Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs may have been a fluffy lot
Sunday Times (United Kingdom) ^ | September 4, 2005 | Jonathan Leake

Posted on 09/17/2005 3:35:39 AM PDT by SeaLion

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-151 next last
To: Centaur

Pelicans look like pterodactyls.


61 posted on 09/17/2005 6:36:45 AM PDT by Savage Beast (Love is the ultimate aphrodisiac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!


62 posted on 09/17/2005 6:39:33 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
During the Mesozoic, the earth's climate was generally quite a bit warmer than it is now.

Undoubtedly due to human interference with the atmosphere prior to the Mesozoic...

63 posted on 09/17/2005 6:48:49 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
...the theory that the T-Rex wasn't a predator at all... is based on several concepts, including the fact that the thigh bone is shorter than the leg bone which doesn't make the T-Rex that great of a runner.

This, by no means implies that T-Rex was not a predator. Built for speed or not, because of his size, the T-Rex still had a longer stride than many of his contemporaries and could probably still outrun many. Also, the same predator = speed reasoning would sort of imply that rabbits might be predators because they are built for speed.

Another point made in the program is that T-Rex's arms are so small and don't lend themselves to grabbing and holding a meal.

With jaws the size of a T-Rex's, I think that is a moot point. Dogs, wolves don't really have 'grabbing' capability either, but they are certainly predators. It's all in the bite.

64 posted on 09/17/2005 6:49:21 AM PDT by pjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
which doesn't make the T-Rex that great of a runner

A predator doesn't have to be a great runner. He just needs to be able to run faster than his intended prey. The larger herbivores were not built for speed

65 posted on 09/17/2005 7:29:12 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Never try to teach a pig to sing -- it wastes your time and it annoys the pig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

It's hard to roll those barrels over a guard rail.


66 posted on 09/17/2005 7:43:59 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

C'mon now. At least he didn't post another Helen Thomas pic!


67 posted on 09/17/2005 7:51:49 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Bring back Modernman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Also remember: these changes in the history narratives don't take place over night. The idea that (non-avian) dinosaurs may have been feathered is an old one, with some dinosaurs (Syntaursus, Avimimius) showing either definite or possible evidence of being feathered, but only now are we certain of this, and that feathers were the rule, not the exception.

Some ten or fifteen years ago, Gregory Paul published a magnificent book on predatory dinosaurs, in which all but the largest carnosaurs were depicted as being feathered. He said in his introduction that, unless the evidence proves otherwise, he would continue to portray his smaller theropods as being feathered, because he felt the evidence of their being endothermic and their close relationship with modern birds demanded it. Luckily for him, he seems to have been proven right.

68 posted on 09/17/2005 7:59:24 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Bring back Modernman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeaLion; PatrickHenry; Ichneumon; All

as I posted last week (or so) - has anyone given thought to the CAMOUFLAGE value feathers confer? I'm certain that early feather-like adaptations of scales would have had greater impact on pattern disruption than as thermal insulation.


69 posted on 09/17/2005 7:59:28 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

think camouflage, not thermal insulation.

highly invaginated and densely layered surfaces disrupt an object's outline and eat up light far more effectively than do smooth surfaces with the same pigmentation and pattern.

I believe these folks are missing a trick when they jump straight to thermal insulation for an explanation.


70 posted on 09/17/2005 8:02:07 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
think camouflage


71 posted on 09/17/2005 8:07:52 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Osama Bin Laden aka Abu Khanzier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
maybe Fluffy looked more like this

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

72 posted on 09/17/2005 8:10:43 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
sexual display for color-sighted mates

let's try it for (possibly) color-blind predators:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

73 posted on 09/17/2005 8:19:29 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; SeaLion
It really doesn't matter. The first post was days ago. The dupes we all worry about are "same day" types. They are annoying.

True. But I'd look like quite the idiot if I pinged the evolution list for the same article all over again.

74 posted on 09/17/2005 8:20:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Socratic
Evolution theory also requires that the species improve, or add characteristics. Like grow 4 toes from 3, 4 fingers from 3, etc etc.
There has never been found any fossil evidence of this. Dinosaurs lived, then died.They went extinct. They didn't change into birds. Birds began as birds, and still are birds now.
Apes were apes then, just as apes are apes now. Humans were human then as now.
There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution. Never was, and never will be.
75 posted on 09/17/2005 8:22:58 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Evolution theory also requires that the species improve, or add characteristics.

false statement.

76 posted on 09/17/2005 8:26:25 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Interesting topic.

What predators other than other colour-sighted dinosaurs (assuming they like their bird ancestors were color-sighted,)
preyed on adult dinosaurs?

Not directly related as they weren't around yet but
Canines are not colour-sighted, how about felines?

77 posted on 09/17/2005 8:28:15 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Osama Bin Laden aka Abu Khanzier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

No it isn't. In order to evolve, a species would have to add characteristics. That's the whole idea behind evolution theory. From a single cell to lungs and eyeballs, brains fingers, feet, toes, arms and legs. That's addition not subtraction.


78 posted on 09/17/2005 8:36:03 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

In fact, Everything on the earth is de-volving, not evolving.


79 posted on 09/17/2005 8:38:08 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Ichneumon

your statement:

"Evolution theory also requires that the species improve, or add characteristics."

this is false. The theory of evolution does not *require* that species *improve* OR *add* characteristics.

The theory of evolution explains how some species, through mutation and selection, become better adapted to their changing environments as well as how other species, through mutation and selection, become MALADAPTED to their changing environments.
The theory of evolution explains how some species, through mutation and selection, add characteristics as well as how other species, through mutation and selection, LOSE chartacteristics.

for more detail, I now turn you over to Ichneumon's care.


80 posted on 09/17/2005 8:44:22 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-151 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson