News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Dinosaurs v. Mammals: The Final Conflict

Started by Queequeg, January 02, 2010, 11:57:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jimmy olsen

Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 10:40:48 PM
Tim, that really isn't the same thing.
However it points to how similar the animals were biologically. If many of their proteins and blood cells/vessels were similar, it's not a huge step to say their breathing system was as well, especially when the physical bone structure points in that direction.

Also, I totally fucked up the posting of those articles, it's fixed now.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Faeelin

I like how a thread that Quee was mocked for is actually very interesting.  :hug:

alfred russel

Quote from: Faeelin on January 03, 2010, 10:53:14 PM
I like how a thread that Quee was mocked for is actually very interesting.  :hug:

A lot of his threads turn out that way, but without a doubt he deserved to be mocked for this opening post.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

alfred russel

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 10:05:46 PM

There was a much lower amount of oxygen in the mesozoic period, so a more efficient breathing mechanism was selected for.

This is a good point--there is a concept that all large animals (basically anything much larger than a foot or two long) are essentially unsustainable and doomed to die out in a future extinction event. In extinction events, all species suffer, but larger animals almost vanish. So the future belongs to organ systems that compete best within smaller animals.

The disadvantage of an avian system is its requirement for a lot of space. This is accentuated in a small animal. In a time of low oxygen levels, the better efficiency of the system seems to have overcome this problem. But when oxygen levels rose, the age of mammals began.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

jimmy olsen

Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 11:18:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 10:05:46 PM

There was a much lower amount of oxygen in the mesozoic period, so a more efficient breathing mechanism was selected for.

This is a good point--there is a concept that all large animals (basically anything much larger than a foot or two long) are essentially unsustainable and doomed to die out in a future extinction event. In extinction events, all species suffer, but larger animals almost vanish. So the future belongs to organ systems that compete best within smaller animals.

The disadvantage of an avian system is its requirement for a lot of space. This is accentuated in a small animal. In a time of low oxygen levels, the better efficiency of the system seems to have overcome this problem. But when oxygen levels rose, the age of mammals began.

Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

alfred russel

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 11:18:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 10:05:46 PM

There was a much lower amount of oxygen in the mesozoic period, so a more efficient breathing mechanism was selected for.

This is a good point--there is a concept that all large animals (basically anything much larger than a foot or two long) are essentially unsustainable and doomed to die out in a future extinction event. In extinction events, all species suffer, but larger animals almost vanish. So the future belongs to organ systems that compete best within smaller animals.

The disadvantage of an avian system is its requirement for a lot of space. This is accentuated in a small animal. In a time of low oxygen levels, the better efficiency of the system seems to have overcome this problem. But when oxygen levels rose, the age of mammals began.

Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.

Arguably. I say arguably for two reasons: first, a mass extinction event at some future point was inevitable. Second, it seems as though mammal life began to explode in diversity 85 million years ago, as opposed to when the asteroid(s) hit 65 million years ago.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

HVC

Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 11:50:51 PM
Arguably. I say arguably for two reasons: first, a mass extinction event at some future point was inevitable. Second, it seems as though mammal life began to explode in diversity 85 million years ago, as opposed to when the asteroid(s) hit 65 million years ago.
Added to that, there were plenty of small dinos that could and did compete with primitive mammals, and yet the mammals won out. It's not so much that dinos were better then mammals, it's that they got to the niches first. it's hard to break into, and specialise, in niches already occupied.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Queequeg

Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 11:01:15 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 03, 2010, 10:53:14 PM
I like how a thread that Quee was mocked for is actually very interesting.  :hug:

A lot of his threads turn out that way, but without a doubt he deserved to be mocked for this opening post.
You may not believe it, but I kind of expected that. We have more than an interest in the topic, and I kind of like roleplaying here.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

Queequeg

Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2010, 12:26:39 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 11:50:51 PM
Arguably. I say arguably for two reasons: first, a mass extinction event at some future point was inevitable. Second, it seems as though mammal life began to explode in diversity 85 million years ago, as opposed to when the asteroid(s) hit 65 million years ago.
Added to that, there were plenty of small dinos that could and did compete with primitive mammals, and yet the mammals won out. It's not so much that dinos were better then mammals, it's that they got to the niches first. it's hard to break into, and specialise, in niches already occupied.
This is far more obviously the case after the KT extiction event than during the Triassic period, when therapsid/mammalform predators lost out first to general archosaurs and then to dinosaurs. It also is not so easily clear cut; huge bipedal almost entirely dromeaosaur or ornithoraptor like birds were among the top predators of the Eocene.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

Caliga

Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 11:01:15 PM
A lot of his threads turn out that way, but without a doubt he deserved to be mocked for this opening post.
Whether he deserves it or not, he gets mocked for virtually every thread he starts here.  It's part of his schtick, really.
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Neil

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 11:39:11 PM
Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.
Mammals were already stepping up in the late Cretaceous.  For small animals, the Age of Dinosaurs ended in the middle Cretaceous.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Queequeg

#71
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2010, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2010, 11:39:11 PM
Well, mammals only had the opportunity for their age to begin because of a cosmological fluke.
Mammals were already stepping up in the late Cretaceous.  For small animals, the Age of Dinosaurs ended in the middle Cretaceous.
I thought this was one of the most interesting questions; why is it that we kind of took over the small terrestrial land niches in the mid-late Cretaceous, along with the birds?  Why is it that the big birds had a wonderful Eocene, but can't seem to compete with modern quadrupedal mammals in most terrestrial niches, while the birds seem to have some manner of big advantage over bats?  Why did our Therapsid ancestors loose out in the Triassic to come back stronger than ever after the Age of Dinosaurs? 
Quote
The disadvantage of an avian system is its requirement for a lot of space. This is accentuated in a small animal. In a time of low oxygen levels, the better efficiency of the system seems to have overcome this problem. But when oxygen levels rose, the age of mammals began.
This is really interesting; it would explain why even the smallest bird often appears "puffy" when compared with the smallest bat, as the bird would no doubt need room for the superior Avian-style lungs.   You'd think that the mammalian size advantage would mean quite a bit, but I suppose the birds have certain other advantages. 
Quote
Crocodilians are archosaurs, not dinosaurs.  Only dinosaurs and their close relatives seem to have that adaptation.
AR posited that the Pterosaurs had something similar to the Avian system, and I think that what we would see in the early, possibly warm blooded (there is a pretty persuasive argument that cold bloodedness was returned to in the Crocodillians, as their ancestors had the gait and build of fast animals, like some of the earlier dinosaurs and relatives of pterosaurs) crocodiles would be similar, and I'd *guess* that we would see something *descended from* and probably resembling at the early stages of fetus development to the Avian-Dinosaur-Pterosaur system.  I doubt that a completely new, more efficient respiratory system somehow sprung up anew in the relatively small time between the Crocodiles and the Pterosaurs branched off from the Dinosaurs.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

Queequeg

An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds? 
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

Neil

Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 09:15:41 AM
An interesting question that hasn't been broached yet; do marsupials and placental mammals have a more efficient, or at least somehow better reproductive system than the "reptiles" and birds?
Certainly more robust.  Not tying the mother down to a single physical location is also very handy.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

alfred russel

Quote from: Queequeg on January 04, 2010, 01:06:22 AM
This is far more obviously the case after the KT extiction event than during the Triassic period, when therapsid/mammalform predators lost out first to general archosaurs and then to dinosaurs. It also is not so easily clear cut; huge bipedal almost entirely dromeaosaur or ornithoraptor like birds were among the top predators of the Eocene.

I think the theory is that during the triassic the archosaurs took over because of the generally arid conditions where reptiles have certain advantages regarding water retention (all land was in one continent at the time and temperatures were supposedly higher). Tim pointed out that dinosaurs, many if not all of which had avian respiratory systems, would be further advantaged in low oxygen environment.

We still have birds that are large and flightless--the ostrich, flamingo, and pengiuns come to mind. There was never an era of absolutes--if dinosaurs had totally dominated the mesozoic we wouldn't have modern day reptiles or mammals.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014