Why Didn't Dinosaurs Evolve Into Intelligent Beings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vrbic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the evolutionary trajectory of dinosaurs and why they did not evolve into intelligent beings despite existing for approximately 130 million years. Key points include the assertion that evolution is influenced by environmental pressures rather than directed towards complexity or intelligence. Dominance in their ecological niche may have reduced the necessity for intelligence among dinosaurs, as they were already successful in survival and reproduction. Additionally, the lack of significant ambient pressure for intelligence development is highlighted, suggesting that smaller dinosaurs or non-dominant species faced challenges that hindered the evolution of complex behaviors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of evolutionary biology concepts
  • Familiarity with ecological dominance and its effects on species development
  • Knowledge of environmental influences on evolution
  • Basic grasp of human evolutionary history and intelligence development
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mechanisms of evolution as outlined in "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne
  • Explore the relationship between environmental changes and evolutionary pressures
  • Investigate the evolutionary history of mammals and their eventual rise to intelligence
  • Study the role of brain size and structure in the evolution of intelligence
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for evolutionary biologists, ecologists, and anyone interested in understanding the factors influencing the development of intelligence in species, particularly in the context of dinosaurs and early mammals.

  • #31
pinball1970 said:
The word "randomness" in the same sentence as evolution usually implies a misconception.
In the same time, forgetting about the randomness involved is a bit dangerous given the situation of some species with decreased population.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
Randomness and evolution, as already mentioned, are intertwined in a few different ways.

One is that mutations are often considered to happen randomly.
Usually they do, but not always:
Both are based upon mechanisms that have most likely been selected for because they yield better survival.

Selection vs. Random Drift:
Selection (natural or human driven) can impose a non-random direction to changes.
The always present alternative to selection is change that happens randomly.
This can be due to the lack of strong selective values (usually at a molecular level) of one allele vs. another.

Another way random changes can have more impact on a population depends on the size of the population in question.
Rive said:
forgetting about the randomness involved is a bit dangerous given the situation of some species with decreased population.
As an evolving population's size goes down it becomes more likely to change randomly and the rate of adaptive change in a population's gene frequencies is decreased for a number of reasons. A large population reduces the likelihood that a population's gene frequencies will change randomly and increases the strength of natural selection on population.
Extreme examples:
Small population: The gene changes in an inbred population of mice being maintained through brother sister crosses. This is explained by the random inheritance of the same allele of a particular gene by a limited number of offspring.
Large population: a global population of interbreeding bacteria.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rive
  • #33
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi pinball:

I confess this confuses me. I tried to locate in this thread (with a quick search) an instance of "randomness" and "evolution" in the same sentence so I could evaluate whether there was also a misconception. Unfortunately, I failed to find it. I also tried to find "the process is mostly random", and I could not find that either. Would you please post the post numbers where you found these texts?

Regards,
Buzz

Don't be confused the words are not there I just looked back myself
The subject was evolution and the phrase included "random/mostly random" which I thought was not a great way to describe it.
Bill has pointed out that random can be used describing evolution and he used random/ly/ness ten times in all in the last post and all perfectly valid.
 
  • #34
berkeman said:
We try to avoid those here at the PF. :wink:

BTW, have you read through the thread that is stickied at the top of the Biology forum (this forum where we are) about Evolution?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/learn-about-evolution-evolution-introduction.543950/

It is a good introduction, and has links to more information. :smile:

Much of this thread is speculation and often discussions of Evolution are speculative. You might demand scientific discussions of technical questions rather than broad discussions of such things as how humans became intelligent. Or maybe reroute this thread to General Discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
@lavinia is correct. Posts here need to move off of waffly topics or moved to general discussion.

So, Moved to GD.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
20K
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
11K