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 1
PlatypusFury

What if Dinosaurs kept evolving?

67 posts in this topic

OK, now ask them to pick up the phone or play cards with those 'hands',lol.

Actually, dolphins do have a...er...grasping appendage of sorts they can use to pick up and carry objects. Hint, it's not the mouth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution as we currently know, does not explain anything. It is imaginary and speculative in nature.

Dinosaurs and Men may have lived side by side, we do not know for sure.

Ahh, you misspelled "I" again. "We" means everybody, and I'm sure you can find plenty of people here who do understand evolution, and they may take offense at you determining what people who are not you know or do not know.

So again, your sentence should read "Evolution as I currently know does not explain anything... I do not know for sure." [grammar sic]

--Jaylemurph

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that in evolutionary terms, nature tends to adapt with short term changes, such as strenght or size, that are attributes that are more used to adapt to environment. Intelligence is more of long term evolutionary investment. So in essence, reptiles had enough time do hone their evolutionary characteristic to supreme level. Therefore TRex was really pinnacle of land predator evolution, only thing left to be would be to improve size and strenght. Take for instance his "hands" which went being smaller and smaller because they havent been used. In reality, obtaining intelligence through evolution is very difficult to explain, and that's why you don't have intelligent insects, birds or reptiles. So personally i am in favor of intelligent design. Take notice that most succesful creatures in terms of evolution when develop final form, tend to remain like that for millions of years, like ants for instance.

The evolutionist will tell you:

1."No no no you don't understand how evolution works.."

2.Evolution doesn't have any predetermined direction i.e the animal/man cannot choose which part will evolve or develop.

3.Survival of the fittest governs the course of evolution as the random mutations are selected by Natural selection.

But more or less the doubt you projected is right and evolving a brain and consciousness is the biggest challenge the evolutionists face, i.e they cannot explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Amalthe talked about intelligence, not human intelligence.

And what's "far away" : there are biologists who consider corvids (especially ravens and also crows) to be inbetween humans and apes concerning intelligence.

.

Human intelliogence? you mean consciousness and the capability to ponder on abstract ideas? There is no real proof that animals don't have the same.

The way brains function on a memory level and how memory is stored is still very poorly understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone above pointed out, the dinosaurs that survived became birds, and the forelimbs evolved for flight, subsequently becoming either somewhat vestigial or for swimming in a few lines but mostly limited to flight. Undoing this adaptation has not happened in over 60 million years, so I doubt it could (too many interdependent features and genes).

That left mammals to evolve their forelimbs into something other than locomotion tools, and it happened in tree-climbing mammals and a few insectivores. By happy coincidence tree climbing also favors more upright posture and stereoscopic color vision and less dependence on the sense of smell (freeing up huge brain areas). Even then, though, over 40 million years passed before anything like us showed up.

We have a statistical sample of just one, so my conclusion is probably wrong. Still, the dinosaurs evolved here and there for a couple hundred million years and effectively went in circles, mammals did the same for 50 million years. It would seem to appear that the appearance of human-like intelligence is not a given, but an extremely lucky coincidence of factors coming together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arguecat.png

Lots and lots of nice dinosaur fossils of all kinds.

Not a single verifiable pre-Pliocene Homo Sapiens fossil. Not even a single pre-Cenozoic mammal larger than a small dog.

'Nuff said.

How do you date the layers? Using index fossils?

http://www.humanityunitedforum.com/Michael%20A.%20Cremo%20Richard%20l.%20Thompson%20-%20The%20Hidden%20History%20of%20the%20Human%20Race%201998.pdf

There are numerous finds described in the above article...if you can refute them then i would be convinced.

For eg-

Upon learning of this discovery, J. D. Whitney began his own investigation. He

learned that Hubbs was a well-known citizen of Vallejo, California, and a former State

Superintendent of Education. Whitney got from Hubbs a detailed written account of the

discovery, which occurred in the Valentine Shaft, south of Shaw's Flat. Whitney stated: <p>"The essential facts are, that the Valentine Shaft was vertical, t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would look like?

post-135585-0-87730600-1368686009_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ahh, you misspelled "I" again. "We" means everybody, and I'm sure you can find plenty of people here who do understand evolution, and they may take offense at you determining what people who are not you know or do not know. So again, your sentence should read "Evolution as I currently know does not explain anything... I do not know for sure." [grammar sic] --Jaylemurph

I was being polite by saying "we" instead of I.

Seems like you know all about the origin of species and how it happened.You seem to have deep penetrating knowledge of how one species transitted to another, it's like you were almost there seeing it happen.

If not then you can become part of "we" as i said it.

There you go again with your one liners.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.humanityu...n Race 1998.pdf

I challenge all those who know a lot about evolution especially human evolution or anthropology to give their esteemed opinions about the evidence discussed in the above link.

(hopefully your opinions wont be based purely on mainstream reviews of the Book written by other peoples, please read the link above and a systematic refutation is welcome).

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

~snip

(hopefully your opinions wont be based purely on mainstream reviews of the Book written by other peoples, please read the link above and a systematic refutation is welcome).

579208_10151298591645708_205170500_n.jpg

how's this for 'systematic' ?

~edit : wrong thread

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Amalthe talked about intelligence, not human intelligence.

And what's "far away" : there are biologists who consider corvids (especially ravens and also crows) to be inbetween humans and apes concerning intelligence.

.

Sure, i should have defined what i meant by intelligence better. Some would say that ability to count is a sign of intelligence, and birds and dophins and some other species sure have this ability, but in general i was referring to the intelligence that would enable consciousness. But in any case, my point was that if you remove humans from earth and leave creatures to develop, there is very, very small chance any other species would develop brains. Looking at the history and enormous time span species lived on earth, developing conscious intelligence just didn't happen enough to be usual evolution path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evolutionist will tell you:

1."No no no you don't understand how evolution works.."

2.Evolution doesn't have any predetermined direction i.e the animal/man cannot choose which part will evolve or develop.

3.Survival of the fittest governs the course of evolution as the random mutations are selected by Natural selection.

But more or less the doubt you projected is right and evolving a brain and consciousness is the biggest challenge the evolutionists face, i.e they cannot explain it.

I do understand how evolution works, but i allowed myself way to little space and too much simplification to explain what i meant. But i am glad that despite my shortcoming in post, you understood the doubt i wanted to point out, that evolving a brain is huge challenge in evolution, and it just doesn't usually happen, even if you give more that enough time for specie to evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were numerous reports of human remains and fossils and signs of human presence in strata considered to be pre pliocene coming from anthropologists and scientists up until the start of the twentieth century or more precisely till the Java man was found, the link i gave above discusses these reports and finds.

The idea of a tertiary Man was not so fantastical as one would feel now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I do understand how evolution works, but i allowed myself way to little space and too much simplification to explain what i meant. But i am glad that despite my shortcoming in post, you understood the doubt i wanted to point out, that evolving a brain is huge challenge in evolution, and it just doesn't usually happen, even if you give more that enough time for specie to evolve.

Also what is interesting is the Assumption that Humans are the pinnacle of evolution i.e modern HSS is the last to arrive. They fail to contemplate that it could have been HSS that gave rise to the other hominids due to random genetic mutations instead of the other way round.

Evolutionist are still dying to find the "Missing link" between primates and humans lol.They dismiss the possibility that primates could have evolved from humans. On one hand they claim that Evolution does not have any direction and is spontaneous, but what they assert regarding the origin of species i.e the fruits of evolution is obviously progressive.

Here is an interesting link that highlights the evolutionist world view and how time and civilization is perceived as linear according to Judeo-Christian theology instead of cyclical according to ancient Greek and Hindu theology by modern historians.

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/purantime.htm

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How do you date the layers? Using index fossils?

http://www.humanityu...n Race 1998.pdf

There are numerous finds described in the above article...if you can refute them then i would be convinced.

For eg-

Upon learning of this discovery, J. D. Whitney began his own investigation. He

learned that Hubbs was a well-known citizen of Vallejo, California, and a former State

Superintendent of Education. Whitney got from Hubbs a detailed written account of the

discovery, which occurred in the Valentine Shaft, south of Shaw's Flat. Whitney stated: <p>"The essential facts are, that the Valentine Shaft was vertical, t

Like I said, verifiable.

How does one refute something which hasn't been confirmed in the first place?

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being polite by saying "we" instead of I.

Seems like you know all about the origin of species and how it happened.You seem to have deep penetrating knowledge of how one species transitted to another, it's like you were almost there seeing it happen.

If not then you can become part of "we" as i said it.

There you go again with your one liners.

I'm not sure how tarring other, innocent people with the brush of your particular ignorance constitutes being "polite". Generally, however, the only time it's polite to use the royal we is when you're the head member of the English royal family.

There's not something you're forgetting to tell us about you, is there? Your majesty?

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It doesn't absolutely follow that if dinosaurs had kept evolving, humans wouldn't exist - but we'd be damned skippy! :D

Edited by PersonFromPorlock
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.humanityu...n Race 1998.pdf

I challenge all those who know a lot about evolution especially human evolution or anthropology to give their esteemed opinions about the evidence discussed in the above link.

(hopefully your opinions wont be based purely on mainstream reviews of the Book written by other peoples, please read the link above and a systematic refutation is welcome).

As has been noted by others (including myself), your incessant reliance on Cremo and Thompson does not position your argument in a favorable light. As referenced under another heading, personally read the complete (unabridged) edition of this "work" shortly after its initial release some 20 years ago. The deliberate utilization of vagaries, unsubstantiated innuendo, and dated/less-than-qualified references was duly noted. Despite the facade, this is not a scientific work. Actually quite distant from such.

It may be at least reasonably speculated that the authors organized their "data" in such a manner as to present a sound introduction to their "proposition". Thus, let us look more closely at two of the initial presentations.

1) Lee/Sheguiandah - First, this site was initially excavated by Lee in 1951. Note how Cremo presents the "topic" (including innuendo). Also note that he has (apparently) quite deliberately left out the more recent research by Julig and Storck (1991/2002). This case can essentially be reduced to two factors a) the early misinterpretation of the geomorphology of the site by Lee et al and B) the typology of the lithics recovered. In the case of the lithics, these projectile points are quite consistent with the mid-late Paleo/early Archaic period(s) in the region of concern. As such, these projectile points and the specific lithic technologies associated with their manufacture allow us to place them quite comfortably in the post-Clovis Paleo/early Archaic period(s). Can elaborate if needed.

2) St. Prest - Once again, note the leading phraseology and innuendo. For example, Cremo would appear to imply that lithic technology is somehow relatively "recent" and /or a product of only the more "advanced" representatives of the Homo genus. This implied position is patently inaccurate and reflects an attempt to lead the uninformed reader to false conclusions. To detail:

a) The earliest documented lithic technology is known as the Oldowan. This technology is dated to at least as early as 2.6 mya. There is debate as to which representatives of the lineage were actually responsible for this technological advance. Both A. garhi and H. habilis have been suggested. However, there is substantial documentation for the utilization of the Oldowan technology by H. habilis post the introduction of this technology.

B) Which leads us to the emergence of H. ergaster/erectus from Africa. The utilization of lithic technology by this lineage is also well documented. This lineage has been documented as far east as Java by 1.8 mya and in northern China by 1.6mya. The presence of this lineage has also been documented at Atapuerca, Spain circa 1.2 mya. You will note the manner in which Cremo attempts to minimize the significance of the 1.2 - 1.6 mya dating. Thus, it is not at all unconceivable that the faunal remains recovered at St. Prest are the product of pre-sapiens representatives of the Homo lineage.

In short: The "works" of Cremo and Thompson are quite representative of numerous "fringe" tactics that have repeatedly been pointed out on these pages. The utilization of notably dated reference material, the (apparently) deliberate exclusion of more current research, and the literary application of leading/suggestive phraseology in order to "guide" the uninformed reader to an inaccurate "conclusion" are but a few of the reasons that the publication(s) by Cremo and Thompson are not professionally perceived to have any credible value.

Under other headings you have attempted to present yourself as a "scientist". One of the hallmarks of qualified scientific research is to be aware of the credibility and validity of one's references. This entails actually researching the methodology and documentation of said references.

Edit: Typo

Edited by Swede
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did evolve, they would probably look something like the reptilian aliens which have been said to visit earth throughout the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58567_574168879273930_849125773_n.jpg
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, verifiable.

How does one refute something which hasn't been confirmed in the first place?

The link talks about mainstream reports from scientists and archaeologists right up until the early 20th century, when the Java Man was found and there was a consensus that tertiery man could not have existed, yes it was a consensus.

When Java man was found and after the pilt down missing link forgery, the evolutionist at that point of time beleived that these were the ancestors of HSS and HSS evolved from them so HSS could not have been around when these other hominids were around i.e Only one hominid per era. The modern evolutionists/Storytellers have long since dropped this idea and now openly acknowledge that multiple hominids could have co-existed and they have dumped the linear evolution tree. But even after the correction, tertiery man is still held to be impossible by the evolutionist.

Though their premise of discarding all the eivdence and forgetting scientific literature regarding evidence of tertiary man, has been wrong and withdrawn, they still stick to the conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did evolve, they would probably look something like the reptilian aliens which have been said to visit earth throughout the past.

No real reason to think they would have become humanoid. They branched off a bit too early for that to happen, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been pondering a theory and I would like other's opinions. Obviously it would take a very long time for Dinosaurs to achieve any where near the intelligence of humans, but what would this planet be like if Dinosaurs were allowed to evolve to the point where they could invent, communicate and thrive as well as humans do. Basically think of dinosaurs as our Australopithecus.

This is my first post and am sorry if this has been touched on before.

This is somewhat absurd.

For one , what if, is pointless. Its almost like saying what if leprechauns evolved with mayans would humans still exist.

Second, birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs so are lizards, iguanas, aligators, its remnants in mutating genomes which ultimately branched I to mammals and down one far off beaten branch ,..humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason evolution was successful in plain and simple peanutism :

935189_577182455649056_737658951_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link talks about mainstream reports from scientists and archaeologists right up until the early 20th century, when the Java Man was found and there was a consensus that tertiery man could not have existed, yes it was a consensus.

When Java man was found and after the pilt down missing link forgery, the evolutionist at that point of time beleived that these were the ancestors of HSS and HSS evolved from them so HSS could not have been around when these other hominids were around i.e Only one hominid per era. The modern evolutionists/Storytellers have long since dropped this idea and now openly acknowledge that multiple hominids could have co-existed and they have dumped the linear evolution tree. But even after the correction, tertiery man is still held to be impossible by the evolutionist.

Though their premise of discarding all the eivdence and forgetting scientific literature regarding evidence of tertiary man, has been wrong and withdrawn, they still stick to the conclusion.

Funny you should mention all that. I'm currently reading a book on the history of the very subject. The conclusion has changed so many times it isn't funny. You forgot to mention the numerous finds which were initially believed to be tertiary and subsequently found to be of later date, and vice versa. Highly enlightening as to just how much evidence the anti-Darwinians have been willing...no, eager to discard, too.

None of which of course addresses the point that all of the reports cited by cremo continue to exist in isolation with no corroboration and in many cases nothing to prove that the alleged finds even occurred.

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.