frogfish Posted November 16, 2005 #51 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Troodon Is a raptor, Kronos Boy......from the family Troodontids... Based on the best possible evidence, not fantasy and film, Trrodon could of been the smartest...larger brain cavity, therefore larger brain...Large, forward-looking eyes...another sign of "advanced" dinosaurs, and possibly "advanced" intelligence...Also, bigger brain to body mass ratio... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 17, 2005 #52 Share Posted November 17, 2005 A modern day analog might be wolves or porpoises. Not really...dinosaurs weren't anywhere near as intelligent as wolves, and DEFINATELY nowhere near as intelligent as a porpoise. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the dinosaurs were capable of any kind of complex communication more profound than growling and snarling. Even the most intelligent dinosaur (which, as has been said over and over, was troodon) was only about as intelligent as an ostridge. Certainly, when Jurrassic park went and gave them a bloody language, that was just.....yeesh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkknight Posted November 17, 2005 Author #53 Share Posted November 17, 2005 so this is a Troodon vs velociraptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byuu94 Posted November 17, 2005 #54 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Sera, in the book the velociraptors are a significant part of the story, but never attack people like in the movie. They were the ususal three-foot-tall velociraptors, but the Spielberg decided to make them larger and more violent for dramatic purposes. The book has a lot going on it it, and many of the parts not in the first movie were put into the sequels. One of the main plots of the book was that Grant needed to restore the power, so that he could radio to stop a supply ship infested with raptors from getting to the mainland. This was partially used in the second movie, in which a T-rex reached San Diego in the cargo hold of a ship. Overall they didn't really do anything smart in the book, except multiplying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 18, 2005 #55 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Darkkinght, thats not a troodon....this is: I love that painting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLordOfHELL Posted November 18, 2005 #56 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Frogfish, there are many drawing and images of what the scientists believe the creature looked like, they still aren't sure. and that painting puts it about as big as an ostriche, so. No one can definatively say how smart or dumb the dinosaurs really were, we just know, they were good at survival, which does incidentally take some form of intellegence, whether it be on par with humans or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 18, 2005 #57 Share Posted November 18, 2005 (edited) No, the Troodon was about 3 feet tall...like in the picture... Sorry DarkLord, but its Perspective...the object in the foreground is bigger than those in the back...its just a small rock... But that is the generic shape of a Trrodon...the one Darkknight supplied looks more like a Pyroraptor... We also know there Brain cavity size, and their eyes..... We know their physiology...Which is enough for basic inferences. Edited November 18, 2005 by frogfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLordOfHELL Posted November 18, 2005 #58 Share Posted November 18, 2005 basic yes, not enough to say for sure what the beastie looked like. science has gotten it wrong before, and they even admit that is what they think it looks like at this time, until a more complete skeleton is found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 18, 2005 #59 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Complete skeletons of Troodon have been found...They have a pretty accurate image... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLordOfHELL Posted November 18, 2005 #60 Share Posted November 18, 2005 they still say they aren't sure of its true outward appearance, the same can be said of all the other dinos mentioned here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 18, 2005 #61 Share Posted November 18, 2005 bYes, ut skeletal structure gives a lot of info.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLordOfHELL Posted November 18, 2005 #62 Share Posted November 18, 2005 yes they can, but not every piece of informnation about a creature can come from it skeletal structure, like skin color, skin thickness, sex, how they reproduced(sexual intercourse), exactly what they ate (though the teeth are pretty good indicators of they main dietary choice), how fast they could run, and even how intelligent they were. None of these can be inferred directly from the damn bones, only by studying the surrounding soil, where it finally fossilized can we even know where it may have lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 18, 2005 #63 Share Posted November 18, 2005 like skin color, skin thickness I agree there... sex By pubic bones, we can decipher that how they reproduced(sexual intercourse), A little is known... exactly what they ate (though the teeth are pretty good indicators of they main dietary choice) And from stomach contents (if fossilizied...and others (gastroliths) how fast they could run Footprints, plus skeletal structure and even how intelligent they were We can infer from the cranial cavity, and eye sockets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLordOfHELL Posted November 18, 2005 #64 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I agree there... By pubic bones, we can decipher that A little is known... And from stomach contents (if fossilizied...and others (gastroliths) Footprints, plus skeletal structure We can infer from the cranial cavity, and eye sockets pubic bones can and have been deformed through time, so they still say that may be innacurate. reproductive activities can only be guessed at, no one knows for sure. fossilized stomach matter is so rare you can't go by that. again been shown to be inconclusive, that only shows possible weight. Again that is inconclusive, because brain size makes no difference, it is how the cells with in are connected that determine how intelligent a creature is, other wise you are looking at it with a very victorian attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 18, 2005 #65 Share Posted November 18, 2005 pubic bones can and have been deformed through time, so they still say that may be innacurate. No, actually it is very accurate...the pubic bones are much longer in male dinosaurs than females...irregularities are too rare to find reproductive activities can only be guessed at, no one knows for sure. We can infer...from modern reptiles... fossilized stomach matter is so rare you can't go by that. yes again been shown to be inconclusive, that only shows possible weight. Sorry, you are wrong there...Stride length can help find gait..... Again that is inconclusive, because brain size makes no difference, it is how the cells with in are connected that determine how intelligent a creature is, other wise you are looking at it with a very victorian attitude. We can only infer from what we have....a bigger brain and more advanced eyes, POSSIBLY means a more intelligent dinosaur... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkknight Posted November 18, 2005 Author #66 Share Posted November 18, 2005 thats a troodon pic as stated by the website frogfish...still how about this one.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted November 18, 2005 #67 Share Posted November 18, 2005 A modern day analog might be wolves or porpoises. Not really...dinosaurs weren't anywhere near as intelligent as wolves, and DEFINATELY nowhere near as intelligent as a porpoise. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest the dinosaurs were capable of any kind of complex communication more profound than growling and snarling. Even the most intelligent dinosaur (which, as has been said over and over, was troodon) was only about as intelligent as an ostridge. Well perhaps I did use a bad example....but still ostriches still communicate to a point and that was what I was trying to get across. Certainly, when Jurrassic park went and gave them a bloody language, that was just.....yeesh...Agreed! I have spoiled a few movies for friends with this attitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 19, 2005 #68 Share Posted November 19, 2005 That one is good Darkknight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted November 19, 2005 #69 Share Posted November 19, 2005 (edited) As to communication there are scientists who now believe that some animals may communicte with a kind of subsonic method undetectable to human ears. Elephants and Alligators were two that they were being researched on a discovery channel special These were real scientists, no Sci fi film writers, and alligators are archosaurs like dinosaurs, so they may have done the same. Crocodilians display behaviour as sophisticated as many mammals, and even exercise greater parental care than some. Crocs and dinos probably had very similar lifestyles. Edited November 19, 2005 by draconic chronicler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted November 19, 2005 #70 Share Posted November 19, 2005 You can hear these "alligator bellows" during the mating season...he water vibrates with sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 20, 2005 #71 Share Posted November 20, 2005 And it doesn't constitute a complex language Or even a simple one for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted November 20, 2005 #72 Share Posted November 20, 2005 And it doesn't constitute a complex language Or even a simple one for that matter Sera....How complex/simple does it have to be? Hey baby I am in the mood! That looks kind of simple to me Done with respect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted November 21, 2005 #73 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Actually it was "croc night" on Animal Planet and a scientist made the point of saying they have a "wide range of different vocalizations". And these are just the ones we can hear. Some scientists believe there is a wide range of different sub sonic voalizations as well. Crocs are far more sophisticated than most people imagine. I should know. I shared a studio apartment with a Nile crocodile for ten years. Dinos must have been at least as sophisticated as crocs. Some possibly more so, and some, like the Heerbivorous ones, probably less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 21, 2005 #74 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Sera....How complex/simple does it have to be? Complex enough to be anything worth noting above and beyond other animals...a dog communicated when it barks or whines, are we all raising eyebrows and taking astonished notes over it? Probably not Again, bearing in mind that a dog is far more intelligent than any known species of dinosaur. Dinos must have been at least as sophisticated as crocs. Some possibly more so, and some, like the Heerbivorous ones, probably less. Why? Because ancestral crocodiles lived alongside them? A number of animals evolved alongside humans, I guess that must mean they're as smart as we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted November 21, 2005 #75 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Believe it or not, Sera, the various kinds of yelps, whines and barks of Dogs consititute different meanings as well, and the point was not that crocs recite poetry to one another, but that their range of behaviour can be equally as sophisticated as that of most mammals. Just because an animal is higher placed on the evolutionary ladder does not necessarily mean it is automatically more intelligent. J. Cousteeau demonstrated that sharks were more intelligent than rats, and alligators often catch dogs. Scientists are amazed at how intelligent the Octopus is, yet it is only a boneless mollusc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now