Comments on: A prehistoric revolution

By: David C. Bernvi

David C. Bernvi — Sat, 12 May 2012 09:58:47 +0000

I’m not a specialist in anyway. It seems to me that both conventional science published and Ford’s hypothesis not fully studied in the same manner may be right. As with Hominids, the subject of bipedalism might have arisen from a semi-aquatic state. It’s not a far-fetched idea. The reality is probably something in between.

The discussion is on a similar levels as nature vs. nurture.

By: theagingfanboy

theagingfanboy — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:29:06 +0000

A late comment, just to show the depths to which this story can sink (along with the dinosaurs). Over the Easter period this story was covered on the BBC Radio 4 morning news programme “The Today Programme” and the coverage was totally supportive of the concept. The proof which was offered was that “they” said that Galileo was wrong, but the Earth does move. So therefore Dinosaurs were aquatic BECAUSE “THEY” SAY THEY WEREN’T. Honestly, if you’ve got to resort to the Galileo defense then you’re devoid of any sensible argument. A classic examople of what happens to science when it’s discussed in the media by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.

By: David Esker

David Esker — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 02:22:03 +0000

Galileo’s Square-Cube law shows that size matters. This is one of the fundamental concepts in all of science, and yet it is one that most paleontologists refuse to talk about since it reveals that there is something odd about dinosaurs being so large. Brian Ford has reverted back to the old idea that the larger dinosaurs must have waded in the water as a means of reducing their effective weight, yet this hypothesis conflicts with the considerable amount of evidence showing that dinosaurs were completely terrestrial animals. Thus we have a paradox.

Science is the search for the truth based on the evidence. Yet sometimes the evidence seems to contradict itself. When the evidence seems to contradict itself, there is nothing to gain in taking one side or the other when both sides are flawed.

Rather than cherry pick the evidence that might supports your side, real scientists are willing to try to see the other person’s side or look for a new hypothesis as they strive to account for all the evidence. Brian Ford may be ignorant of the evidence showing that dinosaurs were completely terrestrial, yet the people belittling his hypothesis are just as ignorant of the fundamental physics showing why large dinosaurs are a scientific paradox.

I hold a master’s degree in physics, taught college physics for nearly two decades, and I solved the large dinosaur paradox years ago. My theory, the Thick Atmosphere Solution, accounts for how a fluid can provide a buoyancy force so that the dinosaurs could grow so large while still accounting for the evidence showing that dinosaurs were truly terrestrial animals.

The Thick Atmosphere Solution solving the dinosaur paradox is a major conceptual breakthrough. Yet to be a part of this new scientific movement one has to Google these topics and then spend time doing research. For science to move forward, we need people who are willing to objectively look at the evidence rather than just give their hardheaded opinion.

By: agoniuncle

agoniuncle — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:39:15 +0000

There would have to be one heck of a lot of shallow water next to vegetation to support the great number of dinosaurs required to perpetuate the species! Great April Fools joke!

By: Darren Tanke

Darren Tanke — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:10:19 +0000

Dinosaurs, like you and I, suffered from a variety of skeletal ailments. Some of these, such as diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH), affect a number of large dinosaurs such as sauropods, ceratopsians, hadrosaurs, and tyrannosaurs, resulting in the fusions of vertebrae. DISH occcurs in the back, but especially the mid-tail region and is related to the stresses put on the tail by its own weight.
I find fresh water particularly bouyant when I am in it, and I assume (with confidence) that Mesozoic fresh water was equally as bouyant for “aquatic” dinosaurs. An “aquatic” Tyrannosaurus, hadrosaur, ceratopsian or sauropod would enjoy the benefits of being supported by water. Why then do we continually find examples of DISH, and other paleopathologies in these and other “aquatic” dinosaurs. If their tails are supported by water, that stress-related type of osteopathy would not develop.
Ankylosaur fossils in freshwater deposits here in Alberta are always found upside-down, because the weight of their armor is enough to turn them over as the carcass bloats and floats. The carcass then sinks to the bottom as the gasses of decay burst out of the body cavity. Or…….. did “aquatic” ankylosaurs live by swimming upside-down (thereby fully exposing their naked bellies to predators) and their well-developed armor protect them from the attacks of nibbling fish……….

By: Rick Charles

Rick Charles — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:51:48 +0000

I don’t think I need to input my own refute to this article, but I’m posting to concur with all of the legitimate paleontologists who did not fail to catch the conjecture in this essay.

By: Richard Head

Richard Head — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:15:11 +0000

Does this help the joint loading problem?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v462/chendrie/trex.jpg

By: Admiral

Admiral — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:45:41 +0000

Oh God, I hope this guy knows not ALL dinosaurs were gigantic. Raptors, compsognathids, scansoriopterygids, etc…

By: Raven Amos

Raven Amos — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:36:15 +0000

Wow, I mucked that up. What I meant to say is there is a bias for finding fossils near water because rapid sedimentation is a more common occurrence, not because the dinosaurs or reptiles that left them were aquatic.

By: Raven Amos

Raven Amos — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:21:44 +0000

That only proves that the dinosaurs were fossilized in water, and that there is a bias toward finding more fossils near the water because there you have a better chance of finding fossils, not that they were intrinsically aquatic. Could we extrapolate this and say that Pteranodon longiceps was an aquatic animal based on where they were found? What about Pachyrhinosaurus lakusai?