Re: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?3

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

It has been consensus for many years that sauropods got big to avoid predation. 
I call that a size race. All I am doing is proposing a predation scenario that 
allows speculation about a 'predators won' scenario.

Most excellent question, below.

"what length of time would prove (to you) that they weren't increasing in 
size?" 

I don't know, you decide. If I don't like it, I'll speak up.

Don

----- Original Message ----
From: Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:49:47 AM
Subject: Re: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?3


>You seem to be saying that for every large sauropod in the fossil
>record, I must produce a large theropod of exactly the "predicted" size
>and exactly the "predicted" age, or the concept of size race is invalid. 
>The level of specific proof you require is not
>now and never will be available from the fossil record, in my opinion.

so your size race is like an insectivorous Tyrannosaurid  --  a nice theory, 
but without evidence.

:)

>While I cannot prove they were there, a trip on my part to the time and 
>place of Alamosaurus would entail preparations for an encounter with a 
>large carnivorous biped. If you were going along for the ride, I think you 
>would feel that wise, would you not?

I'd be more worried about the preparations for the small carnivorous bipeds. 
  (and the bugs)


>
>By known ecological principles, evolutionary theory, and uniformintarian 
>principles;

what are "uniformintarian principles"?

>showing that theropods and sauropods co-existed throughout their history,

theropods and pterosaurs co-existed throughout their history as well...and 
so did sauropods and pterosaurs.

>AND that valid predation scenarios exist, is indeed enough for me to argue, 
>even assume, that they were in a size race, one that was continuous and 
>operated on all the large lineages.

then what large saurpods existed in Tyrannosaurus rex's neck of the woods?

>But, as I am sure you have noticed I am out of touch. I wonder what you 
>have to replace it.

so....the only way to disprove a theory is to replace it?  hm

>Which reminds me; how many of the smaller species have a long enough 
>presence in the record to prove that they weren't also increasing in size?

what length of time would prove (to you) that they weren't increasing in 
size?

>

_________________________________________________________________
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN 
http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm