Thats kinda what I was trying to say.

That's flawed logic. There was no mass extinction that wiped life off the planet and made it start over. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old. The earliest evidence of single celled life is about 3.5 billion years old. All life evolved from that point, including "intelligent" life, so you'd have to say it took upwards of 3.5 billion years for humans to evolve. "Intelligent" life is a misnomer but I'll take it mean life like ourselves that are accomplished tool users. There are no signs, in the fossil record, of any type tool use or shelter building in all that time prior to us.

Capeo just curious. What is the evidence for the earliest form of life 3.5 billion years ago. I've never questioned that but it occurred to me I'm not aware of the proof of that.

Skips off to research in the interim.

Here you go.

http://www.uni-muenster.de/GeoPalaeontolog...bot/seite1.html

This gives the names of the finds, so you can look them up individually, but the links don't work. I'll see if I can find something better.
Note, there is some contention still, I believe, about the Shopf finds.

EDIT: This site is much better and links to a lot of info.

http://www.doir.wa.gov.au/GSWA/DE1D31DE791...0584052FB3F.asp

Yep and its all speculation like I've already implied, this the the best evidence I could come up with for such a probability.
I'm just trying to support some possible reasons that other Intelligent beings could have developed and not trying to "prove" it, just giving theory.

From one of your links capeo




So basically they are finding rock sediment which they are suggesting is fossilized single cell organisms?

I'm not sure I understand this so help me out.


They are claiming to have found fossilized single cell organisms fro 3.5 billion years ago?

A single cell would be smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is that correct? .


Or are these larger life forms? And why are they disputed.

And this sounds a lot like the ID concept of Irreducible complexity? Doncha think?

Not stromatolites. Stromatolites are the remains of precipitations from bacteria. There are still a few bacteria that make them today. Now there are some natural processes that can make stomatolite-type structures, hence the dispute in Archeon deposits. The dispute arises from the fact that there are not the other signs of life such as oxide banding that comes from deposits of beds of bacteria that clearly show metabolic activity. The argument being made in the case of the 3+ billion year old finds is that they are too complex to be any previously seen naturally occuring chemical process.



They are claiming some in these very old stromatolites but again they're contentious because they are few and far between and don't rule out chemical processes. The oldest microfossils I know of that aren't disputed at all is the Gunflint deposits which range from 1.9-2+ billion years ago though there are much older such as the North Pole Dome (3.5 billion) area that most agree are microfossils. And yes, we are talking about tiny microrganisms smaller than a period. Here's some pics:

comenius.susqu.edu/BI/202/EUBACTERIA/default.htm
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/paleochron/05_f.php
taggart.glg.msu.edu/isb200/oolife.htm

Not to derail this I posted it in the ask anything thread if you guys want to go there and help me out!

I don't see a correlation. Could you extrapolate on that? Or have you moved this discussion over to the other thread you mentioned?

Digital,

Reread the above and see if you can spot the absurdities.

The planet, being inanimate and thus non-social, cannot possibly have a "social crisis."

Also: the planet, being inanimate, cannot possibly have an "environmental crisis."

These crises you refer to are the crises of Humanity, not of the planet.

And yes, there have been any number of animals that have caused their own problems exactly like the human animal has.

It is incumbent on you to come up with reasons a species should not have been able to evolve that walks on two legs, has the intellectual capability to harness fire, makes and uses tools, etc.

The Theory of Evolution is only a theory. It's incomplete by definition. But it explains precisely how such a species could have evolved. So the only thing lacking here is an argument about how such a species could not have evolved.

I'm waiting.

Harte

I thought it was a fact? Looks around confused?

It is still theory, haven't seen a law of Evolution (unless someone shows me the article)

We do know that critters evolve, and successful certain traits linger on in the species (and subject to environment)

This means if man lives in zero-g-space, generation after generation, he may evolve to be a round ball

However akin to looking at macro and micro cosmos, its possible we do see differences, we may still have to be open to ideas and investigation.

(before someone starts jumping out of their shoes...)
I'm not insisting the theory of evolution is wrong, I'm just saying there are still possibilities.

Wow. How very 1578 of you.
That's not a flame. From me, it's sort of high praise saying you sound a lot like a 16th Century esoteric.

--Jaylemurph

At the atomic level, things are different than at the Stellar level, which is why the need for dimensions in developing the equation for all.

We might want to consider this same kind of thinking when looking at Evolution.


Anyways, still if you look at it it took 65 million years form the last mass extinction to evolve man.
if this mass extinction never happened, whats telling us that 175 million years of evolution cannot produce intelligent beings (akin to us) from the dinosaurs?
Just look at our strongest monuments like the pyramids, after 4 to 10,000 years, they are in sad shape, in 100,000 years they would barely exist.
Plastic, metal, wood... these all disintegrate over time, If we all disappeared from the earth it would not take long for nature to erase our greatest technological achievements.

Lets also look at this option.
Lets pretend the government found a cheap easy way to get off this planet, and presented to the people that if they wished to, they could go explore/colonize the stars.
How many of us would want to stay on earth? How many would want to go out and explore the universe?

Now imagine if this same option occurred to a race of saurian-evolved earthlings, or perhaps HP Lovecraftian beings evolved from the Paleozoic Era.


Still all speculation, but things to consider when envisioning possible ancient races of our planet.

(I know everyone jumps on me when I write about other "Evolution" possibilities, I do see our current theory as being the best one we have, however I'm not so bolted-down to the theory to NOT consider other ideas)

ssuurree the ufos are filled with dinos... they saw the asteroid coming and traveled into space or into the future... sure...

only human originated from earth, the only intelligence from earth... I would think that intelligent animals are rare in the universe.

Did you channel my thoughts or something???
I agree with your whole post and I see you have also been subject to the 'jumping on' when you dare put out other 'Evolution' ideas.
As I said before which nobody bothered to refute was it is very possible that evidence from this time would be gone.

My own post stated:

What is this evidence everyone expects to find from over 65 million years? Intelligent life is a very broad definition. One said it is comparable to a tool using civilisation that defines intelligent life, which is a good model, tool users do not need buildings, ie: see Aboriginals above. So Aboriginals in my book are intelligent. Are you saying then you are only intelligent if you can build a house and farm and build it with something that would last over 100 million years old? Aboriginals have no metal. So looking for evidence of metal anywhere is no point.

So tell me peoples what sort of evidence do you expect to find?

Having said that I do think it unlikely that a tool using, building erecting, farming human type intelligent lifeform was around before dinosaurs but.........
if one was I don't think any evidence would be found.

There is speculation that dinosaurs were endotherms which could turn everything on it's ear. Dinosaurs would not be lizard/reptiles as we know them then and that leads me to thinking it could be possible they would be able to evolve into a creature that was able to utilise the environment better and become more intelligent from it. Humans gained our knowledge and therefore our intelligence through our use of the environment better than any other creature. The last paragraphs shows apparent evidence of a dinosaur heart being much closer to a mammal type heart than a reptile heart and dinosaur bone being much more similar to mammal bone than reptile.

So my question is: Were dinosaurs really reptiles or a reptile/mammal hybrid? If the latter ends up being true I don't see why a saurian creature with warm blood and a heart like a mammal with a high metabolism could not have evolved into what we know as Reptoids. Now most mammals and birds are extremely intelligent with tools and thier social lives, why would a Reptoid be any different? Where are the intelligent Reptoids now? Either extinct or migrated into subterranea.

From: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/endothermy.html

Given: Ectotherms are not normally found at high latitudes (it's cold). Hypothesis: Dinosaur fossils are known from high latitudes, so they must have been endothermic to cope with the cold. Problem: The high latitudes (Alaska, Antarctica, etc.) that dinosaur fossils have been found at were not so cold in the Mesozoic; in fact they may have been almost sub-tropical. Even if they were somewhat cold, dinosaurs could have migrated there in the summer when it was warmer, and emmigrated during the cooler winter. Also, the climate in the Mesozoic was generally warmer and milder than today (we're just recovering from the last ice age, remember). Finally, today's snakes, lizards, turtles, the tuatara, and crocodiles do enjoy a surprisingly broad latitudinal distribution. However, UCMP field work on the North Slope of Alaska has uncovered the remains of many dinosaurs. During the Late Cretaceous when these dinosaurs were alive, the area was seasonally very cold; within the Arctic Circle. Remains of juvenile and hatchling dinosaurs suggest that these dinosaurs were not emmigrating. More work on this interesting case is needed.

Given: Dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. Hypothesis: Since birds are endotherms, dinosaurs must have been endotherms. Problem: Yes, certainly true sometime during the evolution of birds. The problem is, where? Only one dinosaur was the ancestor to all birds, and we don't know which one that was for sure (although Archaeopteryx is assumed to be closely related). If the change to endothermy occurred just before the origin of birds, then no other dinosaurs would be endothermic. If it occurred earlier, where's the evidence? Where do we draw the line between ectothermic dinosaurs and endothermic ancestors to birds? A messy issue, but definitely some of the most compelling evidence for possibly endothermic non-avian dinosaurs.

Given: Dinosaur bone is more similar to mammalian or avian (bird) bone in cross section than it is to typical ectothermic "reptilian" bone. Hypothesis: This bone structure similarity shows that dinosaurs were endothermic. Problem: Some of the best evidence for endothermy yet, but still has its faults. Bone structure does vary a lot throughout the life of an individual, at different sizes, and under different conditions. Bone that is similar in structure to bone of an endotherm has not been established to always be bone of an endotherm. Several researchers associated with the UCMP have been working on dinosaur bone histology (the thin-sectioning of bone to see its structure). The results are inconclusive so far, but have shown that many dinosaurs had rapid growth rates on a par with those of modern endotherms.


From: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200003210...trunc_sys.shtml
A computerized tomography (CT) scan of the chest cavity of a new dinosaur fossil reveals a heart more closely resembling a bird or mammal organ, rather than a modern reptile's. This discovery, which suggests that the dinosaur was warm-blooded, with a relatively high metabolism, is reported in the 21 April issue of Science.
"It's truly amazing that this animal seems to have had such a highly-evolved heart. The implications completely floored me," said Science co-author Dale Russell, of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences and North Carolina State University. Russell's research team also includes Paul Fisher, Michael Stoskopf, and Reese Barrick, of North Carolina State University, Kuzmitz, a physician in private practice, and Hammer, whose company is called Hammer and Hammer Paleotek.

So although I don't necessarily subscribe to the though of any intelligent tool using naturally occurring Earth originating species before dinosaurs I certainly think that they could have been around long before humans.

Actually there is a lot of empirical evidence to support the evolution of species. We can and have observed evolution in fact we still do observe evolution all the time. The evidence to support evolution is irrefutable not negligible as you say.

You mention the dino/bird theory, you know there is evidence to support that dinosaurs or at least many species of them had feathers this on top of the fact that many smaller species as well had similar bone structure too. You mention the Hobbit species which has been discussed here before, these bones did not simply belong to midgets the skulls of these people while resembling human skulls were still fundamentally different from humans.

No one is saying that another intelligent species may not have came about but the science is pretty solid that at no point in Earths history has another intelligent species that had a highly advanced civilization ever cam about.

We may not know everything about evolution but one thing we do know is that it occurs and always has. The label theory on to evolution is really only to be politically correct, seeing as how it is an observable phenomenon and not just speculative it is no longer a theory.

The question of the thread is a very interesting one (ignoring the ridiculous and scientifically medieval drivel that has been stated). Has intelligent life existed before humans on Earth? Its mathematically improbable that intelligent life DIDN'T exist before humans on other worlds, but that isn't the question. If it did exist, it most likely didn't exist during the time of the dinosaurs because we have a fairly consistent fossil record and no evidence of tool use or language during that time. However, there are periods of the Earth's geological history that are much more scant and difficult to judge, though most organisms known to have existed were primitive at that time.

If anything, it would be a good plot for a book. Perhaps some lifeforms from before the permian catastrophe (terrestrial mammal-like reptiles for instance) had extremely large brains and developed tool use and language but due to being at the epicenter of some kind of cosmic cataclysm there is no trace of them, or perhaps they developed technology based on biological organisms and created space worthy organic crafts and left for the stars, only to return many millions of years later to find that monkeys driving SUVs had ruined their planet.

"We have been told the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the dinosaurs existed for a billions of years. We often forget that scientist reach this conclusion based on little evidence."

Maybe this person is kidding? Otherwise, this person has not the vaguest clue how science is used to calculate the age of the Earth or precisely which epochs of the Earth's geological history dinosaurs are known to have existed. Any high school student who didn't sleep through geology can soundly refute these statements.

The age of the oldest known rocks on Earth have been calculated from various isotopes of lead and uranium to be roughly 4 billion years old (you have to describe the mathematical dynamics of radioactive decay to explain that precisely). Some of the minerals within these rocks are calculated by the same techniques to be significantly older than 4.2 billion years old. Several different radiometric methods all independently confirm the same dates. This establishes an extremely high probability that the Earth is roughly 4 and a half billion years old, as the Earth is at least as old as any of these formations.

As someone already mentioned, dinosaurs are not known to have existed billions of years ago. The last of what we conventionally think of as "dinosaurs" died off roughly 65 million years ago. However, the reality is that birds would not exist if not for therapod dinosaurs (T-Rex, Allosaurus, etc). Therapods were the progenitors of modern birds.

If in the past there were a non human civilitation, we would know about it. There is no way that a civilitation will dissapeer in the blue, and the friction of time is not enough. Today we even find cropolites (dinosaur poo) so give me one reason on heaven and earth about why all sudden all the pieces of this so called ancient civilitation should be lost.