Dinosaur Extinction

Hmm.
Interesting.
So. Ophiolite puts together a list of three items by which dinosaurs can be examined in order to put forth arguments on whether they might be warm-blooded or not and you respond to him by talking about four-chambered hearts. Then you go on to say that crocodiles have four-chambered hearts and thus seem to think that you've somehow disproved any of his list of three items?

Why do you think this?

You might be interested to know that the bone structure of dinosaurs is more similar to warm-blooded growth patterns than cold-blooded. I forget the exact reference and am not in the mood to go digging through my back copies of Science, but it's the one a few months back about soft tissue found in a T-Rex bone. I have little doubts there are other studies as well that point to warm-blooded growth patterns. The paradigm of cold-blooded dinosaurs is rapidly going the way of the... dinosaurs.

(Heh. I'm still getting a chuckle out of your interesting style of debate. Introducing 4-chambered hearts and then disproving yourself and thinking that it has any relevance to anyone's posts but yours. You really are a trip, dude. I still think you do this shit on purpose. I wonder who you really are? You're not new here, are you? Xev? Wanderer? Dr. Lou? Whoever you are, you certainly have a unique style.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As usual, you're just only trying to start an obnoxious, belligerent, unproductive argument. Ophiolite posted:

We can certainly exclude point 1 outright (see above). As I said above, points 2 and 3 deserve good merit, however they do not prove anything decisive. As I asked him: cite your sources. What is the further proof? Or was this just a speculation to transition? I don't know? Are you citing any facts? Or just wasting time posting further unnecessary wasteful bull? What did your post in any way contribute to the advancement to academic knowledge? Nothing but waste of time. If you've got factual knowledge to post, that you can cite, substantiate or prove, then please post it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As usual, you're being a trollish dolt who has no answer to any rebuttals but "you're an obnoxious, belligerent who doesn't respect knowledge like I do! You're a bad person! You hate me and have an agenda against me!"

You suck.

Your exclusion of point one because of the idea that there are many dinosaurs that weren't predators is asinine. There are lots of mammals that aren't predators too, Einstein. If you think that you can't compare lifestyles of dinosaurs with the lifestyles of extant mammals... then what was all that talk about the albatross and the pterodactyl?... Pause. You... still don't understand what that paper was all about, do you? Sigh. You're a very ridiculously... ridiculous person.

Yeah? So? Then why did you feel you disproved his three points when you brought up the 4-chambered heart?
C'mon, Valich. Is it too much to expect you to actually follow a conversation? You do realize that you reply to things people have said and are expected to actually, you know, back those things up somehow rather than simply diverting everytime you're called on your idiocy.

You stated that crocodiles having 4-chambered hearts invalidates Ophiolite's three points. This is what you said. Why do you feel that crocodile hearts have anything to do with his three points?

"State your sources! State your sources!!!"
Christ, man. Grow the fuck up. His points are plainly obvious and need no 'sources'. You do realize that one's own brain can be the source of thoughts, don't you? And you do realize that your brain can digest these thoughts and derive the possibility of truth or falsehood from them?

Here's another nursery rhyme for you, little boy. "I'm bringing home a baby bumblebee... Won't my momma be so proud of me? I'm bringing home a baby bumble bee..."

Barney loves you, Valich.

Hey. Dipshit. T-rex. Bone structure. Warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded bone formation. Soft tissue found in fossils. Science magazine. I already stated that I don't have the time to go digging for the exact reference, or any of the other many others that follow a similar vein (ha! You're too stupid to even realize the pun I just made...) but they do exist, I assure you.

"How does your post further academic knowledge? You're not furthering the cause of SCIENCE the way that I am!! You're just a stupid, belligerent person who doesn't respect SCIENCE and doesn't understand my huge brain, you big meany!!"

Seriously, dude. You're such a douche bag. You can only be doing this shit on purpose.

Your focus on 'facts' is ironic considering your consistent misunderstanding of even the most basic of 'facts'. I only wish you could understand how much you stand in ridicule here. I wish that everyone reading your posts and laughing at you had the courage to post their thoughts on your behavior. You are seriously one of the silliest people I've ever encountered in my life and that's saying something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These points have been made over and over again. At this point I suggest a null-diet for the troll.

 

Yeah. That's the tactic that I've been following for over a week now. I just couldn't help but pop in to respond to his latest idiocy. I'll probably put some pressure on him to respond for a while. He'll blunder about, hemming and hawing, digging up some obscure references that are irrelevant to the discussion, and I'll eventually grow weary of trying to get him to answer a simple question that I'll once more stop responding to his idiocy... until next time.

 

Dinosaurs became exstinct because of the magnetic pole reversal,

Yeah a nd dinosaurs did not die off because of a asteroid strike either what nonsense.

 

Well magnetic pole reversal happen every 8,000 years, how ever asteroid impacts are even higher liklyhood during a magnetic pole reversal, in fact the magnetic pole reversal will attract many of the hugh boulders from the surface of the moon, including the dust on the moon. so it is true imapcts from asteroids could happen in the middle of a magnetic pole reversal adding to the events that cause the exstinction of dinosaurs.

 

They gradually died out because of weather change caused by the change of earth's axis.

 

The same magnetic reversal that cause the difficultes of humans also did in the dinosaurs, of which i was talking about in this topic about the possiblites of Atlantis and its orgins, it talks about the ice age and its effects. also some other intresting events of the magnetic pole reversal.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=899878#post899878

 

New ideas are the foundations of scientific discovery! YOU YOURSELF ARE A REAL TRIP DUDE, if you haven't realized this by now, look again! What the hells your problem? Where the hell are you coming from? You are definitely a mental case! And as always, you result to the use of vulgarity? Dah! Your new name is "toilet mouth." Do you look in the mirror everytime you flush yourself down?

There is no conclusive evidence that any dinosaurs were warm-blooded and the argument rests on the following points:

Evidence for:
Growth rates: warm-blooded grow faster
Predator/prey ratios: warm-blooded have a higher predator/prey ratio(1:100). Speed and agility.
Rate of evolution.
Similarities with birds.
Parental Care.
Bone Isotope Composition.
Insulation.
Arctic Faunas.

Evidence against:
Gigantothermy Rate.
Respiratory turbinates - turbinate structure as determined by bone structure in All dinosaurs shows that dinosaurs were not warm-blooded.
Lung structure.

 

More inanity.
You really think responses such as this actually rebut anything said?
Here's a hint, douchebag. Your favorite response is called an ad hominem. And while they can be fun when sprinkled in for flavor, you use them almost exclusively. You have zero ability to actually respond to what is said, rather only the ability to throw a tantrum about who is saying it.

Valich is a fucking cocksucker. How much cock could a valich suck if a Valich could stop sucking cock?

(Pssst. Watch it, douche. I saw you typed... pause *gasp*.... shit... in one of your posts somewhere. The horror. The absolute horror.)

Although, I must admit that you do seem to actually touch a little on topic here:

The problem being, of course, that you've just arbitrarily put together a list without showing any sources.

Douche bag, here's a hint. Why is it that you seem so certain that dinosaurs are cold-blooded and yet it is a topic that, within the community, is hotly debated and it would seem that, to use one of your favorite terms (which you haven't used in a while... why? Are you sick or something?), the 'general consensus' is falling on the side of at least some dinosaur species being warm-blooded rather than cold.

But. No. Valich here has provided a list and peremptorily quelled all debate on the subject with his list. Of course, it would seem that his list is longer on the 'for' side than the 'against'. Why is that?


For:

Yup. I've read a few articles on this lately. It would seem that many dinosaurs grew much faster than was once thought to be the norm. This is evidence that they were warm-blooded.

Hey. Looky looky. You actually understood someone else's post. Congratulations. Of course, you still come off as an ass as this point was made to you in rebuttal to one of your posts and you never acknowledged it. Rather, you've just co-opted it right into your own argument as though it were yours all along. This is why people don't like you. One of the reasons.

Anyway. Yup.
(By the way, douche, this was point one of Ophiolite's list.... Or didn't you realize that? What happened to you saying that Ophiolite's list was all wrong?

Oh. And, while we're on the topic, not to let you squirm out.... What was that you were saying about 4-chambered hearts and their relevency when considering Ophiolite's three points? Come on, douche. Think I'm going to let it slide? (Here's the part where you say I'm nit-picking. It's not nit-picking. It's merely calling you on your bullshit. You expect people to let your bullshit slide, but it's not going to happen. Douche bag.))

Yup. Yup. Yup.

Interesting. Isotope composition? When I was talking about bone structure, I was talking about the structure formed by the bone growth. Not it's mineral composition.

Elaborate?

By the way. Since you're such a douche bag and all (I love douche bags. They keep vaginas so fresh and clean) I went out and found that reference on soft tissue found in T-Rex which contains information on evidence towards warm-bloodedness.

Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, and Jan K. Toporski
Science 25 March 2005; 307: 1952-1955 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1108397] (in Reports)

The thing is that the bone structure indicates rapid growth and is much more threaded with blood vessels than would be seen in a cold-blooded animal. It's more akin to bird bones than reptile bones.

Yup. And. Again. You've simply co-opted another's point without ever acknowledging to said poster. Asshole. This is also Ophiolite's third point. But.... *gasp* I thought you invalidated his list because crocodile's have a four-chambered heart!!! Say it ain't so!

In fact, some of the last surviving dinosaurs were arctic models. Tough niche for a reptile.

As to your reasons against:

Depressingly short, isn't it?
Care to elaborate on any of these? Or were you short on google time and merely had time to gather the words without taking the time to misunderstand them?

 

Oh and before you go off about how we expect you to have sources for your list while Ophiolite's list doesn't need sources... There's a difference between the two lists. His is a short list of possible methods of examining the evidence to come to a decision on the nature of dinosaur metabolism. His three points are self-evident. Your list is a list of terms, some of which are being introduced for the first time, without any type of definition.

The funny thing is that most of the 'for' list has basically just been stolen from the posts of others, while your 'against' list was obviously googled up by you just for this post.

Define your terms. Make an argument as to why you think the items listed are 'for' and 'against' as opposed to vice versa. You've done nothing but peremptorily state what you consider 'facts'. ('Facts' being, of course, whatever google happens to spit out at you.)

 

Although the last magnetic pole reversal happened about 780,000 years ago, throughout the Earth's long history, magnetic reversals average about every 250,000 years, but why do you think this has an influence on outerspace asteroid, rock, or dust attractions?

 

I've recently read some of Robert Bakker's books and articles but I find them non-conclusive. It's all speculation. He proposes a lot more evidence than predator-to-prey ratio. Also metabolic rate, how fast they were able to move for a prolonged period, hollow bone structure, geographic distribution in colder climates: but I still find it inconvincing.

A rarely new hypothesis suggests that they could not have been warm-blooded because of location of their turbinates in the skull. This was determined by analyses of dinosaur nasal bone structure: none of which is consistent with turbinate bone structure in any warm-blooded mammals or aves today. The current theory shows the pros and cons, evidence for or against, and says, "What is your own decision?" We have no proof either way.

 

This is an excellent point! It is thought that the mass extinction wiped out all large animals on earth and only small animals, like rodent mammals, survived. And this was the reason for the relatively large mammal species explosion that came afterwards.

 

Dinosaurs becsme extinct at the end of the Cretaceous periond around 65 million years ago. Do you know if we had a magnetic reversal during this time period? Either way, I don't see why that should matter. We are affected by magnetic forces everyday but they don't harm us.

Pangea was still breaking up during the Cretaceous but the major land masses were still mostly in mass near the equator. Sea level dropped a bit but the Earth's mean temperature was pretty high: this was not a glacier period. Also, there was no longterm sustained drop in oxygen levels (although a sudden one could have occured without leaving a trace). Everything seems to point to a drastic, sudden, change - an impact.

 

Were these "large numbers" dated to have been fossilized during this time period??? This is a very interesting point. I would very much like to read more about the fossilization of these lillies if they occured during this time period. Do you have any references on this? Thanks.

 

I've been away for a few days earning a living. I return to find Invert has done an exemplary job of dealing with Vallich's stupidity. However, for the record:

Based upon a variety of reading on the topic over the last couple of decades in popular science books, text books, web sites, science magazines and peer reviewed journals I have come to hold the following viewpoints:

1. Some dinosaurs were almost certainly warmblooded.
2. The extent of this condition varied over time and between genera.
3. The balance of the evidence will doubtless shift somewhat in the future, as further work is done, but is very unlikley to return to the point where dinosaurs are believed to be exclusively cold blooded.

Since these viewpoints also largely reflect the view of those working directly in this field I see no need to do vallich's work for him by searching out the sources. If you are interested I encourage you to find the material yourself. I found all of it a fascinating read when I encountered it - I hope you find the same.

If Vallich actually wishes to wallow in ignorance I for one will not stop him. Just, when you are wallowing Vallich, try not to splash your particular brand of un-knowledge over the rest of us.

 

"An asteroid two-thirds of a mile wide, at impact, would be enough to easily take out a good-sized European country. By comparison, an asteroid or comet believed to be six to seven miles across wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/11/07/asteroid.armageddon.ap/index.html

 

Uh. Yeah? And?
We know.
The event 65 million years ago is the only that is almost conclusively shown to be caused by bolide impact. (Although, it's still somewhat disputed here and there.) It was the other events that we were talking about so long ago... (that was this thread wasn't it?)

(By the way. CNN isn't exactly a journal quality reference. Not that there's anything wrong with that necessarily. Especially seeing as you've nothing to prove on this point.)