Why Were Dinosaurs So Successful

[short recoil]

How about this? How successful would a dinosaur be in today's world of the internet, global economies, and lots of things to smash?

it would probably cause havok for a few hours, probably be quite scared and run into things, depending on the size it could do a bit of damage........then the police/military would come along and shoot it.

I imagine something like a triceratops or one of those clubbed tail things would do the most damage......like some kinda massive rihno.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

I just read an extremely interesting article on this, and wanted to see if anyone had some opinions, no "Because teh raptors were leet" answers please.

You read Discover as well I see.

 

[h00dlum]

To put it in the words of mr Smith "Humans are a virus"

Think of it, the worst thing to happan to this planet is us, unlike every other thing on Earth, we cant live without useing up the planets resoruces, at least we cant now. Dinos did'nt build power planets that sucked up the earths energy, they did'nt drop bombs, etc.

They lived for so long because they lived with natures balance, one dino eats a tree, anouther eats that dino, that dino dies and around one eats that. With humans we destroy woodland areas, we spray land with Cems that are bad for the earth. All in all the only way we will live that long is if we move to other planets, destroying them as we go.

We also have helped other things along the road of death by hunting them. If dinos had been around at the same time of us, we would of killed them too.

All in all, I think we suck.

edit: johnmedz, if your not going to take part in the thread, dont post.

You said exactly what i wanted to say.. :cheers:

 

[kmack]

You read Discover as well I see.

yup! did you like the article?

 

[Exclamatio]

u cant really compare dinosaurs with humans

we are 1 species

dinosaurs were thousands not just 1

 

[short recoil]

u cant really compare dinosaurs with humans

we are 1 species

dinosaurs were thousands not just 1

Good point.

In essence we group "mamals" then .......mamals as a whole have been quite succesful, humans will ruin everything though, just you wait.

 

[el Chi]

u cant really compare dinosaurs with humans

we are 1 species

dinosaurs were thousands not just 1

Well, you could say we're talking about the many different stages of humans: paleolithic man, neanderthals, rednecks, right up to the current day!

Besides, the comparison is somewhat hypothetical as it is - I fear pedanticism'll get you nowehere in this dicussion, friend.

 

[kmack]

u cant really compare dinosaurs with humans

we are 1 species

dinosaurs were thousands not just 1

haha, first of all, i said ALL PRIMATES not just humans. Check out the Kingdom Animilia sometime, it was a decent comparison according to the laws of the animal kingdom.

 

[Exclamatio]

of course its hypotetical
unless of course we have some all seeing eye able to tell us exactly what lies in the future

i think comparing the stages of man would be a little fairer although whether or not to rednecks is debateable and probably worthy of its own thread

must also admit i havnt a clue what pedanticism means so i cant comment on that as dictionary.com seems to be down



edit: kmack sorry about that i guess i missed out on that
just skimming through

 

[kmack]

of course its hypotetical
unless of course we have some all seeing eye able to tell us exactly what lies in the future

i think comparing the stages of man would be a little fairer although whether or not to rednecks is debateable and probably worthy of its own thread

must also admit i havnt a clue what pedanticism means so i cant comment on that as dictionary.com seems to be down



edit: kmack sorry about that i guess i missed out on that
just skimming through

no worries! and LOL at the rednecks

 

[el Chi]

must also admit i havnt a clue what pedanticism means so i cant comment on that as dictionary.com seems to be down

Pedantic is basically being nit-picky. For example, when people watch improbable films (action or sci-fi or whatever) and say things like
"Yeah but that explosion would totally kill him. That's ridiculous."
or
"That's just stupid - you wouldn't be able to hear an explosion in space."
As it goes, pedanticism isn't actually a word I just conjugated it to fit in with my sentence. I'm an English student, it's allowed!

 

[Dan]

To put it in the words of mr Smith "Humans are a virus"

Think of it, the worst thing to happan to this planet is us, unlike every other thing on Earth, we cant live without useing up the planets resoruces, at least we cant now. Dinos did'nt build power planets that sucked up the earths energy, they did'nt drop bombs, etc.

They lived for so long because they lived with natures balance, one dino eats a tree, anouther eats that dino, that dino dies and around one eats that. With humans we destroy woodland areas, we spray land with Cems that are bad for the earth. All in all the only way we will live that long is if we move to other planets, destroying them as we go.

We also have helped other things along the road of death by hunting them. If dinos had been around at the same time of us, we would of killed them too.

All in all, I think we suck.

How can you say that we are bad for the planet? Is the planet a person does it have feelings does it get hurt? If you mean that we will alter the status of the earth, well of course, the earth will always be changing. If you mean that we are hurting the other animals on the earth well so what, we're animals too. Should cows be concerned that their farts are causing global warming? The purpose of life is to continue itself, aka look out for numero uno, that's us.

As for the original thread, comparing dinosaurs to humans is just stupid. Dinosaurs are not a single species, we are. That's like saying why do you think that single celled organisms ruled the world billions of years ago, or why did rocks and magma rule the world billions and billions of years ago.

 

[short recoil]

How can you say that we are bad for the planet? Is the planet a person does it have feelings does it get hurt? If you mean that we will alter the status of the earth, well of course, the earth will always be changing. If you mean that we are hurting the other animals on the earth well so what, we're animals too. Should cows be concerned that their farts are causing global warming? The purpose of life is to continue itself, aka look out for numero uno, that's us.

As for the original thread, comparing dinosaurs to humans is just stupid. Dinosaurs are not a single species, we are. That's like saying why do you think that single celled organisms ruled the world billions of years ago, or why did rocks and magma rule the world billions and billions of years ago.

We are bad for the planets balance which has refined naturally over the years, as you say we should look after ourselves, its how we have evolved ....then we should see that what we are doing now is ****ing up the environment, that effects us.

Well in history nature has prooven to be pretty good at surviving and getting round problems, mabye a virus will wipe most of us out.

I get pissed off with people who blindly live for nothing, just comsume and do nothing worthwhile, dont think.

"the purpose of life is to continue" .....i cant see the logic in that, continue doing what?......breeding? and over populate the earth?
There is no purpose in life really.

 

[Dan]

no, it makes perfect sense that the purpose of life is to continue itself. Life that doesn't continue itself ceases to exist. Therefore the only things we have around are things which are good at existing, aka not dying. Everything else has disappeared. The theory of evolution really applies to everything. Rocks are good survivors cause they are always around. Magical elves are poor survivors because they don't exist. Existence is really the only measure in the universe, the thing that defines reality. Everything that currently exists is good by definition, everything that doesn't is not doing good in these broad terms.

 

[short recoil]

no, it makes perfect sense that the purpose of life is to continue itself. Life that doesn't continue itself ceases to exist. Therefore the only things we have around are things which are good at existing, aka not dying. Everything else has disappeared. The theory of evolution really applies to everything. Rocks are good survivors cause they are always around. Magical elves are poor survivors because they don't exist. Existence is really the only measure in the universe, the thing that defines reality. Everything that currently exists is good by definition, everything that doesn't is not doing good in these broad terms.

I'm sorry i cannot think like that because i think on a molecular level rather than objectual.
a human is made up of atoms that exist.......they existed before and they will exist after they die.
Why is existing a "good" thing?....or doing well, or a task?....a task is usually done for a good thing, you wouldn't do it otherwise (and before anyone says "what if your forced" ...you do it to avoid injury by the forcee)
Its strange how we have self awareness but really its just connections in our brain, obviously a rock does not "think" in anyway but exists, if life didn't exist would the universe still exist?
What i mean it nothing would be around to see it so it would never "be".........humans thinking may cause problems, i might end up going insane if i am not careful.

 

[xcellerate]

no worries! and LOL at the rednecks

Now you best leave us outta this here argument sir, if ya know whats best fer ya.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

yup! did you like the article?

The Article was good, not really much new information but a good read. I was more distressed by all of this Phylocode nonsense.

 

[VirusType2]

the dinasuars are awesome, my car runs off their dead bodies that have been decay so long they turned into crude oil.

theoreticaly, humans, being warm blooded, highly intelligent, have thumbs, and are able to record information and learn from it, have the potential to live untill the earth or sun is destroyed.

Will we make it that long? Our own abilities may be our own downfall. example: Nuclear & chemical waste

I agree with Ritz, we are the only animals to ever roam the earth that destroy the earth. Therefore maybe we are too smart(or so smart we are stupid) for our own good and maybe GOD can learn from his mistake of making us.
-lmazo

 

[Dan]

I'm sorry i cannot think like that because i think on a molecular level rather than objectual.
a human is made up of atoms that exist.......they existed before and they will exist after they die.
Why is existing a "good" thing?....or doing well, or a task?....a task is usually done for a good thing, you wouldn't do it otherwise (and before anyone says "what if your forced" ...you do it to avoid injury by the forcee)
Its strange how we have self awareness but really its just connections in our brain, obviously a rock does not "think" in anyway but exists, if life didn't exist would the universe still exist?
What i mean it nothing would be around to see it so it would never "be".........humans thinking may cause problems, i might end up going insane if i am not careful.

well, if you are thinking along the lines of atoms, then humans are a certain self replicating pattern of atoms. We continue to organize other groups of atoms into large objects which fit a general description of a human. If we fail to do this eventually the pattern will die out and humans no longer exist.
Existing is a good thing by default because if it isn't well then you won't be around too much. Everything you see, everything you think, everything around you exists, things which do not exist, well they don't stick around. Therefore, to continue to exist in this reality, you must associate continuation with good, death = bad. Tasks are done so that they can help humans continue to exist. Sometimes we can't always see this consciously, so you get an extra chemical boost of happiness when you do something that helps yourself or humanity keep existing.
As for the universe existing if you aren't aware of it. Well objectively it doesn't really matter. You can arbitrarily say that it does or does not exist because it has no impact on you.

 

[Steve]

Now you best leave us outta this here argument sir, if ya know whats best fer ya.

Damn straight! You tell him, xcellerate. Where's Tr0n?

 

[kmack]

How can you say that we are bad for the planet? Is the planet a person does it have feelings does it get hurt? If you mean that we will alter the status of the earth, well of course, the earth will always be changing. If you mean that we are hurting the other animals on the earth well so what, we're animals too. Should cows be concerned that their farts are causing global warming? The purpose of life is to continue itself, aka look out for numero uno, that's us.

As for the original thread, comparing dinosaurs to humans is just stupid. Dinosaurs are not a single species, we are. That's like saying why do you think that single celled organisms ruled the world billions of years ago, or why did rocks and magma rule the world billions and billions of years ago.

Name one single animal who has a greater detrimental impact on the natural world than humans? You name ONE animal, and I will gladly agree with you.

 

[VirusType2]

I think he had a couple points but they were waisted on some other parts where he made some intentionally arrogant comments

of course humans are damaging the earth, and reducing its ability to support life of all kinds.

comparing humans to dinasours is alot more interesting than reading someone flame someone for making a thread to discuss them

"Rocks and magma ruled the world years ago"
...!!!

 

[el Chi]

Name one single animal who has a greater detrimental impact on the natural world than humans? You name ONE animal, and I will gladly agree with you.

Rednecks?

 

[kmack]

Rednecks?

Ahhh those blasted rednecks! The us has quite an infestation, hopefully some horrific NASCAR accidents will thin the herd.

Apologies to rednecks, but they can't read this because they cant use computers! :naughty:

 

[Direwolf]

It's like making fun of the Amish.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

Apologies to rednecks, but they can't read this because they cant use computers! :naughty:

Me and my redneck brethern take offense to that.

 

[Tr0n]

Yea...explains why I'm not using this computer now.

Stupid bitch.

 

[kirovman]

Me and my redneck brethern take offense to that.

I'M GUNNA KILL YOU WITH MY DESERT EAGLE!!!

(From a different post)

 

[Dan]

Name one single animal who has a greater detrimental impact on the natural world than humans? You name ONE animal, and I will gladly agree with you.

You really didn't read my argument very well, or maybe I am just poor at explaining things:

My point wasn't that other animals are damaging the earth more than us. My point was first, how do you define damaging the earth? The earth is a chunk of rock, it has no feelings. What you really mean is changing the status of things on the surface of the earth.

My second point is why should we worry about other animals? We are animals ourselves. Do gorillas stay up at night wondering if the arctic seal population is being diminished faster than they are reproducing?

We are only concerning ourselves with silly issues like this because we are so far ahead of the game in terms of survival that most of us don't need to worry about staying alive for the next day or next week. So we can pursue many actions which do not contribute to the continuation of our species such as worry about how we are harming other species. We only really need to worry about the environment on a whole insofar as it affects us and our future.

And life on the surface of the earth is pretty tough. I'd say we would be hard presseded to completely obliterate all living matter from the earth. Look at the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Millions of species wiped out and yet here we are, the earth is still spining, life still exists, hell mamals prospered because of it. Humans can be no worse than a giant asteroid that wipes out almost all life on the planet. Yet you don't see anyone call ing asteroids a "cancer" that ia destroying the earth. Asteroids are just a natural event that comes along every now and then, and so are we. Don't think that we are above nature somehow, we are just a collection of cells.

If we completely destroy our resources and means of life, well then we just failed the first test of evolution and we die, other species will come along that won't fail that test.

 

[kmack]

Me and my redneck brethern take offense to that.

Since you used the word brethren (and a context not used to describe a brother / uncle family relations ship) I can only assume that you are in fact not a redneck at all.

 

[kmack]

You really didn't read my argument very well, or maybe I am just poor at explaining things:

You are close, in actuality, you are just poor at arguing.

My point wasn't that other animals are damaging the earth more than us. My point was first, how do you define damaging the earth? The earth is a chunk of rock, it has no feelings. What you really mean is changing the status of things on the surface of the earth.

Damaging the earth is something we do by over polluting the environment. By earth i mean the ecosystem, not the physical rock.

My second point is why should we worry about other animals? We are animals ourselves. Do gorillas stay up at night wondering if the arctic seal population is being diminished faster than they are reproducing?

Gorrilas are not overhunting arctic seals. Gorillas are not building more homes encroaching on their living area. Gorillas are not polluting the air so heavily that they are causing an overall warming trend in the environment. Gorillas do not threaten other species with extinction

It should be noted that humans have encroached on gorillas territory so much, they are enndangered species. I imagine gorillas stay up at night dreaming about bananas and their habitat being deforested.

We are only concerning ourselves with silly issues like this because we are so far ahead of the game in terms of survival that most of us don't need to worry about staying alive for the next day or next week. So we can pursue many actions which do not contribute to the continuation of our species such as worry about how we are harming other species. We only really need to worry about the environment on a whole insofar as it affects us and our future.

Are you saying things we have done to the environment are not affecting our species now? For a specific example, check out the skin cancer rates in Australia.

And life on the surface of the earth is pretty tough. I'd say we would be hard presseded to completely obliterate all living matter from the earth. Look at the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Millions of species wiped out and yet here we are, the earth is still spining, life still exists, hell mamals prospered because of it. Humans can be no worse than a giant asteroid that wipes out almost all life on the planet. Yet you don't see anyone call ing asteroids a "cancer" that ia destroying the earth. Asteroids are just a natural event that comes along every now and then, and so are we. Don't think that we are above nature somehow, we are just a collection of cells.

The problem is, we think we are above nature, we do not respect it. And as far as earth being tough, looks like human development is even tougher.

# 100 documented extinctions of birds and mammals worldwide in the last century out of $ \approx$ 14, 000 total. That's a rate of 7.1×10-3 yr-1.

# The average life span of bird and mammal species in the fossil record is about 1×106 years. This is equivalent to an extinction rate of about 1×10-6 y-1.

# So the recent historical rate of vertebrate extinctions is a little over 7,000 times greater than the background rate of extinction.

OUR developments are causing extinctions on a greater scale than in the past http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/extinctions/node6.html

If we completely destroy our resources and means of life, well then we just failed the first test of evolution and we die, other species will come along that won't fail that test.

Exactly what I was saying.

 

[Dan]

Name one single animal who has a greater detrimental impact on the natural world than humans? You name ONE animal, and I will gladly agree with you

This challenge just proves that you didn't read my argument. I never said that other animals cause more damage to the natural world than humans. Nature is the network of relationships between living organisms. I was saying that you can't really "damage" nature because we will never destroy all life. We are only altering that network within a relatively short period of time. Nature still exists, we are just changing it.

The mamals and living things which we see we are affecting are the most vulnerable things in that network because they rely on such a precise balance of other variables. It's the smallscale stuff, the bacteria, the single celled organisms, that make up the much larger portion of "nature", and that network is virtually impossible to change significantly in a short time. We aren't capable of significantly altering the life on the microcosmic scale at or current technology level.

Even replacing the Earth's atmostphere with toxic gases wouldn't do it. Take a look at oxygen, when plants or algae or whatever first started producing this gas, it was poison. It killed almost all life before new lifeforms evolved which could use oxygen to live.

Are you saying things we have done to the environment are not affecting our species now? For a specific example, check out the skin cancer rates in Australia.

That's what I said, insofar as it affects us we should be concerned for the environment. If damaging the ozone triples cancer rates and kills half the population, we should stop damaging the ozone.

The problem is, we think we are above nature, we do not respect it. And as far as earth being tough, looks like human development is even tougher.

# 100 documented extinctions of birds and mammals worldwide in the last century out of $ \approx$ 14, 000 total. That's a rate of 7.1×10-3 yr-1.

# The average life span of bird and mammal species in the fossil record is about 1×106 years. This is equivalent to an extinction rate of about 1×10-6 y-1.

# So the recent historical rate of vertebrate extinctions is a little over 7,000 times greater than the background rate of extinction.

As I said earlier, events come along which will kill of most of the larger forms of life on the planet. Those that perish are simply not hardy or adaptable enough. The stronger, more adaptable species will survive. Why should we be expected to temper our growth because the weak birds cannot keep up with the changes we inflict on them? If anything, trying to protect birds is by far the more bizarre and unnatural act.

Just because we have higher level of consciousness doesn't mean that we should somehow be responsible for not hurting other species. Suppose instead of humans, the world was covered in some super strain of bamboo that took over ecosystems and crushed out millions of other species of plant and animal life. Would you blame the bamboo? Say that it is killing the earth? No, it's just bamboo, it's doing what it does, growing, reproducing, taking resources. If other animals die, well too bad for them, they should adapt better, maybe learn to eat bamboo. If they can't adapt, they should die, or rather they WILL die. It's evolution, it's competition. Self conscious or not, we are still just another species that is looking to grow.

 

[Element Alpha]

As I said earlier, events come along which will kill of most of the larger forms of life on the planet. Those that perish are simply not hardy or adaptable enough. The stronger, more adaptable species will survive. Why should we be expected to temper our growth because the weak birds cannot keep up with the changes we inflict on them? If anything, trying to protect birds is by far the more bizarre and unnatural act.

For the sake of our children?

I know I'd be mad at my grand parents if they had messed up so bad I'd be sterile or didn't have any chance of a future because of their egocentric mistakes.

As a matter of fact, you could go so far as to call religion our collective survival instinct (at least up untill recently for some). The idea was to pass on a set of rules to the next generation and try to make sure they follow it and pass it on to the following generation so the cycle starts again. The problem with religion is its narrow view of the world. Nowadays you could say religion has been replaced by law, only problem being that law isn't focused on survival but rather on shaping present society. Religion can't scale enough to fulfill its goal, laws can but should be reshaped to reflect the instinct of survival, but nowadays laws only protect victims or try to maintain peace and order. It's strange that we would ban cigarettes but we keep having cars around for example.

I think a big difference between us and our reptile ancestors is that we can change our environment almost at will, dinosaurs could not. Because we can means we bear the responsibility of what happens. It's like being a parent: you know more than your kids, so you are responsible for them untill they know enough to take care of themselves.

I hope all of the above made sense to you.

 

[Dan]

Well I said we shouldn't be concerned insofar as it doesn't affect us. If something we are doing is going to make future generations sterile, then we shouldn't do it. But I don't believe in some abstract moral code that we should adhere to just so we can protect the rainforests. I believe that the consequences of our actions should be our only guiding principles. If killing the dodo does not impinge on our survival, then why can't we allow it to die off?

 

[Element Alpha]

Because our children may want to see a dodo maybe? Maybe dodo's had dna that could be used as a cure for cancer or whatever? (think of the little lizards that regenerate entire parts of their body in just a few days, wich are marvelous to study)

Better example: maybe a oil could provide much much more energy or could be duplicated or renewed with future technology, but we'll never know because we'd wasted it all?

 

[kirovman]

Because our children may want to see a dodo maybe? Maybe dodo's had dna that could be used as a cure for cancer or whatever? (think of the little lizards that regenerate entire parts of their body in just a few days, wich are marvelous to study)

Better example: maybe a oil could provide much much more energy or could be duplicated or renewed with future technology, but we'll never know because we'd wasted it all?

Maybe oil is god's blood.

Everyday we consume it we just make him madder and madder

 

[Dan]

yes yes, as I said before INSOFAR AS IT EFFECTS US. If the Dodo is going to cure cancer then save it by all means!

 

[kmack]

yes yes, as I said before INSOFAR AS IT EFFECTS US. If the Dodo is going to cure cancer then save it by all means!

too late, we killed off the dodo.

 

[VirusType2]

Possibly the dodo is an inferior species and thats why it died.

It didn't addapt well enough

Is it our fault the bird never learned to fly?

 

[kirovman]

Possibly the dodo is an inferior species and thats why it died.

It didn't addapt well enough

Is it our fault the bird never learned to fly?

It is however our fault that we introduced rats and pigs to their islands, which eventually wiped them out.

That's why we have strict controls on importing flora and fauna these days.