If you follow evolution, wouldnt they have started as those little lizard things as they first exited the water? That means they'd have to get big, not just be big...
If you follow evolution, wouldnt they have started as those little lizard things as they first exited the water? That means they'd have to get big, not just be big...god made the bones really big so that we would have an easier time finding them, else his test would go unnoticed.
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I guess so. Then evolution should also explain the answer. It comes down to survival of the fittest. The smaller dinosaurs were eaten by the larger ones. Eventualy making them bigger and bigger as millions of years pass.
Right?
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Another hypothesis as to why they are so big is due to the amount of oxygen in the air at the time.
http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/death2.htm
http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/death2.htm
I haven't heard a proper evolutionary answer yet.
"More food" doesn't necessarily mean there is an evolutionary ADVANTAGE to being bigger, it just means that the environment _COULD_ support bigger animals.
A necessary but hardly sufficient condition to actually GET bigger animals.
The argument would go something like this:
-- Imagine a world in which 50% of the dinosaurs are 1000 pounds and 50% of the dinosaurs are 1100 pounds. (A simple model for illustration.)
-- The 1000 pound dinosaurs might get eaten by larger predators (including, possibly, other dinosaurs) and have fewer animals to prey on themselves
-- The 1100 pound dinosaurs might be more sexually attractive (if they are male) due to their strength and also might have more prey available to them and fewer predators to hunt them.
-- The 1100 pound dinosaur is therefore more successful in terms of mating and producing offspring.
All of that said, there would be an upper limit. If you are WAY BIGGER than everyone else, is there an evolutionary advantage to then become WAY, WAY, WAY BIGGER than everyone else? Probably not.
"More food" doesn't necessarily mean there is an evolutionary ADVANTAGE to being bigger, it just means that the environment _COULD_ support bigger animals.
A necessary but hardly sufficient condition to actually GET bigger animals.
The argument would go something like this:
-- Imagine a world in which 50% of the dinosaurs are 1000 pounds and 50% of the dinosaurs are 1100 pounds. (A simple model for illustration.)
-- The 1000 pound dinosaurs might get eaten by larger predators (including, possibly, other dinosaurs) and have fewer animals to prey on themselves
-- The 1100 pound dinosaurs might be more sexually attractive (if they are male) due to their strength and also might have more prey available to them and fewer predators to hunt them.
-- The 1100 pound dinosaur is therefore more successful in terms of mating and producing offspring.
All of that said, there would be an upper limit. If you are WAY BIGGER than everyone else, is there an evolutionary advantage to then become WAY, WAY, WAY BIGGER than everyone else? Probably not.
I like how people posted stuff as if they knew it off the top of their head, when we all know they just Googled it first and then posted the info they found.
Whoever said more oxygen was right. There was a lot more oxygen (densitywise) that allowed for the evolution of larger animals. That's why insects back then were so big too.
Atif
Platinum Member
- Oct 10, 2001
- 2,423
- 11
- 81
Also, blue whales are f'ing huge, we all know its possible for animals to be that size. That would be one tough vertebrae for a land animal though.
At least get it right if you're gonna try. You're just referring to the "Christian" son of god. Monotheism though, has existed for much more than 2000 years.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,550
- 940
- 126
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
Winner!
That, or being bigger would have made getting food easier. If I'm a big dinosaur, I can reach higher trees than smaller ones, giving me a survival edge. Or, at the time, there was no environmental incentive to stay small. Most animals' muscles will dwindle if they are not used constantly. This is a way of saving resources otherwise spent maintaining those muscles. If resources such as food, favorable temperatures, and oxygen were readily available, then they'd follow the same trend that trees seem to follow - just keep on growing as much as possible. In nature, size generally matters.
Or polytheism for even longer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter