I Have A Theory (number 4)

Rubecula

If the big beasts had not been made extinct 65 million years ago they might have developed an intelligent species as complex as us.

I think the likely ancestors of Homo dinosauria would have been one of the raptor species.

Just not sure which one is most likely.

Discuss.

Wibbs

I'd look at any species that was smaller than average, with forward facing eyes, free forelimbs and evidence of social group behaviour. With so many dinos that were bipedal it's a little surprising that some didn't show early evidence of some sort of tool use. Maybe they did though? Given the chances of fossilisation is so rare and there are bound to be gaps with animals that lived in areas where fossilisation was a much rarer event(rocky uplands and such), it's possible a very early step on the road to a bipedal intelligent species is out there somewhere.

endacl

Dinosaurs lived and evolved for far longer than we have. If there was a survival advantage to a massive brontosaurus being able to do calculus, they'd have evolved the ability. They didn't evolve that way for the same reason cattle haven't. There was no need for them to be any more intelligent than they were.

They had the opportunity of eons, but they didn't use it.

Feckin' wasters!

Adam Khor

Rubecula wrote: »

If the big beasts had not been made extinct 65 million years ago they might have developed an intelligent species as complex as us.

I think the likely ancestors of Homo dinosauria would have been one of the raptor species.

Just not sure which one is most likely.

Discuss.

If I remember correctly, Bambiraptor (which may be the same as Saurornitholestes) had grasping hands with opossable digits that would allow it to take food to its mouth like a primate or a squirrel (and open doors?:pac:).



Not sure if this grasping hand is a common trait for all or most raptors, or an unusual one.

Troodontids, as is well known, have been suggested as the most likely ancestors to a hypothetically human-like species, mostly because they had big brains... but big brains don´t necessarily mean a particularly smart creature. Troodon had enlarged lobes for eyesight (night vision) and hearing (it had asymmetrical ears, kind of like an owl), which explains the large size of the brain. Likewise, Tyrannosaurus rex had an unusually large brain, but this was because of the enlarged olfactory bulb.

Which would mean troodontids are not necessarily more likely to have become "intelligent" as we understand it than any other kind of theropod. One could even argue that if they were so finely adapted to night hunting, they were probably too specialized to give rise to a human-like species.

Let's consider for a moment that many birds today are considered to be extremely intelligent- comparable to apes-, and manage to use and even create tools without any grasping hands. Crows and ravens for example. Parrots do use a combination of highly flexible jaws, tongue and grasping feet, so what about those dinosaurs that had parrot-like beaks?

What about an intelligent oviraptorosaur? I mean, just look at their skulls... they look pretty complex.




They're also widely believed to have been omnivores- pretty adaptable animals, and they were very widely spread and succesful. And they even have the grasping hands, so, why aren´t we hearing more about intelligent oviraptors?
We know they had complex behavior, we know they were protective and (extremely) dedicated parents, the showy crests and flexible tails (which apparently supported feather fans in some species) all speak of social behavior. I would favor these guys over troodontids or even raptors, really, when it comes to the most likely ancestor of a "dinosauroid".

endacl wrote: »

They had the opportunity of eons, but they didn't use it.

Feckin' wasters!

Maybe that's the reason they lasted so long. Look at what we humans with all our intelligence have managed to do to our habitat. At the end of the day, maybe dinosaurs were smarter than us...

Pat_Planky

The salty croc is defiantly a big beastie. Discuss

endacl

Pat_Planky wrote: »

The salty croc is defiantly a big beastie. Discuss

Defiantly in the face of....?

Capt'n Midnight

let's look at other intelligent animals for clues

we can easily imagine primates becoming sentient

But there's also dogs.

Cats are lazy enough to develop intelligence if it meant they could spend even more time doing nothing. They may not have invented the can opener, but they did domesticate one.

It's impossible to squirrel proof a bird feeder.

Dolphins, can be really nasty

The closest to a dino would be a dino.
Crows are fierce clever, problem solving , using tools , unlocking locks, waiting for traffic lights to go red before they place nuts in front of car tyres. Breeding them might be the fastest way to get another species we can talk to without electronic aids.

Any time someone mentions bipeds as necessary for intelligence I just have to mention the octopus.
The only reason they aren't running the galaxy by now is that their brain size is limited by having their gut in the middle , and of course they don't live that long after reproduction , unless you remove the optic glands

Adam Khor

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

let's look at other intelligent animals for clues

we can easily imagine primates becoming sentient

Sentient... I hate that word.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But there's also dogs.

I dunno, Cap, in my experience, dogs are dumb. :pac:

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cats are lazy enough to develop intelligence if it meant they could spend even more time doing nothing. They may not have invented the can opener, but they did domesticate one.

Cats are intelligent AND rule the world already, just look at the interwebz... they've pretty much turned human kind into a race of worshippers and butlers...

Actually I always thought that cats were underrated when it came to the "who will rule the world after we're gone?" scenario. Everyone says mice and rats but cats will most likely survive after we're gone, and we've taken them all over the world. Unless rodents unite to exterminate their predators, I think cats could very well become our heirs... (plus they have Toxoplasma on their side).

It's impossible to squirrel proof a bird feeder.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Dolphins, can be really nasty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Any time someone mentions bipeds as necessary for intelligence I just have to mention the octopus.
The only reason they aren't running the galaxy by now is that their brain size is limited by having their gut in the middle , and of course they don't live that long after reproduction , unless you remove the optic glands

I didn´t know that about the glands. If they find out, we're doomed.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But there's also dogs.

Aye, but the "dog" shape and social grouping is stable across time. It's a "perfect" evolutionary solution. The pressures required to bring human type intelligence into the mix is very low. Ditto for the "cat" shape. On the other hand our early ancestors were under tremendous pressure to adapt and change, so much so that we're the only ones left and we got lucky. Very lucky.

The closest to a dino would be a dino.
Crows are fierce clever, problem solving , using tools , unlocking locks, waiting for traffic lights to go red before they place nuts in front of car tyres. Breeding them might be the fastest way to get another species we can talk to without electronic aids.

Yes they are clever and show clearly that brainsize comes secondary to brain organisation. However their physiology limits them. Beaks are good, but hands are way better.

Any time someone mentions bipeds as necessary for intelligence I just have to mention the octopus.
The only reason they aren't running the galaxy by now is that their brain size is limited by having their gut in the middle , and of course they don't live that long after reproduction , unless you remove the optic glands

One of the main reason octopussesssss are so clever is because of their physiology. Because they don't have an internal skeleton that gives reference points in 3d space for manipulation, their brains have grown to allow for that. Much like us though by a vastly different route. If one looks at a brain "map" our hands make up a huge part of it. Could such animals attain (modern) human intelligence? Possibly, though they would have to a) live much longer, b) organise into social groups and c) be able to move into a different environment like the air. Again their design is very old and hasn't shown any pressure to try this.

Adam Khor wrote: »

Actually I always thought that cats were underrated when it came to the "who will rule the world after we're gone?" scenario. Everyone says mice and rats but cats will most likely survive after we're gone, and we've taken them all over the world.

Oh they would survive, but predation would be a big issue and IMH their numbers would be massively curtailed. Firstly us dying off would kill off a percentage of them. Secondly domestic dogs gone feral would decimate the cat population. Look at areas that have wolves and wildcats like lynx. The latter are far rarer in the landscape. Wolves will attack and kill them given half a chance, they'll even chase off and go after mountain lions on occasion. The one disadvantage the cat has is its solitary nature. Yes they do have an extended social structure beyond what most think, but up against opportunistic apex predators in tight family groups who regularly take down prey larger than themselves(like us and few other predators) and see any competition to be exterminated, cats would be in trouble from the doggie Daleks. Funny enough they tend to leave the Corvids alone, even at their kills. Ditto for vultures. But coyotes, or cats are furry objects with targets on their back. Given the domestc dog population is of a magnitude larger than the wolf population - they're one of the most common mammals on the planet after us - cats might be in real trouble. Rats would be in serious trouble too. Without us there would be a mahooosive die off of rats.

The big problem with musing on the possibilities in other animals, past and future of modern human level intelligence with culture and art and all that, is that as an evolutionary trick it's vanishingly rare. Now I know S J Gould described it and us as another bauble on the christmas tree of evolution and that is still a popular view among many, but IMHO it's a view that's utter pants and it's a view that the evidence simply doesn't support.

The plain fact is that in the billions of years of life on this planet only one species did it. Even within the hominid family only one did it. Yes, we give Neandertals more brains than we used too and IMH there's more of that story yet to be discovered, but they were still "inferior" to us in the expression of this "bauble". If you take the entirety of the evidence of any symbolic thought before we come along it would comfortably fit within a suitcase. A square yard of French cave inhabited by us 30,000 years ago would contain more such evidence than the entire record of the preceding 3 million years of hominid endeavour.

Other evolutionary tricks are exploited by many species. Flight. That was a gamechanger. Insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, even fish for feck sake cottoned onto it. Swimming. The list is endless. Intelligence? A tiny number. Our level of intelligence? One. In 4 billion years. Every person reading this is an example of an incredible journey and an incredibly narrow set of odds. We may be a "bauble" on the xmas tree, but we're the rarest and one of the brightest. I'll bet that in an average galaxy in all those stars and planets there's maybe a single handful of creatures like us. We may even be unique in our galaxy. Given the timeframes involved it's entirely possible we're the only current ones looking out and contemplating the universe. That also brings a really heavy sense of duty we hold in our amazing hands and brains.





I didn´t know that about the glands. If they find out, we're doomed.

Frank Lee Midere

I not sure how serous this thread is. Clearly dinosaurs had more time than mammals to become intelligent. They didn't in that time. They almost certainly wouldn't in the last 65 million years.

In fact human type intelligence is clearly an evolutionary rare anomaly on earth. And maybe further than earth. While there are other convergent branches in evolution human type intelligence is a once off.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, but the "dog" shape and social grouping is stable across time. It's a "perfect" evolutionary solution. The pressures required to bring human type intelligence into the mix is very low. Ditto for the "cat" shape. On the other hand our early ancestors were under tremendous pressure to adapt and change, so much so that we're the only ones left and we got lucky. Very lucky.

Yes they are clever and show clearly that brainsize comes secondary to brain organisation. However their physiology limits them. Beaks are good, but hands are way better.

One of the main reason octopussesssss are so clever is because of their physiology. Because they don't have an internal skeleton that gives reference points in 3d space for manipulation, their brains have grown to allow for that. Much like us though by a vastly different route. If one looks at a brain "map" our hands make up a huge part of it. Could such animals attain (modern) human intelligence? Possibly, though they would have to a) live much longer, b) organise into social groups and c) be able to move into a different environment like the air. Again their design is very old and hasn't shown any pressure to try this.

Oh they would survive, but predation would be a big issue and IMH their numbers would be massively curtailed. Firstly us dying off would kill off a percentage of them. Secondly domestic dogs gone feral would decimate the cat population. Look at areas that have wolves and wildcats like lynx. The latter are far rarer in the landscape. Wolves will attack and kill them given half a chance, they'll even chase off and go after mountain lions on occasion. The one disadvantage the cat has is its solitary nature. Yes they do have an extended social structure beyond what most think, but up against opportunistic apex predators in tight family groups who regularly take down prey larger than themselves(like us and few other predators) and see any competition to be exterminated, cats would be in trouble from the doggie Daleks. Funny enough they tend to leave the Corvids alone, even at their kills. Ditto for vultures. But coyotes, or cats are furry objects with targets on their back. Given the domestc dog population is of a magnitude larger than the wolf population - they're one of the most common mammals on the planet after us - cats might be in real trouble. Rats would be in serious trouble too. Without us there would be a mahooosive die off of rats.

Nah. I'm happier thinking that cats will become social hunters like lions and exterminate dogs first. :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I not sure how serous this thread is. Clearly dinosaurs had more time than mammals to become intelligent. They didn't in that time. They almost certainly wouldn't in the last 65 million years.

In fact human type intelligence is clearly an evolutionary rare anomaly on earth. And maybe further than earth. While there are other convergent branches in evolution human type intelligence is a once off.

Dinos got more intelligent over time. Or at least the biggest brains got bigger over time, but not very big compared to animals today.


Brains are expensive to run, you might think that it's the most important organ in the body, until you realise who's telling you that.

In the Kingdom of the Blind, the one eyed man is King.

You only need to be smarter than the average bear.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes they are clever and show clearly that brainsize comes secondary to brain organisation. However their physiology limits them. Beaks are good, but hands are way better.

yes but wings \o/



One of the main reason octopussesssss are so clever is because of their physiology. Because they don't have an internal skeleton that gives reference points in 3d space for manipulation, their brains have grown to allow for that. Much like us though by a vastly different route. If one looks at a brain "map" our hands make up a huge part of it. Could such animals attain (modern) human intelligence? Possibly, though they would have to a) live much longer, b) organise into social groups and c) be able to move into a different environment like the air. Again their design is very old and hasn't shown any pressure to try this.

Given the domestc dog population is of a magnitude larger than the wolf population - they're one of the most common mammals on the planet after us - cats might be in real trouble. Rats would be in serious trouble too. Without us there would be a mahooosive die off of rats.

feral cats survive, domestic dogs not so much

On an individual basis tigers are just awesome apex predators

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

feral cats survive, domestic dogs not so much

Mainly because they're likely to be picked up by humans. In places like Russia, even some parts of Italy feral dogs are a real problem. If humans went away, yes there would be a large die off of domestic dogs but more than enough would survive. Wolves would certainly make a comeback too. Look what happens when hunting is banned. They were pretty much extinct in the lower 48 states of the US and now they're moving back in and not just from release programmes. Domestic dogs have more advantages in that they reproduce twice as fast and have a wider dietary palate and form bigger groups.

On an individual basis tigers are just awesome apex predators

That they are.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

Wolves would certainly make a comeback too. Look what happens when hunting is banned. They were pretty much extinct in the lower 48 states of the US and now they're moving back in and not just from release programmes. Domestic dogs have more advantages in that they reproduce twice as fast and have a wider dietary palate and form bigger groups.

If wolves make a comeback, I would actually expect dogs to be decimated by them- they seem to be extremely intolerant of their domesticated cousins (and of smaller wild canids). Been seeing a lot of photographs of dogs mauled by wolves lately, as the latter become more abundant and start roaming closer to human settlements.

Then wolves themselves are displaced by big cats where they coexist- apparently, when Siberian tigers were abundant- long time ago-, wolves were so rare, people who lived in tiger territory would actually be surprised whenever they saw a wolf.

Rubecula

Oddly wild hunting dogs will take down a tiger. So I assume it is a bit like 'rock, paper, scissors'

Also how do we know dinosaurs had longer to develop intelligence? Yes they were dominant a lot longer than mammals have been. However being dominant is not as likely to push evolution as a striving existance, and anyway mammals have been around a very long time. They co-existed with dinosaurs too. They are descended from mammal-like reptiles which predate the dinosaurs by quite a fair bit.

Adam Khor

Rubecula wrote: »

Oddly wild hunting dogs will take down a tiger. So I assume it is a bit like 'rock, paper, scissors'

It is interesting that there are reports of it happening, but they seem to come mostly from past centuries- whereas today, dholes (Asian wild dogs) seem to be quite wary of tigers and will usually flee to the sight of one. No dhole attack on a tiger has ever been photographed or filmed, to my knowledge. I suposse in the past, when both tigers and dholes were more numerous, aggressive encounters must also have been more common...

A weird fact: at one point it was said that dholes could take bigger animals because they could spray their apparently acidic urine to the eyes of tigers and even elephants, blinding them and making them easier prey...

lt.cmdr. data

octopi is plural for octopus,just thought id throw that out there

Capt'n Midnight

lt.cmdr. data wrote: »

octopi is plural for octopus,just thought id throw that out there

So what's the plural of whataclotamus ?

endacl

lt.cmdr. data wrote: »

octopi is plural for octopus,just thought id throw that out there

Grammar correction is more impressive with the correct use of capitals and punctuation. Anyway... No. The standard English plural is octopuses. If you want to be classically pedantic though, you might as well plump for the correct civilisation. Octopi, from the Latin, is incorrect. Octopus derives from the Greek. You, of course, did mean to type 'octopodes', didn't you? 'Octopi' just kinda slipped out accidentally...?

markfla

is this not proof enough of intelligent dinosaurs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHOWnLetNhM

lt.cmdr. data

whataclotami ?, where do octopodes live ?,in octopopolis

Adam Khor

Ok, please keep the pedantry levels at a minimum.

endacl

Adam Khor wrote: »

Ok, please keep the pedantry levels at a minimum.

Will do me best. Sometimes it ain't easy...

Capt'n Midnight

Forgot about these guys , problem solving bipeds with dexterity

Adam Khor

I've thought about them coons too Imagine the giant bipedal wolf-headed, human-handed monstrosities they could evolve into...

Rubecula

Adam Khor wrote: »

I've thought about them coons too Imagine the giant bipedal wolf-headed, human-handed monstrosities they could evolve into...

:eek::eek::eek:

Kess73

Adam Khor wrote: »

I've thought about them coons too Imagine the giant bipedal wolf-headed, human-handed monstrosities they could evolve into...

That has already happened.

I saw a documentary about it called Dog Soldiers



Never forget poor brave Spooney.