Talk:The New Dinosaurs

Dinosauroids

Isn't it widely speculated or excepted that these V-Raptors (or raptors very much like them) would have evolved into big eyed bipedal, large brained intelligent being? I saw an illustration of this and it was fascinating. Why isn’t a creature like this mentioned? Surely 65 million years would have produced a being like this.

-G

Changed your heading. Does anyone else think they look scary? (AndrewAnorak 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

I highly doubt that such a creature would have evolved, even when given 65,000,000 Years of evolution. It's possible, but i doubt it. I know that humans were unlikely & we evolved, but hey I can imagine the transitional forms for humans. Can the same be said for that creature? Anyway, evolution takes the road of less resistance. Our ancestors seemed predisposed to evolve into us. They had the proper genetics & frankly I think that they look at least a little bit like us. Raptors seemed predisposed to evolve into killers. I think that the Raptors presented in The Speculative Dinosaur Project are more likely.

Then again the "V-raptors" (im assuming that its the Cutlassteeth) are Basal Coelurids, Not Dromaeosaurs--50.138.213.207 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Didn't Hypsilophodontids fill this role in Dougal's book? --Hrimpurstala (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Speculative Dinosaur Project

Is anyone willing to start the The Speculative Dinosaur Project article?. - 20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. - 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Other "What if..." projects

I've heard of various projects that talk about "What if the K-T extinction had not happened", but I have yet to hear about "What if vertebrates had not evolved" (Arthropods and Mollusks would probably be the dominant lifeforms). That would be a very interesting project. An even stranger project would be "What if Vertebrates, Arthropods & Mollusks had not evolved". What could possibly be the dominant lifeform then?. Another Interesting Project would be "What if the permian extinction had not happened". Any comments would be appreciated. - 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing an asteroid impact is logically correct, but "something has not evolved per se" is logically flawed because it requires changing laws of evolution. One has to make up sequence of events with such results first. The more plausible scenario might be "what if K-T event was much larger and killed all vertebrates". Alliumnsk (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Coconut "Grab" is named and then called "crab". Someone with an account want to fix it?

What if vertibrates, arthropods and mollusks had not evolved: the Earth would be inhabited by giant starfish. What if the permian extinction had never happened: dinosaurs would not have evolved and synapsids would become more advanced quicklier. Interestingly, why arthropods didnt become the dominant or one of the dominant land animals is because they dont have an effecient way of breathing. Im sure that they were "working on it" but unfortunatly vertibrates got there first. If the asteroid didnt hit, Im sure there would be Homoraptor avisapiens editing wikipedia and saying to each other "Gee, I wonder what would have happened if an asteroid hit the Earth 65 million years ago, made our ancestors exticnt and left mammals to dominate the Earth and eventually develop an intelligent species? T.Neo (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Raptors could not walk humans' way, because hominid evolution involved switching from herbivory to predation. Raptors had to became herbivorous first :) Primates are not notable amongst mammals, so I guess less advanced dinosaurs would have greater chances of evolving sentience. Alliumnsk (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I truly doubt that an intellegent dinosaur would look like a human. And how are we even that sure if a dinosaur would evolve into anything intellegent? I mean, through out the 500 million years that multi-cellular life has existed, only one species was intellegent. I think intellegent animals is a hard thing to come by, plenty of aimals had the chance to become extremely intellegent, but only one did. And also, with the "What if vertibrates, arthropods and mollusks had not evolved" idea, I doubt that starfish would remain as starfish. They would probably evolve into something...well, weird beyond belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.40.219 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only starfish, worms too! 201.83.151.70 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The New Dinosaurs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

On my list. Give me a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

• Unlink "Earth"
• Optionally link "alternate Earth" to Parallel universes in fiction.
• "to dinosaurs that were eventually discovered" This is a little clumsy. Maybe 'to dinosaurs that were discovered after the book's publication or similar?
• "entirely convergent with real modern day animals" "real" seems unnecessary; as opposed to unreal modern day animals? I would stick with "actual".

I feel guilty that I cannot suggest more improvements. This is one of the best GANs I have assessed. Bravo! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise! I've added the improvements you suggested :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed