Path of the Dinosaurs

Assuming some dinosaurs(besides birds) had survived the great extinction, how far could they have devoloped? Which species would be most likely to survive? Could they have devoloped fire, farming and metalworking?

Now to answer my own questions....

In my opinion, they could have devoloped very far, as far as we have. The most likely species would be either a small carnivore, such as velociraptor or troodon or a medium-sized herbivore, such as a hadrosaur.

While a carnivore would not devolop farming, for obvious reasons, it is possible they could become omnivorous.

Any thoughts?

carnivores could domesticate animals

fortyseven said:

carnivores could domesticate animals

Click to expand...

That wouldn't allow them to settle down though. It seems to be a moot point as, according to wiki, troodons were omnivores anyway.

A creepy pic of what an EvolvedSaurian might look like:



Looks kinda like an Asgard, no?

EvolvedSaurian said:

Assuming some dinosaurs(besides birds) had survived the great extinction, how far could they have devoloped? Which species would be most likely to survive? Could they have devoloped fire, farming and metalworking?

Click to expand...

Yes....just look at the hundreds of species on Earth which farm and weave in OTL.

In my opinion, they could have devoloped very far, as far as we have.

Click to expand...

why do they have to develop as we have?

The most likely species would be either a small carnivore, such as velociraptor or troodon or a medium-sized herbivore, such as a hadrosaur.

Click to expand...

After 65 million years of evolution, both of those clades would've been superceeded by something else.

and there's no assuming that the intelligence would only come after 65 million years.

While a carnivore would not devolop farming, for obvious reasons,

Click to expand...

What "obvious reasons"?

The same "obvious reasons" that says any intelligent primate would never develop a navy or submarine? (since primates hate the water)

fortyseven said:

carnivores could domesticate animals

Click to expand...

Most definately.

EvolvedSaurian said:

That wouldn't allow them to settle down though.

Click to expand...

Why would they need to?

(though it all depends on what they domesticate...rabbits can be kept in settlements, while gnu would have to be followed on migration)

It seems to be a moot point as, according to wiki, troodons were omnivores anyway.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt wound tooth was an omnivore.

Keenir said:

The same "obvious reasons" that says any intelligent primate would never develop a navy or submarine? (since primates hate the water)

Click to expand...

To be fair that's a flawed analogy since humans are primates and we don't hate the water.

Perhaps a better one would be "any intelligent primate would never develop aircraft since primates can't fly"?

Keenir said:

Yes....just look at the hundreds of species on Earth which farm and weave in OTL.



why do they have to develop as we have?



After 65 million years of evolution, both of those clades would've been superceeded by something else.

and there's no assuming that the intelligence would only come after 65 million years.



What "obvious reasons"?

The same "obvious reasons" that says any intelligent primate would never develop a navy or submarine? (since primates hate the water)

Click to expand...

True, true...

Because it would be boring otherwise.

Seems these two contradict each other.

Carnivores don't often eat plants.

Keenir said:

Most definately.



Why would they need to?

(though it all depends on what they domesticate...rabbits can be kept in settlements, while gnu would have to be followed on migration)



I highly doubt wound tooth was an omnivore.

Click to expand...

Possibly.

To develop civilizations, they'd have to have a food surplus. Rabbits might work though or a mammal with similiar breeding habits.

From wiki:

WIKI WIKI WIKI! said:

Troodon (pronounced "Tro-odon") is Greek for "wounding tooth", referring to the dinosaur's serrated teeth (although these may actually have been adapted for herbivorous feeding, see below). Its diet consisted of smaller animals, including mammals and perhaps a significant amount of plant material as well.

Click to expand...

Farther down.....

Just plain said:

Troodon had very long, slender limbs, suggesting that the animal was able to move quite quickly. Although originally thought to have been a predator, there is some evidence that Troodon may either have been an omnivore or a herbivore. The jaws met in a broad, U-shaped symphysis similar to that of an iguana and the teeth were leaf-like, bearing large serrations like those of herbivorous dinosaurs. In addition, the teeth were short but broad, with wear facets on their sides. In these respects Troodon was again more like plant eating dinosaurs than carnivores such as Dromaeosauridae. A specimen of Troodon is known from Montana, sitting atop a clutch of eggs.

Click to expand...

Were there no omnivorous dinosaurs at all? I don't know of any, but maybe...

I think the smaller carnivores are most promising... they ran on two legs, so they could use thir hands for all kinds of work, making tools and so on. However, how good are hands with claws for toolmaking?

The picture is too human-oriented, imo. Also, only very small animals have such large eyes in comparison to the body. For larger animals, it's better to have them easier to protect, and they deliver more information than the brain can handle even if they are much smaller than that. Only nocturnal creatures could use large eyes, but any being superior due to intelligence probably doesn't need that adaption.

I also see velociraptor and the likes as the best candidates to evolve into intelligent beings. Much bigger creatures like T-Rex might also make it first to that stage. Most plant eaters lack intelligence - with the notable exception of the apes we developed from. One reason might be that intelligent hunters would use their intelligence to decimate each other, while plant eaters are more likely to form large groups suitable for developing "social intelligence". But 65 million years is more than enough time for pretty intelligent carnivores to turn into omni- or herbivores and using their brains instead of their muscles or specialised tools to open fruits and the likes.

Smaller animals like velociraptor should also have the advantage that their larger possible numbers should favour fast development, similar to apes vs. larger animals.

An evolution to an intelligent being might be possible within 5-25 million years. 40 to 60 my of development might give pretty interesting results - just imagine "Sliders" entering such a world...

Btw. - I do believe there were omnivores among the dinos - how else could some have changed between carni- and herbivore? They just didn't have specialised jaws for omnivorous living at that time - herbivores basically were carnivores with "degenerated" teeth and a few other adaptions.

EvolvedSaurian said:

While a carnivore would not devolop farming, for obvious reasons, it is possible they could become omnivorous.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Well, to cultivate the necessary herds for a carnivorous civilisation, crop cultivation would also need to be developed to feed the herds of the size needed to sustain a technical civilisation

Saladin said:

Well, to cultivate the necessary herds for a carnivorous civilisation, crop cultivation would also need to be developed to feed the herds of the size needed to sustain a technical civilisation

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you're right. They wouldn't develop farming for direct use, at least.

In which case they would settle down..... Apologies, then.

Ok, we're supposing here that dinosaurs never became extinct, and that a species of dinosaur evolved to develop an advanced culture and is in the position that humans are in OTL.

We need a term to refer to these very advanced dinosaurs, perhaps dino-sapien.

The dino-sapiens would have to be warm blooded, otherwise they and their culture would be geographicly limited to certain climates. Places that are too cold or get too cold at some time each year would be uninhabitable. Places where the climate is too hot would also present challenges to the ongoing development of advanced civilization. Pretty much any other species they domesticated would also then have to be warm blooded as well.

It would be pretty difficult for a cold blooded species to develop an advanced culture and to spread it world wide because of the restrictions climate would put on them.

I have read speculations that some species of dinosaurs may have been warm blooded. In other words, warm blooded reptiles that evolved into what we today know as birds.

They would also have to give live birth. A very settled egg laying species that lived entirely in or near villages, towns, or cities would be possible. But it would be very difficult for a nomadic or semi-nomadic culture of egg layers to develop due to the need to protect and care for the eggs. Properly careing for eggs and keeping them warm presents a very different challenge than protecting and taking care of live young.

Some dinosaurs did give live birth as do some species of snakes today. I don't know if any other modern reptiles give live birth or not.

It would probably also help a lot if the females could give milk to feed babies and the very young.

Without some of this I think it would be difficult for advanced culture and civilization to develop.

So perhaps what we are talking about here is a situation where dinosaurs never became extince, where birds and mammals never developed, and where the reptiles evolved to become warm blooded, reptiles that give live birth and also produce milk.

The first mammals were already during the time of the dinosaurs around, even before the birds. They might be restricted to their ecological niche.

The problem with many dinosaurs is that they're too specialized for their niches. For the development of intelligence though, it is best to have an unspecialized animal that's flexible and uses its intellect to get by, not brute force.

A wolf or tiger wouldn't be compelled to develop complex tools for killing prey when they can just use their superior strength,speed and teeth/claws. The thing is human ancestors didn't have these bodily specializations, so we responded with specialization of the intellect. We have only hands and we lack the teeth, claws, and brute force of our competing predators, so we use our brains and our hands to craft weapons and outwit our opponents. A pure predator in my opinion is unlikely to develop a civilization, since they are too well adapted to their lifestyle of running down and dismembering prey. An omnivore/scavenger type with no specialized adaptations would be the best. It would need smarts to figure out how to obtain different sorts of food (plucking fruits, catching small animals, stealing/snatching food, scavenging etc.) It would also need to band in groups and communicate to avoid larger predators.

I don't know, I think maybe an oviraptor-type (if it was omnivorous and brainy) would be a good candidate.

EvolvedSaurian said:

Assuming some dinosaurs(besides birds) had survived the great extinction, how far could they have devoloped?

Click to expand...

Perhaps another way to ask this question would be, what if the great extinction or if this particular great extinction had never happened?

It is arguable that some dinosaurs (besides birds) did survive and that this is how we got animals such as aligators, crocodiles, and even komodo lizards.

It's interesting how suddenly and totally evolution can take a totally different path. While it's hard to imagine a huge meteor hitting the Earth and causing the great extinction as being a small event, sometimes the situation that causes evolution to take a totally different path or make a major change is a situation that on the surface seems very small and insignificant.

A thread like this shows that just one little change somewhere along the evolutionary timeline, and we and our world today would be very different.

Another thought I had here is since small mammals had developed before the great extinction, if the great extinction had not happened or if dinosaurs had not become extinct, could to totally different species have evolved and each developed a highly advanced social structure, culture and civilization, one mamalian possibly primate (humans) and the other reptilian? I know this gets into the realm of ASB, but the question does come to mind here.

Here's a rough sketch I made.

With Humanity being where its at, and our closest ancestor at that time probably being a proto- bug eating-semi furry-tree thing, its seems kinda silly to me, to even assume that the descendants of dinosaurs would even be recognizable as dinosaurs.

I find it far more likely that one of the descendants of said dinosaurs, would, in a computer thread, pose the question, what if those proto-bug eating-semi furry-tree things had actually developed civilization instead of us

I think there is only room on Earth for one dominant species.
If they evolved after the comet, then we would have never taken over the world.

Flocculencio said:

To be fair that's a flawed analogy since humans are primates and we don't hate the water.

Perhaps a better one would be "any intelligent primate would never develop aircraft since primates can't fly"?

Click to expand...

both are perfectly good.
(humans are the only primates that don't hate water)

I like the flying analogy!