|
Post by Grey on Dec 6, 2019 18:47:00 GMT 5
Ichthyosaurs were likely faster than whales their size. Megalodon probably wouldn’t be able to catch it. At head on combat, Shastasaurus would win. Sharks don’t go head on with their prey, it would work. Evidence or source for ichthyosaurs being "likely faster than whales"? Which whales ? Right whales or rorquals ? Advanced ichthyosaurs such as Early Jurassic temnodontosaurids were fast, nothing indicates shastasaurids to have been particularly fast even if most largemarine animals can be fast in short bust...like fleeing a predator. Megalodon was probably as fast or faster than any GWS (and much less maneuvrable being so large). Shastasaurus is a toothless creature with a delicate skull structure. Sharks do attack head on poorly armed preys...such as a shastasaurid. Shastasaurus was a slender, 21 m, 30 tonnes-ish analogous to beaked whales. Not the badass marine reptile killer you think of. It killed mostly invertebrates. Megalodon was a generalist Neogene superpredator killing warm-blooded cetaceans with a killing apparatus able to engulf any Tyrannosaurus skull. Even at "only" 15 m, it would slaughter the ichthyosaur. It is not a match, it is a potential hypothetical predator-prey interraction. There are better macropredatory ichthyosaurs to compare and even those don't seem to compete in the same league of the Neogene shark. What you write makes really no sense, total Max Hawthorne antics. He really did make you believe megalodon was a whimp, with his pathetic pseudoscientific analysis. So much for an animal that dominated all the oceans during two geological eras, which the last research suggest it was as warm-blooded as modern whales and operating at a higher, not the same, trophic level than the GWS. See guys ? Another example of how much of a nuisance a compulsive pseudoscientific liar such as a bad novelist can be at misleading people. Same category as Peters.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 6, 2019 20:57:28 GMT 5
Ichthyosaurs were likely faster than whales their size. Megalodon probably wouldn’t be able to catch it. At head on combat, Shastasaurus would win. Sharks don’t go head on with their prey, it would work. Evidence or source for ichthyosaurs being "likely faster than whales"? Which whales ? Right whales or rorquals ? Advanced ichthyosaurs such as Early Jurassic temnodontosaurids were fast, nothing indicates shastasaurids to have been particularly fast even if most largemarine animals can be fast in short bust...like fleeing a predator. Megalodon was probably as fast or faster than any GWS (and much less maneuvrable being so large). Shastasaurus is a toothless creature with a delicate skull structure. Sharks do attack head on poorly armed preys...such as a shastasaurid. Shastasaurus was a slender, 21 m, 30 tonnes-ish analogous to beaked whales. Not the badass marine reptile killer you think of. It killed mostly invertebrates. Megalodon was a generalist Neogene superpredator killing warm-blooded cetaceans with a killing apparatus able to engulf any Tyrannosaurus skull. Even at "only" 15 m, it would slaughter the ichthyosaur. It is not a match, it is a potential hypothetical predator-prey interraction. There are better macropredatory ichthyosaurs to compare and even those don't seem to compete in the same league of the Neogene shark. What you write makes really no sense, total Max Hawthorne antics. He really did make you believe megalodon was a whimp, with his pathetic pseudoscientific analysis. So much for an animal that dominated all the oceans during two geological eras, which the last research suggest it was as warm-blooded as modern whales and operating at a higher, not the same, trophic level than the GWS. See guys ? Another example of how much of a nuisance a compulsive pseudoscientific liar such as a bad novelist can be at misleading people. Same category as Peters. Dude on the other site i'm debating this topic on literally believes whale breaching is a defense against Megalodon. The only source is of course Max Hawthorne.
"likely" is not a substitute for actual proof. It's like complaining in the safety of speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 6, 2019 21:02:58 GMT 5
The point being there is no likelihood in anything like this.
Ah yes that stupid theory which ignores that whales similar-sized to meg only appeared or became common....AFTER this one went extinct.
This guy Hawthorne is such an imbecile (not exactly an idiot), unable to read any real journal...or selectively handpicking those that get his interest like the notorious Triassic Kraken article by McMenamin (who himself does not believe his speculative kraken to be 30 m but shonisaur-sized). He could face the real facts but he simply does not want to because he acts like a teenage fanboy.
How can people be unable to do any proper research rather than believing some guru whose main occupation is about posting stupid autocongratulating memes on Facebook ?
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 6, 2019 21:37:30 GMT 5
The point being there is no likelihood in anything like this. Ah yes that stupid theory which ignores that whales similar-sized to meg only appeared or became common....AFTER this one went extinct. This guy Hawthorne is such an imbecile (not exactly an idiot), unable to read any real journal...or selectively handpicking those that get his interest like the notorious Triassic Kraken article by McMenamin (who himself does not believe his speculative kraken to be 30 m but shonisaur-sized). He could face the real facts but he simply does not want to because he acts like a teenage fanboy. How can people be unable to do any proper research rather than believing some guru whose main occupation is about posting stupid autocongratulating memes on Facebook ? The creator of the Meg franchise is way worse.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 6, 2019 21:55:01 GMT 5
Steve Alten does not pretend to teach hard science. He does not write pseudoscientific articles. He does not act like a teenage fanboy with some ludicrous immature liking or disliking for extinct animals. And he does not act like a jerk with people not agreed with him.
If you want to be taken seriously, you might reconsider all your certainties you got from that Hawthorne clown.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 6, 2019 22:05:22 GMT 5
Steve Alten does not pretend to teach hard science. He does not write pseudoscientific articles. He does not act like a teenage fanboy with some ludicrous immature liking or disliking for extinct animals. And he does not act like a jerk with people not agreed with him. If you want to be taken seriously, you might reconsider all your certainties you got from that Hawthorne clown. He freaking believes Megalodon is still alive. I think your just claiming Hawthorne is a “clown.”
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 6, 2019 22:08:56 GMT 5
Steve Alten does not pretend to teach hard science. He does not write pseudoscientific articles. He does not act like a teenage fanboy with some ludicrous immature liking or disliking for extinct animals. And he does not act like a jerk with people not agreed with him. If you want to be taken seriously, you might reconsider all your certainties you got from that Hawthorne clown. Do you have a source?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 6, 2019 22:14:47 GMT 5
Steve Alten does not pretend to teach hard science. He does not write pseudoscientific articles. He does not act like a teenage fanboy with some ludicrous immature liking or disliking for extinct animals. And he does not act like a jerk with people not agreed with him. If you want to be taken seriously, you might reconsider all your certainties you got from that Hawthorne clown. He freaking believes Megalodon is still alive. I think your just claiming Hawthorne is a “clown.” Uh yes, believing megalodon is still alive is ridiculous at best and both Alten and Hawthorne believe it. But Hawthorne believes also Mesozoic marine reptiles do exist as well (and kill fin whales !!!) That is beyond ridiculous : Hawthorne is a clown, indeed. No scientist considers him as even the shadow of an authority, even McMenamin knows Hawthorne is not a serious author about those questions. His only "scientific support" are a few redneck cryptozoologists wannabe. Alten is certainly more successful, which explains Hawthorne jealousy and hatred for megalodon. Pathetic and immature.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 6, 2019 22:17:07 GMT 5
Steve Alten does not pretend to teach hard science. He does not write pseudoscientific articles. He does not act like a teenage fanboy with some ludicrous immature liking or disliking for extinct animals. And he does not act like a jerk with people not agreed with him. If you want to be taken seriously, you might reconsider all your certainties you got from that Hawthorne clown. Do you have a source? I asked you sources about scientific claims. Here you parrot me about a source about what believes a freaking writer. Something you can verify by reading him and talking with him, not by a source. Stop that tactic, this just shows you're not going anywhere if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 6, 2019 23:55:13 GMT 5
Steve Alten does not pretend to teach hard science. He does not write pseudoscientific articles. He does not act like a teenage fanboy with some ludicrous immature liking or disliking for extinct animals. And he does not act like a jerk with people not agreed with him. If you want to be taken seriously, you might reconsider all your certainties you got from that Hawthorne clown. Do you have a source? Ironic, you quote no sources for your "likely" conclusions that sometimes run against what is scientifically accepted yet you want others to provide sources for something easily concluded by reading the subject's beliefs. Why should they if you don't?
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 7, 2019 0:13:51 GMT 5
Steve Alten does not pretend to teach hard science. He does not write pseudoscientific articles. He does not act like a teenage fanboy with some ludicrous immature liking or disliking for extinct animals. And he does not act like a jerk with people not agreed with him. If you want to be taken seriously, you might reconsider all your certainties you got from that Hawthorne clown. He freaking believes Megalodon is still alive. I think your just claiming Hawthorne is a “clown.” So does Hawthorne, and Hawthorne believes that macropredatory sea reptiles (of sizes that can kill large baleen whales and would thus put them near the top of the foodchain and thus make them prevalent) are still extant. He also believes that Megalodon was a scavenger (a biological impracticality). Hawthorne is a science fiction author, not a sceintist. His claims are psuedoscientific at best and baseless and misleading at worst. I have also heard he is confrontational, though I will have to admit I have not seen this for myself. Alten is by no measure a scientist, but he is more credible than Hawthorne by a far margin, which is saying something.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 7, 2019 0:23:38 GMT 5
In fact the title for the longest probably still falls to Basilosaurus cetoides. If by "openly carnivorous" you mean everything that’s not a filter feeder (though I’ve even heard some unsubstantiated suggestions that giant shastasaurs could have been filter-feeders, because we simply don’t have a good idea of how they fed), then giant shastasaurs are probably the largest based on known specimens, yes (though not the S. sikanniensis holotype). On the topic of jaw size btw, it is assumed S. sikanniensis had a >3 m long skull. I don’t see how that could be considered small, though of course that is irrelevant since it doesn’t really have any biting ability. I’m observing a bit of a tendency to throw around with claims of "small" or "thin" jaws in various non-megalodon taxa based more on gut feeling than any actual data. Wait, how long is Basilosaurus? Is it really longer than the Sperm Whale, Megalodon, Livyatan,The Lilstock specimen, and Mosasaurus? And how heavy would an animal like the Lilstock specien, for that matter, be? What of the giant specimen described by Hector?
By 'small' we mean thin and lightly built in comparison to stuff like Livyatan or Megalodon.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 7, 2019 0:27:53 GMT 5
Not the Lilstock specimen if that bone really came from an animal as large as estimated (26 m, and hence around 50 t). The giant specimen described by Hector? You mean the 40-something cm vertebra from New Zealand?
And I wasn’t specifically referring to you. I’ve seen the jaws of pliosaurs and even Livyatan being referred to as "thin" here (despite having demonstrated countless times how enormous both are, even for the animal’s body size, e.g. if an orca wanted to have a bite the size of Livyatan’s, it would have to be 150% the body size of Livyatan, and a pliosaur the same mass as a 17 m megalodon would have 2 m wide jaws), I’m merely annoyed by the inflationary use of the term. And I was pointing out the thoughtless use of "small" to describe S. sikanniensis’ jaws (which, if the Lilstock and Aust cliff specimens are as large as estimated and were to pertain to this taxon, are challenging the blue whale for the longest jaw in earth history).
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Dec 7, 2019 1:08:53 GMT 5
Not the Lilstock specimen if that bone really came from an animal as large as estimated (26 m, and hence around 50 t). The giant specimen described by Hector? You mean the 40-something cm vertebra from New Zealand? Yeah, that
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 7, 2019 1:30:24 GMT 5
Hmm well it’s an even-worse-than-Amphicoelias-fragillimus-type situation. But if it is legit (and isometric) that thing could be the largest animal over.
|
|