Comments on: Mini T. Rex Could Be Missing Link

By: Nicholas Dollak

Nicholas Dollak — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:45:16 +0000

Neat-o! Unfortunately, the headline kind of threw gasoline on one “creationist’s” fire, implying “surprise.” T.rex’s tiny forelimbs have always been a bit of a mystery, and the hypothesis that it evolved from a smaller form with proportionally longer forelimbs makes sense. But any palaeontologist will freely admit that no evidence had been found that confirms that hypothesis. This fossil is certainly interesting and important, and should be taken into account when re-evaluating the hypothesis. But it doesn’t necessarily blow it out of the water. Tyrannosauroids very likely lived in forested areas, and thus their fossils are rare as fossils go. We’re still a long way from getting a clear picture of their development. I don’t really think any palaeontologist was “surprised,” though, in the sense that at least one detractor assumed. (He seems to think that scientists are “know-it-alls” who are surprised at every new discovery because they actually know nothing.) After all, flightless birds come in a wide range of sizes, so it’s entirely possible that stubby-forelimbed dinos came in different sizes as well.

It’s sad to see so many loudmouthed people vehemently defending their literal interpretation of a creation myth in the name of religion. This discovery has zero to do with religion. And of course the little ‘roid’s fossil was found among fish & clam fossils — It was a complete skeleton, well-preserved, which means it was buried in mud immediately rather than left in the open. Being a land animal, it most likely died in a flash flood and was swept downstream. This does not support a “universal deluge” myth.

Further proof that logic needs to be taught in school.

By: HeartlessMachine

HeartlessMachine — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:53:14 +0000

Sorry. To clarify, the religious debate is in the comments of the LINKED article, not the one here on Neatorama.

By: Cola

Cola — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:15:48 +0000

Cordydan, they probably scavenged whenever they could, as lions do, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t, or didn’t, hunt whenever they needed to.

By: Snake Oil Baron

Snake Oil Baron — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:27:59 +0000

“I feel the article fails to address a very important aspect of the Mini T. Rex; are they or are they not absolutely adorable?”

I also vote for adorable. I also think that small bipedal robots with mouth weapons and tiny little arm guns would be both adorable and kick-ass.

By: Cordydan

Cordydan — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:44:33 +0000

T-rexes were not killing machines. They were scavenging machines.
You don’t need arms to scavenge.

By: Cheezwhiz

Cheezwhiz — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:55:08 +0000

Religious debate? What religious debate?

By: SenorMysterioso

SenorMysterioso — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:54:37 +0000

I want kawaii versions of all ferocious beasts

By: ted

ted — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:52:03 +0000

Why do we continue to manufacture long-armed killing machines today, then? Can we not learn from this example?

By: Gauldar

Gauldar — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:27:52 +0000

@Kate D

I too agree with the evolutionary trait of cuteness for the survival of a species because they are just too damn precious to wipe out! Unfortunately for them, meteorites & cataclysmic events have no bias!

By: Kate D

Kate D — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:04:17 +0000

I feel the article fails to address a very important aspect of the Mini T. Rex; are they or are they not absolutely adorable?

I vote they are.

By: Kalel

Kalel — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:30:25 +0000

The article addresses that very question.

By: FishBottleT

FishBottleT — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:39:49 +0000

Is it possible that this is not a missing link but just an adolecent dino?

By: Kalel

Kalel — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:22:44 +0000

For a body structure to remain stable for 70 million years or more, it must have been very efficient.