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

[SomeRandom]

Now I feel like watching the old (and probably now outdated) BBC series Walking with Dinosaurs and it’s sequel Walking with Beasts. Excellent series, both of them.

 

[LuisDantas]

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, and no.

But such a claim coming out of nowhere would be silly, and inconsistent with the current knowledge.

It would also bring the field of discussion well apart from actual science, which may be why it is sometimes presented by deniers of evolution.

 

[shmogie]

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 if this occurred evolution science would have its credibility really shaken.

An interesting aside is that a ancient wall paintings by the Aborigial people of Australia seem to portray very detailed depictions of dinosaurs known to science..

I take no position on these, but find them fascinating.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Finding a dinosaur alive on Earth would not disprove evolution. No one became a Creationist after finding a coelacanth on a Japanese fishing boat--but for both sides, it showed more scrutiny is required in phylogeny.

 

[Neutral Name]

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?

I find that all extremely interesting. They have actually dug up rock ledges to follow tracks of dinosaurs and men together. It is complete proof. Yet, most scientists will not accept it because it doesn't fit neatly into their theories. There is so much hidden truth. Yet, the way things work, one day they will be forced to acknowledge things they are trying to hide. They will not forever be able to hide everything. Gobekli Tepe is a great example. They can no longer state that man had no civilization 12,000 years ago. It has been very openly demonstrated. There will be other findings which will prove the antiquated thought of current science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, and no.

But such a claim coming out of nowhere would be silly, and inconsistent with the current knowledge.

It would also bring the field of discussion well apart from actual science, which may be why it is sometimes presented by deniers of evolution.

I stumbled on a book that is based on the premise that evolution is refuted, because the evidence shows that dinosaurs and people co-existed at some point. Completely ridiculous, but there is no accounting how people will spend their time and the pointless ends they will chase spending it all in an attempt to protect religious belief that isn't even threatened by science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Sparrows taste better light roasted on a skewer soaked in hot sauce.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Certainly if this occurred evolution science would have its credibility really shaken.

Not in science. I see a discovery like that creating a lot of excitement, interest and thousands of questions to ask and research, but nothing to shake the theory of evolution just from the establishment of the existence.

Like fossilized dinosaur soft tissue, it would be misused and misrepresented by those that deny evolution.

An interesting aside is that a ancient wall paintings by the Aborigial people of Australia seem to portray very detailed depictions of dinosaurs known to science..

I take no position on these, but find them fascinating.

Coincidence. Artistic imagination. I have seen lots of so called dinosaurs in artistic renderings. Interesting, but hardly strong evidence of the existence of dinosaurs at the same time with people. There are also lots of places with ancient pictures that have no dinosaurs.

Even if they were depictions of dinosaurs that the artists actually saw in person, that would be exciting information, but not evidence that the theory of evolution has failed.

As it stands, ancient pictures that require interpretation means nothing.

 

[Valjean]

I find that all extremely interesting. They have actually dug up rock ledges to follow tracks of dinosaurs and men together. It is complete proof. Yet, most scientists will not accept it because it doesn't fit neatly into their theories. There is so much hidden truth. Yet, the way things work, one day they will be forced to acknowledge things they are trying to hide. They will not forever be able to hide everything. Gobekli Tepe is a great example. They can no longer state that man had no civilization 12,000 years ago. It has been very openly demonstrated. There will be other findings which will prove the antiquated thought of current science.

Science doesn't reject evidence because it doesn't fit a certain theory -- though the occasional scientist might. In science theory follows evidence, wherever it leads. If there were verifiable human footprints associated with a Mesozoic site it wouldn't be hidden, it would be on the cover of Nature and would make headlines all over the world.

Gobekli Tepe is remarkable for its megalithic archetecture and the social organization needed to construct such a complex 9 or 10 thousand years ago. But a civilization? I wasn't aware there was any indication of a civilization associated with the site.

What about the site is science trying to hide? Scientific ideas change all the time as new evidence is uncovered. It isn't like religion, nothing is carved in stone, everything's provisional.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Finding a dinosaur alive on Earth would not disprove evolution. No one became a Creationist after finding a coelacanth on a Japanese fishing boat--but for both sides, it showed more scrutiny is required in phylogeny.

I am not sure what you mean. It did not change phylogeny at all, except to lead to the addition of newly discovered species. That happens every time an new species is discovered.

 

[Valjean]

I find that all extremely interesting. They have actually dug up rock ledges to follow tracks of dinosaurs and men together. It is complete proof. Yet, most scientists will not accept it because it doesn't fit neatly into their theories. There is so much hidden truth. Yet, the way things work, one day they will be forced to acknowledge things they are trying to hide. They will not forever be able to hide everything. Gobekli Tepe is a great example. They can no longer state that man had no civilization 12,000 years ago. It has been very openly demonstrated. There will be other findings which will prove the antiquated thought of current science.

Science doesn't reject evidence because it doesn't fit a certain theory -- though the occasional scientist might. In science theory follows evidence, wherever it leads.

Gobekli Tepe is remarkable for its megalithic archetecture and the social organization needed to construct such a complex 9 or 10 thousand years ago. But a civilization? I wasn't aware there was any indication of a civilization associated with the site.

What about the site is science trying to hide? Scientific ideas change all the time as new evidence is uncovered. It isn't like religion, nothing is carved in stone, everything's provisional.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find that all extremely interesting. They have actually dug up rock ledges to follow tracks of dinosaurs and men together. It is complete proof. Yet, most scientists will not accept it because it doesn't fit neatly into their theories. There is so much hidden truth. Yet, the way things work, one day they will be forced to acknowledge things they are trying to hide. They will not forever be able to hide everything. Gobekli Tepe is a great example. They can no longer state that man had no civilization 12,000 years ago. It has been very openly demonstrated. There will be other findings which will prove the antiquated thought of current science.

That evidence is either misinterpreted or fabricated. There are no verified examples of dinosaur footprints side by side with those of people. There is no evidence of human fossils or those of our ancestors that have been found with dinosaurs. The dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. Humans and our ancestors with similar morphology have only existed for 10 million years.

I am unfamiliar with the claims against the existence of human civilizations you mention. Gobekli Tepe coincides very well with established timelines of the invention of agriculture, which would have been a keystone event in the development of human civilizations.

 

[Valjean]

An interesting aside is that a ancient wall paintings by the Aborigial people of Australia seem to portray very detailed depictions of dinosaurs known to science..

I take no position on these, but find them fascinating.

Are you sure these "dinosaurs" weren't kangaroos or Dromornithids?
There are also aboriginal paintings of flying saucers.

 

[shmogie]

Are you sure these "dinosaurs" weren't kangaroos or Dromornithids?
There are also aboriginal paintings of flying saucers.

They looked like dinosaurs to me, plesiosaurs, but I am not a palientologist

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sparrows taste better light roasted on a skewer soaked in hot sauce.

Buffalo sparrow wings?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sparrows taste better light roasted on a skewer soaked in hot sauce.

I am a fan of hot sauce and find that it works well with many foods.

 

[shunyadragon]

Buffalo sparrow wings?

Munch the sparrow whole.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Munch the sparrow whole.

Considering how much meat there is on a sparrow, that may be the only practical way to eat them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Finding a dinosaur alive on Earth would not disprove evolution. No one became a Creationist after finding a coelacanth on a Japanese fishing boat--but for both sides, it showed more scrutiny is required in phylogeny.

Bad example. And this has been explained to you. Modern coelacanths are quite different from ancient ones. Coelacanth is an entire order of fish. Not a species, not a genus, not even a family.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Considering how much meat there is on a sparrow, that may be the only practical way to eat them.

Forgotten Foods #1: The House Sparrow