continental drifting

I can sit here but I can't think of what you will come up with next.  Maybe that dinosaurs were also farmers.  That would go along nicely with boats.

I think it's possible that dinosaurs did engage in agrarian activities - if we look at analogous patterns in human anthropology, most trans-continental migration which did not occur by foot (i.e., big boats) appears to have gone on after the dawn of agriculture.

I could think like you and come up with a new conspiracy, one that is about the flat earth conspiracy.  See the earth is really round, but there is a conspiracy to fool people into thinking its flat.  This is what lead to the conspiracy to make people think the earth is round.  If 100 Tom Bishops where typing on 100 typewriters for 100 years, they still could not come up with more stupid topics than your topics. 

You have no idea how much you are pissing me off.  I can sit here but I can't think of what you will come up with next.

Look, if you can't face the truth, nobody is forcing you to sit here and argue with me.

In before ban
Alligators have not changed in millions of years, why are they not super smart?  There is also a lizard that is a direct relative to dinosaurs.  This lizard would be so smart, it would rule the world according to you.

My bro just pointed this out, why didn't dinosaurs write anything down?  They were smart enough. 

Intelligence is probably what killed the dinosaurs. So it follows that only the unintelligent species remained.

Quote from: sokarul on August 06, 2008, 04:53:14 PM

I can sit here but I can't think of what you will come up with next.  Maybe that dinosaurs were also farmers.  That would go along nicely with boats.

I think it's possible that dinosaurs did engage in agrarian activities - if we look at analogous patterns in human anthropology, most trans-continental migration which did not occur by foot (i.e., big boats) appears to have gone on after the dawn of agriculture.

Quote from: sokarul on August 06, 2008, 04:53:14 PM

I could think like you and come up with a new conspiracy, one that is about the flat earth conspiracy.  See the earth is really round, but there is a conspiracy to fool people into thinking its flat.  This is what lead to the conspiracy to make people think the earth is round.  If 100 Tom Bishops where typing on 100 typewriters for 100 years, they still could not come up with more stupid topics than your topics. 

Quote

You have no idea how much you are pissing me off.  I can sit here but I can't think of what you will come up with next.

Look, if you can't face the truth, nobody is forcing you to sit here and argue with me.

Read my last post.  I will wait for a response before I go get food. 

Alligators have not changed in millions of years, why are they not super smart?

They do not face evolutionary pressures which necessitate the evolution of sentience. By the same token, humans have evolved recently - how are they super smart? If humanity can evolve to a planet-dominating level of intelligence in such a geologically short space of time, why can't dinosaurs have done so (fossil evidence suggests that they did, in fact evolve to a planet-dominating level).

  There is also a lizard that is a direct relative to dinosaurs.  This lizard would be so smart, it would rule the world according to you.

Which lizard is this? And no, there's no reason that my reasoning necessitates that all animals evolve sentience at the same rate.

My bro just pointed this out, why didn't dinosaurs write anything down?  They were smart enough. 

Who says they didn't? Where, pray tell, would you suggest I try and find delicately preserved 65 million year old parchment? My local library?

Intelligence is probably what killed the dinosaurs. So it follows that only the unintelligent species remained.

It's quite possible. Humanity certainly seems to be heading down a path of self-destruction with our pollutive aeroplane-crazy societies choking the atmolayer. The dinosaurs might just have outgrown their environment - after all, if they felt the need to colonise, it's not unreasonable to conjecture that they were highly successful and that their numbers multiplied.

They do not face evolutionary pressures which necessitate the evolution of sentience. By the same token, humans have evolved recently - how are they super smart? If humanity can evolve to a planet-dominating level of intelligence in such a geologically short space of time, why can't dinosaurs have done so (fossil evidence suggests that they did, in fact evolve to a planet-dominating level).

  So dinosaurs were under pressure to build boats? Humans are getting smarter.  Look at the evolutionary ladder. 

Which lizard is this? And no, there's no reason that my reasoning necessitates that all animals evolve sentience at the same rate.

I have to talk to my bro abou tthat, in the mean time read this  http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/970670539.Ev.r.html

Who says they didn't? Where, pray tell, would you suggest I try and find delicately preserved 65 million year old parchment? My local library?

Why found their bones but we can't find their writings? 

So dinosaurs were under pressure to build boats?

When a population reaches a saturation level in its local environment, migration is a survival benefit. Since I'm arguing for sentience in dinosaur populations, the evolutionary pressure argument may not apply (it would explain an instinctive behaviour though).

Humans are getting smarter.  Look at the evolutionary ladder. 

I'm not so sure. I think we're devolving in the absence of any real selection pressure now that we have an advanced society (this could even go a ways to explain crocodiles - who knows, they might have been intelligent but become radically stupider again through de-evolution). I can envisage a time when a crocodile might have been as intelligent as a very intelligent dog, or maybe even as intelligent as a chimp.

I have to talk to my bro abou tthat, in the mean time read this  http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/970670539.Ev.r.html

Yes, but a keystone of your argument has been that length of time a species exists for has no bearing on whether it evolves sentience or not. Of course shellfish and bacteria are still pretty stupid.

Why found their bones but we can't find their writings? 

Two points of rebuttal here - firstly, given the number of dinosaurs which existed, ever, versus the number of them which we've found, I'd say the chances of finding ANYTHING which wasn't completely endemic to the prehistoric landscape are very slim. Secondly, since soft tissue such as skin and flesh does not survive fossilisation, why should paper and ink (or other writing implements)?

When a population reaches a saturation level in its local environment, migration is a survival benefit. Since I'm arguing for sentience in dinosaur populations, the evolutionary pressure argument may not apply (it would explain an instinctive behaviour though).

Why didn't they evolve gills and swim across the ocean?  That would be much easier than evolving intelligences.   

I'm not so sure. I think we're devolving in the absence of any real selection pressure now that we have an advanced society (this could even go a ways to explain crocodiles - who knows, they might have been intelligent but become radically stupider again through de-evolution). I can envisage a time when a crocodile might have been as intelligent as a very intelligent dog, or maybe even as intelligent as a chimp.

And biology would say you are wrong. 

Yes, but a keystone of your argument has been that length of time a species exists for has no bearing on whether it evolves sentience or not. Of course shellfish and bacteria are still pretty stupid.

Yes. And the link helps to prove my point.  Also looking at the length humans ladder have been around also prove this. You have to have the ability to become intelligent to become intelligent.  To use an example you hate, a doorknob will not become inteligent no matter how much you try and train it.       

Two points of rebuttal here - firstly, given the number of dinosaurs which existed, ever, versus the number of them which we've found, I'd say the chances of finding ANYTHING which wasn't completely endemic to the prehistoric landscape are very slim. Secondly, since soft tissue such as skin and flesh does not survive fossilisation, why should paper and ink (or other writing implements)?

Tissue has been found.  A quick search http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/970670539.Ev.r.html

What do you think those shows about dinosaurs on the discovery channel and history channel are based on?  Do you really think no one tries to figure out what dinosaurs were like?

Why didn't they evolve gills and swim across the ocean?  That would be much easier than evolving intelligences.   

I'm glad that you know "how easy" it is to evolve something. Would you mind telling me what gives you this impossible-seeming insight into the inner workings of almost infinitely complex biochemical phenomena?

And biology would say you are wrong. 

No, actually, it wouldn't. Devolution observably occurs in human society over time - susceptability to so-called diseases of affluence has markedly increased since preagrarian humanity, and reliance on medicine, for example, means that a greater number of phisiological disadvantages are present in the human gene pool than during times of high selection pressure (i.e., before advanced civilization).

Yes. And the link helps to prove my point.  Also looking at the length humans ladder have been around also prove this. You have to have the ability to become intelligent to become intelligent.  To use an example you hate, a doorknob will not become inteligent no matter how much you try and train it.       

But I'm not disputing that time of existence and development of sentience lack strong positive correlation. Over incredibly large timescales, evolution of sentience becomes statistically more probable, but is never ensured for any particular species and has more to do with selection pressure than just number of millenia of survival.

Tissue has been found.  A quick search http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/970670539.Ev.r.html

Tissue is found much more rarely than bone, for the very good reason that it's very delicate, like paper for example. How many specimens of dinosaur skin have been discovered to date? Does the number even exceed double digits? How many dinosaurs existed in total, ever? The likelyhood of finding something like that is incredibly slim.

What do you think those shows about dinosaurs on the discovery channel and history channel are based on?  Do you really think no one tries to figure out what dinosaurs were like?

The classic "big, brutal and stupid" imagery of the dinosaur is a Hollywood fabrication designed to sell more thrilling blockbuster movies. As a consequence, it's now engraved into our collective cultural consciousness.

Oh, it is so very good to see this topic back up.

Also, Dinosaurs were around for 160 million years.  An intelligent species of Dinosaurs would only need a few thousand years to completely change the distribution of plants and animals.  They wouldn't have had to be around all that long.  A single species that lasted for, say, a million years could easily go missing in the fossil record.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/03/dinosauroids_2008.php?utm_source=mostemailed&utm_medium=link
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html

Way to hijack my thread

Oh, it is so very good to see this topic back up.

Also, Dinosaurs were around for 160 million years.  An intelligent species of Dinosaurs would only need a few thousand years to completely change the distribution of plants and animals.  They wouldn't have had to be around all that long.  A single species that lasted for, say, a million years could easily go missing in the fossil record.

They wouldn't have had to "go missing", because the fossil record consistently indicates a distribution of plants and animals which suggests intelligence on the part of at least one species, if not many.

Way to hijack my thread

You asked about continental drift. We answered. Someone asked us to explain fossil evidence. We did.

Quote from: looboo12 on August 06, 2008, 06:11:05 PM

Way to hijack my thread

You asked about continental drift. We answered. Someone asked us to explain fossil evidence. We did.

I think your intelligent dinosaur theory is great, Dogplatter.  I just fear that it is not falsifiable.  I'd only like to hear why you think continental drift doesn't happen.  There is other evidence which supports it besides fossils.  That makes it a superior theory IMO.

I think your intelligent dinosaur theory is great, Dogplatter.  I just fear that it is not falsifiable.  I'd only like to hear why you think continental drift doesn't happen.  There is other evidence which supports it besides fossils.  That makes it a superior theory IMO.

I believe that if plate tectonics are really as described by recent geological dogma, we would end up with several seperate planets as soon as movements occured. The whole "many plates" theory really only works for a round Earth, where gravity keeps them all pushed together.

I don't deny that tensions between large internal structures of the Earth cause Earthquakes and minor movement, but I don't reckon that whole continents could just swim freely around without breaking loose of the Earth.

I think continental drift could be quite easily reconciled with FET.  Imagine a pie with the crust floating on top.  The pie tin can be like the ice wall.  If the pie is cut into slices, the pieces of crust still float on top.  They can still diverge, subduct, and collide.  Besides, the crust colliding with the tin can create massive the mountain range at the Ice Wall.

Keep in mind that plates are not solid, rigid things.  They are created and destroyed.  New plate forms at divergent boundaries as magma seeps in from under the ground.  At the opposite end of the plate, plate is destroyed at subduction zones as it is sucked back into the earth.  This provides the mechanism by which continents stuck on the plate move.

Quote from: narcberry on August 06, 2008, 04:58:38 PM

Intelligence is probably what killed the dinosaurs. So it follows that only the unintelligent species remained.

It's quite possible. Humanity certainly seems to be heading down a path of self-destruction with our pollutive aeroplane-crazy societies choking the atmolayer. The dinosaurs might just have outgrown their environment - after all, if they felt the need to colonise, it's not unreasonable to conjecture that they were highly successful and that their numbers multiplied.

Well in view of a potential "funnel" it seems more than likely. The likeliest reconciliation of Drake's paradox with our observations are that intelligent life has not made it to space, the likeliest reason is the high availability of technology (technological singularity with respect to Moore's Law) in the hands of intelligent beings who hate each other. That, or Fermi was wrong and we are probably the only intelligent life in the universe, suggesting intelligent design.

They wouldn't have had to "go missing", because the fossil record consistently indicates a distribution of plants and animals which suggests intelligence on the part of at least one species, if not many.

When I said that intelligent dinosaurs are missing, I meant that we don't have Dinosaur cities/tools/cars/blimps.

sokarul, you're making some basic logical errors. Asking why crocodiles or other lizards are not as intelligent as dinosaurs is like asking why apes are not as intelligent as humans. For example, it is true that a dinosaur and a crocodile are both lizards, but it is also true that a human being and a doormouse are both mammals. The comparsion is worthless.

Then you ask 'if they're so smart, why didn't they write anything down?' This too is a pointless question; many crop-growing, settled human societies existed without any written language. In Greek & Roman times (and probably after), many european societies had no written culture- this was the distinction made between 'civilised' peoples and 'barbarians'. Even today, there are undiscovered tribes in the amazon, and it is highly likely they have no written language either.

Then you ask 'if they're so smart, why didn't they write anything down?'

Not to mention that paper and inks don't last 300 million years without biodegrading.

When I said that intelligent dinosaurs are missing, I meant that we don't have Dinosaur cities/tools/cars/blimps.

Depending on the prolific nature of their technology, it's unlikely that we would. As I've said before if every dinousaur, ever, owned a car, a house and a toolkit, we might have better luck finding them. Based on the total number of cadavers which we have found versus the number of dinosaurs that actually existed, anything less is incredibly unlikely.

I'm still of the opinion that the ArchaeologyCon would intercept as many dino-civilization finds as they could anyway.

I'm glad that you know "how easy" it is to evolve something. Would you mind telling me what gives you this impossible-seeming insight into the inner workings of almost infinitely complex biochemical phenomena?

I meant easy compared to evolving to building boats.  I can see, however, you don't know much about evolution.   

No, actually, it wouldn't. Devolution observably occurs in human society over time - susceptability to so-called diseases of affluence has markedly increased since preagrarian humanity, and reliance on medicine, for example, means that a greater number of phisiological disadvantages are present in the human gene pool than during times of high selection pressure (i.e., before advanced civilization).

ok, but your still wrong. Crocodiles were never smart. 

But I'm not disputing that time of existence and development of sentience lack strong positive correlation. Over incredibly large timescales, evolution of sentience becomes statistically more probable, but is never ensured for any particular species and has more to do with selection pressure than just number of millenia of survival.

If you don't not have the tools, you cannot complete the task.  Dinosaurs did not have to the tool to become intelligent, so no matter how long they were around they didn't become intelligent Early humans had the tools, that’s why it only took us what some time over 100,000 years to master intelligence.  We had thumbs, fire, bigger brains, and others.     

Tissue is found much more rarely than bone, for the very good reason that it's very delicate, like paper for example. How many specimens of dinosaur skin have been discovered to date? Does the number even exceed double digits? How many dinosaurs existed in total, ever? The likelyhood of finding something like that is incredibly slim.

I don't know the answer to both questions.  I just like to point out how you have no idea about anything yet claim to know everything. 

The classic "big, brutal and stupid" imagery of the dinosaur is a Hollywood fabrication designed to sell more thrilling blockbuster movies. As a consequence, it's now engraved into our collective cultural consciousness.

I know they are more to dinosaurs than what movies show.  I can watch the shows on the history channel about them.  But you are claiming that "The land before time" movies are fact.     

Wow, you're getting your info from the History channel. I see. I preduict that within the next 10 years they will show TV series with names like Most-Super-Awesome Wars of The 20th Century!!!11!! and What If Hitler Was King of Mars Or Related to Jesus. That it is my estimation of the History Channel.


And fire is not an advantage humans have as part of their biology. You may as well use the wheel as an example. And your example about evolving gills being easier is stupid- why didn't humans do that? By your logic, it would have been 'easier' for early apes to do this (or anything else) than to evolve brains.

Wow, you're getting your info from the History channel. I see. I preduict that within the next 10 years they will show TV series with names like Most-Super-Awesome Wars of The 20th Century!!!11!! and What If Hitler Was King of Mars Or Related to Jesus. That it is my estimation of the History Channel.


And fire is not an advantage humans have as part of their biology. You may as well use the wheel as an example. And your example about evolving gills being easier is stupid- why didn't humans do that? By your logic, it would have been 'easier' for early apes to do this (or anything else) than to evolve brains.

Fire allowed early humans the ability to stay up at night.  They could sit around a camp fire and just think.  There are theories out there where this action help lead to intelligence.  Guess where I learned that? Not history channel but  BBC.

Humans didn't need to cross the ocean because plate tectonics worked for them.  They were also smart enough to use land bridges.  They built boats when they were ready to cross water.  Human were also quite able to protect themselves.   

Yes, but to control and manipulate fire, humans would have to have possessed the basic skills in modern man- tool building etc.

Yes, but to control and manipulate fire, humans would have to have possessed the basic skills in modern man- tool building etc.

Do you ever look anything up? A quick search found

The control of fire by early humans was a turning point in human cultural evolution that allowed for humans to proliferate due to the incorporation of cooked proteins and carbohydrates, expansion of human activity into the night hours, and protection from predators.

The evidence at Chesowanja consists of red clay sherds dated to be 1.42 Ma BP

So 1.42 million years ago.  Which reminds me, I need to go update a post to the correct information. 

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that to manipulate fire or use it as a tool requires intelligence.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that to manipulate fire or use it as a tool requires intelligence.

Humans aren’t the only ones that use tools.  Tool use does not require intelligence, building tools would.     

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 07, 2008, 07:21:27 AM

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that to manipulate fire or use it as a tool requires intelligence.

Humans aren’t the only ones that use tools.  Tool use does not require intelligence, building tools would.     

But the manipulation of fire does. No other animal we know of does it. To be able to create fire is totally different to forming crude tools. The point is, fire is not an advantage humans possess over dinosaurs in any evolutionary sense, which is what you asserted. Rather, it is the result of human evolution.

Quote from: sokarul on August 07, 2008, 07:32:30 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 07, 2008, 07:21:27 AM

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that to manipulate fire or use it as a tool requires intelligence.

Humans aren’t the only ones that use tools.  Tool use does not require intelligence, building tools would.     

But the manipulation of fire does. No other animal we know of does it. To be able to create fire is totally different to forming crude tools. The point is, fire is not an advantage humans possess over dinosaurs in any evolutionary sense, which is what you asserted. Rather, it is the result of human evolution.

You can't read can you?  Fire help humans evolve. 

The control of fire by early humans was a turning point in human cultural evolution that allowed for humans to proliferate due to the incorporation of cooked proteins and carbohydrates, expansion of human activity into the night hours, and protection from predators.