James's theory on dinosaurs

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: trig on March 25, 2012, 05:51:04 PM

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.

What are you talking about? I provided evidence of just that above. You know, evidence of something that is true, as opposed to complete fabrication (which is what we've had from you so far).


www.rif.org

Quote from: trig on March 25, 2012, 05:51:04 PM

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

The elephants are described as a herd in the video. Lions regularly hunt herds of wilder beast, buffalo and zebra. They manipulate the herd in order to target their prey. This is no different to what dolphins do.


Moreover, this is thoroughly rich coming from someone who thought lions weigh a tonne and cannot kill elephants.

Quote from: trig on March 25, 2012, 05:51:04 PM

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.

This is not an argument, just a denial. Do you have anything of substance to contribute? If not, stop posting.

Quote from: trig on March 25, 2012, 05:51:04 PM

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.

First of all, it shows them killing an adult elephant, something you claimed lions could not do. Secondly, the video also refers to this pack of lions as "specialised elephant hunters", and clearly implies it is something they do with some regularity. Finally, I have never suggested that a single Deinonychus could kill any of the larger creatures mentioned in this thread by itself.

Quote from: trig on March 25, 2012, 05:51:04 PM

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.

In what way?

Quote from: Pongo on March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM

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.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 26, 2012, 01:26:39 AM

Quote from: Pongo on March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM

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.

This is a huge assumption.

Quote from: Tausami on March 26, 2012, 12:34:52 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 26, 2012, 01:26:39 AM

Quote from: Pongo on March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM

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.

This is a huge assumption.

No it is not, its based on the EQ of dinosaurs.

Quote from: Pongo on March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM

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.

Wow Pongo.  So basically since we dont have a 100% perfectly clear picture of a subject we somehow can't comment?  Please apply this to FET in the future.

And maybe there was a civilization of telepathic jellyfish that ruled the ancient seas.  Our seafaring dinosaurs battled with them endlessly, and at the end of the great war the jellyfish, and all of dinosaurkind, were wiped out.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 26, 2012, 11:09:01 PM

And maybe there was a civilization of telepathic jellyfish that ruled the ancient seas.  Our seafaring dinosaurs battled with them endlessly, and at the end of the great war the jellyfish, and all of dinosaurkind, were wiped out.

I would be inclined to say this is not likely because we have never found a jellyfish with a brain.  However, I will not say it's impossible just as people cannot say that boat-building dinosaurs are not possible.  I go one step further to say that over the course of more than 4,500,000,000 years of evolution, it's strange that only one species has evolved intelligence.  We have not yet proven that we can survive the test of time.  It's a grand show of hubris to so vocally declare that we are the only intelligent species to have existed on Earth when our knowledge of the past is so extremely poor.

If there were other intelligent species, they left no traces of civilization.

And I don't think it's hubris.  Our brains have gone on a specific path with many incremental steps along the way.  I don't find it surprising that other animals haven't gone down the same path.  That would be some remarkable convergent evolution.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on March 26, 2012, 11:43:40 PM

If there were other intelligent species, they left no traces of civilization.

And I don't think it's hubris.  Our brains have gone on a specific path with many incremental steps along the way.  I don't find it surprising that other animals haven't gone down the same path.  That would be some remarkable convergent evolution.

Why?  Flight took many incremental steps to become viable yet it has evolved at least four times independently.  I think it would be harder to have flight evolved separately four times than intelligence.  Not every mammal, fish, reptile, bird, or insect has limbs capable of becoming wings without major changes, yet they all have brains.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 26, 2012, 01:25:32 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 26, 2012, 12:34:52 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 26, 2012, 01:26:39 AM

Quote from: Pongo on March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM

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.

This is a huge assumption.

No it is not, its based on the EQ of dinosaurs.

No, it's based on the EQ of a couple of dinosaurs. There's a difference. Besides, EQ is far from accurate. According to it, humans are as smart as mice and small birds are the smartest animals on Earth.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 26, 2012, 01:26:39 AM

Quote from: Pongo on March 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM

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.

Have you studied all speices of dinosaur? If not, I don't feel that you are qualified to make this statement.

Oh my, what an excellent point that I already made.

Could it be possible that you didn't actually read me post until you got to the bit about monkey arms? 

So Pongo, precisely when did you stop beating your wife?

So Pongo, precisely when did you stop beating your wife?

I think that the point I was making has evaded you, Brother Cat Earth Theory. Either willfully or not, I cannot tell. The point was, a speices of dinosaur could have branched out and developed advanced brains and then left no ancestors for us to study today. If we have not found any remains of said dinosaurs then we would have no fossils to study either. Simply because there are no living decendents and our rather poor fossil record hasnt uncovered them, does not mean that they never existed.

Ships get broken up, you know. Their boats may well have merely been temporary, to get them over the water and then broken up to form dwellings.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 27, 2012, 05:32:53 PM

So Pongo, precisely when did you stop beating your wife?

Please refrain from making low content, inflammatory posts. Consider this a warning.

Quote from: Hazbollah on March 28, 2012, 03:36:06 AM

Ships get broken up, you know. Their boats may well have merely been temporary, to get them over the water and then broken up to form dwellings.

Perhaps as part of an earth goddess religion.  The dinosaurs had no modern conception of personal ownership.  Everything belonged to the land and could only be borrowed, and then returned, as needed.

I'd say it's possible, nay plausible, that the catastrophic event that destroyed the dinosaurs was the result of dinosaurian hubris.  They thought themselves above such beliefs, and the earth, no longer calmed by the ancient courtesy, flew into an implacable rage.  She regretted her anger immediately, but it was too late.  Her children were dead, and the land was freezing cold. 

Will we make the same mistake?  Will the earth goddess learn to control her emotions?  Answers create more questions, as always.  This is science at its finest!

Quote from: Pongo on March 27, 2012, 01:15:05 PM

I think that the point I was making has evaded you, Brother Cat Earth Theory. Either willfully or not, I cannot tell. The point was, a speices of dinosaur could have branched out and developed advanced brains and then left no ancestors for us to study today. If we have not found any remains of said dinosaurs then we would have no fossils to study either. Simply because there are no living decendents and our rather poor fossil record hasnt uncovered them, does not mean that they never existed.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that the species of dinosaur that James contends built these great colonial armadas did leave fossil remains of themselves and their cargo, but not their ships.