The Future Is Wild: Tropical Antartica Part 1

[MrMountainFace]

A lot of these scientists... If i ever met them in real life, I'd probably never talk to...

[kaiserpuppylove]

hello

[TaikiAzuran]

Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?.. [Noble Quran 21:30]

[Junketh71]

Relatives of the albatross become jungle dwellers of the future? Yeah, right!

[octex8th]

obviosly everybody has their own povs on the idea of where everything came from. me, i believe there is a god. but he isn't some magical unexplainable being. since we only use 10% of our brains we can't conceive much of what he does. if we had all our brain and had the right "stuff" god would be able to be explained scientificaly

[stuchly1]

No theory damn it! Just a joke! Besides, who needs a religious book to explain to himself why he should be nice to other people and as a history textbook is brain-wise small person in my eyes! Inteligent people can keep themselves within mantinels just because they know it's bad to do certain things and they don't need an all powerful good-willing god who apparently needs people to target his anger resulting from his psychic issues on! And neither do I! You apparently do, your problem, not mine!

[zarrurer12]

yea antarctica will look beautiful... untill the humans get to it and start cuttin everything down and poaching everything there..

[SAN51095]

@zarrurer12 by then, will be exinct

[KitaxNekoSama57]

0:15 Squid Bitchslap

[LORDKABIGON]

Evolution is just creation writ fine

[LORDKABIGON]

Evolution is just creation writ fin

[MRresievil310]

People, discussing politics or religion in a video does not get you any attention, it only gets you fights and nowhere. Its like discussing these topics in a restaurant, you dont want to talk about it because it will just get you into trouble.

[kaiser85collins]

Really.Can you convincingly prove it?

[kaiser85collins]

Evolution?The word is not even mentioned in the bible.Creation is mentions over 38 times.

[Memoria777]

@kaiser85collins That would be because the christian bible is a collection of myths.

[tamakun89]

@Memoria777 You really think the bible is a collection of myths? Cause archaeologists have found evidense in Egyption history of the ten plagues. though earlyer then was originally believed. If you don't believe me find the show and watch it (it's called Exudus Decoded) or don't thats up to you

[NiggeliNG]

@tamakun89 dude, believe whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, but don't try to convince anyone else of your believe

[tamakun89]

@NiggeliNG don't call me a dude i'm a girl

[NiggeliNG]

@tamakun89 sorry

[skillerdoom8]

@tamakun89 wht the fuck u talking about this is the future not about a bibble!

[stuchly1]

@kaiser85collins your comment makes me wonder how people made it so far in such a short time while having individuals like you in the process. bible was created to make many uneducated individuals obey the few that knew better! don't you just realize it? how can you be so thick headed, now, in the modern world? how can you believe something when there's no evidence? just because they told you?

oh i get it. obey, keep your mouth shut and copy what the other sheep in your herd do! way to go! xxD

[wicNKWD37]

@stuchly1 The wolves will eat him anyway.

[stuchly1]

@wicNKWD37 if such thing should happen to all religious fanatics, there'd be half the people on the planet! =D not that it'd be a bad thing... xxD

[morewi]

@stuchly1 That's a rather ignorant, not thought out theory you have there buddy. The fact of the matter is It doesn't matter if god exsits or not the bible is still a good source to teach morals and other life lessons. And for jews some of the books are history lessons.

[stuchly1]

@morewi So you were reffering to the older comment of mine! Neven mind! The response stays the same, just skip the first two sentences... I mean what i said, before and now, just face it! Deal with it! Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistences! Do you still treat it the most reliable or worse the only possible source of information? Go back to Medieval or wake up to the 21st century! Too bad you have no videos uploaded, I thought there might be a video response argument going to happen!

[morewi]

@stuchly1 I never said it's truth but that it is good at teaching morals. And there is no proof that the big bang is truth either. What just were the first sparks of life strands of protein like science claims. I find it hard to believe that protein strands was how life began.

[stuchly1]

@morewi That makes perfect sense! It's not true but let's still take it for granted! Believing that god created universe and earth is like believing there is a leprechaun in the soda machine who makes it all happen! And if I opened the machine to show you there is no one inside, you would reply that he just went to a toilet but he'll back in no time! Can't you see that God wins by default in your eyes, because you want him? There is no need for god to exist, but you're too scared to realize it!

[stuchly1]

@morewi Big bang is a theory, okay? A theory! An explanation of something, based on certain things we know, but it's not granted like gravity, it can change as we will find out more about it, but that's good! Religion claims the same nonsense for hunderds of years! No abortion! Even for rape victims! That's what pope says! Isn't that disgusting? it's everyone's right to make decision about their body, a few cells in a bunch doesn't make a person! Aren't you ashamed of having a leader like that?

[stuchly1]

And even though Big Bang is a theory, it is much more likely to be true, because it's fact-based, not faith-based. The same goes with evolution, it's also a theory, but it's proof-suppoorted, it isn't just saying "Darwin wrote it so it's true," while Christians say "It comes from God, so it's true." Faith - obey, believe in this shit and don't ask questions! Don't ever EVER try to find if there is another way, or consider yourself DOOMED! Do you really like that? That's what i hate about it.

[morewi]

@stuchly1 number 1 I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm agnostic. The big bang theory doesn't make sense because they're looking for the Higgens? particle but where that come from was it always there? How did it get there? A chemical reaction caused the birth of the universe, what did it react with? Evolution I believe it happened but to say that a chemical reacted by itself and created other gases with in turn created other gases is as blindingly ignorant as thumping a bible

[stuchly1]

@morewi Whereas shitting on science is perfectly justifiable, just because you can't comprehend...

(Just for your information, evolution didn't "happen", because it will never be done, because all organisms there are keep on evolving, and you don't have to "believe" it, this has nothing to do with faith, but facts, but your brain is apparently incapable to process that)

I have never claimed to have answers to everything, but that's what science is for, not religion! Religion is always right, ...

[stuchly1]

@morewi ... while science admits making mistakes and doesn't pretend to have answers to every question In fact, the more you know, the more questions arise. We will never know everything but we can't stop trying.

And just for your information, I'm not thumping The Bible but people who follow it word to word, religious homophobic, sadistic fanatics "whom God created to his image." I have nothing agaist any religion if it doesn't claim torture to those who have a different world view. ;-)

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 I have nothing against people whom Bible inspires to be good to other people, their reason for being nice is sad, but I can't do anything about it.

On the other hand, I'm strictly against Christians who demand the heads of their enemies' children being crushed on rocks and who believe that bathing your feet in your enemy's blood will bring you pleasure and who believe that God who orders a rape victim being married to her rapist until he dies is perfectly moral or loving! Wake up!

[morewi]

@stuchly1 Ummm Only Islam tells people to kill "infidels", that kind of view in all other religions is an extreme small fringe group.

I said I believe in Evolution and the fact that the Earth is billions of years old but you didn't read my full post appartently. So let me tell you a little about myself I'm currently going to college for a major in Geology. I hope to become a paleontology. When I have free time I go to Mazon Creek and look for fossils. 

[morewi]

@morewi Maybe next post you can prove to me that you can read. And enough of the immature teenage atheist crap. If you have a good arguement for not believing in god than put it text in your next post.

[stuchly1]

@morewi Yeah I know that...

I admit I might have misread something you wrote... but one thing I hope I read correctly is that you BELIEVE in evolution. That's scary, because you make it a BELIEF - FAITH-based thing, even though you go fossil hunting - you go hunting for proofs that evolution is a FACT and treat it ONLY as a belief, yet you want to become a palaeontologist.

I love prehistoric life myself, I enjoy searching the internet for new articles about new discoveries in this field. ;-)

[morewi]

@stuchly1 So your scared that I believe in something that has scientific fact behind it? I'm scared that you put your FAITH, a BELIEF into the fact that God doesn't exist, when there is no proof that god doesn't exist. The fact of the matter is Science and Religon go hand and hand. Science tells us the specifics of things and Religion gives us the means to wanna know these things to better understand life and ultimately god.

[stuchly1]

@morewi And why it isn't you scared of there being no God? No religious person has ever convinced me that THEIR God is the one that exists. If it is a theistic God that had been messing up with our world, then he should be provable by science to exist. If he is a deisticGod that "Poofed" universe to existence and then backed off, why should we even bother with him. You don't need so called "objective morality" (leaving alone that this kind of morality is God's subjective morality), all you need

[stuchly1]

@morewi @stuchly1 is disctinction hurts/doesn't hurt; I wouldn't mind being treated like this by others/I would mind to be treated like this by others, we have laws to prevent idiots of harming/killing people, you don't need "objective morality", all you need is empathy, which is exactly the thing that people who have their mouths full of morality lack. ;-)

[morewi]

@stuchly1 I'm confused at what your trying to say in the first reply in the first sentence "And why it isn't you scared" can you rewrite that so I can answer.

[stuchly1]

@morewi Well, if everything I say leads you to think that I am scared that God is somewhere out there, I must say no, I am not.,Because, I don't seek for him really, but I say this: "If everything points to God, nothing does." You know, this is "God wins by default" argument, and that's bad science. You look for information, put it together and imply a conclusion. You don't say: "Let's look for evidence to support what I think is true."

Having said that, are you scared there is no God?

[stuchly1]

@morewi the most importaant difference between our opinions is that you attribute to God the thing I call "self-sufficiency of the universe". This is only my opinion, but I don't think you can give me any evidence or at least a good reason for universe not being self-sufficient. Why should it need external and SUPERNATURAL help or guideance? Because we are tiny and are overhelmed by its vast dimensions and complexity?

[morewi]

@stuchly1 So your still not reading what I put down huh. Well We're gonna have to agree to disagree for now because later today I gotta go back to my college and I won't have time to continue this debate. But if you we're to give me a reason or "proof" in the next 12 hours (by 4 p.m central standard time ) that the universe has no god then I'll be willing to continue this

[stuchly1]

@morewi Stephen Hawking together with Roger Penrose proved, that Einstein’s theory of reativity assumes that time and space have beginning in the Big Bang and end in black holes. These results prove that it’s necessary to harmonize the theory of relativity with quantum theory. One of the consequences is a discovery, that black holes are not exactly “black“, and that they emit radiation, decrease in size and then completely disappear.

[stuchly1]

@morewi Given that the universe has no borders in notional time, the origin of the universe is entirely determined by scientific laws.

[morewi]

@stuchly1 But that relies on belief that the big bang was not simply god creating the universe. That a single element reacted to itself to create elements which in turn created more elements. The fact is that this scientific omnipotent element did not make itself so therefore creation had already begun thus disproving that the big bang started creation.

[stuchly1]

@morewi /watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM - "Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking (1 of 5)" and follow

[TaikiAzuran]

@stuchly1 When describing the creation of the "heavens and the earth," the Qur'an does not discount the theory of a "Big Bang" explosion at the start of it all. In fact, the Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30)

[TaikiAzuran]

@TaikiAzuran Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to cool, come together, and form into shape, following the natural laws that Allah established in the universe.

[TaikiAzuran]

@TaikiAzuran "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). There has been some historical debate among Muslim scholars about the precise meaning of this verse, since knowledge of the universe's expansion was only recently discovered.the Quran was written 2000years ago,Who could tell the universe is expanding 2000years ago except GOD Himself.

[stuchly1]

@TaikiAzuran You know, book alone proves nothing, but it certainly gives an interesting insight on what people thought caused them to be on earth and wanted find out, so they elaborated vatious hypotheses and orally or in the form of written text introduced their children to that idea. It's a part of our culture, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were right. When Nostradamus envisionned "metalic birds", we were like "wow he was right after all" when you look at the planes today, but it was

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 just a lucky guess. Nostradamus was lucky sometimes and sometimes not, but the times he wasn't lucky are not mentionned as frequently, and the same goes with any major religion, which reffers to only those parts of scripture that metaphorically might hint an idea somewhat close to what we know, but the parts where the text is not fitting is simply treated as if it wasn't there. I am liberal in thought and would defend anyone's right to have a freedom of belief and thought, but I also

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 believe in separation of church and state. I live in a country where theism/atheism doesn't matter at all, but it is not the case of the US. Christians there are against gay marriage and abortion, either because their scripture says so, or because they're genuinely anti-gay and anti-abortion and only use a book as a cover and JUSTIFICATION of their actions, and that is exactly the moderate christians should stand up against those extremists, and why any religious people should stand up

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 against the extremists and fundamentalists in their religion. I know that the majority of religious people are not extremists, but they give those people cover they shouldn't get. And even though an idea might be flawed, it is not the idea that leads to this, it is the people who don't recognize that. The worst is that flawed ideas are very popular amon people, while good ideas are looked down on.

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 I know that I've abandoned the original topic, I just wanted to show you what issues I really have with religion, but if you look at it globally, there are many religions, a few that encompass the majority of believers, then others less popular and many and many local ones that neither of us two has ever heard of, yet all describe the origin of stars, sun, moon, earth, life and people, but there are no two ones which are exactly the same (except for Judaism and Christianity, which...

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 ...are similar in some things and different in others) but that's not the point. the point is that the idea is either orally transmitted, thus errors and changes are easy to occur, or were first transmitted this way, and written down after several hundreds of years, catholic church for example greatly censored the bible and related texts to get rid of unfitting ideas. besides, that what is left in the bible is pretty much nonsense, you being muslim might like that I say that, you can't

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 get a different conclusion when the subject is talking snakes, fruit of knowledge, walking on water, changing water into wine... and still, there are people who treat this as absolute and undisputable truth, then there are people who treat it metaphorically, and so on and so forth. I mean. At least christianity and Judaism are easy to dispute by science and easy to reject as unfitting by today's society. Ancient Greek and Roman religions are threated as mythologies these days, I think

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 the same will happen with today's religions one day, but neither of us will probably live to that day.

It is interesting that almost all religious families introduce their children to their religion early on, before they have a chance to choose a different path. If they are so certain about their god's existence, why don't they let the children to explore that for themselves? I think they fear the children would have a different opinion and abandon their religion which would mean

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 dissapearance of the religion in the long turn. That is why christian parents sometimes disinherit their children for becomming atheists, "burn the bridges", get rid of any contact with them... That's what I wouldn't do, I'd think that childrens try to fit in, and that my child will probably grow out of it, and even if I had a believing child, so what, main thing the child is healthy and happy. That's what I'd care for as an "evil immoral atheist," but the reality is often different.

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 Back to the topic: there are a few religions followed by masses of followers, but is it any likely that the believers all have the same idea about their god? i mean, if they debated like we do, would they all follow the same idea? I think there'd be some differences. there also is cherrypicking going on, thosw eho defent the religion mention the positives of it, and those who argue with them point out the bad things. The original idea consists of both of the halves, but that means

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 that anyone who wants to follow the religion must take it absolutely seriously, then there are people who follow only the parts they like, be it parts about harmony and peaceful coexistence with others or about killing non-believers, and finally people who don't follow it at all. Also, those debates slip to whether there is SOME god, or that there is definitely one of some sort, but is it really one envisionned by one of the earth's religions? It can hardly be so, because any religion

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 picturing an all powerful god render themselves to be nothing more than impossible paradoxes. some think god is some elusive immaterial consciousness outside of the universe, but how can it manipulate a universe if it isn't connected to it in any way? - that would be the deistic god. and then there is the theistic one, the one that apparently manipulated things in space and on earth, but where is the evidence in real world outside of religious texts? i might be an atheist because of

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 the environment I grew up in, but not a single religion has been convincing enough to me. I have oved books about animals and prehistory ever since I could list through them, and because my interest in science has deepenned since that time, I can understand why religious people are so solid in their positions, but there is a difference between science and religion. religion is allways right, but science, in contrast, constantly works on correcting mistakes made by scientists of the

[stuchly1]

@stuchly1 past and tries to find answers to question we still haven't answered in a good-enough way, which includes the origin of our universe, or question we haven't answered at all, like the cure for AIDS. If our previous advancement was achieved solely by the action of god in the form of answered prayers, there would be no need for science, but if you look around, it is science, not religion that allows us to progress. ;-)

[stuchly1]

@morewi you say that big bang relies on god not creating the universe, but what evidence outside of holly books (it doesn't matter which one) do you have? there's a particle collider being built in france now, it'll allow us to further understand the big bang, for myself, I can say I am interested in the results of this.

My point is: We don't have to know everything, but we don't have to necessarily assign things we don't understand to supernatural phenomena. ;-)

[morewi]

@stuchly1

Actually my personal belief is that the Big Bang was God creating the universe. Science can either prove there is a god or there isn't at this point but seeing how God hasn't been disproven then I see no reason to not believe

[DejsheronR]

@morewi I completely agree with that idea, I'm a student wo studies physics and zoology intensely and I believe in God. I believe that the Big Bang and Evolution are causes of God. Just my personal opinion/belief.

[SFMonster]

@DejsheronR Wait, causes of God, or caused by God?

(Not trying to catch you in anything, just want to understand you.)

[midwestcoast1]

@morewi Can you prove there isn't an invisible orange banana in the sky ruling all ? Oh, you can't ? No reason not to believe then ! Oh, that's right, you can't prove a negative, try some logic jackass...

[awesomeskier12345]

@midwestcoast1 well you told him off.. good for you!

[TaikiAzuran]

@stuchly1 it is God,almighty that create all living things,the earth and the universe..anybody want proof?i will give proof.

[hotwhire]

dinosaurs take over again

[TralalFace]

what if life evolve a defense mechanism aganist humans like..... what am i saying were getting better then other life faster

[dsac6007]

@TralalFace Im with you everone thinks mankind is on the verge of extinction but I believe intelligence is a fire that is hard to put out.

[vidman1976]

Aren't the birds of Future Antarctica supposed to be called Spitfire Birds? That's how it is in the cartoon version of this show.

[smartypantz25]

yeah. let's not argue. who here has a degree in biology? the ones who have studied this will be the ones who are right, not the ones who consult Wikipedia.

[benthejrporter]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[Pbuddhafull]

lets just enjoy the giant turtles and talking plants.. and NOT argue :_-_-D

[Spootchies]

@Pbuddhafull Talking plants? o3o

[BeamSurfer]

human success is not soley based on intelligence, infact, some animals, are very smarter than us

What the thing is that we evolved to have the physical features manupilate things with our solidity, what's more intriguing is that chimpanzees and other great apes cannot hold pens, cause their finders are too long to touch their thumbtips , the same way our long arms, don't allow humans to lick our elbows, and we shuld be avid for such facts evolutionists just say "opposible thumbs" and leave this

[AngelEater0001]

@BeamSurfer chimpanzees just need to make bigger pens

[smartypantz25]

@BeamSurfer Octopuses are amongst the smartest marine creatures.

[WarFire10]

@gespilk

well maybe the dinosaurs were really smart possibly monkey-smart, so to the point of self-awareness, maybe?

@xmissmooshix

well your right there to cause they have been makin' monkeys for a very long time. We are talking since around the Late Creatocous there were primates they later evolved through later periods in time so no wonder we have gained such inteligence.

[N00bcrunch3r]

@WarFire10

The smartest Dinosaur was the Troodon. And it was as smart as an Opossum or a mouse.

[WarFire10]

@N00bcrunch3r how do we know that? Yeah, I know, we judge it by teh size of the skull and all that, but maybe dinosaur brains were made in such a way that they didn't need to rely on size or whatever, maybe the brain's were built with a larger memory holding center, maybe these areas were so big that they had near-human intelligance, maybe?

[TheOneInTheFields]

3:06 AUSTRAILIA EFFING ATE THE PHILIPPINES! D:

[TheXanian]

@Gibbons3457

Squids don't even live in fresh water and they don't have bones, how could you expect them to walk on land? It's totally nonsense.

[imsocool213]

@TheXanian

200 million years of evolution. TWO HUNDRED MILLION YEARS OF EVOLUTION!!

That's a lot of evolution!

[Creaturelover18]

@TheXanian Their bodies are made of only muscles, so a giant squids tentacles have the same density of an elephant's trunk, wich is incredibly strong. An elephant's trunk can rip up trees and crush a human skeleton, so imagine eight of those as legs.

[shazdiman786]

@Creaturelover18 im not an expert like all you guys seem to be but i know that if an elephant did not have bones in its leg it wont even carry its own weight for sure.. it will still be floppy flexi but tough

[xmissmooshix]

@TheXanian Did they specifically say that they did not ever live in fresh water? You're just jumping to the gun here, instead of exploring the possibilities.

[AngelEater0001]

@TheXanian i've seen an octopus do it, and they dnt have bones

[TheXanian]

The bamboo tree is also a very big mistake.

[TheXanian]

@deathdude650

Yeah, I agree with you, Megasquid, Flish, and Squibbon are the biggest mistakes of these series. Actually, these series have a lot of mistakes.

[Gibbons3457]

@TheXanian Lol, this show CAN'T have mistakes because 1. we are talking about evolution, just look at how life has evolved so far. If all you knew were dinosaurs you would say that any life nowerdays were wrong. Think about it. 2. Because it is several MILLION years in the future. ANYTHING can happen, literally anything. 3. Because this is all down to the imagination of those who created the show, what you are saying just shows you have a limited imagination.

[GunlessSnake]

don't watch this if you're just gonna criticize how there are flaws in the evolutionary theories that have been developed for this show. they're good, and if you don't think so, you have no right to be called a human being.

[deathdude650]

biggest mistakes with this series are the Megasquid and the Flish. Neither of those can NEVER exist. Megasquid would be crushed without a skeleton because of the gravity. Flish don't work because it's not in the genetic code of fish to fly or grow beaks. Flish may be possible with gene splicing but not through natural evolution.

[blabitybloo1]

@deathdude650 stfu troll

[AngelEater0001]

@deathdude650 i dnt know about that. there are such things as fish that glide through the air; given the time and maybe they can learn to fly just like how the mammals called bats did.

[gespilk]

This series is not about realistic predictions of the future life because if that is the goal then it sucks. More likely it is about telling us about current relations existing between species and what we know about it.

There are some major blunders in these extrapolations. They seem more like de-evolution. Life moves FORWARD meaning complexity of living systems grows to make them more adaptable. Consciousness that reasons is the ultimate adaptable system. Next step is "reason better".

[Duboisi]

Life does not move in any particular direction. It responds to changing environments.

[gespilk]

@Duboisi

Actually it seems life is moving in the direction of less dependence from changes in the environment. Less dependence manifests in either ability to remain invariant to the change (like maintaining constant body temperature, building houses) or in direction of rapid adaptation to the change (like mutations and quick speciation).

I agree that life do respond to changing environment. That's the way it should be. However life is "trying" to become less dependent of those changes.

[bioniclefan4life]

@gespilk WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? How does it suck? This could happen, possibly, but it is one of an infinite number of possibilities of what could happen in the next 100 million years. It does tell us about current relations, but sometimes people just like to realistically speculate about the future.

As for your second comment, I agree, it does seem strange that human-level intelligence hasn't evolved again since we left.

[gespilk]

@bioniclefan4life

What I am talking about?

Well, this video could have been describing some Palaeozoic era for all we know. It feels like future life has not evolved at all from those ancient times. And we know that is not true.

Did you know that many believe wild life in the food chains of ecosystems will disappear and will be replaced by animals originating from sheep, chicken, pigs, cows,dogs,etc. Because these are some of the most successful animals on the planet apart from humans.

[bioniclefan4life]

@gespilk That's true, but if the enviroment duplicates that of the past, then so will the animals. They're faced with the same problem, so who's to say they won't use the same solution?

[xmissmooshix]

@gespilk Such were domesticated by humans. Ungulates were originally successful because of grassland conditions; once destroyed, their evolution path is halted as was of animals such as sauropods who slowly declined while ornithiscians took their place.

Your comments take the precedence of humans. It took evolution 3.8 billion years to produce us; it is entirely feasible it would take a large amount of time to produce other sentient species. Intelligence is expensive.

[gespilk]

@xmissmooshix

I am still puzzled why the dinosaurs never developed intelligence. They had 170m years to do it? You touch on the question what are the pre-conditions for a species to become sentient. I think:

1.they have to be social species

2.not to be on the top of food chain

3.to be relatively slow and weak

4.to live mostly in open spaces

5.to eat everything

6.?

This is what I got so far. It's enough to rejects some species but is not enough to isolate even Neanderthals. There's more.

[N00bcrunch3r]

@gespilk

Humans are most certainly on the top of the food chain. And we're smart enough to type to each other.

[gespilk]

@N00bcrunch3r

Yes, now we are on the top but back then our kind was often a meal for predators. I speculate that because of that (being threatened) we developed more sophisticated sound system of communication (speech like) that prove to be very useful in the open environment we used to live in. Animals have various calls. We started from there and refined it - obviously those that shouted more and in advanced survived better than the quiet type.

[N00bcrunch3r]

@gespilk

What do you mean back then? The dawn of Homo or Australopithecus?

[FoxBatinaHat]

@gespilk

1. Right. Social groups encourage intelligence.

2. No required spot.

3. Must have both: Dextrous digits to develop manipulation of tools. Vocal abilities to communicate auditively.

4. New studies point that we were actually arboreal first (probably tied to cond.3)

5. Right! An homnivorous diet, composing of good protein intake for brain development.

6. Method of learning of young must be specific: tought/learned through imitation and less instinctual. Making them adaptable.

[mrrobotica]

@gespilk Evolution has no goal. It is simply something that happens which results in life adapted to survive in it's current environment.

[gespilk]

@mrrobotica

Where do you read that evolution has no goal???

Its goal is to minimise the influence of the environmental changes to the existence of life. That is the direction in which evolution moves ergo it is its goal.

[mrrobotica]

@gespilk Just because that is the direction evolution moves doesn't mean it has a goal. Evolution can not look into the future and try to accomplish something. Just because something happens doesn't mean it was a goal. For example, a rock falls due to gravity. That doesn't mean it was the goal of gravity to make the rock fall or the goal of the rock to fall. It is simply something that happens.

[smartypantz25]

@mrrobotica The goal of evolution is survival. there. now stop it.

[mrrobotica]

@smartypantz25 You`re wrong. Evolution does not have a goal. Evolution is simply something that happens. Evolution often results in the survival of a species but other times it doesn`t. Here is a Wikipedia quote from the page on evolution.``A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity.`` Now Wikipedia isn`t the most reliable source but on important topics it is.

[smartypantz25]

@mrrobotica Evolution is natural selection, where tjhe best at surviving is picked. i don't mean that the goal of evolution is to kill everything else, just it's to survive and survive well. Babookari weren't 100% carakiller proof, but they still lived.

[mrrobotica]

@smartypantz25 True and I never implied the goal of evolution as that. I claim, there is no goal to evolution. It is simply something that happens. It may result in the best adapted animals surviving but that doesn`t mean that`s the goal of it.

[smartypantz25]

@mrrobotica Actually, evolution occurs as the result of natural selection.

[mrrobotica]

@smartypantz25 You're right but evolution still often results in animals adapted to survive in their environments.

[smartypantz25]

@mrrobotica Yeah, the animals best adapted for that environment survive, and as several specimens of this superior breed will mate with others, passing on their genes, and then those ones mate, and so on and so forth. the genes from that animal get even more modified or combined with other superiority genes, and they evolve into a new specialized creature.

[smartypantz25]

@gespilk intelligance is only needed by rather the small, or at least a certain amount of evolution. in dino eras, sauropods were plant processing factories, adults, they could stand their ground. however, small raptors needed intelligence to be able to be effient without T-rex deathjaws.

[AngelEater0001]

@gespilk most of those animals can't survive w/out humans. they're not "successful", we just breed them and help them for our own needs.

[smartypantz25]

@AngelEater0001 Sure, the fact that we are responsible for more extinction rthan nature is totally stupid because we keep them alive. NOT! the world would be ebetter without.

[smartypantz25]

@gespilk well conditions can change. and some amount of life on earth will go through a very long cycle, and i think they partially wanted to avoid that cycle.

[ahlegro]

@bioniclefan4life Human level intelligence happens later in the show, but it is still rudimentary. Sentient intelligence took millions of years to achieve.

[smartypantz25]

@ahlegro well it sure as heck isn't found in ameobas.

[michalis42]

latrevw tous asteroidis