Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why Dinosaurs Were So Huge


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 09 February 2012 - 01:21 PM

View Postacute alan, on 09 February 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Dinosaurs got bigger and bigger because their moms and dads made them eat their fruit & veg!

No. Seriously.....

They obviously grew bigger if it was advantageous to do so. Not every species of dinosaur would gain an advantage thru being larger, so not all species grew to an enormous size.
Humans are going the same way. Taller people are more successful, earn more money, and have more children. Therefore, every future generation will be bigger than the one before, until it becomes a disadvantage (or no advantage) to be larger.
There's no reason why we can't have 20-feet-tall ants in the future. It's just natural selection.

There appears to be a reason:

Atmospheric oxygen level and the evolution of insect body size.

Abstract

Insects are small relative to vertebrates, possibly owing to limitations or costs associated with their blind-ended tracheal respiratory system. The giant insects of the late Palaeozoic occurred when atmospheric PO(2) (aPO(2)) was hyperoxic, supporting a role for oxygen in the evolution of insect body size. The paucity of the insect fossil record and the complex interactions between atmospheric oxygen level, organisms and their communities makes it impossible to definitively accept or reject the historical oxygen-size link, and multiple alternative hypotheses exist. However, a variety of recent empirical findings support a link between oxygen and insect size, including: (i) most insects develop smaller body sizes in hypoxia, and some develop and evolve larger sizes in hyperoxia; (ii) insects developmentally and evolutionarily reduce their proportional investment in the tracheal system when living in higher aPO(2), suggesting that there are significant costs associated with tracheal system structure and function; and (iii) larger insects invest more of their body in the tracheal system, potentially leading to greater effects of aPO(2) on larger insects. Together, these provide a wealth of plausible mechanisms by which tracheal oxygen delivery may be centrally involved in setting the relatively small size of insects and for hyperoxia-enabled Palaeozoic gigantism
.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20219733


#17    Kopernicus

Kopernicus

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:21 Aug 2008

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:30 AM

The gigantism of dinosaurs was the result of a lowering of surface gravitation on the Earth. The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction explains this as well as flood basalt volcanism (e.g. the Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps) and many other phenomena. If interested, go to www.dinoextinct.com and click on 'The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction' to view the pdf.


#18    Fester John

Fester John

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hollow Earth

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:58 AM

Your all wrong... it was because the ozone layer was more than 200% thicker than it is now and fluctuates through time. Also there was an ice "shield" around the earth which in turn enhanced the effects of the ozone layer.. Ever think of where all that water came from that flooded the earth and killed the titans of old? Some core samples that are recovered from the poles give proof to this but would never be released to the public...


#19    Mr Supertypo

Mr Supertypo

    Hi...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,780 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:somewhere in Europe

  • not for nothing, but you sound like a half [...]

Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:20 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 09 February 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

There appears to be a reason:

Atmospheric oxygen level and the evolution of insect body size.

Abstract

Insects are small relative to vertebrates, possibly owing to limitations or costs associated with their blind-ended tracheal respiratory system. The giant insects of the late Palaeozoic occurred when atmospheric PO(2) (aPO(2)) was hyperoxic, supporting a role for oxygen in the evolution of insect body size. The paucity of the insect fossil record and the complex interactions between atmospheric oxygen level, organisms and their communities makes it impossible to definitively accept or reject the historical oxygen-size link, and multiple alternative hypotheses exist. However, a variety of recent empirical findings support a link between oxygen and insect size, including: (i) most insects develop smaller body sizes in hypoxia, and some develop and evolve larger sizes in hyperoxia; (ii) insects developmentally and evolutionarily reduce their proportional investment in the tracheal system when living in higher aPO(2), suggesting that there are significant costs associated with tracheal system structure and function; and (iii) larger insects invest more of their body in the tracheal system, potentially leading to greater effects of aPO(2) on larger insects. Together, these provide a wealth of plausible mechanisms by which tracheal oxygen delivery may be centrally involved in setting the relatively small size of insects and for hyperoxia-enabled Palaeozoic gigantism
.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20219733

Dinosars were in the Mesozoikum, the article by you posted talks about the Paleozoikum. Two different era's in earth history. And dinosaurs, are not insects ;-)

Finally got my black belt....

#20    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 10 February 2012 - 11:15 AM

View Post~C.S.M~, on 10 February 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Dinosars were in the Mesozoikum, the article by you posted talks about the Paleozoikum. Two different era's in earth history. And dinosaurs, are not insects ;-)

I know. It was just a reply to a remark about insects being able to grow to 20 feet... in the future. "Nothing" could hinder them to grow that large, but no, "something" would indeed hinder their gigantic growth.


#21    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 10 February 2012 - 11:19 AM

View PostFester John, on 10 February 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

Your all wrong... it was because the ozone layer was more than 200% thicker than it is now and fluctuates through time. Also there was an ice "shield" around the earth which in turn enhanced the effects of the ozone layer.. Ever think of where all that water came from that flooded the earth and killed the titans of old? Some core samples that are recovered from the poles give proof to this but would never be released to the public...

Heh, I guess you read that somewhere. Care to share that source with us?


#22    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 10 February 2012 - 11:23 AM

View PostKopernicus, on 10 February 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

The gigantism of dinosaurs was the result of a lowering of surface gravitation on the Earth. The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction explains this as well as flood basalt volcanism (e.g. the Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps) and many other phenomena. If interested, go to www.dinoextinct.com and click on 'The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction' to view the pdf.

Does that theory also explain this:

Look at the critter between the elephant and the T-rex.

Posted Image

Paraceratherium is the largest land mammal known, larger than the largest species of mammoths (Mammuthus sungari, which may have approached it in size and weight). It is also known as the "giraffe rhinoceros". Adult Paraceratherium are estimated to have been 5.5 metres (18 ft) tall at the shoulder, 10 metres (33 ft) in length from nose to rump, a maximum raised head height of about 8 metres (26 ft), and a skull length of 1.5 metres (4.9 ft). Weight estimates vary greatly, but most realistic and reliable weight estimates are about 20(30) tonnes. This puts it in the weight range of some medium-sized sauropod dinosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia....Paraceratherium

.

Edited by Abramelin, 10 February 2012 - 11:24 AM.


#23    Kopernicus

Kopernicus

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:21 Aug 2008

Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:46 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 10 February 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Does that theory also explain this:

Look at the critter between the elephant and the T-rex.

Posted Image

Paraceratherium is the largest land mammal known, larger than the largest species of mammoths (Mammuthus sungari, which may have approached it in size and weight). It is also known as the "giraffe rhinoceros". Adult Paraceratherium are estimated to have been 5.5 metres (18 ft) tall at the shoulder, 10 metres (33 ft) in length from nose to rump, a maximum raised head height of about 8 metres (26 ft), and a skull length of 1.5 metres (4.9 ft). Weight estimates vary greatly, but most realistic and reliable weight estimates are about 20(30) tonnes. This puts it in the weight range of some medium-sized sauropod dinosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia....Paraceratherium

.

Yes, the post K-T giant mammals, including Indricotherium, are explainable. The theory in the PDF cited posits that the surface gravity on Panagea varies depending on core element offset, which is determined by the movement of the center of mass (COM) of Pangea relative to the equator. At the K-T interval the COM of Pangea was rapidly moving toward the equator causing the major pulse of increasing gravitation and extinctions.

To account for Paraceratnerium and indricotherium, the COM of Pangea would have to have moved away from the equator relative to its position at the KT interval. The cited reference 'Plate Tectonics May Control Geomagnetic Rreversal Frequency' indicates that this happened. I have a copy of that PDF which was initially posted in November but disappeared shortly afterward, possibly for copyright reasons.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users