this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
1084 points (99.5% liked)

Memes

45666 readers
1297 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago (4 children)

If we follow the logic of the Loki series, they can do whatever. History might change up until the asteroid strikes but after that all dinosaurs are wiped out anyways and history will go on the same as it did before.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dinosaurs didn't all get wiped out though! Birbs are theropod dinosaurs, and the only known extant dinosaurs

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Remember: you cannot ride birbs.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I bet I could ride a cassowary or emu.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but you have to risk romance.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Huh, interesting. Seems like something that wouldn't happen just with ostriches

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Now that is a proper war bird. How fucking majestic would it be to ride into battle on a birbosaur like a moa‽

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Last ones that were big enough for that went extinct pretty recently in 1800th afaik

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

what about the giant saddle-shaped fossil

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In order to be fossilized something has to be in specific conditions. It probably just gets destroyed

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

that is true, but its still possble for it to fossilize

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

I mean, in terms of preserving the timeline and not leaving the tiny chance of fossilised saddles. They brought it with them, why not just take it back too so it's not even there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That might leave some archeologists very confused, especially when they try to date it and it turns out to be from the future.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it would probably be paleontologists since no human existed at the time and dating just doesnt work like that, since the saddle fossil still aged millions of years (also from stuff this old its hard to age things, so its more probable something around the same layer would be aged instead of the specific fossil)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

well obviously I was making a joke about the dating part

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

in the Pratchett novels he talks about a sort of 'rubber-band history' that tends to be self-healing. It's the entire plot of one of the novels, a political leader escapes an assassination that was 'meant' to happen, and it ends up in reality having some sort of weird split where the world gets torn between an attraction point where she lives and another where she dies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

What if you scare our common ancestor to run across the ground to safety and end up getting eaten by a predator that sees it running?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't believe that kind of time travel is possible. But, if it were possible, the odds of finding that exact individual (who probably didn't actually exist) at that exact time are so minuscule that for all practical purposes, it may as well be impossible. But, if that were also possible, it did happen, and that was the only thing that happened differently, then I'm thinking the most likely outcome is that evolution would pretty much continue on the same course, probably even with humans eventually evolving.

It's common to think of the evolutionary process in a more or less linear fashion that could theoretically be traced back to a figurative Adam and Eve, but the reality is, it's so much more messy and convoluted than that. Evolution is a culmination of many factors such as the environmental conditions and populations that exist during a given time frame. So even if there was one specific common ancestral individual who happened to live at the exact time the dinosaurs were alive, which that individual is not a thing that existed, there would almost certainly still be a population of others of the same species living in the same conditions -- so theoretically would still ultimately lead to the same evolutionary outcomes in most instances.

So, I think it's very possible people would still exist. But, it wouldn't be the exact same people, living the exact same lives, at the exact same time as now.

On the other hand, who is to say that the common ancestor hadn't already produced the offspring that specifically lead to you and I being born before it was eaten? Who's to say that individual getting scared and eaten wouldn't have happened anyway, regardless of whether you were there or not? Who's to say that wasn't actually the defining moment that ultimately resulted in the evolution of people (and you and I specifically)?

I dunno, this is all getting a little too timey-wimey for me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you go that far back, every member of that species is either everyones' ancestor or their branch of the family tree died off at some point or developed into a different species. While I agree that evolution would progress roughly the same way, I don't think it would result in exactly the same people. With powerful people (like kings, emperors and their courts) being different, history would be different too

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

While I agree that evolution would progress roughly the same way, I don’t think it would result in exactly the same people.

This implies that you think I was saying it would be the same people, but I actually said the exact same thing as you, just in different words: "it wouldn’t be the exact same people, living the exact same lives, at the exact same time as now."

With powerful people (like kings, emperors and their courts) being different, history would be different too

For sure, but from the timescale we're discussing, the whole of human history is literally just a tiny fraction, a blip, at the very end. And until very recently, you could even argue the vast majority of human history was almost entirely inconsequential.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I'm not sure what you mean by that