I believe the last "living dino" sighting was a few years back. The Mokele Mbembe (or something like that). There's still uncharted land in Africa at this moment, so probably the dinosaurs live there or something. Now, I do believe that some dinosaurs still exist, I'm not talking about thier "cousins", like the modern lizards of today. But then again, how would they even survive the whole long years?

Not what you'd call possible. After massive global changes, an animal that lived 65mya isn't going to be the same now as it was then. There is lots less oxygen in the air, the plant species are completely different... there are just too many things to take into consideration. The closest thing you're going to get to a living dinosaur is either a pretty little parrot at your pet store, or an alligator--take your pick, both are good.

Personally, I'd prefer the parrot.


And I realize that I also prefer the alliteration.

hey anythings possible. If their is less oxygen now it doesn't matter, because in places like uncharted Africa, there are alot of trees to give off lots of oxygen. Plus who's to say they haven't adapted?

To answer your last question-they wouldn't. Just too many obstacles to overcome.


I would disagree that anything is possible. There is more to it than just less oxygen. It is abundantly clear that there was a major extinction event 65 million years ago. The environmental consequences were just too tremendous for the fragile ecosystem and finely tuned niches which dinosaurs occupied.

More trees do not create the abundance of concentrated oxygen needed for a species to grow large from.

Lizards, Crocodiles, Sharks, and many smaller animals.

All around in various diferent forms during and since Dinosaurs walked the earth but they have all chanced a little here and there, if ur asking if a Trex could exist someplace then no, fact is things change over time to the enviroment they live in apart from humans, we just bulldoze everything to fit our needs.

Dinos or animals from the time I believe some sharks or deep sea animals could exist unknown from dino times.

No, they couldn't.

Dinosaurs, as we imagine the huge and lumbering beasts, are gone. We should acknowledge their passing and instead do as one of the abvoe posters said, get a parrot or gator.

The re-discovered frilled shark and the coelacanth should be proof of the possibility of a prehistoric species surviving today.

I dont think oxygen was the factor. Instead I belive it was a combintion between factor (casual) who made giant some of those beast.
After all not all the dinos were huge, some actually had the size of chicken.

A brilliant member of this board (Until she was driven away) was Wraithgod, who posted a brilliant thread explaining why dinosaurs could not possibly exist anymore.

I can't seem to find it though?

Prehistoric creatures being discovered is entirely possible.
Dinosaurs, however, are entirely not. Not in their original forms, that is. the decrease of Oxygen would have necessitated a smaller form, and likely a faster metabolism. In short, no, a Saurapod or Theropod could not exist. They were too specialized to the ancient Earth. Which is why they evolved into birdies and crocs.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=115939

There you go undead, I think this is the post you were talking about, and it pretty much sums it up if you ask me.

Doesn't do anything for the existence of dinosaurs though. You can not compare isolated marine species to dinosaurs.
The Frilled shark was not rediscovered.
The current coelocanths are not the same as the ones around in the Cretaceous.

Crocs did not evolve from Dinosaurs. They have a shared ancestor.

Indeed the proper designation for crocodillia is Archosaur and not Dinosaur

I don't know why no one seems to believe in land dinosaurs. Maybe it's because I have no doubt that evilution is a complete lie.

My bad.
The rest of my statement still stands though.

No it is a fact. Get over it.

The world is flat, too.

Don't forget that the Earth is the centre of the universe.

And the Earth is the center of our galaxy.
Or, better yet, the universe.


FRICK, MATT. D<
You beat me.
wwwhhhyyyyyyyyy

Muahahaha beat you to it by seconds .

*Puts you in a jar*
I'll have none of it!

For me some of the best evidence against evilution is that the Earth is just the right distance from the sun. If it was too close we would be incinerated, too far and we would have a permanent winter. You know what really annoys me about Internet evilutionists (I spell it like that on purpose)? They never provide any evidence to support their claims. It's always "Evolution provides all the answers", tell me, why isn't the world ruled by cockroaches if they were so successful? Why are there still other primates? How do you explain away every single dinosaur sighting?

Wow, you have no idea what evolution even is do you.

It is the belief that one life form changes into another over time. Now provide some indisputable evidence for it.

No it is not actually. You are thinking of speciation which is observed and requires evolution.

Evolution its self is a change in allele frequency over a generation. Which has also been observed, like this recent example. It is very much a fact.

A scientific theory is a description of how something happens over time. The theory of evolution is about how evolution got life to where we are. It is evidentially based and unlike the colloquial use of the term theory is not a unfounded idea.
Evolution is universally acknowledge and accepted by EVERY scientific institute and many religious institutes. It is observed and very much real. Even dog breeding is an evolutionary process.

If you need proof its right on your hand its called the opposeable thumb

Errr, you seem to forget that it is called The "Theory of Evolution". Emphasis on theory.


I also neither believe nor disbelieve the possibility of living dinosaurs. I believe it is possible that there could be a surviving prehistoric creature living in lakes (like Champ, though not Nessie) but an actual living dinosaur seems...unlikely. However, I will not completely dismiss it. The jungles of Africa are a very probable location, considering that they are almost empty of human life except for in a few exceptional areas, except for the natives, who are the ones that are recording the sightings. I really find it hard to believe that they are all lying. I only really considered the possibility when natives were shown pictures of dinosaurs and they insisted that the creatures in the dinosaur book was the one living in their backyards.

No that is the how. The fact is evolution. read my previous post before you jump to that ill founded conclusion.

I don't want to offend anyone, but the only evidence that supports dinosaurs living today are some questionable eye-witness accounts and a possibility that they could exist. It seems rather flimsy at best.

Wow! This thread is rampant with ignorance.

My word. William Shatner would be vomiting. Why would you use Kirk's moniker when you deny basic scientific principals?

Why isn't the world overrun by Cockroaches? Although they can survive an atomic blast....they cannot survive my foot.

Natural Selection.

Transitional Fossils

Evolution as theory and fact

Above you will find a nice little springboard of links to give you an excellent overview of what is fact and what is not. You will see we have overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and as Mattshark has pointed out, the "how" is still in doubt, although many good theories abound.
You say nobody offers evidence, pleae read the above and return with any questions you may have. I am sure you will find myself and manhy other members more than happy to helpp you along with any iunquiry you might have. It is an endless, yet fascinating journey, I hope you decide to come on board.
Good luck with the above.

A Rain Forrest in Africa is a bad place for a living Dinosaur to take hold, the indigenous species already have all the niches filled. Too much competition for millennia of evolution.

I will NEVER believe in your ridiculous theories.

Unless one niche has always been filled by a dinosaur.

There's some really weird pics for some of you..

Matty--out for blood?

Now wait, people say, well times have changed, there is no possible way these animals could have survived, discounting something nearly Every scientist believes in and thats Evolution. Now why cant these animals evolved to better adapt to the changing environment? Many dinosaurs drastically changed the way they lived when they were alive as the planet changed over time, some flyers became non flyers, some water based animals became land based animals, some grounded animals became flyers, and some changed they re diet completely. So why is evolution not possible when speaking about a dinosaur living in the 21st century?

Might I suggest filling that bucket your head be stuck in with water.

If a niche was filled by a Dinosaur, it would not be a hidden species now would it.

Not assessing all evidence makes one close-minded. Shame, your loss. Perhaps Mokele Mbembe is a Brontosaurus hey.

Using the search function will reveal a multitude of practical and physiological reasons that the idea alone is not possible. An entertaining notion I grant, however, perhaps you might be best off offering a reason as to why you feel a Living Dinosaur is possible. Occupying a niche already filled by other animals is why a small relict dinosauria cannot exist, creatures tend to find it very difficult to displace a naturally adapted resident, which is also where you start to cross lines with genetic viability, traffic etc. etc.
Perhaps if you could let us know why you think something large and terrestrial, and known to be deceased for 65 million years may have escaped our attention?

Ok lets see. There are animals that lived during that period that are still around to this day, now how were they able to survive millions of years, thru climate changes and such and not these animals?

If you use the reading function that i assume youve developed over your lifetime, you will see that i never say anything about large dinosaurs living among us. Scientist are still debating what these creatures looked like and you expect them to know exactly how these animals adapted in the world they lived in? Please. People are still finding Colonies of Indian tribes that have gone undetected for thousands of years. Dont be fooled in believing we've seen everything there is to see, like the ocean more that 3/4 of this planets land mass in some places is unexplored with no way in knowing the depth of the forest floors, nor the amount of food there. Mokele is the size of an Elephant according to witnesses thats not a towering 60 foot tall dinosaur most people associate the supposed creature to be. To my knowledge a elephant is not larger than most to any trees. Besides that small species of dinosaurs, bird size can thrive in the type of places these animals have been sited in.

If you use the search function you'ed know that the Congo has remained virtually unchanged for millions and millions of years and theres been countless species thought to be extinct that have been documented as alive and well . Oh yea and the fact that Its not hard to hide when most people dont believe you exist.

Actually the Congo rainforest is only 25000 years old.

C'mon, you're funnin' us, right? If not, you should change your handle to Captain Kangaroo.

The arguments presented against dino's existence today is presented well, with valid points and facts to back up the claims. The counter-claim of the existence of dino's today is fraught with "maybe's" and "what if's" as well as speculation.


So, take your pick.

Me, I don't think dinosaurs exist today, and if I'm wrong, then I'll be glad to eat my words hehe

Well really thats what scientists do, which proves my point exactly. Take for instance the T-rex. Scientist 1st believed it stood fully upright, than a decade or so ago they decided that he was hunched over. The T-rex also constantly goes from being a scavenger to a hunter with speeds ranging from 30+ mph, 12 mph and even as low as 7 mph. Plus the skin of the T-rex just recently changed from a Reptile type skin seen on lizards and Alligators to Being completely covered in feathers. So, with the uncertainty of how this and many many other Dinosaurs behaved, lived, moved, feed, and so on and so forth, how is it at all plausible to say that the scientist know how these animals adapted to the changing world.




This also proves my point as some say the Congo has been around for millions of years and like you pointed out in your post, some believe it to be relatively young, mostly all agree it has stayed mostly the same..

Science is nothing but Theories, "maybe's" and "what if's" when it comes to the past anyway so why cant the counter-claims do the same?

Scientist only speculate when there is pre-existing evidence that seems to point in a certain direction. Since there is no such evidence for the existence of dino's then any speculation is unfounded IMO. If scientist were to behave that way, then they would waste all their time looking for werewolves or fairies instead of concentrating on things that actually exist.

Not it is not, that is not what a scientific theory is, that is colloquial use of the word not the scientific use. Science is all about empirical evidence and a scientific theory is how and why something happens.
Conjecture is not allowed in science.

I'm not sure where you learned to use the "quote" function, but you're attributing statements to me other posters made.

My... the insults are fast and furious.


There is still unexplored lands there. Unexplored by Western Science anyway.


I agree. However that does not discount that a large semi-aquatic creature could still be living in the congo.


The Theory of Evolution is not a Fact. The fact that animals adapt to new environments is. So you can watch adaptation and call it evolution, but the past is theory. One might say the past is 'speculation'.

And what is done with dogs and domesticated animals is Breeding not evolution.


I believe most Religious institutes refer to it as Adaptation, not Evolution, but it amounts to the same thing. This too does not proscribe a large semi-aquatic creature, possibly reptilian, in the Congo. All it means is that it can not be classified directly as a dinosaur.


The above link shows that historic evidence is theory and the only Fact is that collected in "modern" times. The same modern times in which the Congo has been poorly explored.

New creatures immerge to fill niche environments all through history. Most fail and dissappear, perhaps the Mokele is one of these. Perhaps it is a long neck, long tail rhino. But still it might be there.


I believe they could have, but, didn't. The fact that mammals evolved into whales, elephants, humans, bats, kangaroos and pangolins tells me that just about any creature could... could have evolved from any other creature in the last several million years. There are three creatures related genetically... elephants, manatees and hyraxes. If genetics can drift that far over time, I believe a relic creature could have evolved to live till now in Africa. Or, it could be a new creature entirely, a new species of rhino as Pysche has suggested before.


I would disagree and state that conjecture is the base science is build on. A hypothisis is made on conjecture, which is then prooven or not by evidence collected through experimentation or by observation of nature.

But Matt and I have always disagreed on this point of science.

Edit: Spelling and stuff.

Who cares what religious institutes refer to it as. That is what biological evolution is. They are just wrong. Evolution is a fact and it is a change in allele frequency of a generation. It matters not whether you believe this, it just is. You can not alter a definition just because you don't agree with it or know it correctly.

Selective breeding is a method of induced evolution. Selective breeding is a method for evolutionary change.


Oh and please find me accepted science based on conjecture.
Hypothesises are not accepted science. Again it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't alter the fact. If i wrote paper based on conjecture it would not get published.

Too help with any incorrect assertions about evolution here is Berkeley's page on the subject with a full guide to the fact and the theory: What is evolution?

And the wiki page on scientific method for you Diechecker : Scientific Method


FWIW Diechecker, in generally it is only American and Arabic fundamentalist institutes that have any problem with evolution.