>documentary about dinosaurs
>ground has grass
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>documentary about dinosaurs. >ground has grass
>documentary about dinosaurs
>ground has grass
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>documentary about dinosaurs
>herbivores daintily nibble one leaf
>sauropods never use their long necks to eat everything in reach
>carnivores always shown carefully removing the tenderloin to eat separately instead of swallowing whatever fits whole
How did the brontosaurus clean they're dicks?
How long are you going to put this up? Shitting in my thread i mean? What a c**t you are. But i know you, i've dealt with you in the past. I've never met a more acidic, irritating person on this site, only here, and that's something. You started this shit and all you can do is sameposting from different devices and not even answering what i tell you. Why here i wonder, of all boards. Whatever, i don't care anymore, i explained all my points, you rejected them by being and infantile loser, there's no point in arguing.
>i explained all my points, you rejected them by being and infantile loser, there's no point in arguing.
you're not arguing anything
you're asserting false information like it's facts and I'm mocking you. I'm also judging you. You won't win anything here because the only thing you CAN win is to learn better information. And you'll never do that because you're personally attached to your wrong information.
And yet you're not providing anything i could learn, which implies that you don't. I know them, you don't. Give me proof that you do, if you can. You wont, because you're not a biologist, you're just a random shithead.
>And yet you're not providing anything i could learn
telling you where you're wrong is a start. Once you question what you think you know, you can then go check and see if you're wrong.
specifically:
as I've said twice now, the bones easily allow movement of the head to the ground. If anything stopped that movement, it was ligaments. And ligaments aren't known directly from fossils.
sauropod necks are usually found contorted into positions that you say they couldn't achieve in life, but if the bones disallowed that movement we wouldn't find them fossilized that way.
The Morrison Formation was almost entirely savannah, and it's reasonable to assume the many sauropods there were grazing on it at ground level.
the posture of the head is assumed based on the range of motion of that atlas/atlantal intercentrum joints combined with the angle of the semicircular canals, which only indicates the NORMAL posture,
NOT the range of possible postures.
that's just a start. Get to reading.
>as I've said twice now, the bones easily allow movement of the head to the ground
Not the extent where they could eat like a goat
>
sauropod necks are usually found contorted into positions that you say they couldn't achieve in life
Because they're dead, duh. Many humans were found in positions that were impossible to get alive.
>
The Morrison Formation was almost entirely savannah, and it's reasonable to assume the many sauropods there were grazing on it at ground leve
Savannahs host tall trees that could be plucked. If there werent, giraffes wouldn't roam the Serengeti.
>
the posture of the head is assumed based on the range of motion of that atlas/atlantal intercentrum joints combined with the angle of the semicircular canals, which only indicates the NORMAL posture,
NOT the range of possible postures.
Pure speculation, that doesn't consider the musculature and vascular system which in sauropods was so huge many theorized they had secondary hearts in the neck.
Anon you're losinggggggg
>Not the extent where they could eat like a goat
see, instead of checking your info you insist you're right and learn ABSOLUTELY FRICKING NOTHING.
stupid c**t.
>I know them, you don't.
probably the funniest thing you've said so far, and you're pretty funny.
also, to point out the obvious
you agree they could get their heads down to ground level to drink but give no reason why they couldn't also lower their heads to eat.
>everyone who thinks I'm stupid is the same person reeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
This isn't low IQ at all. No sir.
they also have modern trees and flowers
What the frick am I looking at
about dinosaurs
Oh, so a complete work of fiction. We literally know nothing about dinosaurs, every fricking week the Jurassic autists come up with a new """theory""" for how these behemoths lived. The fact of the matter is, they're prehistory and aren't worth theorizing about or even digging up.
you forgot your suspension of disbelief on and your brain off
Yeah, man!
Why are we researching silly dinosaurs?
We should talk about the political and economical state of the world right now!
>butterfly autist nitpicking at shit no one else cares about again
I mean, yeah. You sort of have to be autistic to care about dinos as an adult beyond a ‘they were pretty cool’ capacity.
Anon you are a sad sad loser.
I would not wish on anyone to lose the spark in their eyes as much as you have.
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN’T POINT OUT MY INFANTILE OBSESSION WITH SHIT THAT HAS NO IMPACT ON ANYTHING NOOOOOOO
You’re feeling attacked and insecure. Take this moment to reflect on your life choices and how you ended up here. Good luck.
I do not feel any anger towards your statements, only pity.
Probably not gonna unmindbreak someone this far gone, so, here's your last (you)
Now Im not a gnostic, but hylics are definitely real and OP is definitely one. Very freaky how no matter how hard you try, they simply cannot have knowledge.
The discussion of grass and dinosaurs is still an evolving topic. James Gurney depicts his dinosaurs walking around plants and dirt, not grass.
wtf is that flying thing? 4 limbs + a set of wings? a hexapod lizard?
Looks like a gliding lizard. A number of modern and extinct lizard species got a gliding ability like that.
>they use modified ribs as wings
I knew they existed, but never researched them and thought they used forelimbs as wings, like pretty much all other flying tetrapods. damn
Nope, they just had to be different.
I wonder if there is ever a precedent for them eventually turning those ribs into a 3rd set of limbs. They already have rudimentary articulation, maybe theyd develop joints in order to fold up their wings of they got larger.
Then we may finally have actual dragons.
grass evolved in the early cretaceous
dinosaurs used to eat it
the earliest grass fossils come from dinosaur poop and teeth
hope this helps.
there are still two eras to worry about. also
>Other phytoliths extracted from the coprolites (from dicotyledons, conifers, and palms) suggest that the suspected dung producers (titanosaur sauropods) fed indiscriminately on a wide range of plants
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1118806
how did titanosaurs even manage to graze? they were too big and their necks too stiff to permit it
>how do bumblebees even fly?
>they're too big and heavy to permit it
except we have entire fossil necks of sauropods and we can safely reconstruct the motility of their articulations. also it's easier for a small animal to take flight and maintain it, this is just a facebook tier encouragement meme for boomer moms
>fails test of self-awareness
thanks for proving his point
his point was moronic
if he thinks scientists are suggesting sauropods couldn't eat, he's very clearly fricked up from the very start.
*couldn't eat at ground level while their necks were three stories above. imbecile
how do you propose they drank?
>imbecile
kek
no self-awareness at all.
They all lined up and drank the pee from the one in front of them and the one at the front of the line died of no pee every time and that's just how it was
kek
I was thinking they just lay down on their sides by a lake and hope and pray no predators catch them while they're down.
or maybe they walk into a lake every time they're thirsty and submerge themselves a hundred feet under water.
or only drink when it's raining.
Or maybe they sucked so hard they could suck water into their mouths from 100 feet away. Or their enormous exhalations caused water to precipitate out of the very air every time they breathed out, and they caught the drops with enormous tongues.
so many possibilities
Aside from the ridiculous suggestion that sauropods couldn't graze (how did they drink then?)
he also amusingly enough confused "mobility" with "motility." Nobody here will see why that's funny, but it is pretty hilarious. Since autocorrect doesn't change "mobility" to "motility," it means he's using words he doesn't understand in order to appear smart, and accidentally looking like a moron instead.
either way, the idea that sauropods couldn't bend their necks to reach the ground is exactly like the idea that bumblebees can't fly. Clearly bumblebees can fly, and sauropods could get their mouths to ground level.
When he mocks one of those ideas he's mocking his own failure to understand the other.
He is just as stupid as the facebook moms he makes fun of.
based and intellectual honestypilled
thanks
the final and smallest problem with the anon's comment is that it's technically incorrect. Sauropod neck bones easily allow enough movement to graze on the ground. If anything reduced the range of motion it was ligaments which aren't preserved.
But a technical error like that is the least of anon's problems. Everyone makes mistakes. It takes a particularly dumb butthole to believe their mistakes are the absolute truth.
first of all, i don't deserve to be pelted with insults by a slimy piece of shit like you. so frick you.
second of all, you didn't explain shit. you clearly didn't say how sauropods are supposed to drink, what sauropods are capable of bending their neck and to what extent. sauropods had colonnal legs that stood under their bodies, so they couldn't spread their legs like giraffes, and with the exception of camarasaurids, which were conversely the most widespread sauropods of the cretacic era, they couldn't move their necks to the point of touching the ground, the spinal columns of their vertebrae clearly don't allow for that, especially in diplodocids.
third, you just assume that because a bumblebee, an animal that could survive a free fall from a building merely because it's so lightweight, is able to fly with wings that couldn't be possibly be feasible for a bird (no shit), then dinosaurs just HAD to magically move around like contortionists because that's enough proof for you.
overall, you're an ignorant, malicious frick and i hope i would meet you IRL so i can demonstrate you how much your neck can bend under pressure.
It's so easy to get these blindered dogmatic sciencecucks going.
is that your explanation? maybe you should go back to /b/ and jerk off, smoothbrain. now that you outed yourself, i see no point in arguing with you anymore.
I'm not him, I'm just poking at you because you're genuinely low IQ and it shows.
>you clearly didn't say how sauropods are supposed to drink,
Of course I did
I said you're wrong about their necks being unable to bend to the ground
obviously and clearly and aggressively wrong.
and I said you're an egotistical c**twipe for being so obviously wrong while pretending you can't ever be wrong.
they drank by bending their neck just enough to scoop the uppermost superficial water, because they didn't have lips, they couldn't suck it like a mammal. grazing is still out of the question because that would imply the animal would be able to get its head in a position that is fit for picking up grass bldes, which is almost perpendicular to the ground.
moreover, the average sauropod had teeth like these: long, blunt and separated, perfect to rip leaves off trees but useless to eat small blades of grass.
if they ever ate grass, which is true it did happen, it surely wasn't the most important part of their diet, and the poaceae that grew back then must've been tall and thick enough to be eaten comfortably by an animal that had to eat constantly.
are you now satisfied with my explanation, dickhead? i bet you don't give a frick about it, you're just here to mock me, are you?
>are you now satisfied with my explanation, dickhead?
lol it's better than
>sauropods couldn't drink water
how do you explain the fact that all of these forms of sauropod were fully formed before trees with leaves existed? Or grass for that matter? Or indeed the near complete lack of fossilized tree trunks from the environments they lived in?
They ate the tunks with those big ass chompers ergo no tunks
makes sense. But since they couldn't get their heads down to eat the bottom parts of the trunks, there were levitating tree fairies that pushed the trunks up to their mouths as they ate.
>they didn't have lips they couldn't suck it up like a mammal
Sometimes I have to wonder if the people posting shit this moronic are actually egotistical psychopaths who are functionally incapable of recognizing their own faults and errors in judgment or just so jilted and depressed from post-ironic contrarianism that they post obvious bullshit they know is wrong because the "jokes on them I was only pretending to be moronic" schtick is the only way they can get their jollies anymore.
I think it's generally impossible for most people to recognize their own errors and gaps in knowledge.
the anon thinks the bones of sauropods didn't allow for their heads to reach the ground. Aside from being obviously untrue because they drank water, it's also untrue with even the slightest bit of reading on the topic. Nobody has ever suggested the bones prevent the movement. That's dumb.
some people have suggested ligaments prevented that sort of movement, but there's no real evidence that's true, and even if it were true, you still run into the obvious problem that they couldn't drink.
it's fun and it's funny when someone believes something absolutely moronic, but as he said, it's like boomer facebook moms saying bumblebees can't fly. Clearly it's not true.
The other obvious problem is the only trees potentially as tall as a sauropod in the Jurassic were pine trees, and they lack leaves.
Oh yeah a snake is totally a sauropod. How do you even type without a brain is beyond my comprehension.
They also ate from fern trees. And grass doesn't mean a golf green, It also means tall monocotyledons like wheat or barley
>Or indeed the near complete lack of fossilized tree trunks from the environments they lived in?
You clearly made this up, and in any case a vast megaherbivore created savannahs just like they do now, less trees was normal where they lived.
>They also ate from fern trees.
how tall did they get?
>You clearly made this up,
I've spent much of my life studying Jurassic sediments in the US. Feel free to point out the fossilized forests though.
>and in any case a vast megaherbivore created savannahs just like they do now, less trees was normal where they lived.
then what were they eating after the trees were gone?
>first of all, i don't deserve to be pelted with insults
you absolutely do
not because you're wrong. Everyone makes mistakes
but because you aggressively and angrily defend your mistakes like you're some perfect god of knowledge. Never once does it cross your tiny little mind that you might be mistaken, even when told repeatedly to check your ideas.
You are the failure of humanity. You can't let go of a wrong idea because your entire personality is having wrong ideas and then fighting people over them. You're a fricking chimp. But even chimps don't resort to violence as quickly as you would. You're the very worst sort of human, and everything wrong with humanity today.
And he's stupid, too!
Lmao, he smoked you hard.
Get over it : YOU. LOST.
The other thing he did that was moronic was saying "WE don't know."
this implies:
>his knowledge is complete
>if anyone would know, he would
which of course is an obvious lie, and egotistical bullshit. I'd guess there's enormous volumes of shit he doesn't know about just this one topic, as evidenced by his obviously wrong conclusion. It's likely everything he knows is wrong, and nobody else wants to be part of his "we" when "we" is very clearly wrong.
>he fell for the paleontology meme
just lol
>there are still two eras to worry about.
Grass occupies an extremely productive and large niche.
this may come as a shock to you, but several scientists have proposed that this same niche was previously occupied by similar gymnosperms during the Triassic and Jurassic.
From the documentarians' point of view, you're probably never going to see a shot of the ground cover close enough to tell the plants covering a meadow aren't grass.
>there are still two eras to worry about.
also just for fun, grass existed for more than half the time dinosaurs were dominant. The three divisions are not equal in length, and dinosaurs did not occupy them equally.
The other obvious problem with dating the evolution of grass is that if it shows up fully formed and diverse at some point in the fossil record, it actually evolved millions of years before that time.
We have this same problem with birds and dinosaurs and pretty much every fossil organism ever. Lots of scientists have claimed to have found grass pollen dating from the Jurassic or even the Triassic, but those are extraordinary claims and require more evidence to prove correct. But the idea that grass is older than fossils indicate isn't really a question. Obviously it's older than the early Cretaceous, but how much older is a matter of debate.
The final problem is that while grass may not have existed before the Cretaceous, most dinosaur documentaries focus on Cretaceous animals. Meaning for most documentary scenes, grass very certainly existed at the same time the dinosaurs portrayed did.