It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by snowspirit
We have opposable thumbs and written language,
but intelligence is something I often question.
There is every chance that there have also been species in the past with cognitive abilities comparable to modern humans. The dinosaurs had 170 million years to evolve them.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Pimander
There is every chance that there have also been species in the past with cognitive abilities comparable to modern humans. The dinosaurs had 170 million years to evolve them.
No buildings or other structures? No artifacts? No technology?
I know it's been a long time, but surely something would have been left over for human archaeologists to find?
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
A lot of people confuse technological achievement with intelligence... and to be sure, creating the technology humans have does take intelligence.
But the mistake is to assume that non-technological animals are not intelligent. Non-human animals have very different forms of intelligence than do humans, but it is a big mistake to assume they are not intelligent.
All the tests devised to test intelligence of non-human animals are designed by humans and are therefore by definition biased towards measuring intelligence along the lines humans value. And clearly non-humans are limited in those directions.
So I reject completely the notion that humans are drastically more intelligent than non-human animals. We are more technological and we have an unusually highly developed prey drive, but we are not drastically more intelligent than most higher-level non-human animals.
Actually, there is plenty of archaeological evidence that has been left behind. There are many anomalous items that are "out of time" and that modern archaeology, rather than try and explain, simply sweeps under the carpet.
A simple google search will provide links to multiple sites that refer to out of place artifacts.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Pimander
There is every chance that there have also been species in the past with cognitive abilities comparable to modern humans. The dinosaurs had 170 million years to evolve them.
No buildings or other structures? No artifacts? No technology?
I know it's been a long time, but surely something would have been left over for human archaeologists to find?
Originally posted by Pimander
Originally posted by TrueBrit
Originally posted by Pimander
Could a Humanoid Dinosaur Survive The Mass Extinction?
What if we assume our hypothetical Anthroposaurus did exist. If the species were around for a little longer than modern humans, maybe they developed technology? After 65 million years it is highly unlikely that it would be recognisable, even if anything of it remained.
I cannot agree with you on this point. We find fossils because animals died and did not move, allowing deposits of sandstone and limestone and so on, to cover them and preserve them. Now bare in mind that these are mere mortal creatures, flesh and blood , just like mankind , and thier bones and even the markers of thier skin, survive even to this day, buried in obscure landscapes all over the world, waiting to be dug up. If an anthropomorphised dinosaur humanoid race had existed to the point where they had technology of any sort whatsoever, there would be evidence of this somewhere in archaeological record, since technological constructs are invariably more durable than the flesh of thier creators.
Originally posted by DragonFire1024
The proof is the fossil record we do have from that period. So it would also be likely that we would find (or have already and assuming my last statement, a cover-up) fossils of these bipeds.
Sorry guys, but you are wrong on this. Humans dispose of their bodies without allowing for fossilisation. So could dinosauroids.
In 65 million years what would there be of modern humans? Not a lot. There is practically no geological processes happening to human remains that will lead to them becoming fossilised. If there are examples they are extremely rare and would be incredibly rare in 65million years and probably not be discovered. Most fossilisation occurs in shallow water. That is exactly where human(oid) bodies are NOT disposed of.
As for evidence of the civilisation like archaeological remains such as technology or buildings - we are talking 65million years, not 6,500 (the older Egyptian). In 650,000 years there would be maybe a traces (and I mean traces) of stone materials which would be subject to erosion like everything else on Earth. 6.5 million years? Even less. Ten times that? There would be no corrodible metals or fibres. Most plastics would have been consumed by bacteria. Probably very few fossils as I said.
To repeat my statement earlier we are talking at least 10,000 times as long ago as First Dynasty ancient Egypt. The length of time since ancient Egypt ten thousand times.edit on 23/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)edit on 23/2/11 by Pimander because: typo
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by MonteroReal
We do are more intelligent that most higher level non human species, you can't develop tech without intelligence, you can see for example chimps, they are intelligent, but their technology is restricted to very primitive spears or the use of sticks and rocks, if we are not much more intelligent that them, why can't other species develop tech like us?
Our high tech is because we process much more information and use it better when needed, other species just can't process as much as we do and that makes them less intelligent.
Of course, you have reason about the test, but is very hard to say that simple math exercises, memory test are biased, why could not another species do math? or understand how to mach figures? how can that be human biased?
Originally posted by Astyanax
As to those who say dolphins, crows, chimps, etc. are intelligent, I say they may well be, but they are not as intelligent as you or I.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Imagine Earth after we have left it. Here are a few things archaeologists of some future race could expect to find: dressed stone, cut diamonds and other gemstones, various objects made of gold and other noble metals, such as jewellery and electronic components, and an incredible amount of powdered glass and iron rust.
We don't see any of that.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Anyway, the reason why we're the only intelligent species is that there is no room for two such on a planet. Madnessinmysoul explained earlier that evolution selects for survival, not intelligence. You are, I am sure, familiar with the concept of evolutionary niches, which species often compete to occupy. 'Intelligent species' looks like a pretty exclusive niche to me. Like the Highlander, there can be only one.
But what do you say to the charge that humans have devised the intelligence tests, so of course we appear to be more intelligent than other animals?
Sure, we have made incredible technological advances, but aren't we destroying our own species with those very advances? How intelligent is that?
No we don't see much, that is correct.
It is very anthropocentric to assume that all technology would be like ours. Another intelligent race may not have had technology like ours.
Also convergent evolution does allow for similar species to occupy similar niches.
Dolphins, which evolved from a dog like ancestor, share similar (though not identical) niches to some sharks, which evolved from a fish.
Originally posted by Astyanax
I should say that the best example of intelligence available to us is our own, and it is quite legitimate to use it as a yardstick to measure the intelligence of other species, so long as we use it... intelligently.
And what about our famously intelligent cousins, the chimpanzees? Clever little chaps indeed, but they don't quite match up humans in the brain department, do they? And they do use the odd bit of technology here and there, digging sticks and the like, so it isn't as if they've stuck with swinging from trees out of some spiritual affinity or carefully-adopted lifestyle choice.
They'd be us if they could be, chimps; you can see it from the way they look at us.
You must have felt it when you pass the chimp cage at the zoo, the envy, the yearning.
Originally posted by Astyanax
You mean all those hammers and spark plugs supposedly embedded in rocks? I've seen some of that, and none of it is terribly convincing. Besides, I don't think intelligent dinosaurs would make hammers and spark plugs just like ours, would they? There'd have to be some differences.
The puzzled rock hunters sent their find to the Charles Fort Society, who specialize in investigating things out of the ordinary. The Society made an X-ray examination of the cylinder object enclosed in the fossil-encrusted rock, and found further evidence that it was indeed some form of mechanical apparatus. The X-rays revealed that the metallic shaft was corroded at one end, but on the other end terminated in what appeared to be a spring or helix of metal. As a whole, the 'Coso artifact' is now believed to be something more than a piece of machinery: The carefully shaped ceramic, metallic shaft and copper components hint at some form of electrical instrument. The closest modern apparatus that researchers have been able to equate it with is a spark plug. However, there are certain features - particularly the spring or helix terminal - that does not correspond to any known spark plug today. The rock in which the electrical instrument was found was dated by a competent geologist at 500,000 years old.
Emphasis Pimander's Source: www.pureinsight.org...
Originally posted by Astyanax
We don't see any. Of what I said.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Also convergent evolution does allow for similar species to occupy similar niches.
Not in the same geographical location, they don't. And the range of a technological species will ultimately be worldwide.
(snip)
I believe dolphins and sharks stay away from each other in the wild, though about a third of adult dolphins show shark bite scars (I googled ). Luckily, there's plenty of fish in the sea. Or there used to be.
Originally posted by Astyanax
There are a lot of very gullible folk on ATS. You don't want to go believing everything they tell you.
It remains one of the greatest human fossil discoveries of all time. The bones of a race of tiny primitive people, who used stone tools to hunt pony-sized elephants and battle huge Komodo dragons, were discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004.
www.guardian.co.uk...
H. floresiensis...hung on in Flores until about 17,000 years ago. This latter figure is staggeringly close in terms of recent human evolution and indicates that long after the Neanderthals, our closest evolutionary relatives, had disappeared from the face of the Earth around 35,000 years ago, these tiny, distant relatives of Homo sapiens were still living on remote Flores.
www.guardian.co.uk...
Originally posted by Turq1
Oh come on, a monkey that has been trained to do one thing, and excels at it (shockingly), is supposed to be an example of how monkeys are close to us as far overall achievement? Do you know what the monkey's motivation is? A cookie. That's intelligence right there. What makes us human isn't about performing well in a niche game...
edit on 25-2-2011 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)