Comments on: Paleontologists Sink Aquatic Dinosaur Nonsense

By: susan

susan — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:42:46 +0000

This was know long ago, see:
“On Shape and Form” by D’arcy Thompson.

Every cell creates heat, so Body heat is proportional to body volume.

Math rules!

By: susan

susan — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:36:21 +0000

Body heat is proportional to body volume, but heat dissipation is proportional to surface area. As you get
big—you cook. SQUARE-cube LAW.
That is why whales live in water.
Yes, a Diplodocous will cook on land.

By: Stephen Hurrell

Stephen Hurrell — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:07:09 +0000

This is a very old theory to explain the dinosaurs’ large size. Just like many of the theories that try to explain their gigantic size it has a major difficulty. The theory that the dinosaurs lived in water only explains why one group of animals were colossal but we know that all life was shifted towards a larger scale during the dinosaurs’ time. Insects, plants and crocodiles were also larger. This is why only a theory that can affect all life – like dinosaurs’ gravity (Google it) – explains life’s larger size during the dinosaurs time. The dinosaurs’ world was a Reduced Gravity Earth.

By: Jason S.

Jason S. — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:44:36 +0000

I wonder if Ford was inspired by the “aquatic avian hypothesis” of German paleobiologist Klaus Ebel, which also assumed that virtually all saurischians had a semiaquatic lifestyle. Ebel argued for “swimming proto-birds” not because they couldn’t support themselves on land, but because water provided a better environment for jumping, gliding, and eventually flying; landing on the water’s surface, the hypothesis goes, would be less dangerous than crashing onto solid ground. The major blow to both Ebel and Ford’s ideas lies in their misinterpretation of the taphonomy of saurischian specimens (in Ebel’s case, the Archaeopteryx at Solnhofen). Regardless of whether or not the living animals ventured in or near water, the most likely explanation for their presence in aquatic paleoenvironments was that they washed out to sea as carcasses or drowned to death at the site. At this point, there is credible evidence that there were aquatic saurischian dinosaurs evolving into birds.

By: airamil

airamil — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:35:18 +0000

This reminds me a bit of David Eskers theory of the air pressure being very different when the dinosaurs were around, to the point that Earth’s air could be so thick that its density would be comparable to water. So maybe both are right in their own way in saying there is more here then makes sense with current notions.

By: Henrique Niza

Henrique Niza — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:07:28 +0000

The amount of failure by both the “scientist” and journalists involved in this story is abysmal and shameful. I mean, doesn’t anyone review these news before even look at it with the intend of creating a story?

By: Harold

Harold — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:31:00 +0000

1. That upside-down dinosaur article from the Onion sounds a lot like the real argument over the proper orientation of Hallucigenia.

2. A friend’s mother argued that all dinosaurs might have had big bunny ears that weren’t preserved in the fossil record. (I pointed out that such ears should have had associated points of muscle attachment on the skulls, but that was no fun.)

3. What silly fool emptied a .45 into that T-rex’s lower jaw? You need to go straight-on into the mouth or into the fenestrae from the side to have a hope of a kill shot with such a weapon.

4. The picture of the T-rex looks an awful lot like the “Y U NO” guy.

http://memegenerator.net/Y-U-No

Y U NO CHECK WITH REPUTABLE SOURCES FOR YOUR STORY?

By: Zach Miller

Zach Miller — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:07:36 +0000

Another excellent example of science journalism failure. And I’m sure there are plenty of science “journalists” out there who will defend the story, which is the part that makes me angry.

By: HP

HP — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:44:33 +0000

I strongly suggest taking a look at the Talk page on Mr Ford's Wikipedia article, particularly all the anonymous comments from someone who knows an awful lot about Mr. Ford's career, publications, and peerless reputation, and who repeatedly charges registered editors with vandalism and nefarious motives. Like they say on Cute Overload, "Cute or sad?" Although I must say that in all the coverage of this I've read so far, I'm disappointed that no one has brought up Anne Elk's theory about the brontosaurus.

By: Mike Huggins

Mike Huggins — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:09:14 +0000

I’m sure this is only a journalism problem with paleontology, and rarely occurs with other fields or issues.

By: Babbletrish

Babbletrish — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:45:06 +0000

That Ford has gotten all the attention that he has makes me very, very depressed. His theory is like a not-satirical version of this Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/paleontologists-weve-been-looking-at-dinosaurs-ups,7100/