Most dangerous prehistoric predator?

[The Tactical Strategist]

Who do you think was the most dangerous prehistoric predator? Maybe an ice age mammal: Smilodon, cave lions, Andrewsarchus, or even Neanderthal. Or would you go with a Mesozoic dinosaur. Utahraptor, tyrannosaur, allosaurus, dilophosaurus perhaps. Or was it even a predator at all? Maybe a ceratopsian, or a stegosaur. What do you all think, and why? I'm hoping we can use this thread to determine who might have been the baddest prehistoric animal. 😄

[John Cuthber]

Man.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Prehistoric please. Modern man doesn't work. But if you want to say something like Neanderthal, cro manga, Australopithecus, etc, that's ok

[Phi for All]

We see a great deal of evidence that Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man, predates his own ability to record history. We also see evidence they could defeat much stronger foes and survive where other species failed.

 

To be fair, this really needs to have more context. Change the environment and you change the answer. Throw the T-rex in deep water and he's just a big tub of meat for some of the bigger marine reptiles.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Very true, because of mind. May I clarify. Other than humans, what is the most dangerous creature. I do agree though, man is probably the most dangerous

[overtone]

Dangerous to whom?

 

Let's say a T-Rex could handle a prehistoric human pretty easily, and that human could probably make lunch of an egg eating specialist, and the egg eaters probably kept the T-Rex up at night worrying, so which one is most dangerous?

[The Tactical Strategist]

Hmmm. We shall turn this into an animal fight night. Haha. What about a Utahraptor vs a Tiger. A triceratops vs a rhino.

What is most dangerous to man? Modern animals, or Prehistoric? Who would retake or keep the world

Maybe, what is more dangerous to man? Or what will dominate the earth? Maybe the best question is, "Who is better adapted to survival?"

[Phi for All]

Maybe the best question is, "Who is better adapted to survival?"

 

That is a better question. Who would kick who's butt in a fight doesn't really tell us that. A tiger could kill a leopard in a fight almost every time, but leopards are much more adaptable, so the tiger is endangered while the leopard is not. There are ten times more leopards than there are tigers, lions, and cheetahs combined.

 

But it's not the question in the title, unless being better adapted makes one more dangerous.

[The Tactical Strategist]

True. But I'll just rephrase this. Sorry, I'm terrible when it comes to questions. I can never get them out right. What do you think is better adapted? Dinosaurs or Mammals. But then I realize this is unfair, because dinosaurs couldn't survive in this world, too different. Maybe, "Would predatory dinosaurs have a shot at surviving, or would modern animals kill them off, either by direct fighting (highly unlikely) or just better adapted

[Briarep]

I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are mistaken. Write to me in PM, we will talk.

[Spyman]

Write to me in PM, we will talk.

But this is a discussion forum, in PMs we can't read and benefit from your arguments. Edited June 16, 2015 by Spyman

[Roamer]

Probably some kind of bacteria.

[DrP]

Indominus Rex. ;-)

[Peace]

Man - Most dangerous predator? That'd be tough.

 

 

I wonder how a Sarcosuchus imperator would do against a large allosaurus or something similar. . They were quite huge.

 

 

[Sensei]

Maybe a ceratopsian, or a stegosaur.

C'mon. These are vegetarians..

I wonder how a Sarcosuchus imperator would do against a large allosaurus or something similar. . They were quite huge.

 

They don't need to eat adult.

 

Lions and hyenas are concentrating on young buffalo and young antelope.

Adult are harder to catch, run faster, are more powerful, have large horns that can kill them. Unlike their children.

 

Crocodile-alike reptiles are eating mostly fishes. But when they attack land living animals, they're drowning them. It's much less energy consuming method of attack.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Sensei

[OptimisticCynic]

I will go with E. Coli when it turns predatory.

[Moontanman]

True. But I'll just rephrase this. Sorry, I'm terrible when it comes to questions. I can never get them out right. What do you think is better adapted? Dinosaurs or Mammals. But then I realize this is unfair, because dinosaurs couldn't survive in this world, too different. Maybe, "Would predatory dinosaurs have a shot at surviving, or would modern animals kill them off, either by direct fighting (highly unlikely) or just better adapted

 

 

I have often wondered what or who would dominate given equal opportunity, it's not just who would win, a t-rex or an elephant, that would really be meaningless to the bigger picture. But if you could somehow (magic here) say divide a mega mammal ecosystem alongside a dinosaur ecosystem so the two would diffuse into each other it would be interesting to see which ecosystem would have more survivors in place after a few millenia...

[ACG52]

For egg laying animals, I would guess that the most dangerous predator might be a small mammal, such as a shrew, which could sneak into dinosaur nests and kill the eggs.

[Ophiolite]

1. Danger is a subjective term and therefore assessing relative danger is a value judgement process and that is not science.

 

2. Although this question has been placed in the Ecology and the Environment section of the forum it ignores Ecology. Even if the question is rephrased to mean "what is the most adapted" this is meaningless without knowing what other life forms and inter-relationships exist in that environment. You cannot ask "who is the better athlete, a 100m sprinter, or a two man bobsleigh pilot?"

 

3. Consequently the question reduces to a bar room discussion, in which case those members who suggested bacteria were closest. However, we should amend this to be any parasite, bacteria, or virus that has not yet evolved to live/reproduce in its host without killing it.

[iNow]

...in which case those members who suggested bacteria were closest. However, we should amend this to be any parasite, bacteria, or virus that has not yet evolved to live/reproduce in its host without killing it.

Perhaps more of a semantic objection than a useful one, but is it really appropriate to describe those as predators? I see them more as vectors, symbionts, or even guests, but they're not killing then eating the other organism (except in those rarer instances where doing so helps them spread and replicate) in the way I typically think of a predator... Though, I probably need to update my thinking as I appear to be conflating it with carnivory:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation

In ecosystem predation is a biological interaction where a predator (an organism that is hunting) feeds on its prey (the organism that is attacked). Predators may or may not kill their prey prior to feeding on them, but the act of predation often results in the death of its prey and the eventual absorption of the prey's tissue through consumption. Thus predation is often, though not always, carnivory.

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps more of a semantic objection than a useful one, but is it really appropriate to describe those as predators?

Good point. I had overlooked that the OP specified predator and was reading the subsequent posts with the phrase "most dangerous organism" in mind, rather than "most dangerous predator".