|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 30, 2013 20:04:58 GMT 5
you wont find ut in that post because its not in it, however i did say this in a following post. "Not that it matters since i was refering to the grappeling ability of the feet of the two animals" You obviously decided to pull that out when you realized that this "Hawks are superior grapplers" was incorrect and just don't want to admit it. Therefore you switch to later "I was now referring about their feet" yet even that has no factual basis because no paper comparing deinonychus to extant raptors has ever even inferred that raptors are better grapplers with their feet. The only thing remotely resembling that is that extant raptors have a tad stronger grip strength. And grip strength and grasping ability are two different things. what actually happened was i forgot to specify in my original point but believe whatever you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 30, 2013 20:06:22 GMT 5
You obviously decided to pull that out when you realized that this "Hawks are superior grapplers" was incorrect and just don't want to admit it. Therefore you switch to later "I was now referring about their feet" yet even that has no factual basis because no paper comparing deinonychus to extant raptors has ever even inferred that raptors are better grapplers with their feet. The only thing remotely resembling that is that extant raptors have a tad stronger grip strength. And grip strength and grasping ability are two different things. what actually happened was i forgot to specify in my original point but believe whatever you want. Sure whatever you want. I'll keep that in mind when I forget to specify something later  |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 30, 2013 20:14:38 GMT 5
LMFAO where in tha post did i say I referring to the paper when i said modrn taptors have superior morphology for foot grappling? I quoted him to show him i was replying to him not in anyway to show i was taking evidence from the same paper he was.......DUH! *facepalm* You get facts from published papers, you get arguments from published resources, if the countless papers don't support what you claim, then your claim is most likely false. Are you mentally challenged or something? Your "based on foot hur durr birds grapple better" isn't supported in any published paper. Therefore your claim is most likely incorrect...... DUH !! you dont need a paper you can tell just by looking at there feet that modern raptors feet better adapted for the actions of grasping and holding. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 30, 2013 20:17:35 GMT 5
*facepalm* You get facts from published papers, you get arguments from published resources, if the countless papers don't support what you claim, then your claim is most likely false. Are you mentally challenged or something? Your "based on foot hur durr birds grapple better" isn't supported in any published paper. Therefore your claim is most likely incorrect...... DUH !! you dont need a paper you can tell just by looking at there feet that modern raptors feet better adapted for the actions of grasping and holding. Oh yes I'm sure your not taking into account the deinonychus more flexible toes, greater toe arc, short metatarsus and a bunch of other under the radar things like the people that published the papers did hmm? Word of advice - Don't go by visuals. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 30, 2013 20:22:24 GMT 5
Your missing the point, the fact is there is no guarantee that the snake is bigger, which is the way you presented. This isnt even a part of the debate that weighs in heavily because i already post pics of much smaller snakes killing hawks, i simply didnt like that you presented an assumption (how good it was is irrelevant) about the animals weights and acted like it was a fact. Switching the blame again? What you initially showed is irrelevant as I stated "A simple rpr is enough to kill the snake" to which you say "oh smaller snakes have killed avial birds using rpr". Now I could have been a dick and said "and falcons have one shotted golden eagle & hyena have survived lion attacks, your point?" The majority of the time snakes are killed by birds. What happens the minority is irrelevant. I never said deinonychus would win every time. I just said rpr would work on the snake. Then you randomly come in with this beside my point crap. But regardless the most likely assumption is that the snake was bigger than the hawk. Point blank period. Their weight ranges and the length and girth of the snake favors my assumption. When hawks attack smaller snakes then themselves they can be over come and killed how is that irrelevant? Especially since the snakes preyed on are not nearly as physically powerful as boas and pythons at similar sizes or as inclined to use constriction in defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 30, 2013 20:25:55 GMT 5
you dont need a paper you can tell just by looking at there feet that modern raptors feet better adapted for the actions of grasping and holding. Oh yes I'm sure your not taking into account the deinonychus more flexible toes, greater toe arc, short metatarsus and a bunch of other under the radar things like the people that published the papers did hmm? Word of advice - Don't go by visuals. if the foot plan was superior in grasping, holding and grappeling (the purposes of a raptor's foot correct?) there is no reason for it to be disregarded by evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 30, 2013 21:07:01 GMT 5
You have to remember that modern birds are not descendants of Deinonychus, they may be closely related, but they evolved a bit differently.
Also, modern birds have a different ecological niche than Deinonychus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 30, 2013 21:23:42 GMT 5
You have to remember that modern birds are not descendants of Deinonychus, they may be closely related, but they evolved a bit differently. Also, modern birds have a different ecological niche than Deinonychus. Yes I know that, but their foot morphology is extremely similar regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 30, 2013 21:24:54 GMT 5
Oh yes I'm sure your not taking into account the deinonychus more flexible toes, greater toe arc, short metatarsus and a bunch of other under the radar things like the people that published the papers did hmm? Word of advice - Don't go by visuals. if the foot plan was superior in grasping, holding and grappeling (the purposes of a raptor's foot correct?) there is no reason for it to be disregarded by evolution. If we are using that logic, why did canids lose their ability to grapple? Or birds lose their teeth? Or bird ancestors became avial and not stay terrestrial? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 30, 2013 21:31:20 GMT 5
You have to remember that modern birds are not descendants of Deinonychus, they may be closely related, but they evolved a bit differently. Also, modern birds have a different ecological niche than Deinonychus. Yes I know that, but their foot morphology is extremely similar regardless. I was replying to Venomous Dragon. He said if the Deinonychus design was better, birds wouldn't have reevolved it. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 30, 2013 21:37:31 GMT 5
if the foot plan was superior in grasping, holding and grappeling (the purposes of a raptor's foot correct?) there is no reason for it to be disregarded by evolution. If we are using that logic, why did canids lose their ability to grapple? Or birds lose their teeth? Or bird ancestors became avial and not stay terrestrial? They serve functions that where not required or gave them a new adavantage but that doesnt apply as the functions of the feet serve the roughly the same purposes why downgrade if it has no positives? |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 30, 2013 22:58:07 GMT 5
If we are using that logic, why did canids lose their ability to grapple? Or birds lose their teeth? Or bird ancestors became avial and not stay terrestrial? They serve functions that where not required or gave them a new adavantage but that doesnt apply as the functions of the feet serve the roughly the same purposes why downgrade if it has no positives? Accept they didn't downgrade. Birds feet evolved for their avian purposes, they have perching feet, deinonychus was strictly terrestrial and had grasping feet. Just read the deinonychus profile. One is not better than the other. Like Brolyeuphyfusion says, Evolution is a tree, not a ladder. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 30, 2013 23:00:14 GMT 5
Oh yes I'm sure your not taking into account the deinonychus more flexible toes, greater toe arc, short metatarsus and a bunch of other under the radar things like the people that published the papers did hmm? Word of advice - Don't go by visuals. if the foot plan was superior in grasping, holding and grappeling (the purposes of a raptor's foot correct?) there is no reason for it to be disregarded by evolution. A tiger is descended from a sabertooth, based on your logic, the reverse should have happened since after all in your eyes the more evolutionized animal is the better one? |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 30, 2013 23:01:30 GMT 5
Switching the blame again? What you initially showed is irrelevant as I stated "A simple rpr is enough to kill the snake" to which you say "oh smaller snakes have killed avial birds using rpr". Now I could have been a dick and said "and falcons have one shotted golden eagle & hyena have survived lion attacks, your point?" The majority of the time snakes are killed by birds. What happens the minority is irrelevant. I never said deinonychus would win every time. I just said rpr would work on the snake. Then you randomly come in with this beside my point crap. But regardless the most likely assumption is that the snake was bigger than the hawk. Point blank period. Their weight ranges and the length and girth of the snake favors my assumption. When hawks attack smaller snakes then themselves they can be over come and killed how is that irrelevant? Especially since the snakes preyed on are not nearly as physically powerful as boas and pythons at similar sizes or as inclined to use constriction in defense. 1. The hawk killed a snake bigger than it 2. A hawk is inferior in pretty much every category to a 161lb deinonychus. What you said is irrelevant and you are grasping straws. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 31, 2013 0:11:33 GMT 5
When hawks attack smaller snakes then themselves they can be over come and killed how is that irrelevant? Especially since the snakes preyed on are not nearly as physically powerful as boas and pythons at similar sizes or as inclined to use constriction in defense. 1. The hawk killed a snake bigger than it 2. A hawk is inferior in pretty much every category to a 161lb deinonychus. What you said is irrelevant and you are grasping straws. im not gonna lie man, ive just been entertaining myself, if you look i even implied the snake would loose on the first page and i am actually one of the people who voted for deinonychus. Ive been doing a devils advocate troll knowing you would keep it up as long as i did but im bored now. |
|
