New Study Shows Tyrannosaurus Rex Evolved Advanced Bird-Like Binocular Vision

Science News Online ^ | June 26 2006 | Eric Jbaffe

[Al Simmons]

Alligators and Crocs have conical teeth; TRex had teeth serrated like steak knives. No comparison. TRex's teeth are the deadliest terrestrial predatory arsenal in the earth's history (that we are aware of at this time....)

[Al Simmons]

"The T Rex birth rate is too low to support Evolutionary arguments of random mutations occuring fast enough to bring about species change."

Ummm....Young TRex HATCHED from eggs, they weren't born...the rest of your statement above makes about as much sense:

Here is a hint to both of you - when you are ignorant on a topic, opening your mouth to opine away gives YOU away, so to speak....

[Southack]

"OK, you have made a rather broad claim. That is actually worse, unless you have a source. What is your source for the claim that alligators have a low mutation rate?"

My source is in post #151. When you ask again, and again, and again, the answer will still be post #151.

At least you managed to finally grasp the difference between "broad" and "specific," so I suppose there is some remote hope for you yet.

[Al Simmons]

Just to add to MinearlMan - herbivorous dinosaurs like horned dinosaurs,hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs), sauropods (long-necks) and Ankylosaurs, all had eyes on the sides of their head, giving them wider field of vision the better to see that TRex sneaking up behind them.....examination of the eye sockets in the skulls of Allosaurus, the top Jurassic predator, for example, shows that it had limited stereoscopic vision...90 million years later in the Cretaceous, its relatives, the Carcharodontosaurines (Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus), had much better stereoscopic vision per the same examination....if it works, it will be selected for...

[Southack]

"Ummm....Young TRex HATCHED from eggs, they weren't born...the rest of your statement above makes about as much sense:"

The *method* of the birth is not the controversy...the rate of birth (and thereby the rate of random mutations over very long periods of time) is another story.

[Al Simmons]

NEWSFLASH:

Recent discoveries of Ornithocharius fossils hint at Pterosaurs with wingspans of 60 feet....even at that size, however, their weight was probably something like 400 pounds...their bones were hollow, like the bones of birds, which kept the weight down....if you don't think that is impossible I offer to strap you to a 60-foot glider and push you off into the Gran Canyon....I GUARANTEE that you will spend MUCHO time aloft - even without the ability to flap the wings....

[Southack]

Because the species [alligator] is virtually unchanged over 200 million years of rapid breeding.

"Wrong."

Incorrect. The species alive today have remained virtually unchanged for scores of millions of years...even though it has undergone prolific breeding over such vast amounts of time.

Nice try, though. Ya gets a cupie doll fur dat one.

[Al Simmons]

"T. rex might also have had a limiting far point of 6 kilometers, compared with the human far point of 1.6 km. All the better to spot dead things with."

Nope. For that it had the most highly developed olfactory system of any terrestrial animal. Ever. Basically TRex was equipped to sniff out carrion miles away, as well as to see potential prey an equal distance away....nature maximized its ability to find/capture food...no wonder it had no competition from any other large Theropods in its environment...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The species alive today have remained virtually unchanged for scores of millions of years...even though it has undergone prolific breeding over such vast amounts of time."

What *species* are you talking about?

[Southack]

"90 million years later in the Cretaceous, its relatives, the Carcharodontosaurines (Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus), had much better stereoscopic vision per the same examination....if it works, it will be selected for..."

Yes, but "Selection" is no part of the controversy.

The question is whether the selected code re-use came from an external bias, or from a chance mutation that somehow survived.

[TalBlack]

"So in order to keep your head from exploding..... I'm just explaining the belief system."

I said 'confused' not 'confusing'.

I recall ideas such as that one popping up at pot parties. They were killingly funny. Ah, youth...

[Texas Eagle]

In the 1993 movie Jurassic Park, one human character tells another that a Tyrannosaurus rex can't see them if they don't move, even though the beast is right in front of them. Now, a scientist reports that T. rex had some of the best vision in animal history. This sensory prowess strengthens arguments for T. rex's role as predator instead of scavenger.

Wasnt't the T. Rex portrayed as a predator in the movie?

[Southack]

"What *species* are you talking about?"

[Cue Pink Floyd music]

Is there anybody out there...

[js1138]

My source is in post #151. When you ask again, and again, and again, the answer will still be post #151.

Post 151 simply links to a site that sells replicas of Crocodile skulls and contains the super scientific statement that "Crocodiles first appeared nearly 160 million years ago and have changed very little since."

It says nothing at all about mutation rates. What is your reference for your assertion that crocodiles have a low mutation rate? Do you not understand the concept?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"[Cue Pink Floyd music]

Is there anybody out there..."

That's not an answer. Alligator is not a species designation. The species of alligator alive today were not around 150 million years ago. So I ask again, what *species* are you talking about that has remained virtually unchanged over the last 200 million years?

[Southack]

"Post 151 simply links to a site that sells replicas of Crocodile skulls and contains the super scientific statement that "Crocodiles first appeared nearly 160 million years ago and have changed very little since." It says nothing at all about mutation rates. What is your reference for your assertion that crocodiles have a low mutation rate? Do you not understand the concept?"

It says *everything* about the mutation rate if, big if (apparently), you can comprehend the enormous distinction between macro level and micro level.

Perhaps I need to give you another lesson similar to the one that you clued in to regarding the difference between "broad" from that of "specific."

Here we are talking about the difference between "big picture" from that of "myopic."

[Southack]

"That's not an answer. Alligator is not a species designation. The species of alligator alive today were not around 150 million years ago. So I ask again, what *species* are you talking about that has remained virtually unchanged over the last 200 million years?"

Of course it's an answer. You're pretending to be dense. I'm going along with your gag. It's that whole "humor" thing. You should try it.

Pick a species. Say Crocodylia. Whatever of it is alive today has remained virtually unchanged for vast amounts of time.

You know this. I know this. You can *pretend* that some semantical issue warrants debate, but you are merely prolonging your inevitable loss of (probably) yet another debate.

Your call. Keep pretending. Keep nitpicking semantics. Won't matter. Won't help you.

So please, carry on dear sir.

[js1138]

It says *everything* about the mutation rate if, big if (apparently), you can comprehend the enormous distinction between macro level and micro level.

So tell us the difference between a micro-mutation and a macro-mutation. I'm sure generations of biologists are awaiting your wisdom.

[js1138]

Pick a species. Say Crocodylia. Whatever of it is alive today has remained virtually unchanged for vast amounts of time. That says nothing about mutation rate.

[Southack]

"So tell us the difference between a micro-mutation and a macro-mutation. I'm sure generations of biologists are awaiting your wisdom."

That was answered in post #159 and repeated (something apparently quite necessary for the current crowd on this thread) in post #191.

The answer won't change. Repeatedly re-asking the above question will obtain the same answers already given in the above-mentioned posts (if you care to save time and typing, something of which I'm not altogether convinced).