably a goose neck (bite me) to view below the snout. Maybe it can roll its head to view parrot-fashion?

    We should keep in mind that dumber often is better. For example the turkey would not be so efficient if it stopped to ponder possibilities. Simply "gifting" a species with intelligence will probably kill it.

    Heh, maybe the dinosaurs grew too thoughtful for their own good?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Humans apparently evolved from tailed species. Why couldn't dinosaurs lose their tails?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I think skeptic meant tails in the intelligent climax state. Otherwise, we could suggest gills since dinosaurs apparently evolved from gilled species.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Humans apparently evolved from tailed species. Why couldn't dinosaurs lose their tails?
    because in the ancestors of humans tails were no longer essential to their mode of locomotion - they were in all dinosaurs that i know of, apart from birds where the necessities of flight made a solid tail cumbersome and disadvantageous
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    It's fun to debate what path evolution might have taken...too bad we will never really know!

    I agree that handling of tools, - which appears to be critical to greater intelligence evolution - would be alot easier without a long tail.

    Bigger brains, it has often been said, are always a great evolutionary advantage because they allow the animal greater degrees of successfully interacting with its environment. We can come up with pin-headed contrary examples I am sure....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    I think the presence or abscence of a tail is irrelevent to developping human-like capabilities. Presumably going from an environment where hands are usefull to move around(forest) to an environment where although they might not be as useful for locomotion per-say they are still usefull to carry or manipulate something important may have played a part. (What would that something be?)

    Hands may have played a part, but squirrels, raccoons, monkeys and chimps all have hands able to manipulate tools. I'm not sure I'm fully getting why humans developped as they did though, chimps are 95% the same genetically or something, what reality/factor/natural or social environment made the difference for humans?

    Also presumably, vulnerability helped, in the sense that if the pre-caveman monkeys that became cavemen had mutated into acid blooded pangolin armored monkeys with poisoned fangs and an anything-goes digestive system of a goat, intelligence would not have been such an asset, we d have survived just fine with turtle-like intelligence. But if we were so vulerable(or our offspring) that intelligence and social interaction made the difference between life and death or mating and not mating or having your progeny survive or not survive, then you might see the survivors develop intelligence quickly. Maybe having free hands was in the environment of early humans was a great asset for children survival(maybe migration with toddlers unable to walk long distances without being carried was crucial for survival)? BTW just how many animals have progeny that is not able to move on their own in a functional way for many months and several seasons? Most 2 year old animals are adults or nearly adults, but if you've had kids you might agree with me that you cant make a long trek with a 2 year old toddler without carrying him at least some distance. The unusal lenght of infant vulnerability might not be a freak coincidence, maybe its as much a feed-back- loop intelligence/social cooperation enabler in itself as it is a result of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    My personal theory as to why humans evolved as we did is that it was driven by tool use - basic technology.

    If you look at our close relatives, the chimps, you will see basic tool use in operation. They crack nuts between stones, and there is one tribe where the female chimps hunt monkeys using sharp sticks as short spears.

    Imagine our distant ape ancestors using similar methods, but more so - to the point where they became totally dependent on tools. In that situation, evolution will work towards making our ancestors better tool users, with bigger brains, better hands, upright stance, longer legs to support totally bipedal locomotion. The evolved brain, with special talent towards tool use, permits new discoveries such as fire. Once fire and cooking are discovered, digestion becomes easy, and a heavy gut is a disadvantage. So we evolve a smaller digestive system. Hairlessness comes from learning how to insulate our bodies when it is cold, and shed the artificial insulation when it is warm, or when we are running.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    squirrels, raccoons, monkeys and chimps
    Semi-arborial all. Not fully arborial! If fully, we get useless pincers like sloths or chameleons.


    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    presumably, vulnerability helped... infant vulnerability
    Dinos had it: they had eggs to protect. Maybe if we relentlessly assault them with opportunistic nest-raiders, the dinosaurs evolve collective nest-guarding groups... like the classic ring of elephants. That behaviour demands plenty of intelligence and it opens for language too. Then give them cause to relocate their eggs on occasion, like disturbed ants. They've got to pick the eggs up and deliver them to a new, agreed site.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Give the "raptors" intelligence to stalk and hunt them ever-more efficiently!

    I was mentioning a principle of increasing brainpower as a trend for most animals.
    I suppose the Shark, the Croc and most reptiles would be alot less spectacular in intelligence development.

    While a TRex braincase is mightily small, so is an Ostrich's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    It may be worth remembering that brain-power alone is insufficient. A bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Has a brain much larger than a human, and also has a brain to body mass ratio greater than human. There is little doubt that it is a highly intelligent animal. However, it will never develop a technological civilisation, because it has no hands!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    and also has a brain to body mass ratio greater than human
    It does?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    and also has a brain to body mass ratio greater than human
    It does?
    It depends on how you calculate the ratio, and there are several different ways, with no consensus on what's the best way. Matter of fact, some papers I've been reading lately claim that in primates at least, absolute brain size is the best predictor of general intelligence. *shrugs*
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232


    A direct comparison places homo sapiens sapiens higher above the median, if that means anything.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Well, humanoid reptiles probably wouldn't develop objectivity, and thus probably wouldn't develop tools.

    This is based on the idea that reptile's brains are "dominated by the brain stem and cerebellum which controls instinctual survival behaviors and thinking."
    -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain

    They could develop an impeccable sense of balance though. I imagine them living in the mountains or forests and being unmatched climbers.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    One could justifiably look at bird brains for comparison as well. Crows are smart. No hands, but hands are not out of the question either.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    True. And birds do use tools, like twigs when making a nest.

    but there is slight doubt whether birds actually descended from dinosaurs or if they just shared a common ancestor... not much of a doubt, but a doubt nonetheless

    Using tools, I suppose, doesn't have anything to do with objectivity anyway. For example when we use tools, it has been shown that we consider them to be extensions of our own body. And we do use tools institutionally, for example if you have a stick in your hand and rabid dog jumps out of nowhere... your neurology understands that you have a stick and that it's better to loose a stick than loose your arm, so your going to raise the stick just as suddenly. Just as your neurology understands that it's better to loose an arm then to loose an eye, so you raise your arm to cover your beautiful and precious face...
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I wonder if the use of tools (or weapons) could have indirectly led to the use of language. At some stage, our forebears began to leave the trees and progress onto the African savannah. They were, without doubt, pretty much helpless against predators on a purely physical level. Insufficient claws, teeth etc. However, if tribal groups proceeded together, and carried weapons, such as long sticks with sharp points, then reaction to a predator approaching might be to gather together in a tight group, with sharp points extending outwards. Such behaviour would be able to drive off a troupe of hyaenas, or possibly even a pride of lions.

    However, it would need good communications for the group to work together for best defense. Perhaps this was the start of language?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I think language was part of a large positive feedback loop. The smarter you get, the more information you want to convey to another, the more efficient food gathering and general coordination becomes, the better the smarter ones survives..
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    I was just thinking the similar thing for alligators or other reptiles. Biologists say that they haven't changed very much for millions of years. Their DNA hasn't bothered to change itself as much as ours. I thought if they had devoloped such an intelligence, they would not jump around like us due to their cold blooded nature. Their civilization would be more energy efficient. Yet they would develop more sophisticated and calculated methods to feed their generations, such as producing their food in laboratories using DNA technology. They wouldn't have any shitty TV shows, but they would still entertain themselves with monkey porn...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Maybe they live underground, deep in the crust where it's warm

    I don't think they would need to make things in a laboratory, reptiles don't eat much. They could just breed rats or... us
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Maybe they live underground, deep in the crust where it's warm
    So their civilization would prefer to send robots to venus instead of mars. And when they go to Moon, they wouldn't jump in front of cameras...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    but there is slight doubt whether birds actually descended from dinosaurs or if they just shared a common ancestor... not much of a doubt, but a doubt nonetheless
    Actually at this point the debat6e is not whether they evolved from dinosaurs but what group they evolved from

    The vert. paleontologists whoc study the group are in agreement that they are dinosaurs.

    So looking at reptilian archosaurs would not give the correct information du the distance between them and dinosaurs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    paleontologists whoc study the group are in agreement that they are dinosaurs.
    Actually, this make them "sharing common ancestor with dinosaurs". "Birds are Dinosaurs" means "humans are chimpanzees". We just share common ancestor with chimps. Humans are not chimps, chimps are not humans. We are both mammals though. So if there is a common family that covers both dinosaurs and birds it's all right to call them under this family. Otherwise, every living thing comes from same DNA, and there is no point to talk about species anyway...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    paleontologists whoc study the group are in agreement that they are dinosaurs.
    Actually, this make them "sharing common ancestor with dinosaurs". "Birds are Dinosaurs" means "humans are chimpanzees". We just share common ancestor with chimps. Humans are not chimps, chimps are not humans. We are both mammals though. So if there is a common family that covers both dinosaurs and birds it's all right to call them under this family. Otherwise, every living thing comes from same DNA, and there is no point to talk about species anyway...
    Incorrect.

    Birds arose from a member of the Theropoda group Maniraptora, thus they are taxonomically Dinosaurs as there is not debate that theropods are dinosaurs and the questions regarding bird origins center on what Theropod is the ancestor.

    Humans did not arise from chimps, as you point out they arose from a common ancestor.

    You analogy would work if you stated that humans are primates as they arose from within the primate group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    Incorrect.

    Birds arose from a member of the Theropoda group Maniraptora, thus they are taxonomically Dinosaurs as there is not debate that theropods are dinosaurs and the questions regarding bird origins center on what Theropod is the ancestor.

    Humans did not arise from chimps, as you point out they arose from a common ancestor.

    You analogy would work if you stated that humans are primates as they arose from within the primate group.
    If you introduce Theropoda group Maniraptora, I must introduce mammals and as you pointed out primates. I will not do that, because I find it irrelevant. Because what you are claiming sounds like ,before they went extinct, dinosaurs gave their genetic codes to birds, birds couldn't handle all that size and become a miniature representation of dinosaurs. It may also sound like dinosaurs, as we know, did not go extinct, but transformed themselves into birds in order to survive. Other than these options, I can not imagine birds as dinosaurs, since even birds and dinosaurs have various species among each other.

    Birds might share genetic similarities with dinosaurs, but at the end of the day they are "birds". They belong to today's environmental reality and time period, not belong to 65 million year's ago. I can not reject whole evolution process and the entire species of living birds just to fit them into Theropoda group Maniraptora. I can do many things that a chimp can not imagine (such as walking on my two feet; having facial and sculp hair that do not stop growing), yet 98% of my DNA is exactly same with chimps. What is the percentage of DNA sharing between today's birds and extinct dinosaurs?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat

    If you introduce Theropoda group Maniraptora, I must introduce mammals and as you pointed out primates. I will not do that, because I find it irrelevant. Because what you are claiming sounds like ,before they went extinct, dinosaurs gave their genetic codes to birds, birds couldn't handle all that size and become a miniature representation of dinosaurs. It may also sound like dinosaurs, as we know, did not go extinct, but transformed themselves into birds in order to survive. Other than these options, I can not imagine birds as dinosaurs, since even birds and dinosaurs have various species among each other.

    Birds might share genetic similarities with dinosaurs, but at the end of the day they are "birds". They belong to today's environmental reality and time period, not belong to 65 million year's ago. I can not reject whole evolution process and the entire species of living birds just to fit them into Theropoda group Maniraptora. I can do many things that a chimp can not imagine (such as walking on my two feet; having facial and sculp hair that do not stop growing), yet 98% of my DNA is exactly same with chimps. What is the percentage of DNA sharing between today's birds and extinct dinosaurs?
    Personal incredulity is not a valid argument against the scientific evidence.

    1.The problem is you are introducing groups higher in the taxonomy while I was introducing groups lower. The farther up you go the the more relationships you can find in that direction but they do not provide the same information that is provided by going down in the taxonomy as I did.

    2. Dinosaurs ranged in size from the massive animals commonly thought of, but there were just as many which ranged downward in size to the same size as, for give the comparison, chickens. Maniraptors were primarily composed of taxa which were medium to small in size.

    3. Birds did not magically appear as a group 65 million years ago, they in fact first emerged in the late Jurassic and lived alongside Dinosaurs senso stricto for nearly 91 million years before the extinction event at 65 million years ago.

    4. I have not at any point have I mentioned genetics, I have only mentioned fossil and phylogenetic evidence. There are a number of definite maniraptoran dinosaurs which have been found that have fossilized feather attached, the bone structures of both groups have many homologous structures, the transition from dinosaur to bird is very well shown in the fossil record.

    Do you have any evidence other then personal incredulity which contradicts the current theories of bird origins as supported by 99% of all researchers working in that field of study?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Actually, this make them "sharing common ancestor with dinosaurs". "Birds are Dinosaurs" means "humans are chimpanzees". We just share common ancestor with chimps. Humans are not chimps, chimps are not humans.
    depends on your point of view - cladistically speaking there is a monophyletic crown group of apes that comprise the common chimp, the bonobo and humans

    what name would you give that crown group ? i'd settle for chimps, as being closer to the ancestral condition (at least morphologically speaking) of that crown group - Jared Diamond appears to agree with me
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    3. Birds did not magically appear as a group 65 million years ago, they in fact first emerged in the late Jurassic and lived alongside Dinosaurs senso stricto for nearly 91 million years before the extinction event at 65 million years ago.

    ... the transition from dinosaur to bird is very well shown in the fossil record.
    You are talking about two different species now. You are not saying birds are dinosaurs anymore. What you call "transition" is actually "mutation", is it not? Or is there different type of transition of living things other than mutation?

    91-65= 26 million years. We have separated from chimpanzees nearly 6 million years ago. If chimps go extinct one day, we should call ourselves chimps and say that "humans and chimps" lived alongside for 6 million years. Is that so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Actually, this make them "sharing common ancestor with dinosaurs". "Birds are Dinosaurs" means "humans are chimpanzees". We just share common ancestor with chimps. Humans are not chimps, chimps are not humans.
    depends on your point of view - cladistically speaking there is a monophyletic crown group of apes that comprise the common chimp, the bonobo and humans

    what name would you give that crown group ? i'd settle for chimps, as being closer to the ancestral condition (at least morphologically speaking) of that crown group - Jared Diamond appears to agree with me
    Excuse me, but this is not right. You can not take the half of my paragraph and say the same thing what I said in the following sentence. Now I am going to put the part that you excluded in your quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    We are both mammals though. So if there is a common family that covers both dinosaurs and birds it's all right to call them under this family. Otherwise, every living thing comes from same DNA, and there is no point to talk about species anyway...
    This is what I said. And you are telling me that "depends on your point of view". Your perspective did not add anything new to what I said...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    except that if you take modern classification methods into account (i.e. my useless "perspective"), humans ARE chimps, just like birds ARE dinosaurs

    it's merely a matter of synapomorphies and not of opinion
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    humans ARE chimps, just like birds ARE dinosaurs
    Yes, 98% of my DNA, and many of our social habits and body part distributions are common with chimpanzees. Yet, if you say that "humans are chimps and birds are dinosaurs", this does not give any information about different species; it just points out the common family of those species and I must ask you why stop at chimps and dinosaurs and not going back to common ancestor of both and call every living thing with same name? . Moreover, I thought humans and chimps were belong to primates. Because what you are saying can be read other way around too: "Chimps are Humans"; which is only correct statement for politicians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    ...humans ARE chimps..
    Don't you mean, "apes?" Chimps are a subset of our common tribe, Hominini which is itself a subset of Hominoidea (Ape.) We are both apes, but humans are not chimps and chimps are not human

    But yeah. At what point would something stop being one thing and start being another? Its more accurate to say that dinosaurs diversified into several groups, one of which includes birds, than to say that dinosaurs "turned into" birds.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    ... I must ask you why stop at chimps and dinosaurs and not going back to common ancestor of both and call every living thing with same name?.
    We do. We call it "Life."

    From there, every living thing can be divided into two groups, eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Each of those can be broken down, and each of those can be broken down. And so on and so on.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    3. Birds did not magically appear as a group 65 million years ago, they in fact first emerged in the late Jurassic and lived alongside Dinosaurs senso stricto for nearly 91 million years before the extinction event at 65 million years ago.

    ... the transition from dinosaur to bird is very well shown in the fossil record.
    You are talking about two different species now. You are not saying birds are dinosaurs anymore. What you call "transition" is actually "mutation", is it not? Or is there different type of transition of living things other than mutation?

    91-65= 26 million years. We have separated from chimpanzees nearly 6 million years ago. If chimps go extinct one day, we should call ourselves chimps and say that "humans and chimps" lived alongside for 6 million years. Is that so?
    NO, I am not talking about species. At no point have I been talking about species. the Term species refers only to the level of taxonomic separation directly below genus.

    I have been talking about suborders and similar levels.

    In what way does mutation invalidate anything I have said? Mutation is one part of hte complex process which drives diversification but is in no way the only one.

    As already pointed out by Finger we would and DO call ourselves hominids and apes as they are the taxonomic levels above us.

    get over the whole chimp thing it does not apply to this argument as chimps are next to us on the tree not above us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    get over the whole chimp thing it does not apply to this argument as chimps are next to us on the tree not above us.
    OK, I'll get over the whole thing. When I say dinosaurs I think T-rex type of thing, when you say dinosaurs you think about a whole family. Obviously we can not go anywhere.

    Plus how did you know that I am sitting on a tree next to a chimp? Are you one of those documentary people and watching us secretly? I hope you didn't witness what we did last night...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    baftan, you just need to understand how evolution works. When you 'get over' something it only means you stop learning about it for the moment and are not proven the point. "This is Dogma. This is not science.", my Cal teacher used to tell us when we didn't want to work out a proof and just take his word for it!

    Birds arose out of a group of dinosaurs that were extremely bird-like; very much like small raptors in your "Jurassic Park" movie. Look at this fossil - some of the same type of animal, Archaeopteryx, that didn't preserve the feathers were mistaken for dinosaurs for years!



    This is a very early bird; and it's clear from many anatomical structures that it is, in fact, a dinosaur with feathers. Later birds became more like our 'modern' birds of today, yet still had primitive features; i.e. teeth.
    Much later discoveries have found dinosaurs that couldn't possibly fly having feathers. The dinosaurs are entirely still alive: 'bird' is a subgroup of 'dinosaur' just like 'monkey' is a sub-group of 'primate' - a bird is a dinosaur just like you and I are monkeys. Although I suspect I'm not comparing on the same classification levels.

    Can someone make a pair of linear charts for comparison by analogy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    ... just like 'primate' is a sub-group of 'monkey'
    I think this is backwards. Monkey is a sub-group of primate. Lemurs are primates, but not monkeys.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    of course...d'Oh! original post edited for STUPID MISTAKE, thanx...


    so let's get out a chart so we can make a good example by analogy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190




    Catarrhini = Old World Monkeys (vs Platyrrhini, New World Monkeys)
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei

    baftan, you just need to understand how evolution works. ...

    Birds arose out of a group of dinosaurs that were extremely bird-like; very much like small raptors in your "Jurassic Park" movie.
    When you look at "Evolution of Mammals" in Wikipedia, you will read this very first paragraph:

    The evolution of mammals from synapsids (mammal-like "reptiles") was a gradual process that took approximately 70 million years, beginning in the mid-Permian. By the mid-Triassic, there were many species that looked like mammals, and the first true mammals appeared in the early Jurassic. The earliest known marsupial, Sinodelphys, appeared 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous, around the same time as Eomaia, the first known eutherian (member of placentals' "parent" group); and the earliest known monotreme, Teinolophos, appeared two million years later. After the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs (birds are generally regarded as the surviving dinosaurs) and several other mammalian groups, placental and marsupial mammals diversified into many new forms and ecological niches throughout the Tertiary, by the end of which all modern orders had appeared.
    And miss "synapsids" looks like this:



    So I am convinced and understood that mammals are dinosaurs... This statement also makes us dinosaurs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    OK, maybe that doesn't help as much, but you can see how Archaeopteryx and Velociraptor are related. Similarly, in the lower diagram, you can see that humans, gorillas and chimps all came from a closer ancestor than the further one that also gave rise to Orang-Utans.

    Does this help???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei

    baftan, you just need to understand how evolution works. ...

    Birds arose out of a group of dinosaurs that were extremely bird-like; very much like small raptors in your "Jurassic Park" movie.
    When you look at "Evolution of Mammals" in Wikipedia, you will read this very first paragraph:

    The evolution of mammals from synapsids (mammal-like "reptiles") was a gradual process that took approximately 70 million years, beginning in the mid-Permian. By the mid-Triassic, there were many species that looked like mammals, and the first true mammals appeared in the early Jurassic. The earliest known marsupial, Sinodelphys, appeared 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous, around the same time as Eomaia, the first known eutherian (member of placentals' "parent" group); and the earliest known monotreme, Teinolophos, appeared two million years later. After the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs (birds are generally regarded as the surviving dinosaurs) and several other mammalian groups, placental and marsupial mammals diversified into many new forms and ecological niches throughout the Tertiary, by the end of which all modern orders had appeared.
    And miss "synapsids" looks like this:

    (image if Dimetradon)

    So I am convinced and understood that mammals are dinosaurs... This statement also makes us dinosaurs.
    Wrong , completely and utterly wrong.

    Vertebrata------Synapsida---------------Mammalia
    |
    |----------Reptilia-----Dinosauria


    Reptiles and synapsids both evolved from more primitive reptiloid animals but they divered before mammals and dinosaurs evolved

    the diagram above shows how they diverged and hat one did not come from the other, thus saying mammals and dinosaurs are the same is completely false.

    heres a hint DO NOT go by common names for groups as they are often completly different in apparent meaning from what the taxonomy is.

    For example: A "Scorpionfly" is neither a scorpion (arachnida) or a fly (Diptera) but instead a related group if insects to dipterans named Mecoptera.

    Oh, and Dimetrodon is NOT a dinosaur either, for your information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i think baftansowibat is misinterpreting the following passage :

    ...wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs ... and several other mammalian groups
    if read carelessly you might interpret this as meaning that non-avian dinosaurs are mammals - which, obviously, they're not

    in fact, the split between diapsids and synapsids is the deepest one you can find amongst the amniota
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Yes, there's good clues that make us suspect Dimetrodon as one of our ancestors, or at least extremely close....

    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    I highly doubt a dinosaur would be bipedal today if they didn't die out.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    And your basis for that blanket statement is???
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •