James's theory on dinosaurs

Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.

Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.

If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:42:06 AM

Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.

If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.

Where can you see Hawaii from? Or New Zealand?


For a wonderful, fictional account of how Hawaii may have been colonised, I highly reccomend James Michener's epic novel:

Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 18, 2009, 07:44:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:42:06 AM

Dinosaurs would not have done it just 'to see what happens'. As I've always maintained, there must have been some kind of advantage derived from raft construction originally, followed by population pressure which lead to colonisation. Right now I'm trying to establish the potential capability, not the motive.

If you can't see land over the ocean, you'd have no reason to assume there was any.

Where can you see Hawaii from? Or New Zealand?


For a wonderful, fictional account of how Hawaii may have been colonised, I highly reccomend James Michener's epic novel:

I was going to mention this. You can't see it from anywhere; this is why it is astonishing that people did colonise these islands. Let's assume dinosaurs could also. How did they get to America?

However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

Feel free to show me a study which shows crows going beyond the chimpanzees creation of spears to hunt small game. I've not seen one.

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.

We can't make such speculation because crows haven't built boats, and they aren't dinosaurs.

...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

No it doesn't.

I really don't feel that's true:

Quote from: James on May 27, 2009, 09:57:17 AM

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.

So you want me to take someone who's opinion is that "dolphins" are stupid over the opinion of countless academics. Interesting.

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?

You need to get an understanding of how long it takes to petrify wood.

There are countless Roman and Greek galleys found. If they were left a few hundred million years instead of a few thousand then they would petrify. Nice fail.

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

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.

I'm assuming this is the evidence I was searching the forum for:

Go to your nearest natural history museum. Fossil distributions which indicate the existence of individuals of the same species on different continents testify to the fact that dinosaurs built boats and colonised the world.

and:

Since the distribution of modern wild flora and fauna is a direct result of the distribution of prehistoric flora and fauna, I will continue. The continents have always been roughly as they are now, though sea-levels have fluctuated throughout natural history. The simple fact of the matter regarding fossil and biological evidence is that dinosaurs travelled between the continents using boats, often taking their crops and livestock with them. In this way, species of the same genus colonised much of the world's landmass, just as humanity has done millions of years later.

The same evidence could then testify to the fact that dinosaurs got there through the building of gliders.  They had ample evidence that flight was possible.  Perhaps they preceeded the Wright brothers by millions of years. 

I'd still like to know how far you think they could have gone given birds can make simple tools.  Did they have a system of irrigation for their crops and a farming community to support their livestock?  Could they have made processed foods and goods from these?  I mean it's not that far of a leap to think that if they were producing crops for a purpose that they could process those crops to make other foods.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 05:30:32 AM

However, crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

Feel free to show me a study which shows crows going beyond the chimpanzees creation of spears to hunt small game. I've not seen one.

No problem:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8182446.stm


Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.

We can't make such speculation because crows haven't built boats, and they aren't dinosaurs.

Then any and all comparison with other animals is rendered obsolete. Say goodbye to your EQ comparisons.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 05:30:32 AM

...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

So you want me to take someone who's opinion is that "dolphins" are stupid over the opinion of countless academics. Interesting.

You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. You claimed James though EQ was a valid means of comparison. The quote I supplied proves otherwise.

www.rif.org

You need to get an understanding of how long it takes to petrify wood.

There are countless Roman and Greek galleys found. If they were left a few hundred million years instead of a few thousand then they would petrify. Nice fail.

From the link you provided earlier:


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

In general, wood takes less than 100 years to petrify.

www.rif.org

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?

*sigh*

? 2008-07-28 18:21 Ancient Greek ship fished from sea Vessel found off Sicilian coast is the largest of its kind

(ANSA) - Gela, July 28 - An ancient Greek trading ship that had lain on the seabed off the coast of Gela in southern Sicily for 2,500 years was brought to the surface for the first time on Monday. The ancient Greek vessel is 21 metres long and 6.5 metres wide, making it by far the biggest of its kind ever discovered. Four Greek vessels found off the coasts of Israel, Cyprus and France are at most 15 metres long.

The one in Gela is also of particular value for scholars who will be able to delve into Greek naval construction techniques thanks to the amazing find of still-intact hemp ropes used to 'sew' together the pine planks in its hull - a technique described in Homer's Iliad.  ''Gela's ancient ship is the patrimony not only of Sicily but of all humanity,'' said Sicily's regional councillor for culture Antonello Antinoro, who watched Monday's operation.

One of the most exciting ancient Greek naval finds was discovered off the northern coast of Cyprus in the 1960s. The wreck of Kyrenia ? a port town in northern Cyprus - was explored by a team of experts in 1967 and recovery work began in 1968.

The wreck was the most well preserved maritime find of its type in the world and was recovered in 6,000 pieces, having been protected in the mud and sand of the sea-bottom.

Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.

Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.

No apes can use several tools. They have also been observed whittling their own spears. Those crows were given the tools and given the opportunity to figure out which one to use where. Again your fail is showing.

Then any and all comparison with other animals is rendered obsolete. Say goodbye to your EQ comparisons.

Nope. Even the EQ comparison would not suggest dinosaurs built boats.  It might suggest dinosaurs could use twigs to get at nuts down a hole though.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 07:59:58 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 05:30:32 AM

...Especially when the fossil record supports such speculation.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

No. Insisting it is so does not make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense. You claimed James though EQ was a valid means of comparison. The quote I supplied proves otherwise.

No. I said James used the EQ comparison to insist dinosaurs were capable of building boats. Then he was shown that he'd mis-applied the science. Then he changed his mind and decided that EQ didn't matter anymore. These facts remain true. Read the thread I linked to.

From the link you provided earlier:

Quote

In general, wood takes less than 100 years to petrify.

You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense.  We have found boats from Roman and Greek civilisations. They weren't petrified. If they were left long enough they would be.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 12:00:57 AM

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.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood

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?

Wood doesn't petrify at the bottom of the ocean.

When a ship is no longer in use, you sink it. The NAVY does it all the time.

The Navy still uses wood to build its ships? Shit!



Also, you are saying that the dinosaurs were successful. Ergo, the boats made it to land. Wood petrifies on land, and I'm fairly sure it's not literally impossible for it to happen underwater.

Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.

Sorry, I had class, and I have a lot of work this week. They were two minutes I didn't have. Anyway, as I said, I was genuinely curious, and seems I was right. We don't have many boats from that period. Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 09:00:56 AM

Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.

No apes can use several tools. They have also been observed whittling their own spears. Those crows were given the tools and given the opportunity to figure out which one to use where. Again your fail is showing.

Crows have been shown creating their own tools, and not just spears ('pointy object bad'), but (relatively) complex tools for manipulating other objects. They have also shown the capacity to use several tools for different purposes. You're attempting to point out a 'fail' that was never there. Nothing you've said contradicts anything in my original statement.

Nope. Even the EQ comparison would not suggest dinosaurs built boats.  It might suggest dinosaurs could use twigs to get at nuts down a hole though.

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose when speculation is and isn't acceptable. Stop flip-flopping. I really don't mind which you pick, but you have to pick one.

No. Insisting it is so does not make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

Insisting it doesn't is no better. The difference is, we've provided evidence to back up our theory. You haven't.

You're either being deliberately awkward or astoundingly dense.  We have found boats from Roman and Greek civilisations. They weren't petrified. If they were left long enough they would be.

What do you mean "if they were left ling enough"? The link YOU provided says that it takes less than a hundred years for wood to petrify. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the classical era began well over 2,000 years ago. You know, B.C., before cornflakes. Why would they need to be there any longer?

Quote from: markjo on November 18, 2009, 06:51:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 12:00:57 AM

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.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood

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?

Wood doesn't petrify at the bottom of the ocean.

When a ship is no longer in use, you sink it. The NAVY does it all the time.

The dino Navy scuttles its ships.  I love this thread!

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.

Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

I never knew that lack of evidence was supporting evidence.

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

Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

I never knew that lack of evidence was supporting evidence.

I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.

Nothing you've said contradicts anything in my original statement.

Then you weren't paying attention. You claimed:

crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

And I said I doubt it. Look at these monkeys making spears to hunt with.

And you said:

Apes use one tool to aquire food. Not only can crows create tools (as we have shown), but they can also manipulate several different tools in order to gain food.

I then told you apes don't use just one tool to aquire food. Here's an article. And another.

So you gave us a crow that can use the different tools it's given for different purposes.

Crows: Different length sticks. Can also bend sticks.
Chimps: Spears, hammers, drills, pounders, enlargers, collectors, perforators and swabbers.

And you want us to believe that crows have gone beyond what has been observed in other animals? That's prime failsteak.

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose when speculation is and isn't acceptable.

I can. One uses a reasonable comparison of brain size in comparable species to infer comparable intelligence and skills.

The other uses... wishful thinking?

Insisting it doesn't is no better. The difference is, we've provided evidence to back up our theory. You haven't.

No. No you haven't. Pretending you have is even worse. How dull.

What do you mean "if they were left ling enough"? The link YOU provided says that it takes less than a hundred years for wood to petrify. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the classical era began well over 2,000 years ago. You know, B.C., before cornflakes. Why would they need to be there any longer?

Oh dear lord.

The petrified wood that we find today was petrified relatively quickly. However they were petrified millions of years ago. It's all about the conditions they find themselves in, the chemicals in the ground necessary to create petrification. Volcanic ash is supposed to be good.

Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.

Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.

So you gave us a crow that can use the different tools it's given for different purposes.

Incorrect: I gave you a crow that was able to use several tools towards the same goal, in sequence. This is not the same as an ape using a spear to kill prey and a leaf to wipe its ass when it's done digesting said prey. Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.

I can. One uses a reasonable comparison of brain size in comparable species to infer comparable intelligence and skills.

The other uses... wishful thinking?

The other uses a reasonable comparison with animals that have a similar capability. If the best dinosaur experts in the world can compare them with birds, why can't we? The simple answer is that we can.

No. No you haven't. Pretending you have is even worse. How dull.

Do you actually have anything to contribute? Because as it stands, we've presented an argument, and you're just shaking bleating 'no'.

Oh dear lord.

The petrified wood that we find today was petrified relatively quickly. However they were petrified millions of years ago. It's all about the conditions they find themselves in, the chemicals in the ground necessary to create petrification. Volcanic ash is supposed to be good.

Wood is preserved by denying bacteria, oxygen and disturbance. It is then petrified by silicates. If the silicates are in abundance as was the case millions of years ago, then the process can be quick. If not, then it'll take longer.

Strangely, the same conditions that would be preserving wood at the time of the dinosaurs would also be preserving boats. Hmm.

Ah, so now you're claiming that the conditions during the period in question were exceptionally propitious for the petrification of wood. Can you back this up with evidence of an abundance of petrified wood dating from, say, the Cretaceous period? You're going to need to prove that more petrified wood dates from this period than other periods in history, because otherwise, you're making pie in the sky claims.

Quote from: markjo on November 18, 2009, 09:42:05 AM

Well, that took me all of about two minutes to Google.

Sorry, I had class, and I have a lot of work this week. They were two minutes I didn't have.

And yet, you found the time to post. 

Anyway, as I said, I was genuinely curious, and seems I was right. We don't have many boats from that period. Now, let's go a little further back, to the human colonisation of Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand, or anywhere else in Oceana. How many boats do we have from those migrations? Remember, we're talking events that occured in the last few thousand years. Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame.  Funny, don't you think?

Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.

Probably so.

You said this:

crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

I showed how wrong you were. Worming about with combinations of tools and tasks gets you nowhere. How embarrassing.

The other uses a reasonable comparison with animals that have a similar capability. If the best dinosaur experts in the world can compare them with birds, why can't we? The simple answer is that we can.

Yes. You could propose that dinosaurs were able to use sticks to get bugs out of holes. This is what I said earIier and you berated me for it. Now you're agreeing with me. Flip flop much?

Do you actually have anything to contribute? Because as it stands, we've presented an argument, and you're just shaking bleating 'no'.

As it stands you've pretended that you had some evidence. I said no. You kept saying you had without showing it. *shrugs* I can stamp my feet like a five year old too.

You're going to need to prove that more petrified wood dates from this period than other periods in history, because otherwise, you're making pie in the sky claims.

No. I just need to explain even more slowly the requirements for making petrified wood.

Around 225 million years ago, during the Triassic Era, the wood was covered up by either volcanic ash, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes or materials washed in by violent floods. This prevented oxygen from reaching the wood and prevented decay. Silica dissolved in ground water got into the individual cells and chemically effected them taking on a variety of forms; agate, jasper, chalcedony or opal. The beautiful colors are caused by other minerals that are mixed with the silica. Iron Oxide stains the wood orange, rust, red or yellow. Maganese oxide produces blues, blacks or purple.

Wood must first be covered with such agents as volcanic ash, volcanic lava flow, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes and swamps or material washed in by violent floods - by any means which would exclude oxygen and thus prevent decay.

You need to have water of the right chemical composition moving through the wood. It tends to be silica is the best chemical for replacing the wood. It actually reacts with cellulose and leaves a cells structure and gets bound in. Over millions of years it gradually changes from this strange mixture of cellulose and silica into opal and into a more crystallised form of silica. If you just randomly bang fence posts into British soil then probably it would take thousands of years to petrify a piece of wood in anything like normal conditions. If you have a fence post and throw it into, for instance, some of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park then, yes you might get a decent piece of petrified wood out the end of it. That?s very unusual.

And sooooooo on....

And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame.  Funny, don't you think?

Did they petrify at the bottom of the ocean?

Quote

And yet we find dinosaur bones and petrified trees from that time frame.  Funny, don't you think?

Did they petrify at the bottom of the ocean?

They petrified in mud and/or silt.  Guess what's at the bottom of the ocean.  Did you think that all fossils of marine dinosaurs are fresh water dinos? 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 03:23:25 PM

Using multiple tools for different tasks is totally different to using multiple tools in the same task.

Probably so.

You said this:

Quote

crows have displayed an ability to use tools that goes beyond what has been observed in other animals.

I showed how wrong you were. Worming about with combinations of tools and tasks gets you nowhere. How embarrassing.

You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing. Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.

Yes. You could propose that dinosaurs were able to use sticks to get bugs out of holes. This is what I said earIier and you berated me for it. Now you're agreeing with me. Flip flop much?

But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.

As it stands you've pretended that you had some evidence. I said no. You kept saying you had without showing it. *shrugs* I can stamp my feet like a five year old too.

Sorry, but we've presented arguments complete with analysis of the fossil record in other threads, threads which you have linked to (and thus are aware of). You have said nothing in this thread which counters what we have said in previous threads.

No. I just need to explain even more slowly the requirements for making petrified wood.

Quote from: http://www.petrifiedwood.com/about.htm

Around 225 million years ago, during the Triassic Era, the wood was covered up by either volcanic ash, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes or materials washed in by violent floods. This prevented oxygen from reaching the wood and prevented decay. Silica dissolved in ground water got into the individual cells and chemically effected them taking on a variety of forms; agate, jasper, chalcedony or opal. The beautiful colors are caused by other minerals that are mixed with the silica. Iron Oxide stains the wood orange, rust, red or yellow. Maganese oxide produces blues, blacks or purple.

Quote from: http://www.ncsec.org/cadre2/team2_2/Lessons/howDoesWoodPetrify.htm

Wood must first be covered with such agents as volcanic ash, volcanic lava flow, volcanic mud-flows, sediments in lakes and swamps or material washed in by violent floods - by any means which would exclude oxygen and thus prevent decay.

Quote from: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/2223/

You need to have water of the right chemical composition moving through the wood. It tends to be silica is the best chemical for replacing the wood. It actually reacts with cellulose and leaves a cells structure and gets bound in. Over millions of years it gradually changes from this strange mixture of cellulose and silica into opal and into a more crystallised form of silica. If you just randomly bang fence posts into British soil then probably it would take thousands of years to petrify a piece of wood in anything like normal conditions. If you have a fence post and throw it into, for instance, some of the hot springs in Yellowstone National Park then, yes you might get a decent piece of petrified wood out the end of it. That?s very unusual.

And sooooooo on....

Very interesting. Why does any of this make it more likely that boats from the cretaceous period would be petrified than boats constructed by humans? After all, we've found a few human boats from thousands of years ago, and Austalias was settled by humans around 40,000 years ago. According to your sources, that's plenty of time for petrification. Yet, we haven't found any ancient Australian boats.

You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing.

I cannot be held responsible for your failure to read the evidence provided.

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.

That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.

But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.

No not really. See the links you provided for details.

A few birds can build a floating nest from reeds. They are often acnhored to the shoreline/marshes.

A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.

Sorry, but we've presented arguments complete with analysis of the fossil record in other threads,.

If there is fossil evidence then post it. I have seen no evidence here or in any other threads.

Very interesting. Why does any of this make it more likely that boats from the cretaceous period would be petrified than boats constructed by humans?

Because once a boat is removed from sources of decomposition the time for petrification can vary depending on the availability of silicate to complete the petrification.

There was plenty of silicate during the Cretaceous, as witnessed by the amounts of petrified wood from the Cretaceous period. Indeed there's plenty of petrified wood in Australia. Yet no dino boats. Anywhere.

The biggest problem with the whole theory is that the development of technology does not exist in a vacuum. It is an cumulative process, where one discovery leads to another. Boat or raft  making requires a number of individual technologies to make it viable, not it the least rope making and stone tools at the least.

Moreover, I regard the tools created by crows in these experiments as far more impressive than the various ways of hitting things that apes have devised.

LOL, is that the only thing you think apes ever made?  Ever see a chimp fish for termites or ants?

The biggest problem with the whole theory is that the development of technology does not exist in a vacuum. It is an cumulative process, where one discovery leads to another. Boat or raft  making requires a number of individual technologies to make it viable, not it the least rope making and stone tools at the least.

Furthermore, a civilization does not just create boats. If at all, it incrementally creates solutions for every aspect of its life, including food, shelter, safety, transportation, social structure, preservation of knowledge, just to mention a few.

We are not looking just for a 100 million old boat, we are looking for every other evidence of civilization as well. We have even found dinosaur excrement but we still have not found the first stone or metal artifact, the first dumping ground, the first 100 million year old bone with markings that are not made with teeth.

As a matter of cheap philosophy, we can argue that anything is possible. But as a matter of simple common sense, what will you expect to find from humanity, for example, after 65 million years of extinction: only fossilized bones, or mostly concrete and stone ruins, hundreds of square kilometers of altered terrain, huge deposits of metal oxides, maybe even a dumpster or two? And, sure, a few fossilized bones, of course. Every human being leaves behind several tons of assorted objects but just 30 kilograms of bone, which in most cases is decomposed before it gets fossilized. Every civilized dinosaur would be similar to this.

I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.

Never would I expect there to be fossilized evidence of boats used by dinousaurs to ferry freight across the ocean.  The claim was that the fossil record supported sea travel by dinosaurs, yet the claim is that there is no fossilized evidence of this sea travel.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2009, 02:28:26 AM

You've done no such thing, because you've provided no evidence of apes doing the same thing.

I cannot be held responsible for your failure to read the evidence provided.

Right back atchya'.

That's nice. Your personal opinions are your own. The rest of the world disagrees.

No, you disagree. Leading scientists in the field agree, as my sources show.

But we have shown that birds can do far more than that! They can create tools and build floating structures.

No not really. See the links you provided for details.

A few birds can build a floating nest from reeds. They are often acnhored to the shoreline/marshes.

A floating nest does not a seafaring dinotopia create.[/quote]


The ability to build rafts would, however, and we have shown this to be possible.

If there is fossil evidence then post it. I have seen no evidence here or in any other threads.

Then you haven't even read the threads you claim to have read, though that's no surprise, as I've already demonstrated thay you misunderstood James' opinions on EQ. The evidence I'm talking about was posted by James in a thread you linked.

There was plenty of silicate during the Cretaceous, as witnessed by the amounts of petrified wood from the Cretaceous period. Indeed there's plenty of petrified wood in Australia. Yet no dino boats. Anywhere.

Please provide us with evidence that there is more petrified wood from that period than from, say, 40,000 years ago.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 02:26:01 PM

I didn't claim it was. You guys are the ones expecting there to be fossilised boats. I'm just pointing out that to do so is completely unrealistic.

Never would I expect there to be fossilized evidence of boats used by dinousaurs to ferry freight across the ocean.  The claim was that the fossil record supported sea travel by dinosaurs, yet the claim is that there is no fossilized evidence of this sea travel.

There is no fossil evidence of the boats, and I never claimed there was. That would be a fairly contradictory position to hold. The evidence I am talking about has actually been linked to in this thread, but as usual none of you can be bothered to look. Here is one example:

Here are some images of the dromaeosaur races Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, and their common ancestor, Deinonychus:

Adasaurus, pictured gingerly cradling its young in its nimble clawed hands.


Dromaeosaurus, a cousin of the Adasaurus, who would have existed during the same period as the Adasaurus (the late cretacious), but on different continents.


Deinonychus, the ancestor of the Dromaeosauruses and the Adasauruses.


The natural history of the dromaeosaurs is a good example of the kinds of developments which the dinosaurs as a whole would have undergone. Fossil evidence indicates that Deinonychus originated in North America during the early cretacious period.

Deinonychus are thought to have been highly social, organising themselves into complex communities in order to work together. During their development, Deinonychus evolved an iconic five-inch claw on the foot, which was highly dexterous, and could be retracted and moved back and forth. Initially, this would have served a purpose in hunting and combat, though it would later have been useful in the performance of complex motor skills such as puncturing fabrics, making written inscriptions and so on. The special success of this early dromaeosaur is partly explicable by its long tail, which acting as a counterbalance allowed the use of both the hands and feet in dexterous activity.

The distribution of Deinonychus' descendants, the Adasuruses and Dromaeosauruses, suggests that one or more colonial expeditions sailed from the West Coast of North America and colonised the far East, probably landing in Japan and China and then spreading across the eastern part of Eurasia.


Above: The Pacific Ocean

Travel between the colonies during this period seems to have been very limited, because the two previously homogenous groups of dromaeosaur began to evolve minor racial adaptions which distinguished them from one another, though they retained all of the major characteristics of the dromaeosaur species. The fact that these groups proceeded to evolve on the micro scale along different lines despite their immediate proximity in the faulty "pangea" model is testament to the fact that ocean seperated them, much as it does today.

The colonist Deinonychuses who reached the far east adapted in a number of ways. Adasauruses, probably due to massively increased tool usage and the removal of the necessity to be involved in violence as their civilisation progressed, developed much smaller foot-claws than their ancestors. A smaller claw would have been much more suitable for precision tasks like inscription, manipulation of cloth and fine materials and so on, and marks the transition from its role as a mechanism of hunting and combat to its role as an additional dexterous digit. In the absence of the selection pressures brought on by the development of a civilisation, and the mastery of the surrounding wildlife and other hazards, Adasauruses' bodies became smaller than those of their Deinonychus ancestors, who had needed to be larger because their lifestyle was primarily one based around hunting and conflict. Fossil evidence suggests that the Saurolophus, a herbiverous, docile grazing dinosaur, originating in North America, also appeared in the far East at roughly the same time, making it likely that the first Deinonychian colonists brought specimens with them on the transcontinental voyage, and probably began to farm them for food (they would have previous been hunted by tribes of Deinonychus living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the American continent). The advent of an agrarian society based on the pasturing of Saurolophus would remove the necessity for the brutalities of hunting. In order to bring down a wild Saurolophus, tribal warriors would have needed considerable bulk and might as well as cunning, but their agrarian descendants needed no such unneccessary brawn, which explains their shrinking - the average Adasaurus living during the late cretacious was around 8 feet long, whereas a North American Deinonychus of the early cretacious period, who would have had to hunt the large wild Saurolophus and Tenontosaurus (probably hunted to extinction by early Deinonychian hunters, explaining why it was not exported to the far east along with Saurolophus) would have measured 11 feet long.


Above: The west coast of North America. Groups of pioneering Deinonychus, who would later microevolve into the Asasauruses, would have set sail from shores such as these.

The Deinonychus who stayed behind also show signs of developing agriculture along similar lines. The Dromaeosaurus, from which the species derives its name, were Deinonychus who remained in North America. Their adaption did not include such an acute reduction in claw size as the the Adasaurus, but their body size decreased significantly, to around 6 feet long. Again, this is attributable to the development of farming, primarily of the tamed Saurolophus. That the Dromaeosauruses did not develop the highly precise small-claw of the Adasauruses suggests that they may not have involved themselves so heavily in activities such as writing. Dromaeosauruses developed a coat of downy feathers, which might suggest that colder climates prevailed in North America at this time. Their smaller size than the Adasaurus could also be indicative of evolutionary adaption in order to conserve heat. If temperatures did drop for the Dromaeosaurs entering the Late Cretacious, perhaps their society was a more rugged one, and the harsh realities of surviving the cold winters precluded such an extensive focus on writing, hence the lack of precision small-foot-claw adaption shown in the Adasaurus. The evolution of their tails gave greater flexibility and may have been indicative of adaption in favour of some civilised activity, since the balancing capability of the tail enables enhanced use not only of the forelimbs but also the foot claw.


Above: Saurolophus. These gentle giants were probably first hunted by the North American Deinonychus, and later herded and grazed by them when farming entered their culture just prior to the colonisation era, and splitting of Asasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, the two Deinonychus descendant races.

So, fossil remains suggest that as intelligent Deinonychus became highly successful hunter-gatherers during the Early Cretacious, conquering the entire North American continent with such rampant success that they drove one of their main prey animals, the Tenontosaurus, to extinction. It is likely that the advent of Saurolophus domestication roughly coincided with, or just preceded, the maritime renaissance and colonisation period. The tendency of agrarian societies to promote massive population growth is clear, and in this scenario, facing scarcity of land and dropping temperatures, some of the Deinonychus would have begun their colonisation of China and the far East, taking with them livestock as well as elements of the budding culture of North America. Fossil evidence suggests that the Adasaurus society was massively successful, placing some of their near relatives as far afield as Denmark. An empire the size of Alexander the Great's would no doubt have been underpinned by careful organisation and a culture steeped in the written word and refinements of erudition. Meanwhile, as the Late Cretacious brought colder climates in North America, the remaining American Deinonychus grew smaller, hairier and more rugged as they faced the elements as best they could, thought they still retained their agriculture and some vestements of civilisation.

How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.

How did these dinosaurs communicate? A culture such as James thinks existed would require advanced communication between dinosaurs, such as at the level of a language.

Don't ask stupid questions. Birds are around you wherever you live and you know how they communicate.