Depending on canon Godzilla is either a nuclear reanimated t-rex like criter or mutant that hunts fish to feed it’s young.
The reanimated t-rex story is pure fiction created for entertainment purposes. Clearly Godzilla’s metabolism is based on the absorption of neutrons, and he does not eat anything. The most likely explanation for the pointy teeth is that they look cool.
How do we know there was not a prehistoric animal in the ocean that was bigger than a blue whale. Do they do digs on the ocean floor wouldn’t the bones just sink? How would we know
So you have radioactive monkeys and flying bees?
The goal posts thing is the OP was answered within one post, and then you decide you want land carnivores. The Matthew Brodrick Godzilla was not real, as it was CG, but if you want to accept an artists conception, there it is, you got it.
re:ChrisBooth12
How do we know there was not a prehistoric animal in the ocean that was bigger than a blue whale. Do they do digs on the ocean floor wouldn’t the bones just sink? How would we know
We don’t know. We would know if we found evidence of such an animal, like bones, or a fossil imprint. No fossils have ever been found of any animal larger than a blue whale. We don’t know the weight of dinosaurs with great accuracy, but Argentinosaurus was estimated at about 100 tons, half the weight of a Blue Whale. So Big Blue is the largest animal known to have ever lived. That is based on weight. Argentinosaurus at an estimated 120 ft. and other dinosaurs may have been longer than Blue Whales, which are known to grow to about 108 ft. The evidence of larger animals may be found some day. The Argentinosaurus fossils weren’t found until 1993. There also vast areas of land and ocean that have been reformed over time, destroying any fossil evidence they contained, so there may be species of animals we will never know about.
The Matthew Broderick Godzilla was a CG representation of an Iguana, which are vegetarians after the juvenile stage.
What about the apatosaurus?
A lightweight at 25 tons.
Yes. When the first vertebrates crawled out onto the land they would have been much larger than any of the invertebrates then around.
The largest carnivore known to have existed weighs in at a mere 7-10 tons depending on who you believe. This is pretty lightweight compared to the herbivores around at the same time.
My WAG would be that the only time your conditions would be satisfied would be after a cataclysmic event (a short lived victory as lack of food would soon put a stop to that) or during a change in environment such as when animals first moved onto the land. The abundance of food for herbivores and their sedentary lifestyle allows them to support much larger bodies than a carnivore (and protects them from predators) which must be agile enough to hunt.
Are we sure the blue whale isn’t an insectivore? I thought shrimp and other such sea creatures were the equivalent of sea insects?
It seems like, after the amphibians moved onto land, they remained predatory and much, much larger than the invertebrate herbivores for at least a 50 million years, which is hardly a blink of the eye. The amphibian body form and gut made vegetarian forms somewhat difficult to evolve, placing constraints on what diet the largest animals could adopt, while the invertebrate body plan precluded large body forms, so placing an upper size limit on herbivores.
The flaw in your logic is an assumption that predators and prey have the same body form.Even without cataclysms or environmental changes we can have perfectly sustainable systems wherein the predators are always much larger than the prey. Amphibians and invertebrates were both agile enough to survive, but there was an upper size limit on herbivore size.
Lots of places that used to be oceans are now dry land. Any place featuring limestone, for instance.
Shallow seas, yes. Basically what lived on the continental shelves. We have very few accessible examples of ocean-basin rocks (not least because the ocean floor tends to recycle itself at the plate boundaries and thus be much younger than continental rock).
That is why we have no good fossil record of krakens.
The fact that a argentinosaurus weighed only half as much as a blue whale frightens and confuses me.
Why?
Those sauropods had a lot of skinny neck and tail, and they had a great number of specilizations to reduce their overall weight (such as vertebrae structure) which whales did not need to develop.
Why? It’s not like the former isn’t safely extinct.
Seems roughly equivalent in length. The whale very probably has more fat, as blubber, than the dinosaur would, too.
If whatever made this sound truly was a biological entity, it would certainly qualify as bigger than the biggest whale:
Very intriguing, isn’t it?
Is this the ancestor of the land sharks?