What about the Dinosuars?

Its not just the thumbs as well. Theres intelligence. Teamwork (did the dinosaurs carpool, like some jurassic Noah's Ark? serious question). Coordination. Balance

I've addressed these points already, I wish people would read the thread. I'm posthulating that the dinosaurs had an agrarian civilisation capable of travelling by boat. Does it not strike you that intelligence and collaboration are kind of implied by that thesis?

Regarding coordination and balance, please read my extensive post on the migration of early cretaceous Deinonychus, in which I explain the capacity for fine motor skills of the Deinonychus and its descendant sub-species, both in terms of their bipedalism enabling the use of the forelimbs and also in terms of the existence of a highly dexterous claw on the foot. I also explain the evolution of a more flexible tail which allows greater use of the feet (and foot-claw).

North America and Asia are conjoined right up until the end of the Cretaceous in Pangea theory. Our case study takes place during the Early Cretaceous, during which time Pangea theory alleges that these continents were conjoined, as shown on the map you posted.

"West coast of America and the East coast of Asia"

There is a huge difference between that, and North America being joined with Europe. Just because a continent is joined doesn't mean creatures will automtically populate ALL of it. As seen on Denmark vs Germany, South Africa vs North Africa etc etc. The climates is also pretty much the same in those examples.

Or we can take the example you want! Asia and Europe is connected now, as they was back then. Why is there such a huge difference in creatures between Asia and Europe then? According to you they would have travelled "everywhere".

What lives in Demark that doesn't live in Germany, apart from Danes?

I already told you. Why are there only tigers in India and lions in Africa?

Nice theory, but, this is an Asian lion.

What lives in Demark that doesn't live in Germany, apart from Danes?

Beavers fx. But you are avoiding my questions. Why is there such a big difference between Asian and European wildlife? They were connected back then in Pangae, and they are still connected today. Why haven't the creatures "travelled the world"?

Because of climate difference over the thousands of miles between Asia and Europe.

Quote from: Dogplatter on May 29, 2009, 06:22:07 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on May 29, 2009, 05:55:16 AM

I'm still waiting for your youtube video evidence of you building a boat without thumbs.

IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Ah. So you don't actually have any evidence that a boat can be built without thumbs. Oh dear.

You seem to be saying that scientific evidence didn't exist before YouTube.

Dogplatter didn't say ALL species of dinosaur built boats to get across. Some probably liked where they were living, or were stopped by the difference in climate / food supply.

Why is it so hard to believe that over millions of years a dinosaur figured out how to build a boat?
Dogplatters lack of evidence does not prove it didn't happen. It doesn't even make it less likely that it did happen. It's currently unknowable by either side, and there is no reason to remain close minded to the idea.

When dogplatter says boat, you probably instantly think of a human boat. What makes you think a dinosaur would build a boat remotely similar to a craft constructed by a human? I'll give you a scenario that might help you understand how it could in fact have taken place.

You know pummus floats, you may even be aware of floating islands like found today in our marshes and swamps. You have probably seen on the discovery channel where rockslides create tremendous amount of wind pressure that up-root trees and send them flying in the same direction.

Here we have a stage set for a pre-historic volcanic time where it's not to hard to imagine large chunks of floating land and grouped floating trees could collect in a watery outlet to the ocean.

Birds are very good at creating nests with sticks and garbage, why is it such a leap to think a dinosaur wouldn't gather items and do the same to give stability to his floating vessel.

Food? Why can't he fish. Strong currents could help traverse the sea, and these currents still provide a rich food source. Although the dinosaur may not have known where he was going it doesn't mean he didn't. It doesn't mean several didn't. That doesn't mean that every dinosaur of his species did though, not every one would have had these advantages. Just like today most of us can't build a boat.

On the other hand nothing says the ice wall wasn't much larger then and covered more of the earth allowing dino's to simply walk across the oceans. If you believe in ice age stuff, which i doubt FE's could because there would be no shift in planet axis for them.

The idea of pangea itself is a little hard to swallow. Tech-tonic plates and all, it's just interesting to me that on all the earth there was at one time, only 1 land mass. That would imply the rest of the world was lower than sea level and this one spot had all the volcanos or mountains. It would be a very odd occurrence if you look at a topographical map of say, any other planet. Mars, Moon. If I had to argue for pangea then maybe I could say something like billions of years ago our sun was larger and it melted one side of the planet like mercury, maybe that would explain.

Quote from: number4 on May 29, 2009, 01:36:19 PM

You seem to be saying that scientific evidence didn't exist before YouTube.

Dogplatters proof comes from practical science. He says he and a group of others built a boat with their thumbs tied up. This is the kind of thing one needs to observe first hand, however I'm willing to accept a youtube link as a compromise.

You're welcome to duplicate the experiment yourself and therefore observe it first hand.  Dogplatter told you how he did it.  It's unreasonable of you to demand youtube proof when he's told you multiple times it wasn't captured on video.  And honestly, given the vast number of youtube videos showing something unbelievable that are well-known to have been faked, it's a bit absurd that you would accept such a thing as evidence anyway.  You're really reaching.

Do you believe they existed if so how did the become extinct?

Ever Hear of fossils. If you even say that they are fake. I find them in my back yard everyday.

Quote from: offensivebias on May 24, 2009, 06:09:13 PM

Do you believe they existed if so how did the become extinct?

Ever Hear of fossils. If you even say that they are fake. I find them in my back yard everyday.

This is what happens when you don't read past the first post. At least you're staying true to form.

Quote from: NEEMAN on May 28, 2009, 07:33:36 PM

You're resorting to a childish interpretation of what I said

No. It's a direct quote. Here let me help you with that.

Quote from: NEEMAN on May 28, 2009, 01:20:04 PM

The way I see it, anything a bird can do, a dinosaur can.

Then when you're pulled up on this you turn round and say its a frankly stupid parallel to make. *shrugs*

The rest of your post is groundless speculation and shaky parallels. Just like Dogplatters. The only way to resolve this is for Dogplatter to post his evidence of Dinosaur boat building and civilisation.

First of all, don't be so dense. If you like, I'll go back and say that I don't believe dinosaurs can do ANYTHING a bird can do, because that would mean I believe that dinosaurs existed in the 1980s, simply because birds did. If that will satisfy your childish semantic nit-picking, then I'll do it, but please, stop being so obtuse, because it only hurts your argument. But I do believe that dinosaurs had mental faculties similar to birds, and anything a bird is mentally capable of, a dinosaur is/was.

As for this youtube fixation of yours, it's yet another stupid idea you've decided to latch onto, seemingly in the vain hope that by scoring a single point, you will somehoe win the debate. Even putting aside the fact that the video does not exist, the whole point about valid experiments is that they are repeatable. A video of Dogplatter's experiment would prove nothing other than that Dogplatter videotaped what he claimed to be an excercise in boat/raft-buliding without thumbs. In theory, any amount of subterfuge could be involved. The reason we give credence to many experiments carried out in the 19th century is that they are repeatable; they didn't suddenly become valid because they were put on video.

Dogplatter has carried out an experiment, and given the results (which really are pretty plausible). If you want to refute his claims, prove that the experiment cannot be repeated. Claiming that just because a video of it doesn't exist the experiment is worthless is ridiculous, and you would never find a scientist to go along with you on that point, even if they had no time for FET.

In summary, stop trying to derail this valid discussion with stupid arguments over words and ridiculous demands for videos of experiments. By your logic, every single experiment conducted prior to 1870 was worthless.

I don't have an issue with plate tectonics really, and while I'm skeptical to claims that dinosaurs were sea-fairing, I certainly don't think we can rule it out. It isn't as far fetched as it is being presented here by some.

Out of curiousity i taped my thumb to my finger just now, and well I couldnt do much, could hardly pick up a pen let alone build a boat. When I could do something its only because I could sort of cheat wiggling my thumb to support. Remembering that this is by a human with proper arms. I believe I am also far far more intelligent than a dinosaur ever could of hoped to of been (I swear if I hear any snide comments about that last sentence)

Out of curiousity i taped my thumb to my finger just now, and well I couldnt do much, could hardly pick up a pen let alone build a boat. When I could do something its only because I could sort of cheat wiggling my thumb to support. Remembering that this is by a human with proper arms. I believe I am also far far more intelligent than a dinosaur ever could of hoped to of been (I swear if I hear any snide comments about that last sentence)

Just curious, being smarter than the dinosaurs did you use all your available parts to pick things up?

Did you try your teeth? How about your feet with your hands?

When your tring to do things a human does in the way a human does it without human features then of course it's going to be more difficult. Dinosaurs weren't humans though, and never had to unlearn using their thumbs. Now try picking something up as if you were not a human but a dumb animal. I bet you can get it.

Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?

I think the term "boat" is causing a great deal of confusion here. In the context of this discussion it means "something capable of floating with the weight of at least one passenger." At least that's how I read it.

Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?

And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck?  Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2009, 08:36:19 PM

Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?

And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck?  Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.

It would if you intended to cross oceans with it. You're not going to throw some p.o.s craft together with little strings and a couple of tree trunks and cross the ocean. Along with being able to store enough food for the trip, hopefully some form of steering, and blind luck that you don't go in circles, you would need a minimum of 2-300 to not have those that land successfully on a new continent die out gradually. You cannot repopulate with fewer than 200-300, and even that is stretching it.

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2009, 08:36:19 PM

Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?

And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck?  Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.

Again, is the range of motion known for the various body parts involved?  Would those various body parts have enough strength and dexterity to manipulate the materials and/or any tools required?  A dino boat wouldn't have to be pretty, but it would have to be sturdy.

It would if you intended to cross oceans with it. You're not going to throw some p.o.s craft together with little strings and a couple of tree trunks and cross the ocean. Along with being able to store enough food for the trip, hopefully some form of steering, and blind luck that you don't go in circles, you would need a minimum of 2-300 to not have those that land successfully on a new continent die out gradually. You cannot repopulate with fewer than 200-300, and even that is stretching it.

Throwing together a low-quality raft and then sailing to, and populating, a continent, is exactly what the Australian Aborigines are known to have done beyond a shadow of a doubt thanks to extensive genetic evidence.

This fascinating documentary tracks the route taken by the first colonists of humanity. I would highly recommend watching the whole thing, but I'm posting the salient section here. Watch from about 7:00 minutes onward, in which the amazing maritime journey of the Aborigines is charted.

Based on the complexity and quality of marine vessels constructed by the modern Aborigines (i.e. at the first contact with Europeans), we can safely assume that they weren't building galleons and cruise ships. The events of the Aboroginal colonisation occured some 45000 years before the first use of metals by humanity. This was before a single homo sapien had ever set foot in the Americas, Europe, Russia or anywhere apart from Africa and the Middle East. For heaven's sake, it preceded the first written language by tens of thousands of years! It preceded AGRICULTURE by over 10000 years. That's right, on the scale of technological simplicity, intercontinental travel by boat is easier than organised farming. In other words, it's completely possible to travel hundreds of miles over open ocean on crude rafts made essentially by hand out of all-natural materials by individuals in the most basic social structures conceivable.

I am from Australia and i can tell you all Aboriginals i have seen have thumbs.
That was a really dumb observation of you Dogplatter. Aboriginals are HUMANS too, not dinosaurs

Quote from: Robbyj on May 29, 2009, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2009, 08:36:19 PM

Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?

And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck?  Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.

Again, is the range of motion known for the various body parts involved?  Would those various body parts have enough strength and dexterity to manipulate the materials and/or any tools required?  A dino boat wouldn't have to be pretty, but it would have to be sturdy.

Yes the range of motion for T-Rexs arms is known. It is very very limited, it is barely bendable. Most think it was just used as a meat-hook or a "stabilisator", and they were fragile enough to very often break.

I am from Australia and i can tell you all Aboriginals i have seen have thumbs.
That was a really dumb observation of you Dogplatter. Aboriginals are HUMANS too, not dinosaurs

It wasn't "dumb". It proves that only simple boats are required for intercontinental travel. Dogplatter has performed an experiment which shows that simple boats can be constructed without thumbs.

Quote from: Robbyj on May 29, 2009, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 29, 2009, 08:36:19 PM

Has anyone actually verified that dinosaurs arms and/or legs have the range of motion required for boat building?

And what would be wrong with using mouth and neck?  Like number4 said, it wouldn't have to be pretty.

Again, is the range of motion known for the various body parts involved?  Would those various body parts have enough strength and dexterity to manipulate the materials and/or any tools required?  A dino boat wouldn't have to be pretty, but it would have to be sturdy.

The way I see it, birds are capable of small-scale construction with far greater limitations on their movement. They may not have human levels of dexterity, but I personally believe they had enough to construct simple rafts or log boats.

I am from Australia and i can tell you all Aboriginals i have seen have thumbs.
That was a really dumb observation of you Dogplatter. Aboriginals are HUMANS too, not dinosaurs

The observation regarding Aboriginal colonisation is only intended to imply that crude boats built with very low level technology are sufficient for intercontinental travel.

I have already demonstrated that crude boats with very low level technology can be constructed without opposable thumbs.

The simple argument is deductive, and logically valid, and takes the following form:

Crude boats with low level technology are sufficient for crossing oceans.
A crude boat with low level technology can be built without opposable thumbs.
_________
A boat sufficient for crossing oceans can be built without opposable thumbs.

The two premises are true. The premises logically entail the conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion is true.

Everybody should have figured out by now that all this FET is just trolls.
Nobody can be so dumb that they believe dinosaurs would be as smart as humans, or that the Earth is flat - and it's just that noone have figured it out yet.

Quote from: NEEMAN on May 30, 2009, 07:08:03 AM

The way I see it, birds are capable of small-scale construction with far greater limitations on their movement. They may not have human levels of dexterity, but I personally believe they had enough to construct simple rafts or log boats.

Now read this:

Quote from: NEEMAN on May 29, 2009, 04:32:41 PM

I'll go back and say that I don't believe dinosaurs can do ANYTHING a bird can do

What's your point? There's no contradiction there.

I've seen no demonstration. Did you post the youtube link I asked for?

Have you seen how I dismantled this youtube fixation of yours? Get over it, you've lost the argument. When you have something relevant to say, get back to us, but until then, I'm going to ignore your pointless chittering.

Here, so that there can literally be no doubt, I've formalised my proof into Fitch-style first-order logic. Anybody with an understanding of first-order logic will see that there is literally no way that this can be false.

Let
Crude(x) = x is a crude boat,
LowTech(x) = x requires a low level of technology to build,
Seaworthy(x) = x is sufficient for intercontinental travel,
NoThumbs(x) = x does not require opposable thumbs to build.


 1|∀x ((Crude(x) ∧ LowTech(x)) → Seaworthy(x))
 2|∃x (Crude(x) ∧ LowTech(x) ∧ NoThumbs(x))
  |___
 3||c Crude(c) ∧ LowTech(c) ∧ NoThumbs(c))
  ||___
 4||(Crude(c) ∧ LowTech(c)) → Seaworthy(c)  [Universal Elimination: 1]
 5||Crude(c) ∧ LowTech(c)                   [Conjunction Elimination: 3]
 6||Seaworthy(c)                            [Material Conditional Elimination: 4, 5]
 7||NoThumbs(c)                             [Conjunction Elimination: 3]
 8||Seaworthy(c) ∧ NoThumbs(c)              [Conjunction Introduction: 6, 7]
 9||∃x (SeaWorthy(x) ∧ NoThumbs(x))         [Existential Introduction: 8]
10|∃x (SeaWorthy(x) ∧ NoThumbs(x))          [Existential Elimination: 2, 3-9]


As you can see, the following premises:
"Crude boats with low level technology are sufficient for crossing oceans"
"A crude boat with low level technology can be built without opposable thumbs"

logically entail the following proposition:
"A boat which is sufficient for crossing oceans can be built without opposable thumbs".

The first premise must be true, or the Aborigines could not have colonised Australia.
The second premise must be true, or taping your thumbs to your forefingers would prevent you building a crude boat.

If both the premise are true, and the argument is logically valid (it is, see my formal proof), the conclusion must be true.

Now that we all know it should be possible for dino's to cross the ocean via boat the question of why would they want to comes in to play.

Why would a dinosaur think he would make it to something other than more water when he starts his journey?

What motivation would there be to explore?

Was their travel intentional or accidental?