Replies

People need to be careful with their arguments. Let the evolutionist be the sloppy ones often teaching badly outdated notions of evolution in public schools if only because its hard to keep up ... and also keeping up may not be important if, as is likely the deep motivation, evolution is used as a way to foster secularism and atheism through the schools.

Most dinosaurs weren’t huge.

But for the biggest there may be a way to explain why they grew so large: possibly poor quality food.

The normal views on ancient plant life from looking at the teeth was that it was frequently tough fare.

Now, there are tough to digest plants being eaten by herbivores all the time today, such as grass, and the way active creatures (not talking koalas who sleep off their meals a lot) to digest. Among the most efficient if fermentation which is likely method used by the biggest dinosaur herbivores.

Cattle for example use fermentation with their multisegmented stomach (4 chambers IIRC) that serves to efficiently digest but they have a number of additional tactics, like chewing their cud, that dinosaurs probably didn’t have.

But if relying strictly on fermentation there would be a real benefit from having a very big stomach or just lots and lots of intestines because fermentation is one of those processes that benefits from economies of scale, with a big stomach taking less energy for a given amount of food to extract the same energy.

So a big stomach translates into a big animal. The classical long necked giant would have also had to have moved less since they could swing their heads side to side sucking up whatever they came across.

With generally better quality plant food and sometimes better strategies to digest what is marginal, there simply is no advantage to growing so very big, never mind huge, and with big herbivores being smaller / less common there’s reduced opportunity for there to be big meat eaters.