So, while I’ve argued against the current, standing theories of evolution, recent articles about supposed “missing links” that better identify the fate of the T-Rex inspired me to offer up an entirely new theory: Did the T-Rex have to evolve into a primal “animal”, or did its position on the food chain give it an opportunity to evolve .. upward? Perhaps … it could have even evolved into what we know as neanderthals?
I know … I know – ludicrous, right? Well … maybe not so much:
After all, what would be the most drastic change? Standing upright, perhaps? Well, considering that dinosaurs were mostly cold-blooded creatures who could not survive the cold (due to their size), and as we’ve had several ice ages, the fact remains that dinosaurs, evolutionary-wise, would have decreased in size to match the change in freezing temperatures (hard to heat a body that big – especially with limited food sources). Additionally, depending on when the meteor that struck the Earth to kick up the dust that formed into our moon actually hit, the decrease in planetary size could have also been a contributing factor to the decrease in the size of dinosaurs. Only those creatures that existed in a near-weightless environment would have remained unaffected … like whales (thank you very much).
Of course, evolutionary change doesn’t occur just because mother nature’s bored. There would typically have to be some element that contributed to such a change. For example, a T-Rex laying eggs at the start of the ice age would not have necessarily had offspring with altered genes. However, the change in temperature would have stunted the growth of the next generation, and thus, the state of their genetic disposition, as passed down to their children, would also change.
There is a lot of evidence to actually support this evolution. Looking at the two skulls above, even though the two skulls initially appear completely different, there is a lot in the evolution of the modern human skull to say otherwise. For example, the increased cranial skeletal room could be a direct result of a more centrally located skull over the spine (with additional brain-matter growth sparked as a need to accommodate a more complex visual, verbal, and emotional state. This could also have been as a result to handle a more complex physical body, which I’ll get into shortly). The thinner, lower jaw-bone of a T-Rex is closer to that of a human than a primate’s, enormous lower jaw-bone. The fractures in the human skull certainly indicate that there were evolutionary reasons that the skull was not formed as a “whole”, unlike many animal skeletons without so many fracture lines. And, why would a dinosaur stand upright? Well, as I said before, if the tail shrinks, so does the neck and there is less support for a larger head, rocking the body into a more upright position. Notice in the first animation how the legs really don’t make much of a change (except for size)? Would other parts of the body, like the head, simply proportion down in size? Well, if we’re to believe that T-Rex’s evolved into horses or chickens – the answer’s already, “no.”
One of the big quandaries about the human brain is in regard to the hypothalamus. This little, mini “brain within a brain“, governs a lot of the pituitary functions of our body – especially the most primal ones. If we are to understand archeologists correctly in their explanation that T-Rex’s had extraordinarily small brains (which would have served to focus solely on their primal functions for existence), then the evolutionary growth of brain tissue around the hypothalamus (adding to the intellectual functionality of the entire psyche without diminishing the hypothalamus’ function), would certainly hold a lot of weight. In fact, my arguments and model for behavior under a habituation clause, stemming from memory, would fit perfectly since the increased brain tissue, necessary for vision, speaking, etc., would also allow for more memories and thus, over time, the development of a more complex system of behavior.
But, how does the rest of the T-Rex skeleton compare?
Without a tail to push the rear end up, the natural tendency is to either rock forward (which would then depend on long arms like a monkey), or stand more upright, like a human. T-Rex’s. except when necessitated, would have benefited from standing more upright to offset the force of gravity on their upper bodies and no arms to support their weight. This would be more evident if their bodies were decreasing in mass (and so were their tails), and they had even more reason to stand upright. Evolutionary-wise, more upright positions would encourage the growth of additional fingers and toes for better coordination and support. The claws of a T-Rex, as they became increasingly less needed, provide the basis for fingernails. The decrease in length of the jawbone (especially over that of primates), would also be a function of standing more upright whereby the jawbone would otherwise provide unbalanced weight on the head. It can even be argued that the premolars, molars, and bicuspids are more an evolution of crowding together the sharp teeth of the T-Rex as their jaw line shrunk (and would explain the growth of additional teeth toward the back of the throat that have to later, be removed!).
Another, important distinction that suggests a non-primate evolutionary base is in the design of the nose. Humans have a bone coming down from the upper ridge (between the eyes), much like the T-Rex in the previous image (comparing T-Rex and human skulls). Monkey’s noses rest further on their extended, upper jaw. Furthermore, the massive, lower jaw of the ape is not much like that of a human. Now, comparatively, there are striking similarities (almost as if the monkey got stuck in the evolutionary process).
However, we can chalk this up to being distant cousins – not evolutionary kin. For example (and this is just an example to emphasize the point – I’m not looking into dinosaur to monkey evolution … yet), the Ornithopoda, if it evolved in much the same way the T-Rex did, might have begun to stand more upright, but keep its long arms (like primates vs. human beings), and with its small, cranial/brain cavity, be the evolutionary ancestor of monkeys (not to mention it was an herbivore and a more docile creature). Why would all these dinosaurs start standing up? Well … I’ll get into that in a bit.
Skin is an easy one, especially knowing that recent discoveries have been made linking human and reptile skin growth patterns. Additionally, several other distinctly reptilian traits are part of the human genome (such as hair on the head – and nowhere else!). And, if this evolutionary change was primarily a result of a weather change, as the sun was more absent in the sky, the rough, leather exterior of reptilian skin would have softened (to look much more like human skin). For those who stayed in cold climates, the pigmentation would have been minimal, creating more pale-looking creatures. As people migrated to more desert-like areas and climates changed, skin pigmentation would have darkened. Of course, this opens up new possibilities as to where the “cradle of life”, might actually be. But, are evolutionary physical traits enough to make the connection between species?
Fortunately, there is one other, uniquely human comparison that can be made to the T-Rex: behavior: Neanderthals and live-animal hunting (which is not akin to any of the Darwinian ancestry). They were omnivores who hunted in groups (and there’s some debate as to whether or not the T-Rex was solely a carnivore or if it had omnivore traits). And, in general, human beings are one of the most vile, despicable, and highly unethical creatures constantly battling for power and superiority. This has been going on for … well … as far back as human history has recorded (the Huns, for example). While there are universal similarities in behavior among creatures such as fight or flight, maternal instinct, etc., the hunting of animals with equal or greater strength has not been a trait of fish, monkeys, or many other creatures (except perhaps, lions, tigers, and … whatever else, oh my!).
Of course, it’s no more a stretch to say that humans being born from eggs carried in their mother’s womb is an evolutionary adaptation of dinosaurs evolving through cold climates where egg laying was no longer an option, then to bridge the gap from fish who lay unfertilized eggs in water. The biggest differences in this theory vs. the Darwinian fish are that this theory doesn’t rely on a late-period unexplained evolutionary global change (including humans); considers evolution as an ongoing process from the beginning of life; takes into account the similarities we have with our ancient, animal-ancestors); and supports the idea that dinosaurs literally crawled out of the ooze on to land vs. being evolved from amoebas. In fact, as part of this theory, I would argue that the first lifeforms were land dwellers, not ocean dwellers (and/or occurred somewhat simultaneously). Dinosaurs started out small, evolved into massive creatures on an extremely hot planet with a powerful gravity and then, when the cold set in and the gravitational forces weakened, the dinosaurs evolved again and became the very creatures that humans are, today. The T-Rex is one of the 2-footed dinosaur walkers simply as a causality of small arms … like the ice age inhibiting the dinosaurs’ size, small arms meant that it had to adapt – rapidly (aka, it couldn’t stay bent over like monkeys – it always had to walk on 2 legs).
(Seriously – look at the picture above … monkey walking on all fours looks closer to giraffes … but with smaller heads!)
We must also ask the question about whether or not a species would stand up to walk? Walking on all fours has advantages in speed (survival), distribution of weight (health), and combat (to name a few). Especially during ice ages when resources were scarce, staying on all 4’s was probably very beneficial (ie. closer to the grass). So, why would dinosaurs have stood up on their own, just to walk more like a human? They didn’t. With the onset of the ice ages, dinosaurs’ shrinking body size simply forced the matter. In fact, just like in the picture above, the weight of the extended arms, the difficulty on the spine, and walking upright would have quickly been abandoned if evolution came from a chimpanzee to a human (and considering what we know about the effects of gravity on the human spine – there’s little else to support that behavior). Thus, in this proposed model, we start with a creature whose skeleton is already designed to walk upright: the T-Rex. That’s why there are so few skeletons for archaeologists to find – they mostly evolved. Mind you – this is all linking neanderthals and T-Rex, not homo sapiens.
And, the list goes on … (There’s more to support this theory – but I think you get the point).
Now, among the various interpretations of what I’ve written here, the primary, two responses would most likely be to either: 1) Realize that it’s possible to make an evolutionary connection between ANY two creatures, and therefore, science has a bigger responsibility toward answers than continuously heading down the primrose path of single-mindedness (such as the evolutionary myth); or 2) see that the explanations for what happened to all the dinosaurs and other creatures on the world is not so mysterious – and accept the possibility (not even necessarily that of T-Rex … but it’s close).
For those in the latter group, I’ve already addressed the issues of birds and other facts that should force us to keep our minds open about what really happened to the giant lizards a hundred million years ago! (Whether or not you accept evolutionary theory at all …)
For those in the first group, believing that this is all a bunch of hooey and there’s no sound, scientific evidence, the truth is this:
There’s NO “sound” scientific evidence for almost EVERYTHING. (<= and I’m an adamant opposer of the fish to crawling “something” to monkey to human theory – and most other nonsense). Most of all the scientific theories about our existence and our world are still, purely conjecture. Gravity – and what it is – is still conjecture. Even recently, we discovered what may be a 4th state of water. Why does that matter? Because human beings are literally only now beginning to investigate the universe – no matter how long they’ve been around; and what we know today will be nothing compared to what we know tomorrow. So, even if you don’t buy into the theory of dinosaurs evolving into human beings (not even for those of you that have wicked step-mothers and know that the T-Rex carnivorous gene is alive and well in human DNA), remember, humanity has not even taken a full, first step into the world of science and has a long … long … way to go! After all, mankind has only been around for the briefest blip in all of time. It’s just sheer arrogance that people already think they know it all!
Hope this inspired someone to go out there and start up the fight to convince science that we’re all T-Rex ancestors … just make sure I get credit for helping! (<= someone’s gotta’ take the blame for all this lunacy!).
“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” – Carl Sagan.