Whats wrong with dinosaur reconstruction?
- Thread starter DariusAmurdarja
- Start date
Dinosaurs were most likely warmblooded. They had enormous grow rates. Some Sauropods added 50 kg of meat per day. It is hard to compare dinos with reptiles. They had fast metabolisms.
And I am glad you made a mod delete your comment. Honestly, on this forum I always try to stay calm, not insult other people or swear etc. But it really, really, pisses me off when someone says things like " All Germans are nazis" or " living in Germany and not looking german is hard. Seriously, what is wrong in the brains of people who say that? How about you stick your nose into an effing book about Germany, or come here yourself( be careful though, I'm not sure if my turkish, italian, dutch, french, croatian, albanian, macedonian etc. And german Friends would beat your behind up so hard you'd land right back in America if you talk such bs. ) and look how things really hard here before you talk such utter bs on a public forum?!
Sorry for the rant, but this is really getting on my nerves.
if you want to, just trying to educate people
I saw his post, i don't recall him saying anything like that
It was more about the ts than about Germany. I think u jumped the gun a little
nope...chub is right. What egon said was not very nice. I have a wonderful time in germany and some should visit germany to realize how wonderful it is.
Nurburgring! Spa! Awesome F1 tracks! Not to mention Sebastian vettel is a native along w/ shumacher and rosberg!
#1 S. Vettel
I concur Germany is great, it gave us David Hasslehoff and me after all.lol! With a last name like Kolt could I beee any more German.lol!
Also I wasn't offended by Egon's comment, though I admit it wasn't nice it seemed in my opinion as an attack against you not the German people. Though I don't really get offended easily, about the only thing that agitates me is physical threats online. I mean seriously how tough can you be when resorting to physical threats, when you know you aren't gonna do something about it. Internet bullies get my twigs and berries in a bind, but personal attacks for the most part roll off my back. We should all try to do the same, their just words and if you don't respect the person they're coming from what does it matter. By the way this is not an attack on you or Egon, just me expressing we should take stuff a little less seriously so we can enjoy the forum.Dude, I'm too cool to be considered cookie cutter.lol! I'm also the only one to cite actual papers and scientist and heck the dates published I think. You gotta admit though at least it's an entertaining read, maybe not informative but entertaining non the less.
I'm disappointed I asked several questions and supplied actual published findings supporting my theory and asked for a rebuttal and all I got was this. No answer to the other proposed theories I gave and no citation for your statement that Dino's are most likely warm blooded.
I'm aware that it's disputed in the scientific community, but was wondering if they had come to a consensus. Apparently they haven't because even you said most likely. Though your proof of a fast growth rate as a sign of being warm blooded isn't a good one. Rock Pythons can grow up to 8 feet in a 2 year period starting at a 3 foot size. That's a increase of over 200% in just 2 years, that's like a baby growing from infant approx. 14 to 20 inches to a height of 4 feet by 2 years old. As far as I know reptiles grow in general proportionately faster than warmblooded animals(ie: mammals and birds). Though birds mature sexually at a exceptional rate they don't grow proportionately as fast as a reptile considering their starting size. So what makes you think they where warm blooded other than their close kinship to birds? I apologize I just hate statements with no explanation. Makes the point of the statement moot as the statement was probably intended as a form of getting someone to understand. So a statement with no reason is pointless in that aspect.
Also I don't know how you know how fast a Saurapod would grow per day. Realistically I imagine science might and I do emphasize might be able to estimate a yearly growth rate, but I'd be hard pressed to believe they could estimate with any accuracy the daily growth rate of Saurapod. I would appreciate citations as to where your getting you info. from if possible so I might read them for myself, as at very least to expand my knowledge of what is thought to be possible by the scientific community.
Agreed.
Considering that birds are warm-blooded, the transition from cold-blooded to warm-blooded probably occurred as the dinosaurs evolved.
A friend of mine from college is over there now and keeps saying the same thing.
I certainly think that the spines of Spinosaurus could have formed a muscular hump. The common bison (Bison bison) isn't the best example to support your argument in the case of Spinosaurus, though, rather the "ancient bison" (Bison antiquus) or another extinct species would help your case a bit more thanks to their far more pronounced spines (and therefore larger hump).
It's also worth noting that close relatives of Spinosaurus, such as Irritator, had smaller spines thus an analogous comparison could potentially be drawn between the humps of the genus Bison and the theoretical humps of the family Spinosauridae.
I agree that Spinosaurus was primarily a fish eater, but I also do not think that it only fed on fish rather it was more a generalist that would feed on small herbivores and carrion, too. The jaws are similar to those of a false gharial which eats fish but also will eat larger prey such as deer, monkeys, and humans. Furthermore, close relatives of Spinosaurus, such as Irritator and Baryonyx, have been found to be generalists after juvenile ornithopod dinosaur fossils have been found in close association with their skeletons. Those two genera in particular are useful for extrapolating the diet, behavior, and such of Spinosaurus as there are far more fossils available to study.
Spinosaurus can't be considered to be an apex predator simply because of their size, though, because they lacked the overall build that would permit them to take on large prey such as sauropods, and a Carcharodontosaurus would have had the advantage if the two had crossed paths due to it being built to take down large prey such as sauropods.
It's also worth noting that close relatives of Spinosaurus, such as Irritator, had smaller spines thus an analogous comparison could potentially be drawn between the humps of the genus Bison and the theoretical humps of the family Spinosauridae.
I agree that Spinosaurus was primarily a fish eater, but I also do not think that it only fed on fish rather it was more a generalist that would feed on small herbivores and carrion, too. The jaws are similar to those of a false gharial which eats fish but also will eat larger prey such as deer, monkeys, and humans. Furthermore, close relatives of Spinosaurus, such as Irritator and Baryonyx, have been found to be generalists after juvenile ornithopod dinosaur fossils have been found in close association with their skeletons. Those two genera in particular are useful for extrapolating the diet, behavior, and such of Spinosaurus as there are far more fossils available to study.
Spinosaurus can't be considered to be an apex predator simply because of their size, though, because they lacked the overall build that would permit them to take on large prey such as sauropods, and a Carcharodontosaurus would have had the advantage if the two had crossed paths due to it being built to take down large prey such as sauropods.
Most of the scientific community regarding Dino's being coldblooded or warmblooded is split, because the only thing they have to go on for the most part is based on assumed Dino behavior. That and some of the altitudes the fossil's where found at has also created conjecture as no one is sure what the earth was like at those altitudes at that time. Some believe that it was cold so only a endothermic creature could live at that altitude while others say no it was warm and use the proof of vegetation fossilized at that altitude to try and prove it was warmer by far back then compared to today.
Other arguments say Dino's where too big to be endothermic, because at large sizes endothermic creatures essentially burn up due to the stress put on their body by constant thermoregulation. Yet another con against being warm blooded is Dinosaurs lacked respiratory turbinates. To supply their metabolic needs, warm-blooded creatures breathe about five times as often as reptiles. Land-dwelling endotherms have structures in their skulls called “respiratory turbinates,” which help retain moisture during the respiration process. To date, no one has found conclusive evidence of these structures in dinosaur fossils—hence, dinosaurs may have been cold-blooded. Again this is all conjecture, but at least I'm providing reasoning behind my thoughts instead of just making statements and essentially asking people to believe them without any supporting evidence. Can some one please support their argument so I can actually learn something rather than just saying things with no explanation. I'm the only one and now wiggles who I see actually citing actual papers and or providing explanations for thoughts instead of just making unsupported statements.
Other arguments say Dino's where too big to be endothermic, because at large sizes endothermic creatures essentially burn up due to the stress put on their body by constant thermoregulation. Yet another con against being warm blooded is Dinosaurs lacked respiratory turbinates. To supply their metabolic needs, warm-blooded creatures breathe about five times as often as reptiles. Land-dwelling endotherms have structures in their skulls called “respiratory turbinates,” which help retain moisture during the respiration process. To date, no one has found conclusive evidence of these structures in dinosaur fossils—hence, dinosaurs may have been cold-blooded. Again this is all conjecture, but at least I'm providing reasoning behind my thoughts instead of just making statements and essentially asking people to believe them without any supporting evidence. Can some one please support their argument so I can actually learn something rather than just saying things with no explanation. I'm the only one and now wiggles who I see actually citing actual papers and or providing explanations for thoughts instead of just making unsupported statements.
