Sapient Dinosaurs

[Commander 598]

I think some of you are just trying too hard to not have a humanoid. For a creature that already has arms and fingers, it's not that much of a stretch in my opinion. "Manipulative ability" is not helpful, it's pretty much a requirement and the better you are at manipulating the more successful you're likely to be.

I will also note that the latter two are very probably descended from dinosaurs themselves.

Any species of dinosaur that may have been a direct ancestor to modern birds was probably effectively a bird for all intents and purposes or literally was a bird. Just because it's closely related does not mean that it was descended from what we would normally term a dinosaur and not descended from a prehistoric bird.

[Superman]

I think some of you are just trying too hard to not have a humanoid.

Your personal interpretation is a great argument.

For a creature that already has arms and fingers, it's not that much of a stretch in my opinion. "Manipulative ability" is not helpful, it's pretty much a requirement and the better you are at manipulating the more successful you're likely to be.

Parallel evolution does occur. Bats and birds both have wings, for example, but these features developed to a very specific survival need. Going from "having arms and fingers" to a full blown hominid is a different story entirely.

Any species of dinosaur that may have been a direct ancestor to modern birds was probably effectively a bird for all intents and purposes or literally was a bird. Just because it's closely related does not mean that it was descended from what we would normally term a dinosaur and not descended from a prehistoric bird.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[Valk]

At what point in human evolution did we stop having to worry about predators?

If that is a factor in evolving intelligence, it makes it much harder for Troodons to evolve it. As they faced much stronger predators than humans did.

[Broomstick]

1-Could a sapient Dinosaur Conceivably evolve

Most likely, yes, it was possible - birds, which now believed to be linear descendants of one branch or another of the dinos, have some species that are pretty damn smart and are tool-users (the corvids and the parrots in particular). Of course, the fact that there are species of bird that are pretty fucking stupid, too, shows that intelligence is not an inevitable outcome of evolution.

2-If so, what would they be like?

Probably social, descendant from small flock/pack species that engage in cooperative hunting/food gathering. Most likely omnivores (this does not bar their descent from obligate carnivores - giant pandas are herbivores that clearly display carnivore ancestry as just one example). They will have manipulatory digits of some sort.

It's unlikely that they will be hominid-style bipeds. As mentioned up-thread and elsewhere, there were many species of bipedal dino but they didn't look like hominids. Yes, that configuration might cause problems carrying large loads, but it's not like the human spine is without problems, either. Birds do quite well as bipeds but they aren't mistaken for hominids or vice versa. The thing is, birds specialized their upper limbs for flight to the point they aren't really good for anything else, to the point that if a species stops flying those limbs dwindle away rather than being co-opted for other uses (ostriches, emus, kiwis, etc.) with the exception of the penguin family - and their upper limbs are useless for manipulating the environment. If, however, a family of dinos had specialized their upper limbs for tool use that might have started them down the road to heavy tool use and possible sapience.

Lots of brains require a high metabolism, so they would probably be warm-blooded. Again, the birds show that the dino lineages had the capability to evolve a very high metabolism. For that matter, several bird species use their feet for both standing/locomotion AND manipulation/tool use (In fact, right now I have a dino descendant standing with one foot on my shoulder and holding a sunflower seed in the other while she "unpeels" it. She has also been known to use a toothpick to scratch the back of her head.) The factor that might have limited intellectual evolution in avians is their flight specializations. The demands of flight gave them a high metabolism and some sophisticated visual-spatial processing, navigation, and memory capabilities. Many species have the flock/pack social structure and ability to cooperate in groups to one degree or another. Many species have the ability to learn not only as infants but well past maturity, and a long life in which to acquire that learning (corvids live into their 40's, the larger parrots 60-70 years). But flight also limits their size and exerts strong pressure to reduce the weight of all organs, including the brain.

So... I suspect intelligent/sapient dinos would be, in some ways, birdlike BUT that does not mean they would necessarily have feathers (though they might) or beaks rather than teeth (most likely teeth - beaks are most likely a flight specialization). They'd probably have a horizontal or nearly so body orientation as birds do, and the long flexible neck (though the mechanics of supporting a large brain may be a pressure to shorten that neck). Think bipedal pack dino, possibly with fluffy feathers for warmth and forelimbs with hands of some sort.

[Broomstick]

At what point in human evolution did we stop having to worry about predators?

19th/20th Century and that only applies in some locations.

Fact is, polar bears, lions, tigers, hyenas, and probably several others have been known to stalk, kill and eat humans The largest constrictor snakes may be capable of hunting and eating an adult human, and certainly could eat a child. Wolves have the capability to hunt and take down humans, whether they do or not is apparently subject to debate. And then we do silly things like go swimming in the ocean and get bit by sharks.

We aren't typical prey for the above species, but there's no question animal predators can and do take human young and disabled humans when the opportunity presents itself. Polar bears have been known to pursue adult human males armed with modern firearms. Protection of the community from dangerous animals has been a concern of human societies throughout history.

[Shroom Man 777]

It would be definitely awesome to see these dino-humanoids, or dinobonoids, struggling in an environment where predators are as enormous as a T-rex. I mean, lions and polar bears are nothing like large therapods.

If lions or sabertooth tigers were replaced by large therapod-sized carnivores, would our ancestors have fared as well as they did with the lions and polar bears?

Or would size simply not matter? Looking at the mammoth... I have a sinking feeling that any nascent species of sapient tool-using human-style dinosaurs are gonna render their larger cousins extinct

Perhaps T-rex (or whatever large therapod in this post-Cretaceous dino-world) would be rendered extinct through competition. Large therapods won't prey on puny humans (or dinobonoids), but the dinobonoids will be preying on the large therapods' food source - sauropods, duck-bills. They might end up being the superior predator, running the rexes out of town. That's... a pretty ignoble way for the tyrant lizards to go.

In light of that, and how our ancestors totally schooled prehistoric Africa, I am proud to be a human being

[Darth Servo]

I tend to have a general rule of thumb for these sort of things--if it was on Voyager, its probably nonsense.

[ArmorPierce]

I think some of you are just trying too hard to not have a humanoid.

Care to elaborate? It was already walking on its hind legs so that freed up its hands. Why would it evolve to walk like a human when it already walked up right and ran faster than a human?

For a creature that already has arms and fingers, it's not that much of a stretch in my opinion. "Manipulative ability" is not helpful, it's pretty much a requirement and the better you are at manipulating the more successful you're likely to be.

That is something that I can see evolving

Any species of dinosaur that may have been a direct ancestor to modern birds was probably effectively a bird for all intents and purposes or literally was a bird. Just because it's closely related does not mean that it was descended from what we would normally term a dinosaur and not descended from a prehistoric bird.

What are you talking about?

[Commander 598]

I think some of you are just trying too hard to not have a humanoid.

Care to elaborate? It was already walking on its hind legs so that freed up its hands. Why would it evolve to walk like a human when it already walked up right and ran faster than a human?

Well, looking at the image, it's got short and weak arms. If it's going to become a future human equivalent creature, those arms are probably going to get stronger and longer, probably along with the rest of the body to support it. If it's seriously going to be a tool using species that builds things it sort of has to doesn't it? Even with longer arms it's body isn't really made for reaching above it (I'm assuming this is a desirable trait since we do a HELL of a lot of reaching above our heads and most creatures generally like being able to reach high things in whatever way) and assuming it's head/brain gets bigger/heavier I don't think a long neck will work too well... I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

I'm not really seeing how running speed really matters for a sapient creature. I'm pretty sure it ceased to be a major concern when we learned what a trap was or that most things that wanted to eat us sucked at climbing.

Any species of dinosaur that may have been a direct ancestor to modern birds was probably effectively a bird for all intents and purposes or literally was a bird. Just because it's closely related does not mean that it was descended from what we would normally term a dinosaur and not descended from a prehistoric bird.

What are you talking about?

I think I was semi-ranting about Maya's possible insinuation that because modern birds are related to and theorized to be descended from dinosaurs that anything descended from a dinosaur would automatically be bird like even though plenty of actual birds coexisted with dinosaurs. I will admit from looking at the taxonomy on wikipedia they really are close both belonging to the suborder Theropoda and Troodon belonging to Infraorder Deinonychosauria which includes the known to be feathered and bird like Dromaeosauridae family. Though I don't think that really means all that much when you're talking about a Homo Sapiens equivalent since we're pretty different from our close relatives and presumably our distant ancestors.

[Mayabird]

The heck are you talking about? I'm saying that dinosaur predecessors of birds may have had many traits currently associated with modern avians, which might include their neural wiring. Bird brains are quite sophisticated. Smaller, more densely packed and more efficient neurons, and they don't have mammal surface area constraints. Instead of all the action going on in the surface layer, they have little spheroid bits throughout their brains where the thinking goes on; all they need to get smarter is to have more of them. Dinosaurs may very well have had structures like that. All they would need to get smarter is to increase the density of those structures in their brains. They wouldn't even need big round brain-cases if their neurons were smaller like modern birds. Parrots can fit primate-level cognition in a brain the size of a walnut.

Also, I insist that manipulation is helpful but not necessarily a requirement, unless you're going to try to say that dolphins and whales have hands.

[Lusankya]

Well, looking at the image, it's got short and weak arms. If it's going to become a future human equivalent creature, those arms are probably going to get stronger and longer, probably along with the rest of the body to support it. If it's seriously going to be a tool using species that builds things it sort of has to doesn't it? Even with longer arms it's body isn't really made for reaching above it (I'm assuming this is a desirable trait since we do a HELL of a lot of reaching above our heads and most creatures generally like being able to reach high things in whatever way) and assuming it's head/brain gets bigger/heavier I don't think a long neck will work too well... I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

What does reaching above it have to do with anything? I, for one, only really need to reach up for things because we build our cupboards and shelves taller than we are. A species that couldn't reach above its head wouldn't do that. You seem to be looking at the ergonomics of some of our tools, and assuming that another species would be using things the same shape.

I'm not really seeing how running speed really matters for a sapient creature. I'm pretty sure it ceased to be a major concern when we learned what a trap was or that most things that wanted to eat us sucked at climbing.

Because greater fitness = greater chance of survival. The species has to survive for long enough to BECOME sapient. Walking more like a human woud probably decrease its fitness.

[Junghalli]

Also, I insist that manipulation is helpful but not necessarily a requirement, unless you're going to try to say that dolphins and whales have hands.

If you want a sophisticated tool-user manipulatory organs are pretty damn important though.

[Mayabird]

Also, I insist that manipulation is helpful but not necessarily a requirement, unless you're going to try to say that dolphins and whales have hands.

If you want a sophisticated tool-user manipulatory organs are pretty damn important though.

Didn't say anything about them building a civilization, just evolving smarts. And their group is in the minority for not having some way of doing fine manipulation, as primate hands, bird feet, and elephant trunks are capable of doing.

[Valk]

At what point in human evolution did we stop having to worry about predators?

19th/20th Century and that only applies in some locations.

No, I mean when did we become safe as 'villagers' from predators.

You can imagine a group of apes living in plains without much trees slowly collapsing due to constant predator attacks on the group. At some point, humans were simply always safe from predators* in the group/village: we could stand our ground against them. If that point came before we were intelligent it may have contributed to us developing intelligence.


For Troodons, if the T-Rex was a predator then it was a predator 4 times as high as a Troodon. Pre- or semi-sapient Troodons don't stand much of a chance standing their ground against a T-Rex.
If T-Rex was a scavenger, then there are still plenty of predators over twice their height.

*not counting poisonous animals such as snakes as predators

[ArmorPierce]

At what point in human evolution did we stop having to worry about predators?

19th/20th Century and that only applies in some locations.

No, I mean when did we become safe as 'villagers' from predators.

You can imagine a group of apes living in plains without much trees slowly collapsing due to constant predator attacks on the group. At some point, humans were simply always safe from predators* in the group/village: we could stand our ground against them. If that point came before we were intelligent it may have contributed to us developing intelligence.


For Troodons, if the T-Rex was a predator then it was a predator 4 times as high as a Troodon. Pre- or semi-sapient Troodons don't stand much of a chance standing their ground against a T-Rex.
If T-Rex was a scavenger, then there are still plenty of predators over twice their height.

*not counting poisonous animals such as snakes as predators

Do you think that a human village would stand much chance against a t-rex until the 18th century?

[ArmorPierce]

Well, looking at the image, it's got short and weak arms. If it's going to become a future human equivalent creature, those arms are probably going to get stronger and longer, probably along with the rest of the body to support it. If it's seriously going to be a tool using species that builds things it sort of has to doesn't it? Even with longer arms it's body isn't really made for reaching above it (I'm assuming this is a desirable trait since we do a HELL of a lot of reaching above our heads and most creatures generally like being able to reach high things in whatever way)

There arms are fine they would be able to manipulate their environment with it. I can see it getting a bit longer in proportion to its body (after all, our legs got longer proportional to our body) but what I see changing the most are the hands and fingers. Arms stay relatively the same (with their Humerus getting longer. The reason that our arms are made for reaching above us is because we evolved from tree climbers. It is not necessary and if we didn't have that ability we wouldn't make it so that we need to be able to reach over our heads to comfortably get around in our world. You are thinking about this too much from an us perspective.

and assuming it's head/brain gets bigger/heavier I don't think a long neck will work too well... I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

Its long neck isn't that long. Plenty of creatures with longer necks and more weight that were able to get around fine. It can go either way, either neck gets shorter or more likely neck just get stronger (especially with the given shape of the body)

I'm not really seeing how running speed really matters for a sapient creature. I'm pretty sure it ceased to be a major concern when we learned what a trap was or that most things that wanted to eat us sucked at climbing.

I'm stating that there is no reason for them to evolve towards a human gait. They already have an efficient design. The reason humans evolved the way they evolved to walk is because knuckle walking absolutely sucks as a means of getting around over longer distances.

[Zixinus]

Do you think that a human village would stand much chance against a t-rex until the 18th century?

Nitpick: The T-rex was a scavenger among already enourmous beasts. It's unlikely to attack a village.

Doesn't mean that they aren't a selection of other predetors for our hypothetical sapient dinos to worry about.

[Mayabird]

Do you think that a human village would stand much chance against a t-rex until the 18th century?

Nitpick: The T-rex was a scavenger among already enourmous beasts. It's unlikely to attack a village.

Lots of scavengers will attack helpless and very living creatures for fresh meat. Vultures will carry off baby rabbits, for instance. If it finds some stupid humans bumbling about, why not have a snack?

[Shroom Man 777]

T-rex was not a scavenger. No more than hyenas are scavengers, which they are not.

[Duckie]

T-rex was not a scavenger. No more than hyenas are scavengers, which they are not.

Indeed, people presume a dichotomy.

T-Rexes, like any carnivore, would eat something already dead. You'd have to be an idiot not to eat a meal that's laying right there. They also would bully animals away from kills, like lions. Again, they'd have to be idiots not to. But they also would go out and make things dead if there wasn't any dead meat on hand. Same refrain as always.

The only person who thinks that the T-Rex was an Obligate Scavenger is Jack Horner, and even he probably knows it wasn't- dude's just probably trying to be difficult for the point of not admitting he's wrong.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Do you think that a human village would stand much chance against a t-rex until the 18th century?

Certainly. Keep in mind that predators/scavengers aren't interested in getting a meal if it involves taking a lot of damage, and humans were capable of building ballista and such as far back as ancient Rome. Real-world villages didn't have those, in no small part because having one would be about as useless, illegal and even more expensive ( relatively speaking ) as a small town police department have an anti tank weapon or two. If T-Rexes were running around they would have some, and even if a T-Rex survived it would likely either run off, or even if it destroyed the village, leave the next one alone.

And then there's the likelihood of passive defenses, like pit traps - it would be rather easy to make a pit trap that would take the weight of humans or even horses walking across it every day, but cave in instantly when a humongous T-Rex steps on it. It wouldn't need to be T-Rex sized either; just enough to catch a foot and break it's ankle; something that huge is going to be very vulnerable to that sort of damage.

[Darth Raptor]

Nitpick: The T-rex was a scavenger among already enourmous beasts. It's unlikely to attack a village.

The only person who thinks that the T-Rex was an Obligate Scavenger is Jack Horner, and even he probably knows it wasn't- dude's just probably trying to be difficult for the point of not admitting he's wrong.

Yes, he knows it's bullshit. He's doing it to counterbalance the opposite extreme of portraying tyrannosaurs as flightless dragons complete with magical fire breath, bullet-proof hides and an implacable omnicidal killbrain programmed by Skynet.

[Zixinus]

Nitpick: The T-rex was a scavenger among already enourmous beasts. It's unlikely to attack a village.

Okay, okay. I concede that the T-rex was a predating carnivore. Happy now?

[Valk]

Counternitpick for ArmorPierce:

...
For Troodons, if the T-Rex was a predator then it was a predator 4 times as high as a Troodon.
...

There is some discussion about whether T-Rex was a predator or scavenger, for this topic that is not relevant so lets not get offtopic. The assumption that he is a predator is safe, as if he's not there are others that are also still much bigger than the Troodon.

Off-topic indulgement:
1st century would already be too much for a T-Rex to be worth the while I think. Either lots of archers or archers with great aim can hit the eyes and should give the beast quite a scare or more.


On-topic:
Your organisation or tech must provide almost perfect safety to all individuals in your group when you don't know the predator is coming. You must be able to protect hunters and gatherers without spending an unreasonable amount of resources doing so.
I can imagine humans being safe from lions and hyenas without much tech, just watchers, rock-throwing and tree-climbing.
For Troodons, the latter two are not available, their predators are stronger, and their speed is less useful than tree-climbing. Also, while a lion or hyena should probably be careful dealing with a human as a human can hurt it with just a rock, I doubt a Troodon can hurt a big dinosaur.

If that's true, we could sit around with our young that became increasingly helpless as they were born earlier and earlier in their development as our heads became bigger (and women' pelvisses didn't), and we also had rest to toy around with our soon-to-be tools. The Troodons on the other hand would often have to abandon their nests and land for predators. This makes speed and stealth the most important traits for their survival and reproduction.

If humans had no real concerns they could sacrifice a lot of things for intelligence.

[Jeremy]

Is their shoulder structure capable of supporting anywhere near as much weight or giving as much power as ours? As for mobility, have you ever tried to throw a spear underhanded? How strong would their pectoral muscles be? My inborn Ape Bias says that without an arboreal-life descended wrist structure that Talking Lizard will be near useless with his hands. Can those Theropods even see their hands?

If they are efficient at anything I doubt they will develop our level of intelligence. As primates we suck at arboreal life, we can't run very fast, we have no natural protection, we can't graze, we can't solely predate, and our strength isn't enough to kill most animals.

Theropods have nifty claws and jaws with a body built for running. If they are good at killing they have no need to make weapons.

Human societies needed a division of labor, perhaps an egg laying non-milking species wouldnt need such a rigid structure as found in our sexes. Perhaps then there would be Matriarchies with non-sentient stud harems.

I also have doubts that a pack or pride structure (as compared to herds and troops) could make the transition from Hunter-Gatherer to Village Life or even State Level.

For this to happen a geological event is going to need to seperate our Talking Lizards from their home into a more competitive ecology. With the Dinosaur tendancy to grow superlarge (Luke Warm Blooded?) the new ecology is going to have to stay with medium sized fauna. They will need to be omnivores or become so quicky. They must lose thier claws in place of fingernails.

As for Cetaceans; sonar mapping, sleeping awake, 3d battlespace tactics, and an abundant supply of Fish Oil (With CoQ10 from Iceland! ) may demand a good brain.