The juassc park videos are fictionous and they wouldnt be very interesting if they were real.And who wants to see two hours of dinosaurs eating eachother anyway? I personally like the Jurassic park videos
from Robert, age 12, San Jose, CA, United States; October 5, 2001

If u remember,it came from my Human post on 9/4/01.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Is T Rex a theropod and a carnosaur?? Or is it just a carnosaur?
from California, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Why do the JP creators put in things that aren't true if they know that what theyre putting in isn't true?(I hope you understand that).
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

If we were like dinosaurs we would either eat meat or plants.And we wouldn't be as smart as we are now.
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

"Tim Your cool but you can't say.."
O.K. I didn't say anything of the sort.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Hey Tim, I dont understand how apes evolved into humans... they were great tree climers and we arent really and if they evolved then how come theres still apes? and how ? if it took millions of years then how did they live that long? it doesnt make ense to me. can you help?
from Robert, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Sorry but the Jurrasic Park creators did know a lot about dinosaurs. I've read a lot of things where the JP creators admit that the things they put on were wrong. They knew that dilophosaurus didn't spit poison. On one page they said that the poison was only from the DNA, even though that wouldn't happen in real life.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for 240million years.Tyrannosaurus Rex ruled the world for at least 3 million years;Longer than any single species of human ever did.As smart as we are,we are like a destructive virus on the planet.Too bad we can't be more like the dinosaurs.
from Toby, age -( ? )-, Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.A.; October 5, 2001

Scientists think it is highly likely that spinosaurus could swim. Some of the fossils that were found were in areas where scientists believe to be bodies of water in dinosaur ages.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

your right tim i agree with you now now i know (thats what i read in a book though)
from Robert, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Humans conquered nature.Humans overpopulated the planet.Humans destroy the natural environment.Humans create an artificial environment.The population keeps growing-( now 6 billion )-Soon there will be mass starvation,desease,homelessness,overwhelming crime,and of course war after war.Finally,the extinction of humanity.This will be the 6th mass extinction the Earth has known.This one caused by us.
from Toby, age -( ? )-, Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.A.; October 5, 2001

Tim, I wanted to know how tall a Utah Raptor was and whats up with this web site? they havent posed anything about what I said about creation! I thought we were allowed to share our theorys!Tim your probably right but thats what I read in a book about the spinosaurus
so have you thought about what i said about the t-rex being an herbivore?

Tim your cool but you cant just say anything about God is trash you should listen to them a little bit
from Robert W., age 12, San Jose, CA, United States; October 5, 2001
Robert - I've posted all of your messages, so stop complaining. But if you want to talk about religious creation myths, find an appropriate site - this site is about dinosaurs and scientific theories. JC

Will, my favourite dinosaur is 'Laelaps' (Cope 1866).
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 5, 2001

"Hmm, are people putting up their IQ figures here?"
Yup, I agree with you Honkie. How did we get to talking about our intelligence anyway?
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Gloman, what are you talking about. You said humans would not dominate if they were less numerous. In fact, it is intelligence that enables us to dominate. Because we have weapons, if 20 lions charges at us in a mad rush(Oh, and other animals do not have the intelligence
to rise up like you said) we would shoot them, and they would die.
Anyway, you are seriously underestimating humans.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

What! Robert, evolution has been proved.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Robert, I don't see what you think I'm wrong about human evolution
Spinosaurus was not the size of a dog, it was 40 ft. long. Utahraptor was about 20 ft. long, since you asked. Yeah, I know Spinosaurus probably couldn't swim, I should have made that clear. Spinosaurus did have fairly weak jaws, because they were equiped to catch fish, not to bite down onto bone or even tough skin for that matter.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

"Spinosaurus had a flimsy body with weak jaws. It probably ate fish and had a flimsy body so it could swim. Giganotosaurus had more powerful jaws,was more heavily built, and was all around. Beetween those two, I would go with Giaganotosaurus."

I really doubt that any dinosaur around the size of Tyrannosaur and larger could swim. Their mass would most likely weigh more than the amount of water they can displace. In other words, they would sink. How could they generate the pressure to inhale anyway?
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; October 5, 2001

okay, I thought it was true. Obviously the creators of the JP movies didn't know anything about dinos.
from Gianna C., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

"Norman, I agree very well with you. Humanity and conquered nature not by intelligence, but by population."

Hmmm.....I don't know. Population is usually the aftermath of how successful a species is. Infact, I believe humanity has conquered Earth by intelligence. Using our intelligence, we have been able to construct weapons to take down any and all animals on Earth. When the last species which could compete with us (i.e. neanderthals) mysteriously died out, we inheirited the Earth. Our intelligence was now completely unrivaled, so we had no ajor competitor. That left us to take full advantage of the planet. So really, our intelligence allowed us to become successful and become the dominant species on Earth. So in lamest terms, we didn't outnumber the animals, we outsmarted them.

"If there were fewer humans than animals on earth, animals would get the better of us."

Not really. Using out intelligence we can construct traps and weapons to kill animals before they kill us. Really, our numbers don't make us superior, but it's how our numbers got so high that makes us superior.

"If we are so smart, then why are there wars?"

Wars are caused by human emotions of hate. The sheer fact that we possess these emotions further proves my case. The reason why animals don't have wars isn't becasue there too smart to fight, it's becasue they lack these qualities humans have.

"Why haven't we cured all dieases, like cancer for example?"

Humans are only human. We're smart, but not that smart (at least not yet). We as animals can only go so far. The fact that we can even cure some illnesses shows intelligence. Plus, I don't exactly see any other species obliterating small pox and inventing medecin.

"Most of all, why are there insults? Insults only prove extreme stupidity."

Insults are outburst of emotion, caused by a humans want to feel superior. They only prove extreme stupidity among humans. Even those who insult still posses problem solving capabilities among other things.

"We still have a long way to go before we can be classified as the smartest species on Earth."

Nope, we're the smartest. That's why were on top. We still have a long way to becoming the smartest species possible, though, if that's what you meant. But we're still smarter than the rest.

"We will eventually wipe ourselves out very soon."

I agree here. This is the downside to emotions and intelligence.

Please don't take this post personally like you did the last, Gloman.

P.S. JC, could you remove the post about my IQ? Honkie was right when he called it egotistical. I'm sorry.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 5, 2001
Done. JC

the ooompaloompa is the best dino ever!!!!!!!!
from rumplstilskin, age 15, nowhereland, elvis, ?; October 5, 2001

"Is IQ a maeningfull way to measure intelligence? No"

I agree completely, Honkie Tong. That's why I said it didn't matter when it came to debating and school work. It doensn't matter how high your IQ is, because it doesn't necessarily make you smart. Many of whom we consider to be "great minds were highschool dropouts, and I heard that Eistein didn't say his firsst word until he was three. As Albert Einstein said, "it is not the IQ, but the I will". You can still be an intelligent and clever person without an exceptional IQ.

The only reason I put my IQ up is because, well, Gloman did. If he likes to go and say how close he is to a genius he is then I'll do the same. If I wanted to be, uh, how did you put it, "hendonisticaly egotistic," I would have put up my IQ up long ago. I don't like to go around saying I am smarter than other people, but what I really don't like is someone trying to make me look stupid by comparison. I was reluctant to post it, but I wasn't going to be made a fool of.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 5, 2001

Hi!I'm new. I read the last message and Robert says a Spinosaurus is as big as a dog?!That's soooooo not true!
from Asli, age 10, ????, ????, USA; October 5, 2001

Ugh, I can't stand creationists. Please don't tell me they're coming here...
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

i just discovered this amazing site...where people have vegetarian Tyrannosaurs,Spinosaurs the size of chickens,etc.Did you know that there are thousands of tons of evidence that support evolution?In fact,there is so much possitive evidence that there is no "theory" of evolution anymore...EVOLUTION IS A COLD HARD FACT.
from Toby, age -( ? )-, Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.A.; October 5, 2001

What is your favourite dinosaur Brad?
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 5, 2001

Personally I'd have to say Gigantosaurus was more powerful than Spinosaurus probably because Gigantosaurus is now known as the biggest therapod!
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 5, 2001

Yes Robert, Zoom dinosaurs definatly does ROCK!!
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 5, 2001

Hey Tim, did you know that a spinosaurus is only as big as a dog? And I couldnt find out how big a Utah-Raptor is.....do you know?
from Robert, age 12, San Jose, CA, United States; October 5, 2001

F.Y.I. (for your information)Scientists cant decide whether the T rex is an herbivore or a carnivore because apparently T rex's teeth are hollow! (it surprised me too)
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Hey Guys, dont you think that ZOOM DINOSAURS ROCKS!!!??
from Robert, age 12, San Jose, CA, United States; October 5, 2001

your totally right Tim I was wrong but I disaree with you about evolution.The creationist theory isnt really wrong because theres not enough evidence to prove evolution. and theirs more than one creationist theory.I just like Utah rapter more though.
from rob, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

Noman,I very well agree with u.Humanity has concored nauture not by intelligence,but by population.If there were fewer Humans on Earth the animals would get the better of us.If we are so smart,then why are there wars?Why have'nt we cured all diseases,like cancer for example.Most of all,why are there insults.Insults only prove extreme stupidity.We still have a ways to go before being classified as the smartest species on Earth.We unfortuneitly will whipe our selfs out very soon.U have a point.Amen to that.
from Gloman, age 13, Some Place Really Cold, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

"Personally, I don't care much for how high another's IQ is. It doesn't matter when it comes to debating and schoolwork. However, my IQ is also exceptionally high, being 150+. I am not a genius, but I come quite close as well."

Hmm, are people putting up their IQ figures up here? I dunno, but it seems hedonisticly egoistic to me. Besides, IQ hardly has anything to do with how smart you really are, it simply measures how fast and good you are at reconizing and relating things. While this might prove useful in making associations and thus, coming up with better arguments (thus it can be argued that the people making poor arguments here *hint hint, are of low IQ), how smart a person really is also depends greatly on a deal of other aspects of a person's mental psyce, like his Emotional Intelligence, his Social Intelligence, and most importantly of all, how much he actually makes use of his avaiable resources. A great deal of people we consider as the greatest thinkers and inventors of our times scored extremely lowly in the IQ factor (in fact, they would have been considered dull by mensa), Edison and Einstein being some good examples. True genius dosen't come from how high your IQ is, it really comes from the best and most creative ways you make use of your abilities to produce meaningful results. Is IQ a meaningful way to measure intelligence? No.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

To me Giganotosaurus is stronger but dumber.
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 5, 2001

While no match for a T-Rex,i dought that Spinosaurus had weak jaws. The Spinosaur family were semi-aquatic dinosaurs and very "crocodile-like" with jaws very similar.Crocodiles have powerful jaws.
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; October 5, 2001

Wonder if any of you can help, looking for pictures and websites with pteradons?
from Gregor, age ?, ?, ?, Scotland; October 5, 2001

"Spinosaurus had a flimsy body with weak jaws."

I'd like to know what your evidence is for this statement.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 5, 2001

Gianna, to follow up on my last post about T-Rex's vision, I 'd like to make sure you know that its impossible for something to not see something if it didn't move. Animals(inckuding humans) see like this:
Light comes from the Sun and other minimal sources, bounces off objects, and into our eyes. There, the optical nerves recieve the light and relay the information to the Brain. The Brain creates an image from the information it recieves. Are you trying to tell me that the optical nerves wouldn't recieve the light if it didn't bounce off someting that was moving? I don't think so. T-Rex could easily see things that didn't move! If it couldn't, it would be bumping into trees! T-Rex had excellent vision, and Steroscopic vision for that matter! The creators of Jurassic Park made-up the whole "vision based on movement" thing to make the movie more suspensful without the main characters dying. (for example, in JP1, the T-Rex stands right in front of Alan Grant but can't see him)
Understand now?
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

Spinosaurus had a flimsy body with weak jaws. It probably ate fish and had a flimsy body so it could swim. Giganotosaurus had more powerful jaws,was more heavily built, and was all around. Beetween those two, I would go with Giaganotosaurus
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

Your'e welcome Tim.M
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 4, 2001

What is your favourite dinosaur Brad?
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 4, 2001

I think that the fact that Giganotosaurus is actually one of the biggest theropod, I think that Gigan is stronger then Spino - judging my it's size. Hey, It's just my opinion ok?
from Neko, age 11, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

What is more powerful, Giganotosaurus Spinosaurus. whats your opinoion?
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

"I never said T-rex, Albertosaurus, and Daspletosaurus lived at the same time." Good, I must have read something else. Sorry.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

This time I'm not attacking you Gianna, but you're wrong. What they sAy in JP is fake. T-Rex' visio was not based on movement.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

Tim M., this time I'm not attacking you. If you are faced with Tyrannosaurus you could not move and it wouldn't see you. So I can't say that T Rex had excellent vision, but next to excellent.
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

Watch J.P.2.The dinosaurs are not the monsters;The humans with thier guns and machines are the monsters.Humanity has conquered nature.All the dominant animals that still live,are alive only because of "a few who care".As our population continues to expand,more and more of nature will disappear.In the long run,because we are so intellegent, we will distroy ourselves because of our ignorance.The dinosaurs dominated the world for 240 million years.The various species of humans have lasted for about 4 million years and may soon be extinct.
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; October 4, 2001

i love scinese it rocks! i want to marry a dinosaur
from emily g., age 7, brick, nj, usa; October 4, 2001

"I think that u don't understand the point of the Human sufisticated brain."
Skeptic,I don't think u understand my post.Are u tring to say that I'm dumb!?!?It sure sounds like it!I happen to have a very high IQ for my age.I'm no genius,but I come very very close.Don't attack me!
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

Whoever said that Humans control all of earths creatures and Earth itself,u should realize how very wrong u are.First of all,Humans do not control all of earths creatures.If they did they would not be roaming around free right now,would'nt they?Earths creatures could all rise up and kill all the Humans if they wanted to.U don't know that Humans are the smartest species on Earth.U don't know how a cat or a dog thinks.And most of all,we defenitly don't control the Earth itself.We don't control the Earths rotation.The Earth could unlesh a deadly Human killing virus that has no possible cure.The Earth can create natural disasters.It can create volcanos and earthquakes.It can sink entire continents with giant tsunamis.It can create new a domontent species and send Humans down to a lower point of the food chain.SO THINK AGAIN!
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

I never said that Tyrannosaurus, Albertosaurus, and Daspletosaurus lived at the same time.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 4, 2001

T.Rex is possibily the fastest 6-ton land animal ever.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

"The wrestling posts page is officially dead. I'm tired of the many rude and often obscene posts we've received on that page, so it's been terminated."

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!
from Lillian Tay, age 14, ?, ?, ?; October 4, 2001

A scientific openion needed...was T-Rex and other bi-pedal dinosaurs good swimmers? Would T-Rex be helpless in the water if faced with a big crocodile or a mosasaur?
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; October 4, 2001

Rob, what do you mean? T-Rex had excelent vision, excellent sense all together. When they say T-Rex' vision was based on Movement, IT'S FAKE.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Actually, I bookmarked it and it's still there. The wrestling post forum is not completely terminated.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Oh yes, don't worry too much about the creationists, they really could be better off looking more "religious" by saving on the hate mail :)
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

It's Deinosuchus Skeptic, a 40 foot, 4.5-5-ton croc who lived at the same time as Tyrannosaurus, not Deinonychus, who died out in the rise of the Tyrannosaurids as the dominant predator.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

"Ok guys.....A 40 foot long Tyrannosaurus Rex smells the rotting flesh of a dead Triceratops. He is walking straight towards the odor. Along the way, he has to cross a creek. The creek is 6 feet. Halfway across he comes face to face with a 40 foot deinonychus. What happens next?"

Hmm......one would probably try to intimidate the other by flexing his natural weapons like teeth or claws, or perhaps either roaring. It'd probably be more of a competition between "I have bigger and better claws and teeth than you do" rather than an all out brawl. One would probably think he's not that hungry and decide it's not worth that, but if he is that hungry it could escalate to a biting and snapping. Still, the chances of a full blown fight are very slim; the two creatures would have to be equally matched.

However, there have been signs of agression between tyrannosaurs in their skeletons and fossils, so T. Rex may have decided to provoke the deinonychus if he wanted to get real greedy....

Hold on, though. Now am I just the only one who thinks that T. Rex wouldn't have seen too many 40 Deinonychus'? I mean, lets be a little more realistic, please. Were there any dromeasaurs that size that T. Rex would have encountered?
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 3, 2001

I've taken a look at some of the sites about this new meat eating dinosaur. He's big and flashy and all, but according to what I read, he had a long snout and razor like teeth, not unlike Gigantosaurus. He didn't have the bone crushing jaws of T. Rex. It looks like T. Rex is still the most powerful theropod.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 3, 2001

ouch said the wimpy t-rex who coulnt see anything unless it moved and totally *()_!!! i love the megarapter though
from rob, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

I think I remember at one point you saying that T-Rex lived with
Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus, Brad. Well, I'm pretty sure Daspletosaurus pre-dated T-Rex by 10 million years, at least that's what all my research indicates.(according to many paleontologists, Daspletosaurus lived 76 to 72 million years ago)I might be wrong though, so could you reply please? Thanks.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Were the new giant t-rexes found male or female?
from CRUNCH, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Thanks Will for agreeing with me.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

"This still doesn't prove that humans evolved from apes"
You are obviously very confused. Yes, humans evolved fom apes, but if all the scientific evidence I put up last time didn't convince you, I don't know what will! Humans are primates, and they evolved from apes.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Yes, gianna c., in fact i've been on this message board for a while. I didn't even know you were on it!
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

"No, this is not a site for creationists and will never be. I receive an enormous amount of hate mail from this group (one from this morning called me "disrespectful and unethical" for not writing about so-called human footprints found with dinosaur footprints and said I should change my site to "accomodate" her beliefs)."

I always assumed that only a miniority of creationsits were idiots, the ones that make those stupid inaccurate dinosaur websites. (Some creationists beleive that tyrannosaurs were herbivorous, simply because carnivory is a sin) Well, you could write about how fake they are if she demands they be mentioned! And your recent question reply, 'The enemey of the lock ness monster is reality', was brilliant! :D

"These are not rational people and I certainly don't want to waste any more time with their ridiculous diatribes - I'm quite surprised that you do."

It just seemed wrong to exclude people based on religion, when almost everything we discuss has little to do with it. But if creationists can't help but be stupid about everything in paleobiology, then I'm with you on blocking them.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 3, 2001
Thanks. This has nothing to with religion; many religious people undersdand and accept the theory of evolution. This is about creationists, people who cannot accept a simple and logical theory that is basic to the understanding of life (and write incredibly hateful e-mail). This site is not a religion forum - this is a dinosaur forum (as you were quick to tell that girl who wanted to discuss ongoing human evolution a few days ago, even thought that was one of the most interesting topics I've seen in a long time). Do you want this site to degenerate and start discussing topics like whether or not dinosaurs lived along with people a few thousand years ago, arguing against carbon dating, and whether Noah's decision not to allow dinosaurs on the Ark is a better extinction theory than the Alvarez asteroid theory? I don't. Discussions of creationist topics will not be posted. JC

There are a few new theropods from Patagonia. The one I know most about is Aucasaurus garrodi, an abelisaurid. Aucasaurus was smaller than Carnotaurus, at about 20 feet long. It is definately not nine tons, one ton would probably be a better estimate. Quilmesaurus curriei is a theropod that I know nothing about, although it is also Patagonian. I don't think it was a huge one either, but I don't know its exact size. And then there is that carcharodontosaurid that might be nine tons (it's said to be bigger than Giganotosaurus), but after years of hearing about it, it has not been officially described! So, I can't say much about it. It apparently lived in groups.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 3, 2001

"This is not a site for creationists - please find another site."

I don't want to exclude creationsits from Dino Talk. Just because their views on the origin of species might be a bit outdated, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't participate in our discussions of newly described dinosaurs, theropod hunting techniques, and dinosaur giants.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 3, 2001
No, this is not a site for creationists and will never be. I receive an enormous amount of hate mail from this group (one from this morning called me "disrespectful and unethical" for not writing about so-called human footprints found with dinosaur footprints and said I should change my site to "accomodate" her beliefs). These are not rational people and I certainly don't want to waste any more time with their ridiculous diatribes - I'm quite surprised that you do. JC

That still doesn't prove that humans evolved from apes. So if all that stuff finnaly evolved into an ape and then an ape evolved into human what did all that stuff that evolved from an ape evolve from and what did that evolve from? Apes evolved into humans is just a stupid theory, there is no proof that shows that. Humans may look like apes but are they no. So are the apes today going to evolve into humans again? please someone answer all these questions.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001
If you don't want to understand evolution because of conflicting religious beliefs/faith, no one can ever convince you with scientific arguments. This is not a site for creationists - please find another site. JC

If Humans didn't evolve from apes,where do u think they evolved from?!
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Good evening freinds! I dont know about you, but over here in England it is 7.00pm I'd just like to say I like dinosaurs a whole lot!! since I was seven years old! My favorite one is the Allosaurus it is so cool! Personally I like them all but Allosaurus in paticular!
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 3, 2001

Tim M is right about what he said from apes elvolving into humans.
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 3, 2001

You joined this message board, Tim M.?
from gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Nice job Brad!! You got them all!
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

Danny, here's some more about the new Theropod.
It is about 45 ft. long, 8 tons, but it is not as tall as a normal sized T-Rex because its legs are shorter. It also had sharp teeth. If you need to know more, go to Yahoo.com and search for "new meat eating dinosaur"
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

The new Patagonian theropod weighed about 8 tons, but the person who said it was 9 tons isn't far off.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

"O.K.guys...A 40 foot long Tyrannosaurus Rex smells the rotting flesh of a dead Triceratops.He is walking straight toward the odor.Along the way,he has to cross a wide creek.The creek is 6 feet deep.Half way across he comes face to face with a 40 foot Deinosuchus.What happens next?"

Nothing much, both animals would not want to risk injury in a fight and one animal would have a go at the meal first or they would share it. It hardly makes sense to risk injury in such a case. I'm sorry, but the natural world sometimes tends to be a little less dramatic then we think. In the movies however, you might get a audience-pleasing, physics/reality/common sense-suspending fight. But that can sometimes backfire with bad results for the box office, as shown by JP3.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 3, 2001

can someone please tell me more information about the new patagonia theropod? I heard that it weighs 9 tons, a little too overated don't you think?
from danny, age 16, Melbourne, vic, Australia; October 2, 2001

To put this "Humans did not evolve from apes" controversy to rest, here's how humans came to be:
Early primates quickly became adapted tree climers. And what to tree climbers need to have? They must judge distance and hold on. The apes evolved good binocular vision and opposable thumbs for grasping. Also, most primates evolved big Cerebrums.(Part of brain used for thinking and senses)Homonids fist came around about 3.6 million years ago. But Homonid-like apes existed long before. About 8 million years ago, an aped named Ramapithecus existed. The first homonids appeared about 3.6 million years ago in the form of Austropithicines. Then, over the course of evolution, the Austopithicines became Homo habilus, then Homo Erectus, then Homo Neaderthalis, and fially Homo Sapiens. Sorry to take so much time on Humans, but are you conviced yet? This was for the person who doesn't believe Humans came from apes. Thank you.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

Yeah, sorry Honkie, I was just calling it stupid compared to Tyrannosaurids. Hmmmm.. I should have looked that one over.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

I think there's eight 'peltas in the Ankylosauria.

Aeletopelta
Cedarpelta
Dracopelta
Glyptodontopelta
Mymoorapelta
Sauropelta
Stegopelta

Did I miss any?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 2, 2001

"Prove to me that humans did evolve from apes."

If we didn't evolve from apes, what did we evolve from? Whatever you think is true, I'd like to see you prove that.

I think the evidence is staring right back at you when you look in a mirror. Need I say more?
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 2, 2001

"Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed from 6 to 7 tons. If he was to trip while running, he would crush his ribcage or break his neck. Plus the fact that he would be putting too much weight on his knees and ankles. No, T. Rex was not a runner, he was a slow walker who hunted dead meat. The tyrant lizard king was a scavenger who could take a meal from any living predator."

I've decided that the best way to debunk this statement is to break it up into individual parts.

"Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed from 6 to 7 tons."

Correct.

"If he was to trip while running, he would crush his ribcage or break his neck."

If you read my statement carefully, you'd know that I never said T. Rex could run. Infact, I am opposed to such a theory of a tyrannosaurid employing suspensory locomotion. There was no need to. I prefer to think he moved with a fast walk movement. First, he would lift the farthest back leg and force it infront of the knee of the other leg. Gravity would then pull the leg down to the ground. This entire stride movement takes less then one second. I believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex was therefore capable of 3 strides in 2 seconds. Now with a stride of between 12 to 18 feet, this would allow him to reach very high speeds.

"Plus the fact that he would be putting too much weight on his knees and ankles."

Actually, in my theory, most of the time the Tyrannosaurus' weight would be equally dispersed between both legs as if he were standing still. The only time during a stride movement when one leg is subjected to the entire force of the weight of the tyrannosaur would be for less than a second, therefore the effects would be minimum. Saying that T. Rex could not afford to move in a walking fast motion would be like saying he would have difficulty standing.

"No, T. Rex was not a runner,"

I never said he was.

"he was a slow walker"

Hmm....Infact, if you look at it, if T. Rex slowed down his speed with each stride made slower, a single leg would be subjected to the full force of the tyrannosaurs weight longer than it would be with fast movement where the strides are executed much faster, though T. rex is still moving with only one foot on the ground. Basically, it was best for T. Rex to either be "walking fast" of siumply standing still without subjecting his legs to too much force. However, he would have walked slowly at times, possibly in search of prey, so his leg's mucles and bones were built to take a great deal of force.

"who hunted dead meat."

Now this is something I really disagree with. You say T. Rex simply scared his prey out of kills. I have afew reasons which may prove this wrong.

One. The Tyrannosaurs were the dominant aniamls in their enviornment. As far as I know, the only other predators in his reigon were Albertosaurs, Dromeausaurs and Bird mimics (though they would have only eaten small lizards and such; were more omnivores than predators, in a sense). Albertosaurs were similar to tyrannosaurs in many ways, except that they were smaller. If you apply the same reasons why T. Rex would have been a scavenger to Albertosaurus, it seems he would have had similar behavior patterns to T. Rex. Bird mimics probably did more running from other redators than hunting themselves. That leaves dromeasaurs as the main predators. Now, they were intelligent, cunning, and agile, but they would have had difficulty taking down triceratops, torosaurus or hadrosaurs because they lacked speed. They would have relied on the element of surprise to take down prey. That could be difficult if there's a 40 ft. long predator waiting a way off for the dromeasaurs to do the dirty! work. If he did steal meat from other predators, or was a scavenger, T. Rex probably moved with herds of herbivores to wait for one to keel over.

Also, if I am correct, there have been hadrosaur tails which had reportedly survived tyrannosaur bites and had healed over. I'm not so sure over the accuracy over this, though, because it seems that some have argued it isn't true. I've mentioned it anyway, though.

The tyrannosaur also had bone crushing jaws. Now, why would he need these if he hunted carrion? The prey is already dead, so why break it's bones? In addition, I don't think these jaws would have been more intimidating other than sheer appearance. The dromeausaurs wouldn't be intimidated by this bite force because they wouldn't have really known how strong it was until they were bitten. If T. Rex did bite one, though, to scare it, it'd be killed. Now wouldn't that be hunting?

A tyrannosaurs septic bite would have also been useless as a scavenger. All that bacteria forming on the rotting meat on his mouth would have only contaminated the carrion for others who tried eating it. The septic bite would have been much more useful as a predator.

T. Rex also had highly acute senses and high intelligence, all useful tools when hunting.

"The tyrant lizard king was a scavenger who could take a meal from any living predator."

See above, please.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 2, 2001

Prove to me that humans evolved from apes.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

Will, I would just like to point out one thing. Not only did we evolve from apes, we ARE apes!
from Carcharodontoasur, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

I think if a 40ft tyrannosaurus came across a 40 ft deinosuchus and the deinosuchus was eating the triceratops then the t rex would wait for the deinosuchus to finish then eat but if the t rex was there first then the deinosuchus would wait because they would think it would be worth fighting over when they would both get some anyway.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

If humans didn't evolve from apes what do think they evolved from norman? crocidiles horses? no they evolved from APES
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

I think that the Tyrannosaurus and the Deinosuchus would not actually fight. One would push the other out of the way and eat its fill of Triceratops; then the second carnivore could eat whatever was left. I couldn't imagine either of them eating an entire Triceratops in one sitting. I don't know which would be the one to take control, but I don't really care. There's a Tyrannosaurus-Deinosuchus battle discussion buried somewhere in the archives.

I can't speak for the entire country, but its nice here. Lots of warmth and sunshine.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 2, 2001

Is it nice in Canada Brad? Iv'e alway's wanted to see Canada!
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 2, 2001

Norman, I reckon that if a 40ft long T-Rex came to face to face with a dinosuchus they would probably lock in Combat and T-rex would kill the dinosuchus and then eat the Triceratops and then save the Dinosuchus for his cubs!
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 2, 2001

Whoever said that Human's DID NOT! evolve from apes is WRONG! VERY VERY WRONG! They did evolve from apes!
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 2, 2001

Norman are you seriously 52 years old?
from Will, age 13, ?, ?, United kingdom; October 2, 2001

"I'm surprised no one has mentioned our recent flood of newly-discovered dinosaurs."

Well, I did post a link to George Olshevsky's DML posting.

These dinosaurs aren't getting much news coverage on the non-dinosaur news sites- which is surprising, becuase Archaeopteryx/Wellnhoferia is pretty significant and popular. I really can't see the logic in dinosaur news reports- Jobaria, a boring primitive sauropod gets a long news story on every site. Nigersaurus, a fascinating highly derived form, was only berifly mentioned after Jobaria. I still can't find much on Nigersaurus! I heard that MSN recently did a 'news' report on the Patagonian titanosaur eggs... National Geographic had that story three years ago!

So Chandler, got any info on the 'peltas? (And just out of curiousity, how many "pelta" ankylosaurs are there now?)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 2, 2001

O.K.guys...A 40 foot long Tyrannosaurus Rex smells the rotting flesh of a dead Triceratops.He is walking straight toward the odor.Along the way,he has to cross a wide creek.The creek is 6 feet deep.Half way across he comes face to face with a 40 foot Deinosuchus.What happens next?
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; October 2, 2001

I'm surprised no one has mentioned our recent flood of newly-discovered dinosaurs.

_Aletopelta_ Ford & Kirkland, 2001
_Cedarpelta_ Carpenter, Kirkland, Burge & Bird, 2001
_Hesperosaurus_ Carpenter, Miles & Cloward, 2001
and finally
_Wellnhoferia_ Elzanowski, 2001
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

i like dinosaurs too much my favourite one is T.rex and so is my friends Jack he was a slow walker he doesnt run and i dont think he could catch me in my fast trainers i also like triceratops i have got slippers of him and he eats plants with his beak and has 3 horns and looked a bit like styracosaurus bye bye love jamie
from jamie d, age 4, northwood, middx, england; October 2, 2001

How cold you tell it it is a fellmale or a male
from Alexyss, age 10, hays, ks, ellis contey; October 2, 2001

Norman is fantastically immature and childlike for a 52 year-old.
from John, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

If you go www.dinosauricon.com, and look up Tetropoda, go to Sauropsida, and look at the taxonomy, you can see clearly dinosaurs and its relatives were reptiles!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

"Dinosaurs were not reptiles but they were not mammals."

Really? They must have popped out of nowhere.

"Dinos were warmblooded creatures of there own species."

That's a very dull statement, if you intended for it to have an effect, every animal on earth have their own species. It would be odd if dinosaurus didn't have one.

"If dinos were cold blooded carnivores would only have to eat one big meal to last them a whole year. They wouldn't need to eat much. If they were warm blooded they would need to eat all the time. And if Meat eaters have so much bones from other dinos in their stomaches and dung, they have to be warm blooded."

Gee, that's very speculative... in any case, what does that prove? Warm-blooded reptiles that's what.

Heh...
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

"Sorry, in my last post I meant, Giganotosaurus was conidered "stupid" for a THEROPOD not for a dinosaur. Sorry."

Giganotosaurus wasn't exactly stupid for a large theropod, in fact, it was pretty normal, possibly slightly higher then the Spinosaurs and more primitive theropod genus. The only reason we think its stupid is when we pit him up against extremely advanced, derived large theropods like Tyrannosaurus, who had exceptionally high intelligence, like almost all the other North American theropods towards the KT. North America and asia was a hotbed for advanced dinosaur designs near the KT that were getting more and more derived and complex until, as some say, a rock the size of texas reset the tables in Evolution (tm.) the game.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

"Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed from 6 to 7 tons.If he was to trip while running,he would crush his ribcage or break his neck.Plus the fact that he would be putting too much weight on his knees and ankles.No,T-Rex was not a runner;he was a slow walker who hunted dead meat.The Tyrant Lizard King was a scavenger who could take a meal from any living predator."

Apparently, you have failed to do two things, firstly, you have failed to get your information on Tyrannosaurus up to date (as a matter of fact, the "scientificness" of your opinion on anything is appaling), and failing that, you have also been following the information posted up here on Tyrannosaurus speed. Tyrannosaurus was a very fast animal.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 2, 2001

Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed from 6 to 7 tons.If he was to trip while running,he would crush his ribcage or break his neck.Plus the fact that he would be putting too much weight on his knees and ankles.No,T-Rex was not a runner;he was a slow walker who hunted dead meat.The Tyrant Lizard King was a scavenger who could take a meal from any living predator.
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; October 1, 2001

"I would really, really like to find out which is the most outright fiercest mightiest of the three: T-Rex, Gigantosaurus, and Spinosaurus. I want to know which was the largest, strongest and most feared by their prey, based on the most sceintific information, and if it came head to head, which one would prevail as the mightiest of the three?"

Hmm....Here's a good comparison.

Speed: The Tyrannosaurus was very fast. He had very powerful legs which were probably capable of several strides of 14-16 feet each within moments. In short burst some people (including myself) estimate that he could reach speeds of up to 40mph. T. Rex needed to be this fast to catch the hadrosaurs, or duckbills, which could have hit speeds of 30mph.

The Gigantosaurus also had a large stride, but would not have been as fast as a tyrannosaur. His legs weren't as muscular and the dominant herbivores were slow moving titanosaurids. Really, when he bit an argentinosaur, he wouldn't have needed to hit 40mph to get away fast enough to avoid injury.

The Spinosaur also may have had a large stride becasue of his size. He also may have needed to be fast to escape hungry Carchodontosaurs (relatives of Gigantosaurs). He was lightly built, but not muscular enough to carry that big body of his too fast.
Fastest of the three: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Senses: Tyrannosaurus Rex had highly acute hearing, which would have come in handy hunting hadrosaurs, allowing him to hear them splashing in the water (he would have been unable to smell them in the water becasue water kills scent). This brings me to the tyrannosaurs highly acute sense of smell. He had large olfactory bulbs which would have helped him smell anything for a long way off. In addition, Tyrannosaurus Rex had steroscopic vision, allowing him to see still prey.

Gigantosaurus did not have as well adept hearing as T. Rex, and also lacked the tyrannosaurids acute sense of smell.

Spinosaurus also had average senses in comparison to Tyrnnosaurus Rex.
Best senses of the three: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Bite Force: Tyrannosaurus Rex had a bite capable of breaking bone. We not only know this from the tyrannosaur's skull and jaws itself, but from cracked Triceratopsian hips, injured hadrosaur tails, etc. All together his bite force could have exceeded 30,000 Newtons. T. Rex also had the teeth to withstand the force.

Gigantosaurus relied on his teeth to cut flesh. His method of attack was to run in, bite, then run away, as the prey bled to death. Had he tried biting with bonebracking force, his teeth would break and the bone in his jaws would be damaged.

Spinosaurus' jaws were very weak, though long and thin. His teeth were non-serrated, which would mean his were not adept to cut flesh, and they weren't strong enough to break bone. Spinosaurus really mostly ate fish.
Strongest Jaws of the three: T. REx

Intelligence: Tyrannosaurus Rex was very intelligent. His brain was very large for a theropod. Gigantosaurus, though a little larger than T. Rex, had a smaller brain. Spnosaurus also had a less complex brain than T. Rex.
Most intelligent of the three: T. Rex

So in a head on collision, Tyrannosaurus Rex would be capable out outrunning, outbiting, and outwitting his competitors Spinosaurus and Gigantosaurus.

"Dino's are dumb."

Why are you here if you have an attitude like that? Some dinosaurs were intelligent, like velociraptor and troodon. What I want to see is say that looking into the face of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Then we'll see who's dumb.

"T. Rex was a scavenger. Buzzards are scavengers. I don't like buzzards or T. rex. I like Spino."

I can see you have a taste for a big fish eatin' wuss with a "big pretty sail" on his back.

Why is T. Rex a scavenger? I disagree.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 1, 2001

"Oh, Brad,since mammals evolved directly from reptiles,does that mean that mammals are also reptiles?"

No, because you're wrong. Mammals did not evovle from reptiles. Mammals and their ancestors form a clade Synapsida, which had an origin in the Amniota independent from Reptilia.

***RIGHT!***
Amniota
|--Synapsida
`--Sauropsida
***RIGHT!***

***WRONG!***
Amniota
`--Sauropsida-->Synapsida
***WRONG!***

"No,of course not.Mammals,birds and dinosaurs,and pterosaurs all evolved from reptiles...evolved FROM."

Again, mammals did not evolve from reptiles! Don't base your arguments on things that are untrue. Birds, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs are reptiles!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 1, 2001

Dinosaurs were not reptiles but they were not mammals. Dinos were warmblooded creatures of there own species. If dinos were cold blooded carnivores would only have to eat one big meal to last them a whole year. They wouldn't need to eat much. If they were warm blooded they would need to eat all the time. And if Meat eaters have so much bones from other dinos in their stomaches and dung, they have to be warm blooded.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 1, 2001

Humans did not evolve from apes Norman!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 1, 2001

Every living thing on this planet is related if you follow the evolutionary path back far enough.From a micro-organism sprang forth all living things that we know today.All lifeforms of a higher order than the cold-blooded reptiles evolved either directly or indirectly from the reptiles.Man evolved from an ape-which evolved from a monkey-which evolved from a prosimian-which evolved from an insectivore.....
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; October 1, 2001

"Amphibians evolved from a fish"

Amphibians evolved from more basal tetrapods. However, I suppose all tetrapods could be termed "fish", since "fish" is paraphyletic and ill-defined.

"Reptiles evolved from an amphibian"

Not true. Amphibia is a specialized tetrapod clade comprised of all modern amphibians (frogs, salamanders, etc.), their most recent common ancestor, and all descendants of that ancestor. Amphibia is not ancestral to Reptilia!

"Pterosaurs evolved from a reptile"

Yes. Your point?

"mammals evolved from a reptile"

No, no, no! "Mammal-like reptiles" are not reptiles, and are not descendants of reptiles. They are the sister group to the reptiles, coming from a common ancestor but neither being ancestral to the other.

"Dinosaurs evolved from a reptile"

Yes.

"Birds evolved from a small theropod dinosaur"

Yes...

"Feathers began as modified scales for insolation for those little
warm-blooded dinosaurs.Therefore,the first birds were without dought warm-blooded animals."

Little warm-blooded reptiles, its true. Got a problem with that?

"Pterosaurs,mammals,and dinosaurs were not and are not reptiles.Birds are certainly not reptiles."

You haven't proven that. If anything, your post proves that they are reptiles!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 1, 2001

Amphibians evolved from a fish / Reptiles evolved from an amphibian / Pterosaurs evolved from a reptile / mammals evolved from a reptile / Dinosaurs evolved from a reptile / Birds evolved from a small theropod dinosaur / Feathers began as modified scales for insolation for those little warm-blooded dinosaurs.Therefore,the first birds were without dought warm-blooded animals.Pterosaurs,mammals,and dinosaurs were not and are not reptiles.Birds are certainly not reptiles.No more from me on this subject.
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; October 1, 2001