The place is a mess right now, full of memes and fan disapproval.
People aren't arguing about dinosaurs, they're arguing about whether a person graduates?
Small groups are child's tricks .
Maybe I should stop watching these for a while
5,673
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Miles1314520
Why do people think dinosaurs are aquatic when they see them swimming?
Humans can swim, but humans are not aquatic animals.
logical problem Like high density bones = aquatic animals, the theory is as strange Aquatic animals have high bone density, but not all aquatic animals have high bone density.
Fins are creatures that swim, but not all swimming creatures have fins.
People walk on two legs, but not all people who walk on two legs are people.
Clearly these problems are not two-way
Swimming is normal for most creatures. We should be talking about how much they swam, not whether they swam
Okay, I think you guys can calm down a bit. It's okay to hate someone but try not to be abusive that's not good
I don't know what's going on, confused
I saw on twitter that Scott hartman and Mark witton were said to be involved, can't imagine how awesome this is
Thanks to the uploader.
I didn't do anything at all
(Edited by Miles1314520)
I am looking forward
I just often get confused when I see quite a few people on the internet who think Spinosaurus' forelimbs were used for walking and not hunting
I have doubts. It is believed that Megaraptor hunts with its huge front claws, but it is thought that Spinosauridae cannot use claws. Why?
Adult herbivores are not the primary targets of carnivores under any circumstances, and even today's mighty big cats target older or younger animals. So this discussion is almost meaningless.
Simply comparing body types is meaningless. All organisms go through infancy and adolescence when they are most likely to be preyed on, whether carnivorous or herbivorous.
If you just want to laugh at people then you can't stop people from contradicting you lol
@Bajadasaurus234 I use these two animals as an example because they are closer in every way except whether they can swim.
Variable factors can be minimized if differences in bone density between two animals are examined.
You don't want to compare bone density in birds to hippos because there are too many variables to determine if bone density is the main reason.
Of course it would be great if you could find a better example
@The dragnor I have done
You can have a look
Oh, and add that the elongated mouth is not the key to eating fish. Tomistoma schlegelii has a relatively elongated mouth, but is definitely a generalist predator. They are fully capable of catching huge prey.
Also check out these fun pictures
all pictures from google
(Edited by Miles1314520)
Yes like I said. I think Spinosauridae are generalists and fish is only part of the recipe
Well, apparently Spinosaurus is full of doubts.
I will explain my observations in sections here
First.
Was Spinosaurus a Professional Fish Eater?
Fortunately, among the existing animals, we have a professional fish eater, Gavialis gangeticus.
Gavialis gangeticus is highly specialized to eat fish in terms of teeth and mouth shape, with more teeth than the common crocodile, and teeth of nearly the same size.
Comparing the tooth numbers of Gavialis gangeticus with other crocodiles showed that more and denser teeth were fish eaters.
Apparently, Spinosaurus teeth were larger, less numerous, and varied in size.
Probably in pursuit of diversification or large prey.
In contrast, Baryonyx and Suchomimus are more likely to be fish eaters, but Baryonyx did eat other dinosaurs, so Spinosauridae are obviously not professional fish eaters, fish is only part of their diet
Second.
Some people object to the wader theory on the grounds that waders have long legs but Spinosaurus legs are relatively short and therefore cannot be waders.
Ok let's see the picture
This is the green heron.
They have short legs and strong necks, but they are still the same as other waders despite the shortened legs
third.
bone density.
Well, the new paper does collate a lot of bone density data, which is great.
However, it does not explain swimming ability.
The increase in bone density allows diving, but whales and mosasaurs that live in the water do not have high bone density.
When comparing various types of animals side by side, many unexplained questions arise
My suggestion is to compare the bone density of emus and ostrich to find out the difference maybe more appropriate?
The reason for comparing the two animals is that both large terrestrial birds are incapable of flight, but emus is hydrophilic and ostrich is almost completely incapable of swimming. Reducing the variables may better explain the effect of bone density on hydrophilicity in Theropoda
This is the first time I've posted such a long post and my views are not entirely correct. say your opinion
(Edited by Miles1314520)
@The dragnor I think I can finish my tidying up tomorrow
I'm trying to use my animal knowledge to gather pictorial data to explain some of the problems with Spinosaurus and have found some interesting commonalities.
Of course I'm not an expert these are just my personal understanding.
need time to organize
(Edited by Miles1314520)
I have a question, what does this sentence mean?
The association of high-density bone with semi-aquatic was confirmed by collation of bone densities in a large number of animals.
Perhaps it would be more convincing to tell us how Spinosaurus used its specialized body structure to achieve semi-aquatic life.
What they're doing is 'Oh it must have great water capabilities with its big tail!' But the question is the ostrich also has wings but can it fly?
They took an animal apart to explain it in parts, but when put together they created a contradiction. Maybe they should face up to the fact that animals are a whole rather than machines that can be disassembled at will
Of course collating so much data is a great and fortunate job, but it doesn't do much to explain Spinosaurus
(Edited by Miles1314520)