User talk:68.109.234.155

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Here are some other hints and tips:

• I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
• When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. . dave souza, talk 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and related topics

You may find it helpful to read Talk:Evolution/FAQ. . ..dave souza, talk 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Evolution. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but there should be some examples that we can see right now. At some point there is a situation where there is a mutation like the one you mentioned above. And according to what you are saying humans should speciate someday into at least 2 different species. If a mutatant develops a much more efficient brain would not they out compete the others. And why did not some dinosaurs develop speech? They would have had an advantate in hunting. Or why were they not 'smart' dinosaurs? We developed 'smartness' in only what 10 million years. The dinos had more time. Where was their tools etc. ? 68.109.234.155 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you assuming dinosaurs did not develop speech (communication)? Lizards traditionally are solitary animals, however if you have group behavior and hunting, such as with raptors; then indeed vocalizations and other methods of communicating would be very advantageous. There is no reason to think they did not develop advanced communications. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There were likely plenty of smart dinosaurs; don't assume because they are extinct they were "dumb". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We did not develop smartness in 10 million years, our predecessors were plenty smart already. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While again, you are assuming dinosaurs used no tools; let us assume they indeed did not. First to use a tool you need the ability manipulate small objects. The predecessor to many dinosaurs were based on, had claws instead of fingers... which were good for defense and killing, but not necessarily great for manipulation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

By "more time" you are assuming a number of things, that evolution is progressive and/or has a goal. It is neither. If circumstances do not encourage specific kinds of intelligence; or things are too competitive for that to happen, it won't... either for a long long time, or never. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, a more efficient brain in indeed good; but it does mean two species would be the outcome. As I mentioned in my example, the more likely scenario is that one sub-species replaces the other gradually; and you do not see what is even going on. Furthermore, if the brain with double the neurons; isn't more efficient, and actually would take far more oxygen and nutrition than an average brain... if those demanding needs are not met, then that individual will not meet their potential and may not even survive. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In my hypothetical, and in your question about dinosaur intelligence, I must emphasize there is no free lunch in biology. If you are smarter; great, but if it takes more to feed you than is available, then it won't matter. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the point is the theory is too encompassing. Smarter dinos should have out competed the dumber ones and within 65 millions they should have become more intelligent. and why did not sea creatures evolve in to whale types? much more efficient. do you see what i am saying?

Yes I do, and I see gaps in your understanding which is why you are continuing to ask these questions. First off Evolution is encompassing; that is the point of having a good scientific theory; it explains things. If it did not, then another theory would need to take its place. Creationists on one hand will say there are "gaps" in the theory; but on the other hand they will say it is too encompassing. While there are gaps in the evidence, evolution is a very thorough explanation of the variety of life we see around us, and how life changes over time in response to the environment. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, why are you assuming dinosaurs did not become more intelligent? That does occur regularly in predator/prey dynamics; I can virtually guarantee you dinosaurs at the end of their dominance were better adapted to their environment than their ancestors. Does that mean they needed to be smarter? NO. Evolution sticks with what works; that's why certain animals haven't changed much recently (crocodiles), while others have changed a lot (humans, polar bears). Just because dinosaurs didn't become as abstractly intelligent as us means absolutely nothing; apart from you having unrealistic expectations of what evolution is supposed to do. If a species is competing successfully in its current environment, there is no environment pressure on the population to become smarter or more abstract and talkative. A crocodile can kill a herd animal and eat a carcass quite well with the tools it has and doesn't need to talk or own a Rolex to accomplish that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As to whale types, that is a huge step and an example of radical macroevolution creationists propose which is simply unrealistic. For an ocean creature to evolve directly into a whale wouldn't make sense, since it can already breath nicely using gills. It would need to be forced into a land/marsh environment and that would be the environmental pressure to develop breathing like a whale; so that when water did become scarce (during drought) it could breath. Also there are far more considerations to efficiency than breathing; since to have that kind of metabolism also means more food. Then when whale ancestors went back into the open ocean, they were big and social enough not to worry about predators much; and could feast on krill better than they could on the coasts. Natural selection favored larger whales, again, to survive against predators. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing my point. I did not say an ocean creature should evolve into a whale but the similart structure and niche. Do you see the tautology. Why did not dinosaurs become intelligent? because it was not in their survival interests to do so. Why did mammals become so intelligent? it was in there survival interests to do so. What does evolution forbid? Sometimes creatures improve, sometimes they stay the same, sometimes change rapidly, sometimes not at all sometimes go backwards, sometimes suddenly appear, sometimes no precedents. Again smart dinos would survive better than dumb ones. OK how would you falisfy 'evolution'? 68.109.234.155 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Precambrian bunnies!!! – it's everyone's favourite answer! ...... dave souza, talk 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a well known fallacy. Bunnies in the Cambrian is not a valid falsification. It is very difficult to falsify evolution because it predicts so little. And forbids so little 68.109.234.155 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)