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

Re: Evolution of tyrannosauroid bite power



For those who might mistake my basic position, I quote myself from upthread; "I 
personally don't see
 it as _definitive_ proof of predatory lifestyle, but it is at least
 strong support for the assumption." <== Don Ohmes said that. Hint -- 
"Assumption" is a key word is that quote.

That said; the word "plausible" usually carries some connotation of relative 
probability, as does "alternate hypothesis". Everybody understands you are 
trying to make a point, but the probability that T. rex used (and injured) it's 
arms while carcass-pumping w/out FIRST using (and injuring) them while engaged 
in predatory behavior is, uh, ahem!, somewhat remote.  Perhaps even impossible, 
as your calculations may be erroneous, as calculations sometimes are.

Heh. No way to make this stuff up.

Don

----- Original Message ----
From: ptnorton <ptnorton@suscom-maine.net>
To: Ken.Carpenter@dmns.org; d_ohmes@yahoo.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2008 5:14:00 PM
Subject: Re: Evolution of tyrannosauroid bite power

I agree that we disagree and should probably just leave it alone, but
 my 
points are worth restating lest they get lost in attempts at
 refutations 
involving T. rex's complicity in building advanced civilizations.

Carcass lifting is a plausible alternative hypothesis to prey grappling
 as 
an explanation for forelimb function in T. rex, given the strength 
parameters so nicely described by Carpenter and Smith (2001). Carcass 
lifting is biomechanically possible, consistent with behavioral science
 with 
respect to the nearly ubiquitous presence of dominance display behavior
 in 
animals and possibly explains just as well as prey-grappling the
 evidence 
about pathologies observed in the arms of T. rex arms. Who the heck
 knows if 
the arms were used for one of these purposes or another, or both, or
 for 
that matter even for something else. I certainly don't.  But both are 
plausible based on current research (without making a "mockery of
 science" 
by invoking extraterrestrials), and there are probably a number of
 other 
plausible explanations as well. The premises in Carpenter and Smith
 (2001) 
simply do not logically compel a conclusion of predatory behavior. They
 
allow it as a possibility, but they do not compel that conclusion.
 Other 
functions for the forearms are possible given the same evidence, and we
 
should be open to them.

PTJN