So you believe that a great deal of the different dinosaur species had the capacity to build boats?
Whys that when only a small group of mammals "to our knowledge" have been capable of this. And as of now only one remains.
Even if only one species of dinosaur attained naval capabilities, their travel would doubtless have included the transportation of "livestock" analogous to human society's domain over less developed animals, which would still corroborate fossil evidence.
However, it's entirely plausible that many species of dinosaur became enlightened and would have used their skills to compliment one another's in building a fleet of intercontinental boats. Given the amount of time dinosaurs ruled the Earth compared with humans, it's quite likely that dinosaurs would have overcome the petty prejudices which still plague mankind today, and created a harmonious society in which several species had a legitimate role.
By the way building a nest is in no way equivalent of building a boat and traveling to a different continent.
I'm not suggesting it is, the reason for nest-building as an example is that it exhibits fine-motor skills and tool use.
Building a nest is an instinctive trait passed on to enable the species to survive.
Building a boat may have been an instinctive trait passed on to enable the species to survive (though I don't believe it was).
Birds do not learn how to build a nest from there parent (as far as i know) whereas mammals like humans learn this kind of behavior though cognitive reasoning.
Therefore i don't really see that nest building among birds in any way is an argument for such an outlandish theory.
It's nowhere near that clear cut. Many, many birds demonstrate learning from environment rather than through instinct. Crows, parrots, and, oh -
pigeons - are just some of the birds which are capable of environmental learning.
Mammals also exhibit a great deal of instinctive behaviour.
Using that argument you could say that ants are intelligent because they build colonies and farm bugs. This is also an instinctive behavior which has existed for millions of years and is not the same as evolution of a society which goes much faster because it relies on the passing on of skills to the next generation.
Yes but you'll see that I'm arguing that boat building was the result of cognition, not instinct.
Tool building in the animal kingdom is mostly very inflexible. it is homed for a certain environment and situation and isn't capable of transferring into a new situation.
Nope, it isn't. Almost all human tool use is cognitive and adaptive, so is much avian cognition.
Building a boat requires a GREAT deal of cognitive skills. Firstly you(the animal in question) would have to be able to imagine that there is an continent at the other side of a great sea. Secondly they would have to have some sort of idea about tool building which usually would come from evolving into a tool building animal.
You just described what people have done. Why can't dinosaurs have done it?...
Like having opposable thumbs.
...and here's the reason for the nest example. How many times do I have to reiterate that OPPOSABLE THUMBS ARE NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR ADVANCED TOOL USE?
Not only does nest-building provide a robust rebuttal to this misconception, it's also disproven by my favorite FE-related experiment, the dinosaur-hands experiment. I have personally conducted an experiment proving that advanced tools can be used without opposable thumbs by taping the digits of my hands together in the configuration [thumb-index; middle-ring; little finger] and then doing all kinds of stuff. Eventually, I am going to organise a mass experiment in which a group of people with this taping restriction construct a seaworthy boat using natural materials. It will be great.
most animals use instincts along with operant conditioning to survive.
Dinosaurs (and people) are not most animals.
And judging by the fossil records of dinosaur i don't really see any evidence of them having any use for tools.
Read the thread please, we've discussed this. The statistical likelyhood of wooden tools surviving (on the basis of proportions of dinosaur remains which fossilize against those which don't) is very slim. The likelyhood of stone tools being distinguishable from those of a human origin is very slim.