James's theory on dinosaurs

I'd just like to point out that it's paleontologists who find dino bones.  Archaeologists deal with human artifacts only, as they're a branch of anthropology.

Well, it's one of those stupid -oligists.

James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures.  I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing.

It's proof that dinosaurs can build boats. It shows that ancient dinosaurs could plausibly have such a capability.

Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces.  Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?

Paleontologists have only found a handful of Deinonychus specimens. It's entirely reasonably to think that they would not have found their wooden, sea-faring boats, due to the probability of such material surviving intact and where they were probably stored (at sea or on the coast).

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 22, 2012, 09:33:44 AM

James brought up that we've seen dinosaurs build structures.  I was merely pointing out that we haven't seen ancient dinosaurs (i.e. what most people mean when they say dinosaur) doing that, so it's proof of nothing.

It's proof that dinosaurs can build boats. It shows that ancient dinosaurs could plausibly have such a capability.

Ha ha, ok, if you say so.

I like how you guys keep conveniently leaving out the bits about taking other plants and animals with them and having an actual civilization when you bring up the whole "birds can build boats" thing.  No, they can't build boats like would be required for this theory to work.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2012, 01:05:24 PM

Archeologists have found a number of fossilized dinosaur bones, eggs, nests and even feces.  Why should it be unreasonable to expect to be able to find fossilized dinosaur boats?

Paleontologists have only found a handful of Deinonychus specimens. It's entirely reasonably to think that they would not have found their wooden, sea-faring boats, due to the probability of such material surviving intact and where they were probably stored (at sea or on the coast).

Paleontologists have found thousands of dinosaurs that the Deinonychus were supposed to have moved across the ocean, and yet, they have found a handful (I think even a handful is an exageration) of Deinonychus skeletons. Even if you want to continue with the fantasy of a complete civilization of Deinonychus that left absolutely no trace whatsoever, the Deinonychus would have left their own bones behind. Why have the Paleontologists found thousands of the animals that were herded by these Deinonychus and not found a single Deinonychus near the herds?

Lots of things are wrong with this "theory", among which the most possible lack of capacity to make an ocean-faring boat is just one.

You can also think about the humans, which you use so much in your analogies. When paleontologists from the future look for evidence of our time they will find human skeletons everywhere. In every continent, in every kind of strata. Your Deinonychus have been found in even less quantities than the Trilobites from the early Cambrian.

I like how you guys keep conveniently leaving out the bits about taking other plants and animals with them and having an actual civilization when you bring up the whole "birds can build boats" thing.  No, they can't build boats like would be required for this theory to work.

Tell me something, when was the first human civilisation? And what do you mean by civilisation? Why are we confident that the Pacific was colonised by humans who could build boats, despite there being no evidence of such boats?

Paleontologists have found thousands of dinosaurs that the Deinonychus were supposed to have moved across the ocean, and yet, they have found a handful (I think even a handful is an exageration) of Deinonychus skeletons. Even if you want to continue with the fantasy of a complete civilization of Deinonychus that left absolutely no trace whatsoever, the Deinonychus would have left their own bones behind. Why have the Paleontologists found thousands of the animals that were herded by these Deinonychus and not found a single Deinonychus near the herds?

Can you post evidence of the above please? I think the fossil record is a lot patchier than you're trying to make out.

Lots of things are wrong with this "theory", among which the most possible lack of capacity to make an ocean-faring boat is just one.

Could you clarify what the bolded terms mean? I don't understand.

You can also think about the humans, which you use so much in your analogies. When paleontologists from the future look for evidence of our time they will find human skeletons everywhere. In every continent, in every kind of strata. Your Deinonychus have been found in even less quantities than the Trilobites from the early Cambrian.

If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?

Why are we confident that the Pacific was colonised by humans who could build boats, despite there being no evidence of such boats?

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?


And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.

If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?

This is the way you get perceived as an idiot. "Relatively few"? Compared with the handful (I think that was your own word) of Deinonychus found in all the Earth?

We have found prehistoric human remains in every continent except Antarctica. We have found Australopithecus from the time when all of humanity (if you consider Australopithecus human) was no more than some groups of individuals in the center of Africa. We have found more Mayas in Mexico than Tyrannosaurus in the whole world. I have seen more remains of Muiscas than the findings of Diplodocus found in the whole world.

By contrast, your beloved Deinonychus have been found only in the current USA, and all the findings together are less than the findings of pharaohs in Egypt.

But please tell me, why if the Deinonychus are supposed to have been moving thousands of plants and animals across the ocean, why do we find remains of them only on one side of the ocean? And what about Africa, Australia, and so many other places where we have found dinosaurs but no Deinonychus?

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2012, 08:39:21 PM

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?


And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.

So why should we assume?  Modern dinosaurs don't seem capable of advanced.  Alex the parrot, for example, did little beyond answer questions like "which block is blue?"  It's an impressive trick, yes, but the most remarkable communicator of the birds wasn't creating oral histories and plans.

It'd be very odd indeed for ancient dinosaurs to have had those capabilities and to have no remnant of them today in birds.  It could have happened, yes, but to think it's plausible is ridiculous.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2012, 08:39:21 PM

Because many Pacific Islanders have an oral and/or written history of such events.  Last I knew, dinosaurs (and pretty much every other species ever known) don't.

There are oral histories of many things which no mainstream scientist believes. There are even oral histories which have become written histories, such as the Old Testament. Does this mean Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God?

Perhaps: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/22/holy-moses-science-may-explain-parting-of-sea/

And as we don't really know that much about dinosauric vocalisation, it's a bit much to say we know for certain no such oral history exists.

Apparently the birds aren't talking, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_bird

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 22, 2012, 08:07:32 PM

If that's so, why is it we have found relatively few prehistoric human remains, despite their temporal proximity?

This is the way you get perceived as an idiot. "Relatively few"? Compared with the handful (I think that was your own word) of Deinonychus found in all the Earth?

We have found prehistoric human remains in every continent except Antarctica. We have found Australopithecus from the time when all of humanity (if you consider Australopithecus human) was no more than some groups of individuals in the center of Africa. We have found more Mayas in Mexico than Tyrannosaurus in the whole world. I have seen more remains of Muiscas than the findings of Diplodocus found in the whole world.

Okay, take any given species of prehistoric dinosaur (i.e. Triassic, Jurrassic, Cretaceous etc) that we have only a minimal fossil record of. You've mentioned several. Are you saying that all species of prehistoric dinosaur had near-impossibly small populations, just because we have only found a tiny number of specimens? Because that is not what paleontologists think.


Also, the "Pharohs" (i.e. ancient Egyptians) were not prehistoric humans. Nor were the Mayans, and nor were the Muiscas. When it comes to actual prehistoric remains, we have found relatively few given their chronological proximity to modern man. And prehistoric dinosaurs are much, much older.

By contrast, your beloved Deinonychus have been found only in the current USA, and all the findings together are less than the findings of pharaohs in Egypt.

But please tell me, why if the Deinonychus are supposed to have been moving thousands of plants and animals across the ocean, why do we find remains of them only on one side of the ocean? And what about Africa, Australia, and so many other places where we have found dinosaurs but no Deinonychus?

This is a total misrepresentation of the fossil record. Dromaeosauridae have been found all over the world, but the number of proper specimens is still incredibly small. We have more described specimens of Velociraptor than any other dromaeosaur, and do you know how many that is? Twelve. Tyrannosaurus rex is a species of which there is considered to be a relative wealth of fossil material. Yet there are only 30 specimens known to us, despite this being a relatively large (and therefore easy to find) dinosaur fossil.


Yet any mainstream paleontologist will tell you that they believe that many, many of the creatures existed. Simply put, you're making a mountain of a molehill. The fossil record is far too patchy to draw the kind of conclusions you're drawing.

So why should we assume?  Modern dinosaurs don't seem capable of advanced.  Alex the parrot, for example, did little beyond answer questions like "which block is blue?"  It's an impressive trick, yes, but the most remarkable communicator of the birds wasn't creating oral histories and plans.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just saying markjo shouldn't.


And you're confusing the ability of dinosaurs to communicate with each other (which they clearly can do) with their ability to communicate with us. After all, we're capable of communicating in very advanced ways, but we can't communicate with dinosaurs in many simple ways. Why the double standard?

It'd be very odd indeed for ancient dinosaurs to have had those capabilities and to have no remnant of them today in birds.  It could have happened, yes, but to think it's plausible is ridiculous.

Now who's making assumptions?

Perhaps: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/22/holy-moses-science-may-explain-parting-of-sea/

In what way does this link support the idea that Moses parted the Red Sea through God Almighty?

Apparently the birds aren't talking, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_bird

I didn't say that, as you well know, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

And you're confusing the ability of dinosaurs to communicate with each other (which they clearly can do) with their ability to communicate with us. After all, we're capable of communicating in very advanced ways, but we can't communicate with dinosaurs in many simple ways. Why the double standard?

Why don't you try actually looking into all the research done by zoologists?  I know they're no great practitioners of the zetetic method like yourself, but they manage to actually find out some interesting things that go beyond mere speculation.

So anyway, bird communication has been quite well-studied, and no, it doesn't appear to be particularly advanced.  Most bird calls mean "here I am!" and they use them to identify each other and stay out of each others' territories.  There are also mating calls, which once against, are basically "here I am!"

Birds perfect their own calls.  They don't change them.  They don't use different tones.  The only exception to this is mimicking birds.  Their mimicks are as exact as possible, though, and in the wild are used as mating calls.

The only time birds go outside their usual identifying calls is if there's danger, when they'll make high-pitched, difficult-to-locate cheeps to warn everyone in the vicinity. 

You'll probably come back with something like "We can't know for sure they're not talking about their great bird civilization" and you're right, we can't be, but it doesn't seem likely.  We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development.  We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills.  This is how we work.  It's not how birds work.

We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development.  We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills.  This is how we work.  It's not how birds work.

I think that perhaps, you are anthropomorphizing birds.  You said it well yourself when you say, "This is how we work.  It's not how birds work."  Simply because something limits us, or us hard for us to do does not mean that it is difficult for our avian friends.  Dismissing a possibility simply because it's difficult for you to imagine it working that way is not a good reason for discounting it.

Why don't you try actually looking into all the research done by zoologists?  I know they're no great practitioners of the zetetic method like yourself, but they manage to actually find out some interesting things that go beyond mere speculation.

So anyway, bird communication has been quite well-studied, and no, it doesn't appear to be particularly advanced.  Most bird calls mean "here I am!" and they use them to identify each other and stay out of each others' territories.  There are also mating calls, which once against, are basically "here I am!"

Birds perfect their own calls.  They don't change them.  They don't use different tones.  The only exception to this is mimicking birds.  Their mimicks are as exact as possible, though, and in the wild are used as mating calls.

The only time birds go outside their usual identifying calls is if there's danger, when they'll make high-pitched, difficult-to-locate cheeps to warn everyone in the vicinity. 

You'll probably come back with something like "We can't know for sure they're not talking about their great bird civilization" and you're right, we can't be, but it doesn't seem likely.  We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development.  We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills.  This is how we work.  It's not how birds work.

This is not really true. Our knowledge of dinosauric communication is limited to testing for grammar etc. as in The Alex Studies, or recording them in the wild in scenarios where orating tales of yore is bound to be unlikely. I don't recite the oral history of my people as I cycle to college each day, or when I'm sitting in a cafe. I communicate about day-to-day stuff. Moreover, oral histories have always been the preserve of the few in human society, and the same could be the case in dinosauric society.


In any event, I still don't understand why we're talking about this. As I said above, oral or written histories/mythologies do not constitute real evidence of the events they describe. Otherwise I could present various cosmologies as evidence that the Earth is flat and dust my hands off.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 22, 2012, 10:47:04 PM

We're a species that relies a lot on communication, and this is reflected in our brains and development.  We can't start acting like adults a few weeks or months after birth because it takes time for us to build our knowledge of the world and, most importantly, to gain our language and social skills.  This is how we work.  It's not how birds work.

I think that perhaps, you are anthropomorphizing birds.  You said it well yourself when you say, "This is how we work.  It's not how birds work."  Simply because something limits us, or us hard for us to do does not mean that it is difficult for our avian friends.  Dismissing a possibility simply because it's difficult for you to imagine it working that way is not a good reason for discounting it.

Yawn, yes, endless possibilities are imaginable.  Come back when you have evidence that birds are communicating anything more complex than what I talked about.

It is invigorating to see such a renewed interest in my research, and with some great points from both sides.  I cannot thank my colleagues enough for taking up the arguments for the purpose of educating the sceptics.

Other theorists seem to be doing well fielding technical queries, many of which have familiar answers which have occured at length throughout this 6-year research project.  It is a pleasure to see them disseminating the important nuances of this crucial scientific finding.

I would like to raise a few of the conceits I have noticed in the latest posts, on the part of interlocuters who doubt the veracity of this exciting field of study.

Some common preconceptions, which I think deserve questioning:

The Idea of Linear Progress
Living in such a technological age, we are often inclined to think of progress as an increasing linear curve with few setbacks.  However, I argue that enlightenment and knowledge occur not in increasing measure throughout history, but in pockets - rafts if you will - of ephemeral and temporary insight in an ocean of intellectual darkness. When the Library of Alexandria was burned, many important documents were lost for centuries, and the medieval world was plunged into an age of superstition, ignorance and globularism which lasted for almost a thousand years.  I would remind you that the scale of this catastrophe pales in comparison to the near total bombardment of the Earth with asteroids, and it should not surprise us if the technological setbacks to terrestrial animals is accordingly greater.  So - do not imagine that all historical periods before ours have been so many orders of magnitude behind ours in thought and science.

Human Exceptionalism
Really, this is just another form of racism.  All to often I hear the same tirade - "animals can't do this, animals can't do that" - however, just because they don't live in houses there really is no reason to smear animals as crude or ignorant brutes.  Many animals are adept tool users, and can solve a multitude of problems which are really not so different from our own (feeding ourselves, finding a mate, escaping predators) - the sorts of problems which in fact, our own technologies singularly focus on accomplishing.  Otters, for example, routinely break open shellfish with stone implements during their long fishing trips on the open ocean.  Are you capable of opening shellfish whilst swimming in the middle of the ocean?  Probably not as capable as an otter.  And probably not as capable as a dinosaur either.

Pessimism About the Ocean/Fear of Boats?
A common line of argument which occurs in discussions of this nature is that crossing the ocean is far too difficult for a dinosaur to accomplish.  People who think this, I fear, are projecting their own insecurities about boating onto the noble dinosaur.  It is true, the sea is not for everybody - but that is no reason to shrug your shoulders and declare ocean crossings impossible.  Building boats is actually very easy and fun, and so is navigating them.  Do not let your own hatred of sailing and the water cloud your honest assessment of the possibility of getting over the sea.


I hope these insights are helpful.  Overcoming the cognitive biases which I have outlined ought to help readers address the problem in a whole new light.

Okay, take any given species of prehistoric dinosaur (i.e. Triassic, Jurrassic, Cretaceous etc) that we have only a minimal fossil record of. You've mentioned several. Are you saying that all species of prehistoric dinosaur had near-impossibly small populations, just because we have only found a tiny number of specimens? Because that is not what paleontologists think.

You are the only one saying that about 5 finds of Deinonychus in all of the United States is acceptable evidence that they had a civilization capable of a feat that not even present day humans have tried.

You can safely say that in many places there have been no finds of any dinosaurs because of the geology you are so desperately trying to deny, But you cannot deny that where the supposed herded animals were found the Deinonychus were not found.

You are playing a dumb game where you switch from exaggerating the evidence that was found to seeing evidence in the lack of evidence in a blink of an eye.

If you are saying that Deinonychus was a herder, then show that the Deinonychus was present everywhere the herded animals were found. If you are saying that they had a civilization capable of an immensely complex and ambitious feat, then at least show that they appeared in numbers that are proportional to that feat, and in more places than one country.

To continue your analogy with humans, the first humans that were capable of intercontinental sea travel were middle ages humans. And we find archaeological evidence of them in every place we expect to find it. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that paleontologists from the far future will find remains from the middle ages in droves, both skeletons and tools and constructions. Not just five skeletons without tools and without constructions nearby.

You are the only one saying that about 5 finds of Deinonychus in all of the United States is acceptable evidence that they had a civilization capable of a feat that not even present day humans have tried.

Please quote where I have said this. Honestly, this is such a blatant strawman it beggars belief.

You can safely say that in many places there have been no finds of any dinosaurs because of the geology you are so desperately trying to deny, But you cannot deny that where the supposed herded animals were found the Deinonychus were not found.

Why not? If only a handful of specimens the "herded" specimens have been found, why is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we simply haven't found the herders? After all, the herders are much smaller in size, and may also have been fewer in number - this is common with humans and the animals they herd. In the 1980s, Australia had a sheep population of 148 million, and a human population of 14 million. It is more than plausible that we have simply not found the fossils in question.


And remember, Deinonychus is just our paradigmatic example of a potentially intelligent Dromaesaur. James believes that Dromaeosaurs of all kinds were involved in migration, and indeed traces different species of Dromaesaur on different continents to a common ancestor:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg707661#msg707661

You are playing a dumb game where you switch from exaggerating the evidence that was found to seeing evidence in the lack of evidence in a blink of an eye.

If you are saying that Deinonychus was a herder, then show that the Deinonychus was present everywhere the herded animals were found. If you are saying that they had a civilization capable of an immensely complex and ambitious feat, then at least show that they appeared in numbers that are proportional to that feat, and in more places than one country.

The points I have made above show exactly what you asked for. And why must you constantly resort to petty insults? Post like an adult or not at all.

To continue your analogy with humans, the first humans that were capable of intercontinental sea travel were middle ages humans. And we find archaeological evidence of them in every place we expect to find it. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that paleontologists from the far future will find remains from the middle ages in droves, both skeletons and tools and constructions. Not just five skeletons without tools and without constructions nearby.

The bolded point above is not true. Please see the below link for evidence to the contrary:


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

The Idea of Linear Progress
Living in such a technological age, we are often inclined to think of progress as an increasing linear curve with few setbacks.  However, I argue that enlightenment and knowledge occur not in increasing measure throughout history, but in pockets - rafts if you will - of ephemeral and temporary insight in an ocean of intellectual darkness. When the Library of Alexandria was burned, many important documents were lost for centuries, and the medieval world was plunged into an age of superstition, ignorance and globularism which lasted for almost a thousand years.  I would remind you that the scale of this catastrophe pales in comparison to the near total bombardment of the Earth with asteroids, and it should not surprise us if the technological setbacks to terrestrial animals is accordingly greater.  So - do not imagine that all historical periods before ours have been so many orders of magnitude behind ours in thought and science.

Of all the biases I have seen when discussing your theory, this is the one I feel to be the most likely underlying cause of skepticism. It's also a bias that I fear we are all likely to experience the error of during our lifetime.

I hope these insights are helpful.  Overcoming the cognitive biases which I have outlined ought to help readers address the problem in a whole new light.

Brother James, your thoughts in this regard are always instructive. I can only hope our resident skeptics take note of your post and make a conscious effort to rid themselves of such bias.

The points I have made above show exactly what you asked for. And why must you constantly resort to petty insults? Post like an adult or not at all.

I think posting like an adult would include not saying things like "the evidence is on our side" when you have no idea what you're talking about.  As well as avoiding the constant back-patting of FEers whenever they vomit out another off-the-wall idea.  How about some criticism of each other?

You're supporting a theory that requires a seafaring dinosaur civilization.  If you want zeteticism and the FES to be taken seriously this is the sort of stuff you should avoid.  Claiming that this is a theory that's worthy of consideration and RET isn't just makes you look like a clown.

I'm not posting this to be mean, I just think you guys have no idea how any of this comes off to people who aren't part of your little group.

Quote from: trig on March 23, 2012, 06:05:51 AM

You can safely say that in many places there have been no finds of any dinosaurs because of the geology you are so desperately trying to deny, But you cannot deny that where the supposed herded animals were found the Deinonychus were not found.

Why not? If only a handful of specimens the "herded" specimens have been found, why is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we simply haven't found the herders? After all, the herders are much smaller in size, and may also have been fewer in number - this is common with humans and the animals they herd. In the 1980s, Australia had a sheep population of 148 million, and a human population of 14 million. It is more than plausible that we have simply not found the fossils in question.

You really think we are all this stupid when evaluating probabilities?

The probability that one particular dinosaur dies in a place where the conditions to fossilize his bones are not met is very high. It is quite acceptable to estimate that where one Tyrannosaurus was found, for example, others lived some kilometers away.

On the other hand, that every single one of the thousands of discoveries so far of dinosaurs happened to be of one of the "herded" animals, and in every single one of the discoveries so far, the "herder" animal did not die, are astronomically small. And your idea that the Deinonychus never fossilized because they were smaller is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in this forum. Go to a museum, you will see thousands of small fossils but only a few huge ones.

The very idea that every probability associated with dinosaurs is very small, and therefore you can say what you please, is ludicrous. Have you even heard about conditional probability?

One final word: Technology has made the relatively small herder-to-herded ratio in Australia possible. And you are comparing a herder and a herded animal of similar size. The ratio will be the total opposite when you have herders that are a hundred times smaller than the herded animals. If at all possible, it would take tens of Deinonychus to control a single Triceratops. You would have to expect to find tens of Deinonychus near the death site of each single Triceratops, and maybe hundreds near each Diplodocus.

I think posting like an adult would include not saying things like "the evidence is on our side" when you have no idea what you're talking about.  As well as avoiding the constant back-patting of FEers whenever they vomit out another off-the-wall idea.  How about some criticism of each other?

You're supporting a theory that requires a seafaring dinosaur civilization.  If you want zeteticism and the FES to be taken seriously this is the sort of stuff you should avoid.  Claiming that this is a theory that's worthy of consideration and RET isn't just makes you look like a clown.

I'm not posting this to be mean, I just think you guys have no idea how any of this comes off to people who aren't part of your little group.

All I can say is read my signature. I am interested in the pursuit of truth first and foremost. How we are viewed by other people as a result is a secondary concern.

You really think we are all this stupid when evaluating probabilities?

The probability that one particular dinosaur dies in a place where the conditions to fossilize his bones are not met is very high. It is quite acceptable to estimate that where one Tyrannosaurus was found, for example, others lived some kilometers away.

On the other hand, that every single one of the thousands of discoveries so far of dinosaurs happened to be of one of the "herded" animals, and in every single one of the discoveries so far, the "herder" animal did not die, are astronomically small.

But we are not claiming that. The proposed herders have been found on several continents. Please read the link I provided above.

And your idea that the Deinonychus never fossilized because they were smaller is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in this forum. Go to a museum, you will see thousands of small fossils but only a few huge ones.

First of all, I never claimed that they were not fossilised because they were smaller. I claimed they were harder to find because they were smaller. If you bothered to read my posts, perhaps your intelligence would feel less insulted. In addition, I might feel less like insulting it.

The very idea that every probability associated with dinosaurs is very small, and therefore you can say what you please, is ludicrous. Have you even heard about conditional probability?

But why the double standard? I'm not making strong or definite claims, merely stressing the plausibility of the theory. Moreover, paleontologists make such inferences all the time.

One final word: Technology has made the relatively small herder-to-herded ratio in Australia possible. And you are comparing a herder and a herded animal of similar size. The ratio will be the total opposite when you have herders that are a hundred times smaller than the herded animals. If at all possible, it would take tens of Deinonychus to control a single Triceratops. You would have to expect to find tens of Deinonychus near the death site of each single Triceratops, and maybe hundreds near each Diplodocus.

So are you saying there were no shepherds, ranchers etc. before the 1980s?


And why is it that lions seem to be able to herd and kill much larger prey without the kind of losses you suggest?

All I can say is read my signature. I am interested in the pursuit of truth first and foremost. How we are viewed by other people as a result is a secondary concern.

The truth... about seafaring dinosaurs?  Good luck getting to the bottom of this case, what with the zero evidence and all.

But we are not claiming that. The proposed herders have been found on several continents. Please read the link I provided above.

So, tell me which are the proposed herders. Any one species of herders found where the herded animals were found, in more than one continent?

Any way you try to twist it, you have not found what you should have: herders and their herds in close proximity in two continents. You try to dance your way out of explaining why your Deinonychus supposedly moved all the species of flora and fauna between continents, herded dinosaurs sometimes more than a hundred times their side, but managed every single time to die where their remains would not fossilize. And if your herder species is not Deinonychus, which is it?

But why the double standard? I'm not making strong or definite claims, merely stressing the plausibility of the theory. Moreover, paleontologists make such inferences all the time.

Please show me just one place where a paleontologist makes the inference that one animal used another as food when they have never been repeatedly found in any kind of proximity. The "double standard" is called conditional probability, and I knew you have no idea how to use it. Just as an example, the probability that I know Spanish is about one in ten if I just take the whole world and the Spanish speaking population in the world, but now that I am telling you that I live in a Spanish speaking country, you know that the conditional probability, given the additional information, is 100%.

And you are confusing theoretical possibility with plausibility. It is theoretically possible that I am an alien from another galaxy, but that is not a plausible possibility. And it is theoretically possible that the Deinonychus had a civilization capable of moving thousands of species of fauna and flora over the oceans, to then disappear without even leaving but a handful of fossils, all of them far away from their herds of dinosaurs, but that is not a plausible possibility.

And why is it that lions seem to be able to herd and kill much larger prey without the kind of losses you suggest?

Lions can't even kill adult elephants. And a lion is some 10 times heavier than the Deinonychus. Also, the Diplodocus was about 3 times larger than an elephant. I doubt that the Deinonychus could kill the larger dinosaurs, even if they hunted in packs. Therefore, my calculation that anything less than a pack of several tens of Deinonychus would never control a large dinosaur is in fact an underestimation. And what are the "losses you suggest"? I never talked about losses, I talked about the same thing as you did: the relationship between the number of herders and the size of the herds.

Finally, where on Earth did you get the idea that lions herd their prey? I think you just use the words as they appear in your head, without even thinking in their meaning. But please, show me any study or even a photo of a lion herding. Dolphins herd, lions hunt. See the difference?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 23, 2012, 08:28:03 PM

But we are not claiming that. The proposed herders have been found on several continents. Please read the link I provided above.

So, tell me which are the proposed herders. Any one species of herders found where the herded animals were found, in more than one continent?

Any way you try to twist it, you have not found what you should have: herders and their herds in close proximity in two continents. You try to dance your way out of explaining why your Deinonychus supposedly moved all the species of flora and fauna between continents, herded dinosaurs sometimes more than a hundred times their side, but managed every single time to die where their remains would not fossilize. And if your herder species is not Deinonychus, which is it?

Please read the link I provided above.

Seriously, www.rif.org

Please show me just one place where a paleontologist makes the inference that one animal used another as food when they have never been repeatedly found in any kind of proximity. The "double standard" is called conditional probability, and I knew you have no idea how to use it. Just as an example, the probability that I know Spanish is about one in ten if I just take the whole world and the Spanish speaking population in the world, but now that I am telling you that I live in a Spanish speaking country, you know that the conditional probability, given the additional information, is 100%.

Irrelevant. See the link I gave you above.

And you are confusing theoretical possibility with plausibility. It is theoretically possible that I am an alien from another galaxy, but that is not a plausible possibility. And it is theoretically possible that the Deinonychus had a civilization capable of moving thousands of species of fauna and flora over the oceans, to then disappear without even leaving but a handful of fossils, all of them far away from their herds of dinosaurs, but that is not a plausible possibility.

No, I'm not. I've explicitly said that it's plausible, not just that it's possible.

Lions can't even kill adult elephants.

This is not true:

And a lion is some 10 times heavier than the Deinonychus.

Also not true:

Weights for adult lions range between 150–250 kg (330–550 lb) for males and 120–182 kg (264–400 lb) for females.

Brinkman et al. (1998) point out that Deinonychus had an adult mass of 70–100 kilograms

Emphasis mine. Females do most of the hunting.

Also, the Diplodocus was about 3 times larger than an elephant.

Assuming you are still talking about weight, again this is not true:

Modern mass estimates for Diplodocus (exclusive of D. hallorum) have tended to be in the 10 to 16 tonne (11–17.6 ton) range

This male weighed about 10,900 kg (24,000 lb]The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1955.[9] This male weighed about 10,900 kg

Please do some basic research and stop wasting my time.

I doubt that the Deinonychus could kill the larger dinosaurs, even if they hunted in packs.

From the same source as above:

Deinonychus teeth found in association with fossils of the ornithopod dinosaur Tenontosaurus are quite common in the Cloverly Formation. Two quarries have been discovered that preserve fairly complete Deinonychus fossils near Tenontosaurus fossils. The first, the Yale quarry in the Cloverly of Montana, includes numerous teeth, four adult Deinonychus and one juvenile Deinonychus. The association of this number of Deinonychus skeletons in a single quarry suggests that Deinonychus may have fed on that animal, and perhaps hunted it. Ostrom and Maxwell have even used this information to speculate that Deinonychus might have lived and hunted in packs.[39] The second such quarry is from the Antlers Formation of Oklahoma. The site contains six partial skeletons of Tenontosaurus of various sizes, along with one partial skeleton and many teeth of Deinonychus. One tenontosaur humerus even bears what might be Deinonychus tooth marks. Brinkman et al. (1998) point out that Deinonychus had an adult mass of 70–100 kilograms, whereas adult tenontosaurs were 1–4 metric tons. A solitary Deinonychus could not kill an adult tenontosaur, suggesting that pack hunting is possible.

Therefore, my calculation that anything less than a pack of several tens of Deinonychus would never control a large dinosaur is in fact an underestimation. And what are the "losses you suggest"? I never talked about losses, I talked about the same thing as you did: the relationship between the number of herders and the size of the herds.

You said the following;

You would have to expect to find tens of Deinonychus near the death site of each single Triceratops, and maybe hundreds near each Diplodocus.

As you seemed to be asserting that it would be very difficult for Deinonychus packs to take on these dinosaurs, I assumed the above referred to those who would be killed or mortally wounded in the hunt.

Finally, where on Earth did you get the idea that lions herd their prey? I think you just use the words as they appear in your head, without even thinking in their meaning. But please, show me any study or even a photo of a lion herding. Dolphins herd, lions hunt. See the difference?

Lions frequently hunt in packs, manipulating and breaking apart herds in order to isolate prey. This is common knowledge - go and watch some videos on YouTube, or read some articles on Wikipedia. Even the video above shows the lions encircling and attempting to manipulate the herd of elephants, even though in this case they were unable to do so successfully. That they often succeed is implied by their hunting tactics (and indeed by the narrator, David Attenborough).

So much hard work, so little content. Lord Wilmore has not showed why his supposed herders have not been found close to the supposed herds. He tries to draw our attention to the infrequent cases where the predator is killed during the hunt, so we don't think about the fact that herders live close to their herds. Even if the herders don't die during the killing of a herded animal, it eventually dies, and does so close to the place where it lives, and that is close to the herd. It still is almost impossible that every single site where the herded animals died (and according to James and Lord Wilmore, that is every dinosaur), the herds died but the herders survived.

You just need to read what Lord Wilmore writes about lions being herders to learn that he does not know what a herd is.

And it is still clear that Lord Wilmore does not understand conditional probability. He still wants to consider "plausible" what is almost totally impossible, but theoretically possible.

PS. Did you really watch the Youtube video you linked? So, I change my phrase: Lions only kill adult elephants if they are desperate, the elephant is unusually small, it is alone and tens of lions can attack one single elephant. And this video shows how a small pack of Deinonychus would probably not even try to hunt a dinosaur that weighs more than 30 or 40 times as much as each Deinonychus.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 21, 2012, 11:58:50 PM

Quote from: Pongo on March 21, 2012, 11:41:48 PM

Leading archeologists argue that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

There is no evidence to support that all dinosaurs were warm blooded, and in fact its nearly impossible for some of the uber large ones to have been warm blooded.  It is true that there has been a general shift since the 60s towards the idea that dinosaurs were faster, smarter, and warmer than we thought, but there is no evidence beyond faster than expected bone growth and perhaps their lifestyle.

There is also no way to rule out a third option of some sort, with no living specimens to examine.

Regardless the point still stands that the general consensus is that most dinosaurs were dumber than the average mammal, and the average land mammal cannot create boats and get across oceans.

Most mammals can't use tools. Does that mean that all mammals can't use tools?

No. Whats your point?  No Mammals besides humans build ships.  No other mammals are as smart as humans.  No dinosaurs were as smart as the smartest mammals, which means no dinosaurs were building ships.