What about the Dinosuars?

It is obvious that this is the fact which I am disputing; just saying the opposite again and again isn't going to convince me that I am wrong.

No, you are claiming that the smartest dinosaur was as smart as an opossum. I am disputing that claim, because evidence does not suggest that.

No, you are claiming that the smartest dinosaur was as smart as an opossum. I am disputing that claim, because evidence does not suggest that.

Agrees. It doesn't suggest any dinosaur was as smart, but, there is no evidence to suggest any dinosaur was smarter either. You can't just extrapolate brain cavity size for intellect. And if you are going to reject comparisons of bird intellect to dinosaur intellect then why is it reasonable to compare tool use between the two?
There simply isn't any evidence to support your claims.

My guess is that dinosaurs perfected space flight but left sharks behind be cause they are dicks and eat everything.

Win and sig.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 08, 2009, 12:43:17 PM

No, you are claiming that the smartest dinosaur was as smart as an opossum. I am disputing that claim, because evidence does not suggest that.

The evidence not only suggests it, the scientists producing the evidence state it. It was you who suggested Hopson and his EQ analysis. It's Hopson who found that the smartest dinosaurs were comparable in intelligence to birds like the emu or ostrich. Or "dumb" mammals like an opossum. If you are having difficulty accepting this I suggest you go back and reread the links I gave.

Good luck!

I maintain that any discussion about the intelligence of dinosaurs is entirely speculation, whether relative to the intelligence of modern animals or in any other sense.  However much circumstantial evidence your scientists present we've never studied their behavior so to presume we can accurately judge their intelligence is rather ludicrous.

ffs

Your post is valuable to us.

Yours isn't. Please refrain from low-content posting in the serious discussion fora.

I maintain that any discussion about the intelligence of dinosaurs is entirely speculation, whether relative to the intelligence of modern animals or in any other sense.  However much circumstantial evidence your scientists present we've never studied their behavior so to presume we can accurately judge their intelligence is rather ludicrous.

I'd say that this feature of the discussion just precludes certainty either way, I would still maintain that there are some strong inferences which can be made based on fossil evidence.

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 18, 2009, 04:06:24 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 18, 2009, 02:55:59 AM

Your post is valuable to us.

Yours isn't. Please refrain from low-content posting in the serious discussion fora.

Low content posting would be like Roundy, where he completely ignores all the evidence posted in this thread and tries to promote the option of ignorance.

Unfortunately that doesn't work. The best evidence so far indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as ostriches or opposums. This is reasonably indicative that they didn't have the intelligence to build boats or construct "civilisations". This was the evidence you brought into the discussion.

Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.

The best evidence so far is wrong because it doesn't include the largest member of the Dromaeosauridae family, which is twice the size of the Deinonychus.

That's okay, though, because I forgive you mistaking Speilberg's raptors for those little things.

Low content posting would be like Roundy, where he completely ignores all the evidence posted in this thread and tries to promote the option of ignorance.

Arguing with the moderators over rule interpretation is a quick way to get banned. Don't keep doing it.

The best evidence so far is wrong because it doesn't include the largest member of the Dromaeosauridae family, which is twice the size of the Deinonychus.

That's okay, though, because I forgive you mistaking Speilberg's raptors for those little things.

Are you referring to Achillobator?

Are you referring to Achillobator?

Close, but no.  I'm talking about the Utahraptor, which is not very well known.

Size is not enough. See T Rex for further details.

Don't be an idiot and presume I am one, especially on this subject.  To think a thread about dinosaurs occurred without my input is infuriating enough.

To think a thread about dinosaurs occurred without my input is infuriating enough.

Well you should never have left then.

Low content posting would be like Roundy, where he completely ignores all the evidence posted in this thread and tries to promote the option of ignorance.

Get over yourself.  I'm not ignoring any evidence posted in this thread.  The fact remains that all fossil evidence regarding the intelligence of dinosaurs is entirely circumstantial.  At best all that can be said is that it's an educated guess.

I don't promote ignorance, just skepticism.  There's a huge difference.  In my opinion to ever think we could have all the answers as regards things that happened long before humanity even existed is naive.  All we know about the intelligence of modern animals is based on observation of their behavior, not comparison of the size of their brainpans to that of their bodies, or anything else that's been brought up here.  Such correlations are only noted in conjunction with what we've studied of their behavior.  To assume that such correlations would exist in creatures we've never studied whose evolution made them vastly different in many ways from what we have been able to study is fallacious.  All we think about the intelligence of dinosaurs based on such correlations is just an educated guess until we are able to complete the process of observation, which unless we figure out how to clone a dinosaur will never happen.

I'd say that this feature of the discussion just precludes certainty either way, I would still maintain that there are some strong inferences which can be made based on fossil evidence.

My only point is that we can never be certain.  I feel this way about everything we can't directly observe.  KillaBee would completely discount the possibility that dinosaurs were intelligent based on the fossil evidence and that in itself is simply short-sighted.  Scientific progress simply doesn't take place without people questioning the accepted norms.  Whether it can be argued that we have evidence that the dinosaurs were intelligent or not, there's always the possibility of new evidence coming to light to completely overturn our assumptions.

On this issue, we can never know.  We can only speculate.  That's all I'm saying.

I agree with you Roundy, we can ultimately only speculate. Nonetheless, I think that even speculative discussion has value, and I personally believe that the greater weight of argument (speculative though it may be) points to Dinosaurs who had a maritime civilisation.

I am on the record as a skeptic in the maritime dinosaur discussion. Having said this, however, I saw this article earlier today and thought of this very topic.

The study also shows that big brains like humans' might not be the only way to produce a cumulative culture within a species.

"Small fish may have small brains but they still have some surprising cognitive abilities," said Jeremy Kendal from Durham University's anthropology department. "Hill-climbing strategies are widely seen in human society whereby advances in technology are down to people choosing the best technique through social learning and improving on it, resulting in cumulative culture. But our results suggest brain size isn't everything when it comes to the capacity for social learning."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/16/stickleback-intelligence-fish

Also, pulling from the Ski archives:

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 the nerve plexus I referenced 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.

Okay.  I tried pretending this thread didn't exist.  Didn't work.  So now I'mma throw up all over you.

Firstly, I am sick and tired of hearing about the Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Sic semper Tyrannosaurus Rex!  KillaBee, to make your point (and not sound like all of your information on dinosaurs came from reading little kids' books), you could have motioned me towards the Sauropods, either the Macronarians or the Diplodocoids.  Tyrannosaurus...geesh.

KillaBee is a prime example of what's happened with dinosaurs recently.  KillaBee represents the classical thought, that dinosaurs were big, dumb, sluggish lizards, cold-blooded reptilians without much zest for life.  Recent discoveries and additions to our limited fossil record shows this is not the case.

One piece of literature that promoted an active dinosaurian lifestyle was a piece of fiction written by prominent paleontologist Dr. Robert T. Bakker.  This piece of fiction, entitled Raptor Red, is not really heard of outside of the paleontology circle; it won Dr. Bakker no awards.  But it helped the shift in paradigm from big, dumb and slow to active and vibrant.

The discovery of feather precursors appearing on members of the Dromaeosauridae family threw paleontologists for a loop.  True, Archaeopteryx is praised as the missing link between Maniraptora and Avialae, but the thought of feathers being developed as far back as Deinonychus and Velociraptor was a novel concept.  Now, even though the Dromaeosauridae family tree still functions as a polytomy (four branches are currently in dispute) on the cladogram, it is a little known fact that the raptors of old evolved into the raptors of new.

I brought up the Utahraptor because they are Speilberg's raptors.  Not Velociraptor, and not even Deinonychus; only Utahraptor holds that title.  Unfortunately, the fossil record of the Utahraptor is very incomplete, featuring only a few fragments and shards.  However, paleontologists have been able to discern that it is twice the size of Deinonychus, which would also include its head and, therefore, its cranial capacity, which is--sorry to say--why I very much dispute the findings of KillaBee.

Though I can definitely see why Roundy would hold that this is all speculation (which it is, and even my professor, Christopher Brochu, admitted to this being mostly true when it comes to the fossil record), but I cannot see why we have to rule out the possibility of dinosaurs building boats simply because we humans are too stubborn to think outside ourselves.  A dinosaurian culture would most definitely not be like our own, since their materials would have to be custom-fit to their strengths and weaknesses.  Which is why I believe anyone flatly refusing the possibility of tools fitted to creatures without thumbs to be nothing more than an arrogant monkey moaning over the loss of its tail.

Not to mention the simple fact that we weren't there.

[edit]
Fora does not recognize the ellipsis or em-dash characters.

Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.

You can keep saying this, but it isn't going to hide the fact that you have no actual argument. It's one thing to paint over cracks, but you can't paint over a wall that isn't there.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 04:06:20 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 19, 2009, 03:49:33 AM

Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.

You can keep saying this, but it isn't going to hide the fact that you have no actual argument. It's one thing to paint over cracks, but you can't paint over a wall that isn't there.

Umm. I do have an argument. The best evidence indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as ostriches. Also: "Look momma! No thumbs!"

No, your ham-fisted interpretation leads you to that conclusion, and nobody else agrees with it. And as if that weren't ridiculous enough, you claim that because dinosaurs didn't have thumbs, they couldn't make tools, an argument which can be contradicted by the common crow. I'm not even going to get into your absurd youtube argument.

The largest of the dinosaurs, in my opinion, could not have existed under the round Earth model.

The sheer mass of the creatures at 1G would not allow their movement between one body of water and the next.

Gravity on the round Earth if fixed at approx 1G.

The flat Earth model has a possibility that the gravitation was not as high, millions of years ago.

Brontosaurus proves the Earth is flat.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 04:19:59 AM

No, your ham-fisted interpretation leads you to that conclusion, and nobody else agrees with it.

No. It's not my interpretation. It's the evidence Dogplatter cited.

You know, I've been following this topic all along, and I know exactly what was posted, and that is not my interpretation of the sum of evidence.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 04:19:59 AM

And as if that weren't ridiculous enough, you claim that because dinosaurs didn't have thumbs, they couldn't make tools, an argument which can be contradicted by the common crow. I'm not even going to get into your absurd youtube argument.

I've yet to see any evidence that Dinosaurs had thumbs, made tools, made boats, sailed the oceans, built civilisations...

This is a pointless line of reasoning. First of all, no-one is claiming dinosaurs had thumbs, so stop using such an obvious straw-man. Furthermore, as has been explained very clearly already, no such evidence (that dinosaurs made boats or tools) could (in all likelihood) exist. We are speculating as to whether or not they could have done these things, and the evidence we have presented pertains to their ability.

Dogplatter said he did an experiment to prove it was possible to build a raft without thumbs. When I asked him to reperform and record it for us to evaluate he backed out.

Why don't you do it and record it for us, if it means so much to you? It doesn't matter who does it, because the point of an experiment is that it can be repeated by anyone and produce the same result.

Quote from: KillaBee on June 19, 2009, 04:09:16 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 04:06:20 AM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 19, 2009, 03:49:33 AM

Summary: Dinosaurs, no thumbs, no brains, no boats, no civilisations.

You can keep saying this, but it isn't going to hide the fact that you have no actual argument. It's one thing to paint over cracks, but you can't paint over a wall that isn't there.

Umm. I do have an argument. The best evidence indicates that the smartest dinosaurs were as smart as ostriches. Also: "Look momma! No thumbs!"

No, your ham-fisted interpretation leads you to that conclusion, and nobody else agrees with it. And as if that weren't ridiculous enough, you claim that because dinosaurs didn't have thumbs, they couldn't make tools, an argument which can be contradicted by the common crow. I'm not even going to get into your absurd youtube argument.

Can a crow tie a knot?

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 04:37:01 AM

Furthermore, as has been explained very clearly already, no such evidence (that dinosaurs made boats or tools) could (in all likelihood) exist.

OK no such evidence exists. Understood.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 04:37:01 AM

We are speculating as to whether or not they could have done these things, and the evidence we have presented pertains to their ability.

OK. Umm. The evidence doesn't exist. But you've managed to present speculation as evidence...

Mommy! I'm confused!

To reiterate, you' haven't presented any evidence. Dogplatter misinterpreted the results of a scientist. He said he did something, but provided no evidence for it.

The reason you are confused is becuase you can't read. Please visit this site: www.rif.org


Though I suppose that even with regular therapy, the results of treatment may take time to appear. So I'll break it down for you. Really, it's very simple:


There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.

There is evidence that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.

Can a crow tie a knot?

Can you fly an interstellar vehicle? If not, does this mean that humans therefore do not have the necessary faculties to fly interstellar vehicles? Just because we've never seen a crow tie a knot, and just because crows don't tie nots, does not mean they do not have the necessary faculties to do so.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 18, 2009, 11:08:29 PM

Firstly, I am sick and tired of hearing about the Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Sic semper Tyrannosaurus Rex!

You mentioned that there were bigger dinosaurs in the Dromaeosauridae family. Physical size alone is not an indicator of intelligence, the accepted calculation being brain cavity size proportional to body, as compared to nearest living relatives.

Did you waive the ability to read and understand my posts?

KillaBee, to make your point (and not sound like all of your information on dinosaurs came from reading little kids' books), you could have motioned me towards the Sauropods, either the Macronarians or the Diplodocoids.  Tyrannosaurus...geesh.

See here?  The Sauropods were gargantuan creatures--but had a little tiny head.  They are the dinosaurian equivalent of cows.

Unfortunately, the fossil record of the Utahraptor is very incomplete, featuring only a few fragments and shards.  However, paleontologists have been able to discern that it is twice the size of Deinonychus, which would also include its head and, therefore, its cranial capacity, which is--sorry to say--why I very much dispute the findings of KillaBee.

Did you flat out miss this part?

Furthermore, it is not baseless speculation, but it is speculation.  They very well may have been able to make boats.  KillaBee can't get past this due to his or her personal bias towards thumbs.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 19, 2009, 11:37:04 AM

Furthermore, it is not baseless speculation, but it is speculation.

What else would you call speculation that has no base?

Now look who's ignoring the evidence presented in this thread. 

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 19, 2009, 01:07:13 PM

Now look who's ignoring the evidence presented in this thread. 

Nope. All there's been is speculation.

That... had... no... base....

The argument has a base.  Dogplatter didn't pull his hypothesis out of thin air.  It is therefore not baseless. QED.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 19, 2009, 01:11:21 PM

The argument has a base.  Dogplatter didn't pull his hypothesis out of thin air.  It is therefore not baseless. QED.

Epic lolz. Unfortunately base means some kind of base in fact. Or evidence. Hence; the speculation has no base. Thankyou for adding to the debate though.

There is evidence though.  Therefore it's not baseless.  Thank you for as usual not contributing anything meaningful to the debate though.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 19, 2009, 01:24:04 PM

There is evidence though.

No there isn't. There has been no evidence put forward, only baseless speculation. I think you fail to understand what evidence means. Thankyou for participating in the discussion though!

Of course just because you say there has been no evidence that must mean it's true. 

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 19, 2009, 11:37:04 AM

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 18, 2009, 11:08:29 PM

Unfortunately, the fossil record of the Utahraptor is very incomplete, featuring only a few fragments and shards.  However, paleontologists have been able to discern that it is twice the size of Deinonychus, which would also include its head and, therefore, its cranial capacity, which is--sorry to say--why I very much dispute the findings of KillaBee.

Did you flat out miss this part?

No I didn't. Did you flat out miss this part:

Quote from: KillaBee on June 19, 2009, 03:49:33 AM

Physical size alone is not an indicator of intelligence, the accepted calculation being brain cavity size proportional to body, as compared to nearest living relatives.

Just because a dinosaur is bigger, doesn't make it smarter. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Lets find out.

KillaBee, you are dense.  For three posts now I've commented on this, and still you act like an ignorant buffoon.  Do you know what dinosaurs I'm referencing when I speak of Sauropods?  Macronarians?  Diplodocoids?

To avoid any more further confusion, I'm going to include pictures so I know you know what I mean.

These are Sauropods:



I already conceded the point that the correlation between a dinosaur's body and intellect is unfounded, and yet still you repeat it like a mantra.  What I have been trying to tell you is that the Deinonychus and Utahraptor should have the same EQ, by the very limited qualifications given by you in a previous post.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 19, 2009, 11:37:04 AM

Furthermore, it is not baseless speculation, but it is speculation.

What else would you call speculation that has no base?

Baseless speculation.  But this speculation does have base, which is what we've all been trying to tell you.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 06:46:36 AM

There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.

There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way. You can keep banging on if you like, but it's plain to everyone who has won this debate.


Another victory for FE!

Quote from: KillaBee on June 19, 2009, 07:56:08 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 06:46:36 AM

There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.

There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.

There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves.  How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 20, 2009, 06:08:34 PM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 19, 2009, 07:56:08 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 06:46:36 AM

There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.

There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.

There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves.  How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?

If there's actual evidence backing up the speculation, and no actual evidence going against it, you don't.  You investigate the possibility as far as you're able to determine if the idea has any merit.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 20, 2009, 06:08:34 PM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 19, 2009, 07:56:08 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 19, 2009, 06:46:36 AM

There is no evidence that dinosaurs made boats.

There is baseless speculation that dinosaurs may have been able to make boats.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's great, except you have been totally unable to challenge what we have put forward in any logical way.

There is also speculation that reptilians populated the early earth with human slaves.  How do you make a logical challenge to such a claim?

The difference is this: we didn't just put forward a claim.