James's theory on dinosaurs

Crusty, don't try it. I got a ban for making comments in my own thread once. 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 16, 2009, 04:57:21 AM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 16, 2009, 04:50:56 AM

Please stay on topic.

Are you a moderator? No. So don't pretend to be one.

I'm not a moderator but I am the thread creator. I am only interested in hearing from those who subscribe to James' civilised dinosaurs theory. You have already made it clear that you do. Thankyou for your participation.

Please don't derail threads by discussing moderating issues. If you wish to discuss it further then take it to Suggestions and Concerns.

I'd tried being subtle, but you obviously enjoy trying to rub people the wrong way. Let me make this clear: stop memberating, or I'll suspend you for troublemaking. Being thread creator gives you zero ownership over this thread. My advice is to wise up.


And if you have a problem with that, then make sure to follow your own advice.

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2009, 04:07:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2009, 04:04:42 PM

Not according to the static continent model!

The static continent model is wrong, as can be demonstrated by ongoing continental drift.

I haven't seen any drifting continents, have you?

Sounds like you need to take a field trip to Iceland.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/albaret-boit/176502393/

It's actually just a hypothesis from the 1960's. No one actually saw the continents move.

Tom, seeing as you live in California, you should be well aware of the effects of continental drift and plate tectonics in the form of earthquakes.  Besides, I didn't say that it was necessarily a visible process, just a measurable one.

All this talk of coracles and nests is mere pandering to globularist doubts. They will never admit that dinosaurs could have the same intelligence as birds (capable of tool creation!), despite all the evidence supporting it. Every year, more and more research is rejecting the traditional idea of dinosaurs as lumbering, cumbersome giants. Take this story for example:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/11/t-rex-dinosaurs-warm-blooded


So now, instead of being a cold-blooded, ungainly beast, scientists now believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex may have been a nimble, warm-blooded animal! This shows how little modern scientists really know about dinosaurs. I am of the opinion that dinosaurs had a maritime civilisation, and possessed the necessary intelligence to construct large rafts, and perhaps even fully fledged sea faring vessels, similar to the Viking longboat:

I don't think that anyone here will dispute that most birds are capable of tool creation, some more complex than others in their use.
I would hardly call it an acceptable leap to go from birds creating simple tools to dinosaurs constructing purpose built seafaring vessels for the puropse of trans-oceanic voyage, mercantile exchange and livestock transportation. 

How far does the dollar of simple tools buy them along the road of technology?  Is it possible that they had organized ship building organizations?  Did they build marinas?  Have manufacturing plants?  Be segregated into blue and white collar workers?  Could they have implemented an assembly line? Could they have formed organized labor unions and gone on strike if not provided a fair wage? 

Where does one draw the line of feasibility?

We're trying to say that some dinosaurs would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, dinosaurs also had far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention claws and limbs which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.


Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists believe they may have been warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built simple rafts? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such dinosaurs get better at boat construction?

We're trying to say that some chimpanzees would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, chimpanzees also have far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention hands and feet which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings, and are similar to ours. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that chimpanzees would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.



Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists agree they are warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built expanding cities as we have? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such chimpanzees get better at house construction?

Bolded and revised for effect.

Again, where does one draw the line?
How far does the dollar of simple tools buy them along the road of technology?  Is it possible that they had organized ship building organizations?  Did they build marinas?  Have manufacturing plants?  Be segregated into blue and white collar workers?  Could they have implemented an assembly line? Could they have formed organized labor unions and gone on strike if not provided a fair wage?  

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

We're trying to say that some dinosaurs would have had the intelligence of birds, minimum. That means they would have possessed problem solving abilities and the mental capacity to construct tools. Now, dinosaurs also had far greater physical dexterity and strength than birds, not mention claws and limbs which are far more suitable to tool construction than, say, wings. All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do. And remember, this is a conservative assessment.

Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds. Hardly a giant leap, especially now that more and more scientists believe they may have been warm blooded. What then? Why couldn't they have built simple rafts? Obviously, there would have to have been pressure to migrate in the first place, but that goes without saying. Now, over the kind of periods we're talking about (several million years), why wouldn't such dinosaurs get better at boat construction?

There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.  I have yet to see any evidence that any dinosaurs were intellectually or bio-mechanically suited to building boats.  Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, this is all just speculation bordering on mental masturbation.

There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.  I have yet to see any evidence that any dinosaurs were intellectually or bio-mechanically suited to building boats.  Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, this is all just speculation bordering on mental masturbation.

I invite you to read any of Karl Popper's writings on the philosophy of science.  Creative speculation has a most respectable place in the generation of scientific theories.

All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to conclude that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do.

What you meant to say was "All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to make the baseless conjecture that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do."

Now, let's say they were more intelligent than birds.

Let's not. There's no evidence to support it. The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.

Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

No it doesn't. Not at all.

PS. If there are any other members who support James' idea that dinosaurs were master boat builders who travelled the high seas spreading dino civilisation, let yourself be known.

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work. Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

There is a record of these craft in the fossil record?

Here's an interesting read on dino intel:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html

Just interesting, not making any claims to back it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 05:55:22 AM

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.

Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London

Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London

You forgot the part where you quote them.

Well, Christopher Bird would think that, wouldn't he. Were his exact words, 'Birds are the best!'?

Here's an interesting read on dino intel:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html

Just interesting, not making any claims to back it.

Intersting indeed, so far.

 

The thesis is not self-evidently false, as, say, the idea of a flat earth is.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 17, 2009, 09:13:26 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 05:55:22 AM

Many scientists now believe that birds have greater tool making abilities than chimpanzees, so that example does not work.

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.

Christopher Bird, the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Nathan Emery,Queen Mary University of London

Actually, limited to corvids and parrots, not birds in general. And they are tremendously unusual among birds indeed, however talented they are, so to extend that back to dinosaurs is a stretch.

I invite you to read any of Karl Popper's writings on the philosophy of science.  Creative speculation has a most respectable place in the generation of scientific theories.

Speculation, no matter how creative, is just that, speculation.  Speculation gives you an idea of where to look for supporting evidence.  However, it's not until that supporting evidence is actually found that you can move your idea into the realm of theory.

Actually, limited to corvids and parrots, not birds in general. And they are tremendously unusual among birds indeed, however talented they are, so to extend that back to dinosaurs is a stretch.

Well, there we differ.  I don't consider it to be a stretch.

@Markjo 
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.

@Markjo 
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.

A theory without any supporting evidence isn't much of a theory, is it?

@Markjo 
We were speaking of hte generation of theory.

Nice try though. 


Gad, I hate it when a typo of mine gets quoted,  carved in stone for posterity, or two minutes anyway.

There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.

Even something as basic as whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded is essentially a matter of speculation, as proven by the discourse of the last three decades. All studies on how they lived, behaved etc. is essentially speculative in nature. That's a given, and can be applied any suh theory, not just ours. Here's how the section on dinosaur behaviour is introduced on wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Behavior

Interpretations of dinosaur behavior are generally based on the pose of body fossils and their habitat, computer simulations of their biomechanics, and comparisons with modern animals in similar ecological niches. As such, the current understanding of dinosaur behavior relies on speculation, and will likely remain controversial for the foreseeable future. However, there is general agreement that some behaviors which are common in crocodiles and birds, dinosaurs' closest living relatives, were also common among dinosaurs.

What you meant to say was "All of this combined, I'd say it's easy to make the baseless conjecture that dinosaurs would have had far more ability to construct tools and build structures than birds do."

It's no more baseless than any other claim regarding dinosaur intelligence. Give us evidence to the contrary, or admit as much.

Let's not. There's no evidence to support it. The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.

There's no real evidence to support that, either. All we have to go on is encephalization quotient, and that's a really dodgy method. For example, Dolphins have a far larger EQ than any primate besides humans, yet most scientists agree that Chimpanzees are probably smarter than Dolphins.

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.

No problem:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm

The crow is putting our closest cousins to shame.

Experiments show the humble bird is better than the chimp at toolmaking.

British zoologists were astonished when a captive crow called Betty fashioned a hook out of wire to reach food.

It is the first time any animal has been found to make a new tool for a specific task, say Oxford University researchers.

They believe the bird shows some understanding of cause and effect.

"It is not only cleverer than we think in this particular direction but probably, at least in relation to tools, has a higher level of understanding than chimpanzees," says Alex Kacelnik, Professor of Behavioural Ecology.

. . .

"Experiments with primates, who are much closer relatives of humans than birds, have failed to show any deliberate, specific tool making" ~ Alex Kacelnik, Oxford University

Fairly explicit, eh? You can watch a video of it here:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8029977.stm

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 17, 2009, 05:55:22 AM

Furthermore, the fossil record supports our theory of a maritime dinosaur civilisation.

No it doesn't. Not at all.

Yes it does. James has talked about this in past, so use the search function. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you to posts you could easily find yourself.

Quote from: markjo on November 17, 2009, 08:03:49 AM

There is a huge difference between speculating as to what dinosaurs might have been capable of doing and proving that they actually did.

Even something as basic as whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded is essentially a matter of speculation, as proven by the discourse of the last three decades. All studies on how they lived, behaved etc. is essentially speculative in nature. That's a given, and can be applied any suh theory, not just ours. Here's how the section on dinosaur behaviour is introduced on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Behavior

Quote

Interpretations of dinosaur behavior are generally based on the pose of body fossils and their habitat, computer simulations of their biomechanics, and comparisons with modern animals in similar ecological niches. As such, the current understanding of dinosaur behavior relies on speculation, and will likely remain controversial for the foreseeable future. However, there is general agreement that some behaviors which are common in crocodiles and birds, dinosaurs' closest living relatives, were also common among dinosaurs.

You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.

You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.

There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 17, 2009, 09:13:26 AM

Many? Really? I'd like you to cite one of the many scientists.

No problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm

See this is how it's done Mrs Peach. It's not hard is it?

However, the eye catching headline is all hooked around this one unscientific sentence:

"Although many animals use tools, purposeful modification of objects to solve new problems, without training or prior experience, is virtually unknown," adds Professor Kacelnik.

That article was written in 2002. This is no longer true For example:

Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

However, it is true that the point remains, regardless of comparative work, which can be deceptive, crows can fashion crude tools.

However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 17, 2009, 09:13:26 AM

The smartest dinosaurs are rated at about ostrich level.

There's no real evidence to support that, either. All we have to go on is encephalization quotient, and that's a really dodgy method.

Th EQ is all we can go on, at the moment, to estimate the dinosaurs intelligence. In fact the EQ was good enough for James before it was pointed out that he had completely misunderstood what it meant. Oh dear. You now want to throw it away because it doesn't agree with your preformed conclusions?

For example, Dolphins have a far larger EQ than any primate besides humans, yet most scientists agree that Chimpanzees are probably smarter than Dolphins.

No I doubt your broad generalisations are true. There is much debate about which is the smartest, probably due to the difficulty in observing both parties exhibit their intelligence. It seems broadly true that they have similar intelligence with aspects such as planning, self recognition, mimicry and so forth.

The EQ is a broad comparative measure that holds true for most animal groups alive today. The reason it's probably skewed for dophins is because they hunt by echo-location. Something chimpanzees don't do.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/smarter.html

There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.

Orly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood

However, the eye catching headline is all hooked around this one unscientific sentence:

Quote

"Although many animals use tools, purposeful modification of objects to solve new problems, without training or prior experience, is virtually unknown," adds Professor Kacelnik.

That article was written in 2002. This is no longer true For example:

Quote from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201007.html

Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

However, it is true that the point remains, regardless of comparative work, which can be deceptive, crows can fashion crude tools.

I used that article in particular because it had very emphatic quotes. However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals. You can find many different studies which reach the same conclusion via a quick google, all from recent years.

However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.

True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more. Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

Th EQ is all we can go on, at the moment, to estimate the dinosaurs intelligence. In fact the EQ was good enough for James before it was pointed out that he had completely misunderstood what it meant. Oh dear. You now want to throw it away because it doesn't agree with your preformed conclusions?

I really don't feel that's true:

Quote from: MisterHamper on May 27, 2009, 09:50:32 AM

"The size of a brain does not dictate its intelligence, although in some species it can be indicative of it. The cereberal cortex, a relatively small part of the brain, plays a crucial role in the intelligence of an animal, the size and configuration of which do not necessarily correlate with the size of the whole brain. You have no idea how dinosaurs compared in intelligence to modern animals."

The EQ, as I just said... so yes, I have a pretty good idea how dinousaurs compared in intelligence to moderne animals

No, you are wrong. The configuration of the cerebral cortex can potentially affect intelligence far more than brain-body ratio. Dolphins, for example, have a very high brain-body ratio, but they are also phenomenally stupid.

No I doubt your broad generalisations are true. There is much debate about which is the smartest, probably due to the difficulty in observing both parties exhibit their intelligence. It seems broadly true that they have similar intelligence with aspects such as planning, self recognition, mimicry and so forth.

The EQ is a broad comparative measure that holds true for most animal groups alive today. The reason it's probably skewed for dophins is because they hunt by echo-location. Something chimpanzees don't do.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/smarter.html

Well, it's necessary to generalise to some degree, when the subject is the position of the entire scientific community. It makes a lot more sense than taking the view of one group of scientists and taking that alone as the truth. I'm not denying there's debate on the subject, but through a few quick, intelligent searches it's fairly easy to conclude that most scientists rate Dolphins as less intelligent than, say, chimpanzees.

Quote

You may or may not have noticed that the speculation that you're referring to is based on physical evidence in the form of fossil remains.  When someone can provide physical evidence of dinosaur built boats, then your speculation might have some merit.

There wouldn't be 250 million year old fossil remains of boats.

Wood rots.
Metal corrodes.
But solid rock stays around forever.

*sigh*  Tom, are you serious?  Can you say "petrified wood"?  I knew that you could.

Petrified wood (from the Greek root "petro" meaning "rock" or "stone", literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil: it consists of fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood.

If 250 million year old dinosaur skeletons can be preserved through fossilization, then why couldn't their boats?

How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?

How many petrified human boats have been found? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to guess not that many, but maybe you'll prove me wrong. How many have been found that weren't built in the last thouand years? How many Roman and Greek Galleys have we found?

Quite a few actually, but you are right that it is not a huge number. We have even found a number of Phoenician ships, and I think they recently found one in England, though I will have to find the article.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 03:17:39 AM

However, crows bending wire does not a seafaring nation of dinosaurs make.

True enough, but if crows can construct tools and use them in complex tasks, then I really don't see why we cannot speculate that dinosaurs could do the same, and perhaps more. Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

A bird reaching visible food to eat so it can stay alive is incomparable to a reptile crossing the sea, essentially to 'see what happens'.