Jurassic Park 4 [Jurassic World] (no spoilers)

[Primeval12]

Let's just say we can't clone dinosaurs and call it a day

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Forgive me, Amarga, but the argument that Oxygen levels vary in the atmosphere depending on the location on the globe you're at doesn't seem plausible to me. 

The earth has one dynamic atmosphere, with constantly active weather patterns.  Therefore the levels of Oxygen cannot be different in the Southern Hemisphere than in the North, it seems to me. 

Dinosaurs found a way to thrive on a constantly changing planet ... it took an extra-terrestrial "event" to end that reign...


(why do I get a lingering feeling that I've been down this road before, and that I'll regret opening up this can of worms... )

We've done this one before. The last argument over this still brings up bad memories, I'm gonna stay out this time.

One factor I seldom see mentioned is gut bacteria. Animals like elephants need  bacteria in their digestive tracts in order to eat plant material. I'm sure dinosaurs would need their own special bacteria too which we would be unable to clone.

There are some subtle mentions to that topic in the first novel. The T-Rex had to have her teeth cleaned periodically to avoid tooth decay and many of the other animals would get skin rashes, diarrhea and other issues..most likely due to not having the bacteria and such present in their original environment.

[CityRaptor]

There was also an issue with excrements. Modern bacteria could not deal the Herbivore's excrements.  Fortunately the Compies would eat them and the bacteria could deal with their excrements.

As for the study by Sander:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045712/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045712/figure/fig08/

[tanystropheus]

Interesting, so oxygen appears to be directly correlated with gigantism and the production of macrofauna....we can still clone 'portable' dinosaurs such as a compy or a Leptoceratops, and eventually introduce them to the exotic pet trade market, no? After "several" generations they can be domesticated in a manner similar to fennec foxes, and domesticated siberian foxes.


j/k

[CityRaptor]

Actually, according to the study there is no correlation between oxygen and and Megafauna.

[Gwangi]

Forgive me, Amarga, but the argument that Oxygen levels vary in the atmosphere depending on the location on the globe you're at doesn't seem plausible to me. 

The earth has one dynamic atmosphere, with constantly active weather patterns.  Therefore the levels of Oxygen cannot be different in the Southern Hemisphere than in the North, it seems to me. 

Dinosaurs found a way to thrive on a constantly changing planet ... it took an extra-terrestrial "event" to end that reign...


(why do I get a lingering feeling that I've been down this road before, and that I'll regret opening up this can of worms... )

We've done this one before. The last argument over this still brings up bad memories, I'm gonna stay out this time.

One factor I seldom see mentioned is gut bacteria. Animals like elephants need  bacteria in their digestive tracts in order to eat plant material. I'm sure dinosaurs would need their own special bacteria too which we would be unable to clone.

There are some subtle mentions to that topic in the first novel. The T-Rex had to have her teeth cleaned periodically to avoid tooth decay and many of the other animals would get skin rashes, diarrhea and other issues..most likely due to not having the bacteria and such present in their original environment.

I vaguely remember that. Apparently it is time to read it again.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I promise I wont open a huge argument this time Simon. What I was attempting to put across is something I have seen several people suggest in their books. We know that the sauropods seemed to go extinct in northern areas towards the end of the Jurassic , and start of the Cretaceous. The reasoning offered seemed to rely on the finding that due to the shape of our planet and various other factors the oxygen content is alledgedly higher towards the equatorial belt area. I am unsure wether that is due to wind patterns, or the simple fact there is far more biomass producing oxygen in those areas but would suspect the latter.
  We do know the sauropods for whatever reason went extinct in northern climates while they continued on through the Cretaceous apparently untouched, in the more southern tropes. There has to be some reason for this .
  I do know if you examine life on the globe it shows a history of first large, (the dinosaurs) then a bit smaller (prehistoric mammals in general)  to todays fauna which are tiny in compare to either dinosaurs or their ancestors from further back . When you place this against the backdrop of steadily lowering oxygen content in the atmosphere, there does appear at least to be some correlation. I do not believe anyone can argue the oxygen content has not dropped, not that size of the animals has steadily become smaller.
  I thought about whales, however they extract oxygen from the water, rather than the atmosphere and I wonder if that would make a difference in how they are able to remain large in this scenario. To me it suggests another proof of the argument , given their size.

[Sumo]

I thought about whales, however they extract oxygen from the water, rather than the atmosphere and I wonder if that would make a difference in how they are able to remain large in this scenario. To me it suggests another proof of the argument , given their size.

I'm sorry, but I think I must be misreading this . Are you by any chance thinking of whale sharks?

[CityRaptor]

Actually there were still Northern Sauropods. Remember the Alamosaurus! ( for example)

As for Mammals not being as big as Dinosaurs: I always figured that it was part of their construction. Sauropods while truely gigantic are actually relatively light built. They also seemed to share the same kind of lung also found in birds, which is superior to that found in mammals. Another reason seems to be that most mammals chew their food, while Sauropods don't.  If you do that, you need a relative large head, limiting your maximum size. Hence the reason why Hadrosaurs for example are generally smaller than Sauropods. The fact that Saurpods layed eggs also helped.
It's all in the article about Gigantism!

The Ice Age Megafauna can be explained by the same reasons why the Polarbear is larger than other bears or the the largest Penguins are found where it is the coldest.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I know whales surface to expel and breathe, but are they unable to also acquire oxygen through their skin while underwater? I had thought they were capable of doing so, perhaps I am mistaken.

[Sumo]

My gut says no, though I haven't looked into it all that closely. IIRC that's more of an amphibian characteristic.

[CityRaptor]

Nope, whales still need to breath like every other mammal. There are however some Turtles who can do that through cloacal cavities, as far as non-Amphibians go.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Actually there were still Northern Sauropods. Remember the Alamosaurus! ( for example)

As for Mammals not being as big as Dinosaurs: I always figured that it was part of their construction. Sauropods while truely gigantic are actually relatively light built. They also seemed to share the same kind of lung also found in birds, which is superior to that found in mammals. Another reason seems to be that most mammals chew their food, while Sauropods don't.  If you do that, you need a relative large head, limiting your maximum size. Hence the reason why Hadrosaurs for example are generally smaller than Sauropods. The fact that Saurpods layed eggs also helped.
It's all in the article about Gigantism!

The Ice Age Megafauna can be explained by the same reasons why the Polarbear is larger than other bears or the the largest Penguins are found where it is the coldest.

A few things I made note of while reading his paper. My reading has always led me to believe Alamosaurus even was not found that far north , but rather the lower states, like texas.
I did not think all mammals chew their food. When I watch a cow eat, it gathers a wad or bolus of grass in its mouth, swallows it, and it is then digested in a forward compartment. Once softened and almost completely rendered mush, it is again passed up to be chewed and crushed further, if I understand the concept correctly.
The animals that eat like this are called ruminants if I remember the correct word. (which I may not)
  The paper about gigantism is not directed at asking or answering the question was oxygen content key to the SURVIAL of the sauropods. It is asking and answering the question was their unusual growth and size triggered by oxygen content. It isnt studying if oxygen content was a factor in their survival or extinction.
The two are seperate and by their very nature quite different concepts.
  If you look for instance at his closing graph, it does show a precise and exacting correlation with dropping femur size in the two lowest massive spikes in oxygen content, which he then defends as a possible analomy of the fossil record? If you accept the graph for when it supports your viewpoint you cannot deny it when it doesnt based on the fossil record in ONLY those two instances. But even then, he isnt arguing oxygen content had just alot to do with the survival or extinction of the genera itself, he is talking about growth patterns instead.
I do want to study that paper further to see how he got his measurement for femur length , given the places he shows them lowest, would seem to correspond with titanosaurs which to me would produce some rather massive femur sizes.

[Primeval12]

Sorry for sarting this 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Sorry for sarting this 

you did not start anything, we are just chatting and discussing. It is fine. And I was wrong about whales !!

[tyrantqueen]

I think the deeper you try to analyse the science behind Jurassic Park (and to an extent, all sci-fi movies) the more they fall apart. I guess you just have to suspend your disbelief to a certain extent because otherwise you can't enjoy the movie.

Much like 2009's Star Trek, which was a huge hit among the masses, even though the time travel science behind it was rather questionable.

I know this would make a certain plesiosaur loving doctor very happy....!

[Takama]

Is that oficial or fake?

[Nebuloid]

Is that oficial or fake?

Something as ugly as that has to be fake....

[DinoToyForum]

I think the deeper you try to analyse the science behind Jurassic Park (and to an extent, all sci-fi movies) the more they fall apart. I guess you just have to suspend your disbelief to a certain extent because otherwise you can't enjoy the movie.

Much like 2009's Star Trek, which was a huge hit among the masses, even though the time travel science behind it was rather questionable.

I know this would make a certain plesiosaur loving doctor very happy....!

Actually, the plesiosaur silhouette was taken, without permission, from one of my illustrations. And it is upside down 

original:


I'm pretty sure this is years old and not genuine.

[tyrantqueen]

I actually knew it was not the real thing...I was just playing around. It is pretty obvious that if it had been official, it would have been announced on various websites and such.