Did hominids and non-avian dinosaurs ever coexist?
Although the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs is dated at ~66 million years ago there are a number of purported cave drawings that I've found online that (if verified and interpreted in a certain way!) could suggest that hominids and non-avian dinosaurs were present on the Earth at the same time.
One debunked case of human-dinosaur interaction can been found in this question on 'human footprints' found alongside dinosaur footprints.
This website (and another site) shows a number of examples of cave paintings of what is purported to be dinosaurs. It's easy to see how early cave painters could have exaggerated anatomical features to represent an extant animal in some rudimentary form and make the animal look like what would appear to us as a dinosaur.
The depiction of dragons in mythology and folklore (see here and here) is well documented, but the earliest references to these don't span much further back than 5000 years ago. Although zoomorphic depictions of man-animals appear as far back as 35,000 years, see here, I'm unsure whether other figurative representations of animals were around at the time i.e. to explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves.
Furthermore, in the New World, there were many large mammals that rapidly became extinct as a result of fast human colonization (see Jared Diamond's book Gun's, Germs and Steel), some of which were painted in caves.
Did non-avian dinosaurs and hominids overlap in time?
evolution young-earth-creationism paleontology
New contributor
add a comment |
Although the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs is dated at ~66 million years ago there are a number of purported cave drawings that I've found online that (if verified and interpreted in a certain way!) could suggest that hominids and non-avian dinosaurs were present on the Earth at the same time.
One debunked case of human-dinosaur interaction can been found in this question on 'human footprints' found alongside dinosaur footprints.
This website (and another site) shows a number of examples of cave paintings of what is purported to be dinosaurs. It's easy to see how early cave painters could have exaggerated anatomical features to represent an extant animal in some rudimentary form and make the animal look like what would appear to us as a dinosaur.
The depiction of dragons in mythology and folklore (see here and here) is well documented, but the earliest references to these don't span much further back than 5000 years ago. Although zoomorphic depictions of man-animals appear as far back as 35,000 years, see here, I'm unsure whether other figurative representations of animals were around at the time i.e. to explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves.
Furthermore, in the New World, there were many large mammals that rapidly became extinct as a result of fast human colonization (see Jared Diamond's book Gun's, Germs and Steel), some of which were painted in caves.
Did non-avian dinosaurs and hominids overlap in time?
evolution young-earth-creationism paleontology
New contributor
4
Birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs, so yes, in fact we still do.
– GordonM
yesterday
34
@GordonM "Did we coexist with dinosaurs" and "Did we coexist with descendants of dinosaurs" are two very different questions.
– pipe
yesterday
10
I've updated to exclude avian dinosaurs as that is clearly what is intended by the common use of the term.
– Oddthinking♦
yesterday
Maybe this question should be rephrased "Is it possible than some species of non-avian dinosaur managed to persist as a 'living fossil' until 100,000 years ago"? It is almost impossible to prove a negative, so "Yes". Further, as proof of possibility, the Coelacanth and the Wollemi Pine survived, to surprise modern scientists. This comment should not be read as the author thinking that this is likely, merely possible. Further, had it happened, I would expect the living fossil to be a small creature similar to, say, a quail with a tail ... but not, taxonomically, of the aves.
– nigel222
7 mins ago
add a comment |
Although the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs is dated at ~66 million years ago there are a number of purported cave drawings that I've found online that (if verified and interpreted in a certain way!) could suggest that hominids and non-avian dinosaurs were present on the Earth at the same time.
One debunked case of human-dinosaur interaction can been found in this question on 'human footprints' found alongside dinosaur footprints.
This website (and another site) shows a number of examples of cave paintings of what is purported to be dinosaurs. It's easy to see how early cave painters could have exaggerated anatomical features to represent an extant animal in some rudimentary form and make the animal look like what would appear to us as a dinosaur.
The depiction of dragons in mythology and folklore (see here and here) is well documented, but the earliest references to these don't span much further back than 5000 years ago. Although zoomorphic depictions of man-animals appear as far back as 35,000 years, see here, I'm unsure whether other figurative representations of animals were around at the time i.e. to explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves.
Furthermore, in the New World, there were many large mammals that rapidly became extinct as a result of fast human colonization (see Jared Diamond's book Gun's, Germs and Steel), some of which were painted in caves.
Did non-avian dinosaurs and hominids overlap in time?
evolution young-earth-creationism paleontology
New contributor
Although the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs is dated at ~66 million years ago there are a number of purported cave drawings that I've found online that (if verified and interpreted in a certain way!) could suggest that hominids and non-avian dinosaurs were present on the Earth at the same time.
One debunked case of human-dinosaur interaction can been found in this question on 'human footprints' found alongside dinosaur footprints.
This website (and another site) shows a number of examples of cave paintings of what is purported to be dinosaurs. It's easy to see how early cave painters could have exaggerated anatomical features to represent an extant animal in some rudimentary form and make the animal look like what would appear to us as a dinosaur.
The depiction of dragons in mythology and folklore (see here and here) is well documented, but the earliest references to these don't span much further back than 5000 years ago. Although zoomorphic depictions of man-animals appear as far back as 35,000 years, see here, I'm unsure whether other figurative representations of animals were around at the time i.e. to explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves.
Furthermore, in the New World, there were many large mammals that rapidly became extinct as a result of fast human colonization (see Jared Diamond's book Gun's, Germs and Steel), some of which were painted in caves.
Did non-avian dinosaurs and hominids overlap in time?
evolution young-earth-creationism paleontology
evolution young-earth-creationism paleontology
New contributor
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
Persistence
1033
1033
New contributor
asked yesterday
bondonkbondonk
29226
29226
New contributor
New contributor
4
Birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs, so yes, in fact we still do.
– GordonM
yesterday
34
@GordonM "Did we coexist with dinosaurs" and "Did we coexist with descendants of dinosaurs" are two very different questions.
– pipe
yesterday
10
I've updated to exclude avian dinosaurs as that is clearly what is intended by the common use of the term.
– Oddthinking♦
yesterday
Maybe this question should be rephrased "Is it possible than some species of non-avian dinosaur managed to persist as a 'living fossil' until 100,000 years ago"? It is almost impossible to prove a negative, so "Yes". Further, as proof of possibility, the Coelacanth and the Wollemi Pine survived, to surprise modern scientists. This comment should not be read as the author thinking that this is likely, merely possible. Further, had it happened, I would expect the living fossil to be a small creature similar to, say, a quail with a tail ... but not, taxonomically, of the aves.
– nigel222
7 mins ago
add a comment |
4
Birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs, so yes, in fact we still do.
– GordonM
yesterday
34
@GordonM "Did we coexist with dinosaurs" and "Did we coexist with descendants of dinosaurs" are two very different questions.
– pipe
yesterday
10
I've updated to exclude avian dinosaurs as that is clearly what is intended by the common use of the term.
– Oddthinking♦
yesterday
Maybe this question should be rephrased "Is it possible than some species of non-avian dinosaur managed to persist as a 'living fossil' until 100,000 years ago"? It is almost impossible to prove a negative, so "Yes". Further, as proof of possibility, the Coelacanth and the Wollemi Pine survived, to surprise modern scientists. This comment should not be read as the author thinking that this is likely, merely possible. Further, had it happened, I would expect the living fossil to be a small creature similar to, say, a quail with a tail ... but not, taxonomically, of the aves.
– nigel222
7 mins ago
4
4
Birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs, so yes, in fact we still do.
– GordonM
yesterday
Birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs, so yes, in fact we still do.
– GordonM
yesterday
34
34
@GordonM "Did we coexist with dinosaurs" and "Did we coexist with descendants of dinosaurs" are two very different questions.
– pipe
yesterday
@GordonM "Did we coexist with dinosaurs" and "Did we coexist with descendants of dinosaurs" are two very different questions.
– pipe
yesterday
10
10
I've updated to exclude avian dinosaurs as that is clearly what is intended by the common use of the term.
– Oddthinking♦
yesterday
I've updated to exclude avian dinosaurs as that is clearly what is intended by the common use of the term.
– Oddthinking♦
yesterday
Maybe this question should be rephrased "Is it possible than some species of non-avian dinosaur managed to persist as a 'living fossil' until 100,000 years ago"? It is almost impossible to prove a negative, so "Yes". Further, as proof of possibility, the Coelacanth and the Wollemi Pine survived, to surprise modern scientists. This comment should not be read as the author thinking that this is likely, merely possible. Further, had it happened, I would expect the living fossil to be a small creature similar to, say, a quail with a tail ... but not, taxonomically, of the aves.
– nigel222
7 mins ago
Maybe this question should be rephrased "Is it possible than some species of non-avian dinosaur managed to persist as a 'living fossil' until 100,000 years ago"? It is almost impossible to prove a negative, so "Yes". Further, as proof of possibility, the Coelacanth and the Wollemi Pine survived, to surprise modern scientists. This comment should not be read as the author thinking that this is likely, merely possible. Further, had it happened, I would expect the living fossil to be a small creature similar to, say, a quail with a tail ... but not, taxonomically, of the aves.
– nigel222
7 mins ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
No.
Non-avian dinosaurs were extinct about 65 million years ago, as the most recent dinosaur bone was directly dated as being 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma old.
The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico
The fossils we have found so far are incompatible with non-avian dinosaurs still being in existence after that time frame.
Hominids used to refer to the homo genus after separation from all other species of non-human apes, thus from after the separation from Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), but now the word hominins is used for that and hominids includes many other species of apes such as gorillas.
So, assuming from the rest of your question that we should look at hominins, there is a direct measurement of the age of the split between chimpanzees and homo through genes and it is 10-13 Ma ago:
The estimated date of the divergence between Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo is 10–13 MYBP
Molecular Timing of Primate Divergences as Estimated by Two Nonprimate Calibration Points
Thus hominins would not begin their existence until 50 million years after dinosaurs became extinct.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
2
Isn’t Homo a genus, rather than a species? Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.?
– KRyan
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Sklivvz's answer addresses the empirical evidence but part of the question was looking for some sort of explanation for why such depictions exist prior to modern archaeology. It's impossible to know what was in the minds of the cave painters or other ancient artists but there are other plausible explanations for this that do not include humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
Your mention of 'dragons' in mythology is relevant. Even in modern times, dinosaur bones are found and believed to be 'dragon' bones. Imagine you are a early human with limited understanding of the world you exist in. Inside a cave, you find the bones of enormous creatures that you have never seen before. They would probably make quite an impression on you. You might even want to include them in your drawings.
Another option is that these are, in general, not the most accurate drawings of creatures. For example, the first picture on the first page shows people that have heads shaped like sideways logs on top of their necks. That's not really what a person's head looks like. So looking at the drawing, we are supposed to think that it's definitely a dinosaur even though the painter doesn't depict heads anything like how they actually appear.
This question reminded me of this painting. To the contemporary eye, it looks like a 350 year-old painting of a man holding an iPhone. However, the painting is titled "Man Handing a Letter to a Woman in the Entrance Hall of a House". The upshot: what we now see in an old painting is not a reliable way to determine what the painter meant to depict.
The point here is that this is the weakest kind of evidence. Ambiguous information transmitted over millennia in rough sketches. Without something to help us understand what they person meant to portray and whether that was real or imaginary, it's not much to go on.
The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature. We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. Answers which are wholly based on a theoretical model are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What are theoretical answers?
2
I believe the current going theory for some of the more fantastical cave paintings, based on the fact that modern hunter-gatherers still make them this way, is that they were likely made for shamanistic purposes, often under the influence of ceremonial drugs. Whatever the reason, the existence of something in art is obviously no more evidence of its real-world existence than my comics collection is evidence of real-world superheroes.
– T.E.D.
yesterday
2
-1: This is a "just so" story. You give no evidence that any of this is the case.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
4
@Oddthinking The claim is that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans otherwise they could not have known how to draw dinosaurs. To show that this logic is incorrect, I merely have to demonstrate there are other possible explanations, which I have done. I'm not clear how I am supposed to show evidence that we can't know what the painters were thinking. If you can explain how one might do that, then please enlighten me.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking If this answer is unacceptable, then is the claim/question also not allowable here? The claim is based on logic and theoretical. It's impossible to address that part of the question otherwise.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking "but that was solved about 8 hours before you answered" Not so. Not at all. The primary claim is this "explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves." Sklivvz's answer is great in terms of the specific empirical evidence that exists and follows the rules of the site very well but doesn't actually address the question. Not only does the question not ask what archaeological evidence exists, it mentions that it's well established that there is none. I know you mean well but this 'no logic' rule makes little sense as empiricism is itself a logical argument.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Hominidae Temporal range: Miocene–present, 17 – 0 Mya
Dinosaur
Temporal range: Late Triassic–Present, 233.23 – 0 Mya
all non-avian dinosaurs, estimated to have been 628-1078 species, as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago.
233.23 – [66] Mya (gap years) 17 – 0 Mya
That's 49 million years between the death of the last (non-avian) dinosaur and the birth of the first hominid.
No.
Radiometric dating is reliable as far as it goes. skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9676/46077
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Other than radiometric methods, the oldest date we know of is through direct observation is about 60,000 years. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42531/…
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
There is a simple factual response based on the fossil record, "No. Dinosaurs and people did not coexist" but this does not really answer the question "did humans draw dinosaurs?" -- with the implicit assumption that the two coexisted. Here I will provide some commentary about cave drawings (petroglyph, pictogram) with sources for further reading.
First a warning.
Mythologies created by rock art researchers and archaeologists are not limited to invented unlikely meanings, they also include vast numbers of “likely explanations”. Unfortunately, plausibility of interpretations does not render them any more credible, in fact from the epistemological perspective the unlikely versions are preferable: they are easier to refute. [1]
The above quote talks about created mythologies, but the warning applies to other subjective interpretation, such as "what does this image represent?"
One common such interpretation is that ancient humans have created representations of dinosaurs found in petroglyphs. However, these interpretations are wrong. Common explanations are local wildlife (such as a giraffe), or artistic liberties or human-animal hybrids. For instance, this paper (abstract) outlines several famous cases:
To support claims of the coexistence of humans with dinosaurs and pterosaurs, young-earth creationist authors have identified several pieces of ancient rock art as depictions of dinosaurs or pterosaurs. Here, nine such claims are investigated. An alleged pterosaur painting in Black Dragon Canyon, Utah, is actually not a single painting. Its "head" and "neck" are a painting of a person with outstretched arms. Its torso and limbs are those of a painting of a second person with outstretched arms, whose body continues into the "pterosaur's" "wing." The other "wing" is a painting of a horned serpent. The three paintings only appear connected because someone outlined the group with chalk. An alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon, Arizona, is a stylized bird with an extension on one foot; the hooked line that represents its head and neck is a stylized bird head. A second alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon is a stylized bighorn sheep or rabbit. An alleged dinosaur cave painting in Tanzania is an obvious giraffe. Three alleged cave paintings of long-necked dinosaurs in Zambia have short necks and most likely represent lizards. An alleged dinosaur painting on Agawa Rock in Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ottawa, represents Underwater Panther, a supernatural lake guardian of Ojibwe tradition. An alleged pterosaur painting at Alton, Illinois, is the product of the imagination of a nineteenth-century American author. These pieces of rock art now join the ever-growing pile of discredited "evidence" for the ancient coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. [2]
A similar article (by the same author as [1] that repeats many of the same examples of [2]) also expands on other critical failings of identification, such as a "mastodon" being incorrectly identified and another instance of a mastodon in a cave painting less than 100 years old. [3] Despite the many examples of incorrect attribution and misidentification, there is some sense in which this question is legitimate, which is some mythical reconstruction of available evidence by prehistoric man.
In several historic locations, the existence of fossil footprints was deemed to be of special significance to historic hominins, significant enough to be recorded (for example, [5]). In some cases, the fossil was reproduced in petroglyph, and there is at least one instance where a mythological creature was reconstructed from footprints, for instance:
(taken from [4].) The petroglyphs are reported favorably in [1][2], and [3] as a reconstruction from the tridactyl footprints; a mythical creature called "//Khwai-hemm" that, at the time of the story telling, only its tracks remained (i.e., the fossil footprints). A similar mythological construction near a similar footprint is identified in [6]
Conclusion
There is no fossil evidence humans and dinosaurs co-existed (see other answers). The cave paintings given as evidence to support that claim are either 1) clearly misidentified (vocabulary word of the day: Pareidolia ) or 2) a mythological construction based on local folk lore.
Sources
[1] Bednarik, Robert G. Myths about Rock Art. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, ISSN 2159-5836. August 2013, Vol. 3, No. 8, 482-500 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35548236/Myths_rock_art.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1546964986&Signature=0db0PSp1CoTsZEGMS65Sixt%2BK7o%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMyths_About_Rock_Art.pdf
[2] Senter, Phil. 2012. More "dinosaur" and "pterosaur" rock art that isn’t. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 15, Issue 2;22A,14p;
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/275-rock-art-dinosaurs
[3] Bednarik, Robert G. Pleistocene Palaeoart of the Americas. Arts 2014, 3, 190-206; doi:10.3390/arts3020190 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/3/2/190/pdf
[4] Ellenberger et al. Bushmen Cave Paintings of Ornithopod Dinosaurs: Paleolithic Trackers Interpret Early Jurassic Footprints. Ichnos, 12:3, 223-226, DOI: 10.1080/10420940591008971 https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940591008971
[5] Lockley et al. An introduction to thunderbird footprints at the Flag Point pictograph-track site: preliminary observations on Lower Jurassic theropod tracks from the Vermillion Cliffs area, southwestern Utah. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp310-314. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
[6] Gerard D. Gierlinski and Konrad Z. Kowalski. Footprint of an large, Early Jurassic ornithischian from the ancient sacred site of Kontrewers, Poland. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp217-220. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
add a comment |
No. There were of course plenty of large animals which there could of course be cave drawings for. But those drawings are not going to have enough detail to distinguish between a modern animal or a member of Dinosauria anyway (dinosaur does not mean just any large reptile), so relying on them isn't going to be very useful.
New contributor
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
6
Welcome to Skeptics! There's a pretty high standard for answers here--can you cite any sources to back up your statements? Common sense justifications and personal research are not allowed here.
– called2voyage
23 hours ago
1
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No.
Non-avian dinosaurs were extinct about 65 million years ago, as the most recent dinosaur bone was directly dated as being 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma old.
The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico
The fossils we have found so far are incompatible with non-avian dinosaurs still being in existence after that time frame.
Hominids used to refer to the homo genus after separation from all other species of non-human apes, thus from after the separation from Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), but now the word hominins is used for that and hominids includes many other species of apes such as gorillas.
So, assuming from the rest of your question that we should look at hominins, there is a direct measurement of the age of the split between chimpanzees and homo through genes and it is 10-13 Ma ago:
The estimated date of the divergence between Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo is 10–13 MYBP
Molecular Timing of Primate Divergences as Estimated by Two Nonprimate Calibration Points
Thus hominins would not begin their existence until 50 million years after dinosaurs became extinct.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
2
Isn’t Homo a genus, rather than a species? Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.?
– KRyan
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No.
Non-avian dinosaurs were extinct about 65 million years ago, as the most recent dinosaur bone was directly dated as being 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma old.
The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico
The fossils we have found so far are incompatible with non-avian dinosaurs still being in existence after that time frame.
Hominids used to refer to the homo genus after separation from all other species of non-human apes, thus from after the separation from Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), but now the word hominins is used for that and hominids includes many other species of apes such as gorillas.
So, assuming from the rest of your question that we should look at hominins, there is a direct measurement of the age of the split between chimpanzees and homo through genes and it is 10-13 Ma ago:
The estimated date of the divergence between Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo is 10–13 MYBP
Molecular Timing of Primate Divergences as Estimated by Two Nonprimate Calibration Points
Thus hominins would not begin their existence until 50 million years after dinosaurs became extinct.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
2
Isn’t Homo a genus, rather than a species? Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.?
– KRyan
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No.
Non-avian dinosaurs were extinct about 65 million years ago, as the most recent dinosaur bone was directly dated as being 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma old.
The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico
The fossils we have found so far are incompatible with non-avian dinosaurs still being in existence after that time frame.
Hominids used to refer to the homo genus after separation from all other species of non-human apes, thus from after the separation from Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), but now the word hominins is used for that and hominids includes many other species of apes such as gorillas.
So, assuming from the rest of your question that we should look at hominins, there is a direct measurement of the age of the split between chimpanzees and homo through genes and it is 10-13 Ma ago:
The estimated date of the divergence between Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo is 10–13 MYBP
Molecular Timing of Primate Divergences as Estimated by Two Nonprimate Calibration Points
Thus hominins would not begin their existence until 50 million years after dinosaurs became extinct.
No.
Non-avian dinosaurs were extinct about 65 million years ago, as the most recent dinosaur bone was directly dated as being 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma old.
The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico
The fossils we have found so far are incompatible with non-avian dinosaurs still being in existence after that time frame.
Hominids used to refer to the homo genus after separation from all other species of non-human apes, thus from after the separation from Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), but now the word hominins is used for that and hominids includes many other species of apes such as gorillas.
So, assuming from the rest of your question that we should look at hominins, there is a direct measurement of the age of the split between chimpanzees and homo through genes and it is 10-13 Ma ago:
The estimated date of the divergence between Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo is 10–13 MYBP
Molecular Timing of Primate Divergences as Estimated by Two Nonprimate Calibration Points
Thus hominins would not begin their existence until 50 million years after dinosaurs became extinct.
edited 3 hours ago
answered yesterday
Sklivvz♦Sklivvz
63k24293409
63k24293409
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
2
Isn’t Homo a genus, rather than a species? Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.?
– KRyan
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
2
Isn’t Homo a genus, rather than a species? Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.?
– KRyan
3 hours ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
2
2
Isn’t Homo a genus, rather than a species? Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.?
– KRyan
3 hours ago
Isn’t Homo a genus, rather than a species? Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.?
– KRyan
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Sklivvz's answer addresses the empirical evidence but part of the question was looking for some sort of explanation for why such depictions exist prior to modern archaeology. It's impossible to know what was in the minds of the cave painters or other ancient artists but there are other plausible explanations for this that do not include humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
Your mention of 'dragons' in mythology is relevant. Even in modern times, dinosaur bones are found and believed to be 'dragon' bones. Imagine you are a early human with limited understanding of the world you exist in. Inside a cave, you find the bones of enormous creatures that you have never seen before. They would probably make quite an impression on you. You might even want to include them in your drawings.
Another option is that these are, in general, not the most accurate drawings of creatures. For example, the first picture on the first page shows people that have heads shaped like sideways logs on top of their necks. That's not really what a person's head looks like. So looking at the drawing, we are supposed to think that it's definitely a dinosaur even though the painter doesn't depict heads anything like how they actually appear.
This question reminded me of this painting. To the contemporary eye, it looks like a 350 year-old painting of a man holding an iPhone. However, the painting is titled "Man Handing a Letter to a Woman in the Entrance Hall of a House". The upshot: what we now see in an old painting is not a reliable way to determine what the painter meant to depict.
The point here is that this is the weakest kind of evidence. Ambiguous information transmitted over millennia in rough sketches. Without something to help us understand what they person meant to portray and whether that was real or imaginary, it's not much to go on.
The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature. We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. Answers which are wholly based on a theoretical model are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What are theoretical answers?
2
I believe the current going theory for some of the more fantastical cave paintings, based on the fact that modern hunter-gatherers still make them this way, is that they were likely made for shamanistic purposes, often under the influence of ceremonial drugs. Whatever the reason, the existence of something in art is obviously no more evidence of its real-world existence than my comics collection is evidence of real-world superheroes.
– T.E.D.
yesterday
2
-1: This is a "just so" story. You give no evidence that any of this is the case.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
4
@Oddthinking The claim is that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans otherwise they could not have known how to draw dinosaurs. To show that this logic is incorrect, I merely have to demonstrate there are other possible explanations, which I have done. I'm not clear how I am supposed to show evidence that we can't know what the painters were thinking. If you can explain how one might do that, then please enlighten me.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking If this answer is unacceptable, then is the claim/question also not allowable here? The claim is based on logic and theoretical. It's impossible to address that part of the question otherwise.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking "but that was solved about 8 hours before you answered" Not so. Not at all. The primary claim is this "explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves." Sklivvz's answer is great in terms of the specific empirical evidence that exists and follows the rules of the site very well but doesn't actually address the question. Not only does the question not ask what archaeological evidence exists, it mentions that it's well established that there is none. I know you mean well but this 'no logic' rule makes little sense as empiricism is itself a logical argument.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Sklivvz's answer addresses the empirical evidence but part of the question was looking for some sort of explanation for why such depictions exist prior to modern archaeology. It's impossible to know what was in the minds of the cave painters or other ancient artists but there are other plausible explanations for this that do not include humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
Your mention of 'dragons' in mythology is relevant. Even in modern times, dinosaur bones are found and believed to be 'dragon' bones. Imagine you are a early human with limited understanding of the world you exist in. Inside a cave, you find the bones of enormous creatures that you have never seen before. They would probably make quite an impression on you. You might even want to include them in your drawings.
Another option is that these are, in general, not the most accurate drawings of creatures. For example, the first picture on the first page shows people that have heads shaped like sideways logs on top of their necks. That's not really what a person's head looks like. So looking at the drawing, we are supposed to think that it's definitely a dinosaur even though the painter doesn't depict heads anything like how they actually appear.
This question reminded me of this painting. To the contemporary eye, it looks like a 350 year-old painting of a man holding an iPhone. However, the painting is titled "Man Handing a Letter to a Woman in the Entrance Hall of a House". The upshot: what we now see in an old painting is not a reliable way to determine what the painter meant to depict.
The point here is that this is the weakest kind of evidence. Ambiguous information transmitted over millennia in rough sketches. Without something to help us understand what they person meant to portray and whether that was real or imaginary, it's not much to go on.
The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature. We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. Answers which are wholly based on a theoretical model are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What are theoretical answers?
2
I believe the current going theory for some of the more fantastical cave paintings, based on the fact that modern hunter-gatherers still make them this way, is that they were likely made for shamanistic purposes, often under the influence of ceremonial drugs. Whatever the reason, the existence of something in art is obviously no more evidence of its real-world existence than my comics collection is evidence of real-world superheroes.
– T.E.D.
yesterday
2
-1: This is a "just so" story. You give no evidence that any of this is the case.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
4
@Oddthinking The claim is that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans otherwise they could not have known how to draw dinosaurs. To show that this logic is incorrect, I merely have to demonstrate there are other possible explanations, which I have done. I'm not clear how I am supposed to show evidence that we can't know what the painters were thinking. If you can explain how one might do that, then please enlighten me.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking If this answer is unacceptable, then is the claim/question also not allowable here? The claim is based on logic and theoretical. It's impossible to address that part of the question otherwise.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking "but that was solved about 8 hours before you answered" Not so. Not at all. The primary claim is this "explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves." Sklivvz's answer is great in terms of the specific empirical evidence that exists and follows the rules of the site very well but doesn't actually address the question. Not only does the question not ask what archaeological evidence exists, it mentions that it's well established that there is none. I know you mean well but this 'no logic' rule makes little sense as empiricism is itself a logical argument.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Sklivvz's answer addresses the empirical evidence but part of the question was looking for some sort of explanation for why such depictions exist prior to modern archaeology. It's impossible to know what was in the minds of the cave painters or other ancient artists but there are other plausible explanations for this that do not include humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
Your mention of 'dragons' in mythology is relevant. Even in modern times, dinosaur bones are found and believed to be 'dragon' bones. Imagine you are a early human with limited understanding of the world you exist in. Inside a cave, you find the bones of enormous creatures that you have never seen before. They would probably make quite an impression on you. You might even want to include them in your drawings.
Another option is that these are, in general, not the most accurate drawings of creatures. For example, the first picture on the first page shows people that have heads shaped like sideways logs on top of their necks. That's not really what a person's head looks like. So looking at the drawing, we are supposed to think that it's definitely a dinosaur even though the painter doesn't depict heads anything like how they actually appear.
This question reminded me of this painting. To the contemporary eye, it looks like a 350 year-old painting of a man holding an iPhone. However, the painting is titled "Man Handing a Letter to a Woman in the Entrance Hall of a House". The upshot: what we now see in an old painting is not a reliable way to determine what the painter meant to depict.
The point here is that this is the weakest kind of evidence. Ambiguous information transmitted over millennia in rough sketches. Without something to help us understand what they person meant to portray and whether that was real or imaginary, it's not much to go on.
Sklivvz's answer addresses the empirical evidence but part of the question was looking for some sort of explanation for why such depictions exist prior to modern archaeology. It's impossible to know what was in the minds of the cave painters or other ancient artists but there are other plausible explanations for this that do not include humans and dinosaurs coexisting.
Your mention of 'dragons' in mythology is relevant. Even in modern times, dinosaur bones are found and believed to be 'dragon' bones. Imagine you are a early human with limited understanding of the world you exist in. Inside a cave, you find the bones of enormous creatures that you have never seen before. They would probably make quite an impression on you. You might even want to include them in your drawings.
Another option is that these are, in general, not the most accurate drawings of creatures. For example, the first picture on the first page shows people that have heads shaped like sideways logs on top of their necks. That's not really what a person's head looks like. So looking at the drawing, we are supposed to think that it's definitely a dinosaur even though the painter doesn't depict heads anything like how they actually appear.
This question reminded me of this painting. To the contemporary eye, it looks like a 350 year-old painting of a man holding an iPhone. However, the painting is titled "Man Handing a Letter to a Woman in the Entrance Hall of a House". The upshot: what we now see in an old painting is not a reliable way to determine what the painter meant to depict.
The point here is that this is the weakest kind of evidence. Ambiguous information transmitted over millennia in rough sketches. Without something to help us understand what they person meant to portray and whether that was real or imaginary, it's not much to go on.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
JimmyJamesJimmyJames
46229
46229
The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature. We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. Answers which are wholly based on a theoretical model are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What are theoretical answers?
The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature. We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. Answers which are wholly based on a theoretical model are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What are theoretical answers?
2
I believe the current going theory for some of the more fantastical cave paintings, based on the fact that modern hunter-gatherers still make them this way, is that they were likely made for shamanistic purposes, often under the influence of ceremonial drugs. Whatever the reason, the existence of something in art is obviously no more evidence of its real-world existence than my comics collection is evidence of real-world superheroes.
– T.E.D.
yesterday
2
-1: This is a "just so" story. You give no evidence that any of this is the case.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
4
@Oddthinking The claim is that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans otherwise they could not have known how to draw dinosaurs. To show that this logic is incorrect, I merely have to demonstrate there are other possible explanations, which I have done. I'm not clear how I am supposed to show evidence that we can't know what the painters were thinking. If you can explain how one might do that, then please enlighten me.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking If this answer is unacceptable, then is the claim/question also not allowable here? The claim is based on logic and theoretical. It's impossible to address that part of the question otherwise.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking "but that was solved about 8 hours before you answered" Not so. Not at all. The primary claim is this "explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves." Sklivvz's answer is great in terms of the specific empirical evidence that exists and follows the rules of the site very well but doesn't actually address the question. Not only does the question not ask what archaeological evidence exists, it mentions that it's well established that there is none. I know you mean well but this 'no logic' rule makes little sense as empiricism is itself a logical argument.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
2
I believe the current going theory for some of the more fantastical cave paintings, based on the fact that modern hunter-gatherers still make them this way, is that they were likely made for shamanistic purposes, often under the influence of ceremonial drugs. Whatever the reason, the existence of something in art is obviously no more evidence of its real-world existence than my comics collection is evidence of real-world superheroes.
– T.E.D.
yesterday
2
-1: This is a "just so" story. You give no evidence that any of this is the case.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
4
@Oddthinking The claim is that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans otherwise they could not have known how to draw dinosaurs. To show that this logic is incorrect, I merely have to demonstrate there are other possible explanations, which I have done. I'm not clear how I am supposed to show evidence that we can't know what the painters were thinking. If you can explain how one might do that, then please enlighten me.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking If this answer is unacceptable, then is the claim/question also not allowable here? The claim is based on logic and theoretical. It's impossible to address that part of the question otherwise.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
@Oddthinking "but that was solved about 8 hours before you answered" Not so. Not at all. The primary claim is this "explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves." Sklivvz's answer is great in terms of the specific empirical evidence that exists and follows the rules of the site very well but doesn't actually address the question. Not only does the question not ask what archaeological evidence exists, it mentions that it's well established that there is none. I know you mean well but this 'no logic' rule makes little sense as empiricism is itself a logical argument.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
2
2
I believe the current going theory for some of the more fantastical cave paintings, based on the fact that modern hunter-gatherers still make them this way, is that they were likely made for shamanistic purposes, often under the influence of ceremonial drugs. Whatever the reason, the existence of something in art is obviously no more evidence of its real-world existence than my comics collection is evidence of real-world superheroes.
– T.E.D.
yesterday
I believe the current going theory for some of the more fantastical cave paintings, based on the fact that modern hunter-gatherers still make them this way, is that they were likely made for shamanistic purposes, often under the influence of ceremonial drugs. Whatever the reason, the existence of something in art is obviously no more evidence of its real-world existence than my comics collection is evidence of real-world superheroes.
– T.E.D.
yesterday
2
2
-1: This is a "just so" story. You give no evidence that any of this is the case.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
-1: This is a "just so" story. You give no evidence that any of this is the case.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
4
4
@Oddthinking The claim is that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans otherwise they could not have known how to draw dinosaurs. To show that this logic is incorrect, I merely have to demonstrate there are other possible explanations, which I have done. I'm not clear how I am supposed to show evidence that we can't know what the painters were thinking. If you can explain how one might do that, then please enlighten me.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
@Oddthinking The claim is that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans otherwise they could not have known how to draw dinosaurs. To show that this logic is incorrect, I merely have to demonstrate there are other possible explanations, which I have done. I'm not clear how I am supposed to show evidence that we can't know what the painters were thinking. If you can explain how one might do that, then please enlighten me.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
6
@Oddthinking If this answer is unacceptable, then is the claim/question also not allowable here? The claim is based on logic and theoretical. It's impossible to address that part of the question otherwise.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
@Oddthinking If this answer is unacceptable, then is the claim/question also not allowable here? The claim is based on logic and theoretical. It's impossible to address that part of the question otherwise.
– JimmyJames
20 hours ago
6
6
@Oddthinking "but that was solved about 8 hours before you answered" Not so. Not at all. The primary claim is this "explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves." Sklivvz's answer is great in terms of the specific empirical evidence that exists and follows the rules of the site very well but doesn't actually address the question. Not only does the question not ask what archaeological evidence exists, it mentions that it's well established that there is none. I know you mean well but this 'no logic' rule makes little sense as empiricism is itself a logical argument.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
@Oddthinking "but that was solved about 8 hours before you answered" Not so. Not at all. The primary claim is this "explain why dinosaur paintings may appear in caves." Sklivvz's answer is great in terms of the specific empirical evidence that exists and follows the rules of the site very well but doesn't actually address the question. Not only does the question not ask what archaeological evidence exists, it mentions that it's well established that there is none. I know you mean well but this 'no logic' rule makes little sense as empiricism is itself a logical argument.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Hominidae Temporal range: Miocene–present, 17 – 0 Mya
Dinosaur
Temporal range: Late Triassic–Present, 233.23 – 0 Mya
all non-avian dinosaurs, estimated to have been 628-1078 species, as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago.
233.23 – [66] Mya (gap years) 17 – 0 Mya
That's 49 million years between the death of the last (non-avian) dinosaur and the birth of the first hominid.
No.
Radiometric dating is reliable as far as it goes. skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9676/46077
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Other than radiometric methods, the oldest date we know of is through direct observation is about 60,000 years. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42531/…
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Hominidae Temporal range: Miocene–present, 17 – 0 Mya
Dinosaur
Temporal range: Late Triassic–Present, 233.23 – 0 Mya
all non-avian dinosaurs, estimated to have been 628-1078 species, as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago.
233.23 – [66] Mya (gap years) 17 – 0 Mya
That's 49 million years between the death of the last (non-avian) dinosaur and the birth of the first hominid.
No.
Radiometric dating is reliable as far as it goes. skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9676/46077
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Other than radiometric methods, the oldest date we know of is through direct observation is about 60,000 years. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42531/…
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Hominidae Temporal range: Miocene–present, 17 – 0 Mya
Dinosaur
Temporal range: Late Triassic–Present, 233.23 – 0 Mya
all non-avian dinosaurs, estimated to have been 628-1078 species, as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago.
233.23 – [66] Mya (gap years) 17 – 0 Mya
That's 49 million years between the death of the last (non-avian) dinosaur and the birth of the first hominid.
No.
Hominidae Temporal range: Miocene–present, 17 – 0 Mya
Dinosaur
Temporal range: Late Triassic–Present, 233.23 – 0 Mya
all non-avian dinosaurs, estimated to have been 628-1078 species, as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago.
233.23 – [66] Mya (gap years) 17 – 0 Mya
That's 49 million years between the death of the last (non-avian) dinosaur and the birth of the first hominid.
No.
edited 17 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
MazuraMazura
37419
37419
Radiometric dating is reliable as far as it goes. skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9676/46077
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Other than radiometric methods, the oldest date we know of is through direct observation is about 60,000 years. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42531/…
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Radiometric dating is reliable as far as it goes. skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9676/46077
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Other than radiometric methods, the oldest date we know of is through direct observation is about 60,000 years. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42531/…
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Radiometric dating is reliable as far as it goes. skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9676/46077
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Radiometric dating is reliable as far as it goes. skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/9676/46077
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Other than radiometric methods, the oldest date we know of is through direct observation is about 60,000 years. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42531/…
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
Other than radiometric methods, the oldest date we know of is through direct observation is about 60,000 years. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42531/…
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
add a comment |
There is a simple factual response based on the fossil record, "No. Dinosaurs and people did not coexist" but this does not really answer the question "did humans draw dinosaurs?" -- with the implicit assumption that the two coexisted. Here I will provide some commentary about cave drawings (petroglyph, pictogram) with sources for further reading.
First a warning.
Mythologies created by rock art researchers and archaeologists are not limited to invented unlikely meanings, they also include vast numbers of “likely explanations”. Unfortunately, plausibility of interpretations does not render them any more credible, in fact from the epistemological perspective the unlikely versions are preferable: they are easier to refute. [1]
The above quote talks about created mythologies, but the warning applies to other subjective interpretation, such as "what does this image represent?"
One common such interpretation is that ancient humans have created representations of dinosaurs found in petroglyphs. However, these interpretations are wrong. Common explanations are local wildlife (such as a giraffe), or artistic liberties or human-animal hybrids. For instance, this paper (abstract) outlines several famous cases:
To support claims of the coexistence of humans with dinosaurs and pterosaurs, young-earth creationist authors have identified several pieces of ancient rock art as depictions of dinosaurs or pterosaurs. Here, nine such claims are investigated. An alleged pterosaur painting in Black Dragon Canyon, Utah, is actually not a single painting. Its "head" and "neck" are a painting of a person with outstretched arms. Its torso and limbs are those of a painting of a second person with outstretched arms, whose body continues into the "pterosaur's" "wing." The other "wing" is a painting of a horned serpent. The three paintings only appear connected because someone outlined the group with chalk. An alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon, Arizona, is a stylized bird with an extension on one foot; the hooked line that represents its head and neck is a stylized bird head. A second alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon is a stylized bighorn sheep or rabbit. An alleged dinosaur cave painting in Tanzania is an obvious giraffe. Three alleged cave paintings of long-necked dinosaurs in Zambia have short necks and most likely represent lizards. An alleged dinosaur painting on Agawa Rock in Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ottawa, represents Underwater Panther, a supernatural lake guardian of Ojibwe tradition. An alleged pterosaur painting at Alton, Illinois, is the product of the imagination of a nineteenth-century American author. These pieces of rock art now join the ever-growing pile of discredited "evidence" for the ancient coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. [2]
A similar article (by the same author as [1] that repeats many of the same examples of [2]) also expands on other critical failings of identification, such as a "mastodon" being incorrectly identified and another instance of a mastodon in a cave painting less than 100 years old. [3] Despite the many examples of incorrect attribution and misidentification, there is some sense in which this question is legitimate, which is some mythical reconstruction of available evidence by prehistoric man.
In several historic locations, the existence of fossil footprints was deemed to be of special significance to historic hominins, significant enough to be recorded (for example, [5]). In some cases, the fossil was reproduced in petroglyph, and there is at least one instance where a mythological creature was reconstructed from footprints, for instance:
(taken from [4].) The petroglyphs are reported favorably in [1][2], and [3] as a reconstruction from the tridactyl footprints; a mythical creature called "//Khwai-hemm" that, at the time of the story telling, only its tracks remained (i.e., the fossil footprints). A similar mythological construction near a similar footprint is identified in [6]
Conclusion
There is no fossil evidence humans and dinosaurs co-existed (see other answers). The cave paintings given as evidence to support that claim are either 1) clearly misidentified (vocabulary word of the day: Pareidolia ) or 2) a mythological construction based on local folk lore.
Sources
[1] Bednarik, Robert G. Myths about Rock Art. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, ISSN 2159-5836. August 2013, Vol. 3, No. 8, 482-500 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35548236/Myths_rock_art.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1546964986&Signature=0db0PSp1CoTsZEGMS65Sixt%2BK7o%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMyths_About_Rock_Art.pdf
[2] Senter, Phil. 2012. More "dinosaur" and "pterosaur" rock art that isn’t. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 15, Issue 2;22A,14p;
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/275-rock-art-dinosaurs
[3] Bednarik, Robert G. Pleistocene Palaeoart of the Americas. Arts 2014, 3, 190-206; doi:10.3390/arts3020190 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/3/2/190/pdf
[4] Ellenberger et al. Bushmen Cave Paintings of Ornithopod Dinosaurs: Paleolithic Trackers Interpret Early Jurassic Footprints. Ichnos, 12:3, 223-226, DOI: 10.1080/10420940591008971 https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940591008971
[5] Lockley et al. An introduction to thunderbird footprints at the Flag Point pictograph-track site: preliminary observations on Lower Jurassic theropod tracks from the Vermillion Cliffs area, southwestern Utah. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp310-314. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
[6] Gerard D. Gierlinski and Konrad Z. Kowalski. Footprint of an large, Early Jurassic ornithischian from the ancient sacred site of Kontrewers, Poland. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp217-220. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
add a comment |
There is a simple factual response based on the fossil record, "No. Dinosaurs and people did not coexist" but this does not really answer the question "did humans draw dinosaurs?" -- with the implicit assumption that the two coexisted. Here I will provide some commentary about cave drawings (petroglyph, pictogram) with sources for further reading.
First a warning.
Mythologies created by rock art researchers and archaeologists are not limited to invented unlikely meanings, they also include vast numbers of “likely explanations”. Unfortunately, plausibility of interpretations does not render them any more credible, in fact from the epistemological perspective the unlikely versions are preferable: they are easier to refute. [1]
The above quote talks about created mythologies, but the warning applies to other subjective interpretation, such as "what does this image represent?"
One common such interpretation is that ancient humans have created representations of dinosaurs found in petroglyphs. However, these interpretations are wrong. Common explanations are local wildlife (such as a giraffe), or artistic liberties or human-animal hybrids. For instance, this paper (abstract) outlines several famous cases:
To support claims of the coexistence of humans with dinosaurs and pterosaurs, young-earth creationist authors have identified several pieces of ancient rock art as depictions of dinosaurs or pterosaurs. Here, nine such claims are investigated. An alleged pterosaur painting in Black Dragon Canyon, Utah, is actually not a single painting. Its "head" and "neck" are a painting of a person with outstretched arms. Its torso and limbs are those of a painting of a second person with outstretched arms, whose body continues into the "pterosaur's" "wing." The other "wing" is a painting of a horned serpent. The three paintings only appear connected because someone outlined the group with chalk. An alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon, Arizona, is a stylized bird with an extension on one foot; the hooked line that represents its head and neck is a stylized bird head. A second alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon is a stylized bighorn sheep or rabbit. An alleged dinosaur cave painting in Tanzania is an obvious giraffe. Three alleged cave paintings of long-necked dinosaurs in Zambia have short necks and most likely represent lizards. An alleged dinosaur painting on Agawa Rock in Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ottawa, represents Underwater Panther, a supernatural lake guardian of Ojibwe tradition. An alleged pterosaur painting at Alton, Illinois, is the product of the imagination of a nineteenth-century American author. These pieces of rock art now join the ever-growing pile of discredited "evidence" for the ancient coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. [2]
A similar article (by the same author as [1] that repeats many of the same examples of [2]) also expands on other critical failings of identification, such as a "mastodon" being incorrectly identified and another instance of a mastodon in a cave painting less than 100 years old. [3] Despite the many examples of incorrect attribution and misidentification, there is some sense in which this question is legitimate, which is some mythical reconstruction of available evidence by prehistoric man.
In several historic locations, the existence of fossil footprints was deemed to be of special significance to historic hominins, significant enough to be recorded (for example, [5]). In some cases, the fossil was reproduced in petroglyph, and there is at least one instance where a mythological creature was reconstructed from footprints, for instance:
(taken from [4].) The petroglyphs are reported favorably in [1][2], and [3] as a reconstruction from the tridactyl footprints; a mythical creature called "//Khwai-hemm" that, at the time of the story telling, only its tracks remained (i.e., the fossil footprints). A similar mythological construction near a similar footprint is identified in [6]
Conclusion
There is no fossil evidence humans and dinosaurs co-existed (see other answers). The cave paintings given as evidence to support that claim are either 1) clearly misidentified (vocabulary word of the day: Pareidolia ) or 2) a mythological construction based on local folk lore.
Sources
[1] Bednarik, Robert G. Myths about Rock Art. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, ISSN 2159-5836. August 2013, Vol. 3, No. 8, 482-500 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35548236/Myths_rock_art.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1546964986&Signature=0db0PSp1CoTsZEGMS65Sixt%2BK7o%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMyths_About_Rock_Art.pdf
[2] Senter, Phil. 2012. More "dinosaur" and "pterosaur" rock art that isn’t. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 15, Issue 2;22A,14p;
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/275-rock-art-dinosaurs
[3] Bednarik, Robert G. Pleistocene Palaeoart of the Americas. Arts 2014, 3, 190-206; doi:10.3390/arts3020190 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/3/2/190/pdf
[4] Ellenberger et al. Bushmen Cave Paintings of Ornithopod Dinosaurs: Paleolithic Trackers Interpret Early Jurassic Footprints. Ichnos, 12:3, 223-226, DOI: 10.1080/10420940591008971 https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940591008971
[5] Lockley et al. An introduction to thunderbird footprints at the Flag Point pictograph-track site: preliminary observations on Lower Jurassic theropod tracks from the Vermillion Cliffs area, southwestern Utah. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp310-314. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
[6] Gerard D. Gierlinski and Konrad Z. Kowalski. Footprint of an large, Early Jurassic ornithischian from the ancient sacred site of Kontrewers, Poland. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp217-220. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
add a comment |
There is a simple factual response based on the fossil record, "No. Dinosaurs and people did not coexist" but this does not really answer the question "did humans draw dinosaurs?" -- with the implicit assumption that the two coexisted. Here I will provide some commentary about cave drawings (petroglyph, pictogram) with sources for further reading.
First a warning.
Mythologies created by rock art researchers and archaeologists are not limited to invented unlikely meanings, they also include vast numbers of “likely explanations”. Unfortunately, plausibility of interpretations does not render them any more credible, in fact from the epistemological perspective the unlikely versions are preferable: they are easier to refute. [1]
The above quote talks about created mythologies, but the warning applies to other subjective interpretation, such as "what does this image represent?"
One common such interpretation is that ancient humans have created representations of dinosaurs found in petroglyphs. However, these interpretations are wrong. Common explanations are local wildlife (such as a giraffe), or artistic liberties or human-animal hybrids. For instance, this paper (abstract) outlines several famous cases:
To support claims of the coexistence of humans with dinosaurs and pterosaurs, young-earth creationist authors have identified several pieces of ancient rock art as depictions of dinosaurs or pterosaurs. Here, nine such claims are investigated. An alleged pterosaur painting in Black Dragon Canyon, Utah, is actually not a single painting. Its "head" and "neck" are a painting of a person with outstretched arms. Its torso and limbs are those of a painting of a second person with outstretched arms, whose body continues into the "pterosaur's" "wing." The other "wing" is a painting of a horned serpent. The three paintings only appear connected because someone outlined the group with chalk. An alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon, Arizona, is a stylized bird with an extension on one foot; the hooked line that represents its head and neck is a stylized bird head. A second alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon is a stylized bighorn sheep or rabbit. An alleged dinosaur cave painting in Tanzania is an obvious giraffe. Three alleged cave paintings of long-necked dinosaurs in Zambia have short necks and most likely represent lizards. An alleged dinosaur painting on Agawa Rock in Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ottawa, represents Underwater Panther, a supernatural lake guardian of Ojibwe tradition. An alleged pterosaur painting at Alton, Illinois, is the product of the imagination of a nineteenth-century American author. These pieces of rock art now join the ever-growing pile of discredited "evidence" for the ancient coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. [2]
A similar article (by the same author as [1] that repeats many of the same examples of [2]) also expands on other critical failings of identification, such as a "mastodon" being incorrectly identified and another instance of a mastodon in a cave painting less than 100 years old. [3] Despite the many examples of incorrect attribution and misidentification, there is some sense in which this question is legitimate, which is some mythical reconstruction of available evidence by prehistoric man.
In several historic locations, the existence of fossil footprints was deemed to be of special significance to historic hominins, significant enough to be recorded (for example, [5]). In some cases, the fossil was reproduced in petroglyph, and there is at least one instance where a mythological creature was reconstructed from footprints, for instance:
(taken from [4].) The petroglyphs are reported favorably in [1][2], and [3] as a reconstruction from the tridactyl footprints; a mythical creature called "//Khwai-hemm" that, at the time of the story telling, only its tracks remained (i.e., the fossil footprints). A similar mythological construction near a similar footprint is identified in [6]
Conclusion
There is no fossil evidence humans and dinosaurs co-existed (see other answers). The cave paintings given as evidence to support that claim are either 1) clearly misidentified (vocabulary word of the day: Pareidolia ) or 2) a mythological construction based on local folk lore.
Sources
[1] Bednarik, Robert G. Myths about Rock Art. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, ISSN 2159-5836. August 2013, Vol. 3, No. 8, 482-500 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35548236/Myths_rock_art.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1546964986&Signature=0db0PSp1CoTsZEGMS65Sixt%2BK7o%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMyths_About_Rock_Art.pdf
[2] Senter, Phil. 2012. More "dinosaur" and "pterosaur" rock art that isn’t. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 15, Issue 2;22A,14p;
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/275-rock-art-dinosaurs
[3] Bednarik, Robert G. Pleistocene Palaeoart of the Americas. Arts 2014, 3, 190-206; doi:10.3390/arts3020190 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/3/2/190/pdf
[4] Ellenberger et al. Bushmen Cave Paintings of Ornithopod Dinosaurs: Paleolithic Trackers Interpret Early Jurassic Footprints. Ichnos, 12:3, 223-226, DOI: 10.1080/10420940591008971 https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940591008971
[5] Lockley et al. An introduction to thunderbird footprints at the Flag Point pictograph-track site: preliminary observations on Lower Jurassic theropod tracks from the Vermillion Cliffs area, southwestern Utah. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp310-314. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
[6] Gerard D. Gierlinski and Konrad Z. Kowalski. Footprint of an large, Early Jurassic ornithischian from the ancient sacred site of Kontrewers, Poland. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp217-220. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
There is a simple factual response based on the fossil record, "No. Dinosaurs and people did not coexist" but this does not really answer the question "did humans draw dinosaurs?" -- with the implicit assumption that the two coexisted. Here I will provide some commentary about cave drawings (petroglyph, pictogram) with sources for further reading.
First a warning.
Mythologies created by rock art researchers and archaeologists are not limited to invented unlikely meanings, they also include vast numbers of “likely explanations”. Unfortunately, plausibility of interpretations does not render them any more credible, in fact from the epistemological perspective the unlikely versions are preferable: they are easier to refute. [1]
The above quote talks about created mythologies, but the warning applies to other subjective interpretation, such as "what does this image represent?"
One common such interpretation is that ancient humans have created representations of dinosaurs found in petroglyphs. However, these interpretations are wrong. Common explanations are local wildlife (such as a giraffe), or artistic liberties or human-animal hybrids. For instance, this paper (abstract) outlines several famous cases:
To support claims of the coexistence of humans with dinosaurs and pterosaurs, young-earth creationist authors have identified several pieces of ancient rock art as depictions of dinosaurs or pterosaurs. Here, nine such claims are investigated. An alleged pterosaur painting in Black Dragon Canyon, Utah, is actually not a single painting. Its "head" and "neck" are a painting of a person with outstretched arms. Its torso and limbs are those of a painting of a second person with outstretched arms, whose body continues into the "pterosaur's" "wing." The other "wing" is a painting of a horned serpent. The three paintings only appear connected because someone outlined the group with chalk. An alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon, Arizona, is a stylized bird with an extension on one foot; the hooked line that represents its head and neck is a stylized bird head. A second alleged dinosaur petroglyph in Havasupai Canyon is a stylized bighorn sheep or rabbit. An alleged dinosaur cave painting in Tanzania is an obvious giraffe. Three alleged cave paintings of long-necked dinosaurs in Zambia have short necks and most likely represent lizards. An alleged dinosaur painting on Agawa Rock in Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ottawa, represents Underwater Panther, a supernatural lake guardian of Ojibwe tradition. An alleged pterosaur painting at Alton, Illinois, is the product of the imagination of a nineteenth-century American author. These pieces of rock art now join the ever-growing pile of discredited "evidence" for the ancient coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. [2]
A similar article (by the same author as [1] that repeats many of the same examples of [2]) also expands on other critical failings of identification, such as a "mastodon" being incorrectly identified and another instance of a mastodon in a cave painting less than 100 years old. [3] Despite the many examples of incorrect attribution and misidentification, there is some sense in which this question is legitimate, which is some mythical reconstruction of available evidence by prehistoric man.
In several historic locations, the existence of fossil footprints was deemed to be of special significance to historic hominins, significant enough to be recorded (for example, [5]). In some cases, the fossil was reproduced in petroglyph, and there is at least one instance where a mythological creature was reconstructed from footprints, for instance:
(taken from [4].) The petroglyphs are reported favorably in [1][2], and [3] as a reconstruction from the tridactyl footprints; a mythical creature called "//Khwai-hemm" that, at the time of the story telling, only its tracks remained (i.e., the fossil footprints). A similar mythological construction near a similar footprint is identified in [6]
Conclusion
There is no fossil evidence humans and dinosaurs co-existed (see other answers). The cave paintings given as evidence to support that claim are either 1) clearly misidentified (vocabulary word of the day: Pareidolia ) or 2) a mythological construction based on local folk lore.
Sources
[1] Bednarik, Robert G. Myths about Rock Art. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, ISSN 2159-5836. August 2013, Vol. 3, No. 8, 482-500 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35548236/Myths_rock_art.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1546964986&Signature=0db0PSp1CoTsZEGMS65Sixt%2BK7o%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMyths_About_Rock_Art.pdf
[2] Senter, Phil. 2012. More "dinosaur" and "pterosaur" rock art that isn’t. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 15, Issue 2;22A,14p;
palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/275-rock-art-dinosaurs
[3] Bednarik, Robert G. Pleistocene Palaeoart of the Americas. Arts 2014, 3, 190-206; doi:10.3390/arts3020190 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/3/2/190/pdf
[4] Ellenberger et al. Bushmen Cave Paintings of Ornithopod Dinosaurs: Paleolithic Trackers Interpret Early Jurassic Footprints. Ichnos, 12:3, 223-226, DOI: 10.1080/10420940591008971 https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940591008971
[5] Lockley et al. An introduction to thunderbird footprints at the Flag Point pictograph-track site: preliminary observations on Lower Jurassic theropod tracks from the Vermillion Cliffs area, southwestern Utah. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp310-314. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
[6] Gerard D. Gierlinski and Konrad Z. Kowalski. Footprint of an large, Early Jurassic ornithischian from the ancient sacred site of Kontrewers, Poland. Part of The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition 2006 Bulletin 37 pp217-220. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/bulletins/id/265
answered 1 hour ago
BurnsBABurnsBA
48639
48639
add a comment |
add a comment |
No. There were of course plenty of large animals which there could of course be cave drawings for. But those drawings are not going to have enough detail to distinguish between a modern animal or a member of Dinosauria anyway (dinosaur does not mean just any large reptile), so relying on them isn't going to be very useful.
New contributor
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
6
Welcome to Skeptics! There's a pretty high standard for answers here--can you cite any sources to back up your statements? Common sense justifications and personal research are not allowed here.
– called2voyage
23 hours ago
1
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
add a comment |
No. There were of course plenty of large animals which there could of course be cave drawings for. But those drawings are not going to have enough detail to distinguish between a modern animal or a member of Dinosauria anyway (dinosaur does not mean just any large reptile), so relying on them isn't going to be very useful.
New contributor
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
6
Welcome to Skeptics! There's a pretty high standard for answers here--can you cite any sources to back up your statements? Common sense justifications and personal research are not allowed here.
– called2voyage
23 hours ago
1
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
add a comment |
No. There were of course plenty of large animals which there could of course be cave drawings for. But those drawings are not going to have enough detail to distinguish between a modern animal or a member of Dinosauria anyway (dinosaur does not mean just any large reptile), so relying on them isn't going to be very useful.
New contributor
No. There were of course plenty of large animals which there could of course be cave drawings for. But those drawings are not going to have enough detail to distinguish between a modern animal or a member of Dinosauria anyway (dinosaur does not mean just any large reptile), so relying on them isn't going to be very useful.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 23 hours ago
NickNick
1011
1011
New contributor
New contributor
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
6
Welcome to Skeptics! There's a pretty high standard for answers here--can you cite any sources to back up your statements? Common sense justifications and personal research are not allowed here.
– called2voyage
23 hours ago
1
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
add a comment |
6
Welcome to Skeptics! There's a pretty high standard for answers here--can you cite any sources to back up your statements? Common sense justifications and personal research are not allowed here.
– called2voyage
23 hours ago
1
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
6
6
Welcome to Skeptics! There's a pretty high standard for answers here--can you cite any sources to back up your statements? Common sense justifications and personal research are not allowed here.
– called2voyage
23 hours ago
Welcome to Skeptics! There's a pretty high standard for answers here--can you cite any sources to back up your statements? Common sense justifications and personal research are not allowed here.
– called2voyage
23 hours ago
1
1
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
– Oddthinking♦
21 hours ago
add a comment |
4
Birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs, so yes, in fact we still do.
– GordonM
yesterday
34
@GordonM "Did we coexist with dinosaurs" and "Did we coexist with descendants of dinosaurs" are two very different questions.
– pipe
yesterday
10
I've updated to exclude avian dinosaurs as that is clearly what is intended by the common use of the term.
– Oddthinking♦
yesterday
Maybe this question should be rephrased "Is it possible than some species of non-avian dinosaur managed to persist as a 'living fossil' until 100,000 years ago"? It is almost impossible to prove a negative, so "Yes". Further, as proof of possibility, the Coelacanth and the Wollemi Pine survived, to surprise modern scientists. This comment should not be read as the author thinking that this is likely, merely possible. Further, had it happened, I would expect the living fossil to be a small creature similar to, say, a quail with a tail ... but not, taxonomically, of the aves.
– nigel222
7 mins ago