| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have no reason to believe that the development of sentient life on this planet was nothing more than a random result. The first Human speices appeared about 2 million years ago. The Reptiles rules this planet for far longer without any evidence of developing sentience.
What evidence would you expect to have found of sentient reptilian life? Especially after 70 million years or so?
Bear in mind that humans have been around more or less in their present form for about 200,000 years, and so were presumptively sapient. We've only been able to effect large-scale changes on the Earth, changes that are likely to be noticed by future paleontologists, for about 2000 years.
A tribe of sentient velociraptors that flourished for 100,000 years and got to the point of mud huts and domesticated pteranodons, but not to concrete and steel, would not have left any traces we could find.
Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)
A tribe of sentient velociraptors that flourished for 100,000 years and got to the point of mud huts and domesticated pteranodons, but not to concrete and steel, would not have left any traces we could find.
Except maybe a radius bone that would allow for a rotating wrist. Tie your thumb to the side of your hand, tie both elbows to your side, turn your hands downward and, without rotating your wrists at all, build a mud hut.
Attempt falconry thus constrained as well.
Those hands of velociraptor's, those forearms, are entirely non conducive to tool use.
Form follows function.
Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)
They were reptiles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poor human hand. So often taken for granted when the human brain gets all the applause.
And such a rare thing as well.
Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)They were reptiles.
Mammals are defined by having mammary glands. Almost all of them bear live young.
Reptiles are those that do not have mammary glands. They lay eggs. By that definition, sure.
But reptiles today also have a rather specific build, with their legs out from the body rather than under it. They are cold-blooded. They do not have feathers or fur.
Most seem to agree that dinosaurs were the progenitors of modern day birds. Birds lay eggs, they have feathers, they are warm-blooded, they have legs under their body. Dinos seem to have been warm-blooded and did have their legs under their bodies. Some had feathers.
Seems to me the reptile definition is pretty much a way of saying "not mammal". Still, if birds are descended from dinosaurs, it's of little usefulness, and perhaps it's better to just call them dinosaurs.
Still, was fun looking through forums of paleontology for a little while, finding the most amazing grar there too. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A tribe of sentient velociraptors that flourished for 100,000 years and got to the point of mud huts and domesticated pteranodons, but not to concrete and steel, would not have left any traces we could find.Except maybe a radius bone that would allow for a rotating wrist.
You're making the assumption that we have such a fossil to make that determination. There are two known species of velociraptor (Velociraptor mongoliensis, Velociraptor osmolskae).
To put thing in perspective, there are about 10-12 known species in genus Homo. One of these species (H. floresiensis) is known from nine individual fossils, including a single cranium. These fossils are from fewer than 50,000 years ago. We have, I believe, seven individuals of H. antecessor, from about one million years go.
Over 70 million years, how many species of Velociraptor have come and gone for which we have no evidence whatsoever, either because we haven't found the six individuals, or because the six individuals fossilized were later destroyed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)They were reptiles.
Mammals are defined by having mammary glands. Almost all of them bear live young.
Reptiles are those that do not have mammary glands. They lay eggs. By that definition, sure.
But reptiles today also have a rather specific build, with their legs out from the body rather than under it. They are cold-blooded. They do not have feathers or fur.
Most seem to agree that dinosaurs were the progenitors of modern day birds. Birds lay eggs, they have feathers, they are warm-blooded, they have legs under their body. Dinos seem to have been warm-blooded and did have their legs under their bodies. Some had feathers.
Seems to me the reptile definition is pretty much a way of saying "not mammal". Still, if birds are descended from dinosaurs, it's of little usefulness, and perhaps it's better to just call them dinosaurs.
Still, was fun looking through forums of paleontology for a little while, finding the most amazing grar there too. =)
The "reptile" designation is not a particularly good class, because it's essentially "any terrestrial vertebrate that's not a mammal, bird, or amphibian." Crocodilians, for example, are more closely related to birds than to any other living reptile order.
If it were up to me, I'd probably make the amniote classes (that's the non-amphibian terrestrial vertebrate classes) the mammal, bird, crocodile, turtle, reptile (in this case, lizards, snakes, and tuataras).
So, are dinosaurs reptiles? Well... they're from the crocodile-bird branch. So... I'm going to say that dinosaurs were dinosaurs.
A tribe of sentient velociraptors that flourished for 100,000 years and got to the point of mud huts and domesticated pteranodons, but not to concrete and steel, would not have left any traces we could find.Except maybe a radius bone that would allow for a rotating wrist.
You're making the assumption that we have such a fossil to make that determination. There are two known species of velociraptor (Velociraptor mongoliensis, Velociraptor osmolskae).
Which is precisely what LazarX meant when he said " The Reptiles rules this planet for far longer without any evidence of developing sentience."
To which you replied "What evidence would you expect to have found of sentient reptilian life? Especially after 70 million years or so? "
I replied with the type of evidence I would expect to find. I actually thought everything LazarX said was such a no-brainer that I wondered at why he was even posting it, but........
Which is precisely what LazarX meant when he said " The Reptiles rules this planet for far longer without any evidence of developing sentience."
To which you replied "What evidence would you expect to have found of sentient reptilian life? Especially after 70 million years or so? "
I replied with the type of evidence I would expect to find.
Your "expectation" is unreasonable. You should "expect" to find exactly nothing for the vast majority of species -- and be astonished if you did.
So, are dinosaurs reptiles? Well... they're from the crocodile-bird branch. So... I'm going to say that dinosaurs were dinosaurs.
I agree.....dinosaurs were dinosaurs. Of the superorder dinosauria. Of the class reptilia.
Which is precisely what LazarX meant when he said " The Reptiles rules this planet for far longer without any evidence of developing sentience."
To which you replied "What evidence would you expect to have found of sentient reptilian life? Especially after 70 million years or so? "
I replied with the type of evidence I would expect to find.
Your "expectation" is unreasonable. You should "expect" to find exactly nothing for the vast majority of species -- and be astonished if you did.
Precisely. Which is why I wonder why you asked him what he would "expect to find" when his initial supposition was a no brainer.
Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)They were reptiles.
Mammals are defined by having mammary glands. Almost all of them bear live young.
Reptiles are those that do not have mammary glands. They lay eggs. By that definition, sure.
But reptiles today also have a rather specific build, with their legs out from the body rather than under it. They are cold-blooded. They do not have feathers or fur.
Most seem to agree that dinosaurs were the progenitors of modern day birds. Birds lay eggs, they have feathers, they are warm-blooded, they have legs under their body. Dinos seem to have been warm-blooded and did have their legs under their bodies. Some had feathers.
Seems to me the reptile definition is pretty much a way of saying "not mammal". Still, if birds are descended from dinosaurs, it's of little usefulness, and perhaps it's better to just call them dinosaurs.
Still, was fun looking through forums of paleontology for a little while, finding the most amazing grar there too. =)
I agree.....dinosaurs were dinosaurs. Of the superorder dinosauria. Of the class reptilia.
You initially said "dinosaurs were not reptiles," which is not a true statement. Dinosaurs were indeed reptiles.
Poor human hand. So often taken for granted when the human brain gets all the applause.
And such a rare thing as well.
There's a semi-controversy on the left right now about the publishers of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels make the Marxist Internet Archives to take down all of the Marx and Engels.
Which is a long way of saying if one ever had the urge to read Fred's The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man for free on the internet, your chance may be ending.
I remember reading a whole Stephen Jay Gould essay about it in Natural History back in the day.
Five fingers form a fist!
Vive le Galt!
Octopus is my favorite.
Poor human hand. So often taken for granted when the human brain gets all the applause.
And such a rare thing as well.
There's a semi-controversy on the left right now about the publishers of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels make the Marxist Internet Archives to take down all of the Marx and Engels.
Which is a long way of saying if one ever had the urge to read Fred's The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man for free on the internet, your chance may be ending.
I remember reading a whole Stephen Jay Gould essay about it in Natural History back in the day.
Five fingers form a fist!
Vive le Galt!
None of this happens without a proper third metacarpal styloid process, much less a thumb and a rotating wrist.
Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)They were reptiles.
Mammals are defined by having mammary glands. Almost all of them bear live young.
Reptiles are those that do not have mammary glands. They lay eggs. By that definition, sure.
But reptiles today also have a rather specific build, with their legs out from the body rather than under it. They are cold-blooded. They do not have feathers or fur.
Most seem to agree that dinosaurs were the progenitors of modern day birds. Birds lay eggs, they have feathers, they are warm-blooded, they have legs under their body. Dinos seem to have been warm-blooded and did have their legs under their bodies. Some had feathers.
Seems to me the reptile definition is pretty much a way of saying "not mammal". Still, if birds are descended from dinosaurs, it's of little usefulness, and perhaps it's better to just call them dinosaurs.
Still, was fun looking through forums of paleontology for a little while, finding the most amazing grar there too. =)
I agree.....dinosaurs were dinosaurs. Of the superorder dinosauria. Of the class reptilia.
You initially said "dinosaurs were not reptiles," which is not a true statement. Dinosaurs were indeed reptiles.
But according to the classic taxonomy, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are the terrestrial animals. And, according to this system, every descendant of one organism should belong to the same class, right? Meaning birds, even if descended from dinosaurs, should not be their own class.
My point is that it's a point of contention even today. Biology is shifting from classic taxonomy to DNA-based taxonomy. Reptiles is considered, as was stated, a pretty bad class.
But according to the classic taxonomy, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are the terrestrial animals.
Yes.
And, according to this system, every descendant of one organism should belong to the same class, right?
No. Classic taxonomy has never been cladistic. The cladistic approach only originated in the early 20th century. "Classic" taxonomy is more accurately termed "phenetic taxonomy" and dates back to the 18th century.
Bear in mind that Carl Linnaeus didn't even have access to the theory of evolution or the idea that disparate species were related to each other when he created the classic taxa. While Linnaeus didn't use Reptilia, he laid down four of the classic vertebrate classes: Pisces, Amphibia, Aves, and Mammalia. Today we know that neither Pisces nor (historical) Amphibia are monophylitic, and we separate Reptilia another (paraphylitic) class.
Which is a very long and detailed way of saying "no."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poor human hand. So often taken for granted when the human brain gets all the applause.
And such a rare thing as well.
There's a semi-controversy on the left right now about the publishers of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels make the Marxist Internet Archives to take down all of the Marx and Engels.
Which is a long way of saying if one ever had the urge to read Fred's The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man for free on the internet, your chance may be ending.
I remember reading a whole Stephen Jay Gould essay about it in Natural History back in the day.
Five fingers form a fist!
Vive le Galt!
Wait, the seminal works of the two leading Socialist thinkers' aren't in the public domain to be used freely by all? Is this what you're saying?
If that is the case, the irony is so delicious I think I'll pour it on my ice cream.
Birds are reptiles according to phylogenetics. More specifically, birds are descendants of diapsids.
Crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to turtles (or indeed, most other types of lizards).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the dinosaurs had achieved sentience, civilization, and the atomic bomb it would explain that fine layer of iridium in the kt boundary...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the dinosaurs had achieved sentience, civilization, and the atomic bomb it would explain that fine layer of iridium in the kt boundary...
Nah, they just summoned Earthfall.
Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)They were reptiles.
Mammals are defined by having mammary glands. Almost all of them bear live young.
Reptiles are those that do not have mammary glands. They lay eggs. By that definition, sure.
But reptiles today also have a rather specific build, with their legs out from the body rather than under it. They are cold-blooded. They do not have feathers or fur.
Most seem to agree that dinosaurs were the progenitors of modern day birds. Birds lay eggs, they have feathers, they are warm-blooded, they have legs under their body. Dinos seem to have been warm-blooded and did have their legs under their bodies. Some had feathers.
Seems to me the reptile definition is pretty much a way of saying "not mammal". Still, if birds are descended from dinosaurs, it's of little usefulness, and perhaps it's better to just call them dinosaurs.
Still, was fun looking through forums of paleontology for a little while, finding the most amazing grar there too. =)
I agree.....dinosaurs were dinosaurs. Of the superorder dinosauria. Of the class reptilia.
You initially said "dinosaurs were not reptiles," which is not a true statement. Dinosaurs were indeed reptiles.
But according to the classic taxonomy, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are the terrestrial animals. And, according to this system, every descendant of one organism should belong to the same class, right? Meaning birds, even if descended from dinosaurs, should not be their own class.
My point is that it's a point of contention even today. Biology is shifting from classic taxonomy to DNA-based taxonomy. Reptiles is considered, as was stated, a pretty bad class.
And, dinosaurs were, in all actuality, reptiles. So your statement in response to LazarX, being "dinosaurs were not reptiles," is false.
Soooo... you're just stating again that they are, without any sort of argument for it? Thank you for adding to the echo chamber here, but the others at least tried to argue for their point of view.
I know who I'm believing.
Soooo... you're just stating again that they are, without any sort of argument for it? Thank you for adding to the echo chamber here, but the others at least tried to argue for their point of view.
You said they weren't reptiles. They were.
There's nothing to argue.
The big problem is when do birds and mammals split from reptiles? And what defines that split?
In the broadest definition mammals and birds are reptiles. They come from the reptile side of the amphibian/reptile split. So when does the first reptile become a bird or a mammal, and what defines the split?
The big problem is when do birds and mammals split from reptiles? And what defines that split?
In the broadest definition mammals and birds are reptiles. They come from the reptile side of the amphibian/reptile split. So when does the first reptile become a bird or a mammal, and what defines the split?
They're all "amniotes."
The big problem is when do birds and mammals split from reptiles? And what defines that split?
In the broadest definition mammals and birds are reptiles. They come from the reptile side of the amphibian/reptile split. So when does the first reptile become a bird or a mammal, and what defines the split?
They're all "amniotes."
You got your synapsids, and then you got your sauropsids.
I know who I'm believing.would you believe......Encyclopedia Britannica?
First sentence.
If you want to go there, how about the University of Bristol. Class of Reptiles
Last listing under the 'Class Synapsida.'
3 CLASSIFICATION OF THE REPTILES
Series Amniota
Class Synapsida
*Order Pelycosauria
Family Eothyrididae
Family Caseidae
Family Varanopseidae
Family Ophiacodontidae
Family Edaphosauridae
Family Sphenacodontidae
Order Therapsida
†Suborder Biarmosuchia
†Suborder Dinocephalia
†Suborder Dicynodontia
†Suborder Gorgonopsia
Suborder Cynodontia
†Family Procynosuchidae
†Family Galesauridae
†Family Cynognathidae
†Family Diademodontidae
†Family Chiniquodontidae
†Family Tritylodontidae
†Family Tritheledontidae
Class Mammalia (see below)
Class Sauropsida
Subclass Anapsida
†Family Mesosauridae
†Family Millerettidae
†Family Bolosauridae
†Family Procolophonidae
†Family Pareiasauridae
Order Testudines (Chelonia)
†Family Proganochelyidae
†Family Australochelidae
Suborder Pleurodira
Suborder Cryptodira
Superfamily Baenoidea
†Family Meiolaniidae
Superfamily Chelonioidea
Superfamily Trionychoidea
Superfamily Testudinoidea
†Family Captorhinidae
†*Family Protorothyrididae
Subclass Diapsida
†Order Araeoscelidia
†Family Weigeltisauridae
†Order Younginiformes
†Infraclass Ichthyosauria sedis mutabilis
Infraclass Lepidosauromorpha
†Superorder Sauropterygia
Order Placodontia
Order Nothosauroidea
Suborder Pachypleurosauria
Suborder Nothosauria
Order Plesiosauria
Suborder Plesiosauroidea
Family Cryptoclididae
Family Cimoliasauridae
Family Polycotylidae
Family Elasmosauridae
Suborder Pliosauroidea
Family Rhomaleosauridae
Family Pliosauridae
Superorder Lepidosauria
Order Sphenodontida
Family Sphenodontidae
†Family Pleurosauridae
Order Squamata
*Suborder Lacertilia (Sauria)
Infraorder Iguania
Infraorder Gekkota
Infraorder Amphisbaenia
Infraorder Anguimorpha
Infraorder Scincomorpha
Suborder Serpentes (Ophidia)
Infraclass Archosauromorpha
†Family Trilophosauridae
†Family Rhynchosauridae
†Order Prolacertiformes
Division Archosauria
†Family Proterosuchidae
†Family Erythrosuchidae
†Family Euparkeriidae
Subdivision Crurotarsi
†Family Phytosauridae
†Family Ornithosuchidae sedis mutabilis
†Family Stagonolepididae sedis mutabilis
†Family Rauisuchidae sedis mutabilis
†Family Poposauridae sedis mutabilis
Superorder Crocodylomorpha
†Family Saltoposuchidae
†Family Sphenosuchidae
Order Crocodylia
†Family Protosuchidae
Division Mesoeucrocodylia
†Family Teleosauridae
†Family Metriorhynchidae
Subdivision Metasuchia
†Family Notosuchidae
†Family Sebecidae
Infradivision Neosuchia
†Family Goniopholididae
†Family Dyrosauridae
Suborder Eusuchia
Family Gavialidae
Family Crocodylidae
Family Alligatoridae
Subdivision Avemetatarsalia
†Scleromochlus
Infradivision Ornithodira
†Order Pterosauria
*Suborder Rhamphorhynchoidea
Suborder Pterodactyloidea
†Lagerpeton
†Marasuchus
Superorder Dinosauria
Order Saurischia
†Family Herrerasauridae
Suborder Theropoda
†Infraorder Coelophysoidea
†Infraorder Ceratosauria
Family Ceratosauridae
Family Abelisauridae
Infraorder Tetanurae
†Division Carnosauria
Subdivision Spinosauroidea
Family Megalosauridae
Family Spinosauridae
Subdivision Allosauroidea
Family Allosauridae
Family Carcharodontosauridae
Division Coelurosauria
†Family Coeluridae
Subdivision Maniraptoriformes
†Family Tyrannosauridae
†Family Ornithomimidae
Infradivision Maniraptora
†Family Alvarezsauridae
†Family Therizinosauridae
†Cohort Deinonychosauria
Family Dromaeosauridae
Family Troodontidae
Class Aves (see below)
†Suborder Sauropodomorpha
Thecodontosaurus
Family Plateosauridae
Riojasaurus
Family Massospondylidae
Infraorder Sauropoda
Family Vulcanodontidae
Family Omeisauridae
Division Neosauropoda
Family Cetiosauridae
Family Diplodocidae
Subdivision Macronaria
Family Camarasauridae
Infradivision Titanosauriformes
Family Brachiosauridae
Cohort Somphospondyli
Family Euhelopodidae
Family Titanosauridae
†Order Ornithischia
Family Pisanosauridae
Family Fabrosauridae
Suborder Thyreophora
Family Scelidosauridae
Infraorder Stegosauria
Infraorder Ankylosauria
Family Nodosauridae
Family Ankylosauridae
Suborder Cerapoda
Infraorder Pachycephalosauria
Infraorder Ceratopsia
Family Psittacosauridae
Family Protoceratopsidae
Family Ceratopsidae
Infraorder Ornithopoda
Family Heterodontosauridae
Family Hypsilophodontidae
Family Iguanodontidae
Family Hadrosauridae
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
imagines some thick cut dinosaur bacon
None of this happens without a proper third metacarpal styloid process, much less a thumb and a rotating wrist.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that viewing sentience and dexterity exclusively as what we as humans have is a bit restrictive. Given time, evolutionary pressures and a good amount of random chance, who knows what could be possible? The pentadactyl limb is all well and good, but there have been alternatives in the past and might be again.
Opposable thumbs in an of themselves do not imply tool use or design. Chimpanzees have opposable thumbs (though to a lesser extent than humans) and opposable great toes as well. Yet routine and complex tool use is relatively uncommon in chimpanzees, generally limited to family groups who teach it from one generation to another. Culture, in the sense of the ability to learn and teach the next generation, is a truly interesting innovation and one that survives poorly in the fossil record.
None of this happens without a proper third metacarpal styloid process, much less a thumb and a rotating wrist.That's one way of looking at it. Another is that viewing sentience and dexterity exclusively as what we as humans have is a bit restrictive. Given time, evolutionary pressures and a good amount of random chance, who knows what could be possible? The pentadactyl limb is all well and good, but there have been alternatives in the past and might be again.
Opposable thumbs in an of themselves do not imply tool use or design. Chimpanzees have opposable thumbs (though to a lesser extent than humans) and opposable great toes as well. Yet routine and complex tool use is relatively uncommon in chimpanzees, generally limited to family groups who teach it from one generation to another. Culture, in the sense of the ability to learn and teach the next generation, is a truly interesting innovation and one that survives poorly in the fossil record.
Chimpanzees don't have a third metacarpal styloid process.
Which is why I kinda didn't exactly get into the "true/untroe opposable thumb" spiel.
Velociraptors kinda had a garden claw at the end of their forelimbs. Not too useful when making mud huts or practicing pterodactyl falconry.
Mammal-reptile proto-organisms?Also... dinosaurs were not reptiles. :)They were reptiles.
Wait, the seminal works of the two leading Socialist thinkers' aren't in the public domain to be used freely by all? Is this what you're saying?
Or so the headlines have led me to believe. Seems kinda weird to me, too, but I assume they've got copyrights on specific translations or something.
"Corey and I both, by coincidence, were availing ourselves of radically under-priced materials from the enemy’s publishing apparatus. He’d received an order containing dirt-cheap copies of Bastiat from the Liberty Fund, while a day earlier I had downloaded free digital editions of the major Austrian School books on theory of value and the socialist-calculation debate from the Mises Institute website. There’s more to neoliberal hegemony than loss-leader pricing, but as ideological combatants those people know what they’re doing."
I know who I'm believing.would you believe......Encyclopedia Britannica?
First sentence.
If you want to go there, how about the University of Bristol. Class of Reptiles
Last listing under the 'Class Synapsida.'
Sooo... every mammal is a reptile, and every reptile is an amphibian?
[
Sooo... every mammal is a reptile, and every reptile is an amphibian?
No, because they went ahead and split off reptiles at a rather arbitrary point so that that wouldn't happen if you were using a monophylic system.
No, because they went ahead and split off reptiles at a rather arbitrary point so that that wouldn't happen if you were using a monophylic system.[
Sooo... every mammal is a reptile, and every reptile is an amphibian?
Good for them. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know who I'm believing.would you believe......Encyclopedia Britannica?
First sentence.
If you want to go there, how about the University of Bristol. Class of Reptiles
Last listing under the 'Class Synapsida.'
Why not push it further back and just classify everything as a bacteria?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chimpanzees don't have a third metacarpal styloid process.
Which is why I kinda didn't exactly get into the "true/untroe opposable thumb" spiel.
Velociraptors kinda had a garden claw at the end of their forelimbs. Not too useful when making mud huts or practicing pterodactyl falconry.
You're kind of missing the point I was making. The way that human beings evolved towards tool use and sentience is not the only way it could be possible. Just because things are not human-like doesn't mean that these things would impossible for them. Intelligence and culture often allow workarounds to compensate for anatomy, they definitely do for humans.
|
You're kind of missing the point I was making. The way that human beings evolved towards tool use and sentience is not the only way it could be possible. Just because things are not human-like doesn't mean that these things would impossible for them. Intelligence and culture often allow workarounds to compensate for anatomy, they definitely do for humans.
That's why octopi feature heavily on people's lists for 'next race to inherit the Earth'.
They don't have opposable thumbs, but they have multiple limbs, each of which is far more flexible than a human arm, and covered in multiple suckers.
Learning to hold complex tools should come far more easily to them, than to other potential contenders.
The question then becomes, what would an octopus want to build?
Do they need to build anything?
Another limiting factor for aquatic creatures is the difficulty using fire underwater. A huge number of technological innovations were made possible to humans by fires, from smelting metals to the steam engine. Even now we get most of our electricity and transportation power from burning stuff. Unless they were able to sidestep this using other chemical reactions or environmental factors like geothermal energy this would be a fairly hard barrier to progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question then becomes, what would an octopus want to build?
Do they need to build anything?
Presumably when these kind of shelters are no longer sufficient they will have evolutionary incentive to build more complex and elaborate shelters, perhaps tunneling them out of rock. They also mimic other animals so they might want to build costumes.
Given sufficient time, I could also see them building amphibious shelters -- basically artificial tide pools to give them access to land (and land-resources). This would also (pace Corvino) allow them access to develop fire-based technology.