continental drifting

Brain capacity in mammals has to be larger than say reptiles because of the need for a constant temperature.  Warm bloodied animals have larger brains partly to be able to move large amounts of blood through the brain. Smaller brains do not always equate to less intelligence.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 07, 2008, 12:55:27 PM

Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.

look at skull cavities
no way to  gain motor skills, they can't hold or grab things
look at their appendages

I don't see how we can assume anything definite about their intelligence based on the size of their skull cavities.  Perhaps their brains just evolved significantly differently from ours so they were better able to make use of their brains.  Or maybe some species had their brains in a different part of the body.  How can you know for sure that their brains were even in their skulls?

As to the other two points, I'm assuming that's what Dogplatter intends to work out with his experiment.  I think you should hold judgment on these points until we at least have some evidence.

Quote

I didn't say uneducated guesswork, I said educated guesswork.  Maybe you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. 

They do not guess. 

They most certainly do.  Our picture of prehistory is in a fairly constant state of flux because previous guesses about the way things were then have been shown to be wrong because of newly-discovered evidence.  Since there was no witness to the events as they were happening, all they can do is make educated guesses.

I don't see how we can assume anything definite about their intelligence based on the size of their skull cavities.  Perhaps their brains just evolved significantly differently from ours so they were better able to make use of their brains.  Or maybe some species had their brains in a different part of the body.  How can you know for sure that their brains were even in their skulls?

Skull carvities will show more than just size. Humans use 100 percent of their brains, how is a dinosaur going to do better than that?  There is no evidence anywhere that shows dinosaurs had brains in other parts of their bodies. 

As to the other two points, I'm assuming that's what Dogplatter intends to work out with his experiment.  I think you should hold judgment on these points until we at least have some evidence.

His experiment?  What is he going to do, hand a t rex a chain saw? 

They most certainly do.  Our picture of prehistory is in a fairly constant state of flux because previous guesses about the way things were then have been shown to be wrong because of newly-discovered evidence.  Since there was no witness to the events as they were happening, all they can do is make educated guesses.

guess   Audio Help   /gɛs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ges] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to arrive at or commit oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully: to guess a person's weight.

guess   Audio Help   /gɛs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ges] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to arrive at or commit oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully: to guess a person's weight.

Um, exactly.  What's your point? 

So back to you not being able to read.  Fire help humans gain intelligence. 
Humans did not wake up one day and become intelligent.  It took time and the ability to become intelligent.  Dinosaurs had time, but they did not have the ability to become intelligent.  This is why dogs don't start campfires and dinosaurs never built boats, they don't have the ability.

I hate to get offensive, but you are seriously dense. Humans would have to have a great deal of intelligence to figure out how to manipulate fire as a tool. Hence, clearly there were major cognitive abilities in place before they did so.

You stated that fire would have helped humans develop the cognitive abilities needed to build boats. I am saying that if they had the cognitive abilities needed to manipulate fire, in biological terms, they must have had brains capable of building simple boats. Fire could not have helped human evolution in this respect, and hence fire did not give humans an evolutionary advantage over dinosaurs with respect to boats.

If a human had the intellectual capability to manipulate fire, he would have had the intellectual ability to make a simple raft, log boat or canoe.

Here's another definition for you:

educated guess
   
   
ed·u·cat·ed guess (plural ed·u·cat·ed guess·es)


noun
Definition:
 
informed guess: a guess that is based on a degree of experience, knowledge, or information

That, my friend, is what paleontologists do every time they theorize about what things were like in prehistory based only on the fossil evidence.

There are a couple of recent dicoveries of small dinosaurs who are thought to have had opposable thumbs or at least an opposable grip.  These also seem to have had larger brains than some of the heavier dinosaurs.

look at skull cavities
no way to  gain motor skills, they can't hold or grab things
look at their appendages

Look, this is very simple.
You are only seeing the skull cavities/appendages of certain species of Dinosaurs, those species whose remains were preserved.  It is entirely possible that there were other species of Dinosaurs that had different looking skull cavities/appendages whose remains were not preserved.  With the knowledge available it is unreasonable to dogmatically assert that there were never any Dinosaurs with big skull cavities or appendages well suited to tool use.

We often go astray by mis-interpreting the record so as to coincide with our own human experience.  The opposable thumb equaling a tool using/manufacturing ability is a good example.  The opossum has opposable thumbs/big toes on his rear feet but he has not, to my knowledge, put this to very much use.

There are a couple of recent dicoveries of small dinosaurs who are thought to have had opposable thumbs or at least an opposable grip.  These also seem to have had larger brains than some of the heavier dinosaurs.

And they built the boats, that can hold the brachiosaurus with their 40 tons + (300 kg for about 40 days) 12 tons food.

I still have my doubts...

Doubt is fine.  But to automatically write it off as impossible is just silly.

Doubt is fine.  But to act like Sokarul is just silly.

Stop wasting precious data with your needlessly long posts.

Just so you know, Sokarul, you are incorrect about there being no evidence that dinosaurs had a brain anywhere besides in their skulls.  For a long time it was speculated that stegosauruses had an additional brain in their behinds.  Best of all, it was based on fossil evidence and supported by paleontologists!  So you see, either they made an incorrect guess (as these sorts of scientists always do) or we can conclude that the idea of a brain existing outside of the skull in a dinosaur is a legitimate one.

Which case of being wrong would you prefer to admit to?

I think he got b7 for shouting at dogplatter. I'm glad he finally broke some rule, we need a rule against being a dogmatic twat.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on August 07, 2008, 01:37:11 PM

There are a couple of recent dicoveries of small dinosaurs who are thought to have had opposable thumbs or at least an opposable grip.  These also seem to have had larger brains than some of the heavier dinosaurs.

And they built the boats, that can hold the brachiosaurus with their 40 tons + (300 kg for about 40 days) 12 tons food.

I still have my doubts...

Well, they could have carried baby brachiosaurus's on their boats....

Well, they could have carried baby brachiosaurus's on their boats....

A reasonable hypothesis.  Alternatively, perhaps a clutch of eggs.

I suspect that the enlarged nerve plexus of all sauropods allowed more of the proper brain and medio-rostral neostriatum/hyperstriatum ventrale and a form of nidopallium to control cognitive function. Did you know this nerve plexus was roughly 20 times the size of their brain? That leaves a lot of room for a nidopallium in the skull. The brain of a crow is relatively small but the crow has shown the ability to make tools; something that even primates (apart from humans) have not demonstrated. The size of the nidopallium in a dinosaur would be several times as large.

Stop there, chimps have been seen to use rocks to break nuts, and some kind of chimp, I'm unsure which, has been taught to use money in a dynamic economic climate. Apart from that bit, I just saw a sea of Latin I vaguely remember from Biology.

They did not create the tools in the manner of the crow, however. They used the tools as several animals do. Also, the crows teach themselves. They do not "learn" the ability, like the primates you are referencing. There have been several studies and there are many articles available online about this. Here's the first one that popped up. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2178920.stm   

Ahh, making tools. I missed that, sorry.

Quote from: lindelof on August 07, 2008, 03:42:02 PM

Well, they could have carried baby brachiosaurus's on their boats....

A reasonable hypothesis.  Alternatively, perhaps a clutch of eggs.

The internet says that they're eggs where about 1 foot by 10 inches, so that would certainly work.

I hate to get offensive, but you are seriously dense. Humans would have to have a great deal of intelligence to figure out how to manipulate fire as a tool. Hence, clearly there were major cognitive abilities in place before they did so.

You have no refuted the information against your argument. 

You stated that fire would have helped humans develop the cognitive abilities needed to build boats. I am saying that if they had the cognitive abilities needed to manipulate fire, in biological terms, they must have had brains capable of building simple boats. Fire could not have helped human evolution in this respect, and hence fire did not give humans an evolutionary advantage over dinosaurs with respect to boats.

I never said fire lead to building boats.  I said fire help lead to intelligence. 

If a human had the intellectual capability to manipulate fire, he would have had the intellectual ability to make a simple raft, log boat or canoe.

They might of but I would wager it was after.  One way to build a canoe is with fire.  And now that I look it up I was right and you were wrong.  You never look anything up. 

Boats have served as a method for short distance transportation since early times, on slow rivers and calm seas.[1] Circumstantial evidence, such as the early settlement of Australia over 40,000 years ago, suggests that boats have been used since very ancient times. The earliest boats have been predicted[2] to be logboats, or possibly boats made from hide or tree bark. The oldest boats to be found by archaeological excavation are logboats from around 7000-9,000 years ago,[3] [4] though a 7000 year-old seagoing boat made from reeds and tar has been found in Kuwait.[5]

To sum it up, you need to refute a whole bunch of evidence before you can attack my posts again. 

I suspect that the enlarged nerve plexus of all sauropods allowed more of the proper brain and medio-rostral neostriatum/hyperstriatum ventrale and a form of nidopallium to control cognitive function. Did you know this nerve plexus was roughly 20 times the size of their brain? That leaves a lot of room for a nidopallium in the skull. The brain of a crow is relatively small but the crow has shown the ability to make tools; something that even primates (apart from humans) have not demonstrated. The size of the nidopallium in a dinosaur would be several times as large.

Their brain to body mass ratio would be horrible.  They have the smallest ratio out of all the dinosaurs.  They, being dinosaurs, were also cold blooded.  Cold blooded animals have much less brain function.  All in all Sauropods were most likely dumb as a doorknob.   

I guess I beat sokarul since he chose to ignore my points.  Another victory for me!

Their brain to body mass ratio would be horrible.  They have the smallest ratio out of all the dinosaurs.  They, being dinosaurs, were also cold blooded.  Cold blooded animals have much less brain function.  All in all Sauropods were most likely dumb as a doorknob.   

All dinosaurs have an enlarged nerve plexus. It is most pronounced in sauropods. Again, the nerve plexus would allow more of the brain to be dedicated to cognitive thought and less to motor-function. Much like birds (who also have such a sacral nerve plexus), this direct measurement and ratio is useless in this context.
You know rather less about the beasts than you'd like us to think, as paleontologists have not decided whether they were endo- or ectothermic.

Cold blooded animals have much less brain function.

How much is "less"? Brain function of what? As usual, your inability to make a coherent, sound and clear sentence is astonishing. You haven't changed a bit.

Physical movements require brain function.
Stimulus requires brain function.
Seeing requires brain function.
Smelling requires brain function.
Eating requires brain function.
Tasting requires brain function.
Hearing requires brain function.
Preying requires brain function.
Having sex requires brain function.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 07, 2008, 01:24:17 PM

I hate to get offensive, but you are seriously dense. Humans would have to have a great deal of intelligence to figure out how to manipulate fire as a tool. Hence, clearly there were major cognitive abilities in place before they did so.

You have no refuted the information against your argument.

I have done what?

I never said fire lead to building boats.  I said fire help lead to intelligence. 

Ok, so that argument is totally irrelevant with respect to what we are talking about. I see.

They might of but I would wager it was after.  One way to build a canoe is with fire.  And now that I look it up I was right and you were wrong.  You never look anything up. 

Quote

Boats have served as a method for short distance transportation since early times, on slow rivers and calm seas.[1] Circumstantial evidence, such as the early settlement of Australia over 40,000 years ago, suggests that boats have been used since very ancient times. The earliest boats have been predicted[2] to be logboats, or possibly boats made from hide or tree bark. The oldest boats to be found by archaeological excavation are logboats from around 7000-9,000 years ago,[3] [4] though a 7000 year-old seagoing boat made from reeds and tar has been found in Kuwait.[5]

To sum it up, you need to refute a whole bunch of evidence before you can attack my posts again.

You'd wager. That's a stunning argument.

First of all, that article proves very little. Archaeological evidence only goes back 7-9000 years, yet, according to that quote, historians acknowledge that humans had boats tens of thousands of years before then. In other words, they can only guess when humans first used boats (though crucially, unlike you, that is all they claim to be doing).

In fact, if anything, your quote backs us up in other respects. Evidence suggests humans used boats over 40,000 years ago. Yet the oldest boats we have found are about 7-9000 years old. That means that it would be almost impossible for us to discover surviving dinosaur boats. That quote, if true, only strengthens our theory.

Quote from: divito the truthist on August 07, 2008, 11:22:24 AM

Knowledge and inference are not the same thing.

No shit

Strange, because you're arguing that the inferences made by paleontologists (which differ greatly) are actual knowledge.

We have no way of knowing how advanced their small brains could have been. We have no way of knowing how much their makeup differed from ours.

Jack, Ski and NEEMAN actually have great points, that will unfortunately be shrugged off by sokarul's ignorance.

All dinosaurs have an enlarged nerve plexus. It is most pronounced in sauropods. Again, the nerve plexus would allow more of the brain to be dedicated to cognitive thought and less to motor-function. Much like birds (who also have such a sacral nerve plexus), this direct measurement and ratio is useless in this context.
You know rather less about the beasts than you'd like us to think, as paleontologists have not decided whether they were endo- or ectothermic.

I only know what I read about them.  You only know what you read about them. Of course you also have the strange ability to know what other didn't even though its their job.  People study them for a living.  How do you know more then they do? 

Camarasaurus was a sauropod, whose intellignce (as measured by its relative brain to body weight, or EQ) was among the lowest of the dinosaurs.

Quote from: sokarul on August 07, 2008, 06:07:35 PM

Cold blooded animals have much less brain function.

How much is "less"? Brain function of what? As usual, your inability to make a coherent, sound and clear sentence is astonishing. You haven't changed a bit.

Physical movements require brain function.
Stimulus requires brain function.
Seeing requires brain function.
Smelling requires brain function.
Eating requires brain function.
Tasting requires brain function.
Hearing requires brain function.
Preying requires brain function.
Having sex requires brain function.

Look it up. 

I have done what?

You have NOT refuted any evidence, let alone provided any. 

Ok, so that argument is totally irrelevant with respect to what we are talking about. I see.

No, you just forgot why I posted it.  Go look back. 

You'd wager. That's a stunning argument.

First of all, that article proves very little. Archaeological evidence only goes back 7-9000 years, yet, according to that quote, historians acknowledge that humans had boats tens of thousands of years before then. In other words, they can only guess when humans first used boats (though crucially, unlike you, that is all they claim to be doing).

O so you are now an Archeologist.  They are using what they see.  Feel free to prove they used boat 1.4 million years ago.

In fact, if anything, your quote backs us up in other respects. Evidence suggests humans used boats over 40,000 years ago. Yet the oldest boats we have found are about 7-9000 years old. That means that it would be almost impossible for us to discover surviving dinosaur boats. That quote, if true, only strengthens our theory.

I'm still waiting for how a t rex can hold an ax to cut down a tree to build a boat.   

Quote from: sokarul on August 07, 2008, 12:27:23 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on August 07, 2008, 11:22:24 AM

Knowledge and inference are not the same thing.

No shit

Strange, because you're arguing that the inferences made by paleontologists (which differ greatly) are actual knowledge.

We have no way of knowing how advanced their small brains could have been. We have no way of knowing how much their makeup differed from ours.

If I don't look anything up like the others, then, yes, you would be right. 

Jack, Ski and NEEMAN actually have great points, that will unfortunately be shrugged off by sokarul's ignorance.

Not really.  They bring no evidence to the table what so ever.  Not to mention this argument is flawed to begin with because plate tectonics is a know fact.  So dogplatters logic goes to shit. 

Hows being agnostic towards the shape of the earth going? 

If I don't look anything up like the others, then, yes, you would be right. 

No one has to look anything up to know that we can't assume their intelligence. Brain to body weight is a weak argument for intelligence; it assumes far too much that we can't confirm.

That will be ignored or responded to by crap.