Coincident existence of dinosaurs and man as evidence against the theory of evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?

No. Mammals would still have evolved. Mammalian evolution does not depend on the COMPLETE extinction of dinosaurs.

Is this leading to a 'surprise' presentation of human and dinosaur footprints together in some riverbed in Texas?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Mammals would still have evolved. Mammalian evolution does not depend on the COMPLETE extinction of dinosaurs.

Is this leading to a 'surprise' presentation of human and dinosaur footprints together in some riverbed in Texas?

No. I have no surprise evidence. I have seen creationists argue against evolution based on such amusing evidence as dinosaur footprints in the same rock as those of people. I was just curious to see what others had to say about the idea.

We have found species of animals from groups that were long thought to have been extinct and those findings do not rise to to the level of contradicting evolution anymore than live dinos would today. Coelacanths are a well-known example.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually it is possible and likely that very large flightless carnivorous birds called phorusrhacids existed contemporaneous on earth with our ancient human ancestors. They died out about 2.6 million years ago in South America, and did not have any contact with pre-humans. Could you call them dinosaurs?

By the way you will not find any rabbits in Cambrian rocks.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?

Humans have always existed alongside dinosaurs. They're called birds.

If you mean the Flintstones type trope of saurian dinosaurs living wholesale alongside modern humans, it wouldn't be evidence against evolution, per se, it would be serious evidence against our current conception of the fossil record and extinction events.

If someone found a "lost world" type remnant population, though, that wouldn't require that much of a scientific upheaval, though.

Why?

 

[siti]

Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?

Certainly not! But the usual creationist argument is not that dinosaurs walking with humans disproves the theory of evolution, but that dinosaurs must have walked with humans because the Bible says they were all created in 7 days about 6000 years ago...there is just no way to rescue that kind of thinking.

Having said that - I thought of asking google what happened to the dinosaurs - in the hope of finding some reference to the fact that whilst the vast majority of species of dinosaurs did indeed expire totally at the K-T extinction event, some of the evolutionary descendants are still with us today. Unfortunately what I found was this absolute gem of incredible silliness from the University of Illinois (no less):

"While there are several ideas, one that many scientists believe is that a huge comet or asteroid 6 to 12 miles wide slammed into the region that is now part of the eastern coast of Mexico...

The impact of this object is believed to have caused darkness over the entire earth for many months, due to the huge amounts of dust that were thrown into the atmosphere. A global wildfire would have destroyed over half of all living things. Water would have been poisoned in most places, and the earth would have sunk into a deep freeze while the dust was in the air.


Even through all this, some plants and animals survived, including some insects, fishes, frogs, crocodiles, turtles, birds, and ...

... [wait for it] ...

...mammoths."​

For goodness sake! Mammoths - 65 million years ago? No wonder the general public is so woefully misinformed about science! I have emailed them (the University not the mammoths).

PS - they did at least mention birds but failed to mention that they were and are dinosaurs.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Humans have always existed alongside dinosaurs. They're called birds.

If you mean the Flintstones type trope of saurian dinosaurs living wholesale alongside modern humans, it wouldn't be evidence against evolution, per se, it would be serious evidence against our current conception of the fossil record and extinction events.

If someone found a "lost world" type remnant population, though, that wouldn't require that much of a scientific upheaval, though.

Why?

It would be evidence against the extinction of dinosaurs, but it would have no impact in refuting the theory of evolution. That it would refute evolutionary theory is a favorite creationist claim that has no serious basis. Not even a non-serious basis.

It would be an incredible find and offer living examples to compare the fossil record to, but it would not refute evolution. I would hate to see what would happen to them once they were discovered and became the objects of human interest. If a person thinks finding an alligator in the tub is a shocking, wait until baby T-rex hits the pet trade.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Certainly not! But the usual creationist argument is not that dinosaurs walking with humans disproves the theory of evolution, but that dinosaurs must have walked with humans because the Bible says they were all created in 7 days about 6000 years ago...there is just no way to rescue that kind of thinking.

Having said that - I thought of asking google what happened to the dinosaurs - in the hope of finding some reference to the fact that whilst the vast majority of species of dinosaurs did indeed expire totally at the K-T extinction event, some of the evolutionary descendants are still with us today. Unfortunately what I found was this absolute gem of incredible silliness from the University of Illinois (no less):

"While there are several ideas, one that many scientists believe is that a huge comet or asteroid 6 to 12 miles wide slammed into the region that is now part of the eastern coast of Mexico...

The impact of this object is believed to have caused darkness over the entire earth for many months, due to the huge amounts of dust that were thrown into the atmosphere. A global wildfire would have destroyed over half of all living things. Water would have been poisoned in most places, and the earth would have sunk into a deep freeze while the dust was in the air.


Even through all this, some plants and animals survived, including some insects, fishes, frogs, crocodiles, turtles, birds, and ...

... [wait for it] ...

...mammoths."​

For goodness sake! Mammoths - 65 million years ago? No wonder the general public is so woefully misinformed about science! I have emailed them (the University not the mammoths).

I have seen both arguments offered and it depends on what the creationist is fighting to prove.

Wow. I did not know that mammoths were such an old lineage. This changes everything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about the teeth man?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually it is possible and likely that very large flightless carnivorous birds called phorusrhacids existed contemporaneous on earth with our ancient human ancestors. They died out about 2.6 million years ago in South America, and did not have any contact with humans. Could you call them dinosaurs?

Interesting. So I had to go looking for information. I was just reading that they existed starting about 62 million years ago until about 2 million years ago, so they would be the birds that assumed apex predator status with the passing of the dinosaurs and the opening of those niches.

By the way you will not find any rabbits in Cambrian rocks.

I know. I have looked.

 

[siti]

What about the teeth man?

Sparrows have teeth..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sparrows have teeth..

This may be a first. I do not recall having examined the teeth of Jack Sparrow, despite having seen him portrayed in all those movies.

So if sparrows have teeth and are made of wood, they will float. If they are made of wood, we can build a bridge out of them. No. No. What else can we do with wood. Burn the sparrows.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Certainly not! But the usual creationist argument is not that dinosaurs walking with humans disproves the theory of evolution, but that dinosaurs must have walked with humans because the Bible says they were all created in 7 days about 6000 years ago...there is just no way to rescue that kind of thinking.

Having said that - I thought of asking google what happened to the dinosaurs - in the hope of finding some reference to the fact that whilst the vast majority of species of dinosaurs did indeed expire totally at the K-T extinction event, some of the evolutionary descendants are still with us today. Unfortunately what I found was this absolute gem of incredible silliness from the University of Illinois (no less):

"While there are several ideas, one that many scientists believe is that a huge comet or asteroid 6 to 12 miles wide slammed into the region that is now part of the eastern coast of Mexico...

The impact of this object is believed to have caused darkness over the entire earth for many months, due to the huge amounts of dust that were thrown into the atmosphere. A global wildfire would have destroyed over half of all living things. Water would have been poisoned in most places, and the earth would have sunk into a deep freeze while the dust was in the air.


Even through all this, some plants and animals survived, including some insects, fishes, frogs, crocodiles, turtles, birds, and ...

... [wait for it] ...

...mammoths."​

For goodness sake! Mammoths - 65 million years ago? No wonder the general public is so woefully misinformed about science! I have emailed them (the University not the mammoths).

PS - they did at least mention birds but failed to mention that they were and are dinosaurs.

Some religious people stopped by my place once and left some comic books about Genesis to help me find my way to their thinking and "true" Christianity. I was looking through one of the books that illustrated the flood. In one panel, there is Noah and family on the ark, with the waters rising around them. In the water is something I did not immediately recognize and I puzzled over it a bit until recognition seized me. It was the top of a T. rex head just barely sticking out of surface of the water. Upon closer examination, some of the animals that were mixing with the people struggling to find higher ground were mammoths.

Why these animals were not on the ark was not explained in the comic book.

 

[siti]

This may be a first. I do not recall having examined the teeth of Jack Sparrow, despite having seen him portrayed in all those movies.

So if sparrows have teeth and are made of wood, they will float. If they are made of wood, we can build a bridge out of them. No. No. What else can we do with wood. Burn the sparrows.

How do you know so much about sparrows?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you know so much about sparrows?

I have new learning that describes the earth as banana-shaped and how to predict earthquakes using sheep's bladders.

 

[Valjean]

Interesting. So I had to go looking for information. I was just reading that they existed starting about 62 million years ago until about 2 million years ago, so they would be the birds that assumed apex predator status with the passing of the dinosaurs and the opening of those niches.
I know. I have looked.

What about the ratites? We apparently wiped out the larger ones thousands of years ago, but we still have some pretty large examples running around.

Teeth? Birds did have teeth till relatively recently.

 

[sayak83]

Would the discovery that a few or even one species of dinosaur existed contemporaneously with man at any point in our history or even now, be evidence against the theory of evolution? Why?

Is the theory of evolution contingent on the complete extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago or shortly after that?

Well, birds are a sub-branch of the dinosaurs, so....
It will put evolutionary theory in doubt as it will question the competence of the scientists tasked with unearthing and analyzing the evidence. For 150 years, all the fossil evidence has shown that non-avian dinosaur lineages were extinct by 65 mya, while humans and hominids evolved only 8 mya. So if suddenly, credible evidence of the existence of man before 65 mya, or the existence of dinosaurs till say 3 mya is found, that puts the entire fossil discovery project and analysis methodology in doubt.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, birds are a sub-branch of the dinosaurs, so....
It will put evolutionary theory in doubt as it will question the competence of the scientists tasked with unearthing and analyzing the evidence. For 150 years, all the fossil evidence has shown that non-avian dinosaur lineages were extinct by 65 mya, while humans and hominids evolved only 8 mya. So if suddenly, credible evidence of the existence of man before 65 mya, or the existence of dinosaurs till say 3 mya is found, that puts the entire fossil discovery project and analysis methodology in doubt.

There you go, throwing logic and facts at what has been a real fun set of creationist arguments about dinosaurs.

I agree. There would be a lot of questions to answer regarding what we already know how it would need to be explained.

I do not fall into the camp that thinks non-avian dinosaurs have existed recently or to this day in the presence of humans or even our ancestors of the last 10 million years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about the ratites? We apparently wiped out the larger ones thousands of years ago, but we still have some pretty large examples running around.

Teeth? Birds did have teeth till relatively recently.

I do not think I would want to go head to head with an ostrich. Just recently I read about a Florida man that was killed by his cassowary.

I think there may be some birds with teeth. If you look closely at this picture I took off the interet, you may be able to see the teeth. If it is on the internet, it must be true.

Never mind. I couldn't get it to work. Take my word, that bird had big nasty teeth.