|
Species III (2004)
IMDB rating: 4.10
Plot: While being transported in a military ambulance and supposed dead, Eve delivers an offspring and is killed by a half-breed. The baby girl is abducted by Dr. Abbot, and a couple of days later she grows up, reaching adulthood and becoming a gorgeous young woman called Sara. Dr. Abbot expects to develop a perfect DNA using Sara’s eggs and win the Nobel Prize, and invites the student Dean to be his assistant and share his research and future awards. But while Sara unsuccessfully chases a perfect mate for her to generate a perfect being, the flawed half-breeds leaded by Amelia try to reproduce with her to survive their species.
|
check it
Directors:
Actors: Dunne Robin,Knepper Robert,Pitoc John Paul,Warren Michael,Neame Christopher,Stoffer Joel,Ryan James Leo,Frerichs Reed,Wilson Marc D.,Yang King Matthew,Gillum Christopher R.,Bacon Billy,Williams Jim Cody,Zecca Mark,Ching Sean,Sci-Fi,Horror,Thriller,
Why didn't Dinosaurs evolve more?
The Homo genus has been around for approximately 2.5 million years.
Homo Sapiens, on the other hand, have only been around for roughly 250 thousand years.
In this amount of time, we have risen to be the domineering species. Not only that, but we have landed on the moon. We are also the only known planet to sustain life.
Dinosaurs, were around for roughly 180 million years.
… … … What the hell were they doing in this amount of time?
In their existence, mankind could have been created, evolved, and landed on the moon over fifty times.
It is arguable that reptiles have a slower evolutionary rate than mammals, but not to the ludicrous extent of 180 million years. The alligator, for example, hasn’t changed much. But compare the remains of an alligator from 200 BCE and a alligator from today, and you’ll see some pretty significant changes.
Even at a substantially slower rate, Dinosaurs still had ample time and opportunity to advance. But they never started using tools.
I only see three possible conclusions:
I. Dinosaurs’ brains never developed. They never advanced beyond survival skills. And after 180 million years of inexplicable intellectual stagnancy, they were wiped out by a meteor in the biggest FAIL of history.
II. Either the proposed evolutionary time frames, or our estimates of how long Dinosaurs or Humans have been around, is wrong. This inaccuracy in estimation would inherently cause more problems, but as it stands now the figures don’t add up.
III. Dinosaurs actually did evolve into sentience! Bwaha! And in fact, they used their sophisticated space program to shuttle the most important members of their society away from the inevitable annihilation of the rest of the species.
Anyone? Any paleo-students? Because really, I’m at a loss here.
First, you seem to have this idea that "evolve" means "become more intelligent." It doesn’t.
There is absolutely no reason to assume this, except thinking that humans are the "peak" of evolution. That’s just ego.
For example, it is just ego speaking to think that we are the "domineering" species on the planet. We’re not. The bacteria alone outnumber us, have been here for a lot longer, enjoy us as a nice source of food, live on us like happily as friendly environment, etc. It is just ego talking to think that going to the moon makes us "more evolved" that any other species.
Second, one could just as easily point to the relative stability of alligators as evidence that they are *more* evolved than we are … in that they have already reached a state where they are about as perfectly adapted to their environment as they can be. If they are showing signs of renewed evolution after millions of years of stability, that must mean that some new element is active on the planet that is having significant impact on the natural habitat of alligators. (I wonder what that could be.)
Third, what happened to the dinosaurs is *precisely* why thinking that any particular development in evolution is "better" than another. They survived 180 million years (compared to our measly 200,000 years) with all sorts of strategies (fierceness, size, armor) that turned out to be useless against a big meteor.
But the ones that did survive were a small branch of theropod dinosaurs that had already started down a different strategy of being smaller, more agile, and with bigger heart and lungs for stamina and evasiveness (which is why they survived the sudden drop in oxygen levels on the planet). When smallness and agility is your ticket to survival, then heavy brains are a *liability*, not an advantage.
So the birds’ tradeoff between brain-weight and lightness (which allowed the development of flight) is exactly the counter-example to the idea that evolution=bigger brains! There are twice as many bird species as there are mammal species. And of those mammal species, about half of them are either rodents or (drum-roll) bats.
So the reason you are "at a loss" is because you are over-focused on brain-size or intelligence or technological achievement of humans, as some sort of measure of "success" or "evolution."
Humans are pretty cool … but we don’t need to bring our pom-poms into science. 
secretsauce | Aug 23, 2009
Keep in mind that mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic, just like the dinosaurs. Except for humans, no mammals have designed a rocket and landed on the moon either. So, don’t blame the dinosaurs for being inferior in anything.
Keep in mind that dinosaurs had small brains compared to birds and mammals. Even with their small brains, they dominated the earth. So they did not do too bad. Brains also require a lot of energy to maintain, which places additional burdens on an animal to find food. Humans have to eat 2-3 meals per day, but a reptile like a snake may only need one meal a week and they can go without food for months. Dinosaurs too probably needed less food than mammals as they were almost certainly ectothermic like modern reptiles. Their way of life has its advantages in needing less food, but it also means that they are probably unable to support a bigger brain, which means they have to eat a lot more often.
Since organisms can only work with what they have inherited from their ancestors, dinosaurs can only work with the lower metabolic rates they inherited from the more primitive reptiles. That may be one reason they never achieved a brain size that is even close to the average bird or mammal. Further, the theropods have fewer than 5 fingers. It has been said that if the ancestors of humans had fewer than 5 fingers, then most of our technological achievements would not have been possible. In many ways, humans are lucky to have a mamalian ancestry, which allows us to have a high enough metabolic rate to maintain a big brain and also lucky enough to have dextrous hands with 5 fingers on each hand.
Cal King | Aug 23, 2009
The short answer is that dinosaurs didn’t evolve.
I recommend these links for further study:
http://www.icr.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudos cience
http://creation.com/clouded-minds
http://creation.com/antidote-to-supersti tion
http://creation.com/the-scientific-fact- of-evolution
Former MN Science Teacher –sDg | Aug 23, 2009
Synapsids and other mammals/mammalian reptiles predate dinosaurs by about 60,000,000 years… What our excuse?
Mammals have been around an extra 120 million years… Should dinosaurs have that extended time (almost double) there no telling what could have happened with them… So big thumbs up for cal kings answer
More props for secretsauce noting your flawed measuring system
And a big ass BOO to the christo-fascist with the AiG links, way to troll
BIGgourami | Aug 24, 2009
