"Claim: Advanced dinosaurs may rule other planets"

"Reptilian" comes from the demonic, they are not some type of physical space-aliens.

It seems to me that environmental and evolutionary factors would produce vastly different forms of life on any planet capable of sustaining life. This is the reason our planet in modern times could no longer support many of the larger prehistoric creatures that existed in the past; gravity, air quality...etc, is not the same.

I'm not saying it was dinosaurs but,





...it was dinosaurs

so kinda like that episode of voyager? where they end up finding that duckbilled dinosaurs buit space ships and escaped mass extinction and fled to the gamma quadrent? but with the dinosaurs being local as opposed to interstellar travelers? interesting article and makes sense depending on what type of conditions on the planet life would evolve into differing types of creatures potentaly even being non carbon based and or like nothing we have ever seen or imagined cool article op thanks

Yes, advanced dinosaurs are a possibility, just like advanced bugs and marinelife.

I for one, welcome our new Cyber-Praying Mantis overlords.

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Duck billed? Who are you calling ''duckbilled''?

The amazing book series Destoryermen by Taylor Anderson is about a WWI era four-stacker destroyer in WWII that accidentley goes through some kind of crazy tear in reality and ends up in an alternate Earth Java Sea where the asteroid that killed the dinos off never hit and they survived subsequent extinction events in much better form, meaning that dinosaurs continued to survive and evolve to the present day. There are mammals and birds as well, but the continued evolutionary dominance of the dinos means that the only sentient mammals that evolved were the evolutionary descendants of Lemurs.

There are also sentient decendants of raptors. The group of raptors that the books focus on the most are the Grik. Something like 1 in 400 is allowed to grow old enough to become fully sentient and they take social darwinism very very very literally. The ones they deem to inferior to become sentient get eaten. they also hunt any other species of predtor they find into extinction, and they do it slowly too, because if you kill your foes off to fast the hordes of angry moronic raptors need to look for new things to kill for fun.

The Grik came about in Africa and the Lemur people (who they call either Monkey Cats or Lemurians) evolved on madagascar and became pretty good fishermen and boat builders. They end up making an expedition to Africa, but Grik come upon them and reverse engineer the boat, leading to a slow invasion meant to bring them to extinction over time. The Lemurians respond by building gigantic boats and getting the hell out of dodge and they end up in the pacific region, where their culture is focused around the wooden aircraft carrier sized sailing "Homes" and sacred maps and navigational charts as well as land colonies on Borneo, Australia, Japan, Indonesia and Southeast Asia..

When the destroyermen arrive on the scene the Grik are just starting to appear in the Java see for the first time in countless generations using Indiamen ships they reverse engineered from some poor English sailors who also came to this alternate earth through a tear in reality. The threat is soon realized and the destroymen try to help the Lemurians rapidly industrialize and militarize so that they can defeat the Grik and not get eaten to extinction.

Enough rambling on my part, please look up the book everybody, it's expansively creative and freaking awesome!

Originally posted by GmoS719
Obviously there is some scientific basis for the conclusion.
I suspect you aren't a scientist...nothing but gobbledygook.

But there's no conclusion in the article, just some random speculation that dinosaurs could have evolved smart, and perhaps somewhere else there are creatures like them that did. But that has absolutely nothing to do with chirality of DNA, no really it doesn't! Dinosaurs had the same chirality to their DNA that we do, and that almost all life on Earth does.

What I suspect happened here, someone from this site interviewed this scientist and he discussed chirality. Then the interviewer, who probably knows little about science but remembered the old Star Trek episode where they find dinosaur-people in space, asked some questions about that. This scientist tried to discuss the topic as rationally as possible, then the interviewer tried (badly) to shoehorn the two discussions together.

It's a badly written article. Sorry.

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Yes, I have to admit I am a little slow to retain and wrap my head around this. I'm finding I have to read it over and over and I'm still not understanding the leap there. I suppose he is saying that (dinosaurs) might be the route life on other planets might possible take? Expect here us pesky mammals found a niche and took a spot on the evoluntionary scale that dinosaurs might have taken otherwise. I mean it's an awefully lot of time, millions and millions of years. Then again, they could have still became birds anyway.

Well, anything could be the route to intelligent life on other planets. Intelligence has evolved independently on Earth more than once -- squids and octopai are mollusks but are quite intelligent, on par with many higher mammals. Their brains evolved independently from vertebrate brains.

The dominant intelligent creature on another world could be something totally different than we can even imagine. They could be blob creatures or floating bags of gas, like living blimps. Who knows? If anything, something dinosaur-like is maybe too like us (a vertebrate, probably in a bi-pedal form, etc.) to be seriously considered as likely. In the total vastness of the Universe, sure, but close by to have something so alike is unlikely.

Why dinosaurs didn't evolve greater intelligence despite all the time they had is a bit of a mystery, but suffice it to say it just doesn't seem to have happened. Perhaps we'll find some fossil in the future of a dinosaur with a more highly evolved brain (we can tell by the size and shape of the brain case), but until then it seems they were for the most part fairly limited. It may be that evolving higher intelligence is very hard and it either takes a very long time before one species does this, or its very rare and usually doesn't happen. We just don't know.

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
Dinosaurs had the same chirality to their DNA that we do, and that almost all life on Earth does.

So if all life on earth does, than why not elsewhere? Or am I missing the point?

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
Why dinosaurs didn't evolve greater intelligence despite all the time they had is a bit of a mystery, but suffice it to say it just doesn't seem to have happened.

T-rex's arms were too little to reach the spaceship controls.

Charles J. Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson authored the book, Promethean Fire: Reflections on the Origin of Mindby , based on the paleontologist Dale Russell's
naturalsciences.org...
evolutionary projection of how a bipedal dinosaur might have evolved into something humanoid, had the dinosaurs not gone extinct. Dr Russell is Curator Emeritus, Research Professor Emeritus, NCSU


www.science20.com...

The extent of earth dinosaur intelligence was small ones hunting in packs. That is more instinct and impulse.

Originally posted by Mkoll
The amazing book series Destoryermen by Taylor Anderson is about a WWI era four-stacker destroyer in WWII that accidentley goes through some kind of crazy tear in reality and ends up in an alternate Earth Java Sea where the asteroid that killed the dinos off never hit and they survived subsequent extinction events in much better form, meaning that dinosaurs continued to survive and evolve to the present day.

that sounds incredible, added to my wishlist.

reply to post by Illustronic


Yes, but please read the ''Lacerta files''. They confirm the OP. Facinating.
I love Q.

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
Dinosaurs had the same chirality to their DNA that we do, and that almost all life on Earth does.

So if all life on earth does, than why not elsewhere? Or am I missing the point?

It can be, but doesn't have to be. It can be either left or right handed, both would work, but an entire ecosystem would probably have to have the same chirality if it's all related.

Life on other worlds might not even use the same nucleobases in its genetic code as life on Earth does. In fact, on Earth we have two different kinds of genetic strands, DNA and RNA. DNA uses the bases cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine, while RNA substitutes uracil for the thymine. It's most likely that life elsewhere would be carbon based and would use these same kinds of materials and amino acids because it's really quite abundant in the Universe, but that life might have a vastly different genetic make up, one that doesn't even utilize the same bases that our genetic code does and wouldn't even interact with ours on a chemical level. It would still be life, still have a genetic code, but that code would be formed of a different chemical than DNA.

T-rex's arms were too little to reach the spaceship controls.

Well, there's always that.

Not all the Dinosaurs died when the meteor hit though,or we would not have their descendants-the birds.
Maybe if the meteor had missed earth,we would have bird like creatures as the dominant species,with birdy internet,and birdy riot police.

Thank heavens for that meteor,hey?

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


The dinosaurs were a dying life form from their very own evolutionary mutations. To eat. To eat more efficiently, without consciousness. They were dying out before the asteroid/comet impact because they were eating their own livelihood away at exponentially more efficient eating means, (larger mouths, longer necks, digestive systems, huge growth). They simply grew out of their ability to adapt to climate change in the most miniscule aberrations. The mammals didn't. All the dinosaurs needed to go extinct was for Pangaea to break up into different continents separated by oceans, and then you add an impact to that, they are done.

Well, I can't prove that.

But for millions of years we see no signs of them increasing intelligence, like the curve from when humanoids mastered fire, and could consume more protein in less of their time of day than those who tried to eat raw meat, or termite mounds of bugs. This gave the humanoid that didn't have to live in trees for protection from predators not just that, but a 5X more efficient means of protein ingestion to grow brain cells they had more time to develop because eating wasn't taking all of their time anymore. They began to create innovation, which just means expansion into a more efficient means of eating, and tools. Brain is the highest concentration of protein in a living organism that has a brain.

The smarter humanoids didn't kill the stupider ones, they perished on their own.

Of course, I have no real idea. Just an extended logic theory analysis.

Sleestaks?

2nd

reply to post by AMANNAMEDQUEST


So David Icke, and myself I hasten to add, may well be correct.

I think its pretty evident that the only reason that mammals and not dinos, reptilians, giant lizards, etc are the dominant species is because of a fluke, an asteroid/comet changed the fate of the Earth.
So, to me, its not that hard to believe that different species could rule on other worlds.

With the vastness of the universe, and how many planets out there are inevitably inhabited, I'm sure that one world somewhere is home to a race of violent, technologically advanced reptiles!

However I read an interesting point on this topic somewhere recently: life developed dinosaurs on Earth because they were the best suited type of organism to survive ion this planet at that time. Even if the theory of Panspermia is correct, dinosaurs aren't a necessary pre-requisite of intelligent life as we know it (human beings). So there's no guarantee that dinosaurs ever existed anywhere else in the universe!

That would be a shame, eh?