+ 1...
But I would have just arrogant. Lol
This is the same guy that waded into the ray forum making statements and giving advice on rays .... When he hadn't even owned a ray before!!!
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Whats wrong with dinosaur reconstruction?
- Thread starter DariusAmurdarja
- Start date
+ 1...
But I would have just arrogant. Lol
This is the same guy that waded into the ray forum making statements and giving advice on rays .... When he hadn't even owned a ray before!!!
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Your guess is as good as the other scientists' to me ts.
"There's only one explanation...." made me lol though
"There's only one explanation...." made me lol though
Same guy posted hypocritical rants about keeping bichirs, and he is now going against all his 'beliefs' in bichir keeping theory.
He likes to object to the views of others, but when you object to his, you're a trolling nuisance. At least he knows how we feel
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
He likes to object to the views of others, but when you object to his, you're a trolling nuisance. At least he knows how we feel
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Did you even look it up(i didnt just asking)? You jump right into callling him a troll, well aint that the pot calling the kettle black. You are the biggest and most arrogant troll on here. I cant believe your even on this site still since we are all working class, and per your own words you "dont associate with those kinds of people". Fact is your opinion is yours. It 50 years it might be deemed incorrect, maybe not. Untill we revive these dinos we will never know.
Regarding what you posted, what do you think spinosaurus looked like? You say its wrong but offer no counter arguement. The bison bones have the peak of his sail like bones almost directly over his front shoulder but the pic of the spinosaurus you posted has no true peak, nor is the highest areas over the rear leg, quite the opposite. It appears the highest points are over the front "arms". So did it walk on those with its rear straight up in the air? The "sail" bones of the bison are also quite thick, with an even thicker ends. The "sail" of the spinosaurus is not, its thin the entire way up. It would not appear to be able to support the large muscles as you state. Regarding the sauropods, is thier any actual fossils of the trunk? We got fossils of poop, plants and insects, all which biodegrade faster than reptile flesh, so one should rightfully assume thier should be some legit fossil evidence of a elephant like trunk besides some nostrils high on its head? And regarding your statement on stegosaurus, how do you suggest they looked?
On the subject of mating, how do we know they mated the same as us today? Penis into vagina is not the sole mating in the animal kingdom. Have you considered that parthogenisis could have been occurec or possibly even be semi prevelent?
The above two paragraphs are legit questions, not accusing you of being wrong. Just because I dont like you doesnt mean that this isnt a chance to have a legit interesting conversation and learn.
Guys, while he is a notorius troll, lets try to be nice for awhile. I actually am interested in his theorys(even if he is stating them as fact). Thanks
Lmao at Lep. You crack me up. You start off bashing, come back on topic and then bring it back around to asking others not to bash.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Lol. Meh, he does deserve it but we go to hard and this thread will be closed before I the answeres to my questions. I dont care if anyone says stuff to him, just interested in his answers.
Just be nice for alittle
Lol! Wow the OP's popular, made a name for himself already. I guess I've been away too long as I've only run into him today. Still you gotta admit, it's been a fairly entertaining thread and I don't think anyone really got out of hand. It was kind of like a upper class troll thread.lol! Stirred up some people got a thread going pretty well and so far I don't think anyone's gotten to out right flaming...It's something I enjoy reading and participating in.....though I liked his regulation on certain species of fish thread better. I actually thought that was a more interesting topic and was hoping to actually hear from more people on their views about such a thing....
+ 1 I also would like to hear his theories and love a good debate
The spines of Spinosaurus are also very massive and very similar to that of a Bison. Look here:
Spinosaurus was a notorious fish eater. We know that from fish scales that were sticking in his tooth. He needed massive muscles to move his head through the water. The sail is impossible. If Spinosaurus would have a sail and he would have fallen or simply rolled on his back, his spine would break and kill him instantly. The sail theory got completly thrown away from scientists today. It would have looked like that:
That hump could also save water and fat rescources.
About sauropods trunks, no there are no fossils found yet, which prove 100% for shure there was a trunk. While sauropod fossils are not rare, their heads are. In most cases the head is missing and in the cases a head is found we found no imprint of a trunk yet. What has been found are collagenous spikes similar to an iguanas on Diplodocus back.
And about Stegosaurus plates on his back. Beside the fact, that they would cause huge problems during mating, they are not combined with the bones. Those plates are heavy and would hang down at the sides.
Parthogenisis is a difficult topic, since we know dinosaurs had sexual dimorphism. We know male and female fossils so its most likely they reproduced sexual.
Spinosaurus was a notorious fish eater. We know that from fish scales that were sticking in his tooth. He needed massive muscles to move his head through the water. The sail is impossible. If Spinosaurus would have a sail and he would have fallen or simply rolled on his back, his spine would break and kill him instantly. The sail theory got completly thrown away from scientists today. It would have looked like that:
That hump could also save water and fat rescources.
About sauropods trunks, no there are no fossils found yet, which prove 100% for shure there was a trunk. While sauropod fossils are not rare, their heads are. In most cases the head is missing and in the cases a head is found we found no imprint of a trunk yet. What has been found are collagenous spikes similar to an iguanas on Diplodocus back.
And about Stegosaurus plates on his back. Beside the fact, that they would cause huge problems during mating, they are not combined with the bones. Those plates are heavy and would hang down at the sides.
Parthogenisis is a difficult topic, since we know dinosaurs had sexual dimorphism. We know male and female fossils so its most likely they reproduced sexual.
Why Sauropods need a trunk while they have long neck? It doesn't makes any sense.
Why Spino need massive muscles to move his head through the water? Water birds (Spino's modern relatives) don't need massive muscles to hunting fish. From what I heard, the sail theory wasn't discarded from scientists today.
You don't need a penis and a vagina to reproduce in animals beside the mammals and some species of non-mammalians. They mated probably similar to the fashion of lizards and crocodilians.
Why Spino need massive muscles to move his head through the water? Water birds (Spino's modern relatives) don't need massive muscles to hunting fish. From what I heard, the sail theory wasn't discarded from scientists today.
You don't need a penis and a vagina to reproduce in animals beside the mammals and some species of non-mammalians. They mated probably similar to the fashion of lizards and crocodilians.
