Evolution - small to big?

Ned, Their physically large size means a relatively low population size, which makes them vulnerable.Mark

quote:

---

The reason some of the animals were so big is the same reason noah lived to be 900+ years old.

---

Nope. We'fe found fossils of varius dinosaur eggs; the eggs of huge dinosaurs huge. Their skeletal structures are all completely different. These are not just "really old, big versions" of modern reptiles (in fact, they're structured more like birds, which don't grow indefinitely). They're completely different animals, which are built to grow very big.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-20-2003]

Hi, This also suggests then that some animals could live for over a thousand years, and that Noah was probably about 30 feet tall!Brian.

yes fair enough, not all animals would grow infinately, and yes dinosaurs were born big. And no noah wouldn't have grown to be 30 feet tall, if that were true then i wouldnt have stoped growing at 18. But it can explain huge crocodiles, and even the massive sizes that some dinosaurs did reach. Im curious to know something here also. In humans you can tell when your bones stop growing by see your growth plates fuzed on an x ray. Is the same true for dinosaurs? and if so were they ever seen fuzed or did they just keep growing?

HI, Why not? Noah was an animal too. Not all people stop growing at 18, and you were suggesting that the conditions were different then, hence that is why Noah allegedly lived to be over 900 years old, you dont expect to live that long do you? Why would only some animals be affected and not others?I have no idea about the bone questions you ask.Brian

Dinosaurs do have growth plates, and - guess what - like everything else about them, they're more similar to *birds* than reptiles. And birds to not contine to grow over the course of their lives. And, the skeletal structures of dinosaurs are clearly unlike those of any animals alive today - regardless of size. So, no, it's not just an issue of growing for a long time. And there are good reasons why modern animals, especially land animals, couldn't just continue to grow. The larger you get on land, the harder it gets to bear your own weight. The structures of no land animal alive, just scaled up in the way that the animals grow during their life, could bear the weight of such a massive body.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Which is why human 'giants', both tall and overweight, often have problems walking. Our bone structure and design simply can't support that much extra weight.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I's going to say YEP. since you seemed to say it with such confidence. This is a VERY important statement that remands more than simple deletion. But I will leave all till Monday. And do be prepared I may even do a little research for this one I will not let get away. There is plenty of Creeation information in and on this as well. I will let it REST a day though. Interpolation IS NOT introspection. The skeleton IS NOT all the LIZARD anatomy teribbly makes. But that is the teaser. Back to brains AND bacteria.

hey brian maybe you should do some research, or even read my earlier post. It has been proven that reptiles in our time period do not stop growing until they die. And so i was saying if they lived longer they could grow bigger. I did not say mammals or birds or humans continue to grow until there death.

Since I left an open query for The Mammoth awaiting a Siberian Thaw I will merely agree with SOME GUY and rather than give the lizard's brain and extraocular recpetor topobiological recourse to WHAT is being thermoregulated which may apply to plants as to a sequence but not a series I will merely indicate HOW indeed , indeed how the growth of a reptile that only stops at death, mAy be related materially in this discusion that I yet to find the range to spreadsheet this discussion on where the natrualism in the discussion of my asserted equaility likely resolves a solute of Mendel's "The circumstance must not be overlooked that cultivated plants are mostly grown in great numbers and close together, affording the most favoruable conditions for reciprocal fertilisation between the varities present and the species itself. The probability pf this is suported by the fact that among the great array of variable forms solitary examples are always found, in which one character or another remain constant, if only the foreign influence be carefully excluded" when not some other poster's here. We are not completely free from language when dissussing nature even if we try to be independent of our native tongue.My claim was that Mendel's ELEMENT ("determined by the fitness of the material to the purpose for which it is used") is a ZAU(Matchette). "We may note here that the atomic series which we have considered in the above discussion, is a particularly clear instancing of this Referent-Referend relationship, the atom of each element in the series being a referend to the atom of the next higher atomic number, and the referent to the atom of the next smaller atomic number. Thus the chemical elements, from hydrogen of atomic number, 1, to uranium of atomic number, 92, constitute a referent-referend sequence. But although unranium is the last member of the atomic series, it is not the terminus of the referent-referend series as a whole, for it too is a referend and has many referents. It is signficant to note that the concept of order in the relative world extends not only to the physical material order of the world but to the psychical as well;"p77I had introduced a very similar notion in Will Provine's evolution and Ethics class 1986 but the concept as it was criticized by a vising pofessor who listened to the student presentations to have followed a procdedure of Freud was never questioned where I essentially made the reference cross ambiguously levels of organization & levels of selection. They got stuck on Freud's projection. I was waiting to see if any one would catch me in my "smartness". The motion to an absolute I did not raise but (it) was not excluded by my naming this referent a "fundamental particle". Regardless some of the prior posts in this thread have denied even this "fredianism" and so before getting to the issues that Gould might contend, I hope others WILL be interested in this that which RANDY balked tragedly about (thinking he was correct that I HAD NOT ANSWERED HIM. I guess he wouldnt even be able to discuss Freud then) and by name calling as LawDog expereinced found me with tail in tow moving into another thread. This one. THis time. Are we ready for a terribly close rendition of a lizard extra ocular receptor or is the pillow made of down? Provine wouldnt accept the continuing this fundamentally to the psychic phenomena SO I WROTE A PAPER on Rene Thom's catastrophe theory. He rejected this as well. You see when I got clearer and clearer I got graded badly and worse. And when I objected I was claimed to be mad. The metaphysics is obvious. Capricious grading of students is not. I was becoming more highly educated but was being slandered in the process. All the teachers could have done was say it was NOT religous discrimination. It was not. It was scientific myopia. Now it IS bias against the difference of creation science and scientific creationism.
Rene Thom explains "magic" with his theory and so I dissolved"" the psychic extension in the reach for a higher catastrophe set representation but no a C- was all I could get where an A was a reguritated rote memory. I couldnt belive THIS was cornell. But then I read Nozick- and asked Mayr... same response.