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.


- - - - -

T-Rex was a scavenger?


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#16    Creepy_Steve

Creepy_Steve

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Joined:06 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 October 2005 - 10:50 AM

Quote


t.rex was a savenger,not a predator?
what you think?




#17    darkknight

darkknight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts
  • Joined:10 Oct 2005

Posted 20 October 2005 - 03:18 PM

both..it would very easy for t-rex to scavenge when other small predator made a kill and big bad t-rex just scared little ones off. on the other side its huge jaws can make quick kill with one bite( bite contains bacteria) its estimated that the Tyrannosaurus was able to bite with a force of 3,000 pounds. its most likely prey' slow moving dinosaurs.


#18    NME_locus

NME_locus

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Born: INDIANA / Raised: Houston, Texas

  • "My job as a skeptic is not to deny the paranormal, but to flush out the fakes so that we focus on the claims worthy of being authentic."

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:07 PM

Quote


This was said on another thread, but the T-Rex as scavenger is nonsense designed to give a certain exhibitionist paleontologist some publicity.
The main argument for this is that T Rex's arms were nearly useless and he wasn't very fast.  Now consider the T-Rex as a "land crocodile".  Crocodiles do not need front claws to be a highly succesful predator.  Huge jaws are quite enough.  Also consider crocs wait in ambush for animals to come to the water.  T-Rex could wait along "game trails" for dinos to pass by.


True but they have also proven that t-rexes have a hard time to get back up once he falls.

Quote


There is no such thing as a pure scavening reptile today, and there probably wasn't 65 millions years ago.  


What about Komoto Dragons? Their toxin they carry in their saliva alone can kill a human, due to all the bacteria from feeding on decaying flesh.




#19    draconic chronicler

draconic chronicler

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 6,229 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2005 - 10:19 PM

Why would toxic saliva make the komodo dragon a pure scavenger?  Like every predator they will scavenge a meal if they find uneaten carrion, but are fearsome hunters as well, attacking water buffalo and even humans.  The T-Rex argument was responding to the the statement that they were entirely scavengers and could not hunt.  This is what I said was nonsense.


#20    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 20 October 2005 - 11:41 PM

i agree entirely with DC

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#21    TheEssenceofExcellence

TheEssenceofExcellence

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Joined:06 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • May the Lord bless you, your house, and all your endeavors.

Posted 21 October 2005 - 02:30 AM

T-Rex probably did scavenge, something as big as it was could easily steal another predators kill.  But there's no way it was only a scavenger.  There are simple facts that show T-Rex was a hunter...

Fact 1:  IT WAS BIG.  Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around.  Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.

Fact 2:  T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had.  You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things.  This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter.  If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???

Fact 3:  T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain.  T-Rex was smart and cunning.  You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter.  The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.

The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey.  But what do their machines know???  Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).
  
In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals.  (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength).   Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow.  But that makes no sense.  These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons.  If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.

When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.

T-Rex was probably fast for its' size, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite, we also know it was smart.  T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own.  Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack.  Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory.  We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters......we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils.  But they were hunters.

Ignatius to the Magnesians: "It is therefore fitting, that we should not only be called Christians, but be so.

#22    DemonWatcher

DemonWatcher

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • I am a Watcher who must endure, in order to see I must abide by the laws of time.

Posted 21 October 2005 - 05:32 AM

Quote


T-Rex probably did scavenge, something as big as it was could easily steal another predators kill.  But there's no way it was only a scavenger.  There are simple facts that show T-Rex was a hunter...

Fact 1:  IT WAS BIG.  Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around.  Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.

Fact 2:  T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had.  You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things.  This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter.  If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???

Fact 3:  T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain.  T-Rex was smart and cunning.  You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter.  The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.

The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey.  But what do their machines know???  Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).
  
In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals.  (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength).   Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow.  But that makes no sense.  These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons.  If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.

When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.

T-Rex was probably fast for its' size, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite, we also know it was smart.  T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own.  Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack.  Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory.  We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters......we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils.  But they were hunters.


that and those same simulaters once said that Tyranosuarus Rex could go as fast as 40 mph, which is as fast as some cars and most bicyclists(road bikes), so he could actually catch his prey fairly easily, and in groups would be incredibly effective, much like the Grey Wolf, or a pride of lions.

I am a Watcher by birth, and so it should not surprise any when my observations are truthful.

History is where you confuse the long since deceased
And irritate the h**l out of the living.~ Golden Hawk

#23    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 21 October 2005 - 07:42 AM

Quote

Fact 1:  IT WAS BIG.  Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around.  Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.

Strike 1: The worlds best hunters have always been small and agile, a scavenging animal would indeed evolve to be large as the large size garentees a scavanged meal more easily...

Quote

Fact 2:  T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had.  You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things.  This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter.  If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???

Strike 2: You dont need a strong bite to be a hunter, to be a hunter you need a combonation of these attributes: a bite that can peirce and severe main veins and ateries (all thats needed is fangs), claws/talons to slice the prey, and/or speed.  All the hunters of today either have fangs, claws, speed, or all of the above, the T-Rex has none of these things.  As for the strong bite, a scavenger would need the extra strength in order to break apart the bones of the left over meal - to get all he could from the find...

Quote

Fact 3:  T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain.  T-Rex was smart and cunning.  You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter.  The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.

a the size of your brain is only important when compared to the body mass of the creature owning that brain, the body mass of the T-Rex is far to excessive for the gorrilla sized brain to be "intelligent".  Its possible that with that size brain a creature can develop the skills to hunt, but not absolute proof.  As for the being smart to coordinate thier packs or to hunt on thier own, that remark holds no weight as there is no proof that the T-Rex was indeed intelligent.

Quote

The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey.  But what do their machines know???  

the machines may have done the calculations but the equations have been found through human discovery, the bone length ratio holds true to all living animals, and machines dont know anything, but the poeople using them sure do.

Quote

Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).
  

and how long ago was this theory? we had a theory that at the time made sense, as our understanding grew our view point changed...just how at one point scientist thought t-rex was a hunter based on size alone....now we know better.

Quote

In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals.  (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength).   Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow.  But that makes no sense.  These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons.


so T-Rex's arms are in proportion with the rest of his body?

Exactly.


Quote

If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.

IF, and thats a big IF, the were predators

Quote

When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.

so far you've given no conclusive evidence that the T-Rex was a hunter, so im going to have to go ahead and disagree with that statement


Quote

T-Rex was probably fast for its' size

fast for its size doesnt mean its fast...

Quote

, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite

True.

Quote

we also know it was smart

False.

Quote

T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own.  Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack.  Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory.
  

Speculation holds no weight in a debate.

Quote

We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters

Again, no evidence thus far points to them being hunters.

Quote

.....we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils.

And thats what will happen.

Quote

But they were hunters.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but no they were not....










edit: my quote tags are correct but for some reason not working, strange

Edited by seeking, 21 October 2005 - 07:45 AM.

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#24    draconic chronicler

draconic chronicler

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 6,229 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 October 2005 - 11:28 AM

You do not have to use computers and machines to figure this out.  Every point that the "pro-scavengers" use is negated by observation and comparision with similar animals in similar ecological niches.  Even if we accept the "latest" simulations that suggest T Rex was slow, and its arms were useless in securing prey these two factors do not make other living animals today automatic, full-time scavengers.  Such a creature doesn't even exist.

Dinosaurs and crocodilians are both archosaurs and share many characteristics.  Crocodiles, like the "new" T Rex do not have to run down their prey to be superb predators.  They let the prey come to them.  This is a trait of "ambush predators".  Likewise Crocs and T-Rex have some of the world's most powerful jaws, and we know crocs are predators.  And finally, crocodiles do not need to use front arms in hunting (nor do any predatory birds), so saying T Rex must, to be a hunter is completely unsubstantiated.

As stated before, there are absolutely  no other chordates that can be classed as a pure scavenger, and it is pure fantasy to say T-Rex was one.  We have living animals today unmistakable T-Rex physical attributes (strong jawsed, slow predators), that contradict every point made by the pro-scavenger clique.  Just because somebody gets a wild revisionist article published, and they make a TV show about it, doesn't mean it is real.  

It is very reasonable to assume that T-Rex excercised at least as much parental care as crocodilians and possibly more.  This is a trait of all archosaurs, and really has not bearing on being predator or scavenger.  The same can be said of them living in social groups like the other living archosaurs, crocs and birds.  To say they actually hunted in mammalian packs cannot be substantiated however.  Just because we see trackways of what may be several theropods following the same prey item, may be no different than several herons chasing the same frog or several crocs diving into the river to catch the same monkey that fell from a tree.  Its fun to give dinos these distinctly mammalian characteristics, but unfortunately, we see no evidence of this in the other living archosaurs of today.


#25    indeed

indeed

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • The process of searching for a solution is more
    important than the solution itself.

Posted 21 October 2005 - 01:39 PM

Just watched a doco on this very topic and about T-Rex in general.

They had palaeontologists arguing both sides and the conclusion was its a predator that would not pass up the opportunity to scavenge. They had evidence to back up there conclusion such as damage to prey dinos, that T-Rex was the only living species at the time capable of inflicting these bites, and they knew the prey was alive and lived after the attack as the bones showed signs of repairing.

As for speed they calculate at least 11 kms an hour from fossilized footprints found.

The jury is still out on the parental care aspect though.


I should add they compared it to a cross between a Crocodile and an Emu

Edited by indeed, 21 October 2005 - 02:07 PM.


#26    TheEssenceofExcellence

TheEssenceofExcellence

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Joined:06 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • May the Lord bless you, your house, and all your endeavors.

Posted 21 October 2005 - 08:32 PM

Look, the fact is...  If anybody believes something as large as T-Rex was only a scavenger they're just being stupid.  Something that big requires HUGE amounts of energy to exist, which means they need to constantly have the ability to replenish their body.  Anybody who thinks nature would design a creature, that needed that much food, to only be able to stumble upon meals to survive is dumb.  There's no way it would have survived for a few million years by just stumbling upon its' meals all the time; something that large would have to hunt to keep its' body nurished at all times.

All the evidence does show that T-Rex was a hunter rather than a scavenger.  The only evidence at all that says T-Rex was a scavenger was that he might have been slow.  But like Dragonic Chronicler said before T-Rex could have just waited and ambushed its' prey like a croc.

As far as predators being fast and agile.....  Your thinking about Earth today, not Earth of before.  The prey of today is a lot faster, so the predators of today need to be faster and more athletic.  Back then the prey was gigantic, so predators had to be big so they could kill it.  T-Rex being big doesn't mean he was a scavenger at all, like I stated before it points to the fact that he wasn't a scavenger.  Besides, there are many big predators in this day and age that aren't scavengers.  You have Great Whites, Killer Whales, Giant Squids, Bears, and even Siberian Tigers.  Although you may note lions and big cats as being smaller, fast, and agile predators.....they are still bigger than a lot of their prey.

Just think about it, what scavenger you've ever known about makes you shake with fear?  None of them; T-Rex does, it's not a scavenger.

As far as you saying T-Rex wasn't smart, your crazy.  Like I talked about before on a different forum, scientists who say all Dino's weren't smart because of their brain size compared to their body size don't know what they're talking about.  Brain size in comparison to body size doesn't tell you anything about somethings intelligence.  All it tells you is that it was a big animal.  Lets face it, dinos were big, very big, comparing the size of their brain to their body is a ridiculas way to tell how smart they were.  Just look at how big the brain was in comparison to other life forms, that's how you can tell if something was smart or not.  A chimp's brain is almost as big as ours is, but at the same time their bodies are a lot smaller, which would make their brain to body ratio pretty high.  Does that mean they're smarter than us?  No it doesn't.  Body size in comparison to brain size doesn't tell us anything.  Dinos grew big to survive, their size was their weapon, it formed their life styles......but growing bigger doesn't mean you have to get smarter.....that's the trade off.  Dinos got bigger and didn't focus as much on itelligence, meaning they didn't need to be as smart as they were big, but that doesn't mean those with big brains weren't smart because the brain itself wasn't as huge as the rest of their body.  The fact is T-Rex had a larger brain than most of the dinos it preyed upon; it wouldn't need to be smarter than herbivores if it didn't have to hunt them.

As far as T-Rex's small arms.  Like people have said already most birds of prey and crocs don't use their arms to kill their prey, but they still kill them.  T-Rex had small arms so he could balance his huge head and walk on two legs.  The main focus of a Rex is on its' head.  The reason being is because the T-Rex focused on having a devastating bite to kill its' prey.  Anybody who knows anything knows that Rex jaws were designed to kill.  A scavenger doesn't need to kill.  i.e. the Rex was a predator.  He was a hunter.

Ignatius to the Magnesians: "It is therefore fitting, that we should not only be called Christians, but be so.

#27    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 21 October 2005 - 10:46 PM

Quote

Quote


But they were hunters.


Sorry to dissapoint you, but no they were not....


As you said...

Quote

Speculation holds no weight in a debate.


thumbsup.gif
Now that's refuting! original.gif

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#28    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 22 October 2005 - 12:15 AM

^i see you noticed my sarcasm

--

Quote

You do not have to use computers and machines to figure this out. Every point that the "pro-scavengers" use is negated by observation and comparision with similar animals in similar ecological niches.


makes sense huh?

Quote

Even if we accept the "latest" simulations that suggest T Rex was slow, and its arms were useless in securing prey these two factors do not make other living animals today automatic, full-time scavengers. Such a creature doesn't even exist.


no scavenger will ever be completly classified as a scavenger, all scavengers will try to attack animals if provoked, etc...as a mater of fact those bite marks found on fossils that are thought to be from a trex could have infact been left through self defense...no way to tell, thus no way to use that as proof


Quote

Dinosaurs and crocodilians are both archosaurs and share many characteristics. Crocodiles, like the "new" T Rex do not have to run down their prey to be superb predators. They let the prey come to them. This is a trait of "ambush predators".


but a croc hides underwater.....were did the 2 story tall t-rex hide....especially when its known fact that once a trex is down on the ground getting up would be very difficult...

Quote

Likewise Crocs and T-Rex have some of the world's most powerful jaws, and we know crocs are predators. And finally, crocodiles do not need to use front arms in hunting (nor do any predatory birds), so saying T Rex must, to be a hunter is completely unsubstantiated.


crocodiles dont need front arms becuase they have the speed and stealth to make up for it, trex does not have anything to make up for his lack of arms besides his bite, and a big bite with no way of getting to you is useless.  As for birds, again they have other things to make up for the lack of arms, such as flieght, speed, eye sight, and talons...trex again has none of those advanteges.

Quote

As stated before, there are absolutely no other chordates that can be classed as a pure scavenger, and it is pure fantasy to say T-Rex was one.


i agree that no animal will ever be soley a scavenger, however i do believe trex to be mostly scavenger and only attack when provoked or as a last resort.

QUOTE
We have living animals today unmistakable T-Rex physical attributes (strong jawsed, slow predators), that contradict every point made by the pro-scavenger clique.


name me some of these animals that live today that have a very large size, no holding arms, no speed, no stealth, and poor eyesight that are hunters.....


QUOTE
Just because somebody gets a wild revisionist article published, and they make a TV show about it, doesn't mean it is real.



doesnt mean its false either.

QUOTE
It is very reasonable to assume that T-Rex excercised at least as much parental care as crocodilians and possibly more. This is a trait of all archosaurs, and really has not bearing on being predator or scavenger. The same can be said of them living in social groups like the other living archosaurs, crocs and birds. To say they actually hunted in mammalian packs cannot be substantiated however. Just because we see trackways of what may be several theropods following the same prey item, may be no different than several herons chasing the same frog or several crocs diving into the river to catch the same monkey that fell from a tree. Its fun to give dinos these distinctly mammalian characteristics, but unfortunately, we see no evidence of this in the other living archosaurs of today.


i dont have an opinion on the family characteristics of the trex, but what bothers me most is, in that whole post you didnt really say much of anything, all of your points i have shot down, and in this thread, i have shot them down again.....it is impossible for you to shoot my points down as they make most sense with the knowledge we have today, thus far you've only helped me prove that trex's are less likely to be predators...



Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#29    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 22 October 2005 - 12:28 AM

ha, how dou you prove that t-rex mostly scavenged...you can't prove it...
Its a wild idea, but its very far-fetched....

I could say velociraptors killed and ate fish by swimming and diving, you would not be able to prove me wrong, but its so far-fetched, it has to be wrong.
Use common sense....and you haven't shot down all of his posts, you have just reversed the arguement....it doesn;t help at all

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#30    Ashley-Star*Child

Ashley-Star*Child

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere on this planet ;)

Posted 22 October 2005 - 06:17 AM

I do not agree that T-rex was a scavanger (even though the paleontologist backing it is Jack Horner who worked on Jurassic Park), as the evidence is weak and highly imporbable.

The sheer size, jaws, and backward facing teeth favor a hunter.


Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users