James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: Ski on March 10, 2011, 07:41:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2011, 07:30:00 PM

There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.

They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.

So elephants and whales should be several times more intelligent than humans then?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 10, 2011, 09:23:29 PM

Quote from: Ski on March 10, 2011, 07:41:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2011, 07:30:00 PM

There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.

They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.

So elephants and whales should be several times more intelligent than humans then?

I never said weight. I said shape. Many in the sculls of dinosaurs, the parts that contain the frontal lobes are extremely small, while parts that take care of more primal functions are larger.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 10, 2011, 09:23:29 PM

Quote from: Ski on March 10, 2011, 07:41:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2011, 07:30:00 PM

There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.

They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.

So elephants and whales should be several times more intelligent than humans then?

Rule of thumb is brain mass/body mass I once heard.

Quote from: Crustinator on March 10, 2011, 09:29:54 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 10, 2011, 09:21:21 AM

James theory is that dinosaurs migrated due to intelligence.  If they aren't intelligent, it is still possible they migrated.

Protip: You don't need intelligence to migrate.

In conclusion: Things migrate.

I congratulate our bravve brother James in unveiling this revelation which has thus far evaded teh wit of all men including Einstien

Quote from: Ski on March 10, 2011, 07:41:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2011, 07:30:00 PM

There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.

They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.

Now of course, we don't know for sure that dinosaur brains worked anything like ones that are around today, but considering today has the modernized evolved forms of them, we can assume that they function similar.

I don't know that we undrestand how brains generally work.  I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.

I don't know that we understand how brains generally work. 

So you deny neurology and neuroscience exist?

I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.

Just because you personally do not know it does not mean humanity as a whole does not. That is like the Krebs Cycle may or may not exist because you do not understand how it works.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 10, 2011, 09:23:29 PM

Quote from: Ski on March 10, 2011, 07:41:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2011, 07:30:00 PM

There's just no actual evidence that this is the case, and the current explanation for the propagation of the dinosaurs is actually quite reasonable, I think, whether seen from FE or RE perspective.

This. Though I confess the dogmatic assertions that dinosaurs were dim-witted strikes me as poor doctrine considering how very little we know about the creatures. I find little reason, however, to assume dinosaur civilization.

They aren't exactly dogmatic. Today we understand how brains generally work. If certain parts of a dinosaur brains are undeveloped or very small (which can be known by the shapes of their skulls), we can get a good estimate of their cognitive functions.

Now of course, we don't know for sure that dinosaur brains worked anything like ones that are around today, but considering today has the modernized evolved forms of them, we can assume that they function similar.

I don't know that we undrestand how brains generally work.  I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.

Phrenology is the measurement of the outside of the skull, not the inside.

Quote from: John Davis on March 11, 2011, 09:51:07 AM

I don't know that we understand how brains generally work.  

So you deny neurology and neuroscience exist?

Quote from: John Davis on March 11, 2011, 09:51:07 AM

I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.

Just because you personally do not know it does not mean humanity as a whole does not. That is like the Krebs Cycle may or may not exist because you do not understand how it works.

So you hold phrenology is valid?  That is against what "humanity as a whole" knows.  At best you can say phrenology is invalid but what we know about skulls of animals and the leaps of logic we make due to that is valid.

Surely neurology and neuroscience exist, but whether they understand "how brains basically work" has yet to be shown by you or the sciences involved.  

Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.

Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.

Or that dinosaurs could build boats because some bird nests can float.

Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.

How can you even attempt to draw that conclusion?

Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.

We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.

In order to make this one theory of migrating, boat making dinosaurs work, you have to pretty much deny a handful of other established theories and sciences.

Have you forgotten where you are?

Bear in mind, the "theories" which require dismissal in order to assent to the historical facts I have identified are those wild fantasies of the same geological elite which believe the Earth to be a spinning, whirling space ball.

If you deny the plain evidence regarding the history of ancient dinosaurs, you are required to pontificate in contravention of empirical fact and simple common sense.

Quote from: John Davis on March 11, 2011, 09:06:53 PM

Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.

How can you even attempt to draw that conclusion?

Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.

We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.

In order to make this one theory of migrating, boat making dinosaurs work, you have to pretty much deny a handful of other established theories and sciences.

Except we only have a rudimentary understanding of neuroscience.   And yes, the same holds true of gastoentrerology.  We have no idea based off our evidence how dinosaurs digested food.

Heres a quote from wikipedia that highlites a few of the reasons neuroscience is still a young baby science:

For example, neuroscientists have yet to fully explain the neural basis of consciousness, learning, memory, perception, sensation, and sleep. Several questions regarding the development and evolution of the brain remain unsolved.

Development and evolution of the brain is certainly key here.  As is the basic lack of a neural basis for consciousness, learning, memory, and other basic brain functions.

If you deny the plain evidence regarding the history of ancient dinosaurs, you are required to pontificate in contravention of empirical fact and simple common sense.

Please do let us know when you plan to present some of this evidence. I am quite eager to see it!

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 11, 2011, 09:54:05 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 11, 2011, 09:51:07 AM

I don't know that we understand how brains generally work.  

So you deny neurology and neuroscience exist?

Quote from: John Davis on March 11, 2011, 09:51:07 AM

I also don't know the accuracy of phrenology even in other species, let alone one so alien to us as dinosaurs.

Just because you personally do not know it does not mean humanity as a whole does not. That is like the Krebs Cycle may or may not exist because you do not understand how it works.

So you hold phrenology is valid?  That is against what "humanity as a whole" knows.  At best you can say phrenology is invalid but what we know about skulls of animals and the leaps of logic we make due to that is valid.

Surely neurology and neuroscience exist, but whether they understand "how brains basically work" has yet to be shown by you or the sciences involved.  

Saying we understand ancient reptilian brains because we understand human brains is akin to saying dinosaurs could build boats because we can.

Who said they hold phrenology valid? It's safe to say that there are not 27 organs in the brain controlling random things like "can murder" and bumps on the skull show how much we use said organs.

Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.

How many ancient dinosaur brains have we found again?

We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.

First of all, that is not necessarily so. Secondly, why is it that this argument is valid when you want to say dinosaurs couldn't build boats because modern avian dinosaurs can't, but isn't valid when we want to say ancient dinosaurs may have been as or more intelligent than modern avian dinosaurs? You can't have your cake and eat it.

The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.

The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.

You have yet to prove that, though.

The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.

Even if modern dinosaurs can build boats (floating nests), that does not necessarily mean that ancient dinosaurs had the same ability.

The line of argument is even more seriously flawed; modern dinosaurs can build boats.

Indeed; I avoid the word 'boat' myself as it seems to produce a great deal of consternation among our resident globularists. That avian dinosaurs can build river vessels (for example) is not in doubt:





Indeed, some avian dinosaur cultures even exhibit an appreciation for purely aesthetic architecture.

Just because if floats, that doesn't make it a boat (or a vessel).

Also, something that floats on calm water such as a lake or river may not necessarily float on the ocean.

Even if modern dinosaurs can build boats (floating nests), that does not necessarily mean that ancient dinosaurs had the same ability.

Like I said, globularists need to make up their minds. Either you agree comparisons with modern avian dinosaurs are valid (in which case that is the subject that requires debate), or you think such comparisons aren't valid (in which case the debate is about the validity of such comparisons). You cannot simultaneously accept and reject modern avian dinosaurs as a valid basis for comparison and conjecture.

Just because if floats, that doesn't make it a boat (or a vessel).

And what would make it a boat? And putting that aside, even if it isn't a boat, surely the capacity required to build a floating structure is identical to the capacity required to build a boat, wouldn't you say?

Also, something that floats on calm water such as a lake or river may not necessarily float on the ocean.

What? I'm certain such structures would float on the ocean. Whether they would stay afloat for long in choppier waters is another question, but you could quite reasonably ask the same question of many human boats. Clearly these vessels are not designed for oceanic travel, and it would be a waste of the dinosaur's precious resources to 'over engineer' utterly redundant structural features into the vessel's design.

Quote from: markjo on March 14, 2011, 07:04:59 AM

Even if modern dinosaurs can build boats (floating nests), that does not necessarily mean that ancient dinosaurs had the same ability.

Like I said, globularists need to make up their minds. Either you agree comparisons with modern avian dinosaurs are valid (in which case that is the subject that requires debate), or you think such comparisons aren't valid (in which case the debate is about the validity of such comparisons). You cannot simultaneously accept and reject modern avian dinosaurs as a valid basis for comparison and conjecture.

Modern avian dinosaurs may share some characteristics with ancient dinosaurs.  I have yet to see any evidence that building floating nests is one of them.

Quote from: markjo on March 14, 2011, 07:53:09 AM

Just because if floats, that doesn't make it a boat (or a vessel).

And what would make it a boat? And putting that aside, even if it isn't a boat, surely the capacity required to build a floating structure is identical to the capacity required to build a boat, wouldn't you say?

Boats are designed to travel in the water.  Buoys, soccer balls and rubber duckies all float, but I doubt that anyone would reasonably consider any of them to be boats.  In the same way, I doubt that any reasonable person would call a floating nest a boat, unless it was shown that the builder of said nest built it for the purpose of traveling by water.

Are there dinosaurs on Flat-Earth?

Are there dinosaurs on Flat-Earth?

FYI, modern avian dinosaurs = birds

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 11, 2011, 10:48:49 PM

Saying we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology is akin is saying we understand how dinosaurs digested food because we understand gastroenterology.

How many ancient dinosaur brains have we found again?

Irrelevant. Finding the actual brain is not required in brain allometry or rating a species EQ.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 11, 2011, 10:48:49 PM

We understand how evolution works, therefore, modern dinosaurs should resemble how the ancient ones work.

First of all, that is not necessarily so. Secondly, why is it that this argument is valid when you want to say dinosaurs couldn't build boats because modern avian dinosaurs can't, but isn't valid when we want to say ancient dinosaurs may have been as or more intelligent than modern avian dinosaurs? You can't have your cake and eat it.

When have I stated they cannot be as intellegent as modern dinosaurs? I am saying that they most likely are not drastically more intellegent than the modern dinosaurs.

As Markjo has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that modern avian dinosaurs can build "boats". Just because it floats or looks like it is floating does not mean it can be used for transportation. I would like to see a picture of a dinosaur traveling down a river, or voyaging an ocean in such a boat, not a picture of one that is in a pond in which the nest could actually be just resting on something else.

Quote from: IAMSAM on November 09, 2009, 11:15:08 AM

Just because Robosteve is not around makes sky mirrors no longer exsist?

Exactly. Just as when James is not around the colonial dinosaurs no longer exist.

\
Just a quick Question since the above quote's is  the first post in this thread where can I find and read about James's theory on Dino's???

As Markjo has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that modern avian dinosaurs can build "boats". Just because it floats or looks like it is floating does not mean it can be used for transportation. I would like to see a picture of a dinosaur traveling down a river, or voyaging an ocean in such a boat, not a picture of one that is in a pond in which the nest could actually be just resting on something else.

Not to mention the fact that the birds would need some way of tethering their "boats" so that they wouldn't float away while the bird is out looking for food.

Irrelevant. Finding the actual brain is not required in brain allometry or rating a species EQ.

we can understand the cognitive capacity of ancient dinosaur brains because we understand neurology

Sorry, since when are either of those regarded as neurology?

When have I stated they cannot be as intellegent as modern dinosaurs? I am saying that they most likely are not drastically more intellegent than the modern dinosaurs.

Based on what? All I've seen are non sequiturs and poorly phrased conjecture. Furthermore, even if we assume that they aren't "drastically more intelligent than . . . modern dinosaurs", I don't see how that problematizes the theory. How about a cogent argument?

As Markjo has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that modern avian dinosaurs can build "boats".

I don't think anyone here claims to have proven anything, and I don't think anyone claims that definitive proof is possible.

Just because it floats or looks like it is floating does not mean it can be used for transportation. I would like to see a picture of a dinosaur traveling down a river, or voyaging an ocean in such a boat, not a picture of one that is in a pond in which the nest could actually be just resting on something else.

First of all, it's well established that the nests of Grebes and some other dinosaurs are free-floating, and that other water-nests are usually positioned on a foundation which is itself built by the dinosaurs.


Furthermore, contemporary dinosaurs do not need need boats, as they are the dinosauric embodiment of the Nietzschean ?bermensch; a race that has overcome itself, and acheived the synthesis of Apollonian and Dionysian being through contemplation and construction, song and dance. That they do not build boats does not indicate that they cannot build boats, but rather that they do not want or need to build boats. That they possess the capacity to build boat-like structures and far more complex architecture is clear, as is the existence of a dinosauric culture and aesthetic.