Ancient Raptor Civilization

[Lucanus]

Oh, sports sure, but I don't think they would ever beat me in a spicy food eating contest.

[Alex K]

Oh, sports sure, but I don't think they would ever beat me in a spicy food eating contest.

Isn't it true that hot peppers have evolved capsaicin specifically so they would only be eaten by birds, and not by mammals. Things in that contest may look real bad for you.

[Lucanus]

Well, not all theropods are birds

---

Plus, wasabi does not contain capsaicin...

[Alex K]

Well, not all theropods are birds

---

Plus, wasabi does not contain capsaicin...

Perfect, just make sure you have choice of weapons then

[Exian]

Plus, there have been studies that capsaicin reduces appetite. That parasympathetic response tho...

[Alex K]

Plus, there have been studies that capsaicin reduces appetite. That parasympathetic response tho...

So if I put hot peppers on my food, I'll have an easier time losing weight, and I'm not as sleepy after lunch?

[Lucanus]

To get the thread back on its rails: did our Raptor Sapiens civilization hold spicy food eating contests? Maybe the reason they are insensitive to capsaicin is that only those who survived such contests were allowed to mate.

[Exian]

Plus, there have been studies that capsaicin reduces appetite. That parasympathetic response tho...

So if I put hot peppers on my food, I'll have an easier time losing weight, and I'm not as sleepy after lunch?

I don't know man, that study was on Japanese females and Caucasian males, each eating small snacks, with and without peppers at different times of day, each with different results. Then they mention "micro nutrition" and I zoned out hard. I wouldn't take my memories word on it for second.

[Nope]

ILLUMINATI REPTILIAN CONFIRMED

---

Tho I didn't know they evolved boobies

There's the neoteny of kneading you were talking about. *CROOKED PLAUSIBLE STAMP*

---

To add to the island idea- that island could have been volcanic and be a sunken eroded caldera by now.

Those aren't bobbies. They are poison sacs to protect the young from predators.

This thread is making me think of my favorite tv monster frim my childhood, sleestacks(spelling?)

---

Nah, perhaps it was just Raptor libertarians going theropodshit on the gene splicing thingies...

---

p.s.

Also, many theropods could have been plant eaters or at least omnivores, no?

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/232.abstract

Yeah but even then, they had three fingers per 'hand', which is not exactly advantageous for a tool-making species...

Would that mean that their counting system would be based on the number six?

[Anomalocaris]

The other day under the shower, I suddenly wondered: birds are pretty smart, and there are reasons to think that older theropods were pretty smart as well. It took us a measly 5 million years to go from pre-chimp to the smart assholesapes we are today.

Could there have been at least a primitive civilization of smart theropods somewhere between 200 and 65 million years before Jebus, of which we see no obvious trace today? By civilization I mean at least making tools, building houses, maybe language or writing, etc.

"Could there be" is not definitively answerable, because we can never be sure have illuminating fossil samples from enough time periods and locations to preclude it. But I think "statistically likely there be" can be answered with a negative. It may have taken only 5 million years to go from chimp like behavioral sophistication to human like behavioral sophistication, but it Arguably took 40 million years for primates to go from roughly equivalent to bird like behavioral sophistication to chimp like sophistication. So a dinosaur culture could not just exist in any 5 million gap in fossil record, it needs a 45 million year fossil gap at least, and an antecedent before the beginning of the gap that was already behaviorally quite sophisticated, particularly for a dinosaur.

As for evidence, I suspect if a dinosaur developed the equivalent of ceremic technology, which all human civilization that reaches bronze age had developed, in many cases independently, then the chances are we will find evidence of their technology easily near where we find their fossils. Ceramics are more durable than bone, lasts forever if buried, and is unambiguously manufactured and easily distinguished from natural rocks, unlike most stone tools.

---

What about its origin? Is there a problem with a whole unknown branch of life developing from amphibians or reptiles that we don't know about? And what of the atmospheric conditions; what can that tell us of the type of life that could have possibly been facilitated?

I'm not talking about something radically different such as a new branch of life. Think some species which is not further removed from, say, velociraptors, than we and the rest of the great apes are from other primates. I see what Lucanus is saying, other primates are using their hands already in a more sophisticated fashion than known raptors possibly would have.

Another aspect of the discussion really is - assuming for the sake of the thought experiment that it could plausibly have happened even if it seems not so likely from comparisons with the raptor fossils we know - could such a "civilization" have sunk with no trace, and in particular without spreading worldwide.

---

p.s.

Also, many theropods could have been plant eaters or at least omnivores, no?

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/232.abstract

During much of Mesozoic all continents were merged into one, you only have discover one new continent to be able to walk world wide. If the current understanding of the peopling of America is any indication, and Paleolithic dinosaurs were as adaptable as Paleolithic humans, the it would but 2000 years for a small band of Paleolithic dinosaurs to spread world wide on the single world continent of Mesozoic.

---

Well there you go
Take that, but consider a lineage which hasn't evolved real wings, thus keeping the fingers free to work.

I'm not a paleontologist obviously, but I've heard several talk who have adapted the convention "birds are dinosaurs".

The problem with this is that it is thought that birds have developed parental care as a result of their feathery flappy flight. Most other dinosaurs simply dumped their eggs as casually as shit to subsequently bury them to protect them from predators, and that was it.

Most of the bipedal dinosaurs we know of were carnivorous and used their 'hands' mostly for their long sharp claws, which kept them from needing -let alone being able to- produce tools. Our ability with hands comes from the fact that they were originally adapted to grasping branches and in fact our most common tools are just like that: sticks with something on them.

Not to mention lonely times. I'm very good with my hands.

Iguanodons were plant eaters, partially bipedal, and had opposable thumbs.

Also, if there was but two choices - are plant eaters or animal eaters more likely to evolve intelligence - I think the answer has to be animal eaters. Plant eaters only need to out smart plants. Animal eaters need to outsmart that which outsmarted plants.

---

Well there you go
Take that, but consider a lineage which hasn't evolved real wings, thus keeping the fingers free to work.

I'm not a paleontologist obviously, but I've heard several talk who have adapted the convention "birds are dinosaurs".

The problem with this is that it is thought that birds have developed parental care as a result of their feathery flappy flight. Most other dinosaurs simply dumped their eggs as casually as shit to subsequently bury them to protect them from predators, and that was it.

Most of the bipedal dinosaurs we know of were carnivorous and used their 'hands' mostly for their long sharp claws, which kept them from needing -let alone being able to- produce tools. Our ability with hands comes from the fact that they were originally adapted to grasping branches and in fact our most common tools are just like that: sticks with something on them.

Not to mention lonely times. I'm very good with my hands.

Iguanodons were plant eaters, partially bipedal, and had opposable thumbs.

Also, if there was but two choices - are plant eaters or animal eaters more likely to evolve intelligence - I think the answer has to be animal eaters. Plant eaters only need to out smart plants. Animal eaters need to outsmart that which outsmarted plants.