By which I mean did large dinosaurs, mostly, primarily, predominantly, or exclusively live in water.
No.
But if you want to read something by someone who thinks they did, try this: http://www.labnews.co.uk/features/prehistoric-revolution-2/
25 Responses to “Were dinosaurs aquatic?”
- 1 Trackback on 04/04/2012 at 6:47 pm
- 2 Trackback on 06/04/2012 at 10:46 am
I actually heard this guy on the BBC news this morning, I had to check whether they hadn’t got the date wrong – but 1st April was indeed 2 days ago. What utter piffle.
I think ‘piffle’ is about the nicest word that has been used to date about that.
why dud they not interview someone on the Today Programme who actually knew what they were talking about? Oh hang on, answered my own question, it was the Today Programme!
Well most places seem to be giving it a healthy dose of scepticism, but then why give it the oxygen of publicity if all you are going to do is let someone sort of criticse it?
Obvious publicity stunt by a “independent research biologist, author, and lecturer” looking for business. Don’t feed the trolls.
But when such things are being promoted by a credible media, people will buy it. It’s not worth going to town on it, but I think it is worth spending 5 mins to make it clear it’s not right. That will help turn a few heads and make people question it.
Yes, I know it’s difficult, also because you know they will find someone to say something eventually.
I wonder how the aquatic apes felt about sharing their habitat with all those dinosaurs?
A few dinos like Spinosaurus apparently did spend a lot of time in water, wading. Bakker also suggested Ceratosaurus went after aquatic prey.
Well yes, but it is basically being suggested that they were near obligate aquatic animals that *could* not leave the water.
Not this idea again. I thought that got debunked when I was a little kid – had a children’s book with Brontosaurus in water “because it couldn’t hold up its weight” and remember my dad explaining that just wasn’t so.
If only the science was in the mainstream conciousness. Sigh.
Now if only someone would make a realistic portrayal of dinosaur life, it might start something wonderful. Say, a dramatic (but realistic) portrayal of the life cycle of a predatory dinosaur from egg laying to death. (of tissue decay due to old age instead of the extinction event I hope)
I would, of course, nominate good ol’ Spinosaurus aegyptiacus for that so that speculative behaviors and use of the “sail” could be presented, but I’m sure others want Charcharodontosaurus or other such Allosaurids besides the Spinosaurids or Tyrannosaurids. But I can’t tell.
Ever read “Raptor Red?” by Robert Bakker?
Did you guys know that the Daily Mail is spreading this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2124420/Dinosaurs-DIDNT-rule-earth-The-huge-creatures-actually-lived-water–tails-swimming-aids.html
Did… did I just travel back in time?
I just don’t understand how someone who is supposedly a scientist can go about something such as this so unscientifically. Actually, I do understand – you develop a pet “theory” in an area outside of your expertise and then you look for some evidence to support it. You don’t read the literature because it doesn’t support your hypothesis and besides, it was written by those stupid, brainwashed, establishment so-called experts. Then you think up (guess) some more stuff and “publish” via a self-printed manuscript (or these days, your own website).
Has he done any buoyancy modelling to see if all of these dinos were stable in hip-height or greater water? Has he addressed how sauropods would be able to expand their lungs against the water pressure if submerged up to their necks (as he proposes)? What about why these dinos, with very few exceptions, show absolutely no visible aquatic adaptations over tens of millions of years whereas every other animal group which has returned to the water does?
And where are these 7-tonne hippos?
Don Henderson has looked into this. They are stable, but they also (inevitably) float in hip-depth of water, they can’t walk on the bottom.
This is the basic problem with almost everything said, it’s already been demonstrated or analysed. What is written looks plausible ad the chain of logic is sound, but it’s built on false assumptions. And it’s built on them because he clearly either hasn’t read, hasn’t understood, or has simply ignored the work on the subject.
Nice to know that I don’t count as a voice of reason on the Today programme…
Oh sorry Paul, didn’t realise it was the Today program you were on! I’d listened to your radio spot but not taken note of where it was. This damned thing has turned up on so many places the last 24 hrs. In context I’d assumed Kath was talking about something that had presented it uncritically. Or perhaps your criticism was too reserved!
I am now collecting palaeontologists’ signatures for a letter to BBC Radio 4 requesting a formal retraction. For details, see http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/radio4.txt
I’m wondering which one is to blame – the bad journalism or the awful science. Most likely both.
P.S.: I got it working, David. Damn WordPress.
As previously mentioned, this thought is not a new one. I remember reading dinosaur books to my children 25+ years ago that suggested this train of thought. Even 25 years ago, the books I could find at the local library of my smallish town were old. Apparently theories are like fashion, everything old becomes new again-not necessarily good or right, just recycled.
what is this, 1915?