|
|
Post by sid on Sept 20, 2011 16:20:45 GMT
Strongly agree with Griffin and Gwangi... The "big brain equals intelligence" theory, as i said, is more and more debunked the deeper we go into studying non-human animal behavior. Maybe some people can't agree with it because it makes 'em realize "intelligence" isn't just a human thing, maybe for some other people this notion offend their beliefs (take the 3 big monotheistic religions we have today... Heck, if they're not uber-antrophocentric, i don't know what it is!)... Either way, i think that acknoweldging that other animals are much more clever and complex that we thought is simply awesome and can only enlighten us  |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 16:21:48 GMT
Gosh. This is really exhausting.
The parental care bit was adressed to sid (one post above yours, gwangi), and I never said that crocodiles are dumb, just that their cognition is not equal to some mammals or advanced birds, which is the plain truth. That doesn´t make them stupid simpletons, since its all relative. And that could be infered by studying the skull and behavior, same goes for ratites and dinosaurs.
"What do ceratopsian horns have to do with anything? I just said they were heavy on display."
And that does not link them to deers or antelopes more than to reptiles which use similar display structures.
"It can but you specifically mentioned turtles and iguanas which I'm fairly certain don't chase predators from their kills."
I cant see why it couldnt happen it there where active smaller predators in their environment and they run out of vegetables. Anyway, there is no evidence of ceratopsians being that kind of omnivore.
And yes, I think phylogenetics are far more reliable than random guessings. Uhmm...sorry?
Already make my point anyway, I prefer not to go on and on over the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 20, 2011 16:40:41 GMT
Gosh. This is really exhausting. The parental care bit was adressed to sid (one post above yours, gwangi) I apologize, I missed that post. I've only agreed with you on that in almost every one of my posts. Sorry you missed that part...repeatedly. Honestly I thought we were done a day ago, it is nice to see we agree on ending this. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 16:56:53 GMT
I've only agreed with you on that in almost every one of my posts. Sorry you missed that part...repeatedly. I don´t, but you´ve been contradicting yourself...repeteadly. ;D No, I get it, you´re way more "flexible" with that. Fine. (also, edited my last post) |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 20, 2011 17:03:34 GMT
I've only agreed with you on that in almost every one of my posts. Sorry you missed that part...repeatedly. I don´t, but you´ve been contradicting yourself...repeteadly. ;D (also, edited my last post) We both have but that is easy to do in a debate that has lasted three days. And why did you have to go back and edit that post? I thought we were trying to end this? I guess if you need to get the last word in I'll let you. This entire argument has gotten out of hand and I know I'm to blame in part. I don't even know why we are debating this as we agree on most points. I'm sure I'm only arguing with you for the sake of arguing at this point so lets just agree to agree (mostly). Now...about pack hunting dromaeosaurs. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 17:16:56 GMT
I guess I´d eventually feel bad if I dont clarify certain points ( I dont think Ive been contradicting myself. See, whenever you say that dromaeosaurs probably wouldn´t be smarter than crocs most people assume you are dumbifying the dinosaurs, when in fact crocs are in their own way smarter than most people think. Hope I´m making myself clear now.)
I would go on if you´re willing, anyway. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 18:03:14 GMT
Don't we know duckbills had parental care??? Thought they found yearlings still near the nest. Yes, but since no adult remains has been found nearby in any of this young bonebeds, there is no actual reason to think they were feeding them (seems too frequent to be a coincidence). Also, this young had well developed pelvis and bone joints so they were precocial, able to walk and search food for themselves. Usually only the species with inept young -unable to move and hunt since they´re born- and big brains take care and feed them extensively. Is strange that the young duckbills or ceratopsians were gathering in the nest zone though. Maybe they instinctively felt it was a safe place to sleep or rest. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 20, 2011 18:36:54 GMT
I guess I´d eventually feel bad if I dont clarify certain points ( I dont think Ive been contradicting myself. See, whenever you say that dromaeosaurs probably wouldn´t be smarter than crocs most people assume you are dumbifying the dinosaurs, when in fact crocs are in their own way smarter than most people think. Hope I´m making myself clear now.) I would go on if you´re willing, anyway. ;D I understand but here is what I'm hearing... Dinosaurs were incapable of complex mammal like behavior because they didn't have the brain power for it. Then I hear you say crocodiles are capable of complex mammal like behavior and dinosaurs were as intelligent as crocodiles. Looking at crocodiles (and their brains) initially you wouldn't think of them as intelligent social animals that care for their young...these are the traits of mammals but they've surprised us and are indeed complex. So why can't dinosaurs be like mammals in the way they behave? If extant archosaurs can surprise us in their complex behavior certainly dinosaurs in all their forms were complex as well and probably not all that different from mammals that would later adopt their niches. Crocodiles and birds are related to dinosaurs so serve as our best guides as to how they live but that does not rule out mammal-like behavior in dinosaurs that lived lifestyles similar to mammals. This means that giving dinosaurs mammal-like characteristics in documentaries is not completely out of the question. Now I think we're back at the root of this argument. Depending on what killed the young you might not find any adult remains. Young are more vulnerable than adults. A sudden cold chill, flooding or any other number of things could kill hatchlings and allow the adults to escape. Perhaps a natural disaster forced the adults to leave. I don't doubt that this was the case, similar to many birds and crocodiles but I don't think it rules out parental care. If you're so interested in looking at extant archosaurs as dinosaur analogies than keep in mind that there are very few extant archosaurs that abandon their young entirely. Crocodile hatchlings can take care of themselves but still receive parental care even if only minimal. The same goes for most precocial birds. Fish hatch fully capable of taking care of themselves but again, many species care for their young. For me that screams parental care. Nesting grounds are beacons to predators, newly hatched animals that don't receive care are quick to book it away from the nest site. You don't see turtles lingering around nest sites for the predators to pick them off. If young dinosaurs are staying with the nest it is because there is something there making sure they're safe. Nest sites by themselves are not safe places to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 18:37:25 GMT
" Is strange that the young duckbills or ceratopsians were gathering in the nest zone though. Maybe they instinctively felt it was a safe place to sleep or rest."
....or their parents were helping them out lol.
Seems to me that if the babies hung out there with no parents to guard them that would be an all you can eat buffet for any predator lucky enough to be in the area.
You stand so firmly by the idea that modern reptiles are the only model acceptable for dinosaur behavior. So I ask which independent baby reptile species hangs out around the nest instead of dispersing after hatching?
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 18:50:59 GMT
I guess I´d eventually feel bad if I dont clarify certain points ( I dont think Ive been contradicting myself. See, whenever you say that dromaeosaurs probably wouldn´t be smarter than crocs most people assume you are dumbifying the dinosaurs, when in fact crocs are in their own way smarter than most people think. Hope I´m making myself clear now.) I would go on if you´re willing, anyway. ;D I understand but here is what I'm hearing... Dinosaurs were incapable of complex mammal like behavior because they didn't have the brain power for it. Then I hear you say crocodiles are capable of complex mammal like behavior and dinosaurs were as intelligent as crocodiles. I NEVER said such a thing!  Are you misreading on purpose? Griffin, its not actually sure that all those bonebeds belong to a nest zone. Most probably the Maiasaura and the other hadrosaur (I think it was Gryposaurus) were nests, but its not sure for all the rest, and some are juveniles. Yet they stay together and there are no adults nearby. Any explanation for that? |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 20, 2011 19:00:45 GMT
I understand but here is what I'm hearing... Dinosaurs were incapable of complex mammal like behavior because they didn't have the brain power for it. Then I hear you say crocodiles are capable of complex mammal like behavior and dinosaurs were as intelligent as crocodiles. I NEVER said such a thing! Are you misreading on purpose? Yeah, I'm misreading in purpose  . Of course I'm not, that is how I am interpreting what you're saying. If that is not what you're saying than why is the brain size of mammals vs. dinosaurs so important to you in this debate? You wrote the following... And then I wrote... And you wrote... In that same post you said crocodiles can be quite smart despite their brain size. You're right, this is exhausting. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:07:42 GMT
" Is strange that the young duckbills or ceratopsians were gathering in the nest zone though. Maybe they instinctively felt it was a safe place to sleep or rest." ....or their parents were helping them out lol. Seems to me that if the babies hung out there with no parents to guard them that would be an all you can eat buffet for any predator lucky enough to be in the area. You stand so firmly by the idea that modern reptiles are the only model acceptable for dinosaur behavior. So I ask which independent baby reptile species hangs out around the nest instead of dispersing after hatching? A: BIRDS!! Ummm ... wait - Birds aren't reptiles, they're ... avian dinosaurs !!! [Disclaimer - I have not been reading this thread and this point was probably raised already...] |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:08:59 GMT
A follow up question: If we do not classify birds as reptiles - WHY do we still classify dinosaurs as reptiles? |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 20, 2011 19:10:15 GMT
A follow up question: If we do not classify birds as reptiles - WHY do we still classify dinosaurs as reptiles? Probably because it is what we're used to even though we know better. Classification is a mess anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 19:21:35 GMT
I said that crocodiles are smarter than a lot of people think. Man, I explained that earlier. Why do you read that out of context? I just can´t work out how you reached such conclusion. You´re killing me. And remember that I was refering to extensive parental care, which includes feeding the litter and stay with them until they reach some maturity. Crocs doesnt count in that regard. And birds are within Reptilia, so technically, reptiles. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 19:31:39 GMT
Simon read my post again. I said independent baby reptile. So out of the ones that don't get cared for by parents...which hang around the nest? And yes birds are reptiles.
"Griffin, its not actually sure that all those bonebeds belong to a nest zone. Most probably the "Maiasaura and the other hadrosaur (I think it was Gryposaurus) were nests, but its not sure for all the rest, and some are juveniles. Yet they stay together and there are no adults nearby. Any explanation for that?"
Something killed the babies that didn't effect the adults? Its really not that complicated. It still makes more sense to say there was parental care going on than the babies for some reason live at their nest site until they are juveniles or older.
Another point is that ceratopsid babies look pretty different from their adult forms (at least the ones that we know of). The horns are tiny little knobs and what not. Animals that are independent right out of the egg are usually just miniature versions of the adults. Just look at any baby lizard, turtle or snake. Baby hadrosaurs and ceratopsids don't show this.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:32:25 GMT
Yeah - Croc behaviour shows that smaller brain size does not preclude complex behaviour like cornering fish in a lagoon, and then having individual crocs take turns going in to feed - as well as the parental care ...
... dinosaurs had to have been more intelligent than crocs, and I base this simply on the nature of the various niches they occupied (being warm-blooded and all, most of them in all likelihood) ...
Triceratops is not thought of as a particularly brainy animal, but really, how different would their behaviour have been from a herd animal of today like a Wildebeast or Bison? Probably not much different. And the juveniles would have had to be taken care of else they would not have survived.
No evidence of an overwhelm-them-with-numbers strategy there that we see with sauropods ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 19:34:58 GMT
Uh oh lets not get into a warm blood cold blood thing now.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:38:54 GMT
Something killed the babies that didn't effect the adults? Its really not that complicated. It still makes more sense to say there was parental care going on than the babies for some reason live at their nest site until they are juveniles or older. Adults may also have been out gathering food, or able to run away faster from the cataclysm that wiped out the nesting area (I assume that is whet the above reference is about - the Maiasauria nest fields covered by a volcanic eruption?) P.S. Griffin - the above should read "... that didn't AFFECT the adults?" ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 19:40:12 GMT
This is science not english!
|
|
. Of course I'm not, that is how I am interpreting what you're saying. If that is not what you're saying than why is the brain size of mammals vs. dinosaurs so important to you in this debate?