Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Bot

Do dinosaurs still exist ?

35 posts in this topic

dinosaur1.jpg
From Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" to "Jurassic Park" the concept of dinosaurs being alive today has been a subject for films and books for centuries, but how likely is it that any could have survived for so long ?

"The idea of still-living dinosaurs has captured the public imagination for well over a century. Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, published a 1912 novel called "The Lost World," set in the remote Venezuelan jungle where dinosaurs still survive in modern times. Films such as "Jurassic Park" and "Land of the Lost," which opens Friday, were inspired by Conan Doyle's vision — in fact the sequel to "Jurassic Park" was titled "The Lost World." "

arrow3.gifView: Full Article | arrow3.gifSource: Live Science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience's Bad Science Columnist

Bad Science columnist. What a great job that must be.

Lake monsters

There are hundreds of lakes harboring reputed monsters around the world, from Scotland's Loch Ness to Canada's Lake Okanagan, America's Lake Champlain to Argentina's Lake Nahuel.

The explanations for such monsters include dinosaurs and dinosaur-like animals. Believers and researchers ask what else could be so big, and account for the sightings.

Many believe that lake and sea monster reports can be "explained" as animals like the plesiosaur (a long-necked aquatic reptile that reached 40 feet in length) or the ichthyosaur (shonisaurus sikanniensis), which were as big as a submarine.

I don't think most lake monsters are possible, as the enviroment they are supposed to live in is too small to remain undetected.

Mokele-Mbembe

In the remote jungles of central Africa, native stories tell of a dinosaur-like creature said to be up to 35 feet long, with brownish-gray skin and a long, flexible neck. Many believe that it lives in caves it digs in riverbanks, and feeds on elephants, hippos, and crocodiles.

Roy Mackal, a retired University of Chicago biologist who conducted two expeditions in search of the Mokele-Mbembe, believes that the descriptions of the creature suggest "a small sauropod dinosaur."

Despite more than two dozen searches for the "living dinosaur" as recently as last year, evidence is elusive. There are no photographs or films of the creature, no bones or teeth, no evidence beyond stories and anecdote.

Last Year! I never heard about a search last year. Maybe if I google this guy Mackal.

Yet scientifically speaking, not all dinosaurs died out. Most of us see dinosaurs every day, and some people even have them in their homes. Birds are the modern version of dinosaurs, though seeing Will Ferrell or Jeff Goldblum running terrified from an approaching pigeon just isn't very dramatic.

One of my favorite things to point out. The dinosaurs are still alive today, we just call them birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last Year! I never heard about a search last year. Maybe if I google this guy Mackal.

Oh Blah! Just Destination Truth and MonsterQuest. I was hoping for some real investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe

2008: Destination Truth

In March 2008 an episode of the SciFi Channel series Destination Truth involved investigator Josh Gates and crew searching for the elusive dinosaur. However, it must be noted that they did not visit the Likouala Region, which includes Lake Tele, but they visited Lake Bangweulu in Zambia instead, which had reports of a similar creature in the early 20th century, called the "'nsanga". The crew of Destination Truth kept calling the animal "Mokele-Mbembe" to the locals, when that name is only used in the Republic of the Congo. Their episode featured a videotaped close encounter, but filmed from a great distance. On applying digital video enhancement techniques, the encounter proved to be nothing more than two submerged hippopotami.

2009: MonsterQuest

In March 2009 an episode of the History Channel series MonsterQuest involved Bill Gibbons, Ron Mullin, local guide Pierre Sima and a two-man film crew from White Wolf Productions. It took place in Cameroon, in the region of Dja, Boumba and Nkogo Rivers, near the border with the Republic of the Congo. The episode is set to air on History Channel in the summer of 2009, and will also feature an interview with Dr. Roy P. Mackal and Peter Beach of the Milt Marcy Expedition, 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually do think Dinosaurs are still alive, but only small ones. Anything small has more chances of living. I believe ones like Eoraptor or a modern relative or descendant could be alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually do think Dinosaurs are still alive, but only small ones. Anything small has more chances of living. I believe ones like Eoraptor or a modern relative or descendant could be alive.

Like... well, birds? Maniraptora

Birds belong to the same genus as raptors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like... well, birds? Maniraptora

Birds belong to the same genus as raptors.

No I don't mean birds. I mean ones like Eoraptor and if it is alive today it would be a modern day one or descendant. Not a bird. Not all Raptors would become birds.

It is also possible big dinosaurs are still alive but those chances are slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I don't mean birds. I mean ones like Eoraptor and if it is alive today it would be a modern day one or descendant. Not a bird. Not all Raptors would become birds.

It is also possible big dinosaurs are still alive but those chances are slim.

Actually it is beyond reasonable doubt they are all gone. Nothing, not a single little trace for 65 million years. Saying there is any chance at all is an unrealistic statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it is beyond reasonable doubt they are all gone. Nothing, not a single little trace for 65 million years. Saying there is any chance at all is an unrealistic statement.

While I agree that it seems incredibly doubtful that any dinosaurs could possibly have remained living. It strikes me as odd that you of all people would choose to make such sweeping statements. Consider the case of the coelacanth. Considered extinct from the cretaceous up until the late 1930's, when it was rediscovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that it seems incredibly doubtful that any dinosaurs could possibly have remained living. It strikes me as odd that you of all people would choose to make such sweeping statements. Consider the case of the coelacanth. Considered extinct from the cretaceous up until the late 1930's, when it was rediscovered.

You can't compare marine to terrestrial environment, the two are very far removed and remember real marine exploration is a very recent thing. The coelacanth now is quite different from the ones who where known in the Cretaceous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not disagree that the two environments are substantially different, or that ocean exploration is still in it's relative infancy. My point was that there are many creatures (both terrestrial and aquatic) that have long been thought to be extinct that have been found quite alive and well. Dinosaurs, however, are not and most probably will not be another example of this.

Regarding the coelacanth itself, perhaps I should do more reading. Most sources that I've read while discussing this topic and in the past for my own amusement make note that it remains relatively unchanged from its ancient ancestor, with no major evolutionary steps taken. Certainly its very appearance remains that of a stereotypical "old school" fish...no pun intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The tuatara, Sphendon punctatus, is found only in New Zealand and is the only surviving member of a distinct reptilian order Sphehodontia that lived alongside early dinosaurs and separated from other reptiles 200 million years ago in the Upper Triassic period."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80320120708.htm

Why do we not count tiny lizards which are directly related to dinosaurs? It is the last in the line of the "horned" dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not disagree that the two environments are substantially different, or that ocean exploration is still in it's relative infancy. My point was that there are many creatures (both terrestrial and aquatic) that have long been thought to be extinct that have been found quite alive and well. Dinosaurs, however, are not and most probably will not be another example of this.

Regarding the coelacanth itself, perhaps I should do more reading. Most sources that I've read while discussing this topic and in the past for my own amusement make note that it remains relatively unchanged from its ancient ancestor, with no major evolutionary steps taken. Certainly its very appearance remains that of a stereotypical "old school" fish...no pun intended.

Yes, but generally it would take a very isolated environment (not just unexplored forest, real isolation on an island) which is why I think it is beyond reasonable doubt, not only that, there is a lack of ecological niche, most species we discover are extremely similar to known animals unless they are on an island and they tend to be unusually adapted. But I see no where on the planet that offers that isolation that could hold a dinosaur.

"The tuatara, Sphendon punctatus, is found only in New Zealand and is the only surviving member of a distinct reptilian order Sphehodontia that lived alongside early dinosaurs and separated from other reptiles 200 million years ago in the Upper Triassic period."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80320120708.htm

Why do we not count tiny lizards which are directly related to dinosaurs? It is the last in the line of the "horned" dinosaurs.

Tuatara are neither lizards or dinosaurs, they are different to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any member of the dinosaur species survived, ti would have to inhabit a specific niche in it's environment.

The tuatara and crocodiles, for example, have occupied the same niche since their arrival in the fossil record, which is why they have changed so little.

For a species of dinosaur to have survived so long, and for it to still be recognizable as a dinosaur, it'd have to be in a environment little changed and experience little competition in it's niche.

Finding a area like that is rare, while there are many (in comparison) examples of islands that have developed their own unique ecology, there are very few places on Earth that have not changed in the last 65 or so million years.

Coelocanth disappeared from the fossil record, but still survived. It's a deep water fish, so it'd be difficult to find fossils for it, while the Tuatara has a recognizable ancestor in the fossil record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are probably "Dinosaur" type sea creatures living in our oceans. The Earth's oceans are vast and a large percentage of it remain unexplored. There could very well indeed be ancient Dinosaur type creatures living and thriving peacefully within it's depths. Many new forms of ocean life are discovered each year, so it's possible.

Edited by Cookes453

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are probably "Dinosaur" type sea creatures living in our oceans. The Earth's oceans are vast and a large percentage of it remain unexplored. There could very well indeed be ancient Dinosaur type creatures living and thriving peacefully within it's depths. Many new forms of ocean life are discovered each year, so it's possible.

Erm you think large air breathing animals could be hiding in deep water? It is beyond unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Actually it is beyond reasonable doubt they are all gone. Nothing, not a single little trace for 65 million years. Saying there is any chance at all is an unrealistic statement.

While I agree that it seems incredibly doubtful that any dinosaurs could possibly have remained living. It strikes me as odd that you of all people would choose to make such sweeping statements. Consider the case of the coelacanth. Considered extinct from the cretaceous up until the late 1930's, when it was rediscovered.

KRS, Matt is known for his sweeping statements. :D

I would just say, have we done extensive archeological work in the Congo? Have the places these creatures are supposed to live really been checked for a fossil record? Or, is it just that there are no fossil records of such creatures in the well known usual places and so we can instead of knowing, just draw conclusions? My point being that of all fossil records out there we have found maybe only 1% of them. Which would be a generous statement given the surface area of the Earth and the relatively minor amounts of digging the human race has done on it.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Do dinosaurs exist?

Answer: Gustave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS, Matt is known for his sweeping statements. :D

I would just say, have we done extensive archeological work in the Congo? Have the places these creatures are supposed to live really been checked for a fossil record? Or, is it just that there are no fossil records of such creatures in the well known usual places and so we can instead of knowing, just draw conclusions? My point being that of all fossil records out there we have found maybe only 1% of them. Which would be a generous statement given the surface area of the Earth and the relatively minor amounts of digging the human race has done on it.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a perfectly accurate statement in this instance.

No evidence means that this is fair. The Congo is only chosen because people know little about it and dinosaurs just because they are a famous group of extinct animals. You never get Are Gorganopsids Still Alive do you? Or Land of the Pelycosauria? In fact you never even get such claims regarding plenty of extinct animals much more recent than dinosaurs. It is really beyond reasonable doubt and imo it is fantasy and nothing more, generally by people who don't even know about the amazing array of life that is actually extant on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question: Do dinosaurs exist?

Answer: Gustave

That's a crocodile, not a dinosaur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would just say, have we done extensive archeological work in the Congo?

Why would we study ancient human cultures to find dinosaurs? If any human cultures existed in the Congo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider the case of the coelacanth. Considered extinct from the cretaceous up until the late 1930's, when it was rediscovered.

The coelacanth is NOT a dinosaur. The oceans have changed over time but IMO they have changed less than the land environment. It's a lot harder to survive on land. Especially when it changes. And the predators change. The tempuratures change. The air changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The coelacanth is NOT a dinosaur. The oceans have changed over time but IMO they have changed less than the land environment. It's a lot harder to survive on land. Especially when it changes. And the predators change. The tempuratures change. The air changes.

I never once claimed it was a dinosaur. I was using it as an example of how pockets of prehistoric creatures previously thought extinct occasionally turn up. I'm aware of the differences between terrestrial and aquatic environments and their effects on evolutionary processes, as I mentioned in my other post.

I'm not advocating we're going to find dinosaurs prancing about in some secret glade somewhere. They don't exist, and I was using an example to pose a question.

Edited by KRS-One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never once claimed it was a dinosaur. I was using it as an example of how pockets of prehistoric creatures previously thought extinct occasionally turn up. I'm aware of the differences between terrestrial and aquatic environments and their effects on evolutionary processes, as I mentioned in my other post.

I'm not advocating we're going to find dinosaurs prancing about in some secret glade somewhere. They don't exist, and I was using an example to pose a question.

That's cool. And I think if there is a "pocket" it would be in the ocean where some ancient creature that we thought was extinct or didn't know about still exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Erm you think large air breathing animals could be hiding in deep water? It is beyond unlikely.

Perhaps I should've used a different form of punctuation, but that's besides the point. Putting your mockery aside, let me enlighten you. I said, "Dinosaur type sea creatures". I probably should've written it like this: 'Dinosaur' type sea creatures. What I meant by that sentence is the following: There could be dinosaur type sea creatures living in the ocean. Dinosaur is a broad term, and was meant to describe sea creatures. The word dinosaur doesn't necessarily have to refer to only land based creatures. I suppose it was too much for me to ask that one would understand what I meant by the word dinosaur in quotations.

According to Webster’s dictionary, and definitions do vary, Dinosaur: any of various extinct, mostly land-dwelling, four-limbed saurischian or ornithischian reptiles of the Mesozoic Era, including some c. 30 m (98.4 ft) long: the flesh-eaters usually walked on their hind limbs, the plant-eaters on all fours.

Keyword here, MOSTLY. This means it includes sea-dwelling creatures as well, and even air-dwelling creatures.

Now that I've explained myself, hopefully you've been enlightened, and my sincere apologies for this simple misunderstanding of sentence structure and word usage.

Edited by Cookes453

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word dinosaur doesn't necessarily have to refer to only land based creatures.

actually I think it does. But now that you've explained your reasoning....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.