The theory of reigning beings.

We know how life began on our planet 3.8 billion years ago, and how much it has transformed since then. From single-celled organisms with no reasoning ability to humans with somewhat god-like ability—we have come a long way. And in this illustrious journey, we have seen a lot of diverse beings that reigned over the Earth at one point of the time or the other. Nature made all these beings evolve from their primitive form to a developed form. But why was evolution made a thing by the nature? Why did we need to evolve?

Seeing the flow of the nature, it seems that it is very caring of the beings it gives home to. The first bacteria could have stayed the same and reigned the Earth, but they evolved because they were too small for any good. Nature helped them grow into bigger and better beings so that they can explore the nature better. And in the process, the nature ended up giving birth to the biggest beings this planet has ever seen—dinosaurs.

I find dinosaurs so fascinating in this journey because they were the reason, according to me, that made nature make way for the humankind.

Let me go in details on this one.

You don’t need to be a scientist to know about the animal body types. There are mainly two body types: endothermic, and ectothermic. In simple words, endothermic animals are those animals that produce their own heat, and ectothermic animals are those animals that gains heat through the environment. Animals such as reptiles, most fish, and amphibians are examples of ectothermic animals who rely on outside sources to warm up or cool down their body temperature. On the other hand, mostly birds and mammals, including humans, are endothermic who unconsciously use their metabolism as a way of regulating their body temperature.

You are supposed to know this because no matter what happens to the climate, either it heats up or it cools down, the animals possessing one of the physiological characteristics, say it’s endothermic, or ectothermic, should survive. As for the dinosaurs, it is not known whether they were endothermic in nature or ectothermic which makes it hard to conclude why the dinosaurs didn’t survive the climate change like the birds and the mammals if they were endothermic, or why they didn’t survive the climate change like the reptiles and the fishes if they were ectothermic. Or can there be a possibility that the dinosaurs had a unique physiological characteristic apart from endothermic and ectothermic? If so, why were they so special? If life evolved from a single cell then we all must have these things in common. There is no question that the dinosaurs had some different physiological characteristic. They were definitely either endothermic or ectothermic. This makes it hard for me to believe that the dinosaurs went extinct because of climate change in general.

To move further, if we consider the other theories like the Asteroid Impact Theory, Deccan Volcanism Theory, Rise of the Sea Levels Theory, Epidemic Disease Theory, Egg-eating Theory, etc., they all make sense making it hard to get the actual answer, but all the major theories go back to climate change, ending the argument.

It is hard to say what actually killed the dinosaurs, but whatever the cause, the answer won’t justify why nature abandoned the idea of ‘the bigger the better’. In this case, we need to consider other things to understand why the nature let tiny humans (compared to dinosaurs) evolve with intelligence.

According to my research, the Asteroid Impact Theory is highly accepted by people, then comes the Deccan Volcanism.

When I went deeper into these theories, I found that dinosaurs could have survived their mass extinction after all if they were intelligent enough.

The asteroid impact was surely a deadly event, but it didn’t wipe out the dinosaurs right away, their time started slipping away a long time ago before the asteroid hit Chicxulub. The dates show that the Deccan volcanos started erupting way before the impact poisoning the environment. However, as the geographical studies show, Deccan Traps exist in India, which is a part of the Indian subcontinent. Many dinosaur fossils have been found in India and its neighbouring countries proving the fact that dinosaurs existed in the land of Indian subcontinent. Here, if you study the Plate Tectonics Theory, you will find that the Indian subcontinent was just an island off of the east coast of what is now Africa during the time these Deccan volcanos are supposed to be erupting. Even if the Deccan volcanos continued erupting for a long time, I don’t think their effect could have reached Africa, Australia, Antarctica, North America, South America, or Europe. You can give this theory enough praise for explaining extinction of dinosaurs in Asia and maybe some parts of Africa and Europe, but I don’t think it was able to grievously harm all the dinosaurs.

If Deccan volcanos were to kill off the dinosaurs that far away from them, it would have had to pollute the air and water tremendously. In that case, a pollution that powerful, would have killed off not only the dinosaurs, but all the living beings from the face of the Earth. The reason behind the disappearance of dinosaurs is not the volcanic eruptions. Or is it?

To dig deeper into it and to put two and two together, it is better if we go for the Hybrid Theory (Deccan Volcanism + Asteroid Impact Theory).

Here, if we consider them together, we can say the volcanos started the extinction and the asteroid gave the process a big hand.

I think the volcanos could have been really deadly for all the living beings, but the asteroid helped in one way to change the atmosphere, but that’s not my argument.

Now, if you consider the position of the Chicxulub crater during the end of the Mesozoic Era, the impact could have possibly ended the life of dinosaurs in South America, North America, Europe, Africa, and some parts of Antarctica and Asia. Still, there is no possibility that any of these disasters were able to reach Australia. In the midst of volcanos and asteroids, Australia was chilling just fine. If none of these big disasters were able to reach Australia, Australia should have been the single place on Earth where dinosaurs roamed still now. The movie Jurassic Park could have been a reality! But what happened to the dinosaurs in Australia, what went wrong with them?

There are various other theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs other than these two major theories as I have mentioned above. If we consider all those other theories to have played a role in the extinction process, all at the same time, we can say they were enough to manage to wipe out the dinosaurs in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia too. But the thing to notice, and to consider most importantly is: there is no evidence that the dinosaurs existed in Australia during the time of their extinction.

The most recent dinosaur fossil found in Australia is about a hundred million years old, which is way before the mass extinction. Also, there hasn’t been enough discovery of dinosaur fossils in Australia, which clearly suggests that the dinosaurs didn’t really make this part of land their home. Over the past century, just a few dinosaur fossils have been discovered in Australia—which is a very small number compared to dinosaur fossils found all around the world. The dinosaur species that exist in Australia must be from the time it was a part of Antarctica, but as it drifted off, it isolated them from the world and they went extinct for the various reasons given by the other theories.

If this deduction makes sense to you, you can say that the dinosaurs could have survived their extinction if they could forecast the calamities and moved to Australia.

It was a long journey for them indeed, but they couldn’t survive because they weren’t intelligent enough. This might have made the nature change its approach from big is better to sentience is better. And how are we proving the nature?

Even with the intelligence the nature has provided us to see us grow and survive, we tend to do the opposite. Instead, we keep dragging ourselves to our own demise. This makes me wonder, if big is not better, and intelligence is not better either, what the nature would come up with after we have ended ourselves.

86 thoughts on “The theory of reigning beings.

    1. Thank you very much for the comment. That is an interesting thought. I personally don’t think that the dinosaurs were intelligent; it is very obvious in my post. A few species might have managed to become sentient somehow, it is a possibility.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, I find that movies that end they way they started are the most rewarding. A never ending story. A good example in this respect is Robert Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Very good and interesting postulates…most paleontologists think that the majority of dinosaurs could only think of one thing at a time, either defending themselves from a predator or seeking food…I don’t buy the evolution theory at all…there is frankly too much that differs us from most animal species, even from the most intelligent ones…cats/dogs…for me to think there is a link somewhere. The extinction might have been brought about by a series of events or by one catastrophic one, who knows but what is certain is that if we, as a species, do not start to take better care of our planet, and right away, we might go the same route as those majestic beings…
    All the best and my greetings from Spain,
    FBC

    Liked by 5 people

  2. “If Deccan volcanos were to kill off the dinosaurs that far away from them, it would have had to pollute the air and water tremendously. In that case, a pollution that powerful, would have killed off not only the dinosaurs, but all the living beings from the face of the Earth. The reason behind the disappearance of dinosaurs is not the volcanic eruptions.”

    Not all things were killed nor do any of the theories claim this. We have birds which are directly from dinos so even they all didn’t die off.

    “Also, there hasn’t been enough discovery of dinosaur fossils in Australia, which clearly suggests that the dinosaurs didn’t really make this part of land their home.” This is a poor argument. There is no cause or effect here, and it ignores the fact that there is a lot of Australia and not a lot of people working on paleontology there. You make a false assumption that there are not as many dinos to be found.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thank you very much for the comment. I know the volcanos couldn’t kill all the beings. The question here is: why did only the tiny forms survive, why not the giant ones?
      The argument about Australia is based on the informations available till now. If people there take interest in paleontology and discover fossils of the dinosaurs that existed there during the time of their extinction then my argument will be wrong. But given there are not enough paleontologists and there haven’t been enough discoveries related to dinosaurs in Australia, my argument stands valid.

      Like

      1. tiny ones need less resources.

        Your argument doesn’t stand since you’ve tried to claim that the reason that there are few dinos found is that there were fewer dinos to be found. That is what you claimed, is it not?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. In that case, nature decreased the size of the beings to provide for all the beings. Still, the giants could have survived it if they moved to Australia—I strongly believe it.

        Yes, exactly. I claim it because even if there is a possibility of finding a lot of dinosaurs there, how can you go with it if someone doesn’t find them and proves you right?

        Like

  3. Enjoyed this and several other of your posts. You seem like a person of great intellect and knowledge. You topics are ones that I have great interest in and often delve into on science sites on the web and TV. Looking forward to future posts.

    I just have one question. How on earth did you happen on my vacuous blog and decide to follow it?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. I love where you took this discussion…”What will nature come up with after we have ended ourselves?”
    A timely reminder that humanity may not exist forever and that nature can get along fine without us.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Food for thought, but having us always to remember how small we are in nature given to us in loan, by the Most High Elohim. It is rally high time we take on our responsibility to make good what our forefathers ruined and try to restore or make good, what we did wrong to our planet earth.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’ve been wondering recently that if there is an environment (e.g. Atmospheric, the earth’s magnetic, air pressure, weather patterns, state of water in the oceans air etc.) that favoured giant creatures and that the environment changed to favour present size creatures. Or is this just crazy?

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Thank you very much for your comment. It is a possibility. The giants needed a lot of resources, it must have been hard for the environment to sustain them. Tiny, diverse beings must have been a better option.

      Like

  7. Dinosaurs have always fascinated me and when you make it that way about the dinosaurs in Australia, I guess you did have a point. There’s only a few known dinosaurs there and many of them, as far as I remember, mostly originated from Early Cretaceous as the latest.

    It is odd as of why Australia (and Antarctica, I guess) has fewer dinosaurs compared to the other region. But I reckon Australia has many marine reptiles…

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you very much for your comment. Australia is not all about the marine reptiles, more than 80 per cent of the continent’s flora and fauna are endemic to Australia. Australia was able to develop its diversity because it was unaffected by all the disasters happening around it. It let the beings there evolve in their own way.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. An interesting article. We are all so fascinated by dinosaurs – even very young children who have hardly seen anything of the world are excited as soon as they hear about dinosaurs. I suppose we can’t ever know for sure and it is hard to take in how long ago they lived, but also how long they were around for!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you very much for your comment. What I think is that nature won’t go for smart beings again if we make ourselves go extinct. We are smart enough to understand what we are doing wrong and make things right. If we don’t do it smart will mean nothing. What’s the point of developing smart beings if they can’t sustain themselves?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I tend to see things from a probabilistic perspective, perhaps just due to my background.

    While specialization in nature allows for propagation through better exploitation of some characteristic of the environment (“natural selection”), that also means that an organism becomes tied to that characteristic. A long beak that can reach into a deep flower becomes a burden when the flowers become rare and being able to crack those seeds everywhere would be better.

    Looking at dinosaurs, you can really see this… spectacular sails, spikes and claws, long necks, jaws and teeth… and bodies which maximized the ratio of internal volume to surface, retaining body heat. These are extreme adaptations from competitions to best exploit characteristics of an environment that was relatively stable over a long period of time. But such extreme specialization over a long time can also become an extreme burden.

    Environmental changes requiring re-adaptations faster than the statistics of natural-selection can accommodate thus also become more likely over time. So it may not have taken all that much of a change to finish off the dinosaurs.

    “Intelligence” adapts through technology. Sharpened sticks and usefully-shaped rocks were instant adaptations that could be abandoned just as quickly when they became a burden. That first stick trumped a million-years of physical evolution. Throwing it away, another million. Controlling fire would give us back-door access to the very rules of the game.

    So technological-selection moves much more rapidly than natural-selection. But this also means that it can over-specialize much more rapidly. Pointy sticks and rocks become electrical-grids, GPS, Internet, smart-phones… These could be our own versions of the long necks and huge bodies of the dinosaurs.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. It’s good to see someone who is really thinking about how things came to be the way they are today.
    Remember though that evolution itself is just a theory! There is no particular reason to believe that all the curiosities of biology can be explained in terms of evolution, nor that all the curiosities of biology explain all the curiosities of life.
    After all, most of us can’t really remember what was happening 80 (or so) million years ago. But – what if someone could? Would anyone believe them? If I could remember exactly something that happened in my own childhood, would that be more reliable data than someone telling me what they think happened? Interesting to ponder. And so it is with longer periods of time.
    In fact, there have been a few people who have come forward now and then and claimed they could remember to ancient and long-gone days. There have even been techniques developed to verify the validity of such memories. When I found out that this way of knowing about the past might be possible, I studied up on it, as direct memory seems like a better way of knowing, as opposed to even the best guesses of scientists. You can learn a bit more about this on my own blog. But the point is, we are very likely to discount certain possible truths just because they seem so unlikely to us. The perfect example we always point to is how the planets revolve around the sun. Simple observation made that truth more and more obvious, yet it was resisted in earlier times. Why continue to make the such mistakes? Research widely!
    Mainstream science has become bogged down by its own unwillingness to LOOK. It still has much good data to offer, most of which was obtained by direct observation. It is time now – past time really – for us to understand much better some things about life. If we don’t LOOK we won’t succeed. Every time we really strive to observe, we get closer to the truth. Dreams and theories are nice, but in my life at this time, I try to see what is really there. That alone can result in some very great adventures!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Actually it can.. Life and evolution are electromagnetic phenomena, and you can thank entropy and things like system feedback. This falls a lot under the principles of complex adaptive systems. Evolution is as solid of a scientific theory as is E=MC^2.
      Your arguments about mainstream science are an assertion not reflective of reality and I detect a dishonest lack of intellectual integrity on your part.

      Like

      1. I can see that this reader is not comfortable with the suggestion that science could be leaving something important out. To others it may be more obvious that it indeed is. I can’t force this recognition on anyone (though sometimes I try!). But there is no reason we shouldn’t show due respect for the subjects of physics and all the areas and technologies related to it. It is just that – look at the world as it is today – the physical sciences have not found solutions for all the problems of life. My criticism is mostly for the social sciences and the one that crosses over between the two – biology. If I did not have good reason to believe my criticism was well-founded, I wouldn’t bother to state it publicly. It IS well-founded, as when the missing factor is added to our understanding of life, the social sciences begin to work a lot better.

        Like

      2. Quote:
        “I can see that this reader is not comfortable with the suggestion that science could be leaving something important out”

        First off, you are moving the goal post and then putting words into my mouth. Clearly you need to learn the basics of intellectual integrity. 2ndly, It is quite possible that they may leave something unnoticed or something important out, but your claim that it is by intent, for which you generalized, does not bare well for your integrity in this discussion. You are making false claims and statements in the format of informal and formal fallacies. If you think this lends you validity, it doesn’t.

        On recognition, you need to stop and recognize that your arguments lack facts, and lack any sort of academic integrity on the matter. An appeal to ignorance isn’t academic, and appeal to conspiracy or that they are intentionally “Not looking” is hilariously bad argumentum.

        On finding solutions to all the questions and problems is no easy task, Far harder to unpack it all than you seem to think. Your arguments come off as begging, and possibly appealing to common arguments seen in Creationism.

        As for your criticism, you kind of need a formal education on the subjects to really have a valid criticism at the academic level. You can have all the criticisms you like, but academically I am not going to seriously consider a couch professional as an academic source or insite to the subjects discussed here. .. If you feel they could do more, ok, but to assert that they aren’t looking because you didn’t get all your answers today, or because they don’t have them all, is just nonsense.

        Well-founded? Absolutely not, especially when it began as a generalization fallacy.

        Like

  11. This was a very interesting and well-written article (and I worked in a law firm for 25+ years….). You presented your assertions very clearly and in a great logical progression that compelled me to keep reading. Thanks for your research and the writing.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. For the Author,

    Size matters during extinction evidence or environmental pressures. Dinosaurs didn’t entirely go extinct as some of the smaller and more mobile dinosaurs evolved into modern birds. The theropods birds descended from could eat a wide range of food while also able to scavenge. Theropods became smaller, had feathers, and eventually split between avian and non-avian birds. The ability to climb trees, glide, and eventually fly allowed them to cover greater distances in search for food while their shrinking size meant they didn’t require as much food to survive unlike the larger dinosaurs.

    As for Australia, the reason you don’t find more fossils in Australia is that much of the layers they would be in are not exposed due to 30 some million years of erosion. Hence, fossils younger than 80 million years have all been essentially eroded away while fossils 100 million years remained protected and buried. It doesn’t help that it is almost amongst the most dangerous places on Earth to even go hunting for fossils.. There are numerous other reasons too.. However, you don’t need fossils to know they were there. Dinosaur footprints found near Broome in north-western Australia tell us that there were quite a variety of dinosaurs living in Australia.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you very much for your comment. I do believe the dinosaurs shrunk. The reason here, according to me, might be lack of oxygen. It must have been hard for nature to produce enough oxygen during volcanic eruptions and asteroid impact to sustain the big beasts. This led the extinction of the big dinosaurs. The small ones survived because they were able to get enough oxygen. This is how they evolved.

      As for Australia, I guess it is about what you want to believe in. I don’t deny there were variety of dinosaurs that lived there, but none of the footprints date around the time of their extinction. You can say it’s because of erosion or maybe it’s because there weren’t any dinosaur present in the last moments of the Cretaceous Period.

      Like

      1. Lower levels of oxygen would play a role in that, so the smaller critters, the size of a chicken or smaller with the ability to eat a diverse menu of other critters became the most likely to survive. Small theropods could eat fish, too small insects, etc, they had a good chance of surviving on very little. There probably was enough oxygen to support some of the larger dinosaurs, but they didn’t have sufficient food sources that they could eat to sustain themselves. This can happen to many of the smaller dinosaurs too if they cannot eat, or if their food source had gone extinct or had become too scarce to sustain their species. Loss of habitat is another issue, so those that couldn’t adapt or were not able to live in different habitats went extinct. So many factors played a role in the loss of the dinosaurs. Sad really, I kinda want a pet T-rex 😦

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s