Stop the absurdity

["Larry Dunn" <larrydunn@hotmail.com>]

>From WileE81@aol.com:

>I would like to add that while generalizing may serve as a basis for a
>sensible hypothesis. Likeliness does not disprove anything, there are 
always
>exceptions to the rules,  especially when you are referring to general
>Mammalian rules to build a hypothesis for an extinct animal.

Of course this is true.

Keep in mind what the repurcussions of what you're saying are, though.

Let's say that, like with the case of the packhunting dromaeosaurs, a 
pretty prominent paleontologist comes along and proposes that T. rex 
didn't hunt, it primarily scavenged.  This really goes against the grain 
in both cases (people were shocked to hear that dinosaurs might have 
packhunted too!)

So then, like here, people question the T. rex scavenge-hypo by asking:

"What animal does it now? "

The reply: "vultures, which are exclusively scavengers."  Examples of 
insect scavengers are also provided.  This to indicate that extant 
animals are perfectly capable of finding sufficient sustenance through 
scavenging only.

The reply is: "Yes, but do present large carnivores primarily scavenge?  
Could they survive just on scavenge?  Can't we analogize T. rex to to 
large terrestrial predators of today to some extent?"   

The reply is, of course: "Dinosaurs were unlike anything which has ever 
lived, you know.  So analogies to mammals don't work."   Evidence is 
offered to prove that a carnivorous animal's size does not necessarily 
dictate it's method of procuring flesh to consume.  Let's say the 
examples are primarily of marine life or birds.  Furthermore, it's teeth 
were not for killing, say the scavenge-proponents: They were for shaking 
apart large corpses and crushing bones to make body parts more 
consumable by the scavenging T. rex.

Finally, say by some miracle we find a tyrannosaur and triceratops 
fossilized together in a death embrace similar to that of the Tugrugeen 
fossil, except the tyrannosaur's jaws are biting into the face of the 
triceratops and the triceratops has gored the tyrannosaur.   The 
scavenging T. rex proponents say that this proves nothing about 
predation -- could have been a territorial contest!  Otherwise, why 
would T. rex be so crazy as to run into the face of a triceratops!  
There are, however, plenty of examples of T. rex consumption of already 
dead dinosaurs, which the scavenger proponents argue is certainly good 
evidence to advance the scavenger hypo, this T. rex/Triceratops fossil 
notwithstanding..

I trust you see the similarities between the packhunting dromaeosaur 
argument and the scavenging T. rex argument? 

So now what?  What do we do?  Do we continue to focus on T. rex the 
hunter (because it is the most likely hypo) but then use a different set 
of criteria to focus on Deinonychus the pack hunter (because it is "a 
possibility") because that scenario suits our preferences better?  

Try to think about this dispassionately.

Well, as the topic of this post indicates, this time it really *is* it 
from me.  I gladly give the last word to whomever, because at this point 
it doesn't matter.  What is important to me is that the pack-hunt 
enthusiasts think about the methodology they use to come to their 
conclusion in both this and the scavenging tyrannosaur controversy  (not 
to mention generally) and then consider how it affects their opinions 
and assumptions about the animals in question.

Although this thread has clearly annoyed some of the younger list 
members, I also hope it's challenged them to be more objective about 
interpretation of evidence (rather than just sending them running for 
the first thing they can get their hands on to throw!) . 

Larry

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com