|
Mike Skrepnick wrote in reply to my cat / hands
experiment:
*** Now, lets modify your first experiment.
..(snip).... Suddenly your struggling cat has been reduced to "puppy chow" in
less time than it took you to read the words "puppy chow".***
My question is not whether Dienonychus could kill a
cat! What I'm asking is why the immobile hands would be better at killing the
cat than a Dienonychus with more mobile hands.
Basically, if the SLC and immobile fingers are to
be explained as predatory adaptations and not wings, what makes then better for
predation?
David Marjanovic wrote:
"Who mentioned
PDW?"
I did!
"While many parts of PDW do still hold, 1988 was 14 years
ago. " Is one of the parts that still holds the bit that says
tyrannosaurs killed by delivering the big powerful big they were designed for,
then backing off, to avoid being hurt?
Seriously, tyrannosaurs evolved from creatures with longer
forelimbs. (Does anyone doubt this?) By the time advanced tyrannosaurs appeared
the heads were big and the arms were small. If the arms were used in prey
capture, why would they be small? How would they draw the prey towards them in
the first place? They have serrated, slicing teeth and "D"-cross section gouging
teeth, not conical croc types so the jaws would be no good.
All extant carnivores that use forelimbs to hold / grapple
prey have long, mobile forelimbs.
|