Saru Posted April 3, 2012 #1 Share Posted April 3, 2012 A startling new theory suggests that dinosaurs were simply too big and cumbersome to live on land. Professor Brian J Ford said the prehistoric creatures “just don’t work” in the way palaeontologists have understood for decades. He believes their tails were too large and cumbersome for them to hunt or move with agility, and said they could not have consumed enough food to sustain their energy needs. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharthm Posted April 3, 2012 #2 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Makes perfect sense. Plenty of dinosaurs have methods of swimming. Look at the T-Rex for example. Perfect limbs for such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted April 3, 2012 #3 Share Posted April 3, 2012 A startling new theory suggests that dinosaurs were simply too big and cumbersome to live on land. The most absurd theory of paleontology I've heard in recent years. What will they dream up next? That sauropods walked with their legs sprawled like a lizard? Oh, yes... They debunked that a century ago as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voiceofreason Posted April 3, 2012 #4 Share Posted April 3, 2012 So they built nests under water and their eggs didn't float away? Twoddle. Next crackpot theory please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted April 3, 2012 #5 Share Posted April 3, 2012 That's a brilliant theory... That fully explains why there are no fossilized dinosaur foot prints!!!!.... oh wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gentai Posted April 3, 2012 #6 Share Posted April 3, 2012 this goes hand in hand with aquatic ape theory. the only evidence off the top of my head is the fossilized ancient chinese forest that they found under a coal mine. the picture they drew was of a partially submerged environment. i read it on UM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gentai Posted April 3, 2012 #7 Share Posted April 3, 2012 the idea being they are not swimming most of the time. things get debunked and then somtimes get undebunked in science. like flat earth. some water type creatures today go to land to lay their eggs. i thought that dino footprints were rare compared to the amount of dinos there were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highdesert50 Posted April 3, 2012 #8 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Why not ... certainly there are distinct parallels with, for example the hippo, where the aquatic setting is dominant. Given the diversity in lifeforms that currently exist, certainly there would have been a great deal of diversity in these earlier ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted April 3, 2012 #9 Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) Why not ... certainly there are distinct parallels with, for example the hippo, where the aquatic setting is dominant. Given the diversity in lifeforms that currently exist, certainly there would have been a great deal of diversity in these earlier ages. For sauropods (the huge four legged ones) sure... a marshy, watery environment makes sense... But for the large therapods (two legged like the T-Rex, hadrosaurs, etc) a marshy, swamp would be a hinderance for two legs, especially considering their weight... (IMO)... Edited April 3, 2012 by Taun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpoonyOne Posted April 3, 2012 #10 Share Posted April 3, 2012 'Professor Brian J Ford said the prehistoric creatures “just don’t work” in the way palaeontologists have understood for decades.' It looks like Professor Brian J Ford is looking for his 5 minutes of fame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heroic Bishop Posted April 3, 2012 #11 Share Posted April 3, 2012 What he says does present a fascinating theory, and it is indeed interesting. I for one would like to see further evidence than just his supposition, because the evidence to the contrary makes his theory all but extinct at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mizo Posted April 3, 2012 #12 Share Posted April 3, 2012 So everywhere large Dinosaurs inhabited must have been partially submerged? That seems unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted April 3, 2012 #13 Share Posted April 3, 2012 This is to me a total "wind up" by B.J.Ford who is a Professor and therefor must have researched the subject including past history of what his eminent colleagues have written and said.He is either trying to gain recognition in the subject or he has been at the back of the bicycle sheds having a bit of Wacky Baccy,Which ever .The subject from my p.o.v. is not worth the time debating as its all been said before by people who have spent their lives researching the period....and who must be regarded as specialists in this field... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandOfAmber Posted April 3, 2012 #14 Share Posted April 3, 2012 the idea being they are not swimming most of the time. things get debunked and then somtimes get undebunked in science. like flat earth. some water type creatures today go to land to lay their eggs. i thought that dino footprints were rare compared to the amount of dinos there were. I am very confused by this comment... When exactly did the Flat Earth Theory become 'un-debunked'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandOfAmber Posted April 3, 2012 #15 Share Posted April 3, 2012 What he says does present a fascinating theory, and it is indeed interesting. I for one would like to see further evidence than just his supposition, because the evidence to the contrary makes his theory all but extinct at the moment! Indeed, well said. A theory at best, strictly confined to evolutionary locale. He's saying that they developed partially submerged, and that might be true. However with such creatures as T-Rex roaming the landscape (with a full set of land moving apparatus and zero water movement capability) the theory leaves much to be desired... - Brand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaden Posted April 3, 2012 #16 Share Posted April 3, 2012 This is to me a total "wind up" by B.J.Ford who is a Professor and therefor must have researched the subject including past history of what his eminent colleagues have written and said.He is either trying to gain recognition in the subject or he has been at the back of the bicycle sheds having a bit of Wacky Baccy,Which ever .The subject from my p.o.v. is not worth the time debating as its all been said before by people who have spent their lives researching the period....and who must be regarded as specialists in this field... When ever someone comes along and says "everyone else is wrong", you can bet the house that they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandOfAmber Posted April 3, 2012 #17 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Why not ... certainly there are distinct parallels with, for example the hippo, where the aquatic setting is dominant. Given the diversity in lifeforms that currently exist, certainly there would have been a great deal of diversity in these earlier ages. Parallel would be a stretch. Hippos are Mammals... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fester John Posted April 3, 2012 #18 Share Posted April 3, 2012 @ Gaden, LOL, um they are. The answers are in the top secret cores taken from the cores. The ozone layer as well as an ice shield around the earth played an major factor in gravity and growth size in creatures and other living things from different points in the past. Ozone increase makes things lager as the layer gets thicker, and smaller for the opposite.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fester John Posted April 3, 2012 #19 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Whoops, correction sorry..."Top secret cores taken from the poles"..(not cores, lol its early and haven't had my coffee yet heh).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaden Posted April 3, 2012 #20 Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) @ Gaden, LOL, um they are. The answers are in the top secret cores taken from the cores. The ozone layer as well as an ice shield around the earth played an major factor in gravity and growth size in creatures and other living things from different points in the past. Ozone increase makes things lager as the layer gets thicker, and smaller for the opposite.... If they are so secret, how do you know about them? Ice shield? Around the earth? The only thing that would increase gravity is more mass, that is, adding to it. Changeing water to ice would not change the amount of mass. Can you show the proof that exposure to ozone increases the size of a creature? Edited April 3, 2012 by Gaden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalDreamer Posted April 3, 2012 #21 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Makes perfect sense! why else would dinosaurs have developed shark defenses to hide their eggs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gentai Posted April 3, 2012 #22 Share Posted April 3, 2012 i guess i should have said round earth theory was undebunked. i thought the stronger magnetic field and bigger/higher atmosphere is what made the creatures bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gentai Posted April 3, 2012 #23 Share Posted April 3, 2012 i thought most sharks dont do shallow water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gentai Posted April 3, 2012 #24 Share Posted April 3, 2012 ive heard the ice shield theory to explain the "golden age" weather and the great flood. if such were true it would fit in nicely with this always wet idea. i keep seeing 2 legged dino examples. what about the fliers? were they in the water also? hey, whos side am i on anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gentai Posted April 3, 2012 #25 Share Posted April 3, 2012 i almost remember the ozone size test with rodents or insects but i cant quite recall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now