Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creat] More on t-rex teeth.

Expand Messages
  • vgovianni
    ... ya it hold true. ... _____________________________________________________________________
    Message 1 of 101 , Jan 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, John Tillman <mammot1h@...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- vgovianni <vgovianni@...> wrote:
      >
      > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, John Tillman
      > > <mammot1h@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- vgovianni <vgovianni@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > >well these are all good answers, but how long did
      > > > t-rex exist, why
      > > > would it not, after millions of years of
      > > evolution,
      > > > just have longer
      > > > arms and a shorter jaw, and better teeth like a
      > > great
      > > > white shark?
      > > >
      > > > John:
      > > > The tyrannosaur species T. rex probably existed
      > > for
      > > > about two million years, which is average for
      > > animal
      > > > species.
      > > >
      > > > It didn't have longer arms or a shorter jaw for
      > > the
      > > > reasons I gave. Its arms were no longer than they
      > > > needed to be to fits its life style. Evolution is
      > > > often a compromise. For T. rex, natural selection
      > > > favored a bigger head & smaller arms. Its jaw was
      > > its
      > > > weapon, adapted both for the kind of lunging
      > > attack I
      > > > proposed & for scavenging big carcasses with thick
      > > > bones. Its shape maximizes biting power.
      > > >
      > > > Vince:
      > > > and why didn't it develope longer upper leg bones
      > > > since this
      > > > hindered its speed?
      > > >
      > > > John:
      > > > It had all the speed it needed. It was adapted
      > > for
      > > > scavenging & ambush hunting, not running down its
      > > > prey. It only needed to be able to keep up with
      > > > wounded prey & find them both day & night, which
      > > is
      > > > another reason IMO why it had such a good sense of
      > > > smell, not only to find carcasses of dead animals
      > > or
      > > > those killed by other predators.
      > > >
      > > > Vince:
      > > > why didn't evolution and NS weed out these short
      > > > commings after all
      > > > that time?
      > > >
      > > > John:
      > > > Rex' adaptations weren't shortcomings. Think of
      > > the
      > > > Coelurosauria as roughly comparable to the
      > > Aeluroidea,
      > > > the superfamily containing cats, hyaenas, civets &
      > > > their relatives.
      > > >
      > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelurosaur
      > > >
      > > > Just as there are smaller, swifter cats like
      > > cheetahs
      > > > & bigger, slower cats like lions, there were
      > > different
      > > > coelurosaur lineages adapted to taking prey of
      > > > different sizes. Rex was probably most comparable
      > > to
      > > > tigers, ambush hunters in woodland habitat. The
      > > > species may very well have been striped.
      > > >
      > > > Its smaller, faster relatives such as
      > > velociraptors &
      > > > other bird-like dromeosaurs were the cheetahs &
      > > > leopards of Mesozoic North America & Asia. Or, as
      > > > pack hunters, they may more resemble wolves & wild
      > > > dogs, sicne today's pack-hunting cats, lions, are
      > > big.
      > > > Unlike solitary tigers, T. rex might also have
      > > packed
      > > > up.
      > > >
      > > > Vince:
      > > > if it had a shorter tail it could have stood up
      > > right
      > > > more and had a
      > > > better feild of view for example?
      > > >
      > > > John:
      > > > Very few theropods stood upright most of the time.
      > >
      > > > Their body plan & normal stance was T-shaped (or a
      > > J
      > > > on its side, since the head could be held up),
      > > with
      > > > head balanced by tail & center of gravity over
      > > their
      > > > rear legs. Rex had the field of view best adapted
      > > for
      > > > her way of living, within the limits of theropod
      > > > conformation. She wasn't an open terrain hunter,
      > > > although there must have been clearings in her
      > > > environment. Grass was a novelty in the late
      > > > Cretaceous.
      > > >
      > > > It could probably lift its body up & rest its tail
      > > on
      > > > the ground if it needed a better look around, but
      > > its
      > > > binocular vision was adapted for ambush at fairly
      > > > close range.
      > > >
      > > > Natural selection in the tyrannosaur lineage
      > > produced
      > > > a fine balance in the last & biggest member of the
      > > > genus.
      > > >
      > >
      > >-------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Well this all sounds reasonable to me.
      > >
      > > I think I know why t-rex had a large head and short
      > > arms, but I am
      > > not going to say here.
      >
      > If you look at other big, Cretaceous theropods, such
      > as those in the links I provided in my prior reply to
      > this message, you'll see that even in lineages not
      > closely related to tyrannosaurs, there was a
      > pronounced tendency for theropod carnivores to evolve
      > large heads & small arms, for the same reasons.
      > Smaller theropods retained relatively bigger arms &
      > hands or developed larger ones.
      >
      > Clearly this convergent evolution shows that as the
      > head became the main weapon in big theropods, the arms
      > got smaller, since among other reasons, it became
      > harder to balance all that front end weight with the
      > tail & still maintain adequate mobility.
      >
      > So if you think you know why tyrannosaurs assumed the
      > configuration they did, consider if your hypothesis
      > holds true for other big theropods of the Late
      > Jurassic & Early Cretaceous.
      > >
      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      ya it hold true.








      > > I do believe this animals lived now.
      > > I am not convinced that this animal was around for 2
      > > million years.
      > > Clearly since it had a very small norrow environment
      > > in which to
      > > hunt sucessfully, it was therefore more vulnerable
      > > to any small
      > > changes in weather or environment and could not have
      > > lived that
      > > long. Its physical make up would not allow it to
      > > adapt quickly
      > > enough to any sudden changes, like deforestation
      > > brought about by
      > > plant eaters or fires or rapid cold.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _____________________________________________________________________
      _______________
      > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
      > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
      >
    • Craig
      ... you don t know how to laugh at yourself or your ideas, this has been ... seriously, because of this knee-jerk emotional tie-in you ALL have. ... liberals,
      Message 101 of 101 , Jan 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "vgovianni" <vgovianni@...>
        wrote:
        > -----------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > when i say "bow down" it is meant to be funny because it is not
        > healthy to be so serious all the time, one ust laugh at ones self
        > from time to time, one should not take ones self so seriously no
        > matter what the position you believe in.
        >
        > but this humor of mine is taken seriously by evols all the time,
        you don't know how to laugh at yourself or your ideas, this has been
        > tied into something emotional by someone in your life, this
        > evolution question is an emotional trigger for something you have
        > all inside of you.
        >
        > me saying "bow down" is so over the top, yet it was taken
        seriously, because of this knee-jerk emotional tie-in you ALL have.
        >
        > it is the say way with homosexuals, communist, socialist,
        liberals, some right-wingers, some religious nuts, and so on.
        > evolution is on that list, like it or not.
        >
        > just look at the facts, i have been called so many names and have
        > been insulted so many times that i can not keep track of it, it is
        > always this reaction in every group i have been in.
        >
        > take a look at the group 'evolutionversuscreationism" see how i
        have been attacked just in the recent post there.
        >
        > you evols do not know how to find humor in life.
        > most of you are liberals and socialist and left wing in your
        > thinking and that too has been tied in to emotion.
        >
        > i can't even get strait answers to simple questions with out
        getting an insult back because everyone with these "leanings" has a
        knee-jerk emtional reaction to even being questioned about evolution.
        >
        > you can see all of this in all the post i made here or anywhere.
        >
        > when an evol is asked to defend a point of evolution, the evol
        gets defensive or runs because DEEP down the evol is defending his
        own inner self.
        >

        Interesting post Vince. Everywhere you post, people think your
        ideas are loony and you are an idiot. I can't imagine how folks
        could so seriously misread you. It's simply amazing how everyone
        thinks you are a moron and are jealous of your great intellect.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.