I think I saw that show also. The narrator was Walter Cronkite, and the mock-up of the evolved dino looked very similar to the lizard men from “Land of the Lost”. I’m just guessing, but I would imagine that the humanoid shape might be the “default” shape of highly advanced land animals on earth. They showed pictures of what the dino probably looked like before extinction, and I think it was bipedal already. If its arms and hands continued to develop in order to build and handle tools, and it’s cranium began to enlarge to accomodate a larger brain, binocular vision, etc. etc., then it would soon look very humanoid. Like I said, I am only guessing, but it seems like it would follow like that for land animals, whether it was a dino, frog or cat.
I saw that too but I don’t remember the title (it was a long time ago).
I agree that the humonoid dinosaur they showed was merely science fiction (or a human conceit). There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says intelligence has to come from a humanoid anatomy.
In fact, the Theory of Evolution cannot be used to accurately predict evolutionary trends into the distant future. The Theory explains how the history of life on Earth evolved, but the process has so many factors & feedbacks that future predictions are suspect. It would be like predicting the weather in the far future. Some educated guesses are possible, but accuracy is impossible.
It was an interesting speculation, but not a scientific demonstration.
Life is found in the most extreme places on Earth (like the poles, boiling pools of water, the bottom of the ocean) so who is to say that life wouldn’t find a way to exist on another planent. Europa (Jupiter’s moon) is a prime example for microbiotic life in our own solar system.
I think ‘candidate’ would be a better word than ‘example’… unless you know something i don’t?
The biggest problem with the dinosauriod is that the damn thing had no tail. Dinosaurs perfected bipedalism, they were bipedal for tens of millions of years. All bipedal dinosaurs had long stiff tails for balancing and narrow chests.
What advantage would an intelligent dinosaur gain by abandoning its perfectly functional balancing tail? Why would it have a wide chest instead of a typical dinosaurian deep but narrow chest? The only reason humans have a wide shallow chest is that we are descendants of brachaitors. There is no reason to believe that brachiation is neccesary for intelligence. An intelligent dinosaur would almost certainly look pretty much the same as a Velociraptor/Troodon, but with a big head and better hands.
Some of our monkey boy cousins still have their tales, but us, gorillas, orangutans and chimps have discarded them.
Nice scenario. Unfortunately, it’s not even remotely close to the reality as far as we can tell. Jupiter may, or may not, have a solid core, no one is quite sure. The top layer of clouds, which are relatively thin (1,000 km), there’s a layer of gaseous hydrogen and helium that extends down 21,000 km, gradually changing into liquid hydrogen as the pressure increases. The liquid (or perhaps partially frozen slurry) hydrogen extends another 40,000 km before transforming into liquid metallic hydrogen. The pressure at this depth is some 3 million times the atmospheric pressure of the Earth and forces the hydrogen molecules together so tightly they begin to decompose and become electrically conductive.
Only below this layer of liquid metallic hydrogen is the rocky core. However the temperature of 30,000 C mkes it questionable as to whether it’s even solid or not. Any number of science fiction writers have covered the possibilities of life on Jupiter, although they usually theorize that the organisms would be confined tot he upper reaches of the atmosphere. Arthur C. Clark imagined them to be organic gas bags, filled with hydrogen and floating through the clouds of the atmosphere. But the lack of a solid surface on which to stand makes your scenario a bit more difficult.
More useless trivia:
The Drake equation was mentioned in passing, here’s the formula:
N=R[sub]*/sub
Where:
N = The Number of technological civilizations in the galaxy
R[sub]*[/sub] = the number of stars of the appropriate spectral type formed per year in the Galaxy
f[sub]p[/sub] = the fraction of these stars that have planets
n[sub]n[/sub] = the number of Earth-like planets per star
f[sub]l[/sub] = the fraction of these Earth-like planets upon which life develops
f[sub]i[/sub] = the fraction of these planets upon which intelligent life develops
f[sub]c[/sub] = the fraction of these planets with intelligence that develop a technological civilization with the ability to receive and send interstellar communications
L = The average lifetime of such a civilization.
R[sub]*[/sub] and f[sub]b[/sub] are, theoretically, quatinties we can observe. Estimates range up to 20 new stars a year being formed in the whole of the Galaxy. The factor f[sub]b[/sub] has been given the values anywhere from .1 to 1.
All of the other factors are guesses, varying from extrapolations of known physical models (f[sub]p[/sub] the number of stars that develop planetary systems), to WAGs for the fraction that develop life, intelligence and civilizations. You make your guesses according to your outlook.
Maybe time tourists just don’t like the look of our era. After all what have we got to offer? The Spice Girls, Bill Clinton and Pauly Shore…
We still have Pauly Shore? My God…