Living Dinosaur

It should have evolved somewhat assuming that Evolution is true. Mind you Evolution is a theory and nothing more at the moment. I have examined the Evolutionary theory as much as any 15 year-old can so please excuse me if I am wrong. Based upon what I know, the Evolution of lifeforms would have to have been originally triggered by something besides an animal.
A sudden change in enviroment would probably shuffle a Dino's DNA enough to survive. The more radical change in the enviroment, the more radical the shuffle of the Dino's DNA. However, there is a limit to how fast creature's can adapt, therefore it couldn't be to much of a radical change because it would then take too long for adaption and eventually cause the extinction of said Dino.
Follow me?

Therefore, if the enviroment hasn't changed much in the Congo since whenever this Sauropod's predicted exporation date, then I believe it could have remained the same. It's too big for anything else to really pose a threat to it(excluding pack hunting). Therefore, there would be then no cause for a change to take place.

Of course I could be wrong as I am only human(or at least I think so).

Some of you guys (and gals) have wild theories on evolution.

Evolution is the result of a mutation occuring in genes. If the mutation is beneficial then it will be likely be passed on through mating, if not it will die with its body.
A sauropod (long necked) dinosaur living in the jungle is in its natural habitat and so any mutations will not really be beneficial as they are already well adapted to survive where they are.

While we come to the same conclusion I believe that your method is faulty. A benefical mutation?
As far as I know we have never seen any creature NATURALLY gain a BENIFICAL mutation. We have seen loss of DNA and a shuffling of what was already there. Do you know what cancer is? It's a mutation in a cell. As far as I know there has been no record of a benifical cancer.

However, as we came to the same conclusion I don't think we should turn this into an argument.

Peace,
Void

I believe this creature could exist as a living dinosaur. Who says that life has to evolve? There maybe different types of the same family, but they are the same. I also believe that the lake monsters, are all living dinosaurs. We have yet to see all that there is to see on our earth. Just look at what has been going on recently with all the new types of animals that have been found.

It makes me wonder why the government ,ours or another, hasn’t tried to go find this creature or maybe why some agency like and WWF hasn’t gone looking for it because its got to be close to extinction.

The problem is Sauropods are plain creatures. They were designed for open plains. In a place like a swamp with very little area to move they never appeared. Note that this is based on fossils. There might have been a swamp sauropod but that is rather unlikely.

Maybe they did evolve from their past ancestors and instead of getting extra limbs or gills they got smaller and more adapt to the swampy environment, because they knew that they and to survive away form people.

Yes spaceman ... 65 million year's ago they knew in advance about the human species and forced themselve's to get smaller ... even though the claim for this dino is pretty much normal sized.

If this particular dino did survive, it more than likely just adapted to the enviroment it managed to survive the extinction in. So far, all claim's of this dino is of normal size, not smaller.

They just found how many new species of animals in Papau, New Guinee (sp?) that they believed to have been extinct? All those new plants, animals, birds, frogs, etc.

Whos to say that there isn't a reclusive species of dinosaur, living in an enviroment that was almost identical to when they roamed the earth?

Originally posted by Voidmaster
It should have evolved somewhat assuming that Evolution is true. Mind you Evolution is a theory and nothing more at the moment.

Evolution allways has been and never will be more than a theory, just like every other scientific theory.

A sudden change in enviroment would probably shuffle a Dino's DNA enough to survive. The more radical change in the enviroment, the more radical the shuffle of the Dino's DNA.

No.
DNA is allways mutating. If the environment was suddenly filled with mutagens and carcinogens, then the DNA would experience more mutation.

Therefore, there would be then no cause for a change to take place.

Indeed. If the environment doesn't change, and thus there are no selective pressures, then the organism won't change much.

However, from what is understood about sauropods, their usual habitat was not a congo-like jungle. I wouldn't expect them to survive there but not in their natural habitat.

I saw a documentary last year about the African forests and how they ebb and flow
with climate change.
The programme-makers filmed the creatures that inhabit the jungle around the secluded lakes where the so-called 'Mokele-mbembe' supposedly lurks.

They filmed the Okapi, an animal built for running across plains and yet, spending most of it's life in the thick vegetation of the forests.
After realising that the jungle can surround plains, engulf them and also the animals that prefer the flat areas, they eventually sought one of the tribes that also inhabit the forest.
The natives commented on Mokele-mbembe and indicated that this great leather-backed beast boasted a horn that it tore the thickets apart with.

The film-makers showed the men of the tribe a book with known African animals in and waited to see what these rough, but honest men of the forest would say.
The tribesmen laughed and called out the name Mokele-mbembe and pointed at a picture in the book.
The culprit... the Rhinocerous.
No dinosaur, no concerns of evolution, just a poor creature that got 'tree-locked' by the out growing jungle.
Oh and just so there's no confusion, there are several rhino's in that area.

Originally posted by Produkt
Yes spaceman ... 65 million year's ago they knew in advance about the human species and forced themselve's to get smaller ... even though the claim for this dino is pretty much normal sized.

i love humor isn't it great?

[edit on 20-2-2006 by spaceman16]

Ahhh.. Mokele-Mbembe... (*cracks his fingers*), this is my territory.



This is a picture of an "ica stone". This is just one of approximately 50,000 stones found in Peru that were carved by an ancient people. They range from the size of a golf ball to the size of a small car. On each of these stones, there is a carving of a dinosaur, everything from the T-Rex to the Brontosaurus. These detailed drawings could not possibly have been made from fossils or dinosaur bones, since it takes decadeds for modern day scientists to find every last bone of a dinosaur buried underground. These stones depict pictures of people riding these dinosaurs, hunting these dinosaurs, and dinosaurs sometimes chasing them. The question is... how did these people know about dinosaurs when they should have been wiped out by a meteor millions of years ago? This, is where you draw your own conclusions...

Here's an interesting site dealing with dinosaurs, the bible, evolution, and creationism. It's a bit obscure... but interesting nonetheless. [url=http://drdino.com]>.

and Ironman... here's an interesting quote I found:

But in 1980, Dr. Roy Mackal from the University of Chicago had read all of these stories about those creatures still alive in African swamps. He was a microbiology professor. So he decided he should go to the Congo Swamps and check it out for himself. He went over to the swamps and spent six weeks. He said it’s the most miserable swamp in the world. Right on the equator. 95 degrees all the time. And 95 percent humidity all of the time. Mosquitoes landed on them at the rate of 1000 per hour. Just a miserable place to go. They were there for six weeks. They talked to the natives that lived in the swamp and said, "Do you have any crocodiles in this swamp?" And they said, "Oh, white man, we have big crocodiles!" They paced off on the sand bar how long they were and nobody would believe them. Until 1983 or 1984, one of the expeditions that went to that swamp saw a fifty foot crocodile! Now if you are a pygmy, four feet four inches tall, a fifty footer looks real big to you!
They asked the natives, they showed them pictures in a kid’s coloring book. They said, "Have you ever seen an animal that looks like this?" The natives said, "Oh yeah, that’s Mokele Mbembe. He lives in the swamp." Dr. Mackal said, "Fellows, that’s a dinosaur! Don’t you know they’ve been dead for 70 million years?" The natives said, "We’re sorry, we didn’t know about that. All we know is we see them out there every once in a while when we’re fishing in the swamp."

[edit on 2/20/2006 by TheB1ueSoldier]

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
These detailed drawings could not possibly have been made from fossils or dinosaur bones, since it takes decadeds for modern day scientists to find every last bone of a dinosaur buried underground.

The Ica stones are admited fakes, and they've never been shown to exist prior to popular representations of dinosaurs. Apparently the representations even change on newly found stones as the perceptions of dinosaurs has changed. Furthermore the scratches on them are fresh.

Here's an interesting site dealing with dinosaurs, the bible, evolution, and creationism. It's a bit obscure... but interesting nonetheless

That site is a joke.

they showed them pictures in a kid’s coloring book. They said, "Have you ever seen an animal that looks like this?" The natives said, "Oh yeah, that’s Mokele Mbembe. He lives in the swamp."

The natives would call any big monster-thing picture shown to them 'mokele mbembe'.

I am pretty open minded when it comes to the issue of extiction.
They've found the Celicamp in africa, why not a dinosaur too. I have seen some of the threads that are dealing with Bigfoot,Yeti and Lochness,they are pretty much all the same realm of thought,"What if?" though there has been traitors to the field of Cryptozoology and hoaxers, they kind of ruined for the center placed thoughts of people that didn't know one way or the only to be betrayed by someone seeking fame and fortune.
This thread for the most part was informative and the conversations are negotiable, "We just don't know what is all left out there for us to find and then redefine our initial thoughts."

provide some links or at least some evidence to back up what you say. if the ica stones are fake, then i retract what i said.

Allred,
Does Celicamp refer to the Ceolicanth ? Prehistoric fish ?
Wasn't found near Africa, but the area it was found in eludes me, atm.

Just wondering,
Lex

I've been looking around on the web for additional info on the Ica stones, and this is what I've found:

The Ica stones are composed of andesite.
Etching of these stones with primitive tools is extremely difficult.
(Andesite is a gray to black volcanic rock with between about 52 and 63 weight percent silica (SiO2). Andesites erupt at temperatures between 900 and 1100° C). Additionally they have a cover of a natural, dark varnish (a dark patina) created by bacteria over thousands of years. By etching, the dark varnish is removed, the lighter mineral beneath appears and depictions etched in the stones are visible.
The word andesite is derived from the Andes Mountains, located along the western edge of South America.Andesite is the common rock there….

The scientists from different countries were interested in Ica Stones and especially analyzed the grooves of the etchings and the dark varnish on the stones… The analysis indicated that the stones are very old… and can origin from a past, much earlier than the Inca or Pre-Inca periods.
"...The analysis indicated that the stones were probably formed during the Mesozoic Era (about 230 million years ago) and the oxidation covering the engravings on the stones indicate the images were made in ancient times...."( "Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica", E.Benjamin)
The Ica Stones were not seen for the first time in 1960's. They were first seen and recorded by Jesuit missionary Father Simon, who accompanied Pizarro in 1525. Early Spanish reports tell that some of these stones were sent back to Spain by Spanish explorers in 1562, and it was concluded that Ica's stony artifacts ARE NOT of recent age.

While I do agree that some of the Ica stones may have been faked in order to sell them to tourists, the majority of the Ica stones must be authentic.