What about the Dinosuars?

  • 402 Replies
  • 78910 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #180 on: June 03, 2009, 01:15:51 PM »
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.

No it's not.

Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.

Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.

What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?

Umm...  Plate tectonics and continental drift?

I don't see how plate tectonics and continental drift so readily lead to the conclusion that the continents were once joined together and then ripped apart.  That's really reaching.

I don't see how taping your thumb to your hand so readily leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs had the manual dexterity and intelligence needed to build boats.  That's really reaching.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Rogherio

  • 148
  • Me gusta las gambas.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #181 on: June 03, 2009, 02:23:18 PM »
I think ignoring the rest of Dogplatters thesis is really reaching, into ignorance.  It perfectly explains everything you've asked, and any other questions (such as these) have already been answered. It's just KillaBees genuine insolence that has kept this debate going as long as it has.
"My breasts are small and humble so you don't confuse them with mountains"

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #182 on: June 03, 2009, 03:49:48 PM »
Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is a perfectly valid hypothesis for that question.

No it's not.

Plate movement and species evolution is a perfectly valid hypothesis. There's evidence for both.

Dinosaurs breeding these species and carrying them across seas is an invalid hypothesis. There's no evidence for such.

What evidence is there that all the continents were once joined together, then ripped apart, besides the distribution of species across continents?

Umm...  Plate tectonics and continental drift?

I don't see how plate tectonics and continental drift so readily lead to the conclusion that the continents were once joined together and then ripped apart.  That's really reaching.

I don't see how taping your thumb to your hand so readily leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs had the manual dexterity and intelligence needed to build boats.  That's really reaching.

Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #183 on: June 03, 2009, 05:00:20 PM »
Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.

Actually, biomechanical analysis of skeletal remains can give quite a bit of insight into the range of motion of various body parts as well as brain size and structure.  Granted, brain size alone doesn't necessarily say much about intelligence, but relative size to the rest of the body and the structure of the brain can provide enough information to help make an educated guess.  Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart.  They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 05:02:28 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #184 on: June 03, 2009, 05:24:09 PM »
Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart.  They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).

Well, the same could be said about humans.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #185 on: June 04, 2009, 01:21:25 AM »
Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.

Actually, biomechanical analysis of skeletal remains can give quite a bit of insight into the range of motion of various body parts as well as brain size and structure.  Granted, brain size alone doesn't necessarily say much about intelligence, but relative size to the rest of the body and the structure of the brain can provide enough information to help make an educated guess.  Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart.  They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).

Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8, far, far higher than any living non-human animal today. The ratios for its smaller descendants, Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, are probably even better.

As for 'just needing to be smarter than competition', this is not what determines the intelligence of a predatory animal at all, you are simply completely wrong on this point. Lions and prehistoric humans both hunted antelope. By your faulty reasoning, lions and people ought to be at the same intelligence level, since both are 'smart enough' to overcome their prey. I take it you don't claim that lions are as clever as people?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Rogherio

  • 148
  • Me gusta las gambas.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #186 on: June 04, 2009, 03:26:32 AM »
And what does EQ have to do with the ability to build and sail boats?

Use your common sense. What do you think it has to do with it? Unless you have an EQ lower than that of the Deinonychus and are unable to comprehend how a boat floats and sails?
"My breasts are small and humble so you don't confuse them with mountains"

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #187 on: June 04, 2009, 03:35:40 AM »
If you can't explain it yourself what puts you in such a position to speak of it as fact?

The schools, universities and educational sites given in that link speak of it as fact. Use it well young padawan.

Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8

Where did you pull this factosaurus from? And what does EQ have to do with the ability to build and sail boats?

The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Rogherio

  • 148
  • Me gusta las gambas.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #188 on: June 04, 2009, 03:52:27 AM »

The schools, universities and educational sites given in that link speak of it as fact. Use it well young padawan.



I'm afraid you appear to be dealing with a Jedi here...
"My breasts are small and humble so you don't confuse them with mountains"

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #189 on: June 04, 2009, 06:41:37 AM »
Well I don't see how some fossils of bones millions of years old leads to the conclusion that dinosaurs didn't have the manual dexterity and intelligence to build boats, so I guess the possibility remains open.

Actually, biomechanical analysis of skeletal remains can give quite a bit of insight into the range of motion of various body parts as well as brain size and structure.  Granted, brain size alone doesn't necessarily say much about intelligence, but relative size to the rest of the body and the structure of the brain can provide enough information to help make an educated guess.  Just remember that dinosaurs didn't need to be smart.  They just needed to be smarter than the competition (predator or prey).

Any 'educated guess' we might make based on brain size falls squarely in favour of the intelligence of dromaeosaurs, because the EQ of the average Deinonychus comes out at roughly 5.8, far, far higher than any living non-human animal today. The ratios for its smaller descendants, Adasaurus and Dromaeosaurus, are probably even better.

As for 'just needing to be smarter than competition', this is not what determines the intelligence of a predatory animal at all, you are simply completely wrong on this point. Lions and prehistoric humans both hunted antelope. By your faulty reasoning, lions and people ought to be at the same intelligence level, since both are 'smart enough' to overcome their prey. I take it you don't claim that lions are as clever as people?

Intelligence is a relative thing.  Lions hunt cooperatively in groups as did prehistoric man, but prehistoric humans did not have the same weapons as lions.  Humans had to create their own weapons to dispatch the antelope once they got in range so there is an extra level of intelligence required (tool making).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #190 on: June 04, 2009, 09:48:00 AM »
The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?

Aah. Brain to body mass ratio! Sorry I don't speak obtuse. Also, remember to cite your sources next time.

Here's more about Hopson:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~rwright/abs2002.html

Quote
Hopson (1980) compared dinosaur brain sizes with those of living reptiles. He calculated the EQs assuming that dinosaurs are more like reptiles and that their brain, as in living reptiles, occupied only half of the brain case. Hopson used the brain size to body size relationship in living reptiles, E=0.005P0.66 and found that most dinosaurs were not as intelligent as the average crocodile. I recalculated the dinosaur EQs assuming that the brain occupied the entire brain case and found that only the sauropods Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were less intelligent than the average crocodile.

I also compared the dinosaur EQs with those of birds. I assumed that dinosaurs were more similar to birds and that their brain would, like living birds, occupy the entire brain case. I used recent dinosaur body size estimates and the bird brain size to body size relationship, E=0.12P0.55 (Nealen and Ricklefs, 2001) to calculate the EQ. Using these assumptions, I found that the EQs of theropods such as Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and the coelurosaur Troodon were within the range of most ground birds such as the ostrich and the emu.

Not really boat building and sailing smart is it?

It's a good thing I'm not postulating that either therapods or sauropods built boats then, isn't it! In fact, I specifically stated that sauropods probably DID NOT build boats! What I am posthulating is that Dromaeosaurs built boats, and Hopson ranked Dromaeosaurs as having an EQ higher than any modern living animal!

Furthermore, the author of the article which you quoted is stating that Hopson underestimated the intelligence of most dinosaurs. Thanks for providing evidence which further corroborates my theory, I will probably cite it in future arguments [serious about this, because it shows that Hopson may have underestimated the Dromaeosaurs at 5.8 (higher than any living animal)].
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Rogherio

  • 148
  • Me gusta las gambas.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #191 on: June 04, 2009, 10:29:22 AM »
The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?

Aah. Brain to body mass ratio! Sorry I don't speak obtuse. Also, remember to cite your sources next time.

Here's more about Hopson:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~rwright/abs2002.html

Quote
Hopson (1980) compared dinosaur brain sizes with those of living reptiles. He calculated the EQs assuming that dinosaurs are more like reptiles and that their brain, as in living reptiles, occupied only half of the brain case. Hopson used the brain size to body size relationship in living reptiles, E=0.005P0.66 and found that most dinosaurs were not as intelligent as the average crocodile. I recalculated the dinosaur EQs assuming that the brain occupied the entire brain case and found that only the sauropods Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were less intelligent than the average crocodile.

I also compared the dinosaur EQs with those of birds. I assumed that dinosaurs were more similar to birds and that their brain would, like living birds, occupy the entire brain case. I used recent dinosaur body size estimates and the bird brain size to body size relationship, E=0.12P0.55 (Nealen and Ricklefs, 2001) to calculate the EQ. Using these assumptions, I found that the EQs of theropods such as Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and the coelurosaur Troodon were within the range of most ground birds such as the ostrich and the emu.

Not really boat building and sailing smart is it?


Other good links:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurbasics/a/dinosmarts.htm

I know this might be pushing it a bit, most of the calculations in these links are based upon the fact that dinosaurs have the same prain structure as reptiles (which dogplatter rightfully said actually caused for their EQ values to be underestimated! So when calculated while considering that their brains may fill the whole cavity instead of half (like a bird) they turned out to on the same scale of intelligence as dolphins.

That put aside (yet still in consideration) why do dinosaurs have to have the same brain structure as birds and reptiles? They are as separate from either of them as birds themselves are different from reptiles! Obviously this could lead to the fact that the dinosaurs not being as intelligent as we would assume... but it could also suggest that they could have (alternativley) been much more intelligent than what is stated!

What do you think?
"My breasts are small and humble so you don't confuse them with mountains"

?

SirChuck

  • 114
  • FEWL
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #192 on: June 04, 2009, 06:19:27 PM »
I'm just wondering if I can "Prove" with YouTube that pigs are smart enough to fly spacecraft, can we just say it's possible that dino's made boats?

Or are pigs smarter than dinosaurs?

Here is your youTube proof:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #193 on: June 05, 2009, 04:12:22 AM »
The estimate was given in 1980 by J. A. Hopson, PhD., a paleontology professor from the University of Chicago and one of the most eminent American paleontologists of the 20th Century. So much for "The schools, universites and educational sites", huh?

Aah. Brain to body mass ratio! Sorry I don't speak obtuse. Also, remember to cite your sources next time.

Here's more about Hopson:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~rwright/abs2002.html

Quote
Hopson (1980) compared dinosaur brain sizes with those of living reptiles. He calculated the EQs assuming that dinosaurs are more like reptiles and that their brain, as in living reptiles, occupied only half of the brain case. Hopson used the brain size to body size relationship in living reptiles, E=0.005P0.66 and found that most dinosaurs were not as intelligent as the average crocodile. I recalculated the dinosaur EQs assuming that the brain occupied the entire brain case and found that only the sauropods Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus were less intelligent than the average crocodile.

I also compared the dinosaur EQs with those of birds. I assumed that dinosaurs were more similar to birds and that their brain would, like living birds, occupy the entire brain case. I used recent dinosaur body size estimates and the bird brain size to body size relationship, E=0.12P0.55 (Nealen and Ricklefs, 2001) to calculate the EQ. Using these assumptions, I found that the EQs of theropods such as Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and the coelurosaur Troodon were within the range of most ground birds such as the ostrich and the emu.

Not really boat building and sailing smart is it?

It's a good thing I'm not postulating that either therapods or sauropods built boats then, isn't it! In fact, I specifically stated that sauropods probably DID NOT build boats! What I am posthulating is that Dromaeosaurs built boats, and Hopson ranked Dromaeosaurs as having an EQ higher than any modern living animal!

Furthermore, the author of the article which you quoted is stating that Hopson underestimated the intelligence of most dinosaurs. Thanks for providing evidence which further corroborates my theory, I will probably cite it in future arguments [serious about this, because it shows that Hopson may have underestimated the Dromaeosaurs at 5.8 (higher than any living animal)].

Well, if nothing else, this discovery is worth the length of the discussion and all Killabee's awkwardness by itself.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Rogherio

  • 148
  • Me gusta las gambas.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #194 on: June 05, 2009, 05:27:27 AM »
Most of the calculations in these links are based upon the fact that dinosaurs have the same prain structure as reptiles (which dogplatter rightfully said actually caused for their EQ values to be underestimated! So when calculated while considering that their brains may fill the whole cavity instead of half (like a bird) they turned out to on the same scale of intelligence as dolphins.

That put aside (yet still in consideration) why do dinosaurs have to have the same brain structure as birds and reptiles? They are as separate from either of them as birds themselves are different from reptiles! Obviously this could lead to the fact that the dinosaurs not being as intelligent as we would assume... but it could also suggest that they could have (alternativley) been much more intelligent than what is stated!


That debunks his theory through and through. Please stop ignoring my posts.
"My breasts are small and humble so you don't confuse them with mountains"

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #195 on: June 05, 2009, 10:16:47 AM »
It's a good thing I'm not postulating that either therapods or sauropods built boats then, isn't it! In fact, I specifically stated that sauropods probably DID NOT build boats! What I am posthulating is that Dromaeosaurs built boats, and Hopson ranked Dromaeosaurs as having an EQ higher than any modern living animal!

Hopson ranked all dinosaurs in comparison to reptiles.

EQ works by comparing a particular animal against "expected" ratios of groups of animals. It is actually a measure of deviation from the "norm" of a particular groups. So the Troodon and the Dromaeosaur would be considered particularly smart reptiles.

The EQ of a reptile is not the same as that of a mammal. It's vitally important you understand this.

I urge you to read the links I gave earlier. They are most inciteful and will add vigor and luminosity to your life.


Your refusal to listen to reason in inciteful - to anger and disappointment.

Did you mean insightful?

I'm quite vigorous already, thanks.

Anyway, you're neglecting the main error of most dinosaur scholars, namely the assumption that the brains of dinosaurs are structured anything like modern reptiles. By filling the whole cranium, a brain would be much larger.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #196 on: June 05, 2009, 06:23:31 PM »
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #197 on: June 05, 2009, 06:51:38 PM »
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.

Is there any evidence of birds building boats?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #198 on: June 05, 2009, 10:28:25 PM »
Is there any evidence of birds building boats?

Birds don't need boats.

However, their intricate woven nests of twigs are perfectly capable of floating.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #199 on: June 05, 2009, 10:48:05 PM »
Is there any evidence of birds building boats?

Birds don't need boats.

However, their intricate woven nests of twigs are perfectly capable of floating.

Trees are perfectly capable of floating. By your logic, trees are intelligent enough to build boats.

In regards to underestimating the dinosaur's intelligence, he concluded they were as smart as some birds(so smarter than crocodiles). Nowhere does he indicate an intellect capable of building complicated tools.

*

spanner34.5

  • 4638
  • feck arse drink
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #200 on: June 06, 2009, 02:44:46 AM »
Some bird's nests are more complicated than this reed boat.
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #201 on: June 06, 2009, 03:58:57 AM »
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/28/0901008106.abstract

Quote
The ability to use tools has been suggested to indicate advanced physical cognition in animals. Here we show that rooks, a member of the corvid family that do not appear to use tools in the wild are capable of insightful problem solving related to sophisticated tool use, including spontaneously modifying and using a variety of tools, shaping hooks out of wire, and using a series of tools in a sequence to gain a reward. It is remarkable that a species that does not use tools in the wild appears to possess an understanding of tools rivaling habitual tool users such as New Caledonian crows and chimpanzees. Our findings suggest that the ability to represent tools may be a domain-general cognitive capacity rather than an adaptive specialization and questions the relationship between physical intelligence and wild tool use.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

svenanders

  • 831
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #202 on: June 06, 2009, 04:33:24 AM »
Some bird's nests are more complicated than this reed boat.

Let's see some proof for that claim.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #203 on: June 06, 2009, 06:35:46 AM »
I never said it was, you have a knack for completely misrepresenting everything anybody says! The article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that modern birds are capable of extensive tool use, which suggests their close relatives, the dromaeosaurs, were also capable of extensive tool use.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #204 on: June 06, 2009, 06:54:44 AM »
That's not how science works. You produce evidence of your experimentation and then we verify it. I will accept a youtube link to a video of you taping your thumbs up and then trying to build a raft.

You don't have the faintest idea how science works.

I think I do. You, being the scientist who wants to get all the credit for discovering something, publish your findings alongside evidence and an details of how you came to that conclusion. Then we, the lesser scientists who are barely worthy to walk in your shadow, quickly run out and try to repeat your experiment.

Since this is a conjecture of physical nature, only a youtube link of you with your thumbs taped up trying to build a raft will be accepted as evidence.

Good luck!

What I'd like to see is a youtube video of him making the rope with his fingers tied up.
Hast seen the white whale?

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #205 on: June 06, 2009, 07:28:35 AM »
I never said it was, you have a knack for completely misrepresenting everything anybody says! The article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that modern birds are capable of extensive tool use, which suggests their close relatives, the dromaeosaurs, were also capable of extensive tool use.

it shows birds can use simple tools. what is your definition of extensive?
if you are going to infer anything then you may infer that dinosaurs used sticks to get grubs. that's a big stretch to boat building. anyway i doubt dromaeosaurs was concerned with pulling grubs from holes.
are you suggesting environmental factors drove the dromaeosaurs to make tools? to what end? you don't just start with a need to cross water and suddenly decide to build a boat. what drove them to make the first tool? did dromaeosaurs chew a branch into a club to attack its opponents? probably not with those claws and teeth.




*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #206 on: June 06, 2009, 08:46:57 AM »
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/28/0901008106.abstract

Quote
The ability to use tools has been suggested to indicate advanced physical cognition in animals. Here we show that rooks, a member of the corvid family that do not appear to use tools in the wild are capable of insightful problem solving related to sophisticated tool use, including spontaneously modifying and using a variety of tools, shaping hooks out of wire, and using a series of tools in a sequence to gain a reward. It is remarkable that a species that does not use tools in the wild appears to possess an understanding of tools rivaling habitual tool users such as New Caledonian crows and chimpanzees. Our findings suggest that the ability to represent tools may be a domain-general cognitive capacity rather than an adaptive specialization and questions the relationship between physical intelligence and wild tool use.

If the birds had forged the metal that they bent into hooks, then you might have a point. 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #207 on: June 06, 2009, 05:08:27 PM »
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.

Is there any evidence of birds building boats?

That is irrelevant. By your logic, just because birds don't make an 'S' shape out of wire, we would conclude that birds cannot make an 'S' shape out of wire, even though they do make hooks out of wire. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'- so the famous phrase goes. Birds can make hooks because over the course of time the species they descend from have needed to manipulate the environment to survive. Birds don't make boats because they have wings, and it would be the most pointless endeavour imaginable.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39430
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #208 on: June 06, 2009, 05:36:15 PM »
If birds are smart enough to build structures or tools, then I believe it does.

Is there any evidence of birds building boats?

That is irrelevant. By your logic, just because birds don't make an 'S' shape out of wire, we would conclude that birds cannot make an 'S' shape out of wire, even though they do make hooks out of wire. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'- so the famous phrase goes. Birds can make hooks because over the course of time the species they descend from have needed to manipulate the environment to survive. Birds don't make boats because they have wings, and it would be the most pointless endeavour imaginable.

Then what is the point of comparing dinosaur intelligence to bird intelligence?  Birds have been observed making basic tools.  How does this apply to the tool making potential of dinosaurs?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: What about the Dinosuars?
« Reply #209 on: June 07, 2009, 05:43:23 PM »
Nope, therapods were compared to Ostriches in the article you cited. Dromaeosaurs are not therapods.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901