Re: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?4

[Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>]

> On 6/20/07, don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's not what I'm saying at all. I asking you to provide an example
> of co-occuring sauro and thero lineages increasing in size in tandem
>
> .............. which requires evidence from the fossil record, of the type 
> I described.

so, you admit you have no evidence.


> Now you're not making any sense at all - *Tyrannosaurus rex*, the best
> known giant theropod bar none, is from that time and place. What's not
> known from that time and place is a seriously big *sauropod*.
>
> ............pick a big sauropod, any big sauropod. Gosh, good one.

Seismeosaurus?  Brachiosaurus?  Diplodocus?

come on, even I (not wise in the names of dinosaurs) can name big sauropods.


> A continuous size race, by definition, means a continuous size
> increase. A continuous size increase did not occur. Ergo, there was no
> continuous size race.
>
> This is elementary logic. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
>
> ..........I am just really, really dumb. And simplistic. Why else would I 
> do this? What you describe below, after the words "fallacy of..." is what I 
> call a continuous size race. I also never said that ALL theros drove all 
> sauros, or vice versa. Not quite that simplistic.

okay.....WHAT theropods drove WHAT sauropods?


> If the little guys where restricted to refugia, the smallish
> camarasaurs wouldn't be the most common sauropod fossils in the
> mega-thero'-infested Morrison formation, nor would saltasaurines be so
> common in the Late Cretaceous. The only reasonable conclusion is that
> the "little guys" were able to coexist with mega-thero's.
>
> ........ why not? Refugia can have excellent preservation, or none at all.

if the small saurpods co-existed with mega-theropods, how is that a refugia?


> > 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?
>
> Some no doubt did increase in size, but clearly some didn't, because
> we find small sauropods all the way from the Triassic to the end
> Cretaceous.
>
> .......... a single species, shown to maintain small size over a reasonable 
> time span?

1.  how do you define "a reasonable time span"?

2.  how do you define "a single species"?

_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows 
Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507