# Apes in the dinosaur age

## Recommended Posts

I think it is possible that apes and monkeys were alive in the dinosaur age. Many mammals such as rodents were around back then and many mammals would have moved to the trees to avoid dinosaurs. This would result in hand and primate evolution. Then it is only a matter of time before monkeys and even apes evolved. Primates had hundreds of millions of years to make that evolutionary step. Remains of chimpanzees, gorilla and orangutan ancestors are so rare because of their habitat. So it would be almost impossible for the dinosaur primates remains to be found after so long. There could even be a possibility that intelligent apes could have evolved.

Okay.

##### Share on other sites

I should know better. I should just stop typing now, or at least limit myself to the eloquence of 'atinymonkey's one word response. How do I reply without infringing the rules of the forum?

This is a science forum. Science is above all else a methodology. A way of seeking to discover about the world and the Universe. We build that understanding through painstaking observation, experimentation and theorising. We take almost as many steps back as we do forward, and sometimes we have to make a major retreat, from the wrong path, in order to achieve a significant advance in a new direction.

We do not just dream up ideas because they are fascinating or cool or different. (They may begin that way, but before they reach the light of day they need some substantiation.) One of the other posters (I don't recall who) signs off with a quote from Carl Sagan, which goes something like 'Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.'

If you are going to post something that will appear like nonsense to many then at least attempt to justify it to a far greater extent than you have.

Specifically you could have done the following:

1. Substantiated your claim that ancestors of the apes are rare.

2. Referred to such tree dwelling mammals as are known from the Mezozoic

3. Explored the evolutionary benefits of tree dwelling

4. Countered the arguments against the disadvantages increased size would bring for an animal that wants to stay unobserved

5. Postulated peculiarities of the environment, in detail, that would have explained the absence of ANY fossils.

And all of that would still not have countered the problem you face of a reasonable chain of evolutionary types from Mezozoic mammals through to todays apes.

Just a thought.

##### Share on other sites

did humans exist in the dinosaur age

i say yes...fossil records confirm a mans sandal crushing a trilobite

i say yes....fossil records confirm at paluxy river..an adults and childs footprints intersecting a herd of brontasaurus footprints...

scientific analysis confirms the fossils to be genuine however humans didnt exist alongside dino's ..so these tracks must have been made by an unknown species of dinosaur wearing jesus sandals and an ellese shellsuit.

why?....."damn you because im a scientist and im telling you......huxley get my coat"

##### Share on other sites

hehehe

maybe if you had some evidence, a freakishly old jaw bone, or an ancient, eight million year-old primate palyboy.... but you don't, there is absolutely nothing backing up your claim, short of a wild theory with no supporting...

stuff...

##### Share on other sites

Probably does tbh.

##### Share on other sites
I JUST GAVE YOU THE EVIDENCE.....what proof do you require or are you saying fossils are not proof....bang goes the dino's then

Making a series of statements is not presenting evidence, it is merely making a series of statements. Please provide references for your evidence so we can assess it ourselves. Authors, paper title, Journal and date will be sufficient.

Don't trouble yourself to provide this material for all of these claims, unless you have them conveniently to hand. References for one would suit me at present, and I am sure would delight Sorcerer and AzureBlue.

I am especially intrigued by the example of the man crushing the trilobite in the age of dinosaurs. I hope you can confirm that the trilobite was either of the Brachymetopidae or the Proetidae family and that the dinosaurs were prosauropods. That will let us narrow down the gap we have to bridge between the extinction of one and the appearance of the other to a manageable twenty million years or so.

(Sorcerer, I used to be psychic, but I lost the power after an unexpected blow to the head.)

##### Share on other sites

creationist propaganda...what are you implying....you saying my evidence is not true...just google any of the fossils i quoted...as for my mistakenly replying to a post that was not directed at me...i didnt read it all just the first few lines....and it fitted nicely into the subject matter...But really it wasnt directed at you so why do you feel your involvement was needed..or that i would be interested in your insulting post..

and the answer is yes i do feel ophiolites has psychic foresight and infinite wisdom as well,and balance a brushshank on his nose while juggling 4 tennis balls.

##### Share on other sites
creationist propaganda...what are you implying....you saying my evidence is not true...just google any of the fossils i quoted .............and the answer is yes i do feel ophiolites has psychic foresight and infinite wisdom as well,and balance a brushshank on his nose while juggling 4 tennis balls.
Philbo how can we say your evidence is true or false if we have not seen your evidence? I had googled for some of the material right after my last post. This is a science forum yet nothing I saw in scanning around fifteen articles met the standards of scientific evidence.

If you can point me towards something of substance I would appreciate it. Alternatively, if this is the best there is and is what you have taken as evidence then I have to ask you two things.

Do you have any scientific training?

Do you have any interest in science?

These are genuine questions. I am not trying to put you down, I am not being ironic. I just find your approach so far...unscientific. I would truly value a response.

On a lighter note, I had to give up the juggling on account of a bad back.

##### Share on other sites

Don't bother - most of the search results are creationist sites that vaguely mention the print and offer it as ultimate proof against evolution. The rest are geocities.

Here is the talkOrigins article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

##### Share on other sites
Don't bother - most of the search results are creationist sites that vaguely mention the print and offer it as ultimate proof against evolution. The rest are geocities.

Here is the talkOrigins article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

how unscientific of you...

you mean you cannot find a site on the internet to your liking..so the fossils dont exist.

you see the pictures of a fossil but close your eyes and prtend you never seen them

you have a vast amount of subject material to send to scientific institutes to analyse

your totally bone idol go the library(plenty of literature in the human biology section)Man and his origins is one...

or better still if your a member or work for any science body you could always go to the paluxy river armed with a chisel anytime you have a free weekend....they are not going anywhere,the have been in situe for millenia.

But if i may be so bold and make one statement, no scientist who wishes to advance in his career will ever analyse the site...science will not accept any data proving man in the dino age....i think the reasons are self explanitory

##### Share on other sites

Oh, Please. Even Answers in Genesis thinks the Paluxy tracks are not credible

##### Share on other sites
how unscientific of you...

I have been quite restrained so far, but to this I can only reply "**** off troll".

you mean you cannot find a site on the internet to your liking..so the fossils dont exist.

No, I mean that whether you agree with creationism or not, a creationist web site is not in any way an objective source.

Nobody should ever under any circumstances use geocities homepages as sources.

At no point did I claim the alleged fossils do not exist. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

you see the pictures of a fossil but close your eyes and prtend you never seen them

you have a vast amount of subject material to send to scientific institutes to analyse

your totally bone idol go the library(plenty of literature in the human biology section)Man and his origins is one...

Perhaps you should read the link I posted, what with TalkOrigins being about the only objective and unbiased source you will be able to find.

or better still if your a member or work for any science body you could always go to the paluxy river armed with a chisel anytime you have a free weekend....they are not going anywhere,the have been in situe for millenia.

See, what you're doing here is assuming that because you called it a fossil, it's a fossil, despite the evidence to the contrary that comes even from noted creationist biologists. How unscientific of you.

But if i may be so bold and make one statement, no scientist who wishes to advance in his career will ever analyse the site...science will not accept any data proving man in the dino age....i think the reasons are self explanitory

What the great flying yellow rubbery **** are you talking about? Your understanding of what science is and how it is progressed is seriously distorted.

##### Share on other sites

What the great flying yellow rubbery **** are you talking about? Your understanding of what science is and how it is progressed is seriously distorted.

Sayonara, this is the one portion of your rebuttal of Philbo's arguments(?) I found weak. He was making the claim that 'no scientist who wishes to advance in his career will ever analyse the site...science will not accept any data proving man in the dino age'.

An overstatement yes, but scientists do not always act scientifically. There are cheats, liers, incompetents, self-deluders and such in the scientific community too. And there is a very definite reluctance to accept something novel, that goes further than simply 'exceptional claims require exceptional evidence'.

Khun dealt with this thoroughly in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introducing the invaluable concept of a paradigm shift. But in his scheme, if I recall correctly, the exisiting paradigm is first brought to crisis by significant ambiguous or contrary evidence, a revolution in thinking occurs and a new paradigm emerges. A poxy footprint in Paluxey doesn't quite make the grade.

##### Share on other sites

Philbo is talking about the usual panscientific conspiracy to use scientific evidence as a means of "protecting" some non-existent pre-made conclusion from creationist rebuttal.

"Scientists are too scared to consider all the evidence in case the god of science gives them some wrath" is complete nonsense, and doesn't cut the mustard as an alternative explanation as to why the so-called evidence is so awful.

Okay I could have been a bit more eloquent, but if the creationist contingent can't even be bothered to raise proper issues (and won't listen to us anyway) why should we bother refuting what they say?

##### Share on other sites

Sorry philbo... i didn't mean to rag on your metaphorical poptarts...

##### Share on other sites

Okay I could have been a bit more eloquent' date=' but if the creationist contingent can't even be bothered to raise proper issues (and won't listen to us anyway) why should we bother refuting what they say?[/quote']I know your question was rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway because, judging by your posts, you also think this.

We have to refute these weak arguments so that those new to science do not think they are acceptable.

We have to refute these arguments, because just occasionally we may convince a creationist that they are weak (The arguments, not the creationists!)

##### Share on other sites

All someone new to science has to do is look around here, and they will see thread after thread where people like Philbo have made the same claims and been devastated by the responses.

Rather than "why should we reply at all", which my question rather replied, I suppose I should have written "why should we reply over and over to the same tired rubbish?"

##### Share on other sites
did humans exist in the dinosaur age

i say yes...fossil records confirm a mans sandal crushing a trilobite

i say yes....fossil records confirm at paluxy river..an adults and childs footprints intersecting a herd of brontasaurus footprints...

scientific analysis confirms the fossils to be genuine however humans didnt exist alongside dino's ..so these tracks must have been made by an unknown species of dinosaur wearing jesus sandals and an ellese shellsuit.

why?....."damn you because im a scientist and im telling you......huxley get my coat"

Sayanora this is really getting out of hand,your attacks on me no matter were i post are quite uncalled for..alot of my posts are written with sarcasm(only because of some of the topics i reply to from a scientific view are in themselves littered with presumptions on what we know..)

I may be wrong but i assume your background is physics...but alas no matter which topic you reply to you seem to have a superior,self gratifying i know best attitude.(which in itself isnt a very scientific stand point..we are all fallible.)Now that may be because you believe you are superior,or it may be an admins attitude im unsure.But most of all my posts i like to think are written with a little wit,if you cannot see this im afraid i cannot be held accountable for someone else's lack of humour cells.

I personally think that my identity,or academic background is not important to posting on topics which nobody knows for sure so we are just fireing stuff at others in the mean time someone posts something that makes us all think !!!I presumed thats what the forum was about.

As for my background,I came to Britain in 1965 to study geology,I am now Proffesor of General Geology, Structural Geology and Geotectonics (and no i hate fossils,i have a very hard time explaining when ive just told someone, that this strata which maybe 9 feet thick took over 3 million years to lay down yet sticking out of it is the skull of a 6 ton carnosaur.

My belief is that God created everything.I believe a lot of the bible but question parts of it,I believe in Evolution but question parts of it,I believe in GR but question parts of it,I believe....shall i continue or do you get the point

##### Share on other sites

Also if you can only find creationist sites or geocities sites which feature paluxy river fossils.I suggest you visit the library and get off your lazy fatass.Or chillout on a nice holiday i hear you can get cheap half board accomadation in Basra,with nightly fireworks displays.

(look closely for sarcastic/ wit)

(nitpick)

##### Share on other sites

As for my background' date='I came to Britain in 1965 to study geology,I am now Proffesor of General Geology, Structural Geology and Geotectonics (and no i hate fossils,i have a very hard time explaining when ive just told someone, that this strata which maybe 9 feet thick took over 3 million years to lay down yet sticking out of it is the skull of a 6 ton carnosaur.

[/quote']

Then you will have access to whichever university you reside at's archive. You can pull up substanciating documentation from there, or at the very least point towards a reading list that supports your theorys.

I can't really express how much doubt I have that you are a Geology graduate, and I have no convictions at all as to your teaching credentials.

##### Share on other sites

I play snooker... Im not a star

I play golf... Im crap

I drink heavily.. Im no drunk

I frequent nightclubs..Im no dancer

I shag anyone...Im no pornstud

Im thick as shit...But not stupid

but more important is the fact.....

I can spell..But not very well

Useless at good grammer...and talk with a stammer

Ive eaten with Hawking..He never stops talking

We spoke into the early hours,mostly about nowt...But never,not ever my sincerity did he doubt..

What you believe makes no difference to me....for you are black typo...a face i will not see.But i do know one thing and i will tell you its true,nobody here is a better man than you.For you are exeptional,a leading light.Or i could be wrong and be talkin shite!!!

##### Share on other sites
Im thick as shit[/b']...But not stupid
yeah, that really started off sounding like you :D , come on, you know you will never live that down!

it was a joke! no need to go anti-5614 too

i was thinking, many people are aganst you in what you say, as evident from post #23 by atinymonkey, to you philbo i say proove them wrong, not with words that could be lies, but with a scan of a certificate, (graduation) or just a birth cert (so they know your not just a muck around 13 year old kid!).

im not trying to tell you what to do, indeed ignore me if you wish, but rather than saying words that could be lies, show us some solid proof... please!

## Create an account

Register a new account