False scientific claim rebuttal thread.

[Cross]

Dec 12, 2015 7:35:52 GMT 5 Ceratodromeus 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. 

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

Should have been more specific. I was referring to Kulindadromeus and Ornithomimus since they are fluffy on top and scaly on the bottom. Yutyrannus and Dilong have the same integument pattern as well. Sorry, not much of an avian dinosaur expert.

[Ceratodromeus]

@cross alright, that makes more sense 
I posted this elsewhere,mpertaining to water monitor sizedealing with the wikipedia page

A common mature weight of V. salvator can be 19.5 kg (43 lb)

I'm not sure where this even originates, but The wikipedia page lists two sources
-Shine, R.; Harlow, P. S.; Keogh, J. S. (1996). "Commercial harvesting of giant lizards: The biology of water monitors Varanus salvator in southern Sumatra". Biological Conservation 77 (2-3): 125–134.
-Water Monitor Lizard (Varanus salvator) at Pak Lah’s House | Mutakhir

The latter is a single individual, a photograph, which appears to be a rather large animal. I would hardly say this supports the statement on the wikipedia page.

They cite Shine et.al(1996) to support this statement as well, but as we can see from the screenshots placed earlier( see below ) in this post, a common(average) weigh for adult males is approx. 3.2kg, based on a sample of 80 individuals, with the largest weighing~11kg.

Another study from the same area by the same authors similarly estimated mean body mass for mature specimens at 20 kg (44 lb)

The paper cited for this statement
- Shine, R., & Harlow, P. S. (1998). Ecological traits of commercially harvested water monitors, Varanus salvator, in northern Sumatra. Wildlife Research, 25(4), 437-447.
So, I've taken pertinent screenshots from this paper to show that this statement is never actually stated within it






This next one shows the adult male snout-ventral length distribution


As we can see, this corroborates the findings of Shine et.al(1996), which show that most adult males fall in between 50-60(average of ~56cm SVL), which in turn will have an animal weigh ~3kg. These findings also show that animals that measure north of 90cm in snout-ventral length are very rare in te sample, with only a few individuals in the demographic. Thus, the claim that a common weight for mature males is 20kg, is now nullified.

[Ceratodromeus]

A post i constructed today Regarding record lemon sharks

Wikipedia said

The maximum recorded length and weight is 3.43 m (11.3 ft) and 183.7 kg (405 lb), respectively

So, upon doing some research on lemon sharks for a profile i was contributing to, i found this via  Coastal Fishing the Carolinas(By Robert Goldstein)

Which immidiately grabbed my attention, as i had only known of the 405lb figure courtesy of wikipedia.
Upon doing research(unfortunately i have yet to come across any photographs..), this record seems to be verified through multiple websites-
- Link 1
- link 2

the official weight for this specimen in question appears to be 421lbs,8oz(191.18kg, for those of you who like it metric).
Here is the original newspaper article describing the catch -- what is interesting is this appears to be an empty stomach measurement.

That's a big animal!

[creature386]

I'm not sure if Wikipedia entries really belong here, since errors can be easily fixed if discovered and I believe they'd accept it if you have enough evidence for your claims (which you have).

[Cross]

"Ever since he saw the movie "Jaws", Seawell said he has been fishing for sharks. For those who saw that movie or its sequel, it's a relief to see humans winning at least one battle./ "

This is stupid. So because you feared the fictional, film-representation of the animal, you must defend your delusions of being the superior species by hunting down the real-life versions of the animal? Those real-life versions being the ones that rarely ever attack humans and have been on this planet far longer than humans?
This is exactly why the scientific community urges creature films to depict animals accurately. Now we have the general public thinking that sharks are merciless killers, Velociraptor is 5 meters long, 2-meters tall and featherless, and they also think Indominus rex is a real dinosaur.

Have any of you guys seen the Crocodile film "Rogue"? It's a creature, thriller and the saltwater crocodile in the film was actually pretty accurate in terms of size, appearance and behavior (the individual in the film was a rogue male, which is why it stalked the protagonists on the small island and lived in a cave).

[Infinity Blade]

"Elephants are faster than T. rex."

People who say this clearly don't know how either a T. rex or an elephant works.

Some people who claim this believe that elephants can move up to ~40 km/h (~25 mph) and cite some study claiming T. rex to have had a top speed of ~18 mph or so. They don't realize that the maximum reliably recorded speed for elephants is 6.8 m/s (24.48 km/h; 15.2 mph), ergo, they are at least 10 miles an hour slower than they're commonly stated to be. And this speed was achieved by an immature bull Asian elephant of ~2.8 tonnes; adults can be expected to be even slower (see below for available speed figures). Reports of speeds claiming 9.5-11 m/s (34.2-39.6 km/h; 21.3-24.6 mph) are exaggerations.

Furthermore, elephants are not anatomically adapted to be fast. Quite the opposite actually; they are established graviportal animals.

Columnar, unflexed legs with inflexible ankles and short feet prevent elephants from reaching a full run, thus limiting them to a top speed of about 25 km/h (Paul 2000; Hutchinson et al. 2003). Elephants are not slow because they are gigantic-even juvenile elephants are no faster than the adults-but because they are anatomically adapted to be slow, a result of having descended from semiaquatic herbivores and living in a world free of gigantic predators. A major portion of the mass of mammalian megaherbivores (sensu Owen-Smith 1988) is concentrated in the plant-fermenting gut. About 10 to 20% of a large, healthy herbivore's mass consists of forage and feces (Robertson-Bullock 1962; Short 1963). Because rhino legs are so short, the small locomotor muscle mass is apparently a large portion of total mass. The limited available data suggest [sic] that elephants do not have large leg muscles (Robertson-Bullock 1962), and their limb anatomy is not able to effectively convert their power into speed.

Adult tyrannosaurids descended from and grew up from fast runners, and they were probably empty-bellied, flexed-limbed predators with mobile ankles that emphasized nonlocomotor weight reduction in favor of expanded leg muscles. The 1- to 3-tonne Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus had much longer, more distally gracile, birdlike legs than similar-sized rhinos, and they were the most speed adapted tetrapods in their size class. It is improbable that they were slower, and may have been actually faster, than rhinos. T. bataar and T. rex were only two or three times heavier than Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus, and they possessed the same ratitelike running adaptations. Hence, the speed potential of giant tyrannosaurids was not lower than [that of] their lesser relatives on a morphological basis, and they were uniquely speed adapted for their size class. The anatomy of T. rex was adapted to exploit the maximum practical power production of its enormous leg muscles, weighing between 1.2 and 2.4 tonnes, to produce speed. There is simply no comparison between the locomotor apparatus of the similar-sized giants.

Larson, P.L., Carpenter, K. (2008). Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King (pp. 323-324 & p. 378). Indiana University Press.

There is a correlation between muscle attachment area and speed among birds and mammals. Fast running cheetah, canids, gazelles and horses have more mass than slower cattle and goats (Taylor et al., 1974; Hoppler et al., 1987). In slow elephants and humans the ilium is not long, and anchors a narrow thigh musculature. Faster running mammals and birds have longer ilia that anchor a broader, more powerful thigh musculature. Birds have large cnemial crests and hypotarsi that anchor a powerful "drumstick" shank musculature.

Paul, G.S. (1998). Limb design, function and running performance in ostrich-mimics and tyrannosaurs. Gaia, 257-270.

They [elephants] are the classic example of a graviportal animal, possessing massive pillar-like legs for supporting their weight (Gray, 1968). They walk or amble rather than run.

Langman, V.A., Roberts, T.J., Black, J., Maloiy, G.M.O., Heglund, N.C., Weber, J.-M., Kram, R., Taylor, C.R. (1995). Moving cheaply: energetics of walking in the African elephant. The Journal of Experimental Biology 198, 629-632.

Big gallopers today possess strong knee muscles that attach to the kneecap and shank in such a way that the knee joint opens and closes under tremendous muscular power. A bony ridge, the cnemial (silent c here: "nee-mee-al") crest, marks the point of attachment for the knee tendons, and one can directly gauge the muscle power of a knee from the size of a cnemial crest. Elephants, turtles, and salamanders are all slowpokes in their body-size classes and all have puny knee muscles and low cnemial crests on the shank bone. Rhinos have big cnemial crests, as do other large-bodied gallopers, such as water buffalo, giraffe, bison, and gaur. Big crests would also mean big calf muscles. All dinosaurs had bigger cnemial crests than do elephants, even those groups with relatively straight hind legs—the giant horned dinosaurs, stegosaurs, and brontosaurs. When these systems of oversized knee muscles contracted, the power exerted on the hind paw would have had no equal today. The biggest meat-eater, three ton-plus Tyrannosaurus, had an absolutely huge cnemial crest, even by dinosaurian standards.

A quite different approach to the question of dinosaur speed is provided by calculating the maximum strength of the bone shafts of the limbs. Legs do break in nature, and evolution usually outfits a species with bone shafts strong enough to withstand the highest strains imposed when muscles contract. Rhinos have relatively stout, thick-shafted legs. Elephants feature a more spindly design. To measure the shaft strength of dinosaur limbs, I constructed scale models in clay of the life appearance of various species. I then calculated the live weight by measuring the volume of the model (most land animals are a little less dense than water, so live weight is about 95 percent of the body's volume in water). Brontosaurs and stegosaurs were somewhat thin-thighed, and in cross section their bones are about as thick as we would expect in an elephant of similar size. But Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus, and the other predators were much more massively shafted, far stronger in girth of bone, and these dinosaurs could exert positively prodigious force through their limbs without fear of fracture.

Bakker, R.T. ( 1986). The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction, pp. 217-218.

Figure 1A is a comparison of humeral length and total forelimb length to body mass in mammals and ceratopsian dinosaurs, the latter given as the combined lengths of humerus, radius and the longest metacarpal. Total forelimb length in mammals shows negative allometry with size. Additionally, large species have even shorter limbs than predicted, presumably as a means of preserving limb bone strength by reducing the size of the lever arm of the bending and torsional moments of the diaphyses (Christiansen, 1999a). However, the African elephant is long-limbed and has a total forelimb length close to the predicted value, probably due to the markedly decreased locomotory performance of elephants compared to rhinos (Alexander et al., 1979b; Alexander & Pond, 1992). Having long limbs and rather slender diaphyses (Alexander et al., 1979a; Christiansen, 1997, 1999a, 1999b) at a large body mass makes running impossible, as the limb bones are not strong enough to allow running, as pointed out by Alexander et al. (1979b).

Christiansen, P., & Paul, G. S. (2001). Limb bone scaling, limb proportions, and bone strength in neoceratopsian dinosaurs. Gaia, 16, 13-29.

Despite proboscideans’ enormous weight, they do not have very developed limb musculature (Knight 1947; Haynes 1991; Paul 1997).

The inability of elephants and practically all proboscideans to perform true running with a suspended phase may be due to a combination of different factors or features: (i) the diaphysis of the femur and other long bones is larger in lateromedial than anteroposterior diameters (Christiansen 2007); (ii) the cnemial crest of the tibia is relatively poorly developed, indicating that the muscles attached there are not as strong as in other running animals such as rhinos and horses (Haynes 1991); (iii) the ilium is realtively short and therefore not suitable for big muscle attachments (Paul 1998), indicating a low ratio between limb muscle mass and total body mass (Taylor et al. 1974; Weibel et al. 1987); (iv) the proximal segments of the appendicular skeleton (scapula/humerus humerus/ulna and pelvis/femur) are poorly flexed; (v) the relatively long humerus and femur, short tibia and the composition of the manus and pedi with very short and relatively rigid distal elements (especially metacarpals and metatarsals) and big pads are not suitable for a strong propulsive phase of the limb stroke. All these characteristics are highly divergent from those of most running mammals and birds (Paul 1998, 2009; Christiansen and Paul 2000; Christiansen 2007) and have more influence than the high body mass of elephants because calf and juvenile individuals are also unable to perform true running

Source: Larramendi, A. (2016). Shoulder height, body mass, and shape of proboscideans. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 61 (3): 537–574.



In sum, aside from their great body mass, elephants are unable to run fast because 1.) most of their leg joints are too inflexible to provide the leverage to propel their bodies forward at high speed, 2.) their leg musculature is not very well developed or powerful for their size, and 3.) their leg bones are neither robust enough nor appropriately shaped for withstanding the stresses imparted by high speed running. Although the information above already provided some information on tyrannosaurids, here's more information on how they compared.

Here's an illustration of knee flexion and articulation in a tyrannosaurid and similarities to birds (D), as well as a comparison of elephant (left) knee flexion compared to that of a horse (middle) and a tyrannosaurid (right) (B).

Paul, G.S. (1998).

The astragular condyles were large rollers (probably enlarged by cartilage surfaces as in non-mature birds) that allowed the tarsometatarsus to rotate through an arc of about 150°, from nearly straight to nearly collapsed relative to the tibia-fibula (Fig. 4F). The foot was long in these theropods. Therefore the foot had the excursion arc and length needed to propel the body into a suspended phase in ornithomimids and tyrannosaurids small and gigantic.

Ornithomimids and tyrannosaurids had typical theropodian, cylindrical, hinge action hip, knee, and ankle joints. These were not identical to those of birds, but were very similar and should have offered similar speed potential. Hindlimb joints were larger in theropods than in birds even when the subjects weigh about the same. This may have been an adaptation for retaining cartilagenous [sic] joints through life, and into gigantic dimensions.

Limb design, function and running performance in ostrich-mimics and tyrannosaurs. Gaia, 257-270.



The leg muscles were very powerful. In fact, the amount of space for leg musculature was even greater than in many other theropods.

Regardless, T. rex probably had hip and thigh muscles relatively larger than any extant animal's. Overall, the limb “antigravity” muscles may have been as large as or even larger than those of ratite birds, which themselves have the most muscular limbs of any living animal.

Hutchinson, J. R., Bates, K. T., Molnar, J., Allen, V., & Makovicky, P. J. (2011). A computational analysis of limb and body dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with implications for locomotion, ontogeny, and growth. PLoS One, 6(10), e26037.

Interestingly, this same paper above also has a table comparing Tyrannosaurus with some modern amniotes (Table 10->). Of particular note here is the percentage of body mass dedicated to leg extensor muscles. In Tyrannosaurus, the percentage of body mass devoted to leg extensor muscles in one leg was estimated to range from ≤14.6–25.4%. In Elephas, the percentage of body mass devoted to leg extensor muscles in both one hindlimb and one forelimb combined is 6.7%.

The ilial plate that the thigh muscles anchored upon was similarly large-and larger than in most other theropods-in ornithomimids and tyrannosaurids of all sizes. The shank musculature also appears to have been powerful. Proximally, the cnemial crest was well developed over the entire size range. Distally, it has not been recognized that there was a true hypotarsus on metatarsal II in theropods; it was well developed in ornithomimids and tyrannosaurids regardless of size (Fig. 4E).

From Paul (1998), same as the one cited previously.

If you look at skeletons of other larger-bodied theropods, such as Acrocanthosaurus and Giganotosaurus and Carnotaurus and compare that to Tyrannosaurus you’ll find that the ilium occupies less space anteroposteriorly and dorsoventrally in the non-tyrants. Furthermore, unlike in most other large theropods the ilia of tyrannosaurids converge towards the midline, so that the muscles occupied an even greater volume (relative to body size) than the lateral view might suggest.

Blog post written by Dr. Thomas R. Holtz Jr. (vertebrate paleontologist)->


This musculature includes the beefy M. caudofemoralis muscles and other femur retractors, which elephants, of course, lack.

Because the M. caudofemoralis is the primary hind limb retractor, large M. caudofemoralis masses and the resulting contractile force and torque estimates presented here indicate a sizable investment in locomotive muscle among theropods with a range of body sizes and give new evidence in favor of greater athleticism, in terms of overall cursoriality, balance, and turning agility.

IV Persons, S.W., Currie, P.J. (2010). The Tail of Tyrannosaurus: Reassessing the Size and Locomotive Importance of the M. caudofemoralis in Non-Avian Theropods. The Anatomical Record, 119-131. doi: 10.1002/ar.21290


While elephant long bones are wider lateriomedially than anteroposteriorly, giving them a cross sectional geometry inappropriate for withstanding bending stresses while running in a straight line, the long bones of Tyrannosaurus are more or less circular in cross section, which allows them to withstand bending/torsional stresses from linear running better.

From Paul (1998), same as the one cited previously.

Likewise, the tyrannosaurid arctometatarsalian pes was a shock-absorbing structure, both for cursoriality (and agility).

Morphometric analysis indicates that the arctometatarsalian structure is significantly more elongate and gracile than underived metatarsi, and this structure is associated with relatively elongate distal hind limbs per unit femoral length. When compared with limb proportions of modem and extinct mammals and flightless birds, these limb proportions are seen to be consistent with a hypothesis of enhanced cursoriality in the derived theropods. In some genera, intrametatarsal mobility in this structure may have served as an energy storage system analogous to the snap-ligaments of modem equids. The wedge-and-buttress morphology would have resulted in a more direct transmission of locomotory forces to the epipodium than in less derived theropods. Biomechanical analysis indicates that this type of relatively gracile pes was not significantly weaker than pedes of underived theropods with regards to bending stresses, due to elongation into the parasagittal plane. To the contrary, these metatarsi were well designed to withstand the forces and stresses associated with enhanced cursorial ability.

Holtz Jr, T. R. (1995). The arctometatarsalian pes, an unusual structure of the metatarsus of Cretaceous Theropoda (Dinosauria: Saurischia). Journal of vertebrate Paleontology, 14(4), 480-519.

Another possibility is that the tensile keystone morphology conferred heightened agility for a given body mass. As such, the arctometatarsus may have been broadly analogous to the stiffened tails of dromaeosaurid coelurosaurs (Ostrom, 1969), which have been suggested as dynamic stabilizers. Because there was no anteriorly propulsive component to the elastic rebound of ligaments, third metatarsal constriction did not directly avail increased speeds. Instead, the unifying and shear-resisting properties of the arctometatarsus may have absorbed forces involved in linear deceleration, lateral acceleration, and torsion more effectively than the feet of other theropods. These forces are limiting factors to combat performance in humans (Snively: pers. obs. in open hand and weapons sparring) and the arctometatarsus may have imparted momentarily excessive construction (Gans, 1974) for selectively crucial behaviors, such as predation or escape.

Snively, E., & Russell, A. P. (2003). Kinematic model of tyrannosaurid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) arctometatarsus function. Journal of Morphology, 255(2), 215-227.

Energy was transferred from the wedge-like middle metatarsal to the outer elements of the foot, where it was absorbed by ligaments, functionally unifying the metapodials and thus reducing the loads on the middle metatarsal during locomotion (Snively & Russel, 2002: p. 40).

This was from member theropod's thesis->.

Giant theropod leg bones have greater cross sections than the limb bones of elephants, conferring greater bending strength.

SPEED IN TYRANNOSAURS
BAKKER, Robert, Wyoming Dinosaur International Society, 1447 Sumac Ave., Boulder, CO 80304.

Competing theories about speed in giant theropods can be tested with combinations of scaling parameters, Recent analogues, and fossil footprints. Models based on elephant analogues are inferior to those based on rhinos, because all theropods agree with all rhinos in possessing: high flexure at all joints, permitting elastic rebound during fast runs; large cnemial crest, affording high leverage for knee extension during rebound; long, compact metatarsus with large calcaneum tuber or hypotarsus tuber, providing high leverage for ankle extension and long ankle-segment contribution to the stroke. For a given body mass, giant theropods possess greater strength to resist bending in the limbs than do elephants because the cross-section of the femur is greater than that of the elephant femur and humerus combined.

Tyrannosaurid footprints from the Lance Formation at Glenrock, Wyoming, show a cruising speed as high or higher than that of small theropods. There is no evidence that large theropods were slower, on average, than small theropods. Large theropod footprint speeds are much higher than those of mammoths and mastodons. Tyrannosaurs were not bipedal elephants.

www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/svp-abstracts/SVP%202002%20abstracts.pdf?fbclid=IwAR084DSrsX2SGFr9VppSHnrFM4mQ_CpMys9CDHXDzucGn3Rz7VIkRBt-Y4A


Archosaurs (e.g. Tyrannosaurus) and mammals (e.g. elephants) display differing trends in limb joint morphology with increasing size (Bonnan et al., 2013->). The former retain thick articular cartilage and gain wider joints, whereas the former develop thinner articular cartilage in favor of more congruent joint surfaces, such that even elephants have extremely narrow and thin articular cartilage between their leg joints (~6.7 and ~11.2 mm thick on the weight-bearing surfaces of the femur and tibia, respectively; Egger et al., 2008->). While this joint congruence helps with stress dissipation, the extremely thin cartilage between leg joints sounds disadvantageous for shock absorption. By contrast, Tyrannosaurus would still have congruent joints (in the cartilage), but also retain thick articular cartilage; Tsai et al. (2020)-> estimate that a 1280 mm Tyrannosaurus femur would have hyaline cartilage between 40.3-41 mm thick on the proximal femur. Interestingly, Tsai et al. demonstrate that giant theropod hip joints were suited to sustain both compressive and shear forces, in contrast to only compressive for sauropod hip joints; sauropods, like elephants, have a graviportal limb morphology. I think this might be further indication of the appendicular elements of giant theropods experiencing, and accordingly better suited to withstand, types of forces incurred during rapid locomotion.


So, you end up with two animals, one of which is clearly cursorial and the other clearly graviportal. Keeping that in mind, you'd have to know nothing about functional anatomy to think that latter's top speed would be close to the former's, let alone greater. Just to really hammer the point home, how about a comparison of speed figures for elephants compared to Tyrannosaurus and other massive theropods?

Like I said above, the fastest reliably recorded speed for elephants was 6.8 m/s for an immature Asian elephant bull that weighed ~2.8 tonnes. What about adults? Well, the best I could find was from Paul (1998) (the same Paul (1998) I cited above) below.

A racing large Asian elephant bull (in a video) won with a peak speed of 19 km.h^-1 (close to the 16 km.h^-1 speed for Loxodonta observed by Alexander et al., 1979b).

19 km/h is 5.28 m/s. This agrees with estimates for bachelor herds of African bush elephant, which have also been observed via satellite-linked GPS collars moving at speeds of up to 19 km/h (Ngene, 2010->). I don't know exactly how large the observed individuals in question were, but we may be able to get an idea. The Asian elephant bull was described as "large"; Asier Larramendi considers a bull Asian elephant weighing 4.6 to 5.1 tonnes to be "large" (Larramendi, 2016->). His study also considers average male African bush elephants to weigh as little as 5.2 tonnes, which is similar to 5.1 tonnes for a large bull Asian. Considering bachelor herds can be made up of both adult and still immature male elephants, I think it's safe to consider these elephants ambling at 19 km/h to be somewhere in the ~5 tonne range, give or take.

Below are mid-range speed estimates for three adult Tyrannosaurus rex specimens (with Giganotosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus for comparison) from Dececchi et al. (2020)-> (see table S6), who used an equation calculating maximum running speed from Hirt et al. (2017). All have been rounded to 3 sig. figs.

• T. rex specimen MOR 555: 7.60 m/s at 6072 kg
• T. rex specimen CM 9380: 7.28 m/s at 6986.6 kg
• T. rex specimen AMNH 5027: 7.28 m/s at 6986.6 kg
• A. atokensis specimen NCSM 14345: 7.56 m/s at 6177 kg
• G. carolinii specimen MUCPv-CH-1: 7.31 m/s at 6907.6 kg

Only the bare minimum figures for these theropods were lower than the 6.8 m/s achieved by the immature bull Asian elephant. Given the literal data dump of elephant vs theropod locomotor anatomy above, which clearly shows that elephants possess an anatomy that would preclude them from moving as fast as giant theropods, we should not take these at face value. Note that this same elephant individual was less than half the body mass of these theropods; similar sized theropods (two Gorgosaurus specimens and Sinraptor that weighed ~2.4 tonnes) that had their speed estimated in the same study were invariably faster than 6.8 m/s, being at minimum ~8.4-8.5 m/s, with mid-range speed estimates being ~10 m/s (and max speed estimates at ~10.4-10.5 m/s). On the other hand, the maximum speed estimates for the 6+ tonne theropods provided by the Hirt et al. equation are in the 8 m/s range or somewhat higher. Such figures are actually quite consistent with biomechanical models for Tyrannosaurus focusing on muscle strength and bone strength, which estimated it at 8 m/s (Sellers & Manning, 2007->) and 7.7 m/s (Sellers et al., 2017->), respectively. You do have to wonder if the fact that the estimates of two different biomechanical models, as well as these upper end estimates for bull bush elephant-sized theropods, all converge at approximately 8 m/s suggests that the higher end estimates are closer to the truth.

Bear in mind that these are not even the fastest speed estimates for Tyrannosaurus rex that may be within reason (if very approximately). Asier Larramendi (2019->) has calculated the speed of a 6.5 tonne T. rex at 34.2 km/h, with only the very large Sue being at 23.1 km/h (which, hey, is still faster than 19 km/h elephants).

[Ceratodromeus]

Jan 31, 2016 14:58:06 GMT 5 creature386 said:

I'm not sure if Wikipedia entries really belong here, since errors can be easily fixed if discovered and I believe they'd accept it if you have enough evidence for your claims (which you have).

i just figured out how easy wikipedia is to edit......one could say i'm behind in that matter

[Infinity Blade]

Would my rebuttal of Veronica Watson's dinosaur article belong here?

[creature386]

It has to do with dinosaurs, its pseudoscientific, it belongs here.

[Infinity Blade]

Alright folks, prepare yourselves for the ground shaking, mind blowing, top ten scientific facts that throw a complete wrench in the theory of dinosaurs (link)!!!

And by that I mean the brain cell killing, cancerous cesspool that is dinosaur denialism.

SPOILER: Click to show

Bear with me for a moment and assume for a second that evolution is true and that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. Now consider that the reason we don't see any is because at one point the Earth was hit by a giant asteroid that obliterated the Earth and caused all dinosaurs to become extinct simultaneously. There are several problems with such a theory.

Firstly, for an event of this magnitude to have occurred to wipe out all the dinosaurs (except deep-sea dinosaurs, which I will get to later), it would have to wipe out all the rest of life, too. There are major problems with this.

No, it wouldn't. Some organisms would have been better suited to surviving under the harsh conditions brought upon by the K-Pg event than others. Animals that could find shelter from harsh environmental conditions (e.g. crocodilians, mammals, birds) would have been much safer than those that couldn't (e.g. non-avian dinosaurs and pterosaurs). Differing metabolic rates and sizes would have allowed some animals to go longer without sustenance than others. And so on.

1) If evolution were to be true and this event occurred, then it would mean that evolution would have to have started over from scratch from that point. This throws a big wrench into evolutionary theory. It would have been better if you were trying to support evolution to not even try to support the idea of dinosaurs.

What's wrong with evolution "starting over from scratch"? As long as there are still lifeforms alive after an extinction event, starting over is pretty much what happens after a devastating environmental disaster occurs. Therefore, "starting over from scratch" is definitely NOT a concept that throws a big wrench into evolution; in fact, it actually describes what evolution does under a special circumstance (that is, after an extinction event).

What's even funnier is that you believe that for the K-Pg event to wipe out all dinosaurs (bar "deep sea dinosaurs", which never existed and really demonstrates just how much you know about the subject, i.e. little, if anything) it would have to wipe out all other lifeforms as well, yet here you are making a point about how evolution, if true, would then have to start from scratch at that point. How can you expect evolution to start from scratch if there's nothing* left alive?

*I know she mentions "deep sea dinosaurs" (certain non-dinosaurian marine reptiles) as survivors, but given how deep sea communities aren't impervious to environmental changes that can threaten the organisms living in them, I don't feel a need to take these creatures into account.

2) Not to mention that all humans would also have been wiped out, so let's not even get into the red herring fallacies that try to argue how dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously.

...What...are you rambling on about? There were no humans back then to get wiped out by the event. The closest things to humans living in that point in time were human ancestors in the form of tiny mammals that had a realistic shot at surviving the K-Pg event. Also, "fallacies that try to argue how dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously"? You're the one saying that then-nonexistent-humans would have to have been wiped out by the K-Pg event, I don't know why the hell you're bringing up BS notions of non-avian dinosaurs living with humans.

3) If such an event were to occur, it would mean that there would be archaeological evidence of a period of time, perhaps many millions of years, in which no life existed on Earth except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures. However, no such archaeological evidence exists.

Correction: there would be paleontological (NOT archaeological; people seriously need to learn the difference between these two sciences) evidence that life was limited in both quantity and diversity and did not see the evolution of significantly different lifeforms, only rebounding until later on. And contrary to that last statement that you probably pulled out of your ass, evidence exists for this. For example, it's been claimed that mammals did not produce descendants over 10-100 kilograms in weight until hundreds of thousands to several million years after the K-Pg event (Alroy, 1998). Lo and behold, more recent research seems to support this. Mammals that survived the K-Pg event tended to weigh ~0.5 kg. It took them 100,000 years to reach 6 kg. It took them 300,000 years to reach 25 kg, as well as evolve the first purely herbivorous mammalian species. And it took them 700,000 years to reach 50 kg (link->).

Secondly, with the probability of evolution occurring being so astronomically high that the possibility is not only 0 but far in the negative (not even going to get into this in this post), then the possibility that evolution could start life over, in the exact same way, from the exact same biological principles, a second time is just so astronomically absurd it's just not even funny anymore.

We're talking literally there are not enough numbers in the universe, times itself, to the power of itself, times infinity, to support how many zeroes would be required on the end of "one in x" chance of happening. In fact, the English language (or any language) does not even have a conception, not to mention a word, to describe how astronomically slim utterly ridiculous the chances of this occurring are. In other words, it suffices to say that this is simply impossible to have occurred.

NO, IT'S NOT!!! The fundamental mechanics of evolution would not simply cease to operate just because a mass extinction that still fails to kill off about a quarter of all life living just before it happens! That's not how it works at all!

SPOILER: Click to show

Yes, elephants exist, and elephants are large. However, an elephant, which is a fraction of the size of a Brontosaurus, has to eat for 18 hours every day in order to survive. However, even in ancient times, there was still only 24 hours within each 24 hour period (basic logic).

Since an elephant can't survive without eating 18 hours per day every day, and a Brontosaurus was supposedly 5 to 10 times larger than an elephant, then a brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per day. Yes, you read that right, and it's not a typo. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day.

Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close. That means that it could never even reach full size. That would be impossible. It makes no sense for a creature which could never get larger than a baby to even exist in the first place.

1.) You're naïve if you think the amount of food an animal needs to eat really has such a simple, linear relationship with body mass. While larger animals need to consume absolutely larger amounts of food than smaller animals, they actually need relatively less food for their size than do smaller fauna. That's because the larger an animal is, the less active the mitochondria in its cells are; that is to say, it has a lower metabolism. Of course, some animals have much higher metabolisms than others even at the same body mass (e.g. "ectothermic" non-avian reptiles vs. "endothermic" mammals), so this isn't a perfect relationship, but it's a good rule of thumb, especially when you aren't comparing "ectotherms" to "endotherms". And because non-avian dinosaurs are believed to have been as metabolically active as modern mammals and birds at the most (I mean, animals don't get more "endothermic" than these), it would actually help my case for the viability of giant dinosaurs (like the sauropods) if their metabolisms were indeed relatively less than in mammals or birds (admittedly though, even if they were, I don't think it would be to anywhere near the extent of modern reptiles compared to mammals; but that's okay, it doesn't need to be).

The Etruscan shrew is the smallest mammal alive today by body mass (just 1.8 grams). As is the case with small animals, it has quite a lot of surface area compared to not very much volume. Its mitochondria need to run on overdrive to prevent it from freezing at such a small size; as a result, it has an extreme need for energy. It will starve to death if it goes so much as 4 hours without food.

Large animals, in order to not overheat at their large sizes (the opposite problem from that of small animals), have much less active mitochondria, and therefore don't need to eat as much food for their size. An African elephant may need to eat absolutely far more than an Etruscan shrew, but the elephant needs just 4% of its body mass in food each day to survive. The shrew needs 3x its own body mass in food each day.



While a sauropod would need absolutely more food than an elephant, it would need to eat much less of its body mass in food to survive each day.

2.) Your assertion that even if large sauropods ate at a much quicker rate than modern elephants* and even if they did nothing but eat that they would not reach the climax of their potential size is simply unfounded. I presume this is out of the sheer incredulity you have for the idea of land animals reaching such grand scales.

*Which it seems that they did, seeing as how these animals did not chew, let probably vast digestive chambers extract the maximum amount of nutrition possible, and simply moved on to munch on more vegetation with their long necks giving them access to more food without moving.

However, this isn't even the real problem with the existence of giant plant-eating creatures. The real problem is that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).

Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. Take the following excerpt:

"The rapid spread of the rabbit led to the destruction of large tracts of vegetation, leading to the extinction of many plant species. Loss of vegetation leads to soil erosion as the exposed soil is washed or blown away, removing valuable soil nutrients required for new plants to develop. This soil is typically deposited in waterways, causing siltation and destroying aquatic ecosystems (Rabbit Problems, n.d.)."

Consider the effect of just these tiny creatures. Now consider the daily consumption of one single plant-eating dinosaur. At 13 tons, a Mamenchisaurus, similar to a Brontosaurus, would have to have eaten 1,150 pounds of vegetation per day. This is probably equivalent to about 10,000 rabbits, maybe more (that number is just an educated guess).

If a few thousand rabbits can destroy entire ecosystems, then consider what billions of rabbits would do. There would be nothing left, for anyone. All plants would go extinct. That's what would happen if these massive dinosaurs roamed the Earth. There would not be any plants left to eat. Most plant species would go extinct.

Billions of rabbits? The sauropods? Why does it have to be billions of them? Giant sauropods could have been rare relative to much smaller animals wherever they lived given their enormous size. It's as simple as that.

Also, your use of Australia's rabbits as an example is risible. This assumes that the ecosystems giant sauropods lived in could not have had more plants and water available than in Australia. It's just one specific example in the modern world; the Serengeti's rivers for one don't dry up just because there are a whole bunch of zebras and wildebeest in the region. And the reason why is because, unlike Australia's rabbits, zebras and wildebeest are not recently-introduced, invasive species making themselves at home into an ecosystem that they did not originally evolve in (which has obvious adverse consequences).

Oh, and might I add one last thing? Even if giant sauropods were not possible (which they were) that doesn't mean the same holds true for other dinosaurs. As with any clade of animals that makes up such a huge portion of the terrestrial biota of a given time, Dinosauria would mostly have been composed of small animals (e.g. Microraptor). Dinosaurs as heavy as extant elephants would have been plausible as well. Hell, maybe dinosaurs as heavy as the largest terrestrial mammals that ever lived (which too are extinct) could be possible...unless, of course, you doubt these prehistoric mega-mammals (or any fossil mammal for that matter) existed either.

SPOILER: Click to show

First allow me to ask a question about that image you have under the title of point 8. Did you make it yourself? rolleyes

The perpetuation of Dinosaur theory, just like Evolutionary Theory and the Big Bang Theory, has become more of a religion, an orthodoxy, than a science. People are expected not to question it, no matter what, at the risk of losing their job, breaking their careers, losing friends, being shunned by family, and being ridiculed by anyone who refuses to think for themselves. If anyone attempts to present scientific evidence contrary to the popularly held view, it is immediately dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or a "crazy religionist".

That's just the kind of laughable, accusational drivel I'd expect to hear from an empty-skulled conspiracy nut like you. People do not get disgruntled by other people questioning the theories of evolution and the Big Bang or the former existence of dinosaurs because they want to adhere to beliefs they personally like. They do it because evolution, the Big Bang, and dinosaurs are so well-substantiated that they're not going to have much tolerance for ignoramuses who think they know what they're talking about but are really putting inane, erroneous arguments--some of which may have been refuted countless times before--on the table (like you!). It's no wonder (and completely understandable) why people like you are being dismissed as conspiracy nuts or delusional religious people.

Also, since when have people been coerced to believe in dinosaurs, evolution, and the Big Bang like their lives depend on it? Since when have the threats of losing jobs, ending careers, losing friends, and being ridiculed by family and other people ever existed? Oh wait, that's right, never!!! Only one of those three things is so widely believed by people that your chances of receiving expressions of disbelief are nearly certain, and that's the idea of the former existence of dinosaurs. Even then, none of the aforementioned threats will actually occur if people learn that you don't believe in dinosaurs, let alone evolution and the Big Bang, the validity of which is seen as much more ambiguous by the general public.

This is a big red flag. Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.

Good thing we can and have supported the view that dinosaurs once existed with evidence. So let me just say that the reason why we act the way we do towards people who question the existence of dinosaurs with nothing more than nonsense (which certainly aren't entirely composed of mere ad hominem fallacies) is because the existence of dinosaurs should be just as contentious as the fact that 1+1=2, i.e., not at all.

Also remember that very, very few people, probably a total of mere thousands of people out of the entire world population, have ever done any real hands-on research into any of the scientific areas to promote evolution, dinosaurs, etc.

Hmm, I'm not quite sure if there are only a mere thousands of evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, etc.

As a result, you must understand that most people who accept evolution are only believing it by faith, because they have not done the research for themselves. Reading something in a textbook does not count as research.

If by "believing by faith" you mean recognizing that evidence for it that thus far has not been refuted exists, then sure.

The bigger point here though is that this is a lousy crutch of an argument. With the same logic I can say something similar about say, the identity of canker sores (inspired by a real life personal experience): "People don't usually do genuine research on what canker sores are and thus they believe that canker sores are ulcers by faith. Reading claims on the Internet does not count as research".

If someone decides to write that men came from aliens (such as Scientology to some extent), you can't believe it just because everyone else does without researching for yourself. However, most people do not have the time, energy, money, or aptitude to do any real hands-on research for themselves, so they just believe what they read in their high school and college text books without questioning it.

Which kind of applies to everything else people read in high school and college...not just evolution.

This is a serious issue; but not only that, you must accept that as a result, these people are believing in evolution by having faith (in textbooks), which is a religious belief, not a scientific belief.

Let's all explain to Veronica over here what a religious belief is:

"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"
www.thefreedictionary.com/religious+belief

^That does not describe the theory of evolution.

However, keep in mind that despite the perception that most people believe in evolution and subsequent theories, that is untrue. In fact, most of the world is not atheistic; in fact as much as 80% to 90% of the world's population believes in some form of God.

Yes. And the majority of those believers actually believe in dinosaurs and a substantial amount of them believe in evolution. Therefore, your "lumping" of dinosaurs, evolution, and atheism as if they all necessarily go hand-in-hand is nonsense (and it also shows that your way of looking at them is, frankly, stereotypical).

The only reason it seems like more than 10% of the world believes in evolution is because evolutionists have a hold in the media and educational system.

On a more serious note, the fact that there are some countries around the world (e.g. the United States) where people debate on what (creation or evolution) should or shouldn't be taught goes straight against this (and it's also one thing that helps show that atheists aren't a loud minority).

In fact, as much as 90% of professors and educational instructors do not actually believe in evolution, but for fear of their job and career they are forced to teach it.

Nothing could be farther from your 90% figure. About 99.9% of scientists accept evolution.

It's just that the 10% or less of people who hold an Atheistic view on the world tend to speak louder than everyone else.

This has absolutely no basis whatsoever (also, ^^read above).

SPOILER: Click to show

The laws of physics and gravity prevents the existence of creatures as massive as dinosaurs. There have been many attempts to justify this, but the fact remains that without changing the laws of physics, it is not possible.

It seems to me as if you're pulling things out of thin air, especially with the second statement you made.

In fact, some even tried to change the laws of physics by suggesting that gravity was weaker in the prehistoric era. However, this notion is pseudoscience. Anyone who knows anything about physics can tell you that such a notion is pure fiction.

Due to the principles of gravity, mass, and the limitations of muscular anatomy in any life form, it would not be possible for any animal weighing more than 20,803 pounds to be able to lift its own weight (Holden, 1994). However, the Brontosaurus is supposed to weigh over 70,000 pounds, and other so-called sauropods are supposed to be many times larger than that.

What's funny is that Holden (1994) did not argue that giant sauropods did not exist. What's even funnier is that his explanation as to how sauropods were able to be so large is that, guess what...the gravity was reduced compared to today's (link)! This suggests that you either saw just that one thing that Holden said and went with it (though to be fair, his suggestion regarding Earth's gravity is indeed ridiculous) or that you decided to pick and choose what to believe from a man with such horrible methods (as I will explain below) in order for your point to hold up.

The bigger picture however is that Holden's conclusions are bollocks. Allow me to show you how he got to this conclusion.

How heavy can an animal still get to be in our world, then? How heavy would Mr. Kazmaier be at the point at which the square-cube problem made it as difficult for him just to stand up as it is for him to do 1000 lb. squats at his present size of 340 lb.? The answer is simply the solution to:

1340/340^.667 = x/x^.667

or just under 21,000 lb.. In reality, elephants do not appear to get quite to that point. McGowan (DINOSAURS, SPITFIRES, & SEA DRAGONS, p. 97) claims that a Toronto Zoo specimen was the largest in North America at 14,300 lb., and Smithsonian personnel once informed the author that the gigantic bush elephant specimen which appears at their Museum of Natural History weighed around 8 tons.
Again, in all cases, we are comparing the absolute max effort for a human weight lifter to lift and hold something for two seconds versus the sauropod's requirement to move around and walk all day long with scaled weight greater than these weights involved in the maximum, one-shot, two-second effort. That just can't happen.

His conclusion is basically that because a scaled up version of human weight lifter Bill Kazmaier with perfect proportions would be unable to stand at over a weight of 20,803 pounds, the same would hold true for sauropods unless gravity is reduced.

Except...anyone with at least an eighth of a brain could immediately see the blatant problem here.

Sauropods. Are Not. Humans.

Because sauropods and humans are not in the least similar in anatomy you cannot expect to learn whether or not one could stand up and operate at a given huge size if another could or couldn't. Surely enough, sauropod anatomy would allow them to exist at such large sizes, regardless whether or not human anatomy would do the same for us (link).

There's a way you can think of this whole ordeal as well. Let's say that ants had their own equivalent of Ted Holden who tried to calculate if the best weight lifting ants could survive at the size of an elephant. What would his results be? Positive or negative?

Then there is the issue of neck size - a long necked animal of that size would not even be able to lift its neck.

Says who? You? If the neck musculature was substantially powerful and if the head connected to it at its anteriormost end was relatively small (as is the case for sauropods), then it could happen. Powerful nuchal ligaments would also allow a sauropod to lift the head and neck up with less muscular effort.

Additionally, their blood pressure would be way too high to be able to live. Their heart would literally explode. For reference, a giraffe has a long neck, and even at its relatively tiny size in comparison to sauropods, a giraffe is at essentially the peak of blood pressure that is possible to live, having a higher blood pressure than any other animal.

Sauropods would indeed have needed strong hearts (especially if they decided to hold their necks vertically). But what's the problem with that? Your assertions that their hearts would have exploded or that giraffes are at the peak of life-plausible blood pressure are unfounded. I can't tell if you independently thought of this point or heard it from Ted Holden, but at any rate sauropods should have been fine from this issue (link).

Since this is the last time you single out giant sauropods, allow me to state once again that even if they could not exist does not mean all other, smaller dinosaurs could not. 1 kilogram* Microraptor would have been fine. 15 kilogram Velociraptor would have been fine. ~6,000 kilogram Brontomerus would have been fine...

*Wikipedia gives a citation for a 1 kilogram body weight figure for Microraptor at a length of 42-83 total body length, but it also gives citations for even larger body lengths (90 and even 120 centimeters TBL).

It almost makes you wonder if someone is sitting in an office someone with a sinister look on his face and tapping the tips of his fingers together like a mad scientist, thinking, "heh heh hehhh ... I wonder how many laws of physics I can break and still no one notices, heh heh hehhh ..."

Well, it seems that those darned schemin' paleontologists are actually doing a pretty good job at not breaking any laws of physics for their "imaginary" creatures to seem plausible.

Then there is the issue with the laws of physics relating to flight. The giant pterosaurs could not possibly have flown, because their wing span would have to be far, far larger in order to support their massive weight. It simply was not possible. Whoever invented the giant pterosaur clearly wasn't very familiar with the laws of physics and flight.

Firstly, I don't know why you're bringing up pterosaurs here, as they aren't dinosaurs.

Secondly, it's been demonstrated that giant pterosaurs could fly just fine.

markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/08/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-giant.html
thescienceexplorer.com/nature/pterosaurs-should-have-been-too-big-fly-so-how-did-they-manage-it

Finally, you fail to realize that even if they were unable to fly that doesn't mean that they couldn't exist at all. Proponents of the notion that large pterosaurs (e.g. Quetzalcoatlus) couldn't fly did not propose that they did/could not exist, just that they didn't spend their lives flying around.

It may have had something to do with the fact that humans didn't fully understand the principles surrounding flight until the early 1900s**. When you are making up a mythological creature, it can be difficult to make it fit within the laws of physics when you don't even know the laws of physics yet.

** Note: The Wright Brothers first achieved flight in 1903; the purpose of this argument excludes earlier flying machines like hot air balloons as early as 1783 which used different physics to achieve flight.

I've refuted everything you've said above. I need not say anything more to this.

SPOILER: Click to show

If dinosaurs roamed the Earth and were everywhere, and these creatures were massive, gigantic beasts, then there should be overwhelming evidence everywhere we look. You would go gardening and find ten or twenty giant bones every time you tried to plant some seeds.

People would be building houses out of these bones because there was so many of them. Who needs bricks when you have fossils? Your kids would go play outside and occasionally come back with a petrified dinosaur bone. However, there has never once been an instance in which someone accidentally found a dinosaur bone.

1.) No, we wouldn't. Fossilization is a very rare process with multiple variables that can prevent it from occurring. First, some environments will be better at preserving fossils than others (e.g. a riverbed would be far better at preserving something than the middle of a desert); this alone will mean that not every single place in the future is going to have fossils, ergo fossils will not be everywhere. Then there are factors such as:

Even after fossilization, the rocks enclosing a fossil will eventually be eroded away by the elements. Unless a paleontologist spots the fossil and removes or in some way protects it, the fossil and the rock surrounding it will continue to be eroded away until they're nothing more than mud or silt. Special environmental events can also negatively affect fossil-bearing rock formations (e.g. one of the reasons why the Eastern Coast of the United States is pretty rare in dinosaur fossils is because the Pleistocene ice age destroyed and relocated dinosaur fossils).

So you have several (all of the aforementioned) variables that come into play before burial, after burial, and even after fossilization going against the preservation of fossils. It's no wonder why we don't find them everywhere.

*This means we won't, and is why we don't, find Mesozoic dinosaur fossils in places like backyards; the surrounding soft mud or silt needs to be compressed down to become rock for fossilization to occur (otherwise what you end up with is something called a subfossil). Maybe if you weren't so ignorant and did your homework on fossilization you'd understand that.

2.) There you go again talking out of your ass. There have been instances where someone accidentally found dinosaur fossils.

mashable.com/2015/04/22/dinosaur-egg-china/#X49tgqriYiqt


www.natureworldnews.com/articles/22581/20160519/amateur-fossil-hunter-accidentally-discovers-new-species-horned-dinosaur-montana.htm

Actually it was Gideon's wife, Mary Ann, who found the first Iguanodon material. She had gone with her husband to Surrey to take a spring ride in the country while Gideon visited a patient. On her ride she noticed some strange tooth-shaped fossils in the gravel with which the road had recently been paved. She took these to show Gideon, and he was so intrigued by them, that he spent years searching local rock quarries for more specimens.

link

There should certainly be much more accidental fossil finds than just these (especially if you count all other fossil lifeforms).

SPOILER: Click to show

Even evolutionary scientists accept that carbon dating is entirely ineffective in measuring time. Not only is it ineffective with relatively short periods of time, but the entire theory is based off a premise that essentially says that the maximum amount of years it can be used for is 40,000 years.

This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest. The only people you will fool is the people who don't know what a thermometer is.

According to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, an evolutionary geneticist from Stanford University, who wrote the book, "Genes, People, and Languages" which was published in 2000,

"The most crucial dates in modern human evolution are unfortunately beyond the range of the radiocarbon method, which has a limit of about 40,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000, p. 61)"

Additionally, evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of the famous book, "The Blind Watchmaker", had this to say about radiocarbon dating:

"Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable.

It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (Dawkins, 1986, p. 226)."

So even the top evolutionary scientists in the world affirm that radiocarbon dating is impossible to use to determine the age or existence of dinosaurs.

The limits of carbon dating you've pointed out are true and dandy and all but you fail to realize one simple thing that makes your point here fall so hard (and makes said falling so hilarious).

Radiocarbon dating is not the only method of determining age. There are methods that can be used to reliably date even older materials, materials that can be millions of years old. These are the methods that are used to date dinosaur fossils. 'Nuff said.

SPOILER: Click to show

For a set of creatures that are supposed to have been so pervasive, so massive, and so populous to have never been seen in any culture's mythology at any time in known history (not even cave paintings), defies logic if the creatures had in fact existed.

Instead, the mythology of dinosaurs did not spring up until around the 1800s. Since then, and especially since the 1900s when Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (published in 1859) book became more popular, dinosaurs have become a pervasive part of society. Today, we see these prehistoric creatures in children's books, novels, movies, television, and every form of media.

However, before the 1800s, Dinosaurs were completely absent from mythology. We don't see it in Greek, Roman, or any other sort of mythology. Some historians claim that some ancient Chinese found a dinosaur fossil, but the evidence for this is merely anecdotal (in other words, there is no real evidence for this). You can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. And that is beside the point, as I will explain below.

If, as they say, dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, giant, massive creatures that defied the imagination, dinosaurs would then become the focal point of all of historical mythology. Not anecdotal evidence of something that might or might not be a dinosaur, here and there.

After all, it has been proven in the last 100 years since dinosaurs were introduced to us that once people caught onto this idea it became wildly famous. However, if it were true, it would have been wildly famous tens of thousands of years ago too. But it wasn't. Not a single absolute reference can be found.

Absolute reference is the key factor. Not a reference that might be a large whale or elephant ("leviathan" and "behemoth" in the Bible). If such massive creatures existed, there wouldn't be one or two ambiguous references here and there. No, if it were true then you would hear very specifically about giant massive creatures with giant heads, ferocious teeth, and tiny arms (Tyrannosaurus Rex), gentle giant long-necked creatures who were many, many times bigger than even the largest known creatures such as elephants (Brontosaurus), and super-fast and intelligent creatures with 9 inch claws and teeth and pack-hunting mentalities (Velociraptor).

Remember, not ambiguous references one or two times that might be something else. There would have to be thousands, even millions of references that are very specific. For example, it's not like we think that references to a dragon might be references to say, a large bird. No, mythology is very clear about dragons being large, reptilian, flying, fire-breathing creatures; and dragons are extremely pervasive throughout mythology.

Don't you think that if dinosaurs existed, myth-writers such as Homer would have capitalized on this in the "Iliad and the Odyssey" and other famous mythological writings and great stories? No, instead you find many mythical creatures like Cyclops, mermaids, and talking horses. But no references to dinosaurs.

We see absolutely no specific references to dinosaurs in mythology. Not one, single absolute reference. If history has taught us anything, fantasy creatures, even fictional ones, capture the imagination and become pervasive throughout mythology. Leprechauns, trolls, even dragons are a few of the famous creatures. But no mythology even referencing any dinosaurs. Not a single one. Not at any time in history.

Not a single time in history before the 1800s was any dinosaur specifically mentioned; but if it were true that they really existed, then many, many dinosaurs would be referenced countless times. Thus, historical evidence strongly suggests that the existence of dinosaurs is highly improbable.

It's not anecdotal at all, actually. The first Megalosaurus remains were uncovered in 1677; it was the distal part of a femur that in 1763 was informally dubbed "Scrotum humanum". Although the bone is now lost, detailed illustrations of the bone show that it was clearly a bone from a Megalosaurus. Interestingly, this bone was initially interpreted as belonging to some ancient giant human, showing that there is, in fact, a precedent for mythical creatures (like the ones you mentioned) being inspired by the fossilized bones of ancient animals.

Likewise, archaeologists who accompanied Roy Chapman Andrews to his expedition to Mongolia have found dinosaur eggshells shaped and drilled into jewelry in an archaeological site dating all the way back to at least the early Neolithic, if not late Paleolithic (source).



Non-avian dinosaurs aren't the only fossil lifeforms to have their remains uncovered before the 19th century, either. The first mosasaur remains were discovered in 1764 (skull bones at a hill near Maastricht, the Netherlands). A mammoth tusk found in the 16th century near the Bühler was interpreted as a unicorn horn and placed in the choir aisle of St. Michael, where it remains to this day. Ancient elephant bones were discovered near a flint hand axe in London in 1679 (link->). In 1443, a mammoth femur was uncovered during the construction of St. Stephen's Cathedral; it was inscribed on and interpreted as the bone of a giant killed in the Great Flood. We've found fossils found in pre-Columbian Native American sites, such as bead necklaces made out of crinoid and coral fossils, projectile points made from petrified wood (there are thousands of petrified wood specimens modified by pre-Columbian Americans), and carved brachiopod fossils.






Image source->

Hell, people in the late 15th to early 16th centuries knew that there were fossil mollusk shells on the tops of mountains. Most didn't know (or believe) that they once belonged to living creatures. Way more strikingly, Leonardo da Vinci was able to recognize the fact that they were, based on the visible growth rings. He was able to recognize that they weren't there due to a global flood, grasped the law of superposition, and all that (link).

But sure, let's just ignore these facts. Pretend that fossils, including those of dinosaurs, were never found prior to the 19th century. Because, you know, denying facts actually strengthens your argument! /sarcasm off

Ironically, your denial of this fact exposes an enormous hole in your argument. If dinosaur fossils were never uncovered prior to the 19th century (which they were), how can you ever expect dinosaurs that have been dead for at least 66 million years to ever be incorporated into mythology???!!! The simple answer is, you can't! The only way the concept of dinosaurs could have made its way into mythologies around the world before the nineteenth century is if people had actually discovered their remains and on top of that interpreted them correctly. In other words, people would actually have to know what a dinosaur is to incorporate dinosaurs into mythology (mind-blowing logic, innit?). You don't seem to be so convinced that the former ever happened, though, meaning your point makes no sense.

Also, I don't know if this ever occurred to you, but all previously-unknown discoveries have to be made at some point. Why should the fact that the concept of dinosaurs (i.e. a true understanding of the basic idea of what their fossils really showed evidence of) only came about during the nineteenth century as a result of discovery and examination really garner any more suspicion and investigation than the fact that say, the concept of bacteria only came about during the seventeenth century as a result of the same two aforementioned concepts?

Now, to get a bit beside the main point here. We've established that the only way for dinosaurs to be incorporated into mythologies prior to the 1800s would be for people to actually discover their fossils and interpret them for what they really were. If this happened, it's very likely that dinosaurs would be incorporated into mythology; they've produced forms that people would have seen as awe-inspiring, impressive, and fascinating (hell, people today do). But "the focal point of all of historical mythology"? For all their magnificence, dinosaurs were, after all, just animals. Would they really be any more compelling than lions (big, fast, pack hunting predators)? Or elephants (the biggest land animals today with weird-looking faces)? Or whales (the only animals that surpassed any dinosaur in size)?

SPOILER: Click to show

You go to a museum and you see dinosaur skeletons. At least, you think you do. You see, those dinosaurs are amalgams of various things ranging from chicken bones, to random bones,

Citation please, no fabricated claims.

to straight plaster casts.

These are the only things of the three you mentioned that may actually be used in dinosaur mounts, and there are good reasons for this. Heinrich Mallison sums up the reasons for using casts in museum mounts quite well:

link

Not even the teeth are real. Various bones have been found that have been claimed to be a part of a dinosaur.

However, no dinosaur skeleton has ever been found. The only few that have been, have long proved to be a hoax.

Once again, you are making up "facts" to support your argument. Unfortunately, I can't link every single dinosaur discovery to you as you'd simply state that they're all hoaxes with absolutely no basis for your assertions.

As a result, the only way to make a dinosaur skeleton for a museum is to, quite literally make it. That is, they have to create what they think it might look like by filling in 99% of the bones with other things to make what they think the whole thing would look like.

Since the title of this point is "A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one", I'm guessing this part ties into the main premise here. Anyway, how much we find of a dinosaur (or likely any fossil organism for that matter; certainly every animal with an internal skeleton) varies with each instance. Not every time do we have to guess with just 1% of the actual animal left. For example, Tyrannosaurus rex specimen FMNH PR 2081 ("Sue") is apparently over 90% complete.



^The smaller silhouette on top shows how much we have from the specimen. As you can see, that's a lot, and therefore allows us to make very reasonable inferences on what the rest of the skeleton looked like.

Of course, not all dinosaur specimens are this complete. Take for example, the recently-discovered Gualicho shinyae.



As you can see, this specimen is substantially incomplete. So how exactly do we know what the rest of the skeleton looked like if we don't have it? Well, what we can do is use what remains we have to try and determine its affinities, and sometimes we actually get answers.

"Derived characters of the scapula, femur, and fibula supports the new theropod as the sister taxon of the nearly coeval African theropod Deltadromeus and as a neovenatorid carcharodontosaurian."
link

This allows us to make reasonable inferences on what the rest of the skeleton looked like.

For dinosaurs that we cannot conclusively determine the specific affinities of and/or are just too fragmentary, then we can only speculate on what they looked like; they are not stated to have absolutely looked one way until better remains are discovered.

Might I add however, that it's not impossible to infer what an animal looked like based on scant remains. Case in point, in 1804, paleontologist and anatomist Georges Cuvier was able to identify a fossil as that of an opossum, based only on teeth (link).

However, it is most probable that the few bones that have been found belonged to other animals.

That's just another unfounded claim made by you in order to support your argument.

Thus, what you see in a museum is nothing more than an artist's rendition of what they think those dinosaurs could look like if they existed.

^^Read above.

If they put in a skeleton of a dragon, you would probably believe that too, especially if they told you in your class science book that dragons existed and could even talk English.

No I wouldn't, neither would (or at least should) anyone else, and nor would a science book ever claim the two examples of a bullfaeces claim you've provided. Not considering how the existence of dragons is completely unsubstantiated and hence the farthest thing from established.

SPOILER: Click to show

Presupposition is a philosophical term which means that you create the evidence based on an assumed premise. In philosophy, any presupposed arguments are usually dismissed.

To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. This is anti-science, or pseudo-science. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.

Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed. They would find a bone, and think, "well, this might be similar to what I imagined a dinosaur bone would look like", while holding a cow or whale bone.

It is like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature that you think might be able to exist and then trying to find the imaginary creature in real life. It's not going to happen unless you make it happen. That's exactly what happened with Dinosaur theory. Could dinosaurs exist? Maybe. But is it probable? Not based on science as we know it.

It utterly amuses me how you're on about presupposition and how the scientific method works and at the same time are still talking out of your ass for the sake of your argument.

That dinosaurs were presupposed could not be any farther from the truth. The term 'dinosaur' was not coined until 1842, 18 years after the first non-avian dinosaur (Megalosaurus) was named.

SPOILER: Click to show

An extinction-level event, such as a giant comet crashing into Earth, or perhaps a disease that wiped out all the dinosaurs, would only have impacted the land dinosaurs and shallow-water dinosaurs, not the ones in the deep ocean. If such an event occurred as the reason for why dinosaurs "went extinct", it would not have applied to the deep ocean dinosaurs which would still be there today.

We would see these dinosaurs of all sizes - gigantic, mid-sized, and tiny - all the time through deep-water trawls, fishing nets, occasionally washing up on shore, the occasional scuba diver eaten and submarine destroyed, and we would even see photographic evidence taken by deep-water submersibles. However, none of this evidence is present which means that most certainly an extinction-level event could not be the reason we don't see any dinosaurs on Earth. The only plausible solution is that they could not have scientifically existed.

First of all, there were no "deep ocean dinosaurs" (once again showing how little you know on the matter). What you're thinking of are marine reptiles such as plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and ichthyosaurs (the last of which became extinct before the dinosaurs did), and the closest thing these animals had in common with dinosaurs is their reptilian descent.

As for your belief that these animals should have survived: it's not like the deep ocean (whether you mean really deep depths thereof or just any part of the ocean that is deep) is some invincible ecosystem that would be completely unscathed by an extinction event. One thing that may have negatively affected deep ocean biota would be the inability for photosynthesis to occur due to the accumulation of dust in the atmosphere (a result the huge impact of the Chicxulub asteroid). This would have led to a collapse in the food chain, similar to what would have been happening to the dinosaurs et al. on land.

SPOILER: Click to show

So, is the theory of Dinosaurs a hoax? Perhaps. Or is it true, that giant dinosaurs roamed the Earth in prehistoric days? Maybe. However, is it likely that these mega creatures called dinosaurs existed? Not based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.

There is no "overwhelming scientific evidence" that suggests dinosaurs didn't exist. There is however, evidence of vice versa, evidence that you seem to deny on no legitimate grounds other than "I want to believe it".

The only thing that is certain is that it is impossible to know for sure, without time travel. However, should our children be taught theories as if they were fact? This we can most certainly say for a fact: absolutely not,

Only in your deluded little world.

no more than you would tell them that dragons, leprechauns, or trolls exist. In fact, based on historical evidence, it is more likely that dragons and trolls existed at some point than it is that dinosaurs ever did.

Because we all know that whether or not we humans incorporated something into *mythology* is an indicator of how likely said thing existed. *facepalm.

[creature386]

I have a little message for Veronica Watson and her ilk who so vastly overestimate their competence and underestimate the competence of others that it is somehow unimaginable to them that any experts exist who can identify fossils better than they can (this message can also be directed towards evolution deniers like Harun Yahya who see that some fossils look like modern animals and conclude that evolution did not happen or Ray Comfort who dismisses transitional fossils because they look like animals he knows):

If you cannot tell apart fingerprints of two different people, you don't tell forensic scientists how to do their job.
If you cannot tell apart base-pair sequences of different people (or if adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine all look the same to you under a microscope), you don't tell geneticists how to do their job.
If Mandarin characters all look the same to you, you don't tell people who actually speak and read Chinese what's written there.

And if you cannot tell apart fossils from regular rocks (*cough* Christians Against Dinosaurs *cough*) or tell apart dinosaur fossils from the remains of animals you know, let alone reconstruct the organism on the basis of the material you have, you don't tell paleontologists how to do their job!

[Ceratodromeus]

My discussion with Asadas on the lion v tiger thread probably belongs here, i'll dig it up.

[Infinity Blade]

To add to my talk about fossil life (particularly dinosaur) denialism in this thread: there are a few animals alive today that were originally described as fossils and thought to be extinct, only to be found alive. This is true for the bush dog (Speothos venaticus; de Mello Beiseigel & Zuercher, 2005) and the Chacoan peccary (Catagonus wagneri; Wetzel et al., I 1975). If fossils were fabricated, how do the fossil denialists explain how eerily coincidental it is to create a make-believe animal and subsequently find the exact same creature to still be alive, thus unambiguously proving its existence? Seriously, do they have some counterargument that addresses this? Preferably one other than "it's a conspiracy"?

EDIT: and the mountain pygmy possum and the Cuban greater funnel-eared bat.

[creature386]

Given that the coelacanth is extremely popular among deniers of paleontology-related fields (a common smoking gun to "prove" that paleontologists are idiots who can't even determine when an animal went extinct and that evolution of course did not happen), I am sure dinosaur deniers have heard about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they kinda distorted the discovery of a living coelacanth to "prove" that since one fossil animal is still around today, it follows that all fossils we find in reality belong to extant organisms!

[Infinity Blade]

That's true. However, that wouldn't help a fossil life denier's case.