[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?3

You seem to be saying that for every large sauropod in the fossil
record, I must produce a large theropod of exactly the "predicted" size
and exactly the "predicted" age, or the concept of size race is invalid. The level of specific proof you require is not
now and never will be available from the fossil record, in my opinion.

so your size race is like an insectivorous Tyrannosaurid -- a nice theory, but without evidence.


While I cannot prove they were there, a trip on my part to the time and place of Alamosaurus would entail preparations for an encounter with a large carnivorous biped. If you were going along for the ride, I think you would feel that wise, would you not?

I'd be more worried about the preparations for the small carnivorous bipeds. (and the bugs)

By known ecological principles, evolutionary theory, and uniformintarian principles;

what are "uniformintarian principles"?

showing that theropods and sauropods co-existed throughout their history,

theropods and pterosaurs co-existed throughout their history as well...and so did sauropods and pterosaurs.

AND that valid predation scenarios exist, is indeed enough for me to argue, even assume, that they were in a size race, one that was continuous and operated on all the large lineages.

then what large saurpods existed in Tyrannosaurus rex's neck of the woods?

But, as I am sure you have noticed I am out of touch. I wonder what you have to replace it.

so....the only way to disprove a theory is to replace it? hm

Which reminds me; how many of the smaller species have a long enough presence in the record to prove that they weren't also increasing in size?

what length of time would prove (to you) that they weren't increasing in size?

Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm