Re: paleonet Systematics surprisingly interesting Pt.II

["Michael Kishel" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks John.  Like I said it isn't my area.  I've simply just wondered over
the years from a biomechanical perspective how the sauropods in particular
could evolve to such massiveness particularly considering that they did not
have the advantage of intelligence like elephants do.  It would seem like a
huge disadvantage to be huge, slow, and dumb in a world of intelligent,
fast, and lethal killers like the theropods.  Again, just my own critical
thinking process.  I saw an opportunity to bring it up.  Considering the
predators it would seem like intelligence would evolve with size but that
isn't observed.  From a genetic standpoint we might expect them to evolve
quickly and then die just as quickly but this isn't observed either.  If the
earth's mass and gravitation have not changed then that is also a dead end.
Anyone have a good answer?  Here in Denver we have a diplodocus that I can
go take a look at if anyone can suggest what energy and mechanical
advantages might be of interest in the specimen.

-Michael Kishel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jackson" <strangetruther@yahoo.com>
To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: paleonet Systematics surprisingly interesting Pt.II


> Hi Michael -
>
> A gradual decrease in size of land animals is not I
> think what is observed.  Any such signal is overlain
> by huge switchbacks.  Actually, by looking at the legs
> of large animals of similar lifestyles down the ages I
> agree we could get evidence one way or another - and I
> would guess it would not point to EE.
>
> Thanks for your contrib.
>
> Cordially,
>
> JJ
>
> --- Michael Kishel <mike@houseofshred.net> wrote:
>
> > This isn't exactly my field so I could be thinking
> > incorrectly but I thought
> > I would ask.  Doesn't the fact that the overall size
> > of animals across the
> > time period in question decreasing in size generally
> > support this idea of
> > the earths mass increasing substantially (i.e. more
> > mass = greater
> > gravitation)?  Again forgive me if my thinking isn't
> > quite on as this is not
> > my area.  It would seem to me from a biomechanical
> > perspective (my area)
> > that increasing gravitation would favor the
> > evolution of smaller animals.
> > The only way that I can think of to increase
> > gravitation would be an
> > increase in mass.  If true then this could provide
> > some insight into the
> > extinction of the very large animals.  Does this
> > support the theory that you
> > are talking about or am I on the wrong track
> > altogether?
> >
> > -Michael Kishel
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "John Jackson" <strangetruther@yahoo.com>
> > To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 10:56 AM
> > Subject: paleonet Systematics surprisingly
> > interesting Pt.II
> >
> [snip]
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>