I've been a big fan of Bakker since I was a little kid, even though for a while he was just some dude with a beard and a cowboy hat (both of which I've tried to replicate, hat being the only success). This guy is awesome to listen to and I don't think there's a better teacher out there as far as paleontology goes. Wonderful fellow! I hope my future career lets me meet him some day.
and let me elaborate on the principle: If a crocodile say, has no crop, but a gizzard, and a bird has a Grizzard AND the crop, that most likly means the ancestor had a gizzard but no crop. if you go from here, adn see that the hadrosaur has a gizzard AND crop, then the common ancestor of the hadrosaur and the bird also had both. and from there, you can see what I meant by "evolving twice" (i.e convergent evolution serving two wholly different functions). its not impossible, but unlikely
By the way, a Hadrosaur is not cladistically "in between," crocs and birds. Birds and Hadrosaurs share a derived common ancestor that then again shared a common ancestor with crocs before that. This is NOT the same as being cladistically, "In-Between."
X-rays revealed the possibility. it also revealed its last meal. and even if there was no X-ray, a crop is a must-the animal is cladistically in between crocodilians and birds, and both have crops. to have the animals in such a position without crops is highly unlikely, as it would somehow require a lose then re-evolve scenario. besides, a crop is the best explanation for how such animals were able to digest so much food for their bodies.
Next, your example about no crops in crocs, but gizzards, but both gizzards and crops in birds does not mean the common ancestor had only a gizzard. The common ancestor could easily of had both with a loss of the crop in one line, and the retention in the other. More evidence is required in the scenario to derive which state was more likely...
Why do you say the Rex is a scavenger? I find it difficult to believe that a creature the size of a Tyrannosaur could survive entirely on scavenged food. If you look at the modern fauna, pure scavenging is really left to the birds of prey, which can cover massive areas with very little energy burn. Additionally, the Rex is built with extremely powerful tendons and lightweight bone construction, which seem to indicate an active lifestyle. Sure it was a scavenger, but it probably hunted too.
Nice video, but it would have been nice and helpful to state a few facts about the actual mummy and its discovery...and then transition to the artificial replica with his commentary. In any case, I liked this video very much!!
Actually, collagen - not actual blood cells - was preserved. We already knew that the structure of collagen facilitated its survival for millions of years. 65 million years, however, came at quite a surprise. Here's a good article on the issue: "Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival" Enjoy!
John Smith, ya collegen surviving over 65 million years is total bullshit. Before they told us biological material could survive 50k, possibly 100k in the most ideal circumstance. After her ground breaking discovery Marie Schweitzer didnt date the collegen because her job was on the line but other paleontologists did after her discovery knowing what to look for. Eight different dino's from 8 different sights came back with ages of 22,000-39,000 years. some were tested as many as 16 times a piece because they couldn't believe the results. Thats why there is myths of dragons that became somewhat exagerated over the years.
First of all, you were not trying to derive the state of the common ancestor, but of something that was, "Cladistcally in between," in your words. This is entirely different. This only works if you have a direct line, and the, "In between," is actually a transitional forms between the two (at least in the direct series). This is certainly not the case. Next, I didn't say you said Hadrosaurs came from crocs. I said it would be required to support your premise.
Dear HMNS Faculty, Staff, and Volunteers, Thank you for the work you do to advance knowledge and educate the public. I'm sorry social media is overrun by jerkface trolls.
you clearly misundertood what I said. I was applying cladistics, which in this case is very simple: If a crocodile has a crop, and birds have a crop, then their common ancestor most likely had a crop. and if that is the case, then any decendants of that common ancestor would also have a crop-including Hadrosaurs. where did I say hadrosaurs came from crocs?! I'm not the only one to use it either, Bakker up there used it in the dinosaur heresies, and it has come out 99% correct.
the presence of sharp teeth do not require that an animal eats meat. Sharp teeth are needed for tearing certain plants and opening certain fruits. Pandas have sharp teeth but they only eat bamboo and vegetation. Bears have sharp teeth but some bears are strictly vegetarian. Some species of bats eat fruit, nectar, insects, small animals, and blood, but you could not determine this by the shape of their teeth.
Solo,,, They are not talking about actual preserved tissue. They are talking about the mineralization, and imprints of tissue that had, at one time, been there...
Next, a crop is a very simple structure, and it is not the type of structure that is hard to evolve more than once. Litopterns evolved almost the exact type of ankle, metapodial and phalangeal structures as we see in Equus, but did so on a totally different branch. This required numerous changes in many separate bones to occur. Now, re-read your original post, and see how it implies many things that are simply false. Being more parsimonious in your eyes does not cover it...
don''t you think the frills would possibly be a small useless reminder of dinosaur precursors? Like demetradon and other Permian aged reptiles/mammal-like reptiles?
@@Mike_Greene your dumb its a fake one in this video you really think that they would let him get that close to the real thing plus its not scientifically accurAte people these days believe everything THIS IS A FAKE REPLICA
@@Mike_Greene your dumb its a fake one in this video you really think that they would let him get that close to the real thing plus its not scientifically accurAte people these days believe everything THIS IS A FAKE REPLICA
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt you're more stupid... when did i say anywhere that i thought any of it was real?? i didnt. you should be feeling dumb. if you investigated the type of ish i look ibto you would never have written such nonsense. smh the reason ppl believe everything is because their dumb ass assumptions are off. such as yours, nutjob. I was challenging the bs. fall back and watch n learn .... sigh ....
@UrukTheRed Scientist have discovered small traces of protein within fossils, but it is still debated among the scientific community whether it's actually from the dinosaur or not.
Interesting, so the digestive system extended to the thighs of the Brachylophosaurus; I wonder if it's the same case with most, if not all, herbivore dinosaurs.
Actually it's skin was fossilized before it decayed so no that's not its original skin just an imprint of it. "Mummified" dinosaurs are pretty rare in the fossil world, they do have one on display at The Museum Of Natural History up in N.Y.C. plus preserved skin from the head of a Baby Mammoth complete with a trunk.
again, you misunderstood: all I meant with that phrase was that they shared a common ancestor with birds in crocs. If I could draw it on my comment, you can understand the reason why I used the choice of words. its basically a palm where the crocs branch out first, then hadrosaurs, than birds, in order of derivation. the result is that the stalk from which hadrosaurs came from is "in between". again, I know what I'm talking about. cont.
So did that skin get chiseled out of the rock??? If it is that... Thats AMAZING. I would LOVE to see how the skin feels. lol I mean, I'm not a toucher to begin with, especially in a museum, but ever since I was a little girl, one of my dreams was to know what the actual skin of a dino looked like and felt like... I may be in love... @u@
true, but I'm going by the most parsimonous (did I misspell that?) way of interpreting the anatomy. and yes IT IS ok to do so-as it can make certain predictions regarding ancestry and derivation.
there are still some debates around how long soft tissue of any kind can be preserved for that long, but dinosaurs definitively died out around 65 million yrs ago (except for the lineage that led to birds :p )
So I'm not sure if you're aware of this little particular theme but what you'll find is in most fossils the animal died! Also I'm not sure if you're aware of is that when you die your digestive system shuts down. not sure why it seems crazy and it should just keep going forever I would think but apparently that's not how it works.
Houston Museum of Natural Science...really ... "You're not able to touch the actual skin, " give me something fake to feel so that i will know what the real thing feels like although ill prob never touch the real thing, so id never know what it actually feels like now would I? So i am to take YOUR word for it even though logic tells me you have no way of knowing what a dinosaur's skin would feel like either . . . smh ... what kind of institution teach like that??
@rephaim23 science already has. science has shown that the average time that tissue can survive in certain conditions before turning to dust is approx 20,000 - 60,000 years.
Albu I am not saying if they (Hadrosaurs) had a crop or not, but your logic is extremely failed if you are attempting to claim that Hadrosaurs would have a crop or it would indicate a "lose and re-evolve scenario." For your premise to work, it must be a direct line with crocs, hadrosaurs, and then birds. The reality is that crocs are not on the same line with dinosaurs, as they just share a common ancestor, and hadrosaurs and birds are not on the same line, as they split early too...
First of all, no, you cannot use the wording you used. You said it was a "must." That is false. You said they were "cladistically, "In-Between." That is false. You are misusing the terminology. You said that having Hadrosaurs without having crops would indicate a "re-evolve scenario." This again is false, as you could have lost crops in the basal position of ornithischians, and simply retained the feature in saurischians. Neither event is less parsimonious.
Tyrannosaurus Rex - Hunter or Scavenger? Tyrannosaurus Rex had small, weak, beady eyes, where you might expect an active predator to possess super-sharp vision. Tyrannosaurus Rex had famously small, almost vestigial arms, which would have been near-useless in a close grapple with live prey. Tyrannosaurus Rex was none too fast, more a lumbering lummox than the sleek predator of Jurassic Park. It was once thought that this tyrannosaur could chase down prey at a blistering 40 miles per hour, but today, a relatively pokey 10 mph seems to be a better estimate. Most convincing of all to many scientists, analysis of Tyrannosaurus Rex skulls shows the presence of unusually large olfactory lobes, which would have been ideal for catching the scent of rotting carcasses from miles away. While the Tyrannosaurus Rex-as-scavenger theory has been surprisingly quick to catch on in the scientific community, not everyone is convinced. In fact, this may not even be an either/or type of argument: like other opportunistic carnivores, T. Rex may have actively hunted at some times, and at other times it may have feasted on prey that had either died of natural causes or already been pursued and killed by other, smaller dinosaurs. Pending decisive fossil evidence, we may never know for sure. dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/a/trexhunter.htm
Dianna Skare in reply to P Wales (a MUCH larger predator has been found in Argentina) you might want to check out the pack-hunting theory. two fossil beds of predators in family groups have been found. not surprising since they have found that some herding prey species were massive and , like today, some predators can only survive in packs.
Phillip Wales no no no a ton of what you said is very wrong. T.rex is said to have had the best eyesight of any animal that has ever walked the Earth. Next up speed t.rex actually had very long legs for its size a sign of speed in fact t.rex speed was probably more like 25 miles per hour at top speed. Final problem the arms they are short but not every predator uses arms to kill hyenas and wolves for instance only use there jaws to grab and kill prey. Also you ignore the biggest killer to the theory t.rex could never support its massive size on carcasses alone not only are they far less common than actually prey but they also provide far less nutrients especially for a large warm blooded carnivore. So you see the theory t.rex a scavenger was always wrong even Horner admitted he was joking so anyways goodbye and I hope you learned something.
Phillip Wales yeah lol trex arms are small in comparison to its body. But scientists have measured, and if trex hands could do the motion, it could curl 600 pounds
okay, wtf? you know what petrification is right? it replaces the flesh and bone, with stone. petrified remains are NOT the original, its just mud that filled up the cavity where the bone and flesh was and cemented together into a rock.
"having skin that felt like "an ear lobe"." really? I've never read a single paper that said so-can you site me the paper, page, and line, or are you talking out of your netherreagions? and even if there was, it does not disprove the 65 million age (BTW leonardo 76 mya, not 65)-it just proves that the animal was not fully fossilized-they alreay found soft tissue in T-rex.
no, its called deduction. extrapolation BTW is getting a conclusion using evidence-in this case, X-rays and cladistics. or another example: you find a bullet in a person's body, and you analyze its striations, and match it to a gun. once you know who has the gun, you can deduce-extrapolate-the answer. assumption is an arbitrary, and occasionally a priori thought on a subject-like saying that the earth is 6000 years old *assuming* the bible is true. notice the difference
@micknm You might find it intersting that Robet Barker, the man giving the talk, is a christain preacher. Yet in sight of his personal views, he will put it aside and deal with the evidence. The truth is that there is none for the flood of the bible, or whatever religion you happen to claim your from.
Bruh, do you realize that the head of the Flat Earth Society promoting all the Flat Earth "science" on line, is an EVOLUTIONIST? Do you realize that 66% of all Nobel Prizes were awarded to Christians? 21% by Jews and 7% by Atheists.
No, you just know the truth that it indeed did happen. Ever wonder why no paleontologists ever came out and said it’s all fake? Because it all did happen and we have tons of evidence to support it, it’s fact. I hope that six years after you posted this comment that you’re not an idiot anymore.
I've been a big fan of Bakker since I was a little kid, even though for a while he was just some dude with a beard and a cowboy hat (both of which I've tried to replicate, hat being the only success). This guy is awesome to listen to and I don't think there's a better teacher out there as far as paleontology goes. Wonderful fellow! I hope my future career lets me meet him some day.
Well?
Well?
I love that Dr. Bakker makes a story out of pure facts. I could listen him talk all day
I really love this guy, so talented, so enthusiastic. A real amazing scientist, and also a great artist.
He is great! Really gets you to pay attention and understand what he’s talking about 🥰
and let me elaborate on the principle:
If a crocodile say, has no crop, but a gizzard, and a bird has a Grizzard AND the crop, that most likly means the ancestor had a gizzard but no crop.
if you go from here, adn see that the hadrosaur has a gizzard AND crop, then the common ancestor of the hadrosaur and the bird also had both.
and from there, you can see what I meant by "evolving twice" (i.e convergent evolution serving two wholly different functions). its not impossible, but unlikely
Congrats on the beautiful job on your reproduction. It looks great. Excellent presentation.
By the way, a Hadrosaur is not cladistically "in between," crocs and birds. Birds and Hadrosaurs share a derived common ancestor that then again shared a common ancestor with crocs before that. This is NOT the same as being cladistically, "In-Between."
X-rays revealed the possibility. it also revealed its last meal.
and even if there was no X-ray, a crop is a must-the animal is cladistically in between crocodilians and birds, and both have crops. to have the animals in such a position without crops is highly unlikely, as it would somehow require a lose then re-evolve scenario.
besides, a crop is the best explanation for how such animals were able to digest so much food for their bodies.
Makes me wonder why we've never discovered a well preserved mummy of a predatory dinosaur...
Loved this guy! He made it fun AND interesting!
Next, your example about no crops in crocs, but gizzards, but both gizzards and crops in birds does not mean the common ancestor had only a gizzard. The common ancestor could easily of had both with a loss of the crop in one line, and the retention in the other. More evidence is required in the scenario to derive which state was more likely...
My favorite paleontologist. I read 'The Dinosaur Heresies' years ago, and it changed my life. He is brilliant.
This was like ASMR to me for some reason
Yes me too
It is! Dr. Bakker is fantastic.
Dr. Bakker has to be smart or else he couldn't get by with dressing like a Hollywood western gold prospector. Nice to see he finally got a new hat!
We're pretty sure Dr. Bakker was around before Dumbledore ;)
Why do you say the Rex is a scavenger? I find it difficult to believe that a creature the size of a Tyrannosaur could survive entirely on scavenged food. If you look at the modern fauna, pure scavenging is really left to the birds of prey, which can cover massive areas with very little energy burn. Additionally, the Rex is built with extremely powerful tendons and lightweight bone construction, which seem to indicate an active lifestyle. Sure it was a scavenger, but it probably hunted too.
Nice video, but it would have been nice and helpful to state a few facts about the actual mummy and its discovery...and then transition to the artificial replica with his commentary. In any case, I liked this video very much!!
Actually, collagen - not actual blood cells - was preserved. We already knew that the structure of collagen facilitated its survival for millions of years. 65 million years, however, came at quite a surprise.
Here's a good article on the issue:
"Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival"
Enjoy!
John Smith, ya collegen surviving over 65 million years is total bullshit. Before they told us biological material could survive 50k, possibly 100k in the most ideal circumstance. After her ground breaking discovery Marie Schweitzer didnt date the collegen because her job was on the line but other paleontologists did after her discovery knowing what to look for. Eight different dino's from 8 different sights came back with ages of 22,000-39,000 years. some were tested as many as 16 times a piece because they couldn't believe the results. Thats why there is myths of dragons that became somewhat exagerated over the years.
"I'm offended by the word 'duckbill'" - proceeds to call it duckbill...
Yeah
now atleast we know that dinosars are not pink in color....
First of all, you were not trying to derive the state of the common ancestor, but of something that was, "Cladistcally in between," in your words. This is entirely different. This only works if you have a direct line, and the, "In between," is actually a transitional forms between the two (at least in the direct series). This is certainly not the case.
Next, I didn't say you said Hadrosaurs came from crocs. I said it would be required to support your premise.
Actually, skin definitely could survive that long - after it's been petrified! And we've got some real dinosaur skin on display in our new hall.
Houston Museum of Natural Science
lies and if you have a real museum i can prove it . . .
Dear HMNS Faculty, Staff, and Volunteers,
Thank you for the work you do to advance knowledge and educate the public.
I'm sorry social media is overrun by jerkface trolls.
@@Mike_Greene dumb sub mb
you clearly misundertood what I said.
I was applying cladistics, which in this case is very simple: If a crocodile has a crop, and birds have a crop, then their common ancestor most likely had a crop. and if that is the case, then any decendants of that common ancestor would also have a crop-including Hadrosaurs. where did I say hadrosaurs came from crocs?!
I'm not the only one to use it either, Bakker up there used it in the dinosaur heresies, and it has come out 99% correct.
By the way, where is this museum? I would LOVE to meet Leonardo.
the presence of sharp teeth do not require that an animal eats meat. Sharp teeth are needed for tearing certain plants and opening certain fruits. Pandas have sharp teeth but they only eat bamboo and vegetation. Bears have sharp teeth but some bears are strictly vegetarian. Some species of bats eat fruit, nectar, insects, small animals, and blood, but you could not determine this by the shape of their teeth.
Solo,,,
They are not talking about actual preserved tissue. They are talking about the mineralization, and imprints of tissue that had, at one time, been there...
What a nice way to display Nate Murphy's dino find Leonardo. Too bad Nate isn't mentioned.
Next, a crop is a very simple structure, and it is not the type of structure that is hard to evolve more than once. Litopterns evolved almost the exact type of ankle, metapodial and phalangeal structures as we see in Equus, but did so on a totally different branch. This required numerous changes in many separate bones to occur.
Now, re-read your original post, and see how it implies many things that are simply false. Being more parsimonious in your eyes does not cover it...
Love this dinosaur movie
don''t you think the frills would possibly be a small useless reminder of dinosaur precursors?
Like demetradon and other Permian aged reptiles/mammal-like reptiles?
I wached the show that made me think that dinosaurs are real and sivieved
this is not it, but the real mumified duckbilled dinosaur is like brown.... i think
To answer two of the more common questions, this is a Brachylophosaurus and what you see here is a reconstruction. :)
Matthew Cuellar
how do you know what the brachylophosaurus look like??? 1:38 This scientist says its real and preserved...why should we believe you??
@@Mike_Greene your dumb its a fake one in this video you really think that they would let him get that close to the real thing plus its not scientifically accurAte people these days believe everything THIS IS A FAKE REPLICA
@@Mike_Greene your dumb its a fake one in this video you really think that they would let him get that close to the real thing plus its not scientifically accurAte people these days believe everything THIS IS A FAKE REPLICA
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt you're more stupid... when did i say anywhere that i thought any of it was real?? i didnt. you should be feeling dumb. if you investigated the type of ish i look ibto you would never have written such nonsense. smh the reason ppl believe everything is because their dumb ass assumptions are off. such as yours, nutjob. I was challenging the bs. fall back and watch n learn .... sigh ....
Mike Greene. Thats not correct sentence structure so stop calling people dumb
i wonder if that dinosaur would be tasty
I love passion. It's a beautiful thing. More people should follow their passion (if it's possible of course).
@UrukTheRed
Scientist have discovered small traces of protein within fossils, but it is still debated among the scientific community whether it's actually from the dinosaur or not.
so, did you mark my comment down because I caught you unable to cite a source, or did that drewas guy did?
Interesting, so the digestive system extended to the thighs of the Brachylophosaurus; I wonder if it's the same case with most, if not all, herbivore dinosaurs.
Actually it's skin was fossilized before it decayed so no that's not its original skin just an imprint of it.
"Mummified" dinosaurs are pretty rare in the fossil world, they do have one on display at The Museum Of Natural History up in N.Y.C. plus preserved skin from the head of a Baby Mammoth complete
with a trunk.
dakota was found in north dakota and leonrado was found near Malta, Montana so they are definately not the same animal
I approve this message.
again, you misunderstood: all I meant with that phrase was that they shared a common ancestor with birds in crocs. If I could draw it on my comment, you can understand the reason why I used the choice of words. its basically a palm where the crocs branch out first, then hadrosaurs, than birds, in order of derivation. the result is that the stalk from which hadrosaurs came from is "in between". again, I know what I'm talking about.
cont.
What is this dinosaur's full scientific name? I made out "brachy", but that's obviously a nickname.
Thanks.
dumbledor is now a dinosaur man...he quit hogwarts to do this... X))
xD
i was there. he has a curse. so they say ^^
again, you misunderstood me.
*wishes he could draw it*
I do not know anything about cloning, but if we could clone this dinosaur I believe that we should.
So did that skin get chiseled out of the rock??? If it is that... Thats AMAZING. I would LOVE to see how the skin feels. lol I mean, I'm not a toucher to begin with, especially in a museum, but ever since I was a little girl, one of my dreams was to know what the actual skin of a dino looked like and felt like... I may be in love... @u@
Is is fucked up that i would marry that man? I know it is but Jesus Christ hes epic.
A man who loves his job!
(Jealous).
Боб,как же ты постарел..!
true, but I'm going by the most parsimonous (did I misspell that?) way of interpreting the anatomy. and yes IT IS ok to do so-as it can make certain predictions regarding ancestry and derivation.
there are still some debates around how long soft tissue of any kind can be preserved for that long, but dinosaurs definitively died out around 65 million yrs ago (except for the lineage that led to birds :p )
amazing
Im going on a dig this summer with the guy who discovered this.
The tissue wasn't actually soft until the scientists studying it rehydrated it. Just, you know, F.Y.I.
This is a model of the dinosaur, right? This isn't the actual mummy...?
Glad i could help
Wow cool info here.
how does food get preserved in the stomach... isnt the stomach where the bulk of the food begin to break down??
So I'm not sure if you're aware of this little particular theme but what you'll find is in most fossils the animal died! Also I'm not sure if you're aware of is that when you die your digestive system shuts down. not sure why it seems crazy and it should just keep going forever I would think but apparently that's not how it works.
You're not able to touch the actual skin, but we do have replicas in our new exhibit hall of what dinosaur skin would feel like.
Houston Museum of Natural Science...really ... "You're not able to touch the actual skin, " give me something fake to feel so that i will know what the real thing feels like although ill prob never touch the real thing, so id never know what it actually feels like now would I? So i am to take YOUR word for it even though logic tells me you have no way of knowing what a dinosaur's skin would feel like either . . . smh ... what kind of institution teach like that??
Mike Greene. Dude sentence structure is incorrect so stop talking about logic
@@Mike_Greene your hands are dirty so you cant touch
that a very good video man
isn't it cute?! he isn't, but his science rocks!!!
@rephaim23 science already has. science has shown that the average time that tissue can survive in certain conditions before turning to dust is approx 20,000 - 60,000 years.
Albu
I am not saying if they (Hadrosaurs) had a crop or not, but your logic is extremely failed if you are attempting to claim that Hadrosaurs would have a crop or it would indicate a "lose and re-evolve scenario."
For your premise to work, it must be a direct line with crocs, hadrosaurs, and then birds. The reality is that crocs are not on the same line with dinosaurs, as they just share a common ancestor, and hadrosaurs and birds are not on the same line, as they split early too...
First of all, no, you cannot use the wording you used.
You said it was a "must." That is false.
You said they were "cladistically, "In-Between." That is false. You are misusing the terminology.
You said that having Hadrosaurs without having crops would indicate a "re-evolve scenario." This again is false, as you could have lost crops in the basal position of ornithischians, and simply retained the feature in saurischians. Neither event is less parsimonious.
could they use it too extract dna?
leonardo scientific name Brachylophosaurus canadensis
You guys are ready to be "pooped out"!!! Hahahahaha
incredible :D
Tyrannosaurus Rex - Hunter or Scavenger?
Tyrannosaurus Rex had small, weak, beady eyes, where you might expect an active predator to possess super-sharp vision.
Tyrannosaurus Rex had famously small, almost vestigial arms, which would have been near-useless in a close grapple with live prey.
Tyrannosaurus Rex was none too fast, more a lumbering lummox than the sleek predator of Jurassic Park. It was once thought that this tyrannosaur could chase down prey at a blistering 40 miles per hour, but today, a relatively pokey 10 mph seems to be a better estimate.
Most convincing of all to many scientists, analysis of Tyrannosaurus Rex skulls shows the presence of unusually large olfactory lobes, which would have been ideal for catching the scent of rotting carcasses from miles away.
While the Tyrannosaurus Rex-as-scavenger theory has been surprisingly quick to catch on in the scientific community, not everyone is convinced. In fact, this may not even be an either/or type of argument: like other opportunistic carnivores, T. Rex may have actively hunted at some times, and at other times it may have feasted on prey that had either died of natural causes or already been pursued and killed by other, smaller dinosaurs. Pending decisive fossil evidence, we may never know for sure. dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/a/trexhunter.htm
Dianna Skare in reply to P Wales
(a MUCH larger predator has been found in Argentina) you might want to check out the pack-hunting theory. two fossil beds of predators in family groups have been found. not surprising since they have found that some herding prey species were massive and , like today, some predators can only survive in packs.
Phillip Wales no no no a ton of what you said is very wrong. T.rex is said to have had the best eyesight of any animal that has ever walked the Earth. Next up speed t.rex actually had very long legs for its size a sign of speed in fact t.rex speed was probably more like 25 miles per hour at top speed. Final problem the arms they are short but not every predator uses arms to kill hyenas and wolves for instance only use there jaws to grab and kill prey. Also you ignore the biggest killer to the theory t.rex could never support its massive size on carcasses alone not only are they far less common than actually prey but they also provide far less nutrients especially for a large warm blooded carnivore. So you see the theory t.rex a scavenger was always wrong even Horner admitted he was joking so anyways goodbye and I hope you learned something.
Phillip Wales yeah lol trex arms are small in comparison to its body. But scientists have measured, and if trex hands could do the motion, it could curl 600 pounds
okay, wtf? you know what petrification is right? it replaces the flesh and bone, with stone. petrified remains are NOT the original, its just mud that filled up the cavity where the bone and flesh was and cemented together into a rock.
ok thank you! by the way your user name is kind of misleading.... but thanks!
"having skin that felt like "an ear lobe"."
really? I've never read a single paper that said so-can you site me the paper, page, and line, or are you talking out of your netherreagions?
and even if there was, it does not disprove the 65 million age (BTW leonardo 76 mya, not 65)-it just proves that the animal was not fully fossilized-they alreay found soft tissue in T-rex.
Young yes man nice 👍 ride car
wow professor boredom just taught me not to click on random videos...... hes a snoozer isnt he
Yeah... it's a big chicken.. 🤤
Brachylophosaurus. (low crested lizard)=)
no, its called deduction.
extrapolation BTW is getting a conclusion using evidence-in this case, X-rays and cladistics. or another example: you find a bullet in a person's body, and you analyze its striations, and match it to a gun. once you know who has the gun, you can deduce-extrapolate-the answer.
assumption is an arbitrary, and occasionally a priori thought on a subject-like saying that the earth is 6000 years old *assuming* the bible is true.
notice the difference
Jsss real mad
@micknm You might find it intersting that Robet Barker, the man giving the talk, is a christain preacher. Yet in sight of his personal views, he will put it aside and deal with the evidence. The truth is that there is none for the flood of the bible, or whatever religion you happen to claim your from.
Uit yes sleep 🛌 yes
@lance1236451 That would be an awesome steak :_)
Toy has mad 😠 yss gY 1:08
Bob, please don't dye your hair! It looks horrendous!
Paine dog yes him tv fake mice yes
He's offended by the term "duck bill" then continues to use the term multiple times.
If you spent years. and lots of money to study something that didn't happen you'd keep the truth quiet.
damn you on this video too whats up bro
I like to agitate the weak little minds
Bruh, do you realize that the head of the Flat Earth Society promoting all the Flat Earth "science" on line, is an EVOLUTIONIST?
Do you realize that 66% of all Nobel Prizes were awarded to Christians? 21% by Jews and 7% by Atheists.
No, you just know the truth that it indeed did happen. Ever wonder why no paleontologists ever came out and said it’s all fake? Because it all did happen and we have tons of evidence to support it, it’s fact. I hope that six years after you posted this comment that you’re not an idiot anymore.
@@hitlerswetpussy1736 Does stupid come natural to you?
This is fake