[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
(arthritic) Sauropods vs. Gravity - all
Let me get this straight, now. It apparently doesn't matter so much the size of
a planet as what its surface gravity is? No, wait. I'm all confused now. I
guess what I am trying to understand is why aren't there now sauropod-size
animals around now? Because there hasn't been given enough time due to the ice
age? Or because of climate? I would hate to think that the warmth of the
Mesozoic had a lot to do with size. I get the willies thinking about theories
describing dinos as overgrown lizards.
One thing that bothers me is the "Walking With Dinosaurs" specials that were on
a while ago. While they seemed to do a good job in a few areas in my opinion,
they made most of the big dinosaurs walk like they were arthritic! Every time I
saw the diplodocus walk, I felt sorry for them. My God, every step looked like
a painful re-adjustment to the ground below. Even the iguanodons and stegosaurs
seemed to be in early stages of a nuerotic motory disease.
Is this really what we think about their movements? And if it is, why do we
think that after millions of years of evolutionary achievement, that they are
still bastards of basic gravity? Something about all of that doesn't sit well
with me. And that is why I felt like maybe something in the planet's gravity
changed. I know I know, it's corny.
Elephants today lumber, yes. So what is the point of evolution to create
something so much bigger than the elephant in the first place? What is the use
of megafauna when it appears to be a hinderence to itself? Why did they get so
big? It seems a waste of time. The planet wasn't so much bigger back then was
it? So why did we need such a huge forager? So many questions, so little time...