The dinosaurs first had their reign as dominant species, then they passed the crown to us humans. Are we going to become extinct and let some other species rule the world for awhile?
119544
Yeah probably the dolphins.  It's been shown they are more intelligent than humans.  Once they evolve to the point of being physically independent on land AND water, I think they'll give us a run for our money.\n\nEver see that Simpsons episode where the dolphins reclaim the land?  I just love that one.  *smile*
337560
The movie "Dinosaur" is wrong (in a lot of ways other than the monkey thing... Actually, I think they were lemurs anyway).\n\nDinosaurs first evolved in the Triassic period. Before that, there were various types of reptiles and mammal-like reptiles that dominated the land. And some pretty big amphibians and insects, though the giant insects were extinct by the dinosaur age. Mammals evolved about the same time as dinosaurs did, but were mostly small rodent-like things for hundreds of millions of years.\n\nBirds evolved from coelurosaurs in the Jurassic period, and they lived along side dinosaurs for quite a while. Monkeys didn't evolve until the Cenozoic era, after the dinosaurs went extinct. That extinction left the earth open for mammals to diversify into the many forms we see today, monkeys and humans included.
357628
I could never do this topic justice in the space provided, but here it goes. :)\n\nHomonids have been getting 'smarter' for almost 15 million years now, and this trend certainly hasn't been limited to a single species.  For example, there were several homonid species in the genus Australopithecus whose evoltionary progress rivaled that of our earliest ancestors in the genus Homo (i.e. H. habilis).  The most notable species among the australopithecines were A. garhi and A. africanus.  Like early species in the genus Homo, both of these australopithecine species were bipedal and had relatively large brain sizes (i.e. when compared to earlier australopithecines). For these reasons (and several others), it was originally thought that at least one of these species might have given rise to the genus Homo.  However, genetics and fossil evidence have suggested that H. habilis did not arise from these australopithecines.  And recent findings in the fossil record suggest that these early humans and late australopithecines may have actually co-existed!  Cool, huh?  Even more surprising, is that aout the same time these species began to co-exist, the australopithecines became extinct.  This has led scietists to speculate that early humans might have driven the australopithecines into extinction by 'out-competing' them or perhaps even by killing them off.\n\n'Traits that make us more capable as a species' may be much more important than you think.  Specific traits like the opposable thumb and bipedal ambulation (which frees up the hands and allows them to be used for other tasks than just walking) are crucial to the development of intelligence.  Anlytical skills, such as tool-making, have driven the development of human inginuity and intelligence, and they wouldn't be possible without these key physical traits.  Even today, we can see that other species who share these physical traits are starting to show early signs of intelligence.  For example, both chimpanzees and gorillas have basic tool making skills.  Give them another million years or so, and they might be just as smart as we are today.. assuming that we don't kill them off as well. ;-)
415097
Ok well, firstly evolution is not my religion and the sole purpose for my existence. Wouldn't be the end of the world if it's not true, though I may lose a lot of my love of nature.\n\nWell... fossils can show that there were creatures similar to creatures we have today (but not the same) that are extinct now. \n\nSkeletons of neanderthal and homo erectus species have been found also, showing that beings very similar to humans have existed and then become extinct. By seeing the brow ridge on these skulls, and the different shape (but without damage and cracking) it is plain to see that these were not skulls bashed in or damaged in any way. \n\nWe also share genes with many other animals and plants. \n\nWe can also see stars billions of light years away. If the planet was only approx 6000 yrs old the light would not have reached the earth yet.\n\nIf you put nutrients in water in a vacuum, amino acids begin to form (I do not know the exact primeval soup experiement, but according to scientists, considering how quickly the amino acids formed, cells could reasonably be believed to form given the millions of yrs this earth has existed.) \n\nAlso, look at our skeletons! Many animals are linked to one another in bone structure etc. Look at a horses legs now - the chestnuts (hardened lumps) used to be their toes but are of no use now, halfway up their legs! Though you may say that is micro-evolution, I disagree. If we had a 6-toed, 3-toed, 4-toed or even 2-toed horselike animal today, I think it would be considered a different species.\n\nHowever, in the end, no one will believe what you tell them to - it is a choice. Christians believed in geocentric astronomy years after copernicus proved our galaxy to be heliocentric. The Bible mentions holding the corners of the world and tossing off sinners and suchlike - if it is G-d's word, surely he would've made it clear that the world was round?\n\nHope you're having a good day, you're asking politely :)\n\nx
548429
not likely- no matter how many humans populate the planet, we make up  a very small fraction of the total mass of the earth,which is the same as it always was, since very little material has been removed from the earth since it was formed. The tsunami didn't affect the earth's orbit, it affected the rotation of the earth around its axis(sped it up by about one-billionth of a mile per hour) but didn't change the speed at which we travel around the sun(orbit) at all.no matter how we redistribute material around the planet we only change the weight distribution of the planet by a very,very small fraction so the effect will be unnoticable. the effect on this planet from human activity of any kind is much smaller than we think- greenhouse gas levels were far higher during the age of the dinosaurs than they are now (and humans didn't exist then). the amount of iron and other minerals we have taken out of the ground accounts for about onemillionth of a percent of the total amount still there. from out in space, you can't look at the earth and see anything that would suggest we live here, except the Great Wall of China and the light from our cities at night, so how great of an impact do we really have?
120532
That guy is lying!  The meteroids took out the dinosaurs.  The ice age was much later.  Meteriods slammed into the Earth, kicked up a huge amount of dust into the sky.  From there, the sun couldn't get through the dust in the atmosphere.  Lack of sunlight killed all the plants and did make it a lil colder.  Plant eating dinos died first.  Then the carnivore dinos lost animals to hunt and kill because they weren't there to eat.  No food supply led to a slow death of them and most other animals on the planent at that time
540581
The bible is a myth.  Evolution explains the Dinosaurs and modern diversity, the bible is a fairy tale.\n\nDinosaurs are known to have inhabited all 7 of the modern continents and have been found almost everywhere, so there would be no where to hide.  Humans came in 60 million years later.
568692
Regardless of whether or not there is a chance of an extinction event, I think we need to establish colonies on Mars and the moon. \n\nWe need to exapnd and explore. It is in our nature and if we want to maintain our edge in science, it serves us to develop our space capabilities.
356236
There are over two million species alive on earth right now. Which particular path do you want?\n\nFor humans, we know the progression through some crucial stages, but not the whole thing. For example, we have very good fossils for the transition between certain fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, very good evidence for the last couple of million years. The early development of primates is being actively researched with a lot of interesting results.\n\nHere is the basic progression:\nLife started about 3.8 billion years ago\nEucaryotic life (with true nuclei) started about 2 billion years ago.\nMulti-cellular life started about 570 million years ago.\nThe first vertebrates were around 450 million years ago.\nThe developement of sarcopterygian fish was about 400 million years ago.\nDevelopment of labrynthodont amphibians from the sarcopterygian fish was about 360 million years ago. \nFirst reptiles from amphibians was about 320 million years ago.\nA wide variety of mammal-like reptiles developed in the time period between about 300 million years ago and 250 million years ago, with the cynodonts developing later. \nSmall, rodent-like mammsls developed from the cynodonts about 220 million years ago.\nSome very early primates developed around 60 million years ago from smallish rodent-like mammals.\nHomonoidae (apes) developed around 22 million years ago with Proconsul the type species.\nDryopithecus was around 17 million years ago in Africa and was an ancestor to most african apes.\nAustralopithecus developed about 4 million years ago in Eastern africa with Australopithecus afarensis the most likely human ancestor.\nBetween about 2 and 3 million years ago there were several hominid species in eastern and southern africa. The exact human ancestor is controversial since they are so similar.\nHomo habilus appeared about 2 million years ago and was replaced by Homoe erectus about 1.5 million years ago.\nHomo sapiens (modern humans) appeared about 300 thousand years ago in africa. There were other hominid species around at that time and later. For example Homo neanderthalensis was around until about 25 thousand years ago. Whether Neanderthals contributed to modern humans is another controverisal question.\n\nIt should be pointed out that the exact ancestral species may not be known. But it is typical for a variety of closely related species to develop in the fossil record at the same time. Figuring out which one is the actual ancestor for a given later species is not always possible given the fragmentary fossils available and our current knowledge of how structural changes occur in evolution.\nI hope this helps.
164461
A. Could we have real dinosaurs somewhere?\nAs ttocsewol pointed out, the biggest problem of cryptozoology is that there is not enough space to hide thousands of dinosaurs. If there are fewer, the species is quite vulnerable to extinction.\nOne exception: there is enough space in the ocean. We have just recently discovered some pretty large shark species. However, this means that the dinosaur in question has to be giving birth rather than laying eggs, much like Ichtyosaurus dis. However, marine reptiles of Mesosoic era (Plesiosaurs, Mesozaurs, Ichtyosaurs and so on) are not dinosaurs in strict sense of the word, but are distantly replated to them.\n\nB. Living descendants and relatives of dinosaurs.\nTurtles, crocodiles, lizards and other surviving reptiles are also quite removed relatives of dinosaurs. Birds, however, are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs.\nBe careful around that chicken.
459094
Evolution on other planets surely works just like evolution on earth.  The most the most intelligent and aggressive species dominates.  What ever they look like, in that way they will be like us.
466819
I think you were the one who told me about the facts of life...When my boys were not yours....LOL Summers ago...LOL\n\n DNA~ can and is transformed we just don't read about it in our daily news papers..Our government doesn't want to open another "Jurassic Park" lol ~~ are you laughing yet~ I  so am .....
321242
Most dinosaurs are extinct. The rest just got smaller & more adaptable. All reptiles are descendants from dinosaurs. Crocodiles, Alligators, lizards, snakes, turtles, tortoises, Komodo Dragons are "living" dinosaurs.\nNot counting the stuff that lives in interior (unexplored) africa and the amazon rain forest, and the loch ness monster, which is a pleiosaur or something.\n\nDinosaurs died out a while back. A huge meteor smacked into earth- you can see the impact crater from the hit in Arizona or Russia- the evidence is that earth takes a world-killer on the chin once every 10,000 years or so- which means we're about due for another one. \nThe meteor impact threw up a huge amount of ash and dirt- like when a volcano blows, or after an atomic weapon is used, and blocked out the sun's heat from earth, what they call "nuclear winter". The earth cooled and went into an ice age until all the dust and ash had settled back down from the atmosphere. Since reptiles & dinosaurs & dragons are all cold blooded, they went into hibernation and most died off. Only the smallest and most adaptable survived.\n\nIf it hadn't been for this, mammals would never have evolved into higher life forms, because we kept getting eaten by dinosaurs and dragons.
648336
There were insects and other animals that were around about 100 to 900 million years ago that grew fairly large (a whole lot larger than now, one dragon fly fossil had a wing span of several meters if I remember right) because of an abundance of oxygen, a lot more than there is now.  No species will ever reach those sizes again.  Also, humans didn't evolve until around 300,000 years ago, even though homo erectus has been around since 1.8 million years ago.   The giant insects had gon extinct long before humans ever evolved, and there were giant insects.  \nThis past school semester, I took a geology class at the community college I go to and one of the things that we talked about was the formation of life on earth and we actually talked about giant insects and animals and I remembered I had notes from that day so I used those notes to answer this question.
607136
We came from primates(monkeys) before that lizards,fish,bacteria?,  could be anything, what didnt happen was that 2 people were put on a planet that took a week to "make".
31349
Probably not.  However, it is not - contrary to popular belief - uncommon for us to find mamals, sometimes large mamals, of a new species even to this day.  Case in point, although Homo sapiens (human beings) were long considered to be the only surving species of the Homo genus, many scientists are taking southeast Asian stories of 'harry little cave dwelling men' seriously and now some believe that an entire seperate species of the Homo genus may have been coexisting with humans as late as the 17th century in some places. So it is possible for large animals to go simply undedected.
664247
We did evolve from a previous species, one that diverged from an ancestor that was common to apes, but it's possible that the human line was never, strictly speaking, the SAME as an ape...it depends on how severe the genetic mutation was...\n\nddead: I like how you point out all of the hoaxes and don't state that there have been many skeletons found and recorded for Home habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis (while not necessarily man, still the same genus and possibly one that bred with sapiens), and you don't even mention the whole genus Australopithecus, a commonly cited group of ancestors...\n\nEvolution hasn't been proven, but there is a theory and ongoing science to support this theory, part of which is actual physical evidence...Creationists have stories and faith, but I guess that's enough for them...