It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But your premise is based on the idea there is.
A) i said there was really no metric to measure advancement..
Right. They would do great out on the ice. Swimming around. Catching seals.
B) I’m pretty sure they presently think they had feathers and were warm blooded.. so maybe not so bad...
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.
C) extinction events tend to kill off all the super predators and big herbavores.. which are usually the dominant species..
False. It means that those who were better adapted to the changed environment survived.
That means every extinction event starts the biodiversity over but with the “worst” species of the previous generation.
There is no such thing as "evolutionarily advanced." There is no arrow of evolution. It is not linear.
Don’t get me wrong it is not a start back to zero, but there is definitely a lot of advancement lost.
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.
Bigger is almost always better in the animal kingdom.
Why do you say that is the best theory?
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..
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..
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.
B) Doesn’t you hyping of humanity kinda poop on your take on the situation..