Did humans and dinosaurs ever coexist?

[theVOID]

Oh boy did you not read the part were I stated that "possibily in the late stages of dinosaurs small monkey or ape amimals were present and were in fact what we call humas and along the lines of evolution we evolved from that small creature to the massive civalization we are today" or not?

Yes i did, and it contains both stupidity and futility (bolded).

1) It is ridiculous to call them Human, it's a word that has a very distinct meaning and describes a very narrow lineage of Primates - US. To call anything else human is just plain silly.

Would you have liked it better if I had said: and those primates later evolved onto what are known today as humans?

Well yeah, unlike what you said the first time it would be true

[goalie]

Oh boy did you not read the part were I stated that "possibily in the late stages of dinosaurs small monkey or ape amimals were present and were in fact what we call humas and along the lines of evolution we evolved from that small creature to the massive civalization we are today" or not?

Yes i did, and it contains both stupidity and futility (bolded).

1) It is ridiculous to call them Human, it's a word that has a very distinct meaning and describes a very narrow lineage of Primates - US. To call anything else human is just plain silly.

Would you have liked it better if I had said: and those primates later evolved onto what are known today as humans?

Well yeah, unlike what you said the first time it would be true

Ok then my knowlage is still intact Then as I said before the lower evolution of people some un-named (to my understanding) primate was present at the time of the dinosaurs! I have somewhat proved my case. But as one of the first posts stated that there were beasts of whatever they said it could be that they had active imaginations couldn't it?

[theVOID]

Ok, that's sorted but my point still stands, calling them People or human does nothing but make your sentences nonsensical, a more accurate way would be to call them "very early ancestors of the primates" - It just saves this kind of back-and-forth talk over a semantic problem from needing to happen.

[goalie]

Ok, that's sorted but my point still stands, calling them People or human does nothing but make your sentences nonsensical, a more accurate way would be to call them "very early ancestors of the primates" - It just saves this kind of back-and-forth talk over a semantic problem from needing to happen.

Fair enough, very early ancestors of the primates were alive at the time of dinosaurs. And the explanation of what early native amaricans saw are called dreams and so they would not forget them they drew on the walls of caves exet....

[theVOID]

Or some of them were just really bad painters.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I wouldn't be so quick to claim that, there are primate remains that have been found from 58 Million BCE, and Evolutionary developmental evidence (the time necessary for the evolutionary process to take the 58Mil BCE primates from the closest known mammalian pre-extinction based on the number of mutations and viral coding doesn't seem long enough, even considering Adaptive radiation being highly effective in newly predator-free environments, it is actually more likely that there was a genuine primate ancestor before 65Mil BCE), and fossil evidence (bone structure of later primates as opposed to the currently identified pre-primates) to suggest that they may have been around for as long as 75 Million BCE.

Just in case you're interested

Perhaps, though I did mention that the very very very earliest proto-primates could have been around prior to the 65m/y extinction event -that that arguement could have been made -, but the websites I drummed up essentially compared them to shrews and squirrels. They were small, dumb, and about as far from the primates we know of today as possible while still being considered primates.
My focus was more toward the idea that monkeys, primates, and most certainly humans weren't around during that time and even though we have more in common with primates than other life forms, it doesn't connect those three kinds of creatures to the pre-extinction dinosaurs any more than connecting us to ancestors that evolved into humans prior to the evolution of primates.
After all, the first proto-mammals were around apparently over 200 or so million years prior to primates.

[Minimalist]

I don't know what a "proto-primate" is?

The earliest primate fossils

http://www.physorg.com/news88774682.html

The team also discovered two 56-million-year-old fossils, including the most primitive primate skeleton ever described.

Of course, science is still investigating...unlike religion which thinks 'god' played in the dirt and created everything!

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I don't know what a "proto-primate" is?

Proto-primates is just fancy-talk for 'the first primate-like mammals'.
My article that I showed earlier (linked above) stated something to this effect, though it generalized that the earliest primates were estimated to come in around 53~58 million years ago.

Still, these darn 'transitional' fossils make it difficult to say when one 'type' of species really 'began' when technically we've never stopped being the kind of creatures described above.
Evolution is always in motion and every 'species' is always in transition into another.

[goalie]

I don't know what a "proto-primate" is?

Proto-primates is just fancy-talk for 'the first primate-like mammals'.
My article that I showed earlier (linked above) stated something to this effect, though it generalized that the earliest primates were estimated to come in around 53~58 million years ago.

Still, these darn 'transitional' fossils make it difficult to say when one 'type' of species really 'began' when technically we've never stopped being the kind of creatures described above.
Evolution is always in motion and every 'species' is always in transition into another.

I do agree with you points although you might want to consider that some species have remained almost unchanged for millions of years: sharks, alligators, crocodiles, sea turtles, marine iguanas, tortoises, some birds, and a few others.

[Captain Scarlet]

I don't know what a "proto-primate" is?

Proto-primates is just fancy-talk for 'the first primate-like mammals'.
My article that I showed earlier (linked above) stated something to this effect, though it generalized that the earliest primates were estimated to come in around 53~58 million years ago.
Still, these darn 'transitional' fossils make it difficult to say when one 'type' of species really 'began' when technically we've never stopped being the kind of creatures described above.
Evolution is always in motion and every 'species' is always in transition into another.

Absolutely Dark. I wish folks would get it into there heads that macro evolution is not a thing. Just a convenient way to describe a whole load of micro evolutionary steps over very large periods of time, against the framework of a man made classification system If you accept microevolution you accept evolution FULL STOP. There is no transition of species X to species Y, or taxa X to taxa Y in 1 or even 10 generations. It takes 100s and 1000s of generations in micro steps. There are also no such things as transitional forms as you have said we are always in motion and becuase the fossil record in necessirly sparse we see only milestones along a whole journey. In some respects it is remarkable that we have as much evidence as we do.