Were dinosaurs more evolutionarily advanced than humans???

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The next dominant species will be a cockroach springtail hybrid.

a reply to: Phage

A) i said there was really no metric to measure advancement..

B) I’m pretty sure they presently think they had feathers and were warm blooded.. so maybe not so bad...


C) extinction events tend to kill off all the super predators and big herbavores.. which are usually the dominant species..


That means every extinction event starts the biodiversity over but with the “worst” species of the previous generation.


After the Dino killer meteor all the big “advanced” Dino’s died... leaving the little mammals and Dino “trash” to become all we see before us today.

Don’t get me wrong it is not a start back to zero, but there is definitely a lot of advancement lost.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

What survives in general depends on a lot of things I'm sure. The T-Rex is an ancestor of the chickens.

All animals are equally evolved for their species. We humans can exist in any environment due to our ability to problem solve and being omnivores. Dinosaurs, the big ones, could only exist in a very narrowly defined environment. I suspect they would have died off on their own due to their size, food and temperature requirements. Any species that can adapt to environment and food source would win out in the end.

We can even build our own environments, in fact I'm siting in one now typing this, a house with heat. Given ample notice to prepare, we could probably survive and ELE that wiped out everything else. We are capable of even leaving our home planet for another eventually.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
In an objective view of evolution, "advanced" isn't really the right term.
The successful animal is one that is adapted to the environment and competitive.
When the environment and the competition change, then the criteria for success change.

The dinosaurs were obviously well-adapted to the environment they were living in.
Humans are well-adapted to the environment we're been living in.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

A) i said there was really no metric to measure advancement..

But your premise is based on the idea there is.

B) I’m pretty sure they presently think they had feathers and were warm blooded.. so maybe not so bad...

Right. They would do great out on the ice. Swimming around. Catching seals.

C) extinction events tend to kill off all the super predators and big herbavores.. which are usually the dominant species..

What do you mean dominant? There are more of them? Are you sure about that? While it is far from certain what the actual mechanism of extinction events may have been, it is entirely possible that larger animals may have simply been starved out when the environment changed. When the environment changed.

That means every extinction event starts the biodiversity over but with the “worst” species of the previous generation.

False. It means that those who were better adapted to the changed environment survived.

Don’t get me wrong it is not a start back to zero, but there is definitely a lot of advancement lost.

There is no such thing as "evolutionarily advanced." There is no arrow of evolution. It is not linear.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Evolution can apparently happen in bursts.

Take the Cambrian period for instance.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Ah, but what happens when that polar bear happens across the nest of dino eggs? Lunch time.

Not to mention what happens when winter starts biting and gnawing at the world. Next spring, the polar bear will be there, the dino, not so much.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think you have oversimplified this.

Dinosaurs are still here as birds, they are not extinct, just evolved. When you use the word dinosaur you are describing many species, some as diverse from one another as a mouse is from an elephant.

Mammals have also been here a long, long time. To compare, you would have to compare mammals to dinosaurs, not dinosaurs to humans.

Mammals came on the scene in the Late Triassic.

Not forgetting reptiles, crocodiles, alligators, trilobytes, various species of shark. But back then, they had fleas that were two inches long. Can't imagine how far those would be able to propel themselves. Even insects were around then.

a reply to: solve

The next dominant species may very well be one of our own creation should artificial intelligence ever come to fruition humanity 2.0 might not be too far behind.

Evolution is a scam.

So no they were not more advanced than us.

a reply to: howtonhawky

BWAHAHAHA

a reply to: Blaine91555

A) No they had a common ancestry.. chickens are not directly related because all the big Dino’s died in the metro strike ... ALL OF THEM..


The present theory is that the particles thrown up into the atmosphere came back down and heated the atmosphere to 1200 degrees EVERYWHERE..


So all that survived were small burrowing creatures and anything below 50 feet deep in the ocean..

So all the alpha predators died , only leaving “the trash”..


B) there were big Dino’s on every continent except Antarctica for like 200 million years..


That doesn’t seem very much of a narrow range to me.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Evolution is a scam.

Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it isn't true.

So no they were not more advanced than us.

Thanks for proving my point in the very next sentence. You're a real peach.

a reply to: Phage

Bigger is almost always better in the animal kingdom.

The present “best theory” is the atmosphere super heated to 1200 degrees and killed EVERYTHING that wasn’t 18 inches underground or like 50 feet under water..


There is not one large dinosaur fossil that has ever been found after the meteor strike.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Bigger is almost always better in the animal kingdom.

I disagree.
In any case, when it comes to evolution, that which survives is the better.

The present “best theory” is the atmosphere super heated to 1200 degrees and killed EVERYTHING that wasn’t 18 inches underground or like 50 feet under water..

Why do you say that is the best theory?
www.researchgate.net...

a reply to: howtonhawky

Not exactly no. It's been fairly well confirmed for a while now. Evolution is a thing.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I know this is a hard thing to apply a metric to, but I was thinking to myself “were they really primitive?? Or are we more primative evolutionarily???

If we are assuming that major extinction events wipe the slate clean, which I know isn’t 100% the case..

So the dinosaurs had like 135 million years of evolution as they “ruled the earth” and humanity has only had 65 million years of evolution that led to our dominance.


So does that mean the dinosaurs were actually more advanced physically because they have had longer to adapt to their environment???


I’m asking a weird question That I don’t even know if there is an answer to....



But when you compare the pre extinction event animals they seem better adapted to fit their environments..

If you brought them to modern times they jump straight to the top of the food chain..

I think your metric for determining "evolutionary" dominance is off.

First you are comparing class of animal (dinosaurs) to a species of another. Problem with comparing a class of animal to a species is there are many, many different types of dinosaurs. Each of which developed differently on the evolutionary scale and at different times in history.

So even if intelligence, physical attributes and dominance of one's environment were linked solely to the amount of time a certain species had on this planet, which they absolutely are not, no dinosaur lived throughout the entirety of the age of dinosaurs. Certain dinosaurs lived and dominated only a portion of the entire age of dinosaurs. Others simply died off because either they became (evolutionary speaking) too specialized and could not adapt to changes in their environment or other animals filled their niche better.

Any evolutionary advantages a particular species of dinosaurs achieved weren't passed off to other species of dinos.

Second thing is the age of dinosaurs was somewhere in the range of 200 million years long. Modern man has been on this planet for at most 120,000-200,000 years. We've only had civilization in the last 6,000-7,000 of those. Something happened to man to "jumpstart" our intelligence and subsequent domination of the planet. Something so unique happened that it only happened to us, some say it was the development of agriculture, others say it was eating meat. Others put forth the alien seeding theory. I don't know what it was but as far as I know we are unique on this planet.

I am not aware of any animal, species or class of beings that has been able to better adapt to their environment and shape the environment around our needs/wants then humans. Dinosaurs as far I know were never able to achieve that level of dominance over their environment.

If dinosaurs were brought back they almost certainly would not jump to the top of the food chain. Why? Humans have show a remarkable ability, even before guns, to kill animals much larger than them and in mass quantities. Dinosaurs would be hunted just the same as any other large game.

We are the top of the food chain. This is a simple fact and it will only change if an outside force more advanced than us takes an interest in this planet or another big rock comes crashing down.

a reply to: seagull

That was AWESOME! My favorite was the elephant that couldn’t stand up — but was trying every way he could to get more fermented fruit. 🤣

a reply to: bphi1908

A) I don’t really have a metric.. nor do I really think one exists:.

Just a crazy thought..

Welll I bet a metric COULD exist if we had ALL the data.. something we will never have.

However, I think if there were a better metric it would go along the lines of “better armor”,” better teeth”, “stronger” jaws.. ect..


As a species changes it gets better. Not worse. That “getting better” stacks as a species continues to adapt to its surroundings.

With the exception of a big extinction level event quite a few dinosaurs survived the whole time.. they just didn’t stay the same shape.

The meteor culled the animals that were best adapted and made the animals the least adaptive king.


We came from those who were least adaptive..


You gotta think ground is lost with every extinction event the question is “how much ground.”


B) Doesn’t you hyping of humanity kinda poop on your take on the situation..

If we get wiped out by the same event as the dinosaurs, would mice be the most advanced life forms because they survived when lions and humans didn’t??


Or would we have started over with the “lowest” life form???

As a species changes it gets better. Not worse. That “getting better” stacks as a species continues to adapt to its surroundings.

I see you are taking the Highlander approach to evolutionary science. Each subsequent species takes on the attributes of previous species and becomes more powerful as a result, this is wrong but highly entertaining and by the way would make an awesome video game.

With the exception of a big extinction level event quite a few dinosaurs survived the whole time.. they just didn’t stay the same shape.

Can you name one of these dinosaurs species that can be found to have lived in all three era of the dinosaur age (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous?)

The meteor culled the animals that were best adapted and made the animals the least adaptive king.

Thats not that works. The animals that survived the meteor strike and thousands of years after seem like they were more adaptable to a rapidly changing environment.

B) Doesn’t you hyping of humanity kinda poop on your take on the situation..

I guess me being human does leave me a predisposed to a certain point of view on this. However no, it does not mean it poops my take. My take on where humanity resides on the top of food chain hierarchy is not a political point of view, it isn't opinion. The very notion that you and I are having a conversation in a written language on electronic devices hooked up to magical means of instantly delivering information to any point on the earth I think is proof enough that we are the most evolutionary advanced species to ever walk the face of the earth.