Asha'man

We don't have any evidence of nuclear fallout, but there is a layer of iridium dust to explain. Given that we know iridium is more common in meteorites, that seems to be the most logical explanation.

Quantum Ninja

I bet it happened something like this.

Right before the meteor collided with the Earth's surface, a single, very intelligent dinosaur figured out that if you rub two sticks together long enough, you can create a fire. And in discovering this, he began to contemplate about its practical uses. Unfortunately, before he could share this news with all his dinosaur friends, thus beginning the long road to an advanced civilization, they were all vaporized. This was bad timing on nature's part.

Will I Am

I've always wondered why (some of) the dinosaurs didn't (as far as we know) develop high intelligence. They had plenty of time in which to do it. They had a hundred times more time that it eventually (as far as we know) took humans to achieve. A hundred times.

They developed a "dinosaur equivalent" of everything else. I can't think of any mammal biological niche that wasn't filled by a dino-analog. Except the "high IQ animal" - which is humanities current niche.

It rather fuels the idea that high intelligence isn't really a long-term survival advantage…

I mean…. How long has IQ-induced technology been around? Five thousands years? Ten? Maybe indeed it was technology that killed the dinosaurs… global warming, ecological catastrophe, nuclear Armageddon… as far as I know, these are all possibilities that rival the Impact Theory.



If you like the idea of an Jurassic dino-civilisation, I can recommend the SF book(s) "West of Eden" by Robert Silverberg. It's not too silly.

BioBeing

On of my son's books suggests they may have been more on a par with dogs. But again, that wasn't the primary literature - he's only 4.

three4jump

The dinosaur in my back yard--a bald eagle--doesn't need much intelligence to be at the top of his food chain and get along very successfully (barring human intervention).

Asha'man

It’s not a question of time, but a question of advantage.

Intelligence carries a high cost: an expensive brain. It’s very vulnerable to damage, has to be kept at a good temperature, and is a constant sink of biological energy (gotta feed it!).

If the climate is stable, and the environment fairly static, then intelligence doesn’t really help you enough to offset it’s cost.

On the other hand, if you have a chaotic environment, lots of changing conditions, then the adaptability of intelligence may become an advantage. Honestly, I think it was the Ice Ages that pushed us over the top. We had a long series of rapid climate changes. There are really two ways to cope with that: move or adapt. Being intelligent meant we could adapt by using fire and skins to warm ourselves, and then shed them when it became warm again.

Only in the proper environment was intelligence a large enough advantage to offset it’s cost.

NialScorva

I would think that you could find evidence of any civilization of our size several million years after it occurred. No artifacts, but consider mineral and resource distributions. We were aided in our development by metal deposits being close to the surface, and later by fossil fuels being very close to the surface and easily accessible. How long would it take for sizable iron deposits to cycle back to the point that they can be found on the surface?