Why are there no dinosaur-size land animals today?

There are no dinosaur sized mammals because we ate them.

Okay, not really true, but at one time, something called megafauna mammals ruled the land all around the world and just happened to disappear about the same time humans started colonizing those areas.

Elephant type species use to be found all over the world, but quickly disappeared in Europe, most of Asia, and the Americas about the same time humans populated those areas. Other extremely large mammals like the giant sloths also disappeared at the same time.

Coincidence? Many biologists say there’s simply not enough evidence. It could have been climate change that did them in. Many disappeared when there was a sudden warming or cooling of the local climate. When rainforests disappeared or reappeared. It could have been the climate.

And, it could have been because a creature suddenly showed up with a brain that looks at something really big and scary, and instead thinking “Wow, I better run and hide” thinks “Yup, I can eat that”.

Dinosaurs took a long time to get to that XXXXXL size. We forget how long the dinosaurs lived. They started to evolve at the beginning of the Triassic era over 250 million years ago, dominated the Jurassic, and then onto Cretaceous before they disappeared a mere 66 million years ago. That’s 180 million years of evolution – three times the length mammals have been around. After 50 million years, one of the largest dinosaurs was the melanorosaur which grew to about 25 feet in length – not quite twice the length of a mammoth. It took 100 million years of evolution to get to the brontosaurus which was over 75 feet long.

Mammals have had only had about 60 million years to evolve before we showed up and started eating them. Imagine how big mammals might get if they had 180 million years to evolve – and how tasty they would be.

Emphasis added. Wrong.

The conditions on the earth today are not the same as those that existing ~100M years ago. Whether any of those conditions would cause animals to be smaller in max size today is debatable, but it the idea that “nothing has changed” is flat out wrong. As far as we can tell, for example, O2 levels have fluctuated significantly since the rise of that element in the atmosphere some 600M years ago.

Define Nothing?
once North America was divided into an East side and a West side, by an Ocean.
T-Rex live on the west island

South America had no overland Passage to North America.
Antarctica was a lovely sub tropical place and was not at the south pole.

Once there were ENORMOUS insects.
There are not now, and there could not be even if you were God’s geneticist.
Why? Because something has definitely changed.

Many many many ancient animals could not even live on earth today, even if there were 0 humans, and God himself resurrected them.
Why? Because something HAS changed.

So, could we define nothing again?

OK, I’ll bite. What changed?

First thing to consider is body heat. The Elephants of today have giant ears, for the express purpose of shedding heat (plus apparently they get hard of hearing in old age?). Since there’s no evidence that dinosaurs had any similar heat-removal mechanisms, we need to conclude that although they may have had some heat-generation mechanisms (latest pet theories), they were generally not fully warm-blooded.

With warm-bloodedness, as alluded to, comes a host of other issues. The animal can still move well when the climate is cold, but also needs significantly more food and the protective mechanisms (fur or blubber or feathers) to preserve that heat in cold climates. So consider a croc or gator - a cold-blooded animal can grow from a tiny finger size to a dozen feet or more, and with minimal change of body morphology or adaptions (other than relying on a warm climate). A creature that starts off the size of a mouse and grows to twice the size of an elephant, warm-blooded, will have to go through a significant change in heat-adaption strategies. A body twice the dimension of an Elephant generates 8 times the heat with 4 times the surface area to shed that heat.

Another factor is brains. The human brain is the single biggest factor in our survival, despite the evidence of some specimens. Smart outdoes strong very often. The Jurassic may have been an arms race of size and armour, but the last 65 million years appears to have been a brain race.

I have read that the human brain consumes 30% of the body’s calorie intake. To feed brain and size, any warm-blooded animal with a decent brain would have to eat a massive amount of food. Grazers like cows and such are non-stop feeding machines, since the nutritional value of grass is quite low - even when using bacteria to aid in converting cellulose for digestion.

But, warm-blooded predators are very active - so slow, ponderous, massive cold-blooded animals would not have the speed or smarts to avoid becoming a meal; ditto for their small-brained tiny offspring, before they have a chance to become large. Most surviving reptiles have occupied niches to marginal or complex for mammals - swamps and tidal shorelines, isolated islands, or moving in and out of water.

Mammals tend to have few offspring, and the larger the mammal, the longer the gestation and child-rearing cycle. Other than relatively primitive marsupials, offspring tend to be not that much smaller than adults by the time of their birth.

So to sum up - mammal morphology doesn’t allow larger beasts for heat and food reasons. Smart, fast, active predators have killed off anything too big to get away, or picked off their young.

So what about mammoths? Read Darwin’s account of the Galapagos. The first humans to get there found the birds, adapted to the isolated island, so unaware of the danger of humans that one passage describes a sailor pouring a glass of water, and a bird lands on his arm to start drinking it as it pours. A visitor a decade or two later describes a young boy with a 3-foot stick sitting near a watering hole, whacking birds and killing them for dinner. Another few decades or many bird generations later, and the surviving birds are as skittish as the mainland. The same applied to the dodo - too unaware to be frightened of humans, until it was too late. Mammoths would have been even worse. by the time a few generations of mammoths learned (were selected) instinctively to fear humans, there weren’t any more generations.

This is the pattern everywhere outside of Africa and Eurasia - animals had to learn the hard way to fear humans. If numbers were too few and generations too long (or humans too mercenary) then sayonara. It wasn’t that anyone decided to hunt them to extinction; just that every individual actor fed themselves in the most expedient way with powerful weapons developed to feed themselves when prey were much less cooperative; and a large prey would continue to not be aware of the danger of humans long after the smaller ones had evolved to figured out the run away, so they were targets of convenience.

As for elephants, they evolved alongside humans and so learned to avoid them before they had more lethal weapons of mammal destruction.

Simple but big ones
Food, Climate, Habitat

Where does one go to find forests of Lepidodendron to eat today, if that is what one eats?
How about Conifers like sequoia? Only a few in california.
Cycadeoidaceae? nada.
You can’t live if the food you eat, that you adapted to digest does not exist.

And

Mega insects can no longer exist mostly for one simple fact (that i know of)
Oxygen levels.
Their breathing apparatus only supports X maximum size because of oxygen intake.
You need more oxygen % to grow bigger
After that its a limitation of the exoskeleton and circulatory iirc.

I have trouble imagining that pines constituted good food for anyone other than insects. Giant ferns, maybe.

md2000, last I heard, the prevailing wisdom was that Stegosaurus’s plates served as heat radiators, much like elephant ears. Is that no longer accepted?

OK. Two questions:

  1. Why was oxygen content of the atmosphere higher in the dinosaur era and why is is it lower now?

  2. Why don’t massive forests of the plants you mention exist any more?

OK, let’s just start here. African elephants have “oversized” ears. Asian elephants, not so much and their close relatives, Mammoths surely were not lacking of a heat dissipation organ while living through a Siberian winter.

And yes, there is evidence of heat dissipation in some dinosaurs. And since many birds use their legs to regulate heat, it’s quite possible that some non-avian dinosaurs did, as well.

And what does it mean to be “fully warm blooded”? Scientists generally use the term endotherm and ectotherm. Birds are Endotherms as are mammals. There is no reason to think that other, non-avian dinosaurs were not also endotherms.

Indeed it seems from the fossil record that with just one class of exceptions- semiaquatic ambush hunters such as crocodilians- the maximum practical size for a quadrupedal carnivore seems to be about one metric tonne. Back when mammoths were common there were saber-toothed cats that preyed on them. Notably the cats did NOT evolve to weigh two or three tons; instead they remained approximately lion-sized and evolved specialized killing fangs that presumably allowed them to inflict fatal wounds on their prey. And the one-tonne limit seems to hold for carnivorous amphibians and non-dinosaur reptiles. As I’ve posted in previous threads, this leads me to the hypothesis that being bipedal allowed predator dinosaurs to be faster for their size than a quadrupedal predator; thus spurring increased size in their prey.

It’s speculative and has been challenged but research continues.

Do you have a cite? I’d like to read a research paper on this.

The main thing that most people are missing, overlooking in their own thoughts, is that they are assuming that evolutionary changes occur for a REASON.

The thing is, once you get past the rudiments of survival, most evolutionary changes are aimless chance.

Saying that dinosaurs got big because it was “useful to be big back then,” is the kind of thinking I’m pointing at. It reminds me of the horrible anecdote I heard repeatedly as a small child, wherein the teacher said “Giraffes evolved to have long necks, so that they could reach the better leaves at the tops of the trees.”

What I finally realized, is that a LOT of what we see in any particular creature, is the result of HITCHHIKING. We don’t have hairy head tops for some as yet unrecognized survival necessity, or even because the hotter girls like hairier head tops. We have hair on our heads, because when our ancestors managed to make it as far as they did, they HAPPENED to have hairy heads.

There is no need to explain dinosaurs being big because it helped them somehow. remember that there were tons of smaller creatures back in those days as well, so “there was more oxygen, causing more growth” doesn’t work.

SOME dinosaurs got really big. We don’t know exactly why, but since not EVERYTHING alive back then was that big, an environmental explanation wont fly.

Yes and no.

Evolution is random chance combined with selection for better fitness.

For example, the common wisdom is that we descended from trees to scavenge the plains. From scavenging and consuming protein from other animals’ kills, we learned to run down and kill our own prey; bipedalism made for efficient runners. However, long distance runners need to shed the heat they produce from running - hence thinner fur, eventually none (plus a marvelous sweating system). However, bald heads contribute to heat stroke, so selective skin baldness was a better trait for survival than skinhead… so eyebrows keep sweat out of our eyes, and pubic hair, underarm hair provide means to cool and insulate (more surface for sweat to evaporate when we’re hot, insulation when cold); head hair keeps us from sunstroke while a full fur coat would have limited our ability to run long distance. Random chance picked a pretty good combination, except for old age baldness ( :frowning: )

But yes, we have head hair instead of feathers or armour plates because that’s what our ape ancestors started with.

Or to elaborate with specifics: Robert Wadlow became so large just because of random chance, for no particular reason. But he failed to produce any offspring because it turns out that he was way too big for a human to be. If he had produced offspring (and his offspring produced more, and so on), that would mean that his size wasn’t too big for a human.

That’s not the argument - the argument is that some animals (not all of them) are always going to get as big as they can possibly get, because that confers one set of advantages. It just happens that in the past, that maximum size was larger than possible today, because of the oxygen levels. That’s not environmental determinism, that’s an environmental limitation.

I don’t particularly buy that argument, because the jury’s still out on Cretaceous oxygen levels, but it’s not the same argument you’re arguing against.

The Earth is much much colder today … so cold that there’s permanent ice … so with average temperatures up to 20ºC higher, far more abundant rainfall and generally better environmental conditions … everything grew bigger/faster/stronger …

Unfortunately … continental plates happened … and the Earth started cooling …

We don’t know that much about the metabolism of dinosaurs. There is a lot of speculation that they were ‘warm-blooded’ but not much detail there. It’s possible they had something like a temperature regulation system that would put them in the warm-blooded category compared to modern reptiles, but still not require the food intake of warm-blooded mammals to survive. It might be impossible for land mammals to get any larger and still consume enough food to maintain their body temperature. A blue whale has a thick layer of blubber for insulation and lives in a giant bowl of soup that it feeds on requiring little energy consumption to keep itself nourished. Land mammals would need to expend far for energy to consume equivalent amounts of food. This would be among many other possible metabolic related reasons why land mammals can get no larger in the environment they must live in.

I’m on the border with that argument as well.

We have to also account, as I pointed out upthread, for why the largest animal ever to exist, exists today (the Blue Whale).

If sea animals are likewise likely to have some (not all) who get as big as possible because size = a certain set of advantages, what limits existed in the past on their growth that don’t exist now?

To my mind, it is possible that there is a certain amount of randomness at work.