Re: The absurdity , the absurdity (was:cooperating theropods?)

[Wile E 81 <WileE81@aol.com>]

<< >Larry dunn Wrote
 ><< Because social hunting requires more intelligence than Deinonychus 
 > possessed.  
 
 >And how do you know this?
 >We know embarassingly  little about intelligence and Brain capacity in 
 extant
 >animals ,how do we know what is intelligent for a dinosaur?
 
 >So you're proposing . . .what?  That we not consider the lifestyles of 
 dinosaurs? >>>

 No, not all It is healthy and educating to argue the possibilities.  Im
simply saying that  since there is no possible way at present to prove either
hypothesis, it makes sense to optimistically approach all possibilities  and
accept the fact that there is no conclusion that can be made as of yet , and
that  your opinions are as fabricated as any other . 
All we know for sure is Deinonychus ate Tenontosaur meat fairly frequently. A
scavenging D  may have happened along a dead carcasses attracting others
( idont buy this overly used explanation for every fossil site yeilding more
than one theropod at a feeding site) or a group of them may have killed it
themselves. So I'll take the neutral ground and wait for more real evidence to
surface. 

>>>Or . . . that we use this lack of information as a shield to make up 
 whatever fantasies about dinosaurs that we want?
  >>
You said it  , 
and that is exactly what you are doing   
  Unless you have evidence that weighs so heavily that It would stifle the
debate for all time,, then your  "Dimwitted Deinonychus as a solitary small
game hunter"   hypothesis Is as you said ... A Fantasy .  and you have no
grounds to state that is "absurd" to assume otherwise.  Just because your view
is not the "Sexy one" doesnt mean its not a fantasy.

Your saying that deinonychus could not take down a Tenontosaur based on the
fact that that you could not assertain this from looking at the fossil record.
And I agree there is nothing to point toward D preying upon T , but It also
does not show that it didnt. You use its small brain size to support your view
fairly frequently, which we all know Is not always an accurate measure of
intelligence.  Many of the claims you make are severely unfounded and highly
questionable.   


My apologies to all who have had it with this thread 
I felt I had to clarify my statement in the last post 


Frank