Dinosaurs VS modern animals

[The Tactical Strategist]

Who was more successful? If you put both dinosaurs and modern animals in the same word, assuming the could both survive, who would take the upper hand and dominate?

[imatfaal]

well - if certain modern animals are allowed to keep their AK-47s and other dangerous toys then I have a horrible feeling it would be an enormous massacre. Excepting the barbaric hairless ape - then who knows; super simplistically the dinosaurs were around for much longer and modern animals were more adaptable.

 

Why is it a contest between two teams? Surely the filling of complementary niches by different species is more likely - in some areas older now extinct species may have the upper hand and in others the modern animals would dominate

[The Tactical Strategist]

Well yes, but I was thinking hypothetically. Like let's say the Serengeti in Africa. Who would be more dominant, velociraptor or African Wild dog. Please note that even though people may say the lion does rule, I wanted to match two species that were similar.

[dimreepr]

We have no real idea about the habits/abilities of any dinosaur in terms of their hunting prowess; and given the proliferation of the hyena why the African wild dog?

[The Tactical Strategist]

Well we can infer on a dinosaurs hunting tactics, based on the skeleton, and other fossils. I say the wild dog as they are probably the most succesful predator in, not just Africa, but the world, with a 80% - 90% success rate. And I imagne the velociraptor to me much like them, intelligent, fast, stealthy, stratigec, and dangerous. To help answer the question, I will talk about the supposed hunting tactics of the velociraptor, and then the tactics of a African wild dog.

 

The velociraptor: an ambush predator, thought to live in packs, even though no skeletons have been found in groups. It would spread out, and using quick, coordinated attacks, surround and attack their prey, such as a protoceratops, with teeth, and their sickle claw.

 

Wild dog: spread out and pick a target, and use their endurance and strategy to run down and kill their prey, like an impala. They will chase their target to others in their group and run it to ground, then move in for the kill

[dimreepr]

Well we can infer on a dinosaurs hunting tactics, based on the skeleton, and other fossils.

 

 

How?

 

 

The velociraptor: an ambush predator, thought to live in packs, even though no skeletons have been found in groups.

 

 

 

So why suppose they lived in packs?

 

 

I say the wild dog as they are probably the most succesful predator in, not just Africa, but the world, with a 80% - 90% success rate.

 

 

 

And yet hyenas are far more numerous.

[The Tactical Strategist]

How? It's basic science. People infer everyday, whether you realize or not. Velociraptor was small with light bones, built for speed, as most dromeosaurs, so we Infer it's fast. It has sharp claws and teeth, including the famous sickle claw on all raptors. We have a skeleton of a velociraptor on a protoceratops, showing that it probably ran and leap onto its prey, like a cat after large prey. And also, like a cat hunting large prey, it would probably live in packs so they can help each other bring down prey. They also have a large brain cavity (raptors were some of the smartest dinosaurs), which suggested they could solve problems and developed thing tactics.

 

We can safely assume that maybe they did live solo, but other raptors have been found in packs. It would also help them bring down larger prey, which we know they did. And maybe if one dies, the rest would leave. The main reason we know some dinosaurs lived in packs is because of freak accidents. A flash flood killed a whole heard of centoceratops, proving they lived in herds, but what were the chances of that happening? Close to none.

 

Are they? Wild dogs are doing extremely well in the wild, and live in packs up to 80 animals! They are great predators. Hyenas don't hunt as often, as they love to scavenge. They were built for it. They are also bigger, so they can chase away the dogs and steal their kill. A lazy way of survival. Not that I'm dissing the hyena. I love the animals and respect it fully. It's just like a lion and a cheetah.

Cheetahs have a quite higher success rate ( 50%) than a lion (20% - 30%). They get more kills. But it's extremely common for lions to steal from the smaller cheetah, as it's much easier

Well, a few of my last facts were incorrect. The wild dog is endangered due to poaching and poisoning. Sorry about that.

[dimreepr]

How? It's basic science. People infer everyday, whether you realize or not.

 

 

Inference doesn’t equal evidence; that’s basic science.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Science, especially paleontology, and other ancient histories, are all about inferences. There is nothing else you can do, since it's all gone and extinct. If we didn't infer, thing of all the things we wouldn't "know". And imagine how much we do "know" through inferences

[dimreepr]

Science, especially paleontology, and other ancient histories, are all about inferences. There is nothing else you can do, since it's all gone and extinct.

 

 

That’s exactly my initial point.

 

 

If we didn't infer, thing of all the things we wouldn't "know". And imagine how much we do "know" through inferences

 

 

 

Knowledge doesn’t equal understanding.

[The Tactical Strategist]

So are you saying that paleontology, paleobotany, archeology, etc are not sciences? Science is not all facts. It's also inferences.

 

So what are you trying to understand? From your posts, I'm starting to think you are on here just to attempt to rip apart my ideas. Quite sad, might I say, as I'm just here to talk and converse, and maybe learn what I can about the natural world.

[dimreepr]

The difference between knowledge and understanding is a difficult concept. I simply tried to clarify your question within this concept. I’m sorry if you consider my post’s as an attack on you or your post that wasn’t my intention.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. The thing with Paleontology, we will never understand the animals as they are gone. But my question is hypothetical, so I'm willing to hear what people think. Who is the more dominant type of animal, dinosaur, or mammal. Of course, we don't know, but what are the bets.

[pavelcherepan]

Inference doesn’t equal evidence; that’s basic science.

 

Not if that inference is based on abundant facts and purely scientific modelling.

 

 

 

Who was more successful? If you put both dinosaurs and modern animals in the same word, assuming the could both survive, who would take the upper hand and dominate?

 

Modern animals are adapted to the current environmental conditions and dinosaurs aren't. I think it's a no-brainer.

[dimreepr]

 

Not if that inference is based on abundant facts and purely scientific modelling.

 

 

But in this case it’s not.

 

 

Modern animals are adapted to the current environmental conditions and dinosaurs aren't. I think it's a no-brainer.

 

 

 

That’s a false assumption; the question was, “If you put both dinosaurs and modern animals in the same world?”

[Robittybob1]

...

That’s a false assumption; the question was, “If you put both dinosaurs and modern animals in the same world?”

What habitat would you fit them into. Name one and tell us where it would fit into today's ecological system.

[dimreepr]

What habitat would you fit them into. Name one and tell us where it would fit into today's ecological system.

 

 

I’m not saying I would fit them into any of today’s ecological systems but neither did the original question; which merely asked if conditions was the same for both, which would survive.

[Moontanman]

At the core of this is the question would one suppress the reproduction of the other. An adult sauropod would be all but invincible to modern mammal predators but if they simply laid their eggs and left them like most of science assumes then the baby sauropods would be easy prey but they would have had to be easy prey in the age of dinosaurs as well and yet they did survive.

 

Given that dinosaurs had avian characteristics like a more efficient breathing apparatus coupled with large size and high activity levels i can't think of any mammal alive today I would put my money on in a confrontation with a dinosaur.

 

Large mammals like Elephants would be vulnerable even to smaller dinosaurian predators much less something like T-rex.

 

I think dinosaurs would suppress mammals back to smaller nocturnal spots in the food web. I can't imagine dinosaurs being able to cope with some mammals because they are so small and active and would be nearly impossible to catch, like a weasel.

 

Depending on how cold tolerant dinosaurs were Mammals might survive in colder places while dinosaurs might do better in warmer settings.

[dimreepr]

At the core of this is the question would one suppress the reproduction of the other. An adult sauropod would be all but invincible to modern mammal predators but if they simply laid their eggs and left them like most of science assumes then the baby sauropods would be easy prey but they would have had to be easy prey in the age of dinosaurs as well and yet they did survive.

 

Given that dinosaurs had avian characteristics like a more efficient breathing apparatus coupled with large size and high activity levels i can't think of any mammal alive today I would put my money on in a confrontation with a dinosaur.

 

Large mammals like Elephants would be vulnerable even to smaller dinosaurian predators much less something like T-rex.

 

I think dinosaurs would suppress mammals back to smaller nocturnal spots in the food web. I can't imagine dinosaurs being able to cope with some mammals because they are so small and active and would be nearly impossible to catch, like a weasel.

 

Depending on how cold tolerant dinosaurs were Mammals might survive in colder places while dinosaurs might do better in warmer settings.

 

 

The largest dinosaurs would seem, at first glance, unstoppable in such conditions. However it would seem, to me, the best strategy for long term survival is diversity.

 

Few of us, it seems, would challenge the prognosis that cockroaches or rats would take over in a future that involves mankind’s demise.

[Moontanman]

What might be an interesting thought experiment is to take a 2000 k diameter plug out of modern day North America (before man came on and decimated the mega fauna) and take a similar plug from a continent 75 millions years ago and swap places and see how they spread and or are pushed back...

[pavelcherepan]

That’s a false assumption; the question was, “If you put both dinosaurs and modern animals in the same world?”

 

OK. I did misunderstand the question.

 

 

I think dinosaurs would suppress mammals back to smaller nocturnal spots in the food web. I can't imagine dinosaurs being able to cope with some mammals because they are so small and active and would be nearly impossible to catch, like a weasel.

 

That depends. If the world where we place mammals and dinosaurs has zones of temperate and arctic climate, then those will be dominated by mammals. Also, even now around 70% of all mammals are in fact nocturnal, so not much will change for them. Also, some of the most successful mammalian predators are nocturnal, including lions, gray wolves, tigers and hyenas. It will be highly uncomfortable for dinosaurs to sleep at night

 

 

Large mammals like Elephants would be vulnerable even to smaller dinosaurian predators much less something like T-rex.

 

I wouldn't so readily dismiss elephants. They are smart, work well in group, with a top speed of some 40 km/h they are faster than most large predatory dinosaurs (at least what models I've seen) and also can be very agressive claiming over 500 human lives each year. Obviously, some dinosaurs can get lucky, but it's not like elephants won't stand a chance.

Edited March 15, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[imatfaal]

Large mammals like Elephants would be vulnerable even to smaller dinosaurian predators much less something like T-rex.

 

A bull african elephant weighs about the same as the T-rex are estimated to weigh (around 6-7 mt) - bearing in mind that Elephants are social and very intelligent I think that the T-rexes would be picking off the young, ill, and infirm only

[Moontanman]

 

A bull african elephant weighs about the same as the T-rex are estimated to weigh (around 6-7 mt) - bearing in mind that Elephants are social and very intelligent I think that the T-rexes would be picking off the young, ill, and infirm only

 

 

 

 

Looks like the mammoth would be at a disadvantage to me and t-rex is thought to have hunted in packs

 

OK. I did misunderstand the question.

 

 

That depends. If the world where we place mammals and dinosaurs has zones of temperate and arctic climate, then those will be dominated by mammals. Also, even now around 70% of all mammals are in fact nocturnal, so not much will change for them. Also, some of the most successful mammalian predators are nocturnal, including lions, gray wolves, tigers and hyenas. It will be highly uncomfortable for dinosaurs to sleep at night

 

 

I wouldn't so readily dismiss elephants. They are smart, work well in group, with a top speed of some 40 km/h they are faster than most large predatory dinosaurs (at least what models I've seen) and also can be very agressive claiming over 500 human lives each year. Obviously, some dinosaurs can get lucky, but it's not like elephants won't stand a chance.

 

 

Dinosaurs like t-rex are known to have lived above the arctic circle, they had feathers to keep them warm..

[imatfaal]

Looks like the mammoth would be at a disadvantage to me and t-rex is thought to have hunted in packs

Dinosaurs like t-rex are known to have lived above the arctic circle, they had feathers to keep them warm..

 

No-one is certain if T Rex even hunted - let alone in packs or not. The consensus is that it scavenged and hunted a bit.

 

The feathers - is also unknown as far as I can tell. We are not sure if it was warm or coldblooded either.

 

The Alaskan tyrannosauroids were about half the size of the Tyrant King

[Moontanman]

No-one is certain if T Rex even hunted - let alone in packs or not. The consensus is that it scavenged and hunted a bit.

http://www.livescience.com/46965-tyrannosaurs-were-pack-animals.html

 

Some 70 million years ago, three tyrannosaurs stalked together across a mud flat in Canada, possibly searching for prey.

 

The new insight comes from several parallel tyrannosaur tracks unearthed in Canada. The dinosaur tracks provide stronger evidence for a controversial theory: That the fearsome mega-predators hunted in packs.

 

The ferocious beasts may have "stuck together as a pack to increase their chances of bringing down prey and individually surviving," said study co-author Richard McCrea, a curator at the Peace Region Palaeontology Center in Canada.

The feathers - is also unknown as far as I can tell. We are not sure if it was warm or coldblooded either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

 

The debate about whether Tyrannosaurus was an apex predator or scavenger was among the longest ongoing feud in paleontology; however, most scientists now agree that Tyrannosaurus rex was an opportunistic carnivore, acting as both a predator and a scavenger.[7] It is estimated to be capable of exerting one of the largest bite forces among all terrestrial animals.[8][9]

 

While there is no direct evidence for Tyrannosaurus rex having had feathers, many scientists now consider it likely that T. rex had feathers on at least parts of its body,[31] due to their presence in related species of similar size. Dr. Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History summarized the balance of evidence by stating that: “we have as much evidence that T. rex was feathered, at least during some stage of its life, as we do that australopithecines like Lucy had hair."[32]

As of 2014, it is not clear if Tyrannosaurus was endothermic (warm-blooded). Tyrannosaurus, like most dinosaurs, was long thought to have an ectothermic ("cold-blooded") reptilian metabolism. The idea of dinosaur ectothermy was challenged by scientists like Robert T. Bakker and John Ostrom in the early years of the "Dinosaur Renaissance", beginning in the late 1960s.[82][83] Tyrannosaurus rex itself was claimed to have been endothermic ("warm-blooded"), implying a very active lifestyle.[12] Since then, several paleontologists have sought to determine the ability of Tyrannosaurus to regulate its body temperature. Histological evidence of high growth rates in young Tyrannosaurus rex, comparable to those of mammals and birds, may support the hypothesis of a high metabolism. Growth curves indicate that, as in mammals and birds, Tyrannosaurus rex growth was limited mostly to immature animals, rather than the indeterminate growth seen in most other vertebrates.[51]

 

Oxygen isotope ratios in fossilized bone are sometimes used to determine the temperature at which the bone was deposited, as the ratio between certain isotopes correlates with temperature. In one specimen, the isotope ratios in bones from different parts of the body indicated a temperature difference of no more than 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F) between the vertebrae of the torso and the tibia of the lower leg. This small temperature range between the body core and the extremities was claimed by paleontologist Reese Barrick and geochemist William Showers to indicate that Tyrannosaurus rex maintained a constant internal body temperature (homeothermy) and that it enjoyed a metabolism somewhere between ectothermic reptiles and endothermic mammals.[84] Other scientists have pointed out that the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the fossils today does not necessarily represent the same ratio in the distant past, and may have been altered during or after fossilization (diagenesis).[85] Barrick and Showers have defended their conclusions in subsequent papers, finding similar results in another theropod dinosaur from a different continent and tens of millions of years earlier in time (Giganotosaurus).[86] Ornithischian dinosaurs also showed evidence of homeothermy, while varanid lizards from the same formation did not.[87] Even if Tyrannosaurus rex does exhibit evidence of homeothermy, it does not necessarily mean that it was endothermic. Such thermoregulation may also be explained by gigantothermy, as in some living sea turtles.[88][89]

 

The Alaskan tyrannosauroids were about half the size of the Tyrant King

 

That would appear to be the case.

 

Illustration of arctic t-rex: