James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: General Disarray on September 12, 2010, 10:21:18 PM

Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.

That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?

If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 12, 2010, 10:23:26 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 12, 2010, 10:21:18 PM

Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.

That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?

If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.

If they were intelligent they wouldn't have gone the way of the dodo bird They should have remained the lords of the Earth until such day the Earth is to be destroyed.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 12, 2010, 10:34:21 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 12, 2010, 10:23:26 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 12, 2010, 10:21:18 PM

Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.

That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?

If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.

If they were intelligent they wouldn't have gone the way of the dodo bird They should have remained the lords of the Earth until such day the Earth is to be destroyed.

Yeah because there's nothing that could happen to the Earth now that could conceivably kill all humans lol.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 12, 2010, 10:38:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 12, 2010, 10:34:21 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 12, 2010, 10:23:26 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 12, 2010, 10:21:18 PM

Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.

That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?

If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.

If they were intelligent they wouldn't have gone the way of the dodo bird They should have remained the lords of the Earth until such day the Earth is to be destroyed.

Yeah because there's nothing that could happen to the Earth now that could conceivably kill all humans lol.

If we are truly intelligent, that will never happen. Perhaps you are implying we humans are dumb? Perhaps in 400 years we will see the Planet of the Apes, and maybe even intelligent bugs ruling Earth where the Starship Troopers all get ripped apart and even out smarted by the Brain Bugs!

No, the dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to build fire. Their EQ was less than 1. Reference: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html

Trig said it has been demonstrated that dinosaurs are not intelligent enough. I want to hear these demonstrations that he claims have happened.

The one which is showing a disturbing lack of intelligence (or at least of reading skills) is EnglshGentleman. Trig said there is no demonstration that dinosaurs were intelligent enough to build significant tools.

Since poorly educated people like EnglshGentleman like to tell stories for which there is absolutely no evidence, but then get hassled for the evidence they cannot show, they try to shift the argument around.

Quote from: General Disarray on September 12, 2010, 10:21:18 PM

Lurk moar. Plenty of evidence concerning the intelligence of dinosaurs has been posted in this thread.

That isn't evidence. That is conjecture. Where is the proof?

Speaking of proof, where is your proof that any creature, other than humans, did (or even could) start fires by rubbing sticks together?

If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.

But the proposition was that dinosaurs were intelligent (and had thumbs and boats and fire). We found there was no evidence to support this.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 12, 2010, 10:34:21 PM

If I remember correctly, it was in fact agreed nearly unanimously, if not unanimously, by members of both sides of the debate that there has been no true proof that the dinosaurs weren't intelligent.

But the proposition was that dinosaurs were intelligent (and had thumbs and boats and fire). We found there was no evidence to support this.

Roundy does seem to forget that the propostion needs evidence, not the null--that we have no reason to believe. He confuses open-mindedness with fantasy. It's sad really. So there is evidence that dinosaurs are not intelligent. Is there any evidence to support fire starting by dinosaurs?--No. to support that they used boats?--No. That they had thuimbs?--No. Is James once again forgetting how to deal with reality and the Scientific Method?--Yes. Is Roundy inanely supporting that fringe concept?--Yes.

Is Roundy inanely supporting that fringe concept?--Yes.

Why else do you think they made him a mod?

No, the dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to build fire. Their EQ was less than 1. Reference: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html

That is all guess work. Guessing isn't proof.

Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 13, 2010, 01:13:50 AM

No, the dinosaurs were not intelligent enough to build fire. Their EQ was less than 1. Reference: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/04/dinosaur-intelligence.html

That is all guess work. Guessing isn't proof.

Gee, a peer-review top-shelf journal article's summary in Discover is "all guess work". I guess you have a reference somewhere that you've forgotten to post that counters the diligent and precise work of these experts and their reviewers? Any journal article would at least get the ball rolling. I suspect though, like always, you can't back up your claims. How sad.

Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.

Just pointing out that you're wrong.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 13, 2010, 10:27:13 AM

Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.

Just pointing out that you're wrong.

lol if you really think that, then you have no place arguing in this thread.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 13, 2010, 10:27:13 AM

Just pointing out that dinosaurs are not extinct.

Just pointing out that you're wrong.

They are and they are not.

 Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor must be included in a group for that group to be natural, birds would thus be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct.
 
 and

From the point of view of cladistics, birds are dinosaurs, but in ordinary speech the word "dinosaur" does not include birds

The above is true, and I can affirm with confidence that I have seen a dinosaur using tools with my own eyes (and have also heard a dinosaur speak).

The above is true, and I can affirm with confidence that I have seen a dinosaur using tools with my own eyes (and have also heard a dinosaur speak).

Please provide evidence of the above claims and without any pendantic "birds are dinosaurs".

But birds are dinosaurs.

But birds are dinosaurs.

Proof?

Protein sequencing of Tyrannosaurus remains in 2007 demonstrated their close phylogenetic relationship to modern birds: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280.

Protein sequencing of Tyrannosaurus remains in 2007 demonstrated their close phylogenetic relationship to modern birds: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280.

I counter with the less pendantic:

With all that said, I'm still going to continue hedging, because there is a big difference between technical nomenclature and everyday language. When we talk to non-scientists, they will understand the term ``dinosaur'' to include the likes of T. rex and Triceratops but not swans and sparrows. OK then, there's no need to rock that boat - let's use the word in accordance with people's expectations - in everyday life, ``dinosaurs'' generally means ``non-avian dinosaurs'' - or what I like to think of as ``Real Dinosaurs'' :-)

Reference: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/dinobird/index.html.

So have you seen any 'Real Dinosaurs', or are you just here to troll?

Quote from: James on September 13, 2010, 11:15:13 AM

Protein sequencing of Tyrannosaurus remains in 2007 demonstrated their close phylogenetic relationship to modern birds: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280.

I counter with the less pendantic:

Quote

With all that said, I'm still going to continue hedging, because there is a big difference between technical nomenclature and everyday language. When we talk to non-scientists, they will understand the term ``dinosaur'' to include the likes of T. rex and Triceratops but not swans and sparrows. OK then, there's no need to rock that boat - let's use the word in accordance with people's expectations - in everyday life, ``dinosaurs'' generally means ``non-avian dinosaurs'' - or what I like to think of as ``Real Dinosaurs'' :-)

Reference: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/dinobird/index.html.

So have you seen any 'Real Dinosaurs', or are you just here to troll?

Holy crap..... did ClockTower just say we should be less pedantic?

From that exact same article.

Since then, a fundamental shift in nomenclature practices has meant that this bird-inclusive definition of the Dinosauria is now accepted as orthodox. This shift has been towards a viewpoint often called the "cladistic'' view (related to, but separate from, the issue of cladistic analysis), which is that the only groupings which may validly by given names are monophyletic ones - that is, those consisting of a single animal together with all of its ancestors.

Holy crap..... did ClockTower just say we should be less pedantic?
From that exact same article.

Quote

Since then, a fundamental shift in nomenclature practices has meant that this bird-inclusive definition of the Dinosauria is now accepted as orthodox. This shift has been towards a viewpoint often called the "cladistic'' view (related to, but separate from, the issue of cladistic analysis), which is that the only groupings which may validly by given names are monophyletic ones - that is, those consisting of a single animal together with all of its ancestors.

Yes. And yes, the pendantic definition of dinosaurs does include avians. I really doubt that anyone outside of strict taxonomy commonly uses the word, 'dinosaur' to include avians. The author of the articles agrees as I quoted.

In that case you know full well the answer - with my eyes I have seen birds and mammals do these things. Only in the limitless demesne of my unwaking mind have I spoken with prehistoric beasts, or used tools alongside them; I fancy that in some past life I too was probably a dinosaur.

In that case you know full well the answer - with my eyes I have seen birds and mammals do these things. Only in the limitless demesne of my unwaking mind have I spoken with prehistoric beasts, or used tools alongside them; I fancy that in some past life I too was probably a dinosaur.

You do understand that dreams are not real, right? Delusions should not guide you. (Roundy, someone has you beat with an even more inane 'reason' to believe him. "I dreamt it, so it's true." trumps "It's intuitive to me, so it's true." any day.)

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 13, 2010, 11:21:44 AM

Holy crap..... did ClockTower just say we should be less pedantic?
From that exact same article.

Quote

Since then, a fundamental shift in nomenclature practices has meant that this bird-inclusive definition of the Dinosauria is now accepted as orthodox. This shift has been towards a viewpoint often called the "cladistic'' view (related to, but separate from, the issue of cladistic analysis), which is that the only groupings which may validly by given names are monophyletic ones - that is, those consisting of a single animal together with all of its ancestors.

Yes. And yes, the pendantic definition of dinosaurs does include avians. I really doubt that anyone outside of strict taxonomy commonly uses the word, 'dinosaur' to include avians. The author of the articles agrees as I quoted.

So yes, dinosaurs do include avians.

I think this pretty much confirms the validity of dinosaur-bird comparisons. It's amazing that this point was once so heavily contested. In my view it is only a matter of time before the strength of our argument is grudgingly acknowledged.

Birds don't have a civilization capable of building ocean-crossing boats, therefore Dinosaurs didn't have them either. Thanks for clearing that up!

I think this pretty much confirms the validity of dinosaur-bird comparisons. It's amazing that this point was once so heavily contested. In my view it is only a matter of time before the strength of our argument is grudgingly acknowledged.

Please link to these successful "dinosaur-bird" comparisons. I don't see any point "so heavily contested". We've suspected for decades that birds evolved from reptiles. You do understand that I can pendantically call you a fish, right? So I can claim that fish make fires by rubbing sticks together, right?