[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?3
It has been consensus for many years that sauropods got big to avoid predation.
I call that a size race. All I am doing is proposing a predation scenario that
allows speculation about a 'predators won' scenario.
Most excellent question, below.
"what length of time would prove (to you) that they weren't increasing in
I don't know, you decide. If I don't like it, I'll speak up.
----- Original Message ----
From: Anthony Docimo <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:49:47 AM
Subject: 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
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
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN