I'm thinking, if the human race evolves in six millions years, to have technology, philosophy and civilization (or a good aproximation), why the dinosaurs can't achieve this in 160 millions of years?.
Dinosaurs evolution
Because they have very small brains.
Basically, BIIIG raptors = if you dont have BIIIG muscles you die.
If you have big muscles typically a big brain has no purpose as it only uses up loads of energy, which isn't needed anyway to do muscley things (like hunt and fight).
Humans lived in a time where there where no carnivores as big as, for example, raptors, so fighting with your brain made more sense.
Basically, BIIIG raptors = if you dont have BIIIG muscles you die.
If you have big muscles typically a big brain has no purpose as it only uses up loads of energy, which isn't needed anyway to do muscley things (like hunt and fight).
Humans lived in a time where there where no carnivores as big as, for example, raptors, so fighting with your brain made more sense.
you never watch futurama didn't you? in some other planets, not only dinosaur, giant bugs do have their own civilization. they manage to built spaceship to come to earth.
Because time is not the only factor to determine how fast sometime evolves (I helped out on a study at University that was attempting to come up with a mathematical model that could predict the rate of evolution). You also can not direct where evolution goes; but it seems developing technology wasn't the most advantageous way for the dinosaurs to survive.
I saw futurama and i dont think it's a good answer, anyway there are bugs, mosquitos and other insects that never evolutioned like the humans and they were before dinosaurs.
Well they learned how to survive to dinosaurs and humans...
Well they learned how to survive to dinosaurs and humans...
Well, it might be a capriole that mankind got and no other did for some circumstances. Another thing, for believers in gods, they have a god reason that a god created man 'as is' and created every other thing 'as is' as well 
I agree with roninmedia, time is not the only factor affecting the evolution process. and brain size is not very important or other wise, human females shall be more evolution than males as they, the females, have the heavier brains.
I agree with roninmedia, time is not the only factor affecting the evolution process. and brain size is not very important or other wise, human females shall be more evolution than males as they, the females, have the heavier brains.
I asked myself: what will come after humans? will another animal evolute like us? or this world will be dominated by big strong animals with small brains like dinosaurs ...
I am pretty sure dinosaurs evolved, but since we don't really know so much about them then we don't know about it. We don't even know for sure what color the skin of the dinosaurs were, just assume that they had colors that was easy to disguise themselves with.
It's just like the world, it changes, now the sea is taking over land, it's wrong to say that they didn't change when we don't have any proof.
It's just like the world, it changes, now the sea is taking over land, it's wrong to say that they didn't change when we don't have any proof.
we didn't say that they didn't change, all what we said that they didn't evolved as much as the human did while they had longer time to do...
Yes they are as Arnold Schwartzeneger: big muscles and small brain... 
| Quote: |
| Yes they are as Arnold Schwartzeneger: big muscles and small brain... Laughing Laughing |
but Arnold was born evolved, that's why we excluded him from the dinos[/quote]
Dinosaurs did not have to evolve beyond where they did. The form they took was already a successful adaptation of life to this planet. The proof is that they survived so long, and were only killed off by catastrophic weather conditions that would probably kill us as well.
Well, it makes sense. They didn't need to. But, does a living form evolve according to its needs and the surrounding environment requirements ONLY?
One more thing, living forms doesn't evolve because they need to, they just adapt to the circumstances around them. We should never forget that evolution has three factors to happen: Variation, Reproduction and natural selection. Of course there might be a genetic drift to accelerate the process, but it takes longer times and it is thought to be more rare.
According to this, dinosaurs didn't evolve for other reasons.
One more thing, living forms doesn't evolve because they need to, they just adapt to the circumstances around them. We should never forget that evolution has three factors to happen: Variation, Reproduction and natural selection. Of course there might be a genetic drift to accelerate the process, but it takes longer times and it is thought to be more rare.
According to this, dinosaurs didn't evolve for other reasons.
Perhaps it has to do with survival of the fittest of the species? Given the extreme in climate changes, their biology could not survive the extremes. Other species could?
| me410 wrote: |
| I'm thinking, if the human race evolves in six millions years, to have technology, philosophy and civilization (or a good aproximation), why the dinosaurs can't achieve this in 160 millions of years?. |
We evolved from a series of great apes, which grew in intelligence as the years passed as a necessity for them to survive (or rather, natural selection luckily favored us intelligence). For the dinosaurs, this might have not been that much of a concern - they were doing well without a good level of sapience therefore it was unneccessary and never quite developed. Though this is pure conjecture, I believe that the large size of some dinosaurs might have also contributed to their inability to become as intelligent as we are since most energy was going into merely sustaining the body. The smaller ones didn't need development either, being quite good hunting machines already (for example, the crocodile).
We evolved because we needed too, we were not fast, not strong, not dangerous, we were average, or below average...
Hence we became more intelligent, developing our skills, it was the only way for us to gain an advantage on others.
its pretty easy, first 'humans' lived in groups, since they needed to communicate, they attempted to make sounds -> made us able to speak eventually, since we needed to do stuff together, because we couldn't manage on our own we evolved and some people had to think about new ways to kill things, easier ways because they were a smaller group or faced larger animals or w/e...
evolution itself is pretty logical to follow, it's just the why that's hard :p
Hence we became more intelligent, developing our skills, it was the only way for us to gain an advantage on others.
its pretty easy, first 'humans' lived in groups, since they needed to communicate, they attempted to make sounds -> made us able to speak eventually, since we needed to do stuff together, because we couldn't manage on our own we evolved and some people had to think about new ways to kill things, easier ways because they were a smaller group or faced larger animals or w/e...
evolution itself is pretty logical to follow, it's just the why that's hard :p
| Poetsunited wrote: |
| evolution itself is pretty logical to follow, it's just the why that's hard :p |
Think you are far ahead of me on this one. I feel pretty much trapped in the period that covers my life span. The rest seems to consist of theories and counter-theories. Think at the time when one finally rest your head all of these theories become pretty much pointless
Crocodiles have had even longer to evolve into the masters of the world, haven't they... using their giant brains to build laser guns and elongated crocodile spacecraft.
As someone else said, time isn't the only factor. They didn't really need to be smarter when they were bigger and faster than everything else, did they? The little monkeys who got eaten if they didn't watch their step were the ones who had to be smarter to survive.
As someone else said, time isn't the only factor. They didn't really need to be smarter when they were bigger and faster than everything else, did they? The little monkeys who got eaten if they didn't watch their step were the ones who had to be smarter to survive.
if dinosaurs did evolved with the ability to think logically then would the dinosaurs be like "Denver, the Last Dinosaur" or "Dinosaucers "?
Well as for Dinosaurs, they were created as animals in a time when humans did not have the image
likeness of God... hence the deep gap in Genesis 1:2 says a lot u knowness of God
likeness of God... hence the deep gap in Genesis 1:2 says a lot u knowness of God
| gaxtest wrote: |
| Well as for Dinosaurs, they were created as animals in a time when humans did not have the image
likeness of God... hence the deep gap in Genesis 1:2 says a lot u knowness of God |
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
I'm sorry I totally disagree with you... where did they evolve from please? even the mammals you refer to created and not evolve, even if they did evolve, there must be a source of their evolution which must be created by someone ok!
| gaxtest wrote: | ||||
I'm sorry I totally disagree with you... where did they evolve from please? even the mammals you refer to created and not evolve, even if they did evolve, there must be a source of their evolution which must be created by someone ok! |
Dinosaurs evolved from the reptilians which in turn evolved from a group of vertebrates which in turn....and so on. We can trace life back several billion years (around 3.7 or so) to the first single-celled prokaryotes. How inorganic chemicals became organic molecules is still unknown but there are several theories including the 'clay' hypothesis.
Hi bikerman,
we aint quarreling here ok! now re-read what you wrote up there
dont you think someone created those things... the fact maybe u don't believe in God should not make you loose your logical reasoning becos you want to hang on what someone said....
Think about it my good friend, there's something more than the molecules you are talking about.
we aint quarreling here ok! now re-read what you wrote up there
| Quote: |
| How inorganic chemicals became organic molecules is still unknown but there are several theories including the 'clay' hypothesis.
|
dont you think someone created those things... the fact maybe u don't believe in God should not make you loose your logical reasoning becos you want to hang on what someone said....
Think about it my good friend, there's something more than the molecules you are talking about.
| gaxtest wrote: | ||
| Hi bikerman,
we aint quarreling here ok! now re-read what you wrote up there
dont you think someone created those things... the fact maybe u don't believe in God should not make you loose your logical reasoning becos you want to hang on what someone said.... Think about it my good friend, there's something more than the molecules you are talking about. |
My logic is fine thanks. I'm not the one saying that life was 'created' by some sky-fairy.
We know fine well how inorganic molecules are created. Hydrogen and helium were created in the Big Bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago. As the hydrogen accumulated and formed Suns, the nuclear fusion process then created the heavier elements (up to Iron). These stars eventually 'blew apart'. The largest stars blow apart in a very violent explosion called a supernova which can (because of the immense pressures and temperatures) form even heavier elements.
This is all very basic cosmology...
hahahha Cosmic Bruhahah I must say
So who or what caused the big bang, Ok how did the Hydrogen come into being?
Well I see you don't care about knowledge but just your cosmic theory, soonest
you will have some reasons to believe that you are wrong ok!
So who or what caused the big bang, Ok how did the Hydrogen come into being?
Well I see you don't care about knowledge but just your cosmic theory, soonest
you will have some reasons to believe that you are wrong ok!
| gaxtest wrote: |
| hahahha Cosmic Bruhahah I must say
So who or what caused the big bang, Ok how did the Hydrogen come into being? Well I see you don't care about knowledge but just your cosmic theory, soonest you will have some reasons to believe that you are wrong ok! |
LOL...this is not *my* 'cosmic theory' - this is standard textbook stuff. There is no reason at all to believe I am wrong and a huge amount of evidence that the theories are correct. That is how science works - evidence, testing and observation.
The basic timeline for our universe and the evolution of life is given HERE
It really is quite troubling that such ignorance as you display seems to be widespread in the populations of both the US and UK. Recent polls seem to indicate that a fair proportion (10-40%, depending on the poll and the country) actually believe that the world is a few thousand years old and that the biblical account is essentially correct. This is not just a case of opinion, or being slightly wrong, it is a case of being spectacularly, grossly and fantastically wrong. It is a case of almost unbelievable ignorance and either unwillingness or inability to examine the evidence rationally...
What you call 'knowledge' is simply blind faith, and more properly belongs in the Philosophy and Religion forum, not the history forum.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
My logic is fine thanks. I'm not the one saying that life was 'created' by some sky-fairy. We know fine well how inorganic molecules are created. Hydrogen and helium were created in the Big Bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago. As the hydrogen accumulated and formed Suns, the nuclear fusion process then created the heavier elements (up to Iron). These stars eventually 'blew apart'. The largest stars blow apart in a very violent explosion called a supernova which can (because of the immense pressures and temperatures) form even heavier elements. This is all very basic cosmology... |
Sky Fairy is classic... I love it...
I have this picture of some dude up in the clouds prancing around in a tutu with a magic wand now
Honestly they could only grow in population and skills. I wouldn't say their communication is bad, (nobody really knows) but they would be really inept at many tasks. They a big group of species which give more of a fell of animal-like qualities since us human's will only have different skins, races and tongues but we are all human. Dinosaurs on the other hand would never achieve perfect harmony with each other.
hello matyj,
whats so skyfairy and magic about what i said?
whats so skyfairy and magic about what i said?
| gaxtest wrote: |
| hello matyj,
whats so skyfairy and magic about what i said? |
You didn't say it, Bikerman did
Dont try and take credit for someone else's post
and at least spell my name right if you want me to respond to you again
| gaxtest wrote: |
| hello matyj,
whats so skyfairy and magic about what i said? |
Actually most of it is. The thing is you are expressing an opinion on something you know nothing about. Now, it is your right to have an opinion and nobody is questioning that right. It is not your right, however, to be taken seriously when opining from a basis of ignorance.
If you want to make informed comments then I can recommend plenty of sources on basic evolutionary theory, basic cosmology and basic palaeontology for you.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The thing is you are expressing an opinion on something you know nothing about. |
I doubt he is alone in this. We may have thousands of theories and suppositions, that could "probably" be true, but could equally be "probably" untrue or completely false. Probably unfair to expect all people to be well read according to a list of literature that is listed under "probably" informed.
People were thinking for centuries that the world was flat. Then for centuries the world was round. And now it is not round anymore. There were scientists involved in each layer of debate. Not only is the universe changing all the time, so are we as a human species, and so is our knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. It could easily happen that with the way we are evolving that a discovery be made of a dimension we never even contemplated of being there before. I hope that I can be open to that, but wonder whether all of these theories and training into fixed thinking, and looking for "patterns" in life and the Universe may keep me from observing it.
I think it is much better to think that we do not know anything, and to always look at the Universe from that point of view. Otherwise we may create our own particular brand of intellectual blindness.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
I doubt he is alone in this. We may have thousands of theories and suppositions, that could "probably" be true, but could equally be "probably" untrue or completely false. Probably unfair to expect all people to be well read according to a list of literature that is listed under "probably" informed. |
| Quote: |
| People were thinking for centuries that the world was flat. Then for centuries the world was round. And now it is not round anymore. There were scientists involved in each layer of debate. |
| Quote: |
| Not only is the universe changing all the time, so are we as a human species, and so is our knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. It could easily happen that with the way we are evolving that a discovery be made of a dimension we never even contemplated of being there before. I hope that I can be open to that, but wonder whether all of these theories and training into fixed thinking, and looking for "patterns" in life and the Universe may keep me from observing it. |
| Quote: |
| I think it is much better to think that we do not know anything, and to always look at the Universe from that point of view. Otherwise we may create our own particular brand of intellectual blindness. |
I still wonder who created the person who gave u guys the idea of cosmothology and all these ogy causes.....
Each one to his own idea, but whether you believe it or not, God is in existence and the whole nature surrounding us are a glaring evidence of his word and existence.
Each one to his own idea, but whether you believe it or not, God is in existence and the whole nature surrounding us are a glaring evidence of his word and existence.
| gaxtest wrote: |
| I still wonder who created the person who gave u guys the idea of cosmothology and all these ogy causes.....
Each one to his own idea, but whether you believe it or not, God is in existence and the whole nature surrounding us are a glaring evidence of his word and existence. |
Yeah Yeah!
Thanks for quoting other people that you probably dont even know...
so what do you have to say about the topic?
Thanks for quoting other people that you probably dont even know...
so what do you have to say about the topic?
| gaxtest wrote: |
| Yeah Yeah!
Thanks for quoting other people that you probably dont even know... so what do you have to say about the topic? |
There is nothing else to say about the topic. Evolution happens. Dinosaurs evolved, as did we. As I previously said, if you want to inform yourself then I can suggest several good sources and books. If you want to trot out absurdities, however, then you should expect to be treated like a silly child.
| me410 wrote: |
| I'm thinking, if the human race evolves in six millions years, to have technology, philosophy and civilization (or a good aproximation), why the dinosaurs can't achieve this in 160 millions of years?. |
Actually they have. There are dinosaurs among us, they've just developed cloaking devices that make them appear to be human. They'll be here, snickering at our stupidity until the day they reveal their true identity and take over the world.
Duh.
| jessicawalker wrote: | ||
Actually they have. There are dinosaurs among us, they've just developed cloaking devices that make them appear to be human. They'll be here, snickering at our stupidity until the day they reveal their true identity and take over the world. Duh. |
Very good point
There are indeed Dinosaurs amongst us and their cloaking devices (wings) mean that they are often ignored. They do indeed tend to snicker - though they also have a wonderful variety of songs...| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
Very good point There are indeed Dinosaurs amongst us and their cloaking devices (wings) mean that they are often ignored. They do indeed tend to snicker - though they also have a wonderful variety of songs... |
Yes, like "Inagaddadavida".
LOL...well, I was thinking more of birds, but I suppose Iron Butterflies are close
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LOL...well, I was thinking more of birds, but I suppose Iron Butterflies are close |
Well, then... "Mr. Tambourine Man".
hahahahaha. Get it? Ah, I'm a dork.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The basic timeline for our universe and the evolution of life is given HERE |
That's interesting that a math department of a university would have a time line for the history of the world. It seems like that would be better suited in other departments (of course just because it's in the math department doesn't mean that it's any less valid).
| gaxtest wrote: |
| I still wonder who created the person who gave u guys the idea of cosmothology and all these ogy causes.....
Each one to his own idea, but whether you believe it or not, God is in existence and the whole nature surrounding us are a glaring evidence of his word and existence. |
Oh really??? How is nature evidence for God? Details please... (I'm under the impression that the way nature works is actually evidence against God... but please educate me)...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||
That's interesting that a math department of a university would have a time line for the history of the world. It seems like that would be better suited in other departments (of course just because it's in the math department doesn't mean that it's any less valid). |
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/toiletpaper/history.html
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~s2008.astro.250/timeline.html
http://www3.hi.is/~joner/eaps/tlm.htm
etc....
But I thought that the one I cited was as good, if not better, than any other.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/toiletpaper/history.html http://www.public.iastate.edu/~s2008.astro.250/timeline.html http://www3.hi.is/~joner/eaps/tlm.htm etc.... But I thought that the one I cited was as good, if not better, than any other. |
I agree that the one from the UCR math department seems best. It's the most detailed and seems to be factual the best. The one from Worsley School is a little off factually.
| Quote: |
| The earth is over 5 billion years old. Life first originated in the oceans 3.4 billion years ago. |
I was under the impression that the best estimates estimated the Earth being about 4.55 billion years old. But in the grand scheme of things, it's still not that bad. When dealing with things that are billions of years old, the best you can do anyways is approximate.
Edit: Unless I've been mistaken all of this time and the Earth actually started forming 5 billion years ago but it took .45 billion years to form, placing the age at 4.55 billion... (I'm going to go and do more research on that).
Quite right. The best current figure is 4.54 billion years (+/- 1%).
The time to form depends on when you start the clock...if you start it when the nebula was 'shocked' into contraction then that is thought to be about 4.6 by.
The time to form depends on when you start the clock...if you start it when the nebula was 'shocked' into contraction then that is thought to be about 4.6 by.
| gaxtest wrote: |
| Yeah Yeah!
Thanks for quoting other people that you probably dont even know... so what do you have to say about the topic? |
This was a good one ....
fast thinking .... | Bikerman wrote: |
| For another thing there were no real 'scientists' in the way we use the term today before the era of Kepler and Newton...
|
I disagree. I would certainly say that at least Ibn Sina and Al Kindi were "real scientists in the way we use the term today", and both existed prior to Kepler and Newton.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | ||
I disagree. I would certainly say that at least Ibn Sina and Al Kindi were "real scientists in the way we use the term today", and both existed prior to Kepler and Newton. |
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
| ThePolemistis wrote: | ||
I disagree. I would certainly say that at least Ibn Sina and Al Kindi were "real scientists in the way we use the term today", and both existed prior to Kepler and Newton. |
Actually, yes, I will concede that. Certainly Sina used something that we would, today, recognise as an early form of the scientific method. I don't know too much about Kindi other than he was an early pioneer of cryptography .. I'll have to read up on him..
| jessicawalker wrote: | ||||
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html |
I disagree again at the classification. European scholars have constantly tried to play down Arab contribution towards science, medicine, philosophy etc etc.
Sir William Harvey is on that list for being the founder of the double circulatory system, and yet the table does not list Ibn al-Nafis who first described the pulmonary circulatory system and contibuted much more.
I cannot put it in better worlds than the former(?) CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina who stated:
| http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/minnesota01.html wrote: |
|
There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world. It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins. One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between. And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration. Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things. When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others. While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent. |
| roninmedia wrote: |
| Because time is not the only factor to determine how fast sometime evolves (I helped out on a study at University that was attempting to come up with a mathematical model that could predict the rate of evolution). You also can not direct where evolution goes; but it seems developing technology wasn't the most advantageous way for the dinosaurs to survive. |
I agree and with the dinosaurs most did not HAVE to communicate to survive. And communication was a BIG part in our evolution.
| manlear wrote: |
| I agree and with the dinosaurs most did not HAVE to communicate to survive. And communication was a BIG part in our evolution. |
| me410 wrote: |
| I'm thinking, if the human race evolves in six millions years, to have technology, philosophy and civilization (or a good aproximation), why the dinosaurs can't achieve this in 160 millions of years?. |
The dinosaurs evolution was interrupted by meteorite blast 65M years ago. Our evolution is continuation one of the branch of the evolution tree and it could survive after this blast.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Well, as far as I know most scientists think, that at least in some species of dinosaurs, there had to be some communication and social order. How complex that was, I can´t say. But if you look at their descendants today, there are many birds who live in rather complicated societies, and the more complicated the more intelligent we think they are. So one of the driving forces of intelligence in evolution seems to be the ability to live in a highly interactive society.
And, throwing something into the ring...: what do you think that remnants of us could we find in say 50 million years if our whole society was on a hunter-gatherer level as it was most of our history?
so, maybe there were rather intelligent sauroids, but we just can´t find artifacts from them.
I remember a short story in a science-fiction magazine, where timetravellers go back to the dinosaur extinction-time and find, that there are a lot of small, highly intelligent dinos running around with weapons and killing all the others off...
Related topics
 |