Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ezgon

Theory on extinction of dinosaurs

35 posts in this topic

It seems logical to me that hundreds of thousands of these gigantic stomachs on 4 legs required astronomical amounts of food to survive and ipso facto left behind astronomical mountains of dung.After a few million years of grazing the vast plains and forests where they were found,the food supplies started to become more and more scarce,a 20 tons plant-eater would have easily cleared an area the size of central park during its lifetime if not larger.Multiply this by 1,000 and you can easily see an area the size of New York become cleared of everything they could eat in no time.Now multiply this by 100 and the problem becomes apparent.Add the problems related to the tons of dung produced and accumulating

and releasing tons of gases in the atmosphere and you have the perfect scenario for a relatively rapid progression of conditions leading to their extinction.They simply ran out of food by eating so much and by releasing so much gases in the atmosphere impairing the growth of new plants and killing some plant species indispensable to their survival.

I am no scientist and it is just and theory,but it seems to make sense to me.Ok,I'm ready for the first 1000 readers to throw their stone at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply, your theory is overpopulation led to extinction. But, our experience is that although animal overpopulation leads to die outs significantly reducing populations, it rarely reads to extinction. Populations usually stabilize at environmentally sustainable levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And considering the fact that this would be a...human-free environment, meaning nature would have been allowed to take care of itself, with the proper mechanisms, that means that natural selection would have made so that, simply, the strongest would survive, and the population would return again to "normal" levels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature (granted, only when free of mankind's intervention) works to balance itself rather well...a population can only exist in an area that can support it.

If, as you propose, a herd of animals were to deplete the food supply available to them, then their population would not be able to grow...young would be unlikely to survive long treks to new food sources without some kind of nourishment, and the numbers of the population would dwindle, until eventually stabalising once more, when there was enough food to support the diminished number...that's how nature works.

This same system also involved predators, disease (with obviously spreads easier in crowded populations), and many other factors that ensure nature keeps a finely tuned balance...whenever a populations number rises to high, it is forced to drop once more (usually because predators will become more numerous with the adundant food around).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your theory also leaves out the carnivours who would kill quite a bit of that 1000 x 100 number, everything balances out, and besides that, isnt manewer(sp?) a good fertilizer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simply, your theory is overpopulation led to extinction. But, our experience is that although animal overpopulation leads to die outs significantly reducing populations, it rarely reads to extinction. Populations usually stabilize at environmentally sustainable levels.

368993[/snapback]

Ok,no problems with Mother Nature in its infinite wisdom takes care of itself and therefore reestablishes balance and harmony.But we are talking about animals of gigantic proportions who lived extremely long lifes(most likely longer than we do).

They laid eggs,lots of them.The abundance of food was favorable to large herds of these plant eaters and they traveled constantly in their quest for new habitats.

After having exhausted a vast area of its food supply,they would go on to look for another region and start over once again.I can understand that Nature will intervene and regulate a population of rats if food gets scarce and it has time to do so because it is fairly gradual in its progression.But we are talking about creatures that could eat hundreds if not thousands of pounds of food each every day.One day you have a forrest in front of you and it looks as if it will never be depleted completely but a few days later there's almost nothing left.No warnings that these are the only trees or plants left and that behind there is nothing but rocks or water and that once those are gone,sorry but no food unless you travel to the next prehistoric diner.Let's not forget that these dinos were not the brightest things on 4 legs.So repeat that scenario across the continent a thousand times and nature or no nature to regulate and take care of the problem,you have a problem.And let's not forget how long these animals lived.

If faced with dwindling food supplies Nature decided to let the "stop ****ing and no babies for a while " gene kick in,then you still have massive appetites to take care of, and they will need to eat.The weak and the old ones die first, but the strong ones are still getting at it,eating and eating and eating and getting bigger and bigger and bigger and living decades longer,and the food supplies got more and more depleted(trees and plants didn't regenerate fast enough to maintain balance and availability) and then one day :NADA.I don't think that the usual laws of nature applied to the dinosaurs simply because of the size involved,the numbers and the longevity of these animals.If Nature always intervenes and regulates to maintain harmony and balance,then why did so many species become extinct?Nature did intervene,it saw that it could not allow these creatures to continue destroying everything around them and that it was doomed if they didn't disappear.And so they did.And because of their deaths ,mammals like us lived.They may have been the biggest and the strongest, but they were not the smartest and the fittest for this planet.

Throw the stones.I'm ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you underestimate the size of the prehistoric jungles and forests. For that matter, I think you overestimate how long the giant saurians lived. Also, even though they did eventually go extinct, keep in mind that these creatures held sway for over 130 million years. There was nothing unbalanced about the system they lived in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, not only where prehistoric jungles a lot larger, they were more dense as well. too agree with aquatas i think your over exaggerating on the life expactancy, yes certain species have been proven to live into the hundreds, but most are around 40 years, and again you have to take into account they are also hunted and that when they do lay thier eggs not all of them survive the initial hatch, and then even if they are lucky enough to actually hatch they may not survive thier first year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also, many dinosaurs were not huge. In fact, many were quite small...some barely the size of chickens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After having exhausted a vast area of its food supply,they would go on to look for another region and start over once again.I can understand that Nature will intervene and regulate a population of rats if food gets scarce and it has time to do so because it is fairly gradual in its progression.But we are talking about creatures that could eat hundreds if not thousands of pounds of food each every day.One day you have a forrest in front of you and it looks as if it will never be depleted completely but a few days later there's almost nothing left.No warnings that these are the only trees or plants left and that behind there is nothing but rocks or water and that once those are gone,sorry but no food unless you travel to the next prehistoric diner.Let's not forget that these dinos were not the brightest things on 4 legs.So repeat that scenario across the continent a thousand times and nature or no nature to regulate and take care of the problem,you have a problem.And let's not forget how long these animals lived.

and i don't think the dino's would clear the area of roots, etc. in the time they were there...so when they leave, what happens? food grows back! haven't you seen the land before time? they return to the same spots! tongue.gif

but seriously, ( i may be wrong) but i think all the food would grow back in time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do think its unprobable, for all the reasons people have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not likley I agree but the thread starter has a theory but it fails in all the areas mentioned. One other fact remains also all the evidence supports a sudden extinction NOT a gradual one that starvation would suggest. This is a big reason most have always subscribes to Metor theory or some other sudden disaster

Edited by panther10758

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beutiful point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most large predators besides the alligator were warmed-blooded. They need lots of energy to hunt and kill their prey. Now the herbivores may have been cold blooded which would mean they would have naturally needed less energy; hence, the dinosaurs you speak of may not have consumed as much food as you think.

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5c51d90.htm

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/image_g...o/coldwarm.html

Edited by 4dplane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature has a way of adapting to such situations.

Take Australia for example...

We have alot of bush fires here and with all the bush fires we've had you'd think that all the trees would be burnt down by now. Buy nature has adapted. We have trees that have seeds that respond to fires - ie. when one of those trees are buring, it's seeds gets released. So although that tree may of died it released enough seeds for 3-4 more trees to grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory is that a massive world wise flood occurred when the springs of the ocean opened up because of tectonic disturbance. After the waters dissipated, the atmosphere drastically changed. If you examine what the world would be like before such an event, the atmospheric pressure would have been so great, that oxygen would actually be forced into your bloodstream. This atmosphere would be far more accomodating to a 100ft tall beast.

This could also explain why in the past, humans supposedly grew larger in mass, and lived longer.

After this flood, the atmosphere worn thin, and the larger beasts died off, unable to adapt. The flood would explain the water errosion on the sphinx, and also why we find fossils of aquatic life at very high mountain altitudes. Maybe it would even account for why we have so many fossils to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply believe that dinosaurs were unable to adapt to a drastic change in their environment, Darwin theory on Evalution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simply, your theory is overpopulation led to extinction. But, our experience is that although animal overpopulation leads to die outs significantly reducing populations, it rarely reads to extinction. Populations usually stabilize at environmentally sustainable levels.

368993[/snapback]

alien.gif Heres what i found some of the reasons for Extinctions of the Dionsaurs: Changing Climate, Greenhouse effect, Excessive Size, Desease and Epidemic, Starvation, Egg predation, Non-viable eggs, Ecological replacement by Mammals, Reversal in the Earths Magnitic fields, and Super Nova in near by space, could of been due to any one of these disasters? There is still a debate going on as to why? Zepher_one!

post-12871-1109259440.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any one thing caused the extinction.

Careful examination of the fossil record shows a decline in population before the asteroid hit. Between disease, the global enviromental changes, evolution itself, it was bound to happen... They had a 170 million year run, their time came.

It wasn't the first, or even the biggest, mass extinction, it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I simply believe that dinosaurs were unable to adapt to a drastic change in their environment, Darwin theory on Evalution

499393[/snapback]

alien.gif That is a possiability also, but the debate still rages as to why???? thumbsup.gif

post-12871-1109378979.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think any one thing caused the extinction.

Careful examination of the fossil record shows a decline in population before the asteroid hit. Between disease, the global enviromental changes, evolution itself, it was bound to happen... They had a 170 million year run, their time came.

It wasn't the first, or even the biggest, mass extinction, it happens.

501718[/snapback]

alien.gif Another good reason i'd say!

post-12871-1109379138.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature has a way of adapting to such situations.

Take Australia for example...

We have alot of bush fires here and with all the bush fires we've had you'd think that all the trees would be burnt down by now. Buy nature has adapted. We have trees that have seeds that respond to fires - ie. when one of those trees are buring, it's seeds gets released. So although that tree may of died it released enough seeds for 3-4 more trees to grow.

383143[/snapback]

good point. nature tends to take care of itself. preventing natural forest fires is actually a bad thing. brush tends to build up and up and up and eventually it will fuel a huge fire. nature usually runs its course and everything cycles.

i don't think there were billions of these huge dinosaurs all over the world. there probably were herds of them just like there are herds of elephants and things like that now. think of all the buffalo that used to live in the USA before humans killed them off. they never ate all of the grass, but that seems like all they do...just eat grass and crap. the dinosaurs will eat in one area and move on allowing the area to regrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[attachmentid=12244]

Nature has a way of adapting to such situations.

Take Australia for example...

We have alot of bush fires here and with all the bush fires we've had you'd think that all the trees would be burnt down by now. Buy nature has adapted. We have trees that have seeds that respond to fires - ie. when one of those trees are buring, it's seeds gets released. So although that tree may of died it released enough seeds for 3-4 more trees to grow.

383143[/snapback]

good point. nature tends to take care of itself. preventing natural forest fires is actually a bad thing. brush tends to build up and up and up and eventually it will fuel a huge fire. nature usually runs its course and everything cycles.

i don't think there were billions of these huge dinosaurs all over the world. there probably were herds of them just like there are herds of elephants and things like that now. think of all the buffalo that used to live in the USA before humans killed them off. they never ate all of the grass, but that seems like all they do...just eat grass and crap. the dinosaurs will eat in one area and move on allowing the area to regrow.

505650[/snapback]

alien.gif More than likely to move on to find new resources for food! Seeing they ate all there was in that area.. These are Huge dinosaurs which require a mass quanity of food espically those being vegetarians.

post-12871-1109620045.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dinosaurs had very small brains and could little other than to eat sleep and reproduce it would be tough for them to survive at all. running out of food would be one problem as they ate everything and this would impact T-Rex and others who relied on them for their food

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.