Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 63
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM (130,616 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
This huge meat eater was 45 feet long (5 feet longer than T-rex) and weighed 8 tons, making it one of the largest carnivores that ever walked the earth. This African carnosaur had a gigantic 5’4" long skull and enormous jaws with 8" long serrated teeth. It walked on two legs, had a massive tail, bulky body and short arms ending in three-fingered hands with sharp claws. Carcharodontosaurus is one of the longest and heaviest known carnivorous dinosaurs, with various scientists proposing length estimates ranging between 12 and 13 m (39-43.5 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons. Its long, muscular legs, and fossilized trackways indicate that it could run about 20 miles per hour, though there is some controversy as to whether it actually did, a forward fall would have been deadly to Carcharodontosaurus, due to the inability of its small arms to brace the animal when it landed. Carcharodontosaurus was a carnivore, with enormous jaws and long, serrated teeth up to eight inches long.

Posted Image

Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image

_________________________________________________________________________________

Blue orca
 
Tyrannosaurs Rex vs Carcharodontosaurus
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I find it funny how im being bashed right now for using some great sources from actually paleontologist , yet all the people who are bashing this don't have anything and i mean literally anything to back up how carcha would win. Guys this debate has been brought up and this question has been asked many times to paleontologist and they all say t.rex wins it was faaaar too advanced for carch to handle and yes evolution does play a huge role when you are looking at the Philogenetics and and therapods in this type of debate and who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then. Stop talking crap and bashing show me a source or proof how carcha would win it is out done in literally every single aspect except maybe arms.Please watch this video by an actual paleontologist he even brings up how t.rex is far more powerful than carcha and giga.


Quote:
 
TECHNOLOGY is simply human tools we have used them then and we use them now a man with a skilled man with a club is most likely going to loose to a man with a gun, humans in general cant bite with a force of 1000 lbs or have claws, we need tools to more efficiently kill our prey and ourselves sadly. T.rex and carch have there own biological weapons there fore the don't use tools, im pretty sure u get the basic idea,
Who ever thought you were referring to human technology? Hmmm...

"One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up."

It's clear what you're trying to say here, that Tyrannosaurus vs. Carcharodontosaurus is akin to a modern soldier with an assault rifle fighting a prehistoric human with a club because, like the chap with the assault rifle, Tyrannosaurus is more advanced. But what about the solider with the gun is more advanced? That's right, the technology. What else could I have possibly thought you were comparing this fight to? If you're now saying

"who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then."

then why make the comparison at all?

Quote:
 
i suggest you take some time to watch what this paleontologist says in this video he says t.rex is far more advanced than giga or carcha.
Dave Hone's "How the Tyrannosaurs Ruled the World", seen that already. The link you gave me already directs me to a specific part of the video. Were you trying to direct me to a relevant part where Hone supposedly says Tyrannosaurus is far more advanced than the carcharodontosaurids? Because I didn't catch that.

Quote:
 
I don't usually like to bash but to be honest this is not even a fight to me its more of a free meal for t.rex Crach lived 30-40 million years before t.rex meaning t.rex had 30-40 million years of extra evolution behind it, One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up. T.rex literally almost out does carch in every aspect for the following reasons. All of my sources will be included in all my number of reasons.
Let me explain why this is a terrible comparison. The reason why the Navy SEAL utterly curbstomps the Neanderthal is because he's equipped with a far superior weapon/technology. Weapon technology (actually, technology as a whole) has changed drastically since the time of the Neanderthals, and weapons changed in a way so that they are objectively better than previous ones.

But this isn't how evolution works, and those 30-40 million years of geologic time separating T. rex and Carcharodontosaurus doesn't actually mean anything. Evolution is not like a progression from a club to an AK-47, it is a progression from being adapted for this particular environment/niche to being adapted for that particular environment/niche. And so Carcharodontosaurus isn't different from Tyrannosaurus because T. rex is the SEAL to Carcharodontosaurus' Neanderthal, but because it was simply hunting (different) prey in a different manner. For example, the carnosaur relied more on teeth that were hyper-specialized for slicing and shredding soft tissue; these were even more specialized for cutting than those of Tyrannosaurus, whose thicker teeth were more for shattering bone, grappling with prey, you know, all that stuff. So with that being the case, you could argue that their jaws are about as lethal.

Now, it could still very well be the case that one does have an advantage over the other in this fight because certain attributes will help it more than the attributes of the other animal will help it. And if you think Tyrannosaurus' bulk, cursorial adaptations, the properties of its bite, and whatever. are more advantageous for this fight, fine (I mean, at least some of those things you brought up would legitimately give the tyrannosaur an edge in certain areas). But it's not because of the time gap between the two.
Edited by Ausar, May 19 2018, 02:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
joule-trix
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Ausar
May 19 2018, 12:06 PM
Quote:
 
I find it funny how im being bashed right now for using some great sources from actually paleontologist , yet all the people who are bashing this don't have anything and i mean literally anything to back up how carcha would win. Guys this debate has been brought up and this question has been asked many times to paleontologist and they all say t.rex wins it was faaaar too advanced for carch to handle and yes evolution does play a huge role when you are looking at the Philogenetics and and therapods in this type of debate and who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then. Stop talking crap and bashing show me a source or proof how carcha would win it is out done in literally every single aspect except maybe arms.Please watch this video by an actual paleontologist he even brings up how t.rex is far more powerful than carcha and giga.


Quote:
 
TECHNOLOGY is simply human tools we have used them then and we use them now a man with a skilled man with a club is most likely going to loose to a man with a gun, humans in general cant bite with a force of 1000 lbs or have claws, we need tools to more efficiently kill our prey and ourselves sadly. T.rex and carch have there own biological weapons there fore the don't use tools, im pretty sure u get the basic idea,
Who ever thought you were referring to human technology? Hmmm...

"One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up."

It's clear what you're trying to say here, that Tyrannosaurus vs. Carcharodontosaurus is akin to a modern soldier with an assault rifle fighting a prehistoric human with a club because, like the chap with the assault rifle, Tyrannosaurus is more advanced. But what about the solider with the gun is more advanced? That's right, the technology. What else could I have possibly thought you were comparing this fight to? If you're now saying

"who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then."

then why make the comparison at all?

Quote:
 
i suggest you take some time to watch what this paleontologist says in this video he says t.rex is far more advanced than giga or carcha.
Dave Hone's "How the Tyrannosaurs Ruled the World", seen that already. The link you gave me already directs me to a specific part of the video. Were you trying to direct me to a relevant part where Hone supposedly says Tyrannosaurus is far more advanced than the carcharodontosaurids? Because I didn't catch that.

Quote:
 
I don't usually like to bash but to be honest this is not even a fight to me its more of a free meal for t.rex Crach lived 30-40 million years before t.rex meaning t.rex had 30-40 million years of extra evolution behind it, One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up. T.rex literally almost out does carch in every aspect for the following reasons. All of my sources will be included in all my number of reasons.
Let me explain why this is a terrible comparison. The reason why the Navy SEAL utterly curbstomps the Neanderthal is because he's equipped with a far superior weapon/technology. Weapon technology (actually, technology as a whole) has changed drastically since the time of the Neanderthals, and weapons changed in a way so that they are objectively better than previous ones.

But this isn't how evolution works, and those 30-40 million years of geologic time separating T. rex and Carcharodontosaurus doesn't actually mean anything. Evolution is not like a progression from a club to an AK-47, it is a progression from being adapted for this particular environment/niche to being adapted for that particular environment/niche. And so Carcharodontosaurus isn't different from Tyrannosaurus because T. rex is the SEAL to Carcharodontosaurus' Neanderthal, but because it was simply hunting (different) prey in a different manner. For example, the carnosaur relied more on teeth that were hyper-specialized for slicing and shredding soft tissue; these were even more specialized for cutting than those of Tyrannosaurus, whose thicker teeth were more for shattering bone, grappling with prey, you know, all that stuff. So with that being the case, you could argue that their jaws are about as lethal.

Now, it could still very well be the case that one does have an advantage over the other in this fight because certain attributes will help it more than the attributes of the other animal will help it. And if you think Tyrannosaurus' bulk, cursorial adaptations, the properties of its bite, and whatever. are more advantageous for this fight, fine (I mean, at least some of those things you brought up would legitimately give the tyrannosaur an edge in certain areas). But it's not because of the time gap between the two.
sooooo how would carcha win??? and why would it win??? and who says???
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 04:10 PM
Ausar
May 19 2018, 12:06 PM
Quote:
 
I find it funny how im being bashed right now for using some great sources from actually paleontologist , yet all the people who are bashing this don't have anything and i mean literally anything to back up how carcha would win. Guys this debate has been brought up and this question has been asked many times to paleontologist and they all say t.rex wins it was faaaar too advanced for carch to handle and yes evolution does play a huge role when you are looking at the Philogenetics and and therapods in this type of debate and who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then. Stop talking crap and bashing show me a source or proof how carcha would win it is out done in literally every single aspect except maybe arms.Please watch this video by an actual paleontologist he even brings up how t.rex is far more powerful than carcha and giga.


Quote:
 
TECHNOLOGY is simply human tools we have used them then and we use them now a man with a skilled man with a club is most likely going to loose to a man with a gun, humans in general cant bite with a force of 1000 lbs or have claws, we need tools to more efficiently kill our prey and ourselves sadly. T.rex and carch have there own biological weapons there fore the don't use tools, im pretty sure u get the basic idea,
Who ever thought you were referring to human technology? Hmmm...

"One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up."

It's clear what you're trying to say here, that Tyrannosaurus vs. Carcharodontosaurus is akin to a modern soldier with an assault rifle fighting a prehistoric human with a club because, like the chap with the assault rifle, Tyrannosaurus is more advanced. But what about the solider with the gun is more advanced? That's right, the technology. What else could I have possibly thought you were comparing this fight to? If you're now saying

"who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then."

then why make the comparison at all?

Quote:
 
i suggest you take some time to watch what this paleontologist says in this video he says t.rex is far more advanced than giga or carcha.
Dave Hone's "How the Tyrannosaurs Ruled the World", seen that already. The link you gave me already directs me to a specific part of the video. Were you trying to direct me to a relevant part where Hone supposedly says Tyrannosaurus is far more advanced than the carcharodontosaurids? Because I didn't catch that.

Quote:
 
I don't usually like to bash but to be honest this is not even a fight to me its more of a free meal for t.rex Crach lived 30-40 million years before t.rex meaning t.rex had 30-40 million years of extra evolution behind it, One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up. T.rex literally almost out does carch in every aspect for the following reasons. All of my sources will be included in all my number of reasons.
Let me explain why this is a terrible comparison. The reason why the Navy SEAL utterly curbstomps the Neanderthal is because he's equipped with a far superior weapon/technology. Weapon technology (actually, technology as a whole) has changed drastically since the time of the Neanderthals, and weapons changed in a way so that they are objectively better than previous ones.

But this isn't how evolution works, and those 30-40 million years of geologic time separating T. rex and Carcharodontosaurus doesn't actually mean anything. Evolution is not like a progression from a club to an AK-47, it is a progression from being adapted for this particular environment/niche to being adapted for that particular environment/niche. And so Carcharodontosaurus isn't different from Tyrannosaurus because T. rex is the SEAL to Carcharodontosaurus' Neanderthal, but because it was simply hunting (different) prey in a different manner. For example, the carnosaur relied more on teeth that were hyper-specialized for slicing and shredding soft tissue; these were even more specialized for cutting than those of Tyrannosaurus, whose thicker teeth were more for shattering bone, grappling with prey, you know, all that stuff. So with that being the case, you could argue that their jaws are about as lethal.

Now, it could still very well be the case that one does have an advantage over the other in this fight because certain attributes will help it more than the attributes of the other animal will help it. And if you think Tyrannosaurus' bulk, cursorial adaptations, the properties of its bite, and whatever. are more advantageous for this fight, fine (I mean, at least some of those things you brought up would legitimately give the tyrannosaur an edge in certain areas). But it's not because of the time gap between the two.
sooooo how would carcha win??? and why would it win??? and who says???
time gap doesn't matter??? =evolution doesn't matter???? It definitely does watch and read these please bro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZnpkz4lcU
Edited by joule-trix, May 19 2018, 05:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
My cat would destroy a Machairodus because its milions of years more evolved lmao.
Seriously though, stop those embarassing arguments, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I dont know which of these dinosaurs would win, it is just that being more late in geological time means... coprolites in a physical confrontation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 04:10 PM
time gap doesn't matter??? =evolution doesn't matter???? It definitely does watch and read these please bro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZnpkz4lcU
I don't know how to explain it so that you understand, but let me try my best:

Do you realise that evolution is not an intelligent entity with a set of defined goals in mind? It does not have any "levels" where "level ups" are achieved over times which make the animals bigger and better. Rather, it is about what is enough to survive in the given environment (otherwise, living fossils would not be possible). It can make the animal bigger and stronger, but it doesn't have to. Elephants are for example evolving smaller tusks which makes them worse at combat, but less likely to be killed by a hunter.
The reason why a gun beats a club is because technological development was guided by the goals of humans (in this case, "Kill as many people as efficiently as possible") which have not changed much. The only way your analogy could make sense is if Tyrannosaurus was somehow a descendant of Carcharodontosaurus and their habitat selected for better fighting ability for 40 million years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
sooooo how would carcha win??? and why would it win??? and who says???
I didn't say anything about who would win, and frankly, I care less about who wins now than I did before. But it's not a one sided fight, I can tell you that much.
Quote:
 
time gap doesn't matter??? =evolution doesn't matter???? It definitely does watch and read these please bro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZnpkz4lcU
Nope, go back and read what I said. And also what Jinfengopteryx said. Linking me to that Planet Dinosaur clip doesn't do anything except give me a bit of nostalgia.
Edited by Ausar, May 19 2018, 10:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
joule-trix
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Thats exactly what im trying to say here evolution does sometimes make an organism more efficient than another not all the time of course i never said all the time, but im afraid it definitely does play a part in how these guys are made and how they hunt and the disadvantages they do and do not have. And im afraid technology is a part of evolution because it still comes as an effect from us organisms. I understand what you guys are saying maybe im wrong i suppose but how is evolution not involved in the making of these 2 and how can we not take it in consideration? They both evolved to hunt different kinds of prey at different times carch using the slice and dice method while t.rex using extreme osteopathy which may i add t.rex also has serrated teeth , How about i say this evolution isn't one sided and it doesn't always mean something is more advanced or better but in this fight between these 2 animals im afraid it does because t.rex evolved better eyesight,smell, fused metatarsal, and fused nasal bones for a not only cutting but but bone crushing because remember t.rex also has serrated teeth. t.rex and other tyrannosaurs evolved to handle a wider variety of environments as well. So why is it so bad i use evolution in this topic and apply it when it is the evolution that resulted in both of these therapod dinosaurs. Trodon was a highly advanced animal due to evolution that why it survived until the end same as t.rex so evolution definitely plays a role in this. And bro come on with the cat example.... , yes i see what you mean and i get your point, but evolution made t.rex bigger than albertasaurus or daspleteosaurus sooo it goes both way bro. (EXCUSE MY SPELLING) and trust me i know a little something about evolution we actually had a fun project and lecture on it in my class which helped give us an idea of how evolution worked

/home/aaron/Desktop/school/biology/misconceptions_about_evolution.pdf
Edited by joule-trix, May 20 2018, 12:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 09:56 AM
I find it funny how im being bashed right now for using some great sources from actually paleontologist , yet all the people who are bashing this don't have anything and i mean literally anything to back up how carcha would win. Guys this debate has been brought up and this question has been asked many times to paleontologist and they all say t.rex wins it was faaaar too advanced for carch to handle and yes evolution does play a huge role when you are looking at the Philogenetics and and therapods in this type of debate and who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then. Stop talking crap and bashing show me a source or proof how carcha would win it is out done in literally every single aspect except maybe arms.Please watch this video by an actual paleontologist he even brings up how t.rex is far more powerful than carcha and giga.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs&t=2394s

Wombatman
May 19 2018, 06:58 AM
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 06:31 AM
I don't usually like to bash but to be honest this is not even a fight to me its more of a free meal for t.rex Crach lived 30-40 million years before t.rex meaning t.rex had 30-40 million years of extra evolution behind it, One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up. T.rex literally almost out does carch in every aspect for the following reasons.
I should have stopped at the free meal part, but the rest of the post is equally flawed. :huh:
Its easier to talk my friend and say something is wrong, than actually taking the time and consideration to do your own knowledge and proof why you are right which im sorry to say you have not.
Ausar
May 19 2018, 09:12 AM
What's it going to take for people to realize that evolution does not work like human technological progress?
TECHNOLOGY is simply human tools we have used them then and we use them now a man with a skilled man with a club is most likely going to loose to a man with a gun, humans in general cant bite with a force of 1000 lbs or have claws, we need tools to more efficiently kill our prey and ourselves sadly. T.rex and carch have there own biological weapons there fore the don't use tools, im pretty sure u get the basic idea, i suggest you take some time to watch what this paleontologist says in this video he says t.rex is far more advanced than giga or carcha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs&t=2394s.
I don't disagree with the claim that Tyrannosaurus would probably win. But:

1) No serious paleontologist will ever give so much sense to dinosaur match ups.
2) It kinda sounds like you have a flawed evolutionary theory of your own, where species evolve consciously to become stronger with time, like how humans do with weapons. Such a theory makes zero sense and it contradicts natural selection.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
joule-trix
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Thalassophoneus
May 19 2018, 11:41 PM
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 09:56 AM
I find it funny how im being bashed right now for using some great sources from actually paleontologist , yet all the people who are bashing this don't have anything and i mean literally anything to back up how carcha would win. Guys this debate has been brought up and this question has been asked many times to paleontologist and they all say t.rex wins it was faaaar too advanced for carch to handle and yes evolution does play a huge role when you are looking at the Philogenetics and and therapods in this type of debate and who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then. Stop talking crap and bashing show me a source or proof how carcha would win it is out done in literally every single aspect except maybe arms.Please watch this video by an actual paleontologist he even brings up how t.rex is far more powerful than carcha and giga.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs&t=2394s

Wombatman
May 19 2018, 06:58 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Its easier to talk my friend and say something is wrong, than actually taking the time and consideration to do your own knowledge and proof why you are right which im sorry to say you have not.
Ausar
May 19 2018, 09:12 AM
What's it going to take for people to realize that evolution does not work like human technological progress?
TECHNOLOGY is simply human tools we have used them then and we use them now a man with a skilled man with a club is most likely going to loose to a man with a gun, humans in general cant bite with a force of 1000 lbs or have claws, we need tools to more efficiently kill our prey and ourselves sadly. T.rex and carch have there own biological weapons there fore the don't use tools, im pretty sure u get the basic idea, i suggest you take some time to watch what this paleontologist says in this video he says t.rex is far more advanced than giga or carcha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs&t=2394s.
I don't disagree with the claim that Tyrannosaurus would probably win. But:

1) No serious paleontologist will ever give so much sense to dinosaur match ups.
2) It kinda sounds like you have a flawed evolutionary theory of your own, where species evolve consciously to become stronger with time, like how humans do with weapons. Such a theory makes zero sense and it contradicts natural selection.
I never said evolution works that way all the time with all organisms, but i believe it does sometimes such as this situation between t.rex and carch. I figured using the neanderthal and navy seal as an example would help because its a similar situation due to natural selection and evolution we evolved to out compete neanderthals and due to natural selection and evolution t.rex and its family not only survived until the end unlike carch and its family the tyrannosaurs evolved to be the more successful organism in this case and im afraid evolution does play a role in how they are both built and made.
Jinfengopteryx
May 19 2018, 06:42 PM
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 04:10 PM
time gap doesn't matter??? =evolution doesn't matter???? It definitely does watch and read these please bro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZnpkz4lcU
I don't know how to explain it so that you understand, but let me try my best:

Do you realise that evolution is not an intelligent entity with a set of defined goals in mind? It does not have any "levels" where "level ups" are achieved over times which make the animals bigger and better. Rather, it is about what is enough to survive in the given environment (otherwise, living fossils would not be possible). It can make the animal bigger and stronger, but it doesn't have to. Elephants are for example evolving smaller tusks which makes them worse at combat, but less likely to be killed by a hunter.
The reason why a gun beats a club is because technological development was guided by the goals of humans (in this case, "Kill as many people as efficiently as possible") which have not changed much. The only way your analogy could make sense is if Tyrannosaurus was somehow a descendant of Carcharodontosaurus and their habitat selected for better fighting ability for 40 million years.
Thats exactly what im trying to say here evolution does sometimes make an organism more efficient than another not all the time of course i never said all the time, but im afraid it definitely does play a part in how these guys are made and how they hunt and the disadvantages they do and do not have. And im afraid technology is a part of evolution because it still comes as an effect from us organisms. I understand what you guys are saying maybe im wrong i suppose but how is evolution not involved in the making of these 2 and how can we not take it in consideration? They both evolved to hunt different kinds of prey at different times carch using the slice and dice method while t.rex using extreme osteopathy which may i add t.rex also has serrated teeth , How about i say this evolution isn't one sided and it doesn't always mean something is more advanced or better but in this fight between these 2 animals im afraid it does because t.rex evolved better eyesight,smell, fused metatarsal, and fused nasal bones for a not only cutting but but bone crushing because remember t.rex also has serrated teeth. t.rex and other tyrannosaurs evolved to handle a wider variety of environments as well. So why is it so bad i use evolution in this topic and apply it when it is the evolution that resulted in both of these therapod dinosaurs. Trodon was a highly advanced animal due to evolution that why it survived until the end same as t.rex so evolution definitely plays a role in this. And bro come on with the cat example.... , yes i see what you mean and i get your point, but evolution made t.rex bigger than albertasaurus or daspleteosaurus sooo it goes both way bro. (EXCUSE MY SPELLING)
Wombatman
May 19 2018, 05:55 PM
My cat would destroy a Machairodus because its milions of years more evolved lmao.
Seriously though, stop those embarassing arguments, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I dont know which of these dinosaurs would win, it is just that being more late in geological time means... coprolites in a physical confrontation.
Dude chill no need to bash what im trying to say here evolution does sometimes make an organism more efficient than another not all the time of course i never said all the time, but im afraid it definitely does play a part in how these guys are made and how they hunt and the disadvantages they do and do not have. And im afraid technology is a part of evolution because it still comes as an effect from us organisms. I understand what you guys are saying maybe im wrong i suppose but how is evolution not involved in the making of these 2 and how can we not take it in consideration? They both evolved to hunt different kinds of prey at different times carch using the slice and dice method while t.rex using extreme osteopathy which may i add t.rex also has serrated teeth , How about i say this evolution isn't one sided and it doesn't always mean something is more advanced or better but in this fight between these 2 animals im afraid it does because t.rex evolved better eyesight,smell, fused metatarsal, and fused nasal bones for a not only cutting but but bone crushing because remember t.rex also has serrated teeth. t.rex and other tyrannosaurs evolved to handle a wider variety of environments as well. So why is it so bad i use evolution in this topic and apply it when it is the evolution that resulted in both of these therapod dinosaurs. Trodon was a highly advanced animal due to evolution that why it survived until the end same as t.rex so evolution definitely plays a role in this. And bro come on with the cat example.... , yes i see what you mean and i get your point, but evolution made t.rex bigger than albertasaurus or daspleteosaurus sooo it goes both way bro. (EXCUSE MY SPELLING)
Jinfengopteryx
May 19 2018, 06:42 PM
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 04:10 PM
time gap doesn't matter??? =evolution doesn't matter???? It definitely does watch and read these please bro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZnpkz4lcU
I don't know how to explain it so that you understand, but let me try my best:

Do you realise that evolution is not an intelligent entity with a set of defined goals in mind? It does not have any "levels" where "level ups" are achieved over times which make the animals bigger and better. Rather, it is about what is enough to survive in the given environment (otherwise, living fossils would not be possible). It can make the animal bigger and stronger, but it doesn't have to. Elephants are for example evolving smaller tusks which makes them worse at combat, but less likely to be killed by a hunter.
The reason why a gun beats a club is because technological development was guided by the goals of humans (in this case, "Kill as many people as efficiently as possible") which have not changed much. The only way your analogy could make sense is if Tyrannosaurus was somehow a descendant of Carcharodontosaurus and their habitat selected for better fighting ability for 40 million years.
You just agreed with me that sometimes evolution does work in making some organisms better and more adapted than others, that's all im trying to say dude i know it doesn't work like this all the time. My teacher explains all of this to use in class giving us an idea of how evolution can work so i agree with you but it seems i didnt word my stuff that well below is what we had to read in class to help us understand evolution.

/home/aaron/Desktop/school/biology/misconceptions_about_evolution.pdf
Wombatman
May 19 2018, 05:55 PM
My cat would destroy a Machairodus because its milions of years more evolved lmao.
Seriously though, stop those embarassing arguments, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I dont know which of these dinosaurs would win, it is just that being more late in geological time means... coprolites in a physical confrontation.
Brotha trust me i understand lol , My teacher gave us a project on giving us some ideas of how evolution can work. Not always in the ways im talking about but it sometimes does read this below its actually pretty cool.

/home/aaron/Desktop/school/biology/misconceptions_about_evolution.pdf
Guys i understand what your trying to say evolution doesn't always make something better, but sometimes it does it can go both ways My teacher gave us this in class to help us grasp how evolution can work in all of these different ways im not saying evolution is one sided im simply using it as an example of how carch and t.rex evolved differently but i do believe t.rex evolved to be an organim with more advantages than carch.

/home/aaron/Desktop/school/biology/misconceptions_about_evolution.pdf
Edited by joule-trix, May 20 2018, 12:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 11:38 PM
Thats exactly what im trying to say here evolution does sometimes make an organism more efficient than another not all the time of course i never said all the time, but im afraid it definitely does play a part in how these guys are made and how they hunt and the disadvantages they do and do not have. And im afraid technology is a part of evolution because it still comes as an effect from us organisms. I understand what you guys are saying maybe im wrong i suppose but how is evolution not involved in the making of these 2 and how can we not take it in consideration? They both evolved to hunt different kinds of prey at different times carch using the slice and dice method while t.rex using extreme osteopathy which may i add t.rex also has serrated teeth , How about i say this evolution isn't one sided and it doesn't always mean something is more advanced or better but in this fight between these 2 animals im afraid it does because t.rex evolved better eyesight,smell, fused metatarsal, and fused nasal bones for a not only cutting but but bone crushing because remember t.rex also has serrated teeth. t.rex and other tyrannosaurs evolved to handle a wider variety of environments as well. So why is it so bad i use evolution in this topic and apply it when it is the evolution that resulted in both of these therapod dinosaurs. Trodon was a highly advanced animal due to evolution that why it survived until the end same as t.rex so evolution definitely plays a role in this. And bro come on with the cat example.... , yes i see what you mean and i get your point, but evolution made t.rex bigger than albertasaurus or daspleteosaurus sooo it goes both way bro. (EXCUSE MY SPELLING) and trust me i know a little something about evolution we actually had a fun project and lecture on it in my class which helped give us an idea of how evolution worked

/home/aaron/Desktop/school/biology/misconceptions_about_evolution.pdf
If that's exactly what you were trying to say then you would have noted that originally.

Just to address some of the advantages and "advantages" you've listed here:

Tyrannosaurus had better binocular vision, not necessarily sure about better eyesight. Better bi- or monocular vision can serve an animal well for different purposes and I really don't see it mattering that much in this fight. Carcharodontosaurus' binocular vision was actually comparable to that of modern crocodiles (Stevens, 2006), and yet no one brings up field of vision to try to diminish the fighting ability of crocodiles.

Sense of smell is irrelevant; this is a fight, not a tracking contest.

Yes, Tyrannosaurus has serrated teeth, but the fact that its teeth are thicker also means that they aren't as efficient for slicing through flesh. By no means does that mean Tyrannosaurus would have a hard time ripping and tearing off meat, but the carcharodontosaurid would be able to do that even better (on the converse, Carcharodontosaurus would still have some capacity to damage bone, but it's not as efficient in this endeavor as Tyrannosaurus). In terms of net damage output, I really see them as equals; both have absolutely monstrous bites in both relative and absolute terms.

Being able to survive in a wider variety of environments (if that's even true) is irrelevant; this is a fight.
Edited by Ausar, May 20 2018, 04:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
joule-trix
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Ausar
May 20 2018, 04:56 AM
joule-trix
May 19 2018, 11:38 PM
Thats exactly what im trying to say here evolution does sometimes make an organism more efficient than another not all the time of course i never said all the time, but im afraid it definitely does play a part in how these guys are made and how they hunt and the disadvantages they do and do not have. And im afraid technology is a part of evolution because it still comes as an effect from us organisms. I understand what you guys are saying maybe im wrong i suppose but how is evolution not involved in the making of these 2 and how can we not take it in consideration? They both evolved to hunt different kinds of prey at different times carch using the slice and dice method while t.rex using extreme osteopathy which may i add t.rex also has serrated teeth , How about i say this evolution isn't one sided and it doesn't always mean something is more advanced or better but in this fight between these 2 animals im afraid it does because t.rex evolved better eyesight,smell, fused metatarsal, and fused nasal bones for a not only cutting but but bone crushing because remember t.rex also has serrated teeth. t.rex and other tyrannosaurs evolved to handle a wider variety of environments as well. So why is it so bad i use evolution in this topic and apply it when it is the evolution that resulted in both of these therapod dinosaurs. Trodon was a highly advanced animal due to evolution that why it survived until the end same as t.rex so evolution definitely plays a role in this. And bro come on with the cat example.... , yes i see what you mean and i get your point, but evolution made t.rex bigger than albertasaurus or daspleteosaurus sooo it goes both way bro. (EXCUSE MY SPELLING) and trust me i know a little something about evolution we actually had a fun project and lecture on it in my class which helped give us an idea of how evolution worked

/home/aaron/Desktop/school/biology/misconceptions_about_evolution.pdf
If that's exactly what you were trying to say then you would have noted that originally.

Just to address some of the advantages and "advantages" you've listed here:

Tyrannosaurus had better binocular vision, not necessarily sure about better eyesight. Better bi- or monocular vision can serve an animal well for different purposes and I really don't see it mattering that much in this fight. Carcharodontosaurus' binocular vision was actually comparable to that of modern crocodiles (Stevens, 2006), and yet no one brings up field of vision to try to diminish the fighting ability of crocodiles.

Sense of smell is irrelevant; this is a fight, not a tracking contest.

Yes, Tyrannosaurus has serrated teeth, but the fact that its teeth are thicker also means that they aren't as efficient for slicing through flesh. By no means does that mean Tyrannosaurus would have a hard time ripping and tearing off meat, but the carcharodontosaurid would be able to do that even better (on the converse, Carcharodontosaurus would still have some capacity to damage bone, but it's not as efficient in this endeavor as Tyrannosaurus). In terms of net damage output, I really see them as equals; both have absolutely monstrous bites in both relative and absolute terms.

Being able to survive in a wider variety of environments (if that's even true) is irrelevant; this is a fight.
I take some of what you said into consideration its hard for me to make or form a strong idea of what your trying to say without more evidence of what your trying to explain to me when your mentioning Carch's advantages over Rex.

Now you said that you think smell and location is irrelevant in this fight i would have to disagree what if the temperature or location favors that of the rex or carch from what ive read the tyrannosaur family could do just as well in colder temperatures and warmer temperatures. What if they are fighting during the night or the day seeing as t.rex had the largest eyes out of any known terrestrial animal its eyesight was better than an eagle's , you said carchs eyesight was similar to a crocs, my question is how do two animals that completely hunt and survive in different environments have similar eyesight? and why would carch need this adaptation how would this eyesight aid it in hunting prey? and fighting rex? I am simply curious. You mentioned smell was also irrelevant i tend not to think this based on studies from the documentaries i sent , t.rex had the largest olfacory lobe out of almost any known animal meaning it had amazing smell by using smell predators can see how old an animal is, if an animal is injured, if it is old, what type of animal it is, and how long ago did it visit a specific area. By using smell t.rex could possibly figure out and have an idea of what animal it may be fighting with before it comes into contact with it and have an idea of how to approach the situation. Now i will try to explain and help you see why i believe tyrannosaurs rex would win this fight most of the time.

Observation: T.rex facing Carch in open savannah during the day in climate in temperature both feel comfortable in

Question: Who would win in a fight?

Hypothesis: T.rex would win based on its advantages over Carch ,and also based on the type of prey they both hunted

Prediction: Carch would have to bite t.rex more than once or carefully place a bite in order to do a great deal of

damage as it would with the prey it hunted like surapods, While t.rex only has to bite once in order to end the fight as

it did with more heavily armored prey such as ankylosaurus and triceratops.

Experiment: Lets compare them both Tyrannosaurus Rex has a skeleton that is more built for receiving damage from

rivals, from the fossils we have of t.rex , they are usually all beat up and it shows that t.rex could heal from damage

that would prove very fatal for other therapods such as Carch. The reason why t.rex is built this way is because of the

prey it hunted which were heavily armored dinosaurs and other t.rex as well so it could not only eat but protect its

territory. While carchs skeleton was built more light meaning that it may be less able to cope with very fatal or

devastating bites from t.rex. It would seem in a fight carch would have to carefully place it bites on rex which would

not be easy while an animal is actively moving and trying to avoid to get bitten. While t.rex was more than capable of

tearing off the head of a triceratops which would prove more difficult than carchs more lightly built skull meaning if in

a fight these two animals locked at the jaw carch skull would be obliterated. T.rex was also known to use its head to

head butt and knock over rivals i would also suggest that this would prov more fatal to a more lightly built opponent

such as carch.

Also t.rex has been known to heal from slashes and stab wounds from triceratops and 4 ton blows from ankylosaurs i

dont see how carch can generate this type of force from its jaws where as t.rexes bite force was anywhere from 6-10

tons of bite force. It is also possible t.rex could pick up 5 tons in its mouth because of having the strongest kneck

muscles of any other therapod and not only that having the most muscular body of any therapod it would seem this

animal was perfectly designed to brawl and get tossed and bashed around and having the ability to not only survive

such encounters but heal and recover from these incidents or confrontations , In 2 t.rex specimens one specimen

survived and healed from a wound where the back of its skull was completely bitten off by another t.rex, and another

specimen showed it recovered from its whole tail being bitten off by another tyrannosaur. Now carch is a powerful

animal but it was not built as well to brawl and being tossed around and having it bones crushed from other animals.

Yes it did compete with other large dangerous predators such as Spino, and sarcho but we have to ask ourselves why?

Why is there a need for other large carnivorous animals in its environment if it is such a dangerous animal? My guess

would be that because it was unable to fill the numerous different niches in its ecosystem in order to out compete its

rivals. When we look at t.rex there are almost no large predators in its environment and why is this? Maybe because

t.rex do to having an array of evolutionary advantages was able to out compete its competitors. Does this necesarily

mean it was fighting in order to out compete, Absolutely not but i think there are some things we should look at such

as t.rexes teeth and how they functioned not only are they built for slicing the are built for crushing and not only that

it has a fused nasal bone which allows its jaws and skull to be a lot stronger than lets say carchs , May i also mention

t.rex has different sized teeth as well meaning some of these teeth served different purposes carchs teeth are all

about the same size meaning they served the same purpose meaning that carch's bite is mainly for slicing prey While

t.rex's bite is not only crushing but slicing and it had different sized teeth that would serve different purposes, This

would mean t.rex definitely has the more

deadly bite which plays a huge role in this fight. Now Carch does have claws but these may not prove to be that useful

against a heavily muscular animal such as t.rex. Lets also take eyesight in consideration carch would have to move its

head around more to get a better look at its rival where as t.rex does not.

Let us also not forget just because an animal is a predator does not mean it is just as capable to fight another

predator of similar size. A predator doesn't have to be a huge fighter in order to survive it simply needs to fill a niche

within its ecosystem and be adapted to hunt the prey that it does take leopard and hyena for examples both are

predators both are similar size both are in the same Class mammalia however we know that in a fight a hyena with its

bone crunching jaws would devastate a leopard in fact in most confrontations a leopard will retreat from a hyena. Both of

these animals are powerful animals but one is built to brawl and severely injure an animal in one bite where as a

leopard despite have both jaws and grappling skills is not as well equipped to injure an opponent as quickly Remember

what you said about evolution it doesn't have to work only one way right? just because they are both predators

doesnt mean both are capable of injuring something in one bite or one attack hyenas can chomp through an elephants

pelvic bone easily. The reason i used these two as examples is i see the hyena as t.rex and i see the leopard as carch

the leopard and hyena are also in the same class , and t.rex and carch are also in the same class as well so its a

decent comparison. Plus in order to have an idea of how dinosaurs may have behaved or evolved we have to look at

current animals as well in order to help us better form and visualize how something may have went down.? Meaning just

because t.rex is a bone crunching fighting monster doesn't mean carch has to , carch just has to fill the evolutionary

niche it was designed to fill as t.rex did as well. Also how do we know carch was an active fighter of other predatory

dinosaurs and among itself, and did it actively do so? We have have plenty of fossil evidence from just a few t.rex's i

mentioned above that they were active fighters and brawlers due to how badly beat up the fossils are we don't seem

to have this type of evidence in carch fossils and yes more carch fossils have been discovered. So how do we even

know carch would even be willing to risk a fight with t.rex my guess is that if they were both educated of each other

meaning they lived during the same time and coexisted i would think carch would simply turn the other cheek knowing

that one bite from t.rex would definitely end its life and would not be willing to risk that type of fatal injury.






Analysis- T.rex has a skeleton better made for taking damage

- T.rex has the more devastating bite

- t.rex has better eyesight which could aid it even more if it where night

- t.rex has better leg stability

- t.rex is a dinosaur made for brawling not only giving alot of damage but also being able to take alot of damage more so than carch could inflict on it.

- From fossil remains of carch it doesn't seem to have had that much of an active fighting life style maybe a few but
not many.

- carch does have longer arms but if carch is smart enough it will not get anywhere near the t.rex and its jaws in order

to possibly use its claws it would have to get real close to t.rex.

- i doubt neither is faster than the other both are around the same size plus t.rex has a fused metatarsal for not only more efficient running but more stability.

Conclusion- T.rex is simply to much of a risk for Carch to take on alone one bite Carch knows its over and if it is as

smart as rex it would know that trying to take the time to move and turn its head around to get a good view on where

to bite the t.rex is just a waste of time and leaves that much more time for t.rex to simply charge at it and get closer

to it which is the last thing Carch wants to do as it knows one bite from t.rex anywhere would prove fatal as t.rex

doesn't have to worry about where it places its bite as long as it gets a hold its knows it will be fatal. I honestly think if

they lived at the same place during the same time and t.rex was hungry enough it would definetly make a meal of

carch knowing that carch has to be careful of where it bites and all rex has to do is bite once tyrannosaurs

cannibalized each other we have no fossil evidence of Carch doing this a t.rex would eat a carch over another t.rex

any day. Ive listed enough sources already

May i also add that carch hunted smaller animals than itself on a one on one hunt t.rex hunted animals its own size

or twice its size one on one , also the prey of t.rex was much more dangerous than that of carch if i am correct carch

hunted Ouranosaurus which was about 1-2 ton and 23 ft long if it did hunt sauropods it did in packs not alone. t.rex

hunted triceratops, torosaurus, and ankylosaurs which are far more dangerous than the prey of carch. In some cases I

believe if you really want to compare 2 top predators and compare them in a fight (look at the prey they hunted)

sometimes the more dangerous the prey the more dangerous the predator.

Another example a pelican and an eagle are both predators but who would win in a fight????

Please watch the videos below there soo cool!

https://www.coursera.org/learn/theropods-birds/lecture/VThNN/3-1-early-coelurosaurs-part-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs&list=PL7pg0jIC5etCKwwzeN-RpwvpeLFcaqUpp&index=50

if you want the skull comparisons, and skull strength skip to 20:00 mins and 30:00mins (even though i high suggest you watch the whole video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fWE64V7GQ&index=74&list=PL7pg0jIC5etCKwwzeN-RpwvpeLFcaqUpp

skip to 1:07:44 mins
Edited by joule-trix, Jun 14 2018, 09:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jesus Christ that's a lot. The way you formatted part of your post just makes it look more than it really is.

I may or may not get the time or feel inclined later on to address some things you've said here. Right now there are other things I'd like to do. Just remember: like I said earlier, if you think Tyrannosaurus' anatomy is more conducive to winning this fight, that's good for you (I don't deny Tyrannosaurus has advantages in certain areas). I mean, that's not an unreasonable position. Fundamentally I just wanted to clear up the evolution thing with you, which I think I have(?).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
joule-trix
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Ausar
May 20 2018, 12:58 PM
Jesus Christ that's a lot. The way you formatted part of your post just makes it look more than it really is.

I may or may not get the time or feel inclined later on to address some things you've said here. Right now there are other things I'd like to do. Just remember: like I said earlier, if you think Tyrannosaurus' anatomy is more conducive to winning this fight, that's good for you (I don't deny Tyrannosaurus has advantages in certain areas). I mean, that's not an unreasonable position. Fundamentally I just wanted to clear up the evolution thing with you, which I think I have(?).
Yes i believe we are past that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Technology is human development, pal. It's not evolution.

You cannot stand on the misconception that evolution "improves" organisms. It is blatantly false.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
joule-trix
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Thalassophoneus
May 20 2018, 04:15 PM
Technology is human development, pal. It's not evolution.

You cannot stand on the misconception that evolution "improves" organisms. It is blatantly false.
me and the other guy have already reached an agreement on that now we are discussing something different but thank you for your opinion.
Edited by joule-trix, May 20 2018, 05:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
joule-trix
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
The Reptile
Sep 14 2014, 02:07 AM
Ausar
Sep 13 2014, 11:35 PM
The teeth in Pakasuchus are probably some of, if not the most advanced in reptiles, likely more so than in other reptiles supposedly stated to have caniniforms, molariforms, etc. (I currently cannot think of any reptile with teeth like that of Pakasuchus). I don't think it'd be a stretch to say its teeth could rival those of mammals in terms of advanceness and specialization.
Because they can't, unless there is a good amount of real conclusive evidence that indicates that they were evolved similarly to those of mammals. And frankly, you said it yourself that, even if its teeth were more differentiated than those of most reptiles, that doesn't necessarily make them comparable to mammals. Where are the real fossils of its teeth? Because if you observe those of mammals thoroughly, you can clearly deduce that there are specialized chewing surfaces present, which are absent in the majority of more primitive groups of animals.

That still does not prove me wrong at all

Quote:
 
You cannot just ignore all the quantitative differences between two things because they resemble each other in a few general characteristics (which I even already noted!). I was referring to actual similarity, not superficial similarity.

So in order to be specialized in preying on a certain kind of animal, you must have an IDENTICAL anatomy? That doesn't make sense, because that is untrue

Quote:
 
Two of the three (all three if you compare it to certain animals) also apply to Tyrannosaurus, would you call it’s teeth similar? And yes, the teeth of Ceratosaurus are compressed more strongly than those of Allosaurus.

Actually, they weren't. Allosaur teeth were more narrow; those of ceratosaurus were shaped like a tear drop in cross-section if descriptions are accurate. I may not have searched long and hard enough to find a direct comparison of the two cross-sectionally, so I apologize for the crudity.

Quote:
 
The reason why in Ceratosaurus we have no reason to believe that it hunted large sauropods, while Allosaurus did, is that it’s tooth and jaw morphology are actually different (these two go together, animals don’t have the same teeth but completely different adaptions of the jaws or vice versa), that it’s smaller, and that we have no indication that it hunted in groups.

As I said, creatures do not need to have congruent features to be capable of hunting the same things; they simply need to have similar features. That is like claiming that tyrannosaurids could not crush because their teeth were recurved, serrated, and only semi-conical; it simply does not make sense.

Quote:
 
You can mostly eat plants, that doesn’t mean you are a herbivore. You are a herbivore if you only eat plants. If you eat plants and meat, like humans, or chimpanzees, or baboons, then you are an omnivore. Chimpanzees and baboons prey on other vertebrates regularly, and humans certainly do. These primates are not herbivores. Period.

I know, but that doesn't mean that they won't eat plant matter as a primary food source, now does it?
i love this man so much words cannot describe (no homo)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 63

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.