Intelligence in dinosaurs

[Ophiolite]

Dinosaurs may not have needed intelligence to survive. Although primates don't really need it either...

 

Hey look at us, were part of the primate order. Theirs still primitive primates running around, with a huge intellectual gap between us and them.

Are you thinking of politicians?

 

 

@Moontanman -

It is an interesting idea and one that I incorporated in the outline of a best selling SF novel () I've been working on for two or three decades. If they evolved not only intelligence, but a society comparable with ours, the question would be how would we detect it and more pertinently, how could we miss it? I think there are good answers to both questions.

[CaptainPanic]

Well not all conclusions I made were speculation, whether you like it or not it is a fact that we have not observed or found any evidence of a dinosaur holding a spear. You say it's "possible", that's as good as you're going to get without at least some direct fossil evidence.

We humans invented stuff that made us from prey to top predator. So, our technological path included weapons and fire at a pretty early stage. It is important to realize that it depends on your position on the food chain what adaptations you would need. Let us for example choose raptors as a case. (Some claim they were above average in dino-intelligence). A raptor certainly would not need a spear, or any weapon. They have plenty of weapons: teeth and claws. But they might require a better teamwork (evolve larger brains for that). They might first invent some tricks to trap prey (trapping pits or so). I'm just brainstorming here... not claiming any of it is based on actual facts. My only point is that a lack of fossil artifacts that resemble those of human prehistory means little to nothing.

[Moontanman]

Are you thinking of politicians?

 

 

@Moontanman -

It is an interesting idea and one that I incorporated in the outline of a best selling SF novel () I've been working on for two or three decades. If they evolved not only intelligence, but a society comparable with ours, the question would be how would we detect it and more pertinently, how could we miss it? I think there are good answers to both questions.

 

Please elaborate on the answers to both questions.The fossil record is so compressed that an intelligent species could have evolved and been wiped out in a few millions years. I am not asserting it happened but i am asking the question could we see evidence of these dinosaurs and what would that evidence be. I also wonder if the evidence could be seen over such a vast period of time and would a researcher automatically assume that any evidence was a hoax.

 

It is highly improbably that intelligent dinosaurs would invent a spear, since killing prey is not your biggest problem if you already have a mouth the size of a small car, full of 10 cm long teeth.

 

Not only did all dinosaurs not have such natural weapons but there are some that were approaching avian levels of brain size. There were many highly intelligent (relatively so at least) that did not have an arsenal of huge teeth.

 

We humans invented stuff that made us from prey to top predator. So, our technological path included weapons and fire at a pretty early stage. It is important to realize that it depends on your position on the food chain what adaptations you would need. Let us for example choose raptors as a case. (Some claim they were above average in dino-intelligence). A raptor certainly would not need a spear, or any weapon. They have plenty of weapons: teeth and claws. But they might require a better teamwork (evolve larger brains for that). They might first invent some tricks to trap prey (trapping pits or so). I'm just brainstorming here... not claiming any of it is based on actual facts. My only point is that a lack of fossil artifacts that resemble those of human prehistory means little to nothing.

 

 

Read back through the thread and you will see i have given examples of such dinosaurs.... I agree that lack of fossils is not indicative of lack of a subject.

 

I didn't start this thread as a magnet for nutters, i think it's necessary to speculate about this in a scientific manner, i understand this idea is far from mainstream but i think we can discuss it in a reasonable way.

[michel123456]

You can start by putting on the time line the gaps where such a dinosaur civilization(s) could fit.

 

And

 

maybe the same idea could be applied to an ancient mammal? a terrestrial pro-dolphin before becoming aquatic? there is plenty of time for that to have happened. 30 times in a million years.

 

exaggerating a little bit...

Edited January 30, 2013 by michel123456

[Moontanman]

You can start by putting on the time line the gaps where such a dinosaur civilization(s) could fit.

 

Since fossilization is quite rare and one or two million years quite a tiny thickness in the fossil record I think such creatures would be quite easy to miss.

 

And

 

maybe the same idea could be applied to an ancient mammal? a terrestrial pro-dolphin before becoming aquatic? there is plenty of time for that to have happened. 30 times in a million years.

 

exaggerating a little bit...

 

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-over-time/did-whale-evolution-go-backwards

 

The evolutionary decent of whales is quite well documented, I'm not sure how long it took from a purely land animal to a purely aquatic animal but from what i see in this link it didn't take more tan a few million years.

[Ophiolite]

Please elaborate on the answers to both questions.The fossil record is so compressed that an intelligent species could have evolved and been wiped out in a few millions years. I am not asserting it happened but i am asking the question could we see evidence of these dinosaurs and what would that evidence be. I also wonder if the evidence could be seen over such a vast period of time and would a researcher automatically assume that any evidence was a hoax.

The argument as to why we would miss the evidence is as you say, the notorious paucity of fossilisation. However, if - as I posited - they developed a society comparable with ours then we should have considerable hopes of detecting remains of cities, mines, and that archaeological favourite, rubbish dumps. (When will you yanks learn to speak proper English - garbage tips.)

And I agree with you - anyone finding such evidence, perhaps not thinking it a hoax, but simply seeking to interpret it in some other way.

[SamBridge]

We humans invented stuff that made us from prey to top predator. So, our technological path included weapons and fire at a pretty early stage. It is important to realize that it depends on your position on the food chain what adaptations you would need. Let us for example choose raptors as a case. (Some claim they were above average in dino-intelligence). A raptor certainly would not need a spear, or any weapon. They have plenty of weapons: teeth and claws. But they might require a better teamwork (evolve larger brains for that). They might first invent some tricks to trap prey (trapping pits or so). I'm just brainstorming here... not claiming any of it is based on actual facts. My only point is that a lack of fossil artifacts that resemble those of human prehistory means little to nothing.

I didn't say dinosaurs couldn't be intelligent or eventually develop complex social structures, in fact I repeatedly said the opposite. The problem is that there is not a lot of evidence for it. Some dinosaurs like herding together, it makes them harder to be individually eaten, but we haven't found any dinosaurs with spears and we haven't found enough evidence that they had social structures that were as complex as human social structures. It's certainly possible, but at this point it would be an assumption at best to say that they did.

Edited January 31, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

I didn't say dinosaurs couldn't be intelligent or eventually develop complex social structures, in fact I repeatedly said the opposite. The problem is that there is not a lot of evidence for it. Some dinosaurs like herding together, it makes them harder to be individually eaten, but we haven't found any dinosaurs with spears and we haven't found enough evidence that they had social structures that were as complex as human social structures. It's certainly possible, but at this point it would be an assumption at best to say that they did.

 

I wouldn't expect to see spears in the fossil record, obsidian spear tips possibly.

 

The second bold statement is bit problematic as well, what would be evidence of that social structure in the fossil record?

[SamBridge]

I wouldn't expect to see spears in the fossil record, obsidian spear tips possibly.

 

The second bold statement is bit problematic as well, what would be evidence of that social structure in the fossil record?

For instance not only would we see them in tight groups, but we should be able to find evidence that they had adaptations for communicating such as bone structures to optimize complex vocalization which not every animal has, we should also find them interacting seemingly with each other such as they were cornering prey over large distances which would put them at at least near wolves in some respects, we should be able to see if the bones had blunt damage done to them which fit what could have been done by others of their own species or not while they were in a group for multiple fossil records, if so we can assume that regardless of fighting they continued to be in a group and also had social hierarchy if we found multiple fossils like that and if we found that the dinosaurs of the same species were usually found to have been eating or killed by prey outside of a group as it would be signified by much scratching and cracks in bones as well as them being more or less scattered but normally never of natural causes while they were outside of a group, we could say that they even "needed" to stick in a group in order to survive which through evolution would shape them to be able to communicate better to survive as a group.

Edited January 31, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

For instance not only would we see them in tight groups, but we should be able to find evidence that they had adaptations for communicating such as bone structures to optimize complex vocalization which not every animal has, we should also find them interacting seemingly with each other such as they were cornering prey over large distances which would put them at at least near wolves in some respects, we should be able to see if the bones had blunt damage done to them which fit what could have been done by others of their own species or not while they were in a group for multiple fossil records, if so we can assume that regardless of fighting they continued to be in a group and also had social hierarchy if we found multiple fossils like that and if we found that the dinosaurs of the same species were usually found to have been eating or killed by prey outside of a group as it would be signified by much scratching and cracks in bones as well as them being more or less scattered but normally never of natural causes while they were outside of a group, we could say that they even "needed" to stick in a group in order to survive which through evolution would shape them to be able to communicate better to survive as a group.

 

 

Do you realize we don't even see fossils of hominids that show such things?

[SamBridge]

Do you realize we don't even see fossils of hominids that show such things?

Well hominids weren't aren't for millions of years for their ones to become fossilized. But otherwise we do find preserved groups of humans and we can extrapolate their lifestyle. For instances the hominids that created Stonehenge and I think there was some volcanic eruption near the Mediterranean sea than almost instantly buried a whole village but we had enough to extrapolate some of their culture. If we didn't find evidence of things like that in humans, why do we know things about cavemen? We absolutely find humans in groups and we absolutely find markings on their bones that have specific apparent causes, even over hundreds of years. If we find groups of humans buried in a large pile, we can say that it was some kind of burial place like a graveyard, possibly from a war, if it was organized and there were markings, could possibly be some kind of religion, though it would need to be investigated more.

Of course as I said before it's not only based on fossil evidence but also animals which are related to their predecessors that are alive today.

Edited February 1, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

Well hominids weren't aren't for millions of years for their ones to become fossilized.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

But otherwise we do find preserved groups of humans and we can extrapolate their lifestyle. For instances the hominids that created Stonehenge and I think there was some volcanic eruption near the Mediterranean sea than almost instantly buried a whole village but we had enough to extrapolate some of their culture.

 

Are you suggesting either of these things would still be visible after 65,000,000 Years?

 

If we didn't find evidence of things like that in humans, why do we know things about cavemen?

 

What exactly do we know about cave men? Would you expect to see such things after 65,000,000 years?

 

We absolutely find humans in groups and we absolutely find markings on their bones that have specific apparent causes, even over hundreds of years.

 

Hundreds of years vs 65,000,000

 

If we find groups of humans buried in a large pile, we can say that it was some kind of burial place like a graveyard, possibly from a war, if it was organized and there were markings, could possibly be some kind of religion, though it would need to be investigated more.

Of course as I said before it's not only based on fossil evidence but also animals which are related to their predecessors that are alive today.

 

The instances you reference are of modern humans just a few thousand years old, much of human evolution is hidden because the first hominids lived in areas not conductive to fossilization. We have little to no fossil evidence of chimps, not because they didn't exist but because they live in areas where fossilization is very rare.

 

Chimps use tools, they use wooden tools, but if we hadn't actually seen them use wooden tools we would have no knowledge what so ever of that behavior...

 

In dinosaur fossils we do see group behaviors and pack behaviors.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence...

 

I think it can be asserted that we know of no dinosaurs that used tools but to say that this rules put any dinosaurs that used tools is taking the analogy a bit too far.

 

Climbing dinosaurs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_behavior

 

 

Dinosaur behavior is difficult for paleontologists to study since much of paleontology is dependent solely on the physical remains of ancient life. However, trace fossils and paleopathology can give insight into dinosaur behavior. Interpretations of dinosaur behavior are generally based on the pose of body fossils and their habitat, computer simulations of their biomechanics, and comparisons with modern animals in similar ecological niches. As such, the current understanding of dinosaur behavior relies on speculation, and will likely remain controversial for the foreseeable future. However, there is general agreement that some behaviors which are common in crocodiles and birds, dinosaurs' closest living relatives, were also common among dinosaurs. Gregarious behavior was common in many dinosaur species. Dinosaurs may have congregated in herds for defense, for migratory purposes, or to provide protection for their young. There is evidence that many types of dinosaurs, including various theropods, sauropods, ankylosaurians, ornithopods, and ceratopsians, formed aggregations of immature individuals. Nests and eggs have been found for most major groups of dinosaurs, and it appears likely that dinosaurs communicated with their young, in a manner similar to modern birds and crocodiles. The crests and frills of some dinosaurs, like the marginocephalians,theropods and lambeosaurines, may have been too fragile to be used for active defense, and so they were likely used for sexual or aggressive displays, though little is known about dinosaur mating and territorialism. Most dinosaurs seem to have relied on land-based locomotion. A good understanding of how dinosaurs moved on the ground is key to models of dinosaur behavior; the science of biomechanics, in particular, has provided significant insight in this area. For example, studies of the forces exerted by muscles and gravity on dinosaurs' skeletal structure have investigated how fast dinosaurs could run,^[1] whether diplodocids could create sonic booms via whip-like tail snapping,^[2] and whether sauropods could float.^[3]

^{Dinosaur behavior is a subject open to speculation...}

[SamBridge]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

 

Are you suggesting either of these things would still be visible after 65,000,000 Years?

 

 

What exactly do we know about cave men? Would you expect to see such things after 65,000,000 years?

 

 

Hundreds of years vs 65,000,000

 

 

The instances you reference are of modern humans just a few thousand years old, much of human evolution is hidden because the first hominids lived in areas not conductive to fossilization. We have little to no fossil evidence of chimps, not because they didn't exist but because they live in areas where fossilization is very rare.

 

Chimps use tools, they use wooden tools, but if we hadn't actually seen them use wooden tools we would have no knowledge what so ever of that behavior...

 

In dinosaur fossils we do see group behaviors and pack behaviors.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence...

 

I think it can be asserted that we know of no dinosaurs that used tools but to say that this rules put any dinosaurs that used tools is taking the analogy a bit too far.

 

Climbing dinosaurs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygidae

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_behavior

 

^{Dinosaur behavior is a subject open to speculation...}

In reference so the length of time, yeah we can still see some markings on bones that have been fossilized, that makes complete sense because damaging a bone removes calcium from it, and you can't fossilize where there is no bone to fossilize, so scratches dents and cracks can still be visible. There could be some erosion that smooths it out sometimes, and in those cases it's not always clear what happened.

 

Chimps use a few sticks sometimes, maybe even stones, not exactly the mark of a spear-hunter. A lot of animals use sticks, birds use sticks to build nests, even otters use rocks to break clam or oyster shells.

 

I also never denied that dinosaurs lived in packs, in fact I may have even said they do in a few of my posts, but we don't say wolves have as complex of a social structure even though they have packs and communicate with their young. There's more to it than that. There's also the supposed intelligence we can trace back. While it is not totally accurate, I don't think hundreds of scientists would be completely wrong about something studied so intensely all over the world.

Edited February 1, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

In reference so the length of time, yeah we can still see some markings on bones that have been fossilized, that makes complete sense because damaging a bone removes calcium from it, and you can't fossilize where there is no bone to fossilize, so scratches dents and cracks can still be visible. There could be some erosion that smooths it out sometimes, and in those cases it's not always clear what happened.

 

I think the length of time and paucity of fossils could easily account for this discrepancy.

 

Chimps use a few sticks sometimes, maybe even stones, not exactly the mark of a spear-hunter. A lot of animals use sticks, birds use sticks to build nests, even otters use rocks to break clam or oyster shells.

 

Not the same thing...

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_chimps.html

 

I also never denied that dinosaurs lived in packs, in fact I may have even said they do in a few of my posts, but we don't say wolves have as complex of a social structure even though they have packs and communicate with their young. There's more to it than that. There's also the supposed intelligence we can trace back. While it is not totally accurate, I don't think hundreds of scientists would be completely wrong about something studied so intensely all over the world.

 

I am truly not suggesting that these scientists are wrong I am suggesting that it's possible they may have missed it. I am also suggesting that assuming something to be impossible could interfere with inquiry in that direction...

Edited February 1, 2013 by Moontanman

[SamBridge]

I think the length of time and paucity of fossils could easily account for this discrepancy.

..

Ok but the way anatomy works is sometimes only certain things make sense. It doesn't make sense that if there are scratches that matched a claw mark that the bone was destroyed by a rock, it was damage by something with sharp edges, and if those edges are relatively parallel and close enough together to fit a claw, there is a high likelihood those scratches were caused by some kind of clawed animal, possibly a predator

 

I

Not the same thing...

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_chimps.html.

 

Well, is there evidence that dinosaurs were as intelligent as chimps and used tools in this manner? If not you can't just go and assume they are without it being basically a 50/50 of being wrong. If there is so much uncertainty as you claim would would in fact support that we can't say it was any particular thing for sure, including what you're saying

 

I

I am truly not suggesting that these scientists are wrong I am suggesting that it's possible they may have missed it. I am also suggesting that assuming something to be impossible could interfere with inquiry in that direction...

 

. Yeah I don't think you were just flat out saying they are wrong, but we can't go around assuming any random thing we want for an answer and call it a discovery, and I opened up more to dinosaurs being in the same intelligence capacity as humans possibly around when they went extinct, but there's still not enough evidence for it. As I've said before, "it's somewhat possible" is as good as you can get without more evidence, I don't know why you are still debating.