|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 0:59:30 GMT 5
I can respect it if you prefer not to compare them at all. But IF we do compare them (which is what grey wants to do after all, and which I admit I want to do to, as do many scientists), this must still be accounted for.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Oct 19, 2013 1:21:03 GMT 5
Theropod vs Grey IV: Theropod is Right There is no getting around it, STATISTICALLY we will find Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus specimens larger than any current one, and likely larger than Tyrannosaurus. Believing anything otherwise is mathematically unadvisable. That's not maths, that's speculation. We are going to find larger Giga or Spino but nothing says that these specimens we already have are not fully grown (like suggested by theropod who started like a fanboy to suggest with certainty these specimens are not fully grown) or quite large. You're just too much enthusiastic. What happens in the case of T. rex is not necessary true for others cases. That's a matter of cautiousness. You fully know that paleontologists don't interpret that kind of matter like that so why you have to do ? You have to understand then why I sometimes question your objectivity, especially with your respective history, very enthusiastic with large theropods except for T. rex. Once we have datas about the life stage of these individuals, you can start make that kind suggestions, but not now. Grey, it is math. The chances that we found the biggest Gig/Spino is 1 in many billions!!! And I never claimed they weren't adults, I believe they are, but just like Tyrannosaurus I GUARANTEE there were larger specimens. And judging by pure math, we are 25X more likely to find a new larger Giganotosaurus than we are a new larger Tyrannosaurus. Your argument is like speculating that if you shot two tigers at random they were probably the biggest tigers that ever lived. Now that is speculation.
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Oct 19, 2013 2:02:52 GMT 5
Who guarantees that there is bigger chance to find bigger specimens of first species than to finding bigger specimens of second species (even if we have found more specimens of this one)? Fossils are found by luck not by math.
We couldn't debunk existence of Spinosaurus bigger individuals than MSNM V4047 though.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 2:12:23 GMT 5
it is statistically less likely to find in some regard more unusual specimens the smaller the sample gets. That's maths, and extremely simple maths on top of that.
Since once more I'm being called a fanboy just because I'm stating this, at least keep in mind the "full grown" in question is not the same as "adult. we have many adult T.rex specimens, but the probability to find a 28 year old is very low. It's not as if I was suggesting to assume they were juvenile or anything.
It's quite the opposite, it is not relevant at all. Sue is not exceptional for a T. rex its age, that's because it's the only T. rex that old, which, in turn, is quite exceptional. But our samples do NOT consist only of such old adults, the vast majority of adult specimens in both Carnosaurs and Tyrannosaurs are younger and less mature.
This is why the assumption that some random individual for another species corresponds to the oldest, largest T. rex in terms or relative age or size is nothing but ridiculously improbable, call it speculation or not.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Oct 19, 2013 5:32:11 GMT 5
Once we have datas about the life stage of these individuals, you can start make that kind suggestions, but not now. Grey, it is math. The chances that we found the biggest Gig/Spino is 1 in many billions!!! And I never claimed they weren't adults, I believe they are, but just like Tyrannosaurus I GUARANTEE there were larger specimens. And judging by pure math, we are 25X more likely to find a new larger Giganotosaurus than we are a new larger Tyrannosaurus. As we are talking about maths, you should know that the notion that we are 25 x more likely to find a new bigger Giganotosaurus than a new bigger T. rex is wrong. Now, lets assume that there a total of 10 million adults for both species. Now, the probabilities for finding a larger specimen in T. rex assuming a sample 50(of whom some are juveniles or do not had their size accurately being determined) is 99,99995%, the one for Giga is 99,999998 percent. In the light of preservational bias, sample size and problems in measuring, the difference is nothing but a little backround noise. Now if you want to argue that the event of the next Giganotosaurus we find is the largest known(even if it most likely was in the range of error due to completeness)is much more likely than the event of the next T. rex being discovered breaking the old size record, then yes, you are right. The change for the first event is 1 in 3(33,3% percent changes that it is the largest among three) and the chance for the latter is 1 in 51, so the former is 17 times as likely. Which is interly unimportant in the shade of the whole picture and even more so due the different rates of discovery. Sice the early nineties we discovered nearly 40 new specimens of T. rex and for the other, you know... Theropod: Even if we would compare them, you should not automatically assume that the Giganotosaurus holotype was not at the ontogentic stage of Sue, because it would be making an argument on nearly zero evidence. What do we know of Giganotosaurus life history? Nothing, same for close relatives. We do not even know the age of the type specimen. I do not see any reasons to favor the holotype not being at the same ontogentical age as Sue, the only argument comes from the life T. rex itself and assuming that the situation is the same with Giganotosaurus is far fetched in the light that the two are divided by a split of over 100 million years ago, the two of them living at different ages, in different atmospheres, in different enviroments on different continents. It would not be better than the argument that the holotype must be at the same ontogentic stage beacuse it is pretty complete, compared to the largest specimens of T. rex.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 19, 2013 12:43:30 GMT 5
I would add that in the 40 (the link from Switek says around 50) T. rex individuals, Sue is usually considered as the largest because the most complete. A number of the individuals in the sample are fragmentary, have no proper total size estimate but are suspected to rival of exceed Sue, which is unverifiable. That's why arguing that Sue is the largest of these 50 T. rex is not honest. At least, fragmentary, problematic individuals should be discounted.
Overall yes, they confuse math, luck and statistics.
We aremore likely to find a new rather complete Giga bigger than the previous record holder than to find a new rather complete T. rex bigger than Sue. But there are no more chances to our knowledge that Giga was bigger than T. rex. We do not know and that's reminescent of the educated opinions from Hartman, Holtz or your could ask any specialist interested in these questions.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 16:05:57 GMT 5
That's not confusing anything. You can play with the numbers however you want, but assuming Sue is the biggest in 40 T. rexes (fair enough, assuming 10 of those 50 are juveniles), there is only a 1/40 chance that a single specimen corresponds to sue in terms of relative size. With the same probability it could also correspond to a small 10m T. rex, would assuming that satisfy you? Note that age and size are interchangeable here. And it is pure contradiction to say that if two species have the same size known but one is more likely to have bigger individuals found (because only a fraction as many specimens are known) those are still the same size. And of course no matter how small our samples of two animals are, it is still relevant whether one has a 20 times bigger sample or not, the difference is completely independant of how large our samples are in absolute terms. stomatopod: This means favouring an state that is very rare just because you don't know with absolute certainity that it isn't the case. We do have data on Allosaurus: link1 link2And it suggests T. rex is not the exception. So why should we assume that any random adult is automatically a very old, fully grown one, when nthat is clearly very unlikely? Sue is just as much of an exception (now matter how much of an exception you nconsider it) in this regard as regarding it's size.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 19, 2013 16:24:20 GMT 5
At playing with numbers, you're the master around. The truth is that all of this is speculations, we are likely to find bigger individuals in each species, but we cannot know which species will appear to own the bigger individuals. Everything else is biased speculations, not rigorous scientific approach.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 16:32:18 GMT 5
40/2=20 A huge lot of playing around with figures, is it? You can tell which species is more likely to have them, you can also tell which species has the higher average size. You can of course always only tell what is the most likely, not give certainities about future findings. But this probability suggests that we will find specimens smaller and larger, and that these will scatter much further from previously known individuals the smaller the sample is. I'm merely stating the obvious. It is obvious a single random adult can not be expected to be a particularly old or large individual, but that it represents the norm of the species unless something points out to this not being the case. Call that speculation if you want, you just have to admit it's simply and undoubtedly the best we have. By your logic, everything else is also speculation, with the only difference being that this is an objective and quite probable one, while everything else is not. That's the same logic by which one could compare a huge Allosaurus to a small T. rex and conclude that Allosaurus is the bigger animal. And yes, that's totally fanboyic, while preferably assuming something with a statistic probability below 5% is not That's the kind of logic only someone who doesn't read my posts can make.
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Oct 19, 2013 16:39:41 GMT 5
Guys, is it really important enough how big an animal was to start always those fights?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 16:49:46 GMT 5
To some people it is, see how it started...
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Oct 19, 2013 17:09:27 GMT 5
I don't really care who started, I just think it becomes ridicolous. There are lots of debatable topics, but not what of two species evolved the largest individuals...we will never know. It's the same with the largest dinosaur/mammal/... discussions. It's interesting until a specific degree, but not worth a fight.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 18:03:37 GMT 5
Many things are not worth this, that's why I do not intend to get into fights. But not at the cost of refraining from expressing my opinion on a subject. Whether someone starts a fight because of that is beyond my control.
Believe me, I'm doing what I can.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 22, 2013 5:21:04 GMT 5
I don't really care who started, I just think it becomes ridicolous. There are lots of debatable topics, but not what of two species evolved the largest individuals...we will never know. It's the same with the largest dinosaur/mammal/... discussions. It's interesting until a specific degree, but not worth a fight. Let's simply say that while discussing these matters, I prefer rational ideas, based on solid basis, correlated by professionnal works or, at the worst, educated, cautious opinions. That's what I do all the time, and reading threads fullfilled with total speculations, especially often too much oriented for my taste, has become really frustrating. This started as I posted a new article about Tyrannosaurus size, with sentences from Thomas Holtz just saying what I repeat since months. But whatever, he believes anything he desires.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2013 20:42:57 GMT 5
Well, read my posts, then you might comprehend why what the article you posted states is not "what you repeat since months", it talks about a very different issue, whose whole relevance you don't want to understand.
What you repeat since months is nothing less than that the largest in 30, 40 or 50 individuals compared to the largest in 1, 2 or 3 would somehow accurately reflect the sizes reached by the species.
What the article demonstrates, and what certainly is not new (I know you love to dig in my carnivora posts, so you may be able to find the proof for that), is that adult theropods have not all reached full size yet, that in fact this is quite rare, which is why sue is not special for a T. rex it's age (because it is the only T. rex that age...). Those are fundamentally different things.
Frankly, it does not matter whether the oldest and largest specimen is not special for its age. A 90 year-old human can have absolutely normal sense of hearing for someone his or her age, and still hear very poorly compared to a 20 year-old.
Being normal for a given state is absolutely of no worth if the given state itself is not.
|
|