I was hoping for one of these guys...Troodon just seems, so Raptor-ish. However, it sounds like they're really trying to make this thing its own "character, so we'll see...
Judging from the pics its about 1 and a half meters tall max, unless its a juvenile. I'm not sure if its a juvenile large carnivore, but my guess its either a small carnivore or juvenile mid-sized carnivore that hunts in packs, or midsized herbivores.
As I suspected. It might not be the best choice considering what we now know about the animal but since they're taking a few liberties (making it venomous, etc.) with it like pretty much all dinosaurs in Jurassic films I'm looking forward to it and "their story".
I knew it. Could be interesting, a very smart, nocturnal, venomous pack hunting dino, smaller and thus more agile like a Raptor. But I hope the raptors remain the #1-Threat when it comes to smaller and deadly predators!
I posted this on another thread, but here would be more appropriate.
This is what I found on wiki: "In 1982, Dale Russell, then curator of vertebrate fossils at the National Museum of Canada in Ottawa, conjectured a possible evolutionary path that might have been taken by Troodon had it not perished in the K/T extinction event 65 million years ago, suggesting that it could have evolved into intelligent beings similar in body plan to humans. Over geologic time, Russell noted that there had been a steady increase in the encephalization quotient or EQ (the relative brain weight when compared to other species with the same body weight) among the dinosaurs. Russell had discovered the first Troodontid skull, and noted that, while its EQ was low compared to humans, it was six times higher than that of other dinosaurs. If the trend in Troodon evolution had continued to the present, its brain case could by now measure 1,100 cm3; comparable to that of a human. Troodontids had semi-manipulative fingers, able to grasp and hold objects to a certain degree, and binocular vision."
I see why Telltale has chosen this one. A pretty tough, and intelligent adversary (even more than velociraptor. Don't you think so?
I hope that the Troodon is explained well in the story becuase troodon is not canon to the films, and Isla Nublar only had 15 species, and all of them are accounted for. Troodon won't make sense unless it's explained.
I hope that the Troodon is explained well in the story becuase troodon is not canon to the films, and Isla Nublar only had 15 species, and all of them are accounted for. Troodon won't make sense unless it's explained.
Well it could be there due to Ingen not knowing what they were breeding till it was bred
It was all guess work to begin with. You can't just look at a DNA strand that's millions of years old and say, "That's a Troodon!" You would have to clone it and see what hatches. Then put it on file for future refrence.
Well it could be there due to Ingen not knowing what they were breeding till it was bred
A. Correct, since a juvenile Troodon may look similar to a young Velociraptor, (a similar theory that's been around for years states that InGen left Isla Sorna before the Spino was fully grown, and had labeled it as a "Baryonyx" partially due to the Spino's skull being depicted as more "Rex-like" in the 80's, which is why a Bary was on InGen's list and the Spino wasn't)
B. Don't expect the game to totally adhere to canon, as they need room to expand the film mythos, and also, the names of the additional species were only seen very briefly on props on the film and are known only to die-hard JP fans, (and thus, their status as canon is somewhat flexible)
Strangely, this game sounds to be similar to the canceled "Jurassic Park: Survival", from 2001, which was also going to feature "glowing-eyed" Troodon. Cool that we're finally getting to see something similar a decade later.
I've got news for you...Dale Russell IS a humanoid Troodon!
BTW, how can a hypothetical theory about potential evolution be "refuted"? We have no way of knowing either way...the only way to disprove a theory is through testing, which, unless we find a dimension where the KT Extinction never happened, we can't do...
It's unlikely that a predator species with already well-developed natural hunting and defense abilities would need to develop human-level intelligence or sophisticated tool-use to survive, and there is absolutely no reason why it would need to develop a humanoid anatomical configuration. A large human-size brain requires a lot of resources to maintain, and the only way selective pressures would favor it is if it made the species significantly better at finding food and living to offspring-producing age. Human legs and bipedal posture are considerably slower and less efficient than the avian bipedal configuration the therapod species already had. The species would have to find itself in an environment in which its claws, teeth, and speed were no longer beneficial or were even detrimental to its survival. What was advantageous for the aboreal-adapted pre-hominid ape species that found itself in the treeless African savanna where it was easy prey for large carnivores would not have been advantageous for a fast and efficient predator species.
It's unlikely that a predator species with already well-developed natural hunting and defense abilities would need to develop human-level intelligence or sophisticated tool-use to survive, and there is absolutely no reason why it would need to develop a humanoid anatomical configuration. A large human-size brain requires a lot of resources to maintain, and the only way selective pressures would favor it is if it made the species significantly better at finding food and living to offspring-producing age. Human legs and bipedal posture are considerably slower and less efficient than the avian bipedal configuration the therapod species already had. The species would have to find itself in an environment in which its claws, teeth, and speed were no longer beneficial or were even detrimental to its survival. What was advantageous for the aboreal-adapted pre-hominid ape species that found itself in the treeless African savanna where it was easy prey for large carnivores would not have been advantageous for a fast and efficient predator species.
Fine, but remember that the tiny shrew-like mammals which survived the Cretaceous extinction were very well adapted to their biological niche, and if one were to look at them 120 million years ago, it would have been a stretch to suggest that they would one day give rise to a primitive primate, which would later evolve into man. As evolution doesn't play by any rules and is the result of entirely circumstantial events, I'd argue that the evolution of a species could not be predicted beforehand, nor could other processes of evolution which occurred previously be used as a "rulebook" for every process of evolution which occurred after.
Remember, Russell never said that the Troodon would immediately go from being a Dromaeosaurid to a humanoid, just that it could conceivably happen over hundreds of millions of years; who knows what events could have conceivably bridged the gap between species? Perhaps during an ice age the Troodon needed to free its hands up and develop opposable thumbs in order to master fire and survive the adverse conditions. Again, we have no way of knowing; while there may be no reason to think that a Troodon would evolve into a humanoid form, there's no reason to believe that it couldn't either.
I guess I should have said greatly debated and laughed and pointed at.
As has often been the case in science, and they've been wrong just as often, (if not more), than they've been right. Science as a system I believe is infallible; scientists, on the other hand, are human, and therefore are mere primates and very prone to error.
Fine, but remember that the tiny shrew-like mammals which survived the Cretaceous extinction were very well adapted to their biological niche, and if one were to look at them 120 million years ago, it would have been a stretch to suggest that they would one day give rise to a primitive primate, which would later evolve into man. As evolution doesn't play by any rules and is the result of entirely circumstantial events, I'd argue that the evolution of a species could not be predicted beforehand, nor could other processes of evolution which occurred previously be used as a "rulebook" for every process of evolution which occurred after.
But that's exactly what Russell was doing when he speculated that it would have evolved into a humanoid creature. He was making the assumption that a intelligent, successful, or dominant species would invariably end up looking like us.
Perhaps during an ice age the Troodon needed to free its hands up and develop opposable thumbs in order to master fire and survive the adverse conditions. Again, we have no way of knowing; while there may be no reason to think that a Troodon would evolve into a humanoid form, there's no reason to believe that it couldn't either.
Free its hands up? Its hands were already free. It was already a biped. It's possible and even likely that its arms and claws could have evolved to be better at grasping and manipulating things, but why would should they look like human arms and hands? Human hands, arms, and shoulders are shaped the way they are because they were once adapted for brachiation. The shrew-like creatures that would evolve into the first lemurs were arboreal and had an anatomy not unlike a modern squirrel. As time went on they evolved into better climbers developed the sort of limbs that tree-dwelling primates have today. It's far more likely that an arboreal dinosaur species like Scansoriopteryx would have evolved an ape-like anatomy. Certainly, Troodon could have have become smaller and adapted to climbing trees too, but at this point, why are we so concerned with turning Troodon's descendants into this hypothetical humanoid species? The reason Russell thought the Troodon would be a good candidate was because of its brain size, but any other species could have developed a larger brain at a later time just as easily as Troodon could have been adapted to an arboreal lifestyle. Our own ancestors developed bipedal human bodies long before they developed large human brains.
Of course, the whole idea of "dinosaur apes" is still completely absurd, because why would they become apes when they could become birds? And, in fact, they did become birds. They had feathers. They developed flight. And flight is a much more effective way of getting from branch to branch and tree to tree than brachiation.
Maybe Troodon would have evolved into the dominant, intelligent species on the planet. But there's no reason they would have to end up looking anything like us. Russell's entire theory is based on human arrogance and bias. He's assuming that a dominant species would have to look humanoid and indeed that there would have to be a dominant species at all. It's maybe possible that it could have happened, but only under astronomically unlikely circumstances. His theory is as valid as saying, "Maybe if prehistoric African lemurs weren't out-competed by monkeys, they could have evolved into mammalian ostriches."
But that's exactly what Russell was doing when he speculated that it would have evolved into a humanoid creature. He was making the assumption that a intelligent, successful, or dominant species would invariably end up looking like us.
Free its hands up? Its hands were already free. It was already a biped. It's possible and even likely that its arms and claws could have evolved to be better at grasping and manipulating things, but why would should they look like human arms and hands? Human hands, arms, and shoulders are shaped the way they are because they were once adapted for brachiation. The shrew-like creatures that would evolve into the first lemurs were arboreal and had an anatomy not unlike a modern squirrel. As time went on they evolved into better climbers developed the sort of limbs that tree-dwelling primates have today. It's far more likely that an arboreal dinosaur species like Scansoriopteryx would have evolved an ape-like anatomy. Certainly, Troodon could have have become smaller and adapted to climbing trees too, but at this point, why are we so concerned with turning Troodon's descendants into this hypothetical humanoid species? The reason Russell thought the Troodon would be a good candidate was because of its brain size, but any other species could have developed a larger brain at a later time just as easily as Troodon could have been adapted to an arboreal lifestyle. Our own ancestors developed bipedal human bodies long before they developed large human brains.
Of course, the whole idea of "dinosaur apes" is still completely absurd, because why would they become apes when they could become birds? And, in fact, they did become birds. They had feathers. They developed flight. And flight is a much more effective way of getting from branch to branch and tree to tree than brachiation.
Maybe Troodon would have evolved into the dominant, intelligent species on the planet. But there's no reason they would have to end up looking anything like us. Russell's entire theory is based on human arrogance and bias. He's assuming that a dominant species would have to look humanoid and indeed that there would have to be a dominant species at all. It's maybe possible that it could have happened, but only under astronomically unlikely circumstances. His theory is as valid as saying, "Maybe if prehistoric African lemurs weren't out-competed by monkeys, they could have evolved into mammalian ostriches."
Russell's contention was that if a mammal didn't fill the "humanoid" niche, then another species would hence why his Troodon was a dinosaurian. Dougal Dixon has engaged in similar speculation, showing how animals evolve into a certain shape to fill a biological niche.
And why would a Troodon have to turn into a "dinosaur ape"? As you've pointed out, it already has the same basic body shape as a primate, (Russel shortened the legs and arms and expanded the cranium). If the KT extinction hadn't occurred, who's to say all dinosaurs would have turned into birds...? Although his model is outdated, as back in the 80's dinos were still traditionally portrayed as more "reptilian" than "avian".
BTW, flying animals wouldn't progress to the point of high intelligence, which requires a big brain, which in turn requires a big, heavy skull/head...meaning any highly "advanced" animal which began as an avian would already have to be flightless, (as Troodon was to begin with). So while flight may be more effective a form of transportation than walking, it wouldn't allow for a highly intelligent life form. The species would have to be a shape that could birth young with similarly large heads as well, (even if the Troodon are still laying eggs, those would be pretty damn big eggs)! So as you've said, another "humanoid" species would most likely be arboreal or land-based in origin.
I concede, however, that equating a "humanoid" form with a "superior" species is highly human-centric, and "evolved" dinosaurs would most likely not look like "us"...
And why would a Troodon have to turn into a "dinosaur ape"? As you've pointed out, it already has the same basic body shape as a primate, (Russel shortened the legs and arms and expanded the cranium). If the KT extinction hadn't occurred, who's to say all dinosaurs would have turned into birds...? Although his model is outdated, as back in the 80's dinos were still traditionally portrayed as more "reptilian" than "avian".
Apart from the fact that they're both bipedal, humans and therapod dinosaurs do not have "the same basic shape," and it's not a simple matter of shortening the limbs. We have an upright posture and brachiating arms and shoulders because our ancestors were adapted to living in trees. Troodons had winglike arms adapted for very different sorts of motion. One type of arm doesn't evolve into another without a reason. Likewise, there's a difference between the plantigrade legs of humans and the digigrade legs of dinosaurs, birds, and other animals. Human legs and feet are shaped the way they are because they used to be arm-like grasping limbs that were later adapted for bipedal locomotion. Once again, the digigrade legs of a Troodon would not turn into plantigrade legs without a reason.
I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but the fact that Russell just assumed these anthropomorphic changes in anatomy would just happen is silly. The whole basis of his hypothesis is that if humans didn't evolve into humans then something else would have. He seems to have been operating under the idea that evolution is a progressive force that is constantly striving to create the perfect, ideal human form. It's like the arrogant American notion that democracy is the ideal form of government and therefore all other other forms of government are primitive and slowly evolving into democracy. Or the Soviet notion that all societies would eventually progress toward a communist economic system. I like humans. I like democracy. I like socialism. But it's ridiculous to think that there is some inherent natural force in the universe striving to make these things exist at all costs.
We're much closer than many other lifeforms in Earth's history, (bipedal, head held high above the body/chest, two arms, two legs, and central torso). It's not impossible that the Troodon's spine would straighten and its arms and legs would be held to the sides and underneath its body, respectively. After all, man doesn't walk on his knuckles, yet some of his close primate relatives still do to this day: nearly genetically identical species, very different use of spine and body.
As we've seen in nature, DNA remains largely identical amongst all life on Earth; the atoms and molecules of everything that has shape conform to the same basic principles; and the same elements that make up our periodic table are thought to, (in theory), be the stuff that makes up the universe. There ARE trends in science and nature, shapes and forms that reappear as they make sense and are useful.
And, as Russell's theory was called a "thought experiment", it seems to me to have been a hypothetical exercise in evolutionary biology which stated that this being COULD exist, that the form might appear again, which is very different from saying it WOULD. Remember, this isn't a purely alien being, but one with a large brain cavity which arose on our own Earth, with all the same elements which make up the world as know it, including terrain, gravity ETC.; high intelligence and the Earth's biosphere COULD bring about another humanoid form.
The likeliness of this particular shape existing, however, is where the difference sets in, as Russell never stipulates how much of his "dinosaurid" is what he considers to be scientifically feasible, and how much is more imagination without basis in fact.
BTW, I haven't heard of this theory, which is purely hypothetical, as being "derided and laughed at" other than in this quote from Russell himself, where he may or may not be being overly-defensive:
"The dinosauroid' was a thought experiment, based on an observable, general trend toward larger relative brain size in terrestrial vertebrates through geologic time, and the energetic efficiency of an upright posture in slow-moving, bipedal animals. It seems to me that such speculation remains acceptable, particularly if directed toward non-anthropoid anatomical configurations. However, I very nearly decided not to publish the exercise because of the damaging effects it might have had on the credibility of my work in general. Most people remained polite, although there were hostile reactions from those with "ultra-quantitative" and "ultra-intuitive" world views".
So I think criticism of the thing's anthropomorphic form wouldn't mean it was "laughed" out of science altogether.
BTW, just to restate my points so as to not sound contradictory: similar forms may evolve due to adhering to the same biological rules out of convenience and function, but as evolution can not be predicted based on what's gone before, we can guess, but it is impossible to say something would NEVER happen. All we can do is look at evolutionary trends and engage in at least some speculation.
Anyhoo, let's agree to disagree on this, as again, I don't think we're going to be able to prove or disprove Russell's hypothesis anytime soon!
Comments
I'm going to have to say that its Troodon, Herrerasaurus, Segisaurus, or Coelophysis.
Herrerasaurus perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsDwdjE2ED4&feature=player_embedded
I was hoping for one of these guys...Troodon just seems, so Raptor-ish. However, it sounds like they're really trying to make this thing its own "character, so we'll see...
As I suspected. It might not be the best choice considering what we now know about the animal but since they're taking a few liberties (making it venomous, etc.) with it like pretty much all dinosaurs in Jurassic films I'm looking forward to it and "their story".
I knew it. Could be interesting, a very smart, nocturnal, venomous pack hunting dino, smaller and thus more agile like a Raptor. But I hope the raptors remain the #1-Threat when it comes to smaller and deadly predators!
This is what I found on wiki: "In 1982, Dale Russell, then curator of vertebrate fossils at the National Museum of Canada in Ottawa, conjectured a possible evolutionary path that might have been taken by Troodon had it not perished in the K/T extinction event 65 million years ago, suggesting that it could have evolved into intelligent beings similar in body plan to humans. Over geologic time, Russell noted that there had been a steady increase in the encephalization quotient or EQ (the relative brain weight when compared to other species with the same body weight) among the dinosaurs. Russell had discovered the first Troodontid skull, and noted that, while its EQ was low compared to humans, it was six times higher than that of other dinosaurs. If the trend in Troodon evolution had continued to the present, its brain case could by now measure 1,100 cm3; comparable to that of a human. Troodontids had semi-manipulative fingers, able to grasp and hold objects to a certain degree, and binocular vision."
I see why Telltale has chosen this one. A pretty tough, and intelligent adversary (even more than velociraptor. Don't you think so?
Well it could be there due to Ingen not knowing what they were breeding till it was bred
Troodon is creepy...
Troodon is weepy! (Carry it on, Sam and Max fans)
A. Correct, since a juvenile Troodon may look similar to a young Velociraptor, (a similar theory that's been around for years states that InGen left Isla Sorna before the Spino was fully grown, and had labeled it as a "Baryonyx" partially due to the Spino's skull being depicted as more "Rex-like" in the 80's, which is why a Bary was on InGen's list and the Spino wasn't)
B. Don't expect the game to totally adhere to canon, as they need room to expand the film mythos, and also, the names of the additional species were only seen very briefly on props on the film and are known only to die-hard JP fans, (and thus, their status as canon is somewhat flexible)
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/135/135468p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/strategy/jurassicparksurvival/news.html?sid=2760305&mode=previews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKUfEPYvMZc
Now *that's* creepy...
Soooo creepy....
That's how troodon would hypothetically look like if he survived the asteroid impact, or if the impact never occured.
D:EEW!!!!!! I know this sounds bad, but...I hope THAT died.
Interesting...where is this from?
Maggie Gyllenhaal? :eek:
BTW, how can a hypothetical theory about potential evolution be "refuted"? We have no way of knowing either way...the only way to disprove a theory is through testing, which, unless we find a dimension where the KT Extinction never happened, we can't do...
Fine, but remember that the tiny shrew-like mammals which survived the Cretaceous extinction were very well adapted to their biological niche, and if one were to look at them 120 million years ago, it would have been a stretch to suggest that they would one day give rise to a primitive primate, which would later evolve into man. As evolution doesn't play by any rules and is the result of entirely circumstantial events, I'd argue that the evolution of a species could not be predicted beforehand, nor could other processes of evolution which occurred previously be used as a "rulebook" for every process of evolution which occurred after.
Remember, Russell never said that the Troodon would immediately go from being a Dromaeosaurid to a humanoid, just that it could conceivably happen over hundreds of millions of years; who knows what events could have conceivably bridged the gap between species? Perhaps during an ice age the Troodon needed to free its hands up and develop opposable thumbs in order to master fire and survive the adverse conditions. Again, we have no way of knowing; while there may be no reason to think that a Troodon would evolve into a humanoid form, there's no reason to believe that it couldn't either.
As has often been the case in science, and they've been wrong just as often, (if not more), than they've been right. Science as a system I believe is infallible; scientists, on the other hand, are human, and therefore are mere primates and very prone to error.
But that's exactly what Russell was doing when he speculated that it would have evolved into a humanoid creature. He was making the assumption that a intelligent, successful, or dominant species would invariably end up looking like us.
Free its hands up? Its hands were already free. It was already a biped. It's possible and even likely that its arms and claws could have evolved to be better at grasping and manipulating things, but why would should they look like human arms and hands? Human hands, arms, and shoulders are shaped the way they are because they were once adapted for brachiation. The shrew-like creatures that would evolve into the first lemurs were arboreal and had an anatomy not unlike a modern squirrel. As time went on they evolved into better climbers developed the sort of limbs that tree-dwelling primates have today. It's far more likely that an arboreal dinosaur species like Scansoriopteryx would have evolved an ape-like anatomy. Certainly, Troodon could have have become smaller and adapted to climbing trees too, but at this point, why are we so concerned with turning Troodon's descendants into this hypothetical humanoid species? The reason Russell thought the Troodon would be a good candidate was because of its brain size, but any other species could have developed a larger brain at a later time just as easily as Troodon could have been adapted to an arboreal lifestyle. Our own ancestors developed bipedal human bodies long before they developed large human brains.
Of course, the whole idea of "dinosaur apes" is still completely absurd, because why would they become apes when they could become birds? And, in fact, they did become birds. They had feathers. They developed flight. And flight is a much more effective way of getting from branch to branch and tree to tree than brachiation.
Maybe Troodon would have evolved into the dominant, intelligent species on the planet. But there's no reason they would have to end up looking anything like us. Russell's entire theory is based on human arrogance and bias. He's assuming that a dominant species would have to look humanoid and indeed that there would have to be a dominant species at all. It's maybe possible that it could have happened, but only under astronomically unlikely circumstances. His theory is as valid as saying, "Maybe if prehistoric African lemurs weren't out-competed by monkeys, they could have evolved into mammalian ostriches."
Russell's contention was that if a mammal didn't fill the "humanoid" niche, then another species would hence why his Troodon was a dinosaurian. Dougal Dixon has engaged in similar speculation, showing how animals evolve into a certain shape to fill a biological niche.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Dinosaurs:_An_Alternative_Evolution
And why would a Troodon have to turn into a "dinosaur ape"? As you've pointed out, it already has the same basic body shape as a primate, (Russel shortened the legs and arms and expanded the cranium). If the KT extinction hadn't occurred, who's to say all dinosaurs would have turned into birds...? Although his model is outdated, as back in the 80's dinos were still traditionally portrayed as more "reptilian" than "avian".
BTW, flying animals wouldn't progress to the point of high intelligence, which requires a big brain, which in turn requires a big, heavy skull/head...meaning any highly "advanced" animal which began as an avian would already have to be flightless, (as Troodon was to begin with). So while flight may be more effective a form of transportation than walking, it wouldn't allow for a highly intelligent life form. The species would have to be a shape that could birth young with similarly large heads as well, (even if the Troodon are still laying eggs, those would be pretty damn big eggs)! So as you've said, another "humanoid" species would most likely be arboreal or land-based in origin.
I concede, however, that equating a "humanoid" form with a "superior" species is highly human-centric, and "evolved" dinosaurs would most likely not look like "us"...
Thanks for sharing. Now back to your video game about singing rabbit private detectives! :cool:
Apart from the fact that they're both bipedal, humans and therapod dinosaurs do not have "the same basic shape," and it's not a simple matter of shortening the limbs. We have an upright posture and brachiating arms and shoulders because our ancestors were adapted to living in trees. Troodons had winglike arms adapted for very different sorts of motion. One type of arm doesn't evolve into another without a reason. Likewise, there's a difference between the plantigrade legs of humans and the digigrade legs of dinosaurs, birds, and other animals. Human legs and feet are shaped the way they are because they used to be arm-like grasping limbs that were later adapted for bipedal locomotion. Once again, the digigrade legs of a Troodon would not turn into plantigrade legs without a reason.
I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but the fact that Russell just assumed these anthropomorphic changes in anatomy would just happen is silly. The whole basis of his hypothesis is that if humans didn't evolve into humans then something else would have. He seems to have been operating under the idea that evolution is a progressive force that is constantly striving to create the perfect, ideal human form. It's like the arrogant American notion that democracy is the ideal form of government and therefore all other other forms of government are primitive and slowly evolving into democracy. Or the Soviet notion that all societies would eventually progress toward a communist economic system. I like humans. I like democracy. I like socialism. But it's ridiculous to think that there is some inherent natural force in the universe striving to make these things exist at all costs.
As we've seen in nature, DNA remains largely identical amongst all life on Earth; the atoms and molecules of everything that has shape conform to the same basic principles; and the same elements that make up our periodic table are thought to, (in theory), be the stuff that makes up the universe. There ARE trends in science and nature, shapes and forms that reappear as they make sense and are useful.
And, as Russell's theory was called a "thought experiment", it seems to me to have been a hypothetical exercise in evolutionary biology which stated that this being COULD exist, that the form might appear again, which is very different from saying it WOULD. Remember, this isn't a purely alien being, but one with a large brain cavity which arose on our own Earth, with all the same elements which make up the world as know it, including terrain, gravity ETC.; high intelligence and the Earth's biosphere COULD bring about another humanoid form.
The likeliness of this particular shape existing, however, is where the difference sets in, as Russell never stipulates how much of his "dinosaurid" is what he considers to be scientifically feasible, and how much is more imagination without basis in fact.
BTW, I haven't heard of this theory, which is purely hypothetical, as being "derided and laughed at" other than in this quote from Russell himself, where he may or may not be being overly-defensive:
"The dinosauroid' was a thought experiment, based on an observable, general trend toward larger relative brain size in terrestrial vertebrates through geologic time, and the energetic efficiency of an upright posture in slow-moving, bipedal animals. It seems to me that such speculation remains acceptable, particularly if directed toward non-anthropoid anatomical configurations. However, I very nearly decided not to publish the exercise because of the damaging effects it might have had on the credibility of my work in general. Most people remained polite, although there were hostile reactions from those with "ultra-quantitative" and "ultra-intuitive" world views".
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2007/10/troodon_sapiens_thoughts_on_th.php
So I think criticism of the thing's anthropomorphic form wouldn't mean it was "laughed" out of science altogether.
BTW, just to restate my points so as to not sound contradictory: similar forms may evolve due to adhering to the same biological rules out of convenience and function, but as evolution can not be predicted based on what's gone before, we can guess, but it is impossible to say something would NEVER happen. All we can do is look at evolutionary trends and engage in at least some speculation.
Anyhoo, let's agree to disagree on this, as again, I don't think we're going to be able to prove or disprove Russell's hypothesis anytime soon!