Pack hunting dinosaurs

[Gwangi]

I don't know if you've caught on to what I'm all about here but here goes. I want to understand these animals as real creatures, not fantasies. I want to understand them the best I can and to do that you need science and evidence. Of course some sauropods may have cared for their young. It would be unscientific of me to say otherwise but convincing evidence does not exist and so I'm not going to entertain fantasy when there is real work being done on these real animals that shows otherwise.
This would be a good time to bring up the dinosaur/bird controversy as an example. Alan Feduccia does not believe birds are dinosaurs despite all the evidence to the contrary. No matter what evidence comes forth he refuses to accept it or twists it in some way to better fit with his own theories. He argues that birds evolved from a thecodont ancestor in the Triassic for which there is zero evidence of it ever existing. He once argued that no dinosaur had feathers and now that feathered dinosaurs have been found he argues that they're birds and not dinosaurs. This is not science. Where science is concerned we look at the evidence and whatever the evidence tells us is probably true at least until new evidence is found that suggests otherwise. I love that birds are dinosaurs but if evidence more convincing of Fedducia's theory came about (very unlikely) then I would swallow my pride and accept it because that is what the science tells us. That is not to say we should accept these things blindly, we should always keep an open mind and look for new evidence. If you believe that sauropods cared for their young than I expect good evidence to back it up, once you bring that forth I'll review it and make an assessment accordingly. Until then I go where the evidence (good evidence) takes me and so far the evidence has told me birds are dinosaurs, sauropods did not care for their young and dromaeosaurs did not hunt in packs. But of course, this could all be wrong. I'll need to see the evidence for it. It is that simple.

[Sharptooth]

Don't worry Gwangi, i understand what you mean, there's just one thing i disagree... Why you shouldn't use your immagination when trying to restore dinosaurs and their behaviors? As long as it stays into the realms of logic and common, scientific sense and you're enough open-minded to not believing your theory is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, well, i don't see what's bad about it!

Afterall, many groundbreaking discoveries were made thanks to those scientists who thought "outside the box" 

[Gwangi]

Don't worry Gwangi, i understand what you mean, there's just one thing i disagree... Why you shouldn't use your immagination when trying to restore dinosaurs and their behaviors? As long as it stays into the realms of logic and common, scientific sense and you're enough open-minded to not believing your theory is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, well, i don't see what's bad about it!

Afterall, many groundbreaking discoveries were made thanks to those scientists who thought "outside the box" 

There is nothing wrong with imagination as long as you don't continue to dismiss the evidence that counters what you imagine as is the case with Fedducia. I don't believe my thoughts on the issue are the one and only truth, that would be insane as we know virtually nothing about these animals. I see a lot of people use their imagination rather then try to actually educate themselves on these animals. I mean, I posted that paper discussing why Deinonychus is not a pack hunter but how many people read it? How many people read it and said "hey, that makes sense"? How many people dismissed it because it goes against how they want to view dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs as nurturing parents is a wonderful idea, just as with pack hunting but we risk understanding what these animals were really like at the cost of our overactive imagination and the imaginations of the media. If the evidence tells us that dinosaurs did or didn't do something then that is what we should look to in using our imagination to bring these animals to life. Rather than say "screw that, this is cooler" or "well the evidence says this but since we don't REALLY know we'll depict them like this instead." Keep an open mind but don't ignore evidence, especially good evidence. If someone is truly fascinated with these animals than they should prepare themselves to have their image of these animals drastically altered at any given moment otherwise it is not the animals they actually love but the idea of them instead. Do you like dinosaurs as once living animals and subjects of science or as fantasy and pop culture icons? Both is fine (I do) but the science should come first.
The feather issue comes to mind. Many people question feathers on their favorite dinosaurs because they don't want their imagined image of them tainted but if you honestly take interest in dinosaurs you should embarrass any new discovery that tells you anything about them. People don't want to think Deinonychus had feathers but of course they did! There is no good scientific evidence that they did not...there isn't even bad evidence that they didn't. To think otherwise is to ignore science and the only reason we know anything about dinosaurs is because of the science. So if imagined monsters are you preference that is fine but don't pass of imagined guesses as evidence because real evidence exists. In the case of sauropods the bulk of the evidence suggests they didn't nurture their young. We can speculate or imagine otherwise but what relevance is that in a discussion about how they actually lived? It's all just conjecture! I want the real deal, not imagined creatures. If imagined creatures were my preference I would look to mythology.

[Metallisuchus]

Don't worry Gwangi, i understand what you mean, there's just one thing i disagree... Why you shouldn't use your immagination when trying to restore dinosaurs and their behaviors? As long as it stays into the realms of logic and common, scientific sense and you're enough open-minded to not believing your theory is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, well, i don't see what's bad about it!

Afterall, many groundbreaking discoveries were made thanks to those scientists who thought "outside the box" 

Sharptooth, I think you just summed up my entire opinion on all of this - pack hunting, parental care, etc. I think it's healthy science to leave some things to the imagination, because like you said - that's how we come up with new theories, which in turn, lead us to new experiments and ways of finding evidence.

We've only begun to scratch the surface on the Mesozoic world. We only know very, VERY few things. I'm glad not all paleontologists think alike.

[Arioch]

But sadly a lot of non educated persons have a different idea of what "logic and common" is and this is usually more worthwhile for them than experts opinions, which they don´t listen to whenever those contradict their own preferences and taste.

Imagination is fine as long you have some alternative theory backed up for some evidence which is at least as reliable as the one that supports the theory you disagree with.  Otherwise it couldn´t be considered healthy science, heck, that´s not even science at all. Darwin or Edison didn´t make their great discoveries just lying under a tree and sprouting random stuff that they considered cool.

[Metallisuchus]

But sadly a lot of non educated persons have a different idea of what "logic and common" is and this is usually more worthwhile for them than experts opinions, which they don´t listen to whenever those contradict their own preferences and taste.

Imagination is fine as long you have some alternative theory backed up for some evidence which is at least as reliable as the one that supports the theory you disagree with.  Otherwise it couldn´t be considered healthy science, heck, that´s not even science at all. Darwin or Edison didn´t make their great discoveries just lying under a tree and sprouting random stuff that they considered cool.

That's not what I mean - I'm merely saying we should think of as many scenarios as possible, with or without evidence. It's not like I'm saying, "hey I bet Triceratops could breathe fire!" then calling it a fact. If something occurs to you, you think about it logically, then look for evidence to support or denounce it. A lot of what is called "fact" is just a lop-sided opinion 'supported' by potential evidence. If you really want to get down to it, we could say evolution doesn't exist, and that it's just an odd coincidence that later animals resemble older animals, etc.

[Gwangi]

That's not what I mean - I'm merely saying we should think of as many scenarios as possible, with or without evidence. It's not like I'm saying, "hey I bet Triceratops could breathe fire!" then calling it a fact. If something occurs to you, you think about it logically, then look for evidence to support or denounce it. A lot of what is called "fact" is just a lop-sided opinion 'supported' by potential evidence. If you really want to get down to it, we could say evolution doesn't exist, and that it's just an odd coincidence that later animals resemble older animals, etc.

What you're talking about here is the scientific method. You know...ask a question, look for evidence, formulate a hypothesis and so on. What seems to go on quite frequently is the ask a question part. I hear things like "sauropods may have been nest parasites" or "sauropods may have regurgitated food for their young" and if someone is genuine about those ideas and thinks them valid questions I expect them to find the evidence. Granted we're not all paleontologists but research can be done. Otherwise you're just sticking to the fantasizing part and not going any further and that isn't science at all. I realize no one said those things were facts but in a somewhat serious discussion about parental care in dinosaurs why even toss those ideas out there without something to back it up? I can speculate on what dinosaurs did all I want but if there is no evidence what is the point? Why share it here as an argument for parental care when all it is, is speculation? We all know some sauropods may have practiced parental care but for now at least the evidence says a some did not and others probably didn't so it is far safer to assume none of them did than it is to make wild claims to the contrary. Basically what this tells me is my opponent has no real argument, just doesn't want to accept the science and that frustrates me. At least evaluate the evidence instead of pass it off in favor of some imagined guess. It is just like Fedducia and his thecodont bird ancestor.

[stoneage]

But sadly a lot of non educated persons have a different idea of what "logic and common" is and this is usually more worthwhile for them than experts opinions, which they don´t listen to whenever those contradict their own preferences and taste.

Imagination is fine as long you have some alternative theory backed up for some evidence which is at least as reliable as the one that supports the theory you disagree with.  Otherwise it couldn´t be considered healthy science, heck, that´s not even science at all. Darwin or Edison didn´t make their great discoveries just lying under a tree and sprouting random stuff that they considered cool.

It worked for Issac Newton!

[Metallisuchus]

That's not what I mean - I'm merely saying we should think of as many scenarios as possible, with or without evidence. It's not like I'm saying, "hey I bet Triceratops could breathe fire!" then calling it a fact. If something occurs to you, you think about it logically, then look for evidence to support or denounce it. A lot of what is called "fact" is just a lop-sided opinion 'supported' by potential evidence. If you really want to get down to it, we could say evolution doesn't exist, and that it's just an odd coincidence that later animals resemble older animals, etc.

What you're talking about here is the scientific method. You know...ask a question, look for evidence, formulate a hypothesis and so on. What seems to go on quite frequently is the ask a question part. I hear things like "sauropods may have been nest parasites" or "sauropods may have regurgitated food for their young" and if someone is genuine about those ideas and thinks them valid questions I expect them to find the evidence. Granted we're not all paleontologists but research can be done. Otherwise you're just sticking to the fantasizing part and not going any further and that isn't science at all. I realize no one said those things were facts but in a somewhat serious discussion about parental care in dinosaurs why even toss those ideas out there without something to back it up? I can speculate on what dinosaurs did all I want but if there is no evidence what is the point? Why share it here as an argument for parental care when all it is, is speculation? We all know some sauropods may have practiced parental care but for now at least the evidence says a some did not and others probably didn't so it is far safer to assume none of them did than it is to make wild claims to the contrary. Basically what this tells me is my opponent has no real argument, just doesn't want to accept the science and that frustrates me. At least evaluate the evidence instead of pass it off in favor of some imagined guess. It is just like Fedducia and his thecodont bird ancestor.

There is no real argument. I'm not refusing any true scientific data. That's your problem - if somebody doesn't automatically agree with you or take your word for it, you treat them like an opponent. I'm just casually speaking of dinosaurs and science here. And no, we're not all paleontologists - I haven't been to a dig site before, I haven't sat down in a lab and sawed through bone and examined it, I haven't been to rainforests and spent days tracking predatory birds - watching their every move. I'm offering mostly speculation here, possibilities, and that's where science begins. And you keep using the word 'fantasy', where is this fantasy? So any idea that hasn't yet been proven beyond the shadow of doubt is fantasy? Maybe there is evidence out there for some of my (and others') speculations and it's just that nobody here yet knows of this evidence, but I (and others) throw these ideas out there, hoping somebody might know something in regards to them.

It's like you have this inferiority/superiority complex going on. I'm just having fun discussing what interests me, like many others here. I'm not saying I know for a fact how dinosaurs moved, breathed, behaved, etc. but I do have my own interpretation of what they may have been like, and discussing that interpretation is interesting to me, because there are always new finds, new theories, new evidence out there and I find it fascinating that the view of dinosaurs is constantly evolving, just as they were. Let your guard down man, nobody's attacking you, haha.

By the way, have you decided whether or not you are going to buy that Dinostoreus Tyrannosaurus/Triceratops desktop model yet?

[Sharptooth]

Gwangi, you have very good points and i agree with many of the things you said but, and Metallisuchus noticed it too, it seems you're ostracizing too much good ol' speculation. Listen, i'm not saying we should wildly speculate on even the tiniest minutiae of paleontology (here in Italy we'd call that type of inane discussion that lead to nowhere "seghe mentali" or "aria fritta") but sadly when it comes to dinosaurs it's almost an obligate path... Even the  alleged "bulk of evidence" paleontologists use to prove a certain aspect of dinosaurs' lives is sometimes just a lil' clue that could be easily proved or debunked by a newer discovery.
But bear in mind, this does NOT mean we should forget all the positive evidence gathered by paleontologists in favor of our personal preferences (remember when i didn't believe raptors had feathers? Reading after reading i understood i was wrong and modified my view of these dinosaurs according to science  ), just to be more open to explore all paths when discussing this stuff and not "fossilize" the mind.

If in the future we'll have definite proof that at least a group or dromies hunted in packs or that Camarasaurus (just the first sauropod name that popped into my mind) nurtured his chicks, well, i'll be content; if we'll have proof of the opposite i'll be happy too, as long as we'll finally be able to know how these wondeful creatures lived.

[Metallisuchus]

Gwangi, you have very good points and i agree with many of the things you said but, and Metallisuchus noticed it too, it seems you're ostracizing too much good ol' speculation. Listen, i'm not saying we should wildly speculate on even the tiniest minutiae of paleontology (here in Italy we'd call that type of inane discussion that lead to nowhere "seghe mentali" or "aria fritta") but sadly when it comes to dinosaurs it's almost an obligate path... Even the  alleged "bulk of evidence" paleontologists use to prove a certain aspect of dinosaurs' lives is sometimes just a lil' clue that could be easily proved or debunked by a newer discovery.
But bear in mind, this does NOT mean we should forget all the positive evidence gathered by paleontologists in favor of our personal preferences (remember when i didn't believe raptors had feathers? Reading after reading i understood i was wrong and modified my view of these dinosaurs according to science  ), just to be more open to explore all paths when discussing this stuff and not "fossilize" the mind.

If in the future we'll have definite proof that at least a group or dromies hunted in packs or that Camarasaurus (just the first sauropod name that popped into my mind) nurtured his chicks, well, i'll be content; if we'll have proof of the opposite i'll be happy too, as long as we'll finally be able to know how these wondeful creatures lived.

Couldn't have said it better myself ; )

[Gwangi]

There is no real argument. I'm not refusing any true scientific data. That's your problem - if somebody doesn't automatically agree with you or take your word for it, you treat them like an opponent. I'm just casually speaking of dinosaurs and science here.

I'm not viewing anyone as my opponent, I thought we were debating these issues. This entire thread was started because of a debate and I guess I just never left that frame of mind. I'm very passionate about the things that interest me, to a fault I would say but I'm not trying to treat you as an opponent, only as an individual with whom I disagree in a thread that was started because of a disagreement.

And no, we're not all paleontologists - I haven't been to a dig site before, I haven't sat down in a lab and sawed through bone and examined it, I haven't been to rainforests and spent days tracking predatory birds - watching their every move.

Same here. I don't understand your point on this one.

I'm offering mostly speculation here, possibilities, and that's where science begins. And you keep using the word 'fantasy', where is this fantasy? So any idea that hasn't yet been proven beyond the shadow of doubt is fantasy? Maybe there is evidence out there for some of my (and others') speculations and it's just that nobody here yet knows of this evidence, but I (and others) throw these ideas out there, hoping somebody might know something in regards to them.

By using the word fantasy I'm only suggesting that the idea is imaginative. That is what fantasy is, imaginative thinking. And I'm sorry but the notion of parasitic sauropods seems pretty fanciful to me.

It's like you have this inferiority/superiority complex going on. I'm just having fun discussing what interests me, like many others here. I'm not saying I know for a fact how dinosaurs moved, breathed, behaved, etc. but I do have my own interpretation of what they may have been like, and discussing that interpretation is interesting to me, because there are always new finds, new theories, new evidence out there and I find it fascinating that the view of dinosaurs is constantly evolving, just as they were. Let your guard down man, nobody's attacking you, haha.

Like I said previously, I thought this was started for the purpose of debating. I have no complex and I don't believe I'm being attacked, this is just the kind of person I am in these kind of discussions. I speak my mind and I'm passionate about the topic. I have fun just casually talking about dinosaurs too...this is a toy forum after all. But when I open this particular thread it is to get down and dirty on the subject. If someone doesn't want to do that I suppose they can just not respond to what I've said. All that said however I suppose I've gone a bit over board with this one and am willing to acknowledge that. These kind of heated discussions are common around here and web forums in general but so perhaps when I come into places like this my guard is up some. I apologize for my forwardness on the subject. If you just want to casually speculate on how dinosaurs lived rather than seriously discuss evidence then take it away, I didn't realize that is what you were doing here.

By the way, have you decided whether or not you are going to buy that Dinostoreus Tyrannosaurus/Triceratops desktop model yet?

Nah, not at the moment. Just not in the budget.

[Seijun]

Everything that Gwangi has said

I think its unlikely that a specific behavior, or lack thereof, could be extended across an entire dinosaur family, and I love speculating (or "fantasizing") about what behaviors dinosaurs may or may not have had... but if I ever wanted to get into a scientific debate about dinosaur behavior, I would have to stick to the things that actually have evidence. (Or at least try to--on a forum such as this, its entirely too easy to find oneself arguing in favor of a behavior we think was physically possible or possible based on inference from modern species, even when that behavior has no real supporting evidence. I have probably been guilty of it before as well).

[Metallisuchus]

There is no real argument. I'm not refusing any true scientific data. That's your problem - if somebody doesn't automatically agree with you or take your word for it, you treat them like an opponent. I'm just casually speaking of dinosaurs and science here.

I'm not viewing anyone as my opponent, I thought we were debating these issues. This entire thread was started because of a debate and I guess I just never left that frame of mind. I'm very passionate about the things that interest me, to a fault I would say but I'm not trying to treat you as an opponent, only as an individual with whom I disagree in a thread that was started because of a disagreement.

And no, we're not all paleontologists - I haven't been to a dig site before, I haven't sat down in a lab and sawed through bone and examined it, I haven't been to rainforests and spent days tracking predatory birds - watching their every move.

Same here. I don't understand your point on this one.

I'm offering mostly speculation here, possibilities, and that's where science begins. And you keep using the word 'fantasy', where is this fantasy? So any idea that hasn't yet been proven beyond the shadow of doubt is fantasy? Maybe there is evidence out there for some of my (and others') speculations and it's just that nobody here yet knows of this evidence, but I (and others) throw these ideas out there, hoping somebody might know something in regards to them.

By using the word fantasy I'm only suggesting that the idea is imaginative. That is what fantasy is, imaginative thinking. And I'm sorry but the notion of parasitic sauropods seems pretty fanciful to me.

It's like you have this inferiority/superiority complex going on. I'm just having fun discussing what interests me, like many others here. I'm not saying I know for a fact how dinosaurs moved, breathed, behaved, etc. but I do have my own interpretation of what they may have been like, and discussing that interpretation is interesting to me, because there are always new finds, new theories, new evidence out there and I find it fascinating that the view of dinosaurs is constantly evolving, just as they were. Let your guard down man, nobody's attacking you, haha.

Like I said previously, I thought this was started for the purpose of debating. I have no complex and I don't believe I'm being attacked, this is just the kind of person I am in these kind of discussions. I speak my mind and I'm passionate about the topic. I have fun just casually talking about dinosaurs too...this is a toy forum after all. But when I open this particular thread it is to get down and dirty on the subject. If someone doesn't want to do that I suppose they can just not respond to what I've said. All that said however I suppose I've gone a bit over board with this one and am willing to acknowledge that. These kind of heated discussions are common around here and web forums in general but so perhaps when I come into places like this my guard is up some. I apologize for my forwardness on the subject. If you just want to casually speculate on how dinosaurs lived rather than seriously discuss evidence then take it away, I didn't realize that is what you were doing here.

By the way, have you decided whether or not you are going to buy that Dinostoreus Tyrannosaurus/Triceratops desktop model yet?

Nah, not at the moment. Just not in the budget.

My point regarding the fact that I'm not a paleontologist - I don't have access to everything I need, or the experience to approve to disprove everything I hear, and I refuse to sit here and accept the things you say (or what other random people on the internet say - paleontologist or otherwise) as fact. I would take your claims as "fact" if I were the one examining these things myself - THAT'S my point.

I never said there were parasitic sauropods, and I actually used one of your methods to obtain a possibility here. That method is developing theories or ideas on dinosaur behavior based on the behavior of their closest-living relatives - - - BIRDS. This is the same method YOU yourself use. I'm not even saying I believe in it, it was merely an idea that occurred to me at that very moment.

As for this discussion - I'm just enthusiastic about dinosaurs, just like yourself, and at the end of the day, we BOTH know that we really don't know for sure about these issues (parental care among sauropods, raptors pack-hunting etc.), so I don't know what's with your condescending tone. Evidence supporting any of this stuff is still rather weak, regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

The debate thing - there IS no debate about sauropod's parental care, or lack of... I was the one who brought up the sea turtle theory, actually. That's what I don't get about you - you're treating every single thing I say as if it's a direct attack against whatever theory you may have.

[Metallisuchus]

Everything that Gwangi has said

I think its unlikely that a specific behavior, or lack thereof, could be extended across an entire dinosaur family, and I love speculating (or "fantasizing") about what behaviors dinosaurs may or may not have had... but if I ever wanted to get into a scientific debate about dinosaur behavior, I would have to stick to the things that actually have evidence. (Or at least try to--on a forum such as this, its entirely too easy to find oneself arguing in favor of a behavior we think was physically possible or possible based on inference from modern species, even when that behavior has no real supporting evidence. I have probably been guilty of it before as well).

I'm supporting no fantasy here. I'm offering plenty of legitimate ideas, that's all. "Everything" Gwangi has said, seriously???

[Gwangi]

My point regarding the fact that I'm not a paleontologist - I don't have access to everything I need, or the experience to approve to disprove everything I hear, and I refuse to sit here and accept the things you say (or what other random people on the internet say - paleontologist or otherwise) as fact. I would take your claims as "fact" if I were the one examining these things myself - THAT'S my point.

I'm not a paleontologist either, I don't have any more access than you or any other average person does. You don't have to do any actual paleontology to learn about dinosaurs. If you have a notion on how dinosaurs lived than there are tons of books and papers that will help you formulate evidence that supports your theory. Thats all I'm trying to point out here. You're taking offense to things not meant to offend and I already apologized for my "tone". I also don't expect you to take my claims as fact...never take what someone says in a forum as fact. Hopefully you would just look at evidence yourself and decide for yourself. You literally asked me what evidence is there that sauropods did not care for their young. Now you don't want an answer because I'm too forward in my presentation of the evidence? I don't get it.

I never said there were parasitic sauropods, and I actually used one of your methods to obtain a possibility here. That method is developing theories or ideas on dinosaur behavior based on the behavior of their closest-living relatives - - - BIRDS. This is the same method YOU yourself use. I'm not even saying I believe in it, it was merely an idea that occurred to me at that very moment.

Yes, you did hint at the notion of parasitic sauropods. By parasitic I mean nest parasites which is the term used for birds like cuckoos and cowbirds.  It is back on page seven. Your theories are fine, I just thought we were having a discussion about the actual evidence that exists for or against parental care.

As for this discussion - I'm just enthusiastic about dinosaurs, just like yourself, and at the end of the day, we BOTH know that we really don't know for sure about these issues (parental care among sauropods, raptors pack-hunting etc.), so I don't know what's with your condescending tone. Evidence supporting any of this stuff is still rather weak, regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Sure we don't know for sure regarding these issues but I thought that was what we were in this thread for? Certainly not for what we're discussing right now!
I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm trying to be logical and sincere. Again, I'm sorry if I just come across that way, this is the internet and tone is difficult to determine but I did apologize in my last post so I don't know what is with the continued attacks. 

The debate thing - there IS no debate about sauropod's parental care, or lack of... I was the one who brought up the sea turtle theory, actually. That's what I don't get about you - you're treating every single thing I say as if it's a direct attack against whatever theory you may have.

Really? Someone made a claim, someone countered it, someone made a claim or asked a question, someone did the same thing back. How is that not a debate? Were you not just defending the notion of parental care just one page ago in an argument with myself? I have treated nothing as a personal attack until I started receiving personal attacks. Honestly I would love nothing more than to just drop all this and discuss dinosaurs.

[Seijun]

Everything that Gwangi has said

I think its unlikely that a specific behavior, or lack thereof, could be extended across an entire dinosaur family, and I love speculating (or "fantasizing") about what behaviors dinosaurs may or may not have had... but if I ever wanted to get into a scientific debate about dinosaur behavior, I would have to stick to the things that actually have evidence. (Or at least try to--on a forum such as this, its entirely too easy to find oneself arguing in favor of a behavior we think was physically possible or possible based on inference from modern species, even when that behavior has no real supporting evidence. I have probably been guilty of it before as well).

I'm supporting no fantasy here. I'm offering plenty of legitimate ideas, that's all. "Everything" Gwangi has said, seriously???

I can agree with him, cant I?

Anyway, I think all he's trying to say is that, while its perfectly fine to speculate and imagine what dinosaurs were like, you can't very well debate in favor of something that has no supporting evidence (parental care in sauropods for instance). If that is what he is trying to say, then I agree with him And I too was under the impression that we were engaged in a debate here.

So regarding parental care in sauropods, I would personally like to believe that SOME sauropod species out there might have engaged in parental care of some sort, but I would not try to argue that any did (if that makes any sense).

[Dinoguy2]

Anyway, I think all he's trying to say is that, while its perfectly fine to speculate and imagine what dinosaurs were like, you can't very well debate in favor of something that has no supporting evidence (parental care in sauropods for instance). If that is what he is trying to say, then I agree with him And I too was under the impression that we were engaged in a debate here.

So regarding parental care in sauropods, I would personally like to believe that SOME sauropod species out there might have engaged in parental care of some sort, but I would not try to argue that any did (if that makes any sense).

Excellent point. If every idea could be refuted by saying "well, I can personally imagine an alternative scenario, so disprove THAT" science wouldn't exist.

[Metallisuchus]

My point regarding the fact that I'm not a paleontologist - I don't have access to everything I need, or the experience to approve to disprove everything I hear, and I refuse to sit here and accept the things you say (or what other random people on the internet say - paleontologist or otherwise) as fact. I would take your claims as "fact" if I were the one examining these things myself - THAT'S my point.

I'm not a paleontologist either, I don't have any more access than you or any other average person does. You don't have to do any actual paleontology to learn about dinosaurs. If you have a notion on how dinosaurs lived than there are tons of books and papers that will help you formulate evidence that supports your theory. Thats all I'm trying to point out here. You're taking offense to things not meant to offend and I already apologized for my "tone". I also don't expect you to take my claims as fact...never take what someone says in a forum as fact. Hopefully you would just look at evidence yourself and decide for yourself. You literally asked me what evidence is there that sauropods did not care for their young. Now you don't want an answer because I'm too forward in my presentation of the evidence? I don't get it.

I never said there were parasitic sauropods, and I actually used one of your methods to obtain a possibility here. That method is developing theories or ideas on dinosaur behavior based on the behavior of their closest-living relatives - - - BIRDS. This is the same method YOU yourself use. I'm not even saying I believe in it, it was merely an idea that occurred to me at that very moment.

Yes, you did hint at the notion of parasitic sauropods. By parasitic I mean nest parasites which is the term used for birds like cuckoos and cowbirds.  It is back on page seven. Your theories are fine, I just thought we were having a discussion about the actual evidence that exists for or against parental care.

As for this discussion - I'm just enthusiastic about dinosaurs, just like yourself, and at the end of the day, we BOTH know that we really don't know for sure about these issues (parental care among sauropods, raptors pack-hunting etc.), so I don't know what's with your condescending tone. Evidence supporting any of this stuff is still rather weak, regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Sure we don't know for sure regarding these issues but I thought that was what we were in this thread for? Certainly not for what we're discussing right now!
I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm trying to be logical and sincere. Again, I'm sorry if I just come across that way, this is the internet and tone is difficult to determine but I did apologize in my last post so I don't know what is with the continued attacks. 

The debate thing - there IS no debate about sauropod's parental care, or lack of... I was the one who brought up the sea turtle theory, actually. That's what I don't get about you - you're treating every single thing I say as if it's a direct attack against whatever theory you may have.

Really? Someone made a claim, someone countered it, someone made a claim or asked a question, someone did the same thing back. How is that not a debate? Were you not just defending the notion of parental care just one page ago in an argument with myself? I have treated nothing as a personal attack until I started receiving personal attacks. Honestly I would love nothing more than to just drop all this and discuss dinosaurs.

I know how you're getting information, just as I do. But I'm not just going to accept every claim made by a paleontologist either. A lot of these new claims need to be investigated, just as the old ones were. There are always new claims, and most of them are discredited within 5 years. This is why I stick to a lot of older theories and evidence. Really, I am very Bakker-derivative in my view of paleontology. Anyway, I'm skeptical when it comes to certain things, though not so stubborn as to dismiss possibilities.

I had a simple idea that just popped into my head about the possibility of sauropods using the cuckoo bird method which was not based on any evidence other than the fact that a modern species of 'dinosaur' uses this method, and I use the term 'evidence' lightly. I never even implied I believed in this, I just thought about it.

There IS no debate regarding sauropods. I never took a stance, not at all. I am not aware of ANY REAL evidence of them abandoning their young, nor nurturing them into adulthood. As I stated twice already, the only way I see them abandoning their young is by the cuckoo method (which I don't find likely), or the sea-turtle method (which is probably the most believable). Now you said there is a bit of evidence that some sauropods laid such an abundance of eggs that the sea-turtle method is very likely. If that's true, then I'm certainly on board with the sea-turtle theory. But an abundance of eggs isn't solid proof of this. It would just help support the notion.

The discussion isn't just about evidence. As I said, most of what we call 'evidence' is only 'supporting evidence', not 'definitive evidence', and that paleontology NEEDS people to think outside the box - to think of possibilities whether there is a shred of evidence or not. If there is no evidence to support an idea, we can think of ways to search for evidence which may lead to factual knowledge. I feel like you're not getting this - as if you have this completely different idea of what I'm about.

I don't see how you don't get it - I'm simply throwing ideas out there, and I'm not glued to them. If you debunk one of my ideas - then great - that's what we need, I'm on board.

[Sharptooth]

Well said, Metallisuchus