False scientific claim rebuttal thread.

[Infinity Blade]

Nov 26, 2015 9:15:26 GMT 5 Cross said:

Nov 25, 2015 18:14:44 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Um, what about the skin impressions of Wyrex? Aren't those considered scaly in a way?

Yes, but these are from the ventral side of the body. Even animals with feathers usually are featherless on the ventral side of their bodies. 
How large is that skin patch? I can't seem to find any of the papers describing it. 

They are nevertheless scales. So although we can be pretty much certain something like Tyrannosaurus had a lot of-if not perhaps most of-its body feathered, we do know some parts did indeed have scales, and it looked to me as if that one assertion in your post wasn't taking this into account.

But eh, at this point I'm just telling you stuff you already know.

[Cross]

Nov 26, 2015 9:52:52 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Nov 26, 2015 9:15:26 GMT 5 Cross said:

Yes, but these are from the ventral side of the body. Even animals with feathers usually are featherless on the ventral side of their bodies. 
How large is that skin patch? I can't seem to find any of the papers describing it. 

They are nevertheless scales. So although we can be pretty much certain something like Tyrannosaurus had a lot of-if not perhaps most of-its body feathered, we do know some parts did indeed have scales, and it looked to me as if that one assertion in your post wasn't taking this into account.

But eh, at this point I'm just telling you stuff you already know.

I did use the term "Completely scaly". I indeed was envisioning a tyrannosaur with a protofeathery coat on its dorsolateral sides, while the ventral surface of its body was mostly scaly (I.E The abdomen and bottom of the tail). 

[Infinity Blade]

Take note: I respond to the following as if I am engaged in an actual discussion. Obviously I'm not, but whatever.

Recently I have heard that some experts have stated that Dinosaurs did not have lips, their teeth occupying the outer edges of their jaws. I'm not sure whether they are saying this because it makes their favorite Dinosaurs look fiercer or if they really have any scientific basis for their claims.

Wow, that's a really lofty assumption you've made there. Because we all know that a disbelief in soft tissue covering sharp teeth=fanboy.

In any case, yes, there actually is a legitimate case for a lack of "lips" in dinosaurs such as the Theropoda. It is as follows:

1.) although nutrient foramina are present on the jaws of theropods, they are also present on the jaws of birds and crocodilians, neither of which possess lips.
2.) furthermore, the size, distribution, number, and shape of theropod nutrient foramina don't seem to be quite like those of "lipped" creatures such as squamates (which are the main creatures theropods are compared to in this controversy).
3.) mammals, most of which have lips, also have foramina that are different from those any of the aforementioned clades. They don't appear to have a lot, and those that do exist are comparatively large. Likewise, some of the foramina may not even be in the lip area. Therefore, the whole nutrient foramina argument doesn't seem to hold water.
4.) some theropods had teeth that were simply too long for there to be lips. Some seem to have teeth that almost reach the bottom of the dentary and some even had teeth that go past the dentary (either way, significantly beyond the nutrient foramina).
5.) squamate skulls are not configured like those of theropods. In the former, the upper jaw seems to be more on top of the lower one, which would easily allow for lips to contact one another and whatnot. Such is not the case for theropods, which have a lower jaw slightly thinner than the upper one, allowing the former to sit snugly into the latter. In that case, the mandibular teeth would really have no use for lips at all, yet there are no animals with just lips on the upper portion of the skull.
6.) according to a recent SVP abstract (which I would guess wasn't published at the time what I'm responding to was written, so this is totally understandable), theropod skulls do not have the texture for lips, instead pointing towards tactile faces like those of crocodilians.

It's unlikely that a lot of fossilized soft tissue will ever be found to prove this contention one way or the other, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint or even from the fossil evidence that does exist. First and foremost, lips keep moisture in. Ever since the earliest terrestrial vertebrates began their invasion of the land, the most important adaptations that allowed them to do so involved conservation of water. Once eggs and skins were sealed against water loss there was only one other large surface left to lose vital liquid and that was the mouth. If you don't believe this, try sleeping with your mouth open. All land-dwelling vertebrates have lips to seal their oral cavities. If they don't, they dry out too fast and don't reproduce.

One word: sabertooths. And unlike theropods, at least some sabertooths were animals that couldn't easily replace their teeth if something went wrong with the exposed dentition.

Crocodilians may not have lips, but then they do live in water.

Yet a lot of other (semi) aquatic animals possess soft tissue that seals the teeth (e.g. cetartiodactyls, pinnipeds, otters, and sirenians). If the water they live in supposedly keeps the inside of the mouth moist for them, then why didn't they lose their lips?

Birds don't have lips either, but their whole oral structure is somewhat different, lacking teeth and gums in particular. While there may be a link between birds and Dinosaurs, it obviously isn't expressed in the structure of the mouth.

Well...sure. What's next?

Every other vertebrate group has lips, so it stands to reason that Dinosaurs did too.

Is that right? Even if that was indeed the case, your following premise still does not stand, as a.) I've already discussed how the dinosaurs that people love to gush over about their jaws and teeth have cranial & dental morphologies that contradict the presence of lips and b.) with this logic, you could also justify things like crocodilians having lips, which they don't (and I just refuted the "water keeps the mouth moist" argument, so no, you can't run to that either).

There has been some "qualification" on this issue. The no-lip faction does feel that there would have been a row of scales to seal the edges of the mouth but since they weren't muscular and fleshy, they weren't really lips. I never felt they had to look like Mick Jagger, but if they look like lips and act like lips, they are lips and Dinosaurs should not be depicted with naked teeth.

Feathers look like fur (at least to some extent; some feathers seem to physically resemble fur more than others) and act like fur, so they are fur.

Now just how far did those teeth really stick out? Was a row of steak knives on display each time a theropod snarled or cracked a smile? Most reptiles actually have pretty gummy looking mouths. Even the extremely long sharp teeth of snakes and large lizards are usually hidden in a mass of pink tissue, felt but not seen. I suspect this has something to do with the supporting structures needed for continuously self-replacing teeth.

Again, that's because squamates have a cranial configuration that allows for this to happen, as I've explained above.

The only good reason to depict Dinosaurs as having a markedly different oral appearance from all other land-dwelling reptiles is that it looks better that way.

"BIGGUR TEEF BEDDUR!!!!"

This seems to have been inspired by some Tyrannosaur skulls with major metamorphic distortion in which the maxilla was partially shoved over the mandible. This has resulted in a trend toward depicting theropods as prehistoric Goofys. Aside from the obvious problems in water conservation arising from walking around with their overhanging teeth.

One word: sabertooths. And unlike theropods, at least some sabertooths were animals that couldn't easily replace their teeth if something went wrong with the exposed dentition.

Dinosaurs that looked like that would have shredded their lips with every bite.

Uhh, no, you've got it all wrong. Some theropods did indeed have respectably long teeth even with everything about the skull and teeth fixed as they would be in life, and it's only when you slap on lips that you get a problem between the two.

Besides, their upper and lower teeth worked together to rip meat. If their uppers were actually outside their lower lips, they would have been unable to slide along the lower teeth. That would be analogous to trying to cut a piece of meat with a fork in each hand, one above and one below. Face it, if those Dinosaurs wanted to be successful, they would have had to push their gums back and get some orthodontia.

And let's face it: overall, you didn't put up a very good argument for "lips" in theropods.

tyra-rex.com/Dinosaur/Art/art.html

[Cross]

Uhh, would the teeth be able to puncture as deeply if they had lips? I don't think so, and this is one of the reasons I find the lipped-theropod hypothesis implausible.
This is coming from a hominid mammal who's tried to bite deeply into food before, and my lips always hinder my ability to sink my teeth deeply (particularly when I'm eating something like watermelon, chicken, or a burger).

[Ceratodromeus]

I've done a lot of work regarding varanus sizes, mostly dealing with over exaggerations of adult animals' sizes; for example, this exchange on Carnivora I posted. Do note in this first instance, "Ackies" refer to the ridge-tailed monitor(V.acanthurus)

'

Red Ackies in the wild are known to reach at least 76 cm (30 inches). In captivity - Red Ackies rarely exceed 70cm (28 inches). While in captivity the Yellow Ackies rarely exceed 60 cm (23.6 inches).

My response: 
Yeah, no, most adult ackie monitors don't attain lengths close to 30in,let alone exceed them. The longest snout-vent length measurement i know is ~220mm(7.8in). That was from This paper(clickable)  The tail is just as long,So the largest (that i know of) are probably around 440mm(~17.3in). and of course, we have to take into account that most individuals are going to be smaller then this. out of a sample of 36 animals,the mean snout-vent length measurement was 178.6mm(7.03in) with a standard deviation(+/-) of 30.6mm. Accounting for tail length, an average animal would be around the 300mm(11.8in) mark in this sample. However, also according to the above paper, the minimum adult snout-vent length is ~200mm(7.87in). Accounting for tail length, adults will measure ~400mm(15.7in). I do know of one paper suggesting the largest representatives of the species can attain lengths of 0.7meters(26in), which seems plausible.

Another good example
The wikipedia pages state a 20+kg figure for both the perentie(V.giganteus) and lace monitor((V.varius) for an upper end to their mass, without any citations.

So after quite a bit of digging, I came across Varanoid lizards of the world -- which gives the highest recorded masses for the parents and Lacie at ~17kg and ~14kg respectively. The latter species' ~14kg figure is also reported in a lot of scientific literature.

More on the Lacie, I come across this alot:

"Lace monitors average 10+kg"

This one always gives me a good laugh, and the data I provide is as follows
First table is of radiotelemetry on the species


And this one too, though it does show adult males are fairly large, it is still short of the 10kg figure

Gould's goanna averages 4ft in length 1-2kg on average, and 6kg at maximum, 

This one is a classic. I made this reply far before I could figure out screenshotting, but should suffice in debunking the above that is still on wikipedia
"Comparative morphology of Western Australian varanid lizards(squamata: Varanidae)." Gives a total body length for mature animals at anywhere from 600-650mm(1.9-2.3ft) I'd also like to note that ~6kg for the sand monitor is likely an unfounded claim, and maybe confused for the Argus monitor( V.panoptes) which has been documented growing to ~6kg.
The claim of a ~6kg V.gouldii individual is further muddied when the wikipedia page does not give a reference for this statement. The highest mass figure I could find for the species was 1.5-2kg, ( Varanoid lizards of the world)and probably represents the maximum size for the species. The following screenshot (from "Activity area during the breeding season of Varanus gouldii (Reptilia: Varanidae) in an urban environment.")Validates only large animals will crack the 1kg mark

The above is not the largest sample of individuals, but you get the general idea there.

That's all for now, I'll post more sooner or later.

[Cross]

The following will deal with claims made by Spinosaurus fanboys regarding its anatomy, body size, and diet.
Since I don't have enough time to track down all the quotes one by one, I will simply paraphrase the claims they make.

The reconstruction of Spinosaurus by Ibrahim et al. with reduced hind limbs is not confirmed, so it's still possible for it to have long legs

Number 1, "confirmed" is a strong word. A long-legged Spinosaurus has never been confirmed either, since we simply based it on phylogenetic bracketing.
Second, given the number of times it was demonstrated that Spinosaurus B and the 2014 neotype overlap in almost every detail down to the shape of the vertebrae and the morphology and proportions of the femora, then the most parsimonious assumption would be that both specimens represent what the animal had actually looked like.

Spinosaurus B and the 2014 specimen are probably chimaeras

Again, refer to number 1. Both specimens are nearly identical in proportions and osteology, down to the concave and elongate centra of the dorsals and the narrow femora along with the flattened pedal phalanges and unguals. The only way that the two specimens can be chimaeras is if, by some miraculous feat of nature, the sediments of North Africa managed to arrange a random assortment of bones into the exact same pattern twice in a row, 80 years apart.

All other spinosaurids have hind limb proportions like other theropods, so it makes no sense for Spinosaurus to be an exception

As far as I know, there are around 7 described species of Spinosaurids. They are :
Baryonyx walkeri, Suchomimus tenerensis, Ichthyovenator laosensis, Siamosaurus suteethorni, Irritator challengeri, Oxalaia quilombensis, and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Only 3 out of those 7 species are known from associated hind limb material that shows plesiomorphic hind limb proportions, while the other 4 are known from either short legs, or no legs at all. It is therefore, within the realm of possibility, that Irritator and Oxalaia also possess reduced hind limbs given their phylogenetic proximity to Spinosaurus.

Evers et al. (2015) found that Sigilmassasaurus is a distinct genus from Spinosaurus, and that some of the vertebrae in Ibrahim et al.'s composite skeleton also belong to Sigilmassasaurus. Therefore, the reconstruction is a chimaera.

Firstly, only the cervical vertebrae have been referred to Sigilmassaurus. Just because the cervicals belonged to a potentially different species does not mean that the entire reconstruction is now wrong. It just means that we don't know the proportions of its neck anymore, but the pelvis and hind limbs as well as the dorsals and skull fragments still hold.
For example, the skull of the holotype Apatosaurus was based on Camarasaurus, but only the skull. No one at the time seriously suggested that the entire Apatosaurus specimen must have been a chimaera, since it was only the skull that was the problem.

Plus, Andrea Cau has even demonstrated that Sigilmassasaurus may not be a distinct genus at all, but merely a second species of Spinosaurus. Sigilmassasaurus is not known from any hind limb material either, so you know where this is going.

Spinosaurus is too big to survive solely on fish, it must have hunted on land, too!

Giant physteroid whales are literally over 5 times larger than Spinosaurus, yet they survive entirely on soft bodied cephalopods and other aquatic vertebrates. Plus, the fish that Spinosaurus hunted varied in size from ~4 meter long giant Actinistians such as Mawsonia, to 8-meter long Chondrichthyans weighing over 2.5 tons such as Onchopristis numidus. So the whole "It's too big to sustain itself on fish only" argument is stupid.

Plus, if Spinosaurus was indeed a predator of large, terrestrial animals, then we should expect it to have similar adaptations to predators of large prey. Such as : ziphodont dentition, a robust, oreinorostral skull, laterally wide jaws, and a muscular neck. Spinosaurus has none of these, and its prey-acquisition adaptations are similar to those of modern fisher birds and piscivorous Ghavials.

There's also its alleged capability to swipe its forelimbs like a bear, and that it is apparently faster than a T. rex, but those can wait.

[Infinity Blade]

Speaking of bears and arm swipes (my replies are in orange):

Actually Super Communist, a paw would do some damage. Having hooked claws 10-20 cm long [citation needed, especially for the figure for the claw length.], a couple of paw swipes would leave some rather obvious, bloody scars on Majungasaurus' face [if by that you mean (likely superficial) flesh wounds that would be far from crippling, then sure, I suppose.]. The jaws of the Giant Short-Faced Bear were also quite powerful. The jaws were perfectly evolved for crushing large bones and tearing flesh apart [Its jaw and dental morphology, descriptions of how its jaws possessed herbivorous adaptations, and a 2013 study (published after this quote was made, so that's understandable, admittedly) of the dental microwear of Rancho La Brean specimens showing inconsistencies with bone-crushing suggest otherwise.] It's [sic] muzzle was shorter than a modern bear's muzzle [this is actually more of an illusion created by its deep snout.], meaning it had to go in closer to get a good bite in. But Arctodus also had a wider jaw, meaning it could produce a more powerful bite. Some sources (I forget them) said Arctodus could bite down with a force of about 9,000 newtons. [Hearsay. 'Nuff said.]

[Infinity Blade]

There was a thread on Carnivora that Mantrid created about Spinosaurus and whatnot. In that thread, some user made some claims, I went on to try and refute them, then I went in for a second shot, as I felt my first replies weren't really that in depth. The only thing I changed were the emoticons and replaced them with similar ones on here (as Carnivora's emoticons obviously don't work here).

Let me take another shot at this rubbish.

Honestly, I think spinosaurus is underrated because people apply normal theropod rules to it. An animal like that probably had way sharper teeth than tyrannosaurus or whatever else did, and with it's [sic] long neck I could see it striking and using it's [sic] teeth to give horendous [sic] lacerations to anything messing with it.

Kind of like seabirds. Yeah they eat fish and swallow everything whole, but they can mangle you a whole lot worse and faster than just about any other bird beak can.

I should have mentioned. I love how you just assumed that Spinosaurus "had way sharper teeth than tyrannosaurus or whatever else did" without any reference whatsoever. I've seen nothing to suggest a fresh-from-the-oven Tyrannosaurus tooth would be any less pointed at the tip than a similarly new Spinosaurus tooth and if anything, the latter lacks the former's tooth serrations (although Tyrannosaurus' teeth weren't of the optimal design for cutting due to their laterally-thickened shape, I think the serrated carinae could still cut with sufficient force). If "whatever else" refers to other predatory theropods, you couldn't be any farther from the truth, as a conical tooth with no carinae whatsoever simply isn't sharper (let alone to a far greater degree) than a labiolingually-flattened, serrated, and pointed tooth. It's actually like saying ice is way hotter than fire!

They certainly won't be causing "horendous [sic] lacerations"


Although the "teeth" were powered by a human (which would be light years weaker than a giant theropod's jaw and neck muscles), it puts into perspective the functional morphology of the teeth of Spinosaurus (which you seem to be ignorant of). The teeth DID NOT CUT WHATSOEVER, as they're not morphologically designed for it.

And although it looks as if Spinosaurus had a bit of a long neck for a theropod, it's still not to a *really large* degree, thus it doesn't look long enough to really give it so huge of a reach advantage over other large theropods.



Lastly, swan-necked, physics-defying-toothed Spinosaurus or not, how is that outside of "normal theropod rules"? In the predatory non-avian theropod world, the jaws and neck tend to form the central weapon and all you basically did was give a (BS) interpretation of the formidability of Spinosaurus' jaws in conjunction with the matter of its neck's reach. That's within "normal theropod rules"!

Yes, but that doesn't matter really. Plenty of animals have teeth that are pretty conical but that can still slash though [sic] you like butter. Spinosaur jaws always reminded me of morays, which have delicate looking conical teeth but bite insanely hard and probably have one of the most horrific bites of just about anything.

Indeed? Then why the hell do animals evolve lateromedially compressed, recurved, and carinated teeth in the first place when they can supposedly just cut through things with teeth that lacked all of the aforementioned characteristics?

Conical-toothed animals that manage to create extensive soft tissue damage also do not cut through things "like butter". They actually take some time and effort.

Finally, your moray eel analogy fails, as the two animals have radically different skull morphologies.

I just can't picture spinosaurus NOT having a really powerful bite somehow. I mean big fish are stupidly strong, it would have needed to have been able to hang on to them and that's not even counting armor or etc.

*sigh, the ignorance. I can't see how people can possibly think this



could produce a particularly forceful bite, especially relatively speaking.

Man, you'd think everyone here understands the well-established facts regarding these animals ...

[Cross]

Since you brought up the idea of revisiting one's own rebuttals in order to find a way to make them more in-depth, I think I'll do so right now.

AFGThugonomics claimed this (the following is simply a paraphrasing of what he said) :

Since Ibrahim et al.'s composite skeleton used the bones of other spinosaurids to fill in some of the missing areas, this means that it's a chimaera

And he says this in a nonchalant manner, as if to imply that everyone else is automatically blind and ignorant to not realize that using the bones of other relatives to complete a reconstruction automatically makes that said reconstruction a chimaera.
Now, he does have somewhat of a point, but based on my experience with him, he uses a very loose definition of the word "Chimaera". In paleontology, the term is used to refer to an animal specimen found in matrix that is actually comprised of the bones of multiple different animals. It's not used to refer to a reconstruction based on phylogenetic bracketing where the proportions of an animal are inferred based on more complete relatives.

And that's exactly my point. Spinosaurus is not the only animal with which most of its propo
rtions were inferred based on phylogenetic bracketing. Paleontologists do this literally all the time with other species. Scott Hartman's skeletal of Puertasaurus reuili, for example, is actually just 1-2% based on the known material and 98% of it is based on Futalognkosaurus dukei. His skeletal of Giganotosaurus is actually just a composite of the holotype specimen in an articulated pose with most of the skull and vertebrae based heavily on Mapusaurus and Tyrannotitan. 

If anything, the 2003-2013 reconstructions of Spinosaurus such as the one in Planet Dinosaur is more deserving of the title "Chimaera" since those reconstructions were just based on the fragmentary MSNMv-4047 and IPHG (BSP) 1912 VIII 19, while 80% of it was just inferred and scaled up from Baryonyx, Suchomimus, and Irritator.

Baryonyx, Suchomimus, and Ichthyovenator are all relatives of Spinosaurus and they show no signs of hind limb reduction. It makes no sense for Spinosaurus to have short legs.

This is an Appeal to Majority fallacy. I.E The structuring of the argument is a simple

"Everyone is doing X, therefore, X must be true *proceeds to completely reject idea Y*"

We have evidence of hind limb reduction in 2 specimens of Spinosaurus, and no evidence for any long-legged members of this genus exist. It's not out of the question for Spinosaurus to be an exception to the plesiomorphic state of spinosaurids. There are many clades of animals where one of the most derived taxa of that lineage show exceptions to the plesiomorphic state of the clade (e.g Naked primates, limbless tetrapods, armored sauropods, bone-crushing mosasaurs).

Just for the record, I could go on rebutting his Ad Homimem, Ad Ignorantium, Red Herring, Strawman, and Argentum ad numeram fallacies since this AFGThugonomics guy is the personification of logical fallacies. The dude is a walking logical fallacy, based on my experience with him. But I don't have the time nor the commitment to write an extremely long rebuttal and post it here.

[creature386]

The ironical part is that there are indeed claims of Ibrahim et al.'s reconstruction being based on a chimera (although completely different from his description), but as the ontological stage of both animals is likely the same and Nizar Ibrahim explained why the chimera is unlikely in a comment under Hartman's blog, this is obviously no argument to ignore all recent evidence and to stick dogmatically to the old Spinosaurus.

Nice rebuttals of course guys.

[Venomous Dragon]

Nov 27, 2015 11:11:29 GMT 5 Cross said:

Uhh, would the teeth be able to puncture as deeply if they had lips? I don't think so, and this is one of the reasons I find the lipped-theropod hypothesis implausible.
This is coming from a hominid mammal who's tried to bite deeply into food before, and my lips always hinder my ability to sink my teeth deeply (particularly when I'm eating something like watermelon, chicken, or a burger).

I'm not saying theropods had lips but the idea that lips would prevent them from biting deeply into their prey is pretty hilarious.
Lips are not the reason you can't bite deeply into food items it's your dentition and jaw morphology that limit your ability to bite deeply.

Dogs have lips and don't have this problem
Cats have lips and don't have this problem
Lizards have lips and don't have this problem etc etc etc

[Cross]

Dec 9, 2015 11:04:35 GMT 5 Venomous Dragon said:

Nov 27, 2015 11:11:29 GMT 5 Cross said:

Uhh, would the teeth be able to puncture as deeply if they had lips? I don't think so, and this is one of the reasons I find the lipped-theropod hypothesis implausible.
This is coming from a hominid mammal who's tried to bite deeply into food before, and my lips always hinder my ability to sink my teeth deeply (particularly when I'm eating something like watermelon, chicken, or a burger).

I'm not saying theropods had lips but the idea that lips would prevent them from biting deeply into their prey is pretty hilarious.
Lips are not the reason you can't bite deeply into food items it's your dentition and jaw morphology that limit your ability to bite deeply.

Dogs have lips and don't have this problem
Cats have lips and don't have this problem
Lizards have lips and don't have this problem etc etc etc

Oh...yeah, that's probably why I can't bite deeply into food.


Well, this is embarrassing....

[Infinity Blade]

More hogwash from the guy I previously refuted.

Me:

Let me see if I interpreted you correctly. You think the shark has a more damaging bite simply because it's adapted to slice better? That's like saying the alligator has the more damaging bite simply because it's adapted to crush better.

His reply:

You interpreted me correctly.
Slicing bites are much more damaging than crushing ones, at least to humans.
Assuming no deathrolling is involved, having a gator clamp down on your hand is going to suck, but its not going to be as bad as sticking your hand into a shark's mouth and have it get shredded. Gator teeth are meant to clamp down, they aren't meant to slice something apart and run it.

Assuming the exact same amount of pressure was involved, would you rather slam your hand in a car door, or jam it into a meat slicer?

And here's my response:

You interpreted me correctly.

In that case, you've got a really fallacious and ignorant view regarding the nature of these jaw apparatuses, just like every other person who thinks one type of bite is overall better than the other.

Slicing bites are much more damaging than crushing ones, at least to humans.

No. Just no.

Assuming no deathrolling is involved, having a gator clamp down on your hand is going to suck, but its [sic] not going to be as bad as sticking your hand into a shark's mouth and have it get shredded. Gator teeth are meant to clamp down, they aren't meant to slice something apart and run [sic] it.

Err, no.

You're not going to get your hand shredded by a shark's jaws/dentition if it just bites down (just as you proposed for the alligator); such an action will only create puncture wounds. It's only going to get mangled once it starts shaking and whatnot. Keeping this in mind, how would it be fair to not take into account deathrolling on the alligator's part?

A slicing bite is deadlier because it'll be far better for shredding and whatnot? This is the same logic "crushing bite fanboys" will use to put forward their opinions (and I love how you're using it); that a crushing bite is far better at wrecking your bones, it will supposedly be more damaging.

Assuming the exact same amount of pressure was involved, would you rather slam your hand in a car door, or jam it into a meat slicer?

Correction: force.

And this misses the point of a crushing bite. They tend to have far more force than a slicing bite, which makes up for the fact that their dentition is not as well-adapted for creating extensive soft tissue damage. Assuming equal forces, of course a meat slicer would be more damaging, duh. Try applying a significantly greater amount of force for the car door (the "crushing" analogue). On top of that, why don't you apply some sharp objects (acting as teeth) along with it?

[creature386]

I am wondering if anything from Asadas would fit here (as he is really annoying on carnivora right now), but I doubt it for two reasons:
1. His claims are getting debunked all the time.
2. They'd rather fit in a thread about not even wrong answers.

[Ceratodromeus]

Nov 26, 2015 9:15:26 GMT 5 Cross said:

Nov 25, 2015 18:14:44 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Um, what about the skin impressions of Wyrex? Aren't those considered scaly in a way?

Yes, but these are from the ventral side of the body. Even animals with feathers usually are featherless on the ventral side of their bodies. 
How large is that skin patch? I can't seem to find any of the papers describing it. 

"Even animals with feathers usually are featherless on the ventral side of their bodies."
You sure about that one?