Who said anything about holding them? I said carried and that doesn't mean that we must find them clutching the tools in their hands. It means that there should be something in their vicinity that resembles the tools. But there is nothing. And they don't even have to be near vicinity. There is no findings of anything that resembles a tool at that we can place in the relevant time-frame.
The verb used is irrelevant zork. His point stands either way. Plenty of early primates have been found without tools nearby, probably a lot more than have been found
with tools.
And I am claiming that it is even super-hyper-extremely unlikely that Deinonychus may have some sort of civilization. Given such limited info it is totally absurd to suggest that there was some sort of advanced tool usage and society built by Deinonychus. It is absurd to say that absence of evidence for civilization means that there was a civilization.
I have never claimed that absence of evidence
equals evidence, simply that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (which is what you have claimed).
What I am about here? Your only argument for the dinosaur civilization was the fossil distribution around the world and then you bring for the showcase the specimen who live in some local area.
No, I did not:
I have no idea what you're on about here. I raised Tyrannosaurus rex because it is a species of dinosaur for which we have a (relatively) excellent fossil record. Yet we still only have 30 specimens of it. I was not suggesting that Tyrannosaurs used tools, just that your expectation that we should have found tools by now is absurd.
If you have reading difficulties zork, consult a professional. If not, then I suggest you take your strawman arguments elsewhere. I have been perfectly clear about why I brought Tyrannosaurus into this thread, and pretending that I made a different point when it's there in black & white is a shoddy debating tactic.
I have no idea what you're on about here. And the number of fossil records of one specimen have no relation for the tools and their remnants and preservation.
Yes it does, don't be so ridiculous. Here are some posts James made in an earlier thread (which you would already have encountered had you bothered to look for it):
Of all the dinosaurs, who existed ever, what percentage have been found in fossilised remains? Tools made of wood or anything remotely biodegradable, papers, parchments, wood carvings, fabrics, etc. would be incredibly unlikely to survive into the fossilisation stage, based on the tiny percentage of ANYTHING which does. Of the literal billions of dromaeosaurs which would have existed throughout their history, the number of ones which have been preserved probably scarcely pushes one hundred.
How many dinosaur fossils have been found in total, compared with the number of dinosaurs that actually existed?
Just for illustrative purposes, if we estimate that 10000 specimens have been found in total (it's probably far fewer), compared with the number of total dinosaurs which ever existed (if for the sake of argument we estimate that maybe on average a million individual dinosaurs were born each year - it's probably many times more than that, but you can alter the numbers however you want if you feel there were fewer or more dinosaurs - the result will still illustrate my point), over the 160 million years in which dinosaurs covered the Earth.
These numbers would result in 160000000000000 dinosaurs ever existing (this seems pretty conservative as an estimate really) which would mean that 1/16000000000 dinosaurs which existed have been found. 0.00000000625% of the dinosaurs which existed have actually fossilised and been discovered if these numbers are anywhere near accurate.
By the same token, if fewer than 16000000000 boats were built by the dinosaurs, we would be lucky to find a single specimen, even if bone and wood had equivalent candidacy for fossilisation (they don't quite, though both can become fossilised). Of course, the dinosaurs would have built far fewer than 16000000000 boats.
If anybody has any disagreement with these figures and processes, provide me with new variables. If you believe that either of the following:
Total number of dinosaur specimens discovered by humanity
Total number of dinosaurs, on average, born every year during the 160 million years in which they existed
ought to be different, please provide your own variables. I assure you that any reasonable estimates will yield the result that a miniscule percentage of the total dinosaurs which have existed have actually been found, and that the same would be true of the boats they built.
To suggest that the number of fossils discovered has no bearing on the probability of discovering tools or boats is demonstrably absurd.
I still don't understand any of your claims that there may have been a civilization. For the further clarification please define the 'civilization' and in what evidence you base your conclusion that dinosaurs may have had it. And something else than fossil distribution, because it isn't in any way evidence for the civilization, it is only evidence for the fact that dinosaurs moved around, traveled.
The construction of boats or rafts for the purposes of group-travel strongly suggests the existence of a Dromaeosaur civilisation/culture.
Sure, it's tiresome when you go by some vague memory or hearsay and even can't point out your sources. Fossil distribution is the only argument for dinosaurs civilization and I surely don't get how in the hell you can deduce civilization from the two fossil remnants.
It's very simple:
Here are some images of the dromaeosaur races Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, and their common ancestor, Deinonychus:
Adasaurus, pictured gingerly cradling its young in its nimble clawed hands.
Dromaeosaurus, a cousin of the Adasaurus, who would have existed during the same period as the Adasaurus (the late cretacious), but on different continents.
Deinonychus, the ancestor of the Dromaeosauruses and the Adasauruses.
The natural history of the dromaeosaurs is a good example of the kinds of developments which the dinosaurs as a whole would have undergone. Fossil evidence indicates that Deinonychus originated in North America during the early cretacious period.
Deinonychus are thought to have been highly social, organising themselves into complex communities in order to work together. During their development, Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw on the foot, which was highly dexterous, and could be retracted and moved back and forth. Initially, this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on. The special success of this early dromaeosaur is partly explicable by its long tail, which acting as a counterbalance allowed the use of both the hands and feet in dexterous activity.
The distribution of Deinonychus' descendants, the Adasuruses and Dromaeosauruses, suggests that one or more colonial expeditions sailed from the West Coast of North America and colonised the far East, probably landing in Japan and China and then spreading across the eastern part of Eurasia.
Above: The Pacific Ocean
Travel between the colonies during this period seems to have been very limited, because the two previously homogenous groups of dromaeosaur began to evolve minor racial adaptions which distinguished them from one another, though they retained all of the major characteristics of the dromaeosaur species. The fact that these groups proceeded to evolve on the micro scale along different lines despite their immediate proximity in the faulty "pangea" model is testament to the fact that ocean seperated them, much as it does today.
The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit. In the absence of the selection pressures brought on by the development of a civilisation, and the mastery of the surrounding wildlife and other hazards, Adasauruses' bodies became smaller than those of their Deinonychus ancestors, who had needed to be larger because their lifestyle was primarily one based around hunting and conflict. Fossil evidence suggests that the Saurolophus, a herbiverous, docile grazing dinosaur, originating in North America, also appeared in the far East at roughly the same time, making it likely that the first Deinonychian colonists brought specimens with them on the transcontinental voyage, and probably began to farm them for food (they would have previous been hunted by tribes of Deinonychus living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the American continent). The advent of an agrarian society based on the pasturing of Saurolophus would remove the necessity for the brutalities of hunting. In order to bring down a wild Saurolophus, tribal warriors would have needed considerable bulk and might as well as cunning, but their agrarian descendants needed no such unneccessary brawn, which explains their shrinking - the average Adasaurus living during the late cretacious was around 8 feet long, whereas a North American Deinonychus of the early cretacious period, who would have had to hunt the large wild Saurolophus and Tenontosaurus (probably hunted to extinction by early Deinonychian hunters, explaining why it was not exported to the far east along with Saurolophus) would have measured 11 feet long.
Above: The west coast of North America. Groups of pioneering Deinonychus, who would later microevolve into the Asasauruses, would have set sail from shores such as these.
The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines. The Dromaeosaurus, from which the species derives its name, were Deinonychus who remained in North America. Their adaption did not include such an acute reduction in claw size as the the Adasaurus, but their body size decreased significantly, to around 6 feet long. Again, this is attributable to the development of farming, primarily of the tamed Saurolophus. That the Dromaeosauruses did not develop the highly precise small-claw of the Adasauruses suggests that they may not have involved themselves so heavily in activities such as writing. Dromaeosauruses developed a coat of downy feathers, which might suggest that colder climates prevailed in North America at this time. Their smaller size than the Adasaurus could also be indicative of evolutionary adaption in order to conserve heat. If temperatures did drop for the Dromaeosaurs entering the Late Cretacious, perhaps their society was a more rugged one, and the harsh realities of surviving the cold winters precluded such an extensive focus on writing, hence the lack of precision small-foot-claw adaption shown in the Adasaurus. The evolution of their tails gave greater flexibility and may have been indicative of adaption in favour of some civilised activity, since the balancing capability of the tail enables enhanced use not only of the forelimbs but also the foot claw.
Above: Saurolophus. These gentle giants were probably first hunted by the North American Deinonychus, and later herded and grazed by them when farming entered their culture just prior to the colonisation era, and splitting of Asasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, the two Deinonychus descendant races.
So, fossil remains suggest that as intelligent Deinonychus became highly successful hunter-gatherers during the Early Cretacious, conquering the entire North American continent with such rampant success that they drove one of their main prey animals, the Tenontosaurus, to extinction. It is likely that the advent of Saurolophus domestication roughly coincided with, or just preceded, the maritime renaissance and colonisation period. The tendency of agrarian societies to promote massive population growth is clear, and in this scenario, facing scarcity of land and dropping temperatures, some of the Deinonychus would have begun their colonisation of China and the far East, taking with them livestock as well as elements of the budding culture of North America. Fossil evidence suggests that the Adasaurus society was massively successful, placing some of their near relatives as far afield as Denmark. An empire the size of Alexander the Great's would no doubt have been underpinned by careful organisation and a culture steeped in the written word and refinements of erudition. Meanwhile, as the Late Cretacious brought colder climates in North America, the remaining American Deinonychus grew smaller, hairier and more rugged as they faced the elements as best they could, thought they still retained their agriculture and some vestements of civilisation.
They are fantasies and speculations which base only on the fact of the fossil distribution. Don't think that I haven't browsed through James's messages and that is exactly why I say that these don't have any resemblance to some serious work. I dare you to show me some "lengthy and well presented" messages from James which qualify as decent work on your eyes. I hope to get some insight about what you qualify as serious work and what is your acceptance level for that. If you provide me that information(links to these works) then I think I can present some lengthy and well presented works to you in future instead of these messages I write right now.
You cannot simultaneously demand sources and dismiss them in advance. It makes you look inconsistent at best and petulant at worst. You being awkward for the sake of it, raising imaginary obstacles and setting arbitrary standards in whatever way suits you best. This is not the first time you have done this, nor do I expect it to be the last. It's one of your worst habits zork.
If James' work is so trivial, so unimportant, so lacking in 'seriousness', then you should have no trouble engaging with it and critiquing it. Instead you seek to have it deemed 'impermissable as evidence' because it fails to satisfy some obscure definition of 'work' held by you alone. I think the reason you're trying to avoid discussing his work is because you cannot find any problems with it.