[QUOTE=SmokinMom]
Which begs yet another unanswered question: Did any dinosaurs suffer from Body Dismorphic Disorder, or Anorexia? 
[/QUOTE]
Have you seen any dinosaurs lately? Why, they’re just skin and bones…without the skin!
Small dinos are all the rage these days, actually. There’s lots of good stuff coming out of China lately, filling out the lineage to birds rather nicely.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Well, the reason they got less oxygen is, of course, also due to their poor willpower.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. I see that Cecil has omitted yet another viable scientific theory from his original response.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Actually, you know fuck all about what my needs are, and I will thank you kindly to keep your idiotic, ill-informed musings to yourself.
[/QUOTE]
And I will thank you to keep insults out of this forum. The BBQ Pit forum is the place for that, as you well know.
bibliophage
moderator CCC
IANA Paleontologist, and I have never read any theories about how dinosaurs became so large. But I have thought about it in the past, and to me it seems like yet another evolutionary arms race. I think of evolution as trying to search the space of all possible organisms through random mutation, but being constrained by natural selection. It makes sense that this search would have eventually stumbled upon the notion that bigger is, to an extent, better. Once one particular species of dinosaur became larger, thus gaining a physical advantage over its competitors and privileged access to resources, the only reasonable strategy for the competitors was to become just as large. The competitors that became even larger would gain an advantage themselves, and this process repeats ad nauseum. You can reasonably ask why all species don’t sprout like Jack’s beanstalk. IMHWAG, the answer is that rapid change is generally maladaptive, and that intelligence is the hallmark reply to the “bigger is better” fallacy. You can pick all sorts of holes in this line of reasoning, but I think it boils down to the idea of an arms race.
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
Have you seen any dinosaurs lately? Why, they’re just skin and bones…without the skin!
You make an astute observation, DF, which makes me wonder why they reduced themselves to nothing more than a sack of bones??? As another poster pointed out, there were many more ‘smaller’ dinosaurs than larger ones. Did these plus-sized dinos feel the pressure was too great to be big in a skinny world?
Did they look at these waif-like dinos, then see their own larger-than-life reflection in a lake , then lose all self esteem and go on starvation diets?
Or perhaps they became excessively underweight due to the cancer they got from all the smoking. But why were they smoking in the first place?
Was it to curb their appetite due to unreasonable social pressures? Or perhaps to calm their nerves and ward off violent outbursts (aka self medication for Anger Management issues). Or perhaps they just thought it was “cool” since their peers were doing it.
Whatever the answers to all these puzzling questions, one thing is for sure: This thread has seriously called into question Cecil’s self proclamation of being "the smartest human being on earth’.
And though I’m merely a guest here and have only until Oct. 26 to confirm my subscription with a fast and easy credit card payment, or be forever banished. This is a decision I am not taking lightly. Especially considering that it is becoming increasingly clear that the emperor has no clothes…
[QUOTE=alterego]
IANA Paleontologist, and I have never read any theories about how dinosaurs became so large. But I have thought about it in the past, and to me it seems like yet another evolutionary arms race. I think of evolution as trying to search the space of all possible organisms through random mutation, but being constrained by natural selection. It makes sense that this search would have eventually stumbled upon the notion that bigger is, to an extent, better. Once one particular species of dinosaur became larger, thus gaining a physical advantage over its competitors and privileged access to resources, the only reasonable strategy for the competitors was to become just as large. The competitors that became even larger would gain an advantage themselves, and this process repeats ad nauseum. You can reasonably ask why all species don’t sprout like Jack’s beanstalk. IMHWAG, the answer is that rapid change is generally maladaptive, and that intelligence is the hallmark reply to the “bigger is better” fallacy. You can pick all sorts of holes in this line of reasoning, but I think it boils down to the idea of an arms race.
[/QUOTE]
God, you’re deep…What are you smoking???..Can I have some?
This is a cruel myth, and you should be ashamed of yourself – ashamed of yourself, I say – for perpetuating it.
It was not their fault.
They had a glandular condition.
Agree that increased mass can be a survival trait. If you’re small, anything that’s hungry enough can eat you. If you’re large then your predators have to evolve some way of defeating that if they are to continue to eat you. For T-Rex that was to get large too (although according to the British Natural History Museum there is some question about whether they did much hunting or just ate carrion).
So why don’t we get this in mammals? One possibility springs to mind (there may be other reasons, I’m not a paleontologist either)
A ten tonne ectotherm needs an awful lot less energy (thus less food) to keep it ticking over than a ten tonne homeotherm (take a look at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/doetqp/courses/env470/Lectures/lec9/lec9.htm - not my original reference but I can’t be arsed to find it). Given that something like diplodocus probably didn’t do much other than eat, it may be that a mammal that size just wouldn’t be able to take in enough food to maintain itself - unless, that is, it happened to live in a soup full of highly nutritious krill and all it had to do was open its mouth to get all the food it wanted. Guess if you had an implausible scenario like that mammals could get even bigger than dinos)
Big is better, as far as staying alive is concerned. so is little, run fast and hide (from the big ones).
[QUOTE=Mr. Svinlesha]
This is a cruel myth, and you should be ashamed of yourself – ashamed of yourself, I say – for perpetuating it.
It was not their fault.
They had a glandular condition.
[/QUOTE]
While it is true that yet another widely accepted scientific theory is that the dinosaurs were so big because of glandular conditions or metabolic disorders,
please don’t throw your daggers at me, Mr. S, as this is an intellectual discussion.
At NO time did I EVER say that the voluptuous size of these Rubenesque beauties was their fault. Those were YOUR WORDS and your own words betray you as it reveals your closeted prejudice towards these full-figured and imo** beautiful ** creatures.
So perhaps before accusing others of holding and perpetuating these hideous bigotries, you should take a good hard look in the mirror, mister. :mad:
BTW, I do thank you for pointing out yet another theory that the so called ‘smartest man on earth’ failed to mention in all inclusive answer.
[QUOTE=SmokinMom]
Cecil,
Q: Why are dinosaurs so big?
A: Because they ate A LOT.
[/QUOTE]
[nitpick]
Why WERE dinosaurs so big…
[QUOTE=SmokinMom]
Not to nit pick, Elmwood, but I believe the politically correct term is “Plus-sized Dinosaurs”…
[/QUOTE]
I think that with patriotic pride, the term should be “American-sized dinosaurs.”
And the answer as to why they were so big, one that Cecil missed, is that they lived - just as we do - at a time when there was so damn much tasty food everywhere that it was inevitable. Outdoor buffets proliferated.
Not to mention fern bars.
SmokinMom:
Surely, even you can appreciate how sensitive they were about this issue. And yet you have the gall – nej, the gumption! – to bring it up on a public forum.
Oh, and by the way, miss oh–I’m–so–concerned–about-the-length-of-the-hamster’s-teeth, a couple of other points.
One: everyone knows that popcorn is one of the most low-calorie snacks around. If you’re so concerned about the hamsters, you should be glad they snack on popcorn, so that they don’t also bloat up to the size of dinosaurs. (!)
Two: mothers shouldn’t smoke. It can give your babies birth defects, or cause them to breath in second-hand smoke, which also isn’t good, I read somewhere. So before you spend too much time worrying about our sleek, well-groomed, and extremely healthy hamsters, you just might want to take a tinsy-winsy little look in the mirror yourself.
Hrumph!
[QUOTE=SmokinMom]
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
Have you seen any dinosaurs lately? Why, they’re just skin and bones…without the skin!
You make an astute observation, DF, which makes me wonder why they reduced themselves to nothing more than a sack of bones??? As another poster pointed out, there were many more ‘smaller’ dinosaurs than larger ones. Did these plus-sized dinos feel the pressure was too great to be big in a skinny world?
Did they look at these waif-like dinos, then see their own larger-than-life reflection in a lake , then lose all self esteem and go on starvation diets?
Or perhaps they became excessively underweight due to the cancer they got from all the smoking. But why were they smoking in the first place?
Was it to curb their appetite due to unreasonable social pressures? Or perhaps to calm their nerves and ward off violent outbursts (aka self medication for Anger Management issues). Or perhaps they just thought it was “cool” since their peers were doing it.
[/quote]
All of which points to the real most likely cause for dinosaur extinction: low self-esteem!
[QUOTE=Mr. Svinlesha]
SmokinMom:
Surely, even you can appreciate how sensitive they were about this issue. And yet you have the gall – nej, the gumption! – to bring it up on a public forum.
Oh, and by the way, miss oh–I’m–so–concerned–about-the-length-of-the-hamster’s-teeth, a couple of other points.
One: everyone knows that popcorn is one of the most low-calorie snacks around. If you’re so concerned about the hamsters, you should be glad they snack on popcorn, so that they don’t also bloat up to the size of dinosaurs. (!)
Two: mothers shouldn’t smoke. It can give your babies birth defects, or cause them to breath in second-hand smoke, which also isn’t good, I read somewhere. So before you spend too much time worrying about our sleek, well-groomed, and extremely healthy hamsters, you just might want to take a tinsy-winsy little look in the mirror yourself.
Hrumph!
[/QUOTE]
Once again, Mr. Svinlesha, your true colors are showing. Why should I NOT bring this issue up on a public forum? Because obviously, in YOUR shallow mind, this is something they should be* ashamed * of!! I say lets embrace their mass, and remove the stigma! For beauty comes in all shapes and sizes and I might remind you ‘is in the eye of the beholder’.
And I am not surprised that you–with your unreasonable and might I add superficial beauty standards-- have your hamster on a low calorie popcorn diet. You probably even make her run on that excercize wheel for hours each day. What’s next? Breast implants and platinum blond fur?? You disgust me. You obviously care not one iota for the HEALTH of your hamster. Due to your negligence, her teeth will likely grow so long that she wont be able to eat. But this OF COURSE is probably part of your **sinister ** plan. Why don’t you just give her the freedom to be a “real” hamster-- there will be MUCH more of her to love.
And you have some nerve lecturing ME on the dangers of smoking. Because guess what, Mr. Know-it-All? I don’t smoke cigarettes so save your preaching for someone who can actually use it, like the dinosaurs. And I’ll thank you not to use that condescending tone with me again! :mad: :mad: :mad:
p.s. I did just take a teensy-weensy look in the mirror and not to sound vain, but I am smokin… 
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
[QUOTE=SmokinMom]
All of which points to the real most likely cause for dinosaur extinction: low self-esteem!
[/QUOTE]
One can hardly blame them for their insecurities when so much focus is put on their EXTERNAL physical beauty by the likes of Mr. Svinlesha and his ilk. We’ll have HIM to blame when hamsters become extinct. It astounds me that we are in the year 2007, and there is still so much intolerance in our society. Have we learned nothing from the past?
[QUOTE=Stoid]
[nitpick] Why WERE dinosaurs so big…
[/QUOTE]
Assuming modern birds are dinosaurs, her grammar is correct, though I’ve long thought “I’m eating like a bird,” meant “I’m consuming a large percentage of my weight every day,” which, in a Tyrannosaur, would be an awful lot. Maybe not in a single day, but day after day? That’d be Atkins Times Twenty!
A question I’ve always had: “why were ancient insects, especially the flying ones, so much larger than today’s?” The insects I have in mind came from an earlier era than the dinosaurs.
I always thought it had to do with the fact that atmosphere and temperature were much different back then.
I just found this article that that tries to explain the size of insects, perhaps the dinosaur issue is somewhat related.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDC173BF930A35751C0A9629C8B63
Moderator interjects: Look, we’ve stayed away (mostly) because we understand that this thread is intended as jokes and ridicule and fun. However, there is a line, and we’re perilously near it. Bibliophage, the moderator for this forum, has already interjected once when the insults were across the line.
For those confused, please see: Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards and note especially post #10. Personal insults – even jokes – are not permitted on our Message Boards, except in the forum called The BBQ Pit.
This isn’t intended as an Official Warning, because all the insults so far are clearly good-natured ribbing… aren’t they? But it’s not always easy to tell, and we therefore really don’t want any jibes at other posters, none. This is therefore more in the nature of the quiet voice of reason interjecting. We’re all in favor of humor, satire, etc. … we just don’t want it directed at other posters. It’s one of the things that makes us different from most other message boards.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
Moderator interjects: Look, we’ve stayed away (mostly) because we understand that this thread is intended as jokes and ridicule and fun. However, there is a line, and we’re perilously near it. Bibliophage, the moderator for this forum, has already interjected once when the insults were across the line.
For those confused, please see: Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards and note especially post #10. Personal insults – even jokes – are not permitted on our Message Boards, except in the forum called The BBQ Pit.
[/QUOTE]
Well, he interjected in response to me. In an e-mail exchange, he accused me of using “fighting words.” However, when I read your link, I see this, emphasis mine.
Which is exactly what I did, and I stand by it. DSYoung has absolutely no knowledge of what my needs are, and therefore his* musings* were idiotic and ill-informed, and were the object of my “attack,” not him.
I note that his comments on my character resulted in no moderator response at all, even thought they were bolded, in large type, and included the headsmack smiley.