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

["Larry Dunn" <larrydunn@hotmail.com>]

From: Wile E 81 <WileE81@aol.com>

> 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 .

In the face of this lack of knowledge, how shold we proceed?  Optimism 
or pessimism should not be relevant.  Likely or unlikely should.

We know that, in all likelyhood, deinonychus was much less intelligent 
than modern pack hunters.  We know that only the most intelligent 
animals hunt in cooperation with each other.  So what can we safely 
surmise about the hunting techniques of theropods?  

If your answer is "nothing, because dinosaurs were not like any animals 
that exist today, etc." then we need to stop discussing their behavior 
at all, because we have no other references at all except the fossil 
record and, as you've seen, people disagree even about the Tugrugeen 
fossil -- and good luck finding a more thorough fossil example of 
interspecies conflict than THAT!

>>>>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 . 

Why, I've never said any such thing.  Both "dimwitted" and "small game 
hunter" are relative terms.  I've never passed *judgment* on the 
animals; I'm just trying to find the most reasonable interpretation of 
their lifestyle based on the fossil record and on modern cognates.  
 
>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.

But "prove it isn't" can't be a valid argument here.  Otherwise you 
could propose that Tyrannosaurs were actually around in the Triassic.  
It'd be hard to prove they weren't.

 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. 

Well, there tends to be a direct correlation between intelligence and 
relative size of the brain, right?  Why make an exception for 
dromaeosaurs because it would tend to discourage notions of a certain 
exciting proposed behavior? 

I've attempted to base my discussion on fairly commonly known dinosaur 
science and on observation of animal behavior.  I don't think I've 
strayed from that path.  What are the claims of the pack-hunting 
enthusiasts based on?  So far, all I've seen is the creation of 
increasingly elaborate scenarios utterly alien to our understanding of 
animal behavior.

All naked mole rats aside.
 
Larry

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com