Talk:Living dinosaur/Archive 1

Incorrect statement?

"'Living dinosaurs' is a term sometimes used to denote birds, which are the only group of dinosaurs known to have survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event." Isn't the bird/dinosaur relation an assumption? I think "...known to have survived..." is misleading. Traumatic (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishy

It's got a reference, but something still smells fishy to me. Enochlau 01:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what you'd consider "fishy". Living dinosaurs are a part of cryptozoology ... this information should not be taken as fact, same applies to bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. DaemonDivinus 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be made clear. When I first read it, it seemed like the writer was trying to imply that they were a real possibility. Enochlau 02:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It could be a real possibility, just not fact. I don't see the problem. The article shouldn't be written stating it isn't a real possibility at all, because it should remain neutral.

Disproof of evolution?

Can someone explain how living dinosaurs could be used to disprove evolution? Because that statement doesn't make much sense to me. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't disprove evolution, thus the wording "presumed disproof". Those who would presume to disprove evolution would say that contemporary dinosaurs "prove" that all species were created 6,000 years ago in their current forms. Of course, that wouldn't account for the geological record or why other dinosaur-era species living today don't disprove evolution. Coyoty 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments against dinosaur survival are legion?

Is this statement really necessary? It seems somewhat biased to claim there are many arguments against dinosaur survival, then spend the entire paragraph describing only one argument (well, two, really, but most of the paragraph deals with the climate change argument). Why not list more arguments rather than just saying there's lots of arguments?

Don Dueck 08:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Living species today Bold textdo disprove evolutionBold text. For example, how could a crocodile which evolutionist believe lived in the Trisurric period survive but not the dinosaurs. If there was a natural disaster that destroyed the dinosaurs, how is it that crocodiles and turtles and other creatures that lived during that time survive? I can understand small creatures hiding underground, but I mean big crocodiles and turtles. The disaster would affect them as well as the dinosaurs. If the disaster caused famine, it might kill the herbivores (but it doesn't explain why other plant eating animals survive) but how would it kill the carnivores? Sure there may not be as much big dinosaurs around, but they can still eat other creatures during this period. The main point I am trying to point out is why you guys are biased on the view of evoulution but will not except another view. When you compare evoulution to another view, evoultion will look stupid. I would't doubt if dinosaurs are still alive in the Congo (callled chipweke) or in South America (Amazon was said to have some sigthings of recent footprints and drawings on inca stones) or relatives in freshwater lakes (like Scotland). We all need to be more open to facts than to hold on the the belief of evolution. User:209.50.141.75

OK here goes, Mr Too-shy-to-sign: 1. Living fossils do not disprove evolution. There are many creatures that survived the mesozoic, such as crocodiles, conifers, jellyfish and ants. (I could go on); yet species have evolved within these groups over the millions of years since they arose. For instance, you state that the "crocodile" survived - but there are many species of crocodilian, in three families. None of the currently surviving species are more than a few million years old; the order has been evolving ever since it began. the same is true of, for instance, birds, which have changed greatly since they first appeared in the Cretaceous period.

2. When putting up an argument about geological time, try spelling "Triassic" properly for a start. it would show that you've been doing some reading.

3. What is this alternive to evolution thatyou propose? The only alternative that I've seen proposed is that God created life as it stands now - which has no evidence to support it except for such wilfully misinterpreted evidence as the Paluxy tracks.

4. If surviving dinosaurs disprove evolution, why were there different genera of dinosaur in each period within the Mesozoic, and why were there no dinosaurs before? Totnesmartin 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent reply. But if you really want to get your blood going, try out any one of the myriad of Evolution articles. Orangemarlin 03:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of the dinosaurs

Someone just questioned the notability of Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu. perhaps it could have a paragraph here if that article gets deleted. Totnesmartin 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags

I just placed merge tags on this article and Living dinosaurs in South America. It really seems to me like they ought to be one article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

if there's an article for South America, there should be one for each continent - or just have sections for each continent here. Totnesmartin 16:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave the merge tags up for, say, a week, and if there are no objections then I'll go ahead and make Living dinosaurs in South America into a subsection on this article and redirect. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

This sentence was just deleted by somebone without explanation. It's here now if anyone wants to re-insert or discuss.

"Furthermore, young earth creationists would still have to contend with geological reasons for believing in an old earth."

Totnesmartin 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-insert it. It might help to wiki-link to said geological argument too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Indian said to some investigator...

Fellows: I don't think we should include every story in this article. A hundred of people can say to any "investigator" anything... and including a bunch of stories of that calibre in this article only gives the subject credit that is has not on its own.--Damifb 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The story has to be notable and at least reasonably verifiable. Orangemarlin 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemarlin.

--Damifb 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that section! It was previously a separate article called "Living dinosaurs in South America", but it was unfortunately later merged with this article. Danielos2 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

These stories are notable and verifiable, they get repeated again and again in every cryptozoology book that brings up dinosaurs. Remember, from WP:V, that truth and verifiability are two different things. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to tell that in fact there are living, breathing, 20 foot long dinosaurs. Long ago when the dinosaurs lived a male and a female water-dinosaur were born. When the meteors hit they hid under water and survived. Then they had kids but died when the kids were about 2 years old because of the lack of food. So their kids lived on their own. The water dinosaurs kept doing this til their were about 100 water-dinosaurs on earth. Then, some new preditors came and killed all but about 20 of them. So they moved to Scotland where all the sightings are. They are also know as....The loch ness monster.

Evolutionary theory

I have reverted a POV push by an editor stating that evolution is both theory and fact. One of the principle reasons that evolution is a theory, is the continued discoveries of creatures that apparently have not evolved. This page should not be a forum for creationist/evolution debate. But attempting to say that evolution is a scientific fact is unnacceptable. It isn't. I'm not saying that god put the dinos here either. I'm saying let's stick to science and what we can prove. 216.67.29.113 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Science isn't about what we can prove. And in any case it is abundantly obvious that evolution is considered a fact by almost all biologists. It isn't POV to say the earth is round, and it isn't POV to say evolution is a fact. John.Conway 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just love that line at the end. "Supporters often feel that by proving the existence of living dinosaurs, they could also disprove evolution. However, this argument is rejected by evolutionists as it does not contradict evolution" ... Yep. The argument is rejected.. because it's false! Silly god-lovers. How dare we have different opinions!

Why would living non-avian dinosaurs falsify evolution? It's a pretty clear-cut case of ignoratio elenchi. Also, I'd point out the vast majority of "god-lovers" believe in evolution. —John.Conway 09:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is annoying. Living dinosaurs should be deleted. This cryptozoology stuff is hardly different from the worst garbage from Creationists. In fact, at least Creationists have faith in their religion. Cryptozoology is Area 51 hooey. Orangemarlin 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My Page

Maybe we should that if dinosaurs did survive, some may evolved into sapient species. I made an example on my user page. From User:4444hhhh

We don't generally add hoaxes or jokes to articles. Please use this talk page to focus on how to improve the article, not how to amuse yourself and your friends, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Coelacanths?

What about Coelacanths? They've been around since the dinosaurs, and are still around today (although critically endangered): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth --Dark dude (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Dark Dude

So have a great many creatures. Also, the current coelacanth (Latimeria) wasn't around back then - but its smaller ancestors were. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, many animals of plants have existed since the dinosuars: Tuataras, Horseshoe Crabs, Ginkgos... it doesn't mean it is a dinosaur. Even the tuataras, which are living sphenodontians and seem vaugely similar to some dinosaurs, can't be classified as living dinosaurs because they are not within Archosauria. Birds may be considered living dinosaurs, but most people mean non-avians, even though they are diapsids, like the dinosaurs and crocodilians. Crocodilians, however, exsisted before the dinosaurs but separated from the Eodinosaurs before they became true dinosaurs. Coelacanths, on the other hand, are not evolved from reptiles like the dinosaurs, crocodilians, sphenodontians, birds, and even humans, but are fish, meaning that they were fish and stayed fish, so they have no linkage to dinosuars, unless you go back in time say, to 500 million years ago, when some fish evolved into amphibians (eg. frogs, salamanders, newts), which later evolved into reptiles, leading to dinosaurs, birds, mammals, etc. So, hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this article is completely biased to the disprovement of living dinosaurs. A good 40% of the earth remains unexplored and mapped only by satellite. Small species of dinosaurs that didn't need large amounts of food could survive the K/T extinction, and don't forget that only 1 out of every 10 corpse ever gets fossilized. Only about 1/20th of 1% of the fossils that have ever existed have been discovered. Elasmosaurus (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Except of course that there is no evidence for nonavian dinosaurs after the Cretaceous, barring a couple of controversial isolated finds in the very earliest Paleocene. If any species of dinosaur had gotten through with populations large enough to sustain it, it would probably have radiated, especially with all of the other dinosaurs out of the way. Where have they been for the last 65 million years?

Additionally, dinosaurs were land animals. How much of that unexplored 40% is ocean basin? Adapting to a marine existence takes time, and the marine reptiles already present at the end of the Cretaceous (mosasaurs and plesiosaurs) did not far any better than dinosaurs. If we're going to have to say "but they could be in the unexplored ocean basins", we might as well add that to every article about something that is not longer in evidence with us today. J. Spencer (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to point the skeptical ones towards Wikipedia standards such as WP:WEIGHT, which states for an article to be completely neutral, we should not give undue weight to WP:FRINGE theories. If we can pull together a large number of reliable sources for the possibility of non-avian dinosaurs surviving the K-T extinction event, we should give it a paragraph. But since there are none, we can move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clear this up for me. It seems that it is required for Wikipedia to have a disbelieving attitude towards all cryptids. I'm going to edit the "cryptids" section so the article is completely neutral. The article should state the argtuments against living dinosaurs but at the same time state the arguments for. In its current state, this article basically says "There are no more dinosaurs. They are all myth. Cryptozoology is pseudoscience and no cryptids are real." I'm going to change that. Take complaints to my talk page. Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out Fringe and Undue. I'm sorry, but sometimes things go extinct. Scientists don't talk about living (non-avian) dinosaurs much because there is literally nothing to talk about. You can't write papers on nothing, which is exactly what we have except for a handful of things glimpsed out of the corner of the eye in modern days, all such incidents coincidentally being attributed to dinosaurs in the years since dinosaurs had been discovered and described.

Let me pose two thought questions, starting from the same premise, that dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrates in Earth's terrestrial environments from about 200 million years ago to about 65 million years ago:

1) Did they suddenly decide 65 million years ago that they were tired of living in environments where they could be fossilized? Those floodplains, lakes, deserts, etc. were no good for them anymore?

2) Dinosaurs obviously had hit upon numerous successful body plans for a number of niches. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have persisted through so many millions of years of changes and different environments. If any dinosaurs survived the Cretaceous in sufficient numbers to breed and persist 65 million years to the present, what was keeping them from radiating again? Mokele-Mbembe is supposed to be a bloody sauropod, for pity's sake. Sauropods were multi-ton vermin for a hundred million years, and yet they've supposedly spent the last 65 million years as a pitiful slinking remnant in the Congolese wetlands?

Coelacanths are "red herrings". They have nothing to do with this; they live in the deep oceans, and they were never that diverse or common in the first place. Okapi are a single genus of artiodactyl ungulate, a group that is hardly unknown from fossils in the last 65 million years. You're talking about members of a group of land animals unknown from fossil remains over the last 65 million years, with a 135 million year long track record for dominating land environments so well that mammals rarely got much larger than cat sized.

Non-avian dinosaurs are dead, they've been dead for 65 millions, and, to paraphrase Richard Manuel, they ain't a-comin' back no more. J. Spencer (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Les dramatically, WP:NPOV is not a middle ground fallacy. If, objectively, the evidence for something is slim, and the existence of that something unlikely, then there's nothing wrong with stating that clearly and dispassionately. I don't know about the rest of the cryptid articles; if they're going off the rails, then they should be fixed. I don't see how this article is dealing unfairly with this topic. J. Spencer (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The cryptid articles used to be terrible, basically written as if the cryptid was real. Luckily the wikiproject got on top of it all and made things more neutral. Tell us if we missed one (or if you find a new one). Basically if belief in (eg) surviving dinosaurs exists, you can write about that belief, and present whatever evidence and counterarguments have been presented; but discussion of the topic among ourselves shouldn't get into the article. See WP:OR. Remember, something doesn't have to exist/be proven to be notable. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a "Living dinosaurs" article; it's a notable and fascinating topic, even if unlikely to be true. If there is limited evidence that there are living dinosaurs, then those are the breaks, and the limited evidence and professional skepticism should be in the article and handled with objectivity and even-handedness. I don't think okapi and coelacanths are good counterexamples, for the reasons I gave above. Better counterexamples would be the discovery of a living labyrinthodont, multituberculate, pterosaur, or champsosaur, none of which are perfect, but all being much more comparable in having been extinct for tens of millions of years, with terrestrial fossil records before extinction. J. Spencer (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Two links

Can http://www.newanimal.org/dinosaurs.htm or http://www.animalplanet.ca/shows/castdetails.aspx?cid=2988&sid=2976 be used as a source? And the okapi, coelacanth, giant squid, mountain gorilla, komodo dragon, platypus, and a lot more have been cryptids. Scientists rolled on the floor in fits of hysterical, uncontrollable laughter upon hearing these supposed legends. It was only when a native brought out a live specimen or that someone went out and found one did the scientists shut up. And besides, nowadays scientists only tell you what the government wants them to tell you. I bet if people did find evidence of cenozic dinosaurs, the government would cover it up. And let me add that many dinosaurs lived in the North and South Pole with chilling winters. They could surely survive the winter brought after the K/T extinction. Most likely, the dinosaurs couldn't get much bigger than a rhinoceros by the time they recovered from the extinction, because mammals have already gotten that big, so they wouldn't be seen that much especially in their restricted habitats. And how can you explain the fact that natives illustrated and wrote about dinosaur-like creatures but had no TV books or movies? Elasmosaurus (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The first link is absolute crap - for instance it cites Wikipedia for its Kasai rex statement, but directly contradicts that article! Possibly the second link could be used to cite the "could dinosaurs survive today" speculation that articles like this often get filled with. Finally, Why cover up a surviving dinosaur? Why would it need to be kept secret? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"okapi, coelacanth, giant squid, mountain gorilla, komodo dragon, platypus": bar the coelacanth and giant squid (which live in environments that are not easily examined for fossils, the squid also lacking much in the way of hard parts) all have close relatives in the fossil record in the Cenozoic, unlike dinosaurs, and are hardly unprecedented finds.

"Most likely, the dinosaurs couldn't get much bigger than a rhinoceros by the time they recovered from the extinction, because mammals have already gotten that big, so they wouldn't be seen that much especially in their restricted habitats." Do you even know anything about dinosaurs, the K-T extinction event, or the recovery? It took several million years for mammals to do much of anything. Crocodiles were the large animals at well-known post K-T fossil sites like Wannagan Creek.

"And how can you explain the fact that natives illustrated and wrote about dinosaur-like creatures but had no TV books or movies?" Natives of what? Which specific cases are you citing? I'm not interested in anecdotes.

I also would like to know why "the government" (of what?) would cover up Cenozoic dinosaurs. The present U.S. administration would probably like Cenozoic dinosaurs. I submit that you don't understand paleontology, geology, or fossils, and are content to substitute a conspiracy in the absence of evidence. You're not improving the credibility of your case with government conspiracies and anecdotes of laughing scientists and unstated natives illustrating and writing about unstated cases. J. Spencer (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess? "Living dinosaurs" are actually a combination of: modern mammals and reptiles, not always observed under the best of conditions, some of which are familiar and some of which may well be unknown to science; and human factors like poor memory, misidentification, and wishful thinking on the part of people whom, for whatever reason, would really like there to be living dinosaurs. I'm all for finding out what's really out there in the world, but the chance of them being dinosaurs is on par with me being elected the President of the United States this fall. J. Spencer (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving up on you guys. You guys can go on and have fun debunking the existence of every cryptid in the wikipedia articles for all I care now. I've made countless tries to keep the cryptid articles neutral (In their current state, they all basically say "Its existence is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and most experts say that it can best be explained as a myth.") I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be imformative and scientific, but that doesn't mean it has to be skeptical. But so far, almost all of my edits have been undone / averted, and most likely that's how it will be forever. And I was referring to the native carvings such as http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg and the Inca pottery that shows dinosaurs side by side with humans, such as http://www.fairservicenz.com/images/Incastone.jpg . The people who made those lived before the recognization and naming of dinosaurs. These people did not have the TV, movies or books we priveledged modern people do have. They did not have proper fossil-finding tools. These people made their carvings off of what they saw existing around them.

Absence of evidence, does not mean evidence of absence. Elasmosaurus (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Its existence is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and most experts say that it can best be explained as a myth." If that is indeed what the scientific community and most experts say, then there's no POV problem.

Your first picture is a squiggle with no context. Is this the original orientation, for example? In the presented image, it looks something like an outdated concept of a prosauropod standing as a tripod (dinosaurs could not walk with vertical backbones like people without dislocation at their hips and knees, and most dinosaurs did not have tails that flexible; also, dinosaurs had arms). It could also be, for example, a map, a plant, a "typo", or even a hoax (not unprecedented, as the Paluxy River man-tracks have shown). All I have to go on is a picture.

You second image, well, ever heard of the Ica stones? Forgery happens in antiquities when people will pay good money for it. Too bad they didn't have that Triceratops when Pizarro came. I'd have figured them for glyptodont riders, myself, as glyptodonts actually existed in South America.

From your edits to List of cryptids, you have a problem with unicorns. What do living dinosaurs have that unicorns don't? J. Spencer (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the Incan dinosaur rider:

The only potential record to date of horned dinosaurs in South America is a now-lost toothless partial lower jaw that could just as easily have come from a hadrosaur, hadrosaurs being known from South America;

The hind legs of the dinosaur appear to attach to the belly (if you lived alongside animals that were built like this, how would you represent their hind legs?);

It has grown stegosaur-like plates;

Animals have to have a certain amount of intelligence and a certain temperament to be useful as transportation. We don't know about the temperament of horned dinosaurs, but their brain to body mass ratio was less than that of a modern crocodile, and nobody tries to ride crocs;

Domestication also takes time and implies the presence of a reasonably large population of animals to begin with (in this case, in mountainous terrain, which is not the favored habitat for elephant-sized herbivores);

According to your interpretation of this piece, horned dinosaurs were familiar enough to the Inca that at least one person rode a horned dinosaur. Horned dinosaurs were large, visually impressive animals. Is there more than one piece of Incan art with people riding horned dinosaurs, or even just Incan art of horned dinosaurs being horned dinosaurs? Did the conquistadores hear anything about them?;

The Incan dinosaur rider is wielding what looks like a tomahawk, a North American weapon, whereas axes were rare in the Incan army and appear to have been more like halberds (and at any rate a small axe is not an ideal weapon when you're riding something, especially a big animal in the absence of stirrups that would keep you on the animal when you leaned over to use the small axe);

Finally, through all of the archaeology on Incan sites, not a single dinosaur bone has been found. J. Spencer (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop. If the Incas saw a dinosaur, they are not making things up. They were perfectly honest people who made artifacts based on what was around them. Wikipedia is a mess because it's anti-cryptid and closed-minded. So far all my tries to keep the POVs neutral have failed, because the wikipedia community does not believe in cyrptids. And my point is, even though you cannot compare a dinosaur to a gorilla, okapi, coelacanth, or komodo dragon, scientists were ignorantly dismissing their existence. I'd think the proving of many cryptids' existence would get scientists to be open minded. They have not. By saying that there are no living dinosaurs, you are saying that dinosaurs were inferior creatures who lacked the ability to adapt. Perhaps you should change your views on them. Elasmosaurus (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"If the Incas saw a dinosaur, they are not making things up." That's a pretty big "if." Plenty of people made art and told tales of unicorns, yet you don't accept those as possible. Have you ever actually considered the implications of your statements and positions? If I'm offered a choice between:

1) Horned dinosaurs survived in South America to nearly the present day (in a continental landmass where there's no good fossil evidence they'd ever been before the K-T, let alone after it), in quantities large enough in the Andes that the Incas could learn to ride them and get bored enough of them to only depict them on one pot, then inconveniently disappeared sometime between 1200 (when the Inca civilization first took hold) and 1532, when they really could have used some warriors on horned dinosaurs, hand axes or no hand axes, without leaving behind any bony remains; and

2) Somebody in the past few decades, noting that foreign tourists interested in ancient astronauts and other Forteana would pay good money for old weird stuff, forged a cartoonish-looking Triceratops with a guy riding on it on a piece of pottery;

I'm going to pick # 2, and I have no clue as to why anyone who sat down and thought about the issue would prefer # 1.

"you are saying that dinosaurs were inferior creatures who lacked the ability to adapt"? You have no idea how impressed I am with hadrosaur jaws. They were absolutely better than anything mammals have come up with, combining a chewing motion with continuous tooth replacement, a cheek-like structure, and a beak. For all of that, I am not willing to accept that horned dinosaurs, tyrannosaurs, sauropods, and whatever else evolved cloaking devices that extended to hiding their fossil remains, which is about the only way that they could have avoided being found in the Cenozoic fossil record. J. Spencer (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence of the inca pottery being forged. And the horned dinosaur carving is just the tip of the iceberg. There were carvings of theropods too. The ancient Mexicans also made clay models of dinosaurs. Legends of dragons may have stemmed from dinosaurs. And in extinction, the reason a species goes extinct is because another species fills in its niche. Dinosaurs supposedly died unnaturally, by a comet from space, and not the earth's own doings. So if they went extinct, it would make no biological sense, as they had the capabilities to adapt and cope with these changes. The reason there's no T. Rexes stomping around outside is because the dinosaurs would have to reside in resrticted forest habitats, as the world has changed and there are new animal niches. Since the T. Rex did not fit into any of those niches (besides un-needed "super-predator") it would have gone extinct naturally and as a result of that example only the South American dinosaurs would remain. Besides, if you saw the deep and inpenetrable south american jungles (and possibly african jungles) you would understand how such magnificent creatures could hide out unnoticed for millions of years. Don't forget that only a tiny percent of all the fossils ever formed have been discovered. Elasmosaurus (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"There's no evidence of the inca pottery being forged" You weren't there when that pot was made, and neither was I. Why you insist on jumping to the conclusion that it wasn't, when all considerations of paleontology, archaeology, and history argue otherwise, is beyond me.

"Legends of dragons may have stemmed from dinosaurs" Sure, fossil dinosaurs, just like the legend of cyclopses may have stemmed from elephant skulls. People have found plenty of big bones throughout history and interpreted them in various ways. If you get a chance, check out the books of Adrienne Mayor, a folklorist who has documented these interpretations.

"And in extinction, the reason a species goes extinct is because another species fills in its niche" No, usually a species goes extinct when its environment has changed too much for it to exist. Did you forget that mammals took millions of years to even become cattle-sized after the K-T event? Extinction is often due to abiotic forces, and you can't adapt to a bolide impact short of becoming intelligent enough to build things to deflect them while still in space.

"Besides, if you saw the deep and inpenetrable south american jungles (and possibly african jungles) you would understand how such magnificent creatures could hide out unnoticed for millions of years." If they're so deep and impenetrable, how are tyrannosaurs supposed to live in them, and what are they eating? Spider monkeys?

You haven't explained why living dinosaurs are so much more likely than than the equally mythical unicorns, which have been the subjects of many more stories and pieces of art than any of your so-called living dinosaurs, and for all you know, these "magnificent creatures" are hiding out in "deep and impenetrable" jungles right now. Put up or shut up.

Read this next section carefully. At long last, why am I supposed to find any of your arguments credible?

You have not kept your arguments on task. You have not responded to any of my comments in any useful way, but keep restating your own points, as if by force of repetition, they will become true. You show no understanding of any field of study that you have discussed, with your definition of extinction the latest example. You invoke and abandon vague government conspiracies, and bring up some pot with a cartoon Triceratops ridden by a guy wielding a weapon that is well-nigh useless when used while riding an elephant-sized animal, with artwork that would embarrass a real Incan artisan, and you ask me to close my eyes and ignore numerous well-established facts about history, dinosaurs, the Inca, geography, biology, and archaeology. There is a difference between being open-minded and irrationally credulous.

Finally, you started all of this because you didn't think the article followed WP:NPOV. If it is indeed a fact that the scientific community has rejected living dinosaurs, it is not POV to state so. J. Spencer (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in your work, I'm sorry that I don't find the pottery as conclusive as you do, and I could not be happier if a living, breathing nonavian dinosaur was to come up and nuzzle you or me on the shoulder (I'd prefer a hypsilophodont myself, but I'd take anything. Well, if it was a carnivore, I'd hope it was full). However, weighing Column A and B of the arguments regarding living dinosaurs with cold objectivity, I just don't see how your arguments are an improvement over the status quo. J. Spencer (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that Unicorns have never existed. Dinosaurs have. Even if they might be extinct, they have still existed. The unicorn hasn't. It is just a silly children's legend stemmed from the rhinoceros. On the other hand, the Pygmies and all other African natives are honest and can describe Ngoubou, Mokele-Mbembe and many others without the support of literature and media. These are no myths, especially Burrunjor (I myself am surprised he doesn't have an article.) Some have suggested Megalania, which seems more reasonable than a theropod at first glance, but when you take a look and see all the other great people who have evidence and believe in the living dinosaurs, you can see why I believe. People describe Burrunjor as being bipedal with small arms and large powerful jaws, so maybe we should take these people seriously rather than turning to the "Mainstream scientists". They don't always know what to do. And, "government conspiracies" ... It seems to me that the government wants us all to believe that the earth is an orderly, normal place, with no abnormalities. They keep everything secret. It's not like they openly tell us what they're doing all the time. I know that you are a sane and honest person, but I am too. I think that dinosaurs are zoologically possible not because of sheer wanting to believe, but because there is proof that living dinosaurs are possible (they just would have to stay in the jungles). If dinosaurs were truly extinct, that would mean that the tiny mammals that survived the extinction were more successful than the amazing creatures that ruled over them. Currently reptiles are the world's most successful vertebrates. Dinosaurs were more advanced than all the other kinds of reptile that survived their supposed demise. It doesn't make sense to me that the dinosaurs would vanish when their less-advanced counterparts and those tiny mammals could. Once the living dinosaurs are debunked or disproven will I cease this theory. "You show no understanding of any field of study that you have discussed, with your definition of extinction the latest example." Look, I'll have an example here. Gastornis, one of the Eocene "Terror-Birds", became extinct not because it couldn't adapt, but because large mammals like Hyaenodon took its ecological niche, and nature no longer needed it. Dinosaurs weren't the same way - They were truly powerful, imposing beasts, who would have been widespread over the world even at the present day if the meteorite didn't hit. Now they may only be in the rainforest. Elasmosaurus (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if we're agreeing to acknowledge that we have rather different views on the subject of the article, should we discuss the original issue of the article's NPOV or lack thereof? From my understanding, as I stated, if it is indeed verifiable that the scientific community has rejected living dinosaurs, it is not POV to state so. It is also my understanding that the evidence for living dinosaurs has been limited and controversial (which I think we've managed to illustrate in miniature on this talk page!). The article also notes this. I don't see that the pro-cryptid side is being treated unduly, with regards to the current state of affairs, as long as things are being stated objectively. What would you suggest? J. Spencer (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bash at the Cryptid section. The first paragraph in particular seemed off, as there was redundancy and an oddly-phrased statement about indigenous peoples. I also added some references to the paleo material, removed adjectives, and combined the third and fourth paragraphs. J. Spencer (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the link to the Inca stones should be allowed, unless...this is not a site for information and science, but rather...biased popular myth? BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

what happened?????

Hi. What happened to the lists of mokele-mbembe, emela-ntouka, etc, and the other cryptid living dinosaurs? Shouldn't we have a list of these reports, or are those at cryptozoology? Where is that huge paragraphs about the various reports that I remember being in this article, and do we still have the other several dozen articles like this? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That list is at List of cryptids, but see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living dinosaurs for why this article looks like it does. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation

The theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds is only a theory that has been widely criticized. It has never been proven as fact, so to call it "known" is simply false. "Believed by some" would be much more accurate. One example of a notable scientist who disagrees with this theory would be evolutionary biologist and ornithologist Alan Feduccia.

The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event is also simply a theorized, or hypothesized event. Again, so to state it as fact is quite simply false.

Also, to label all other theories as "pseudoscience" is biased.

Treat others with respect, and let their ideas be heard, no matter how strange you may think they are. Some of the most famous scientists and theories throughout history were made by people who at the time were thought by most others to be quacks, nuts, freaks, and morons. Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Galileo, just to name a few.

Let the public be the voice of reason, and think for themselves, or face the consequences of a society under Orwellian rule.

I always though the search for truth was the wonder and power of this Wikipedia forum.

Was I mistaken?

Maybe. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Please provide reliable sources, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have, Alan Feduccia is a real person, and there is a wiki link to him. How about you provide reliable sources to show that the theory that birds evolved into dinosaurs is a fact, not a theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreshiBaraElohim (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't cite another Wikipedia article as a source. Citations must be independent, reliable and verifiable. Have you read WP:RS? Also, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policies on original research and soapboxing.

Lastly, please sign all your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~), thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I also doubt the validity of these Wiki sources as well now, so I understand. I have an external link to another web site, how would that be? Let me know which one suits your fancy. [1] [2] [3] [4]

BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is only a disambiguation page. Moreover, what changes do you propose to this disambiguation page? What citations from the above would support these changes? After you have answered these questions, I would strongly suggest you now wait for input from other editors here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Yes, maybe they can help explain why there is an internal link to the discussion of the so called (and entirely unproven) Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event allowed, and yet my internal link to a known living individual of scholarly origins Alan Feduccia is considered invalid.

Also, maybe they can explain why theorized fiction is mentioned more than once as fact, and yet there are no supporting links to show that this stated "fact" has ever been proven.

I am sure they will also be very helpful in identifying the non=biased reason for stating all other theories as "pseudoscience."

Yes, I look forward to the opinions of these other Editorial experts.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and helping to inform this new member of the rule about the four tildes. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome for the tip on the tildes. You deleted a lot of information and you were reverted by multiple editors, then you edit warred over it. This was very disruptive. Your take on this topic may not be supported by a consensus of editors. Lastly, there is no need to use phrases like "Editorial experts," we're all volunteers here, trying to build an encylcopedia with reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I won't call the editors, "experts," if you wish, although I am sure they are far more familiar with the rules of this Wiki then I am. It was my fist time editing, and I did not know the method, or if my edit was even accepted, as it seemed not to stick. Then I got a message from you telling me I was in danger of being permanently blocked. Editing here on wikipedia, or any wiki for that matter, is an entirely new experience, and I am open and ready to learn. I am sorry if I have offended you, I was simply under the impression that "Wikipedia" was an open collaborative effort to have correct information available to the general public. But it seems this is not the case, as you mentioned. I will wait for other editors now, as you say. Thank you. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken in many ways. First, I never said you'd be permanently blocked. Second, you didn't offend me. Third, Wikipedia is an open collaborative effort but you must follow the rules. As for "correct information," have you read WP:RS yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see I have made another mistake, how terrible. So it was not a permanent block I was threatened with then. O.K. I am not sure which rule I broke other than the 4 tildes rule you mentioned, maybe you could be more specific. I have read the WP:RS link, and it looks like many of the guidelines mentioned there were broken by the article living dinosaurs that is in question here. Such as, "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources." which is why I was trying to edit in the first place, and "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas;" which is my argument against the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event link, it is pure speculation. So I guess I still have a lot to learn, but I think I got the 4 tildes, thanks to you. (^_^) (Are smilies allowed?) BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you'd be blocked for not signing your posts. I said you'd be blocked if you kept edit warring. As for smiles, they're not allowed, ever, don't even think about smiles if you want to edit here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now thats a smiley!!! O.K., edit warring I am guessing is when editors start to change a page frequently back and forth. So how is it determined who is doing the "warring"? I mean, doesn't it take two to tango so to speak? Why am I the one who is threatened with being blocked? I mean, of course in the case with you, I assume you being the more seasoned editor and having some obvious kind of administrative status will win (your word against mine, etc.), but say I was to be accused of being in an edit war with a mere mortal, is the first one to claim edit warring on the other the automatic winner? And more importantly, when can I get back to trying to fix the problem with this article? BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article. It is a disambiguation page. So far, you're the only one saying there's a problem with it. As I said, wait for input from other editors. As for edit warring, please carefully read WP:3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event is hardly speculative. There was a mass extinction of every single dinosaur clade, save for birds, mass extinction of so many other clades of organisms, and there is a geological boundary dated to 65.5 million years ago. Those are facts. The only thing in slight dispute, and that's a very slight dispute, is what caused the geological boundary. These are all confirmed and verified with reliable sources. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would not hold up in a court of law, it is speculative. The Radiometric Isotope dating method used to date the "65.5 million year old boundary" you mention, has many problems. For example, volcanic lava flows known by observation to be very recent have dated at millions of years old by radiometric isotope dating. So I would hardly consider the evidence definitive. Paleontology, zoology, and all of the interpretive sciences are just that, interpretive. That is why they are not considered in the same category as the observable and testable sciences such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy. All of the sciences have their hypotheses, only paleontologists get their hypotheses accepted as “fact.” So, yes…It is speculative. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the posts of all the people above here must be too old to consider "problems" then. Fair enough. I will wait for some other editors. I hope they are nice and helpful, like you. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on this issue is: Don't shoot the messenger!

This page is just a disambiguation page, intended to direct readers (who are assumed to have searched for "Living Dinosaur") towards the most appropriate article for their requirements. As such, it needs to explain as briefly as possible the different interpretations of the term, so that readers can make an informed decision about where to go next. So, phrases such as "the only clade of dinosaurs known to have survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event" are sort of mini-summaries of the linked articles.

Because of the above, this page is correct if its content matches that of the linked articles, and incorrect otherwise. Putting this another way: If you think birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, the place to argue it is at Origin of birds, not here. If that page changes, this page should change to match. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree with everything you have said. I am happy to see some of the bias and overtones of the previous listing have been toned down a bitBreshiBaraElohim (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A more complete explanation of what it means to be a disambiguation page is at that link. This is a sort of mini-article designed more as a navigational aid than for actual content. It needs simply to provide enough detail that readers can get to the actual article in which they are interested. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of shocked to see so much discussion for a disambiguation page. It kept popping up on my watch list. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, its all in the words now isn’t it. Disambiguation is an attempt to provide the possible definitions for the word as commonly used. To add all of the bias and slanted overtones in a page where word choice and usage is disambiguated is the first step in a slippery slope to misinformation chaos. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi. I just made a series of edits, the reasons for which I believe are adequately explained in the edit summaries. If that is not the case, feel free to initiate discussion here. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Paleocene dinosaurs should return. I know it's not really a living dinosaur, but the reason I put it in there a year ago or so, was that it kind of puts an end to any discussion as to the existence of living dinosaurs, since there is only a couple of very controversial pieces of fossil evidence that dinosaurs survived the K-T boundary. It tells the story that's not like no one tried to find a post-KT dinosaur, it's just that none exist. But I'm not going to lose sleep over the loss of the link. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current version. I'd also be ok with links to more articles. My only worry earlier today was the new editor's attempt to throw PoV spin into the brief link descriptions. I've been happy to see all this input btw! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It happens regularly. There was a POV editor at Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event a few months ago that was trying to make changes to the timing of the event. I'm shocked by who actually watches this page!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if we are all honest, we will realize that none of us, not one, is truely capable of creating a post without at least some PoV involved. The best we can hope for is to keep it to a minimum, don't you think? And the best way it seems here at Wikipedia, is to allow us to argue, and discuss the wording with the least possible PoV, and the most possible actual provable fact. To point the finger at others and say "Your using your PoV," places yourself under the microscope for everyone to see your very own PoV.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried a different wording with "extinct species of dinosaurs claimed to exist today," as I couldn't wrap my head around that wording. If they're extinct species, they wouldn't be existing by definition, and anyway most of the sightings haven't been concerned with niceties like species identification. I tried to pare it into simplest terms. J. Spencer (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If they are extinct species, which they are, they can't exist by definition. True. However, some people claim that they do exist, that they are in fact not extinct. Stating both of these facts shouldn't present a problem - they are extinct, some people think they aren't, and call 'em living dinosaurs. Hence I reverted to the prior version. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better than before, thank you. BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Links restored

I've restored all the links the dab page use to have, but the Pop Culture ones. I think they enrich it. Regards. --Againme (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)