Would Dinosaurs Got Smart?

[Neanderthaland]

I don't think that you quite appreciate the context. We're not talking about a trip to the neighborhood park. We're talking about survival. Like you're going to spend a year on a deserted island.

Imagine 100 members of this forum each gonna spend one year on their own deserted island. Each island is exactly the same. Each participant can take whatever fits in typical pockets. Naturally we'd see a continuum of carrying decisions that range from dumbest to smartest. The participants who made the smarter carrying decisions would be better off than the participants who made the dumber carrying decisions.

Let's tweak the scenario so that each participant can also take whatever fits in a typical backpack. What difference is this tweak gonna make? Well, there's gonna be an even bigger disparity in the results. The smarter participants are going to be a lot better off than the dumber participants.

As our ancestors were able to carry more and more, an increasingly greater advantage was given to the smartest ones, and they were able to exert more and more influence on the gene pool.

Just for reference, what you take with you is a complete rounding error, here. The single most useful thing that you can take is what fits inside your brain. Some random fucking idiot with a perfectly-packed backpack will die a whole lot quicker than an expert with literally nothing.

And just to elaborate on that point: Homo Erectus basically dominated its environment. They spread all throughout the Old World, to many different climates and conditions, and flourished everywhere.

All of the elaborations on Humanity since Homo Erectus have not been about man overcoming nature, that was already done. It was about humanity competing against itself. And not in such a mundane way as "who can carry the most."

A well packed backpack doesn't get the girls, the guy who obsessed over that did not pass on his genes.

[Neanderthaland]

X = Bob has a pocket of real gold while Fred has a pocket of fool's gold.
Y = Bob has a cart of real gold while Fred has a cart of fool's gold.

With X, Bob is better off than Fred. With Y, Bob is way more better off than Fred.

With X, Bob is going to have one wife while Fred is going to have 0 wives. With Y, Bob is going to have 10 wives while Fred is still going to have 0 wives.

Increased carrying capacity means that Bob is going to have that much more influence on the gene pool than Fred.

What does this have to do with Dinosaurs?

Tyrannosaurus can carry both Bob and Fred, and all of their equipment, in its stomach. Showing its superiority in this contest.

[Heloin]

What does this have to do with Dinosaurs?

Were you expecting this thread to go somewhere other than flawed economic theories?

No but I had some misplaced hope.

What does this have to do with Dinosaurs?

I'll be the first to say that if there was a dinosaur named Bob 65 million years ago that was pulling around a cartful of gold, he was likely acting in a manner that was maladaptive to his environment.

Personally if Bob the Stegosaurus is pushing around a cartful of gold then several orders of magnitude in mental and societal change have occurred in dinosaurs that are far more interesting to look at.

[Heloin]

What does this have to do with Dinosaurs?

Tyrannosaurus can carry both Bob and Fred, and all of their equipment, in its stomach. Showing its superiority in this contest.

I bow to the wisdom of those who rode on the backs of T-Rexs.

[Ethel mermania]

X = Bob has a pocket of real gold while Fred has a pocket of fool's gold.
Y = Bob has a cart of real gold while Fred has a cart of fool's gold.

With X, Bob is better off than Fred. With Y, Bob is way more better off than Fred.

With X, Bob is going to have one wife while Fred is going to have 0 wives. With Y, Bob is going to have 10 wives while Fred is still going to have 0 wives.

Increased carrying capacity means that Bob is going to have that much more influence on the gene pool than Fred.

What does this have to do with Dinosaurs?

I will vote 25 dollars for bigger brains for them

[Bombadil]

A great deal of evolution is pure dumb luck, much as capitalism is, the odds of your success are way more down to luck than they are of smart decisions.

Maybe one person who goes to your hypothetical island takes a solar powered hairdryer cos they want their hair to be pretty, what a dumb decision, turns out blowing hot air is the most effective means of keeping the carnivorous beast that happens to be on the island away from you.

But the truth is the one most likely to survive is the one whose parents can afford to fly out supplies on request with their private plane.

[Neanderthaland]

A great deal of evolution is pure dumb luck, much as capitalism is, the odds of your success are way more down to luck than they are of smart decisions.

Maybe one person who goes to your hypothetical island takes a solar powered hairdryer cos they want their hair to be pretty, what a dumb decision, turns out blowing hot air is the most effective means of keeping the carnivorous beast that happens to be on the island away from you.

But the truth is the one most likely to survive is the one whose parents can afford to fly out supplies on request with their private plane.

Just because I think it is an interesting fact: there is a point in the Eocene where, almost out of the blue, we see an increase in average brain size across multiple taxa of land vertebrates. Many of which are unrelated to each other. Such as rodents and birds. The vague consensus is that this has something to do with the emergence of the order carnivora. Which were smarter predators then the carnivorous ungulates that preceded them, and created a selective pressure for smarter prey.

If this is true (which I want to stress is not firmly established) then it's possible that higher primates owe their great intelligence to creatures like lions, and tigers, and bears.

Oh my.

[Ayytaly]

Crows are quite smart.

"But crows are birds!"

Yeah, and birds are dinosaurs

[Salus Maior]

Crows are quite smart.

"But crows are birds!"

Yeah, and birds are dinosaurs

I mean, pretty distantly related from any recognizable dinosaurs.

[Neanderthaland]

Crows are quite smart.

"But crows are birds!"

Yeah, and birds are dinosaurs

I mean, pretty distantly related from any recognizable dinosaurs.

More closely related to Tyrannosaurus then Tyrannosaurus is to a Stegosaur.

[Forsher]

What does this have to do with Dinosaurs?

Were you expecting this thread to go somewhere other than flawed economic theories?

I mean, Xero doesn't hide what he's talking about. Though, this thread wasn't as obvious as usual, his signature still says:

You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.

which I'm pretty sure is a reference to

When all you and everyone we knew
Could believe, do, and share in what was true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1TNLU-ydLA

A great deal of evolution is pure dumb luck, much as capitalism is, the odds of your success are way more down to luck than they are of smart decisions.

Maybe one person who goes to your hypothetical island takes a solar powered hairdryer cos they want their hair to be pretty, what a dumb decision, turns out blowing hot air is the most effective means of keeping the carnivorous beast that happens to be on the island away from you.

But the truth is the one most likely to survive is the one whose parents can afford to fly out supplies on request with their private plane.

Just because I think it is an interesting fact: there is a point in the Eocene where, almost out of the blue, we see an increase in average brain size across multiple taxa of land vertebrates. Many of which are unrelated to each other. Such as rodents and birds. The vague consensus is that this has something to do with the emergence of the order carnivora. Which were smarter predators then the carnivorous ungulates that preceded them, and created a selective pressure for smarter prey.

If this is true (which I want to stress is not firmly established) then it's possible that higher primates owe their great intelligence to creatures like lions, and tigers, and bears.

Oh my.

But why were carnivora smarter?

[The Alma Mater]

Crows are quite smart.

"But crows are birds!"

Yeah, and birds are dinosaurs

I mean, pretty distantly related from any recognizable dinosaurs.

No, I am not saying the T-Rex had wings. That would be nightmarish

[Bombadil]

Were you expecting this thread to go somewhere other than flawed economic theories?

I mean, Xero doesn't hide what he's talking about. Though, this thread wasn't as obvious as usual, his signature still says:

You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.

which I'm pretty sure is a reference to

When all you and everyone we knew
Could believe, do, and share in what was true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1TNLU-ydLA

Just because I think it is an interesting fact: there is a point in the Eocene where, almost out of the blue, we see an increase in average brain size across multiple taxa of land vertebrates. Many of which are unrelated to each other. Such as rodents and birds. The vague consensus is that this has something to do with the emergence of the order carnivora. Which were smarter predators then the carnivorous ungulates that preceded them, and created a selective pressure for smarter prey.

If this is true (which I want to stress is not firmly established) then it's possible that higher primates owe their great intelligence to creatures like lions, and tigers, and bears.

Oh my.

But why were carnivora smarter?

They didn’t necessarily have to be smarter, just faster and more tooth and claw-y so, unable to compete on that front, those prey that were smarter survived.

Or they could carry more bags, the science isn’t out on this.

[Eighth Eurasia]

CM Kosemen did some great work on this hypothesis.

[Ethel mermania]

I mean, pretty distantly related from any recognizable dinosaurs.

More closely related to Tyrannosaurus then Tyrannosaurus is to a Stegosaur.

Pfft, you are still mad about Thag.

[Tremulo]

CM Kosemen did some great work on this hypothesis.

Ayyy! Another CM Kosemen fan! Have you seen his YouTube channel?
Here's the link for it: https://www.youtube.com/user/cmkosemen

[Neanderthaland]

But why were carnivora smarter?

There are a few different ideas.

Some people think it's because they weren't very good predators, and so had to rely on smarts to actually bring down game. While I'm not entirely sold on this, I think there may be something to it. Modern mammals tend to hunt smart, and you'll see lions do things like hold the nostrils of a cape buffalo shut to suffocate it when they realize that it's neck is too thick to throttle. which is pretty clever really.

Other people think it might have to do with their ancestors hunting venomous snakes, which requires brainpower. Or it might be an artifact of they way their bodies develop: As they grew larger, there was no way biologically for them to reduce the size of the brain cavity relative to body size, so their brains got bigger. I don't like these as much. Especially the second one, because -while it's a good idea- there's no evidence for it.

The one that I'm most sold on is that... well you'll notice carnivora tend to be highly social animals? And they also tend to hunt cooperatively. It's important to keep track of what the guy next to you is doing. That requires brainpower. They got smart because they started playing team sports.

[Nilokeras]

A great deal of evolution is pure dumb luck, much as capitalism is, the odds of your success are way more down to luck than they are of smart decisions.

Maybe one person who goes to your hypothetical island takes a solar powered hairdryer cos they want their hair to be pretty, what a dumb decision, turns out blowing hot air is the most effective means of keeping the carnivorous beast that happens to be on the island away from you.

But the truth is the one most likely to survive is the one whose parents can afford to fly out supplies on request with their private plane.

Just because I think it is an interesting fact: there is a point in the Eocene where, almost out of the blue, we see an increase in average brain size across multiple taxa of land vertebrates. Many of which are unrelated to each other. Such as rodents and birds. The vague consensus is that this has something to do with the emergence of the order carnivora. Which were smarter predators then the carnivorous ungulates that preceded them, and created a selective pressure for smarter prey.

If this is true (which I want to stress is not firmly established) then it's possible that higher primates owe their great intelligence to creatures like lions, and tigers, and bears.

Oh my.

I personally like the version of the theory that suggests it was driven by ecological release from the extinction of the dinosaurs. The theory is based on the observation that there were comparatively few mesopredators observed during the Mesozoic, of the size of most of the large predator mammals today. The record suggests that unlike in modern ecological communities the mesopredator role was instead taken up by juvenile 'macropredators' - the large theropod dinosaurs of popular imagination - as a consequence of their developmental style, where very large predators start out life as tiny hatchlings and need to grow to massive adult size over the course of several years. These juveniles made up a large chunk of the population of those nominally 'macropredator' species, and prevented the expansion of other organisms into those mesopredator niches. Once the dinosaurs went extinct though those mesopredator niches became empty, and a wide variety of carnivorans stepped into the void, adapting to fill multiple roles in a quantitatively more complex and competitive set of predatory niches, allowing for the development of greater brain size and social complexity as a strategy among certain of them.

[Neanderthaland]

Just because I think it is an interesting fact: there is a point in the Eocene where, almost out of the blue, we see an increase in average brain size across multiple taxa of land vertebrates. Many of which are unrelated to each other. Such as rodents and birds. The vague consensus is that this has something to do with the emergence of the order carnivora. Which were smarter predators then the carnivorous ungulates that preceded them, and created a selective pressure for smarter prey.

If this is true (which I want to stress is not firmly established) then it's possible that higher primates owe their great intelligence to creatures like lions, and tigers, and bears.

Oh my.

I personally like the version of the theory that suggests it was driven by ecological release from the extinction of the dinosaurs. The theory is based on the observation that there were comparatively few mesopredators observed during the Mesozoic, of the size of most of the large predator mammals today. The record suggests that unlike in modern ecological communities the mesopredator role was instead taken up by juvenile 'macropredators' - the large theropod dinosaurs of popular imagination - as a consequence of their developmental style, where very large predators start out life as tiny hatchlings and need to grow to massive adult size over the course of several years. These juveniles made up a large chunk of the population of those nominally 'macropredator' species, and prevented the expansion of other organisms into those mesopredator niches. Once the dinosaurs went extinct though those mesopredator niches became empty, and a wide variety of carnivorans stepped into the void, adapting to fill multiple roles in a quantitatively more complex and competitive set of predatory niches, allowing for the development of greater brain size and social complexity as a strategy among certain of them.

To be clear: this increase in brain size did not happen after the dinosaurs went extinct.

For millions of years after the dinosaurs died out, the dominant predators were mammalian mesonychids and predatory birds. Neither of which were particularly intelligent.

EDIT: oh, and creodonts. Can't forget the creodonts.

[Ifreann]

But why were carnivora smarter?

There are a few different ideas.

Some people think it's because they weren't very good predators, and so had to rely on smarts to actually bring down game. While I'm not entirely sold on this, I think there may be something to it. Modern mammals tend to hunt smart, and you'll see lions do things like hold the nostrils of a cape buffalo shut to suffocate it when they realize that it's neck is too thick to throttle. which is pretty clever really.

Other people think it might have to do with their ancestors hunting venomous snakes, which requires brainpower. Or it might be an artifact of they way their bodies develop: As they grew larger, there was no way biologically for them to reduce the size of the brain cavity, so it got bigger. I don't like these as much. Especially the second one, because -while it's a good idea- there's no evidence for it.

The one that I'm most sold on is that... well you'll notice carnivora tend to be highly social animals? And they also tend to hunt cooperatively. It's important to keep track of what the guy next to you is doing. That requires brainpower. They got smart because they started playing team sports.

The evolutionary advantage of friendship.

[Neanderthaland]

There are a few different ideas.

Some people think it's because they weren't very good predators, and so had to rely on smarts to actually bring down game. While I'm not entirely sold on this, I think there may be something to it. Modern mammals tend to hunt smart, and you'll see lions do things like hold the nostrils of a cape buffalo shut to suffocate it when they realize that it's neck is too thick to throttle. which is pretty clever really.

Other people think it might have to do with their ancestors hunting venomous snakes, which requires brainpower. Or it might be an artifact of they way their bodies develop: As they grew larger, there was no way biologically for them to reduce the size of the brain cavity, so it got bigger. I don't like these as much. Especially the second one, because -while it's a good idea- there's no evidence for it.

The one that I'm most sold on is that... well you'll notice carnivora tend to be highly social animals? And they also tend to hunt cooperatively. It's important to keep track of what the guy next to you is doing. That requires brainpower. They got smart because they started playing team sports.

The evolutionary advantage of friendship.

Maybe the real evolutionary breakthrough was the friends we made along the way?

[Nilokeras]

I personally like the version of the theory that suggests it was driven by ecological release from the extinction of the dinosaurs. The theory is based on the observation that there were comparatively few mesopredators observed during the Mesozoic, of the size of most of the large predator mammals today. The record suggests that unlike in modern ecological communities the mesopredator role was instead taken up by juvenile 'macropredators' - the large theropod dinosaurs of popular imagination - as a consequence of their developmental style, where very large predators start out life as tiny hatchlings and need to grow to massive adult size over the course of several years. These juveniles made up a large chunk of the population of those nominally 'macropredator' species, and prevented the expansion of other organisms into those mesopredator niches. Once the dinosaurs went extinct though those mesopredator niches became empty, and a wide variety of carnivorans stepped into the void, adapting to fill multiple roles in a quantitatively more complex and competitive set of predatory niches, allowing for the development of greater brain size and social complexity as a strategy among certain of them.

To be clear: this increase in brain size did not happen after the dinosaurs went extinct.

For millions of years after the dinosaurs died out, the dominant predators were mammalian mesonychids and predatory birds. Neither of which were particularly intelligent.

EDIT: oh, and creodonts. Can't forget the creodonts.

Which is still a depauperate predatory community compared to later periods and was likely inefficiently filled. Hence the suggestion that initial community composition after the extinction was unstable, and the initial guild of macropredators in the Paleocene declined due to niche expansion from 'below' - ie the smaller carnivorans, which were able to expand upwards in a way that they weren't able to in the Mesozoic with a mature macropredatory assemblage that occupied both the macro-and-mesopredator niches across life stages.

[Kubra]

There are a few different ideas.

Some people think it's because they weren't very good predators, and so had to rely on smarts to actually bring down game. While I'm not entirely sold on this, I think there may be something to it. Modern mammals tend to hunt smart, and you'll see lions do things like hold the nostrils of a cape buffalo shut to suffocate it when they realize that it's neck is too thick to throttle. which is pretty clever really.

Other people think it might have to do with their ancestors hunting venomous snakes, which requires brainpower. Or it might be an artifact of they way their bodies develop: As they grew larger, there was no way biologically for them to reduce the size of the brain cavity, so it got bigger. I don't like these as much. Especially the second one, because -while it's a good idea- there's no evidence for it.

The one that I'm most sold on is that... well you'll notice carnivora tend to be highly social animals? And they also tend to hunt cooperatively. It's important to keep track of what the guy next to you is doing. That requires brainpower. They got smart because they started playing team sports.

The evolutionary advantage of friendship.

Well lemme tell ya, what do you call a *real* survivalist? Someone with three friends and the address of a mormon.
Violence is an intimately social thing.

[Salus Maior]

I mean, pretty distantly related from any recognizable dinosaurs.

More closely related to Tyrannosaurus then Tyrannosaurus is to a Stegosaur.

That's still a pretty wide berth.

[Salus Maior]

The evolutionary advantage of friendship.

Maybe the real evolutionary breakthrough was the friends we made along the way?

So, skip college, make friends = smart?