16 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

www.telegraph.co.uk said:

Dinosaurs laying eggs caused their mass extinction millions of years ago, scientists have said, while live birthing mammals went on to thrive.

In a new explanation for mammals' evolutionary victory over dinosaurs, researchers said a mathematical model has shown that infant size was the clincher.

Given physical limitations to egg size, dinosaurs had comparatively small young. Some came out of the egg weighing as little as two to 10 kilograms, yet had to bulk up to a hefty 30 or 50 tonnes.

Growing up, the youngsters had to compete in several size categories with adults of other animal groups for food, University of Zurich scientist Marcus Clauss told AFP.

This meant that all the small and medium animal size categories supported by the natural environment were "occupied", leaving no room for smaller dinosaur species in which to thrive, according to the findings published in Biology Letters, a journal of Britain's Royal Society.

Read more...

[angi chiesa]

another useless theory.Which came first.....the chicken or the egg

[wolfknight]

Where is the fact. No proof

[mxcx]

Yes. An egg laying dinosaur killed every dinosaur on earth, all at once. Hence, us finding groups of different types of dinosaurs together, in fossil beds, who died together. Thats genius.

[MindfieldzX]

Whats so hard to understand about this concept?

[PersonFromPorlock]

MindfieldzX, on 19 April 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Whats so hard to understand about this concept?

Why there are small dinosaur species found along with large species. If this theory were true, there'd only be fossils of large dinosaurs and fossils of the large species' young.

[SameerPrehistorica]

Still how many theories left to come for Dinosaurs Extinction

[Lady Llayne]

http://www.telegraph...cent-times.html

[RingFenceTheCity]

I like it. It fits with my own ideas perfectly.

[Conrad Clough]

MindfieldzX, on 19 April 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Whats so hard to understand about this concept?

How about:
the fact that the dinosaurs, large and small were successful for ~180 million years with out going extinct, and during all that time they were egg layers.
the fact that this 'theory' doesn't address the other extinctions that happened at the same time such as mass microbe and marine invertabrate extinctions, the extinction most of the marine reptiles (which while also egg layers would likely not have faced the same environmental pressures given the vastness of the oceans), and a general decline in diversity of fish and insects.
the fact that there are still egg laying creatures on earth today so it is apparent that egg laying doesn't lead to extinction.

[Englishgent]

Conrad Clough, on 25 April 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

How about:
the fact that the dinosaurs, large and small were successful for ~180 million years with out going extinct, and during all that time they were egg layers.
the fact that this 'theory' doesn't address the other extinctions that happened at the same time such as mass microbe and marine invertabrate extinctions, the extinction most of the marine reptiles (which while also egg layers would likely not have faced the same environmental pressures given the vastness of the oceans), and a general decline in diversity of fish and insects.
the fact that there are still egg laying creatures on earth today so it is apparent that egg laying doesn't lead to extinction.

Agreed
And the birds managed to survive whilst still laying eggs. In fact birds are (apparently) descended from dinosaurs.

[Englishgent]

tailormaneinafog, on 20 April 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I like it. It fits with my own ideas perfectly.

Oh well, something you can now add to your latest theories. Keep them coming

[Hilander]

I have a hard time believing that.

[catfishyeah]

Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they live under the ocean.

[Erudite Celt]

The only problem with the theory is that the overwhelming majority of dinosaurs were smaller than a modern sheep. The other anomaly I find with these theories is that reptiles and mammals don't usually compete for the same resources. So why should one out-compete the other?