Thread: Sapient Dinosaurs

I have recently heard of the sapient dinosaur theory.If you don't know what this is,I'll fill you in.In 1982,paleontologist Dale Russell suggested that,had Troodon not become extinct,it may have become a human-like animal.He believes that they would grip objects,had a navel,and fed their babies on regurgitated food.There has been opposition,claiming this view is too advanced.Please state your opinions on this and explain your hypotheses (hypothesi?) on why you think this theory is or isn't true.

explain your hypotheses

You first. Where did Dale Russell publish his "suggestion?"

It was not an actual theory. It was a suggestion of what a sapient dinosaur May have looked like. The navel, bipedal stance lacking a tail etc.... as seen in this picturedinoman_neoteny.jpg were all speculation with no basis for testing. The idea has been discarded for probably close to 20 years now.

Cool picture though. Land of the Lost!

Earth 2!

Gorn!

A recurring sci-fi theme I guess

Ha! I had to look up Gorn. I remember that episode well, but apparently not well enough to recall the creature's name. Now where things get really crazy is Star Trek the animated series. Sorry Paleomind, for going off track here, but as Paleoichneum mentioned, this "theory" is not a theory at all, but an imaginative thought exercise.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

It was not an actual theory. It was a suggestion of what a sapient dinosaur May have looked like. The navel, bipedal stance lacking a tail etc.... as seen in this picturedinoman_neoteny.jpg were all speculation with no basis for testing. The idea has been discarded for probably close to 20 years now.

I believe the arms would be more rotated (the shoulder rotated on a z axis some deg, in front) and anchored on the chest rather then evolution taking the time to place them farther back and up so as to look nice and pretty like a human, and the legs would be more at in the back and possibly anchored to the butt area with the body hanging in front of the legs with a big belly, and a possibly long less human head with a big brain and smaller eyes that are positioned on the sides of the face rather then evolution taking the time to place them in the front so as to look nice and pretty like the perfect humans that are gonna exist a million years in the future and a big jaw; defiantly bigger then the nice and pretty human jaw that the artist envisioned evolution to prefer because humans are perfect and were the prime definition of how a sapient species looks. Also you gotta keep in mind that they are not developing in Africa like we were, they are in grasslands and jungles with trees and mountains and water, and with life everywhere and filled with large animals most threatening.

Originally Posted by Japith

...defiantly bigger then the nice and pretty human jaw that the artist envisioned evolution to prefer because humans are perfect and were the prime definition of how a sapient species looks.

As a race, we are nothing if not predictably self-centered. Now that our concerns have passed beyond mere survival, i.e. getting food and shelter (obviously this is still a concern for many people, but as a race we've got that mastered) we can start doing things like science and philosophy and generally trying to make sense of things on an intellectual level instead of a purely physical needs-based level. I personally hope this means we, as a race, will begin to outgrow our self-centered nature. This self-centered behavior is surely an artifact of our evolution. We needed to be that way to survive. But can we not now move beyond it?

Originally Posted by Japith

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

It was not an actual theory. It was a suggestion of what a sapient dinosaur May have looked like. The navel, bipedal stance lacking a tail etc.... as seen in this picturedinoman_neoteny.jpg were all speculation with no basis for testing. The idea has been discarded for probably close to 20 years now.

I believe the arms would be more rotated (the shoulder rotated on a z axis some deg, in front) and anchored on the chest rather then evolution taking the time to place them farther back and up so as to look nice and pretty like a human, and the legs would be more at in the back and possibly anchored to the butt area with the body hanging in front of the legs with a big belly, and a possibly long less human head with a big brain and smaller eyes and a big jaw; defiantly bigger then the nice and pretty human jaw that the artist envisioned evolution to prefer because humans are perfect and were the prime definition of how a sapient species looks. Also you gotta keep in mind that they are not developing in Africa like we were, they are in grasslands and jungles with trees and mountains and water.

Just as a note, they did not have grasslands yet, so it would have been fern lands or similar. Yes the model is extremely anthropocentric.

Originally Posted by JoshuaL

Originally Posted by Japith

...defiantly bigger then the nice and pretty human jaw that the artist envisioned evolution to prefer because humans are perfect and were the prime definition of how a sapient species looks.

As a race, we are nothing if not predictably self-centered. Now that our concerns have passed beyond mere survival, i.e. getting food and shelter (obviously this is still a concern for many people, but as a race we've got that mastered) we can start doing things like science and philosophy and generally trying to make sense of things on an intellectual level instead of a purely physical needs-based level. I personally hope this means we, as a race, will begin to outgrow our self-centered nature. This self-centered behavior is surely an artifact of our evolution. We needed to be that way to survive. But can we not now move beyond it?

If I ever form the new humanity scientist research colony, where modern modern modern scientist build seemingly anti gravity airships and robot people and have a library of cloned bodies; just waiting for you to die so that your brain can be transplanted in to them that I have planned to name Zues hope in Antarctica, I will invite you to become a member.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Japith

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

It was not an actual theory. It was a suggestion of what a sapient dinosaur May have looked like. The navel, bipedal stance lacking a tail etc.... as seen in this picturedinoman_neoteny.jpg were all speculation with no basis for testing. The idea has been discarded for probably close to 20 years now.

I believe the arms would be more rotated (the shoulder rotated on a z axis some deg, in front) and anchored on the chest rather then evolution taking the time to place them farther back and up so as to look nice and pretty like a human, and the legs would be more at in the back and possibly anchored to the butt area with the body hanging in front of the legs with a big belly, and a possibly long less human head with a big brain and smaller eyes and a big jaw; defiantly bigger then the nice and pretty human jaw that the artist envisioned evolution to prefer because humans are perfect and were the prime definition of how a sapient species looks. Also you gotta keep in mind that they are not developing in Africa like we were, they are in grasslands and jungles with trees and mountains and water.

Just as a note, they did not have grasslands yet, so it would have been fern lands or similar. Yes the model is extremely anthropocentric.

You too good man, because you have noticed that this model is extremely anthropocentric and you have a Spock of Vulcan quote in your sig.

I will require prescription sunglasses that change shade at the touch of a button. These may either take the form of spectacles or may be implanted directly in my eye, but I prefer to avoid contact lenses.

Originally Posted by JoshuaL

I will require prescription sunglasses that change shade at the touch of a button. These may either take the form of spectacles or may be implanted directly in my eye, but I prefer to avoid contact lenses.

heh I will put it on a sticky for ya, JoshuaL.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

explain your hypotheses

You first. Where did Dale Russell publish his "suggestion?"

Troodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dinosaur intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

though i have to be a tad sceptical. humans on took a couple of million years toi become "sapient". dinos had a lot longer and didn't. the driving force thought to be behind human evolution was climate change in africa. now i can't imagine that climate change didn't happen over the millions of years that dinos were around yet it doesn't seem to have had the same effect on them.

Yeah, even says fictional right in the article. ;P

A more complete skeleton of Stenonychosaurus was described by Dale Russell in 1969 from the Dinosaur Park Formation, which eventually formed the scientific foundation for a famous life-sized sculpture of Stenonychosaurus accompanied by its fictional, humanoid descendant, the "dinosauroid".

Also, in case it helps to clarify a few things you may find around the forum:

A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to explain something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is taken to be true about a phenomena. A theory replaces the hypothesis.

yep, i'm sceptical that any evidence will be found to support the hypothesis.

Hey i had seen this thread in my mind's memories it perhaps resurfaced again. Its origin are of time period 1985, so is this science forum the earliest known science forum of internet of microsoft usa internet started in 1980s!!! And what about the members the foreigner usa european science grads geeks of 1980s are now professory. So i know you as a minds program, did you recognized me?
So internet modern forums and webpages came to india asia regions very late in 2007!!!

Beats me. I'm new here myself. I understand that a lot of the original participants have drifted away.

Some of their descendants, such as Crows and Ravens, actually are very smart. Tests have been done, such as leaving a vending machine out for them with quarters around it, and seeing what they do, and they found the Ravens could figure out how to put quarters into the machine to get treats from it.

They appear to communicate also. They hide shiny objects from each other, which is kind of funny. I don't know. I'm just saying. They're pretty smart, and their talons give them quasi-hands.

So I'm thinking the fact that they did evolve into something intelligent is a pretty good indication that yes: they could have evolved into something intelligent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_humanoid

Some of their descendants, such as Crows and Ravens, actually are very smart.

Crows not so clever after all? › News in Science (ABC Science)

Crows not so clever after all?

Wednesday, 24 October 2012
Dani Cooper
ABC

r1023253_11628873.jpg
Findings like this call for
a rethink how to test
intelligence in animals,
say the researchers
(Source: Sarah Jelbert)


The notion of the clever crow has been delivered a blow with a New Zealand study showing the birds do not mentally plan how to "solve problems".

Dr Alex Taylor, at the University of Auckland, says New Caledonian crows are known to be among the fastest in the world at solving certain tasks spontaneously.

One of the most common examples is a string-pulling task that involves hanging food from a piece of string.

Taylor says New Caledonian crows can, without a single mistake, pull up the string to obtain the food. This action requires them to pull up a segment of string and then step on it to prevent it from dropping.

However despite string pulling having been documented as much as 400 years ago, researchers still do not understand what cognitive processes are used by the birds to solve the problem, says Taylor.

"One theory is that crows are coming up with some sort of plan and executing the plan," says Taylor, of the Department of Psychology.

===============

more at link