posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:20 PM
Not having read the entire barrage of replies to the Original Post (OP) I think we must re-consider for a while, our 'theories' for, that is what
they are, after all, about "evolution" or "Evolution".
We as a species are quite frankly an evolutionary disaster, looking from a strictly survivalist viewpoint. We don't do well in large packs, we don't
do well on our own, we aren't particularly strong and we aren't particularly fast either.
In fact, our intelligence, or better yet, our ability to make up for our disabilities with tools and knowledge is what ensures we survive to see
tomorrow. Without this ability, we would make an excellent meal for a pack of wild animals. Even raccoons might easily take down an unintelligent
So, why would a giant lizard who is genetically designed to hunt or forage with maximum efficiency need to use tools? Tools are for WEAKLING species.
Why would a giant lizard need a sky scraper? To file his T4s? Do his taxes? Regulate inventories? Maybe as a storage unit for the different types of
I could see a lizard with a fridge, I suppose, as that would minimize the amount of work a lizard would have to do in order to eat, but realistically,
I don't think lizards leave all that much for left-overs anyway.
Now, having said this, lets take another step back from where I (apparently) stand on this issue.
Why aren't humans better as a species then? We've not been around for long enough. We aren't really all that 'smart' either. We might be
'intelligent' but we are pretty stupid. Smart and Intelligent sound like the same thing, but are they really?
Here's a hypothetical:
A lion is hunting, lets say... a gazelle. These are quite fast. Definitely faster than a lion. However, as the lion is 1) Genetically designed for
this kind of scenario and 2) Smart and skilled (in this scenario), the lion is able to do this.
Now, without changing the genetic make up of the lion, we shall put the brain of the average working class, caucasian office-worker (male or female
doesn't really matter, but for arguments sake, lets say male) inside the body of the lion. Starving also. I can't say for certain, but I would have
to say, as this is an impossible situation to test in reality, that the human-in-a-lions-body could not get much in terms of prey. We aren't smart
enough. We can, I suppose, given enough time have the human-in-a-lions-body study the ways of the lions and eventually come to a suitable strategy to
hunt gazelle, but by the time the subject is able to perform this task would have surely starved to death or at least starved enough not to be ABLE to
hunt. These are the ways in which we are not smart.
In conclusion, dinosaurs may or may not have had advanced technologies. Arguments for why maybe are that they had a very long time to adapt and become
intelligent. Arguments for not are that they simply did not require them for their long-term and short-term survival and thus never developed the kind
of intelligence required to use tools.