There are a few atheists I have befriended at my school, the Universty of North Texas. I haven’t seen them much this fall, but last semester and the one before that I encountered them several times as they had a booth on campus with the poster “ask an atheist.” The conversations were always civil and enlightening and naturally, no one changed any fundamental beliefs of any serious nature.
However, there was one conversation I had that for some reason just came into my head today. With these thoughts out of the blue came an answer I should have given to a proposition one of them said to me.
I was speaking with Colin about evidences of a creator. I mentioned to him that if we were purely biological and merely one (or several) evolutionary steps ahead of our animal kin* then why do we have such an affinity for beauty? Animals follow their instincts to survive and procreate and do not do much else. There is no reason that a particular human’s love for a flower, or a sunset, or a poem, or a song would aid him or her in the great game of natural selection. And more to the point, there is certainly no reason a particular human’s talents to create beautiful art and anything aesthetically pleasing would help him or her survive. And furthermore, even were beauty to have survival value, this would be hard to describe in terms of instinct because the forms of beauty different people enjoy vary greatly! Why are we unique in such a distinctive way? I submitted that our love of beauty exists, at least in part, because a supreme being wants us to enjoy life. Whatever the reason, however, I challenged him to explain this human phenomenon in purely biological and evolutionary terms.
*and bear in mind I have no personal or theological disagreement with evolution; I believe in evolution, but I believe that God invented it
Colin’s answer surprised me and I remember we both had to go class so his answer was the end of the conversation. But even if we didn’t have classes to go to, I had no reply for him.
He explained that perhaps it was an advantage for men to be artistic because women find this attractive. As an evolutionary mechanism, men might have artistic inclinations that opened up greater potentials for spawning. After all, we both agreed that girls swoon over drummers (such as yours truly). We agreed that probably throughout history artistic talent has not, in fact, had a great effect on the pedigree of man, but this fact wouldn’t eliminate this biological possibility. And naturally he didn’t try to argue that artistic talent was the exclusive desirable trait in a man (just one of them). As my small brain tried to come up with an answer, he walked off to class.
But just today, months later, the answer popped into my head. I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before, I guess I’m kind of retarded.
My reply to Colin must be: if men are artistically inclined in order to experience greater mating possibilities, then what is the evolutionary advantage for women to be attracted to such men in the first place? If women love sunsets, and they therefore love men who paint sunsets, then we can understand why men would want to learn how to paint sunsets. However, we still have no answer for the question: what is the biologically compelling reason that the women love sunsets in the first place? And that is the rub. Colin hasn’t really answered the original question. Why are any humans inclined to love and create beauty?
Therefore, it still stands that one of the best arguments that we are not merely biological creatures is that we love beauty.
Here’s one of my favorite salient quotes. Christopher Fry said in his most famous play, “Laughter is surely the surest touch of genius in creation. Would you have ever thought of it…if you had been making man?”
No one will be convinced that because science cannot account evolutionarily for the human love of beauty and art there is a creator. This is because the creator has formed a world in which by observation and pondering alone it is difficult to determine whether he exists. Atheists use their powers of observation and critical thinking to explain to believers why he doesn’t exist. And believers also point to all sorts of observable phenomena (such as the fact that we love beauty) and convincing philosophical arguments involving the entirety of the universe such as the “first mover” argument, etc. Both believers and non-believers say that it is utterly obvious to see that there is and is not a god, respectively.
From a believer’s standpoint this makes perfect sense because this means that we must rely on faith (without which free will would be an impossibility). From an atheist’s standpoint this is merely a nuisance, which is ironically and even paradoxically another peripheral reason to actually believe in a creator.
Addendum January 25, 2010
I explained to my oldest friend, whom I visited recently, this argument of the human phenomenon of the love of beauty. He, a biologist and atheist, rebutted me by asking 'how do you know that animals don't love beauty?' I rolled my eyes. The conversation went on to other topics but here I'll add that his reply is inane. Even if animals could understand and appreciate beauty (and if they did, then why don't they create it?), then the question of 'how does the appreciation of beauty benefit them?' is still unanswered.
This seems like a big deal to me, because it is such a glaring problem for the rising militant atheist movement.
Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Evolution and the Creation
I love dinosaurs. I always have. I found out last night that they just recently discovered a T-rex bigger than any previous, and putting T-rex once again as probably the largest land predator ever (though we still haven’t found an adult Spinosaurus).
The Lord is so awesome to create such creatures. Definitely a God I want to worship.
I have a very smart friend who recently told me a qualm he has with the theory of evolution. He said “it is based on [a] logical fallacy” Of course, what he meant to say was, ‘since we cannot be empirically 100% sure that evolution results in speciation (i.e macroevolution), it is illogical to believe unequivocally with 100% accuracy in the theory.’ He was essentially saying that in order to believe completely in evolution we’d need complete proof.
Sure, I guess according to the (non-universal) laws of logic, that’s one way of looking at it. But to me that is hardly a reason to not believe in evolution or even macroevolution. In fact, that is hardly a reason to not believe in anything. Humans don’t believe in something because we have empirical data with 100% uneqivocal proof telling us to believe in it. For example, I believe in a great many social and political ideas with much less evidence to support them than the evidence supporting evolution. I think humans believe in most things based on their merit and power of convincing (not on 100% empirical confirmation). In a previous blog I identified several ways humans know truth other than empiricism.
But recently, I have come to a startling conclusion. It came to me as inspiration that kind of knocked my socks off, so to speak. It was the kind that once you realize it, it is so profoundly obvious you can’t go back. The first part of it is something that I had known and had hit me before, but never quite in conjunction with the second part.
The first part is this: Humans tend to believe that their own ideas are what God thinks.
The second part is this: The way humans organize, identify and understand the complexities of lifeforms is not necessarily the way that God organizes, identifies and understands the complexities of the lifeforms he created.
Now let me say that all the ideas that follow are my own. I did not get them from any literature, article or another human being. I looked in the scriptures myself to find this information out. And I used my own brain to come to these conclusions. Now, let me explain these two “parts.”
Why would Heavenly Father use our definition of “species” ? Certainly the being who knows everything doesn’t follow our very limited definitions of things. This question is especially appropriate right now because the very definition of the term “species” varies depending upon who you ask. It kind of boils down to the idea that a species is defined by whatever the experts of that particular lifeform or group of lifeforms says is a species. When God uses the words “after its kind” in the Pearl of Great Price referring to different animals, whose definition of species is God referring to? Or is he even referring to “species” ? How could we know?
It is likely he isn’t even trying to explain his definition of “species” (or whatever he defines as the most distinct level of animal identification), he is merely saying that he created them all. Whatever sets of classifications humans come up with to try to identify and understand the living things of the earth, it probably doesn’t matter to God. He created it all and He understands it all.
In other words, humans don’t define “species” according to God; and it seems absurd that God would define “species” according to what humans say.
In fact, God seems to use the word “kind” referring to kinds of animals in two different ways. In Moses 2:25 it says “And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind…” This suggests that God made the beasts, each after its own kind of beast. But in the same verse it immediately goes on to say “and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind.” Going with the use of the word “kind” in the first half of the verse, is God saying in the second half that there is a species of baby-earth-creatures walking around? Of course not. Grammatically he is saying he made everything upon the earth after the “kind of the earth.” This is very different than saying “kind of beast.” It is saying that there are creatures on the earth that are of the “earth variety” of creature. This implies to me that there are kinds of creatures not related to this earth (but that’s a totally different discussion). The important thing is that God is clearly using the term “kind” in two different ways in the same verse.
So, why should we believe that when God is using the term “kind” he is specifically referring to what we call “species” ? He uses it in two different ways in the same verse, after all.
Additionally, we know that God numbers all of his creations and knows them each individually. He presumably has a name for each individual living thing that has ever existed, and can identify each individual one. So then, why would he even need some kind of classification system such as taxonomy which includes the concept of "species" ? To him, each spawn of its parents is an individual, idiosyncratic in some way no matter how minutely different to human perception. So if he invented evolution, why would that matter to him? In this sense he is not looking at the level of "species" in any case - he is looking at a far more refined level - that of the individual.
In the King James Version of Genesis the Lord tells the moving creatures to “be fruitful, and multiply.” Since we don’t know what the Lord considers a distinct level of life, when he uses the term “multiply” could he have been saying to the creatures: “multiply into a greater variety of creatures” ? I’m not saying I believe that this is what the term “multiply” means in this particular passage (Genesis 1: 22), but there is no reason that I know that says it cannot mean “multiply into more varieties.”
To believe in evolution, even speciation and macroevolution, is not contradictory to any scriptures in the LDS canon (and I believe in that canon).
The LDS church, which I fully believe in, does not have an official position on the matter.
Ok, now I'm going to use sources other than my own brain and the scriptures.
In a letter dated February 3, 1959, President David O. McKay said this: “...The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.”
What is stated in LDS doctrine is that man was created in the image of God. This doctrine, however, does not somehow contradict evolution, even macroevolution.
Henry Eyring, prominent scientist and father of Henry B. Eyring the first counselor to President Monson has this to say:
“Animals seem pretty wonderful to me. I'd be content to discover that I share a common heritage with them, so long as God is at the controls.
I have always felt comfortable with the views of our trained scientists among the General Authorities. For example, James E. Talmage delivered a sermon entitled "The Earth and Man" from the Salt Lake Tabernacle on August 9, 1931, and John A. Widtsoe published "Science and the Gospel" in the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association manual of 1908-9. Each of these brethren regarded the earth as having a very great age and were open to the testimony of science to uncover the truth on those questions.”
And
“The only important thing is that God did it. I might say in that regard that in my mind the theory of evolution has to include a notion that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex life forms. That is, without intelligent design of the natural laws in such a way as to favor evolution from lower forms to higher forms of life, I don't think the theory holds water. I can't see randomly generated natural laws producing these remarkable results. So, in my mind, God is behind it all whether we evolved or not.”
If God invented speciation, I have no qualms with that. It seems to be the kind of thing that God does – invent truly amazing and creative processes such as the creation of diamonds, the incredible formations of crystals, the formation of galaxies (if you’ve ever seen a computer model of one it is incredible to behold) and, why not, the intuitive and inventive process of evolution? None of these amazing processes is in the scriptures, but we can watch a crystal grow in our science labs.
There have been people in the church decades ago who did not believe in the theory of Relativity. I think it’s safe to assume they were wrong. Who in the church doesn’t believe in the theory of relativity today based upon church doctrine? There may be some who don’t believe in it or parts of it because modern physics is shedding more light on the matter, but that is a separate issue. I believe that in 50 years or so members of the LDS church will believe in macroevolution.
About interpretation of scriptures:
There is a tendency among people who read Genesis to believe that God is explaining how he created the world. I think his message and purpose may have been that he created the world. Given that the world is more complex than we now understand, shouldn’t we suppose that it’s creation may have been an extremely complex process? Perhaps more complex than we can even understand in this lifetime? God wasn’t interested in telling us the methods of creation in Genesis. He was trying to give us a spiritually pertinent revelation about the fall of Adam and Eve and other matters, including the important of the Sabbath, etc.
I very much disagree with those guys who say “the scriptures are just spiritual fables that should not be taken at face value."
I believe in all the miracles of Christ and of every prophet. I have no problems believing that God can do all things. But I also believe that God wasn’t trying to teach science to Moses. Why would he have done so? Didn’t Moses have better things to do than to become a zoologist or taxonomist? And when does God ever try to teach science in the scriptures? Nowhere.
When the scriptures say “the four corners of the earth” (such as it does in the King James Version of the Book of Revelation), I’m pretty sure that that is not scientifically accurate. A globe has no corners. But this doesn’t mean I disbelieve in the book of Revelation and it doesn’t mean I believe the scriptures are merely fables meant to increase my spirituality. It means this particular statement is meant to be understood in some symbolic way and it especially means that it has some purpose other than to teach the geography of the world.
Likewise, the creation as described in Genesis has a purpose other than to teach the method God used to create the world. There is no method described. There is just statements that God created such and such things.
In Genesis, man is clearly created as the final and last being or even thing on the earth. But, as I was just reading at Institute in the Pearl of Great Price, in Moses 3: 7 it says that “man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.”
Does this mean that either Genesis or the Pearl of Great Price is wrong? They seem to be in direct contradiction. Maybe the words “first flesh” means “most important flesh” ? I don’t know how to reconcile these verses. I am not a scriptorian. It does not shake my faith that both the books of Genesis and Moses are holy scripture. But it does suggest to me that what is being said is not meant to be scientific or empirical, but spiritual or symbolic in nature. It suggests that there is some importance to these words other than to explain the actual sequence of things created by God.
The Lord is so awesome to create such creatures. Definitely a God I want to worship.
I have a very smart friend who recently told me a qualm he has with the theory of evolution. He said “it is based on [a] logical fallacy” Of course, what he meant to say was, ‘since we cannot be empirically 100% sure that evolution results in speciation (i.e macroevolution), it is illogical to believe unequivocally with 100% accuracy in the theory.’ He was essentially saying that in order to believe completely in evolution we’d need complete proof.
Sure, I guess according to the (non-universal) laws of logic, that’s one way of looking at it. But to me that is hardly a reason to not believe in evolution or even macroevolution. In fact, that is hardly a reason to not believe in anything. Humans don’t believe in something because we have empirical data with 100% uneqivocal proof telling us to believe in it. For example, I believe in a great many social and political ideas with much less evidence to support them than the evidence supporting evolution. I think humans believe in most things based on their merit and power of convincing (not on 100% empirical confirmation). In a previous blog I identified several ways humans know truth other than empiricism.
But recently, I have come to a startling conclusion. It came to me as inspiration that kind of knocked my socks off, so to speak. It was the kind that once you realize it, it is so profoundly obvious you can’t go back. The first part of it is something that I had known and had hit me before, but never quite in conjunction with the second part.
The first part is this: Humans tend to believe that their own ideas are what God thinks.
The second part is this: The way humans organize, identify and understand the complexities of lifeforms is not necessarily the way that God organizes, identifies and understands the complexities of the lifeforms he created.
Now let me say that all the ideas that follow are my own. I did not get them from any literature, article or another human being. I looked in the scriptures myself to find this information out. And I used my own brain to come to these conclusions. Now, let me explain these two “parts.”
Why would Heavenly Father use our definition of “species” ? Certainly the being who knows everything doesn’t follow our very limited definitions of things. This question is especially appropriate right now because the very definition of the term “species” varies depending upon who you ask. It kind of boils down to the idea that a species is defined by whatever the experts of that particular lifeform or group of lifeforms says is a species. When God uses the words “after its kind” in the Pearl of Great Price referring to different animals, whose definition of species is God referring to? Or is he even referring to “species” ? How could we know?
It is likely he isn’t even trying to explain his definition of “species” (or whatever he defines as the most distinct level of animal identification), he is merely saying that he created them all. Whatever sets of classifications humans come up with to try to identify and understand the living things of the earth, it probably doesn’t matter to God. He created it all and He understands it all.
In other words, humans don’t define “species” according to God; and it seems absurd that God would define “species” according to what humans say.
In fact, God seems to use the word “kind” referring to kinds of animals in two different ways. In Moses 2:25 it says “And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind…” This suggests that God made the beasts, each after its own kind of beast. But in the same verse it immediately goes on to say “and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind.” Going with the use of the word “kind” in the first half of the verse, is God saying in the second half that there is a species of baby-earth-creatures walking around? Of course not. Grammatically he is saying he made everything upon the earth after the “kind of the earth.” This is very different than saying “kind of beast.” It is saying that there are creatures on the earth that are of the “earth variety” of creature. This implies to me that there are kinds of creatures not related to this earth (but that’s a totally different discussion). The important thing is that God is clearly using the term “kind” in two different ways in the same verse.
So, why should we believe that when God is using the term “kind” he is specifically referring to what we call “species” ? He uses it in two different ways in the same verse, after all.
Additionally, we know that God numbers all of his creations and knows them each individually. He presumably has a name for each individual living thing that has ever existed, and can identify each individual one. So then, why would he even need some kind of classification system such as taxonomy which includes the concept of "species" ? To him, each spawn of its parents is an individual, idiosyncratic in some way no matter how minutely different to human perception. So if he invented evolution, why would that matter to him? In this sense he is not looking at the level of "species" in any case - he is looking at a far more refined level - that of the individual.
In the King James Version of Genesis the Lord tells the moving creatures to “be fruitful, and multiply.” Since we don’t know what the Lord considers a distinct level of life, when he uses the term “multiply” could he have been saying to the creatures: “multiply into a greater variety of creatures” ? I’m not saying I believe that this is what the term “multiply” means in this particular passage (Genesis 1: 22), but there is no reason that I know that says it cannot mean “multiply into more varieties.”
To believe in evolution, even speciation and macroevolution, is not contradictory to any scriptures in the LDS canon (and I believe in that canon).
The LDS church, which I fully believe in, does not have an official position on the matter.
Ok, now I'm going to use sources other than my own brain and the scriptures.
In a letter dated February 3, 1959, President David O. McKay said this: “...The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.”
What is stated in LDS doctrine is that man was created in the image of God. This doctrine, however, does not somehow contradict evolution, even macroevolution.
Henry Eyring, prominent scientist and father of Henry B. Eyring the first counselor to President Monson has this to say:
“Animals seem pretty wonderful to me. I'd be content to discover that I share a common heritage with them, so long as God is at the controls.
I have always felt comfortable with the views of our trained scientists among the General Authorities. For example, James E. Talmage delivered a sermon entitled "The Earth and Man" from the Salt Lake Tabernacle on August 9, 1931, and John A. Widtsoe published "Science and the Gospel" in the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association manual of 1908-9. Each of these brethren regarded the earth as having a very great age and were open to the testimony of science to uncover the truth on those questions.”
And
“The only important thing is that God did it. I might say in that regard that in my mind the theory of evolution has to include a notion that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex life forms. That is, without intelligent design of the natural laws in such a way as to favor evolution from lower forms to higher forms of life, I don't think the theory holds water. I can't see randomly generated natural laws producing these remarkable results. So, in my mind, God is behind it all whether we evolved or not.”
If God invented speciation, I have no qualms with that. It seems to be the kind of thing that God does – invent truly amazing and creative processes such as the creation of diamonds, the incredible formations of crystals, the formation of galaxies (if you’ve ever seen a computer model of one it is incredible to behold) and, why not, the intuitive and inventive process of evolution? None of these amazing processes is in the scriptures, but we can watch a crystal grow in our science labs.
There have been people in the church decades ago who did not believe in the theory of Relativity. I think it’s safe to assume they were wrong. Who in the church doesn’t believe in the theory of relativity today based upon church doctrine? There may be some who don’t believe in it or parts of it because modern physics is shedding more light on the matter, but that is a separate issue. I believe that in 50 years or so members of the LDS church will believe in macroevolution.
About interpretation of scriptures:
There is a tendency among people who read Genesis to believe that God is explaining how he created the world. I think his message and purpose may have been that he created the world. Given that the world is more complex than we now understand, shouldn’t we suppose that it’s creation may have been an extremely complex process? Perhaps more complex than we can even understand in this lifetime? God wasn’t interested in telling us the methods of creation in Genesis. He was trying to give us a spiritually pertinent revelation about the fall of Adam and Eve and other matters, including the important of the Sabbath, etc.
I very much disagree with those guys who say “the scriptures are just spiritual fables that should not be taken at face value."
I believe in all the miracles of Christ and of every prophet. I have no problems believing that God can do all things. But I also believe that God wasn’t trying to teach science to Moses. Why would he have done so? Didn’t Moses have better things to do than to become a zoologist or taxonomist? And when does God ever try to teach science in the scriptures? Nowhere.
When the scriptures say “the four corners of the earth” (such as it does in the King James Version of the Book of Revelation), I’m pretty sure that that is not scientifically accurate. A globe has no corners. But this doesn’t mean I disbelieve in the book of Revelation and it doesn’t mean I believe the scriptures are merely fables meant to increase my spirituality. It means this particular statement is meant to be understood in some symbolic way and it especially means that it has some purpose other than to teach the geography of the world.
Likewise, the creation as described in Genesis has a purpose other than to teach the method God used to create the world. There is no method described. There is just statements that God created such and such things.
In Genesis, man is clearly created as the final and last being or even thing on the earth. But, as I was just reading at Institute in the Pearl of Great Price, in Moses 3: 7 it says that “man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.”
Does this mean that either Genesis or the Pearl of Great Price is wrong? They seem to be in direct contradiction. Maybe the words “first flesh” means “most important flesh” ? I don’t know how to reconcile these verses. I am not a scriptorian. It does not shake my faith that both the books of Genesis and Moses are holy scripture. But it does suggest to me that what is being said is not meant to be scientific or empirical, but spiritual or symbolic in nature. It suggests that there is some importance to these words other than to explain the actual sequence of things created by God.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Great Predatory Tyrannosaur
Tyrannosaurus Rex was too awesome to be exclusively a scavenger. But no one accepts that as a reason. For me it ends there However, some believe the mighty t-rex just couldn’t cut it as a predator. Let’s see how it really fared. First I’ll present arguments in favor of it being a predator. Then I will propose rebuttals to the main arguments for why it is a scavenger.
Presenting the arguments for predator:
Argument from expertise
No one believes T-rex was exclusively a predator. Most dinosaur paleontologists believe they were primarily a predator, and may have scavenged when they found meat, much like lions today. However, “Dinosaur Jack” (John Horner) is the only important paleontologist who believes T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. I own and have read his book “The Complete T-rex” in which he argues why (I’ll go into detail about his arguments later as they appear). There’s more prominent scientists who disbelieve in global warming! There’s probably more music industry history experts that believe Elvis is still alive.
Argument from evolution
T-rex lived at the very end of the age of the dinosaurs, during the last part of the Cretaceous. The Jurassic, Triassic and most of the Cretaceous contained plenty of predators. But when the T-rex lived, at the end of the dinosaurs, there were no other predators in the same areas except for very small ones; there were no predators living in the same places who would eat the same size things. For example there was Coelurosaurus which weighed like 200, maybe 300 lbs tops compared to the 5 ton T-rex. A comparison could be like if wherever you find lions, the only other predator you find is one that weighs about 10 lbs or less. Obviously, the lion and the ten pounder will be eating vastly different things. In other words, T-rexes filled every predatory niche larger than "really small." Adolescents ate medium prey, and adults ate the bigger prey. They weren’t just predators, they were so good at it, they out-competed all other predators! And they didn’t just out-compete them, they out-competed them and prevented any other predators from evolving the entire time t-rex was around! It wasn’t until the mass extinction at the end of the Mesozoic - after all dinosaurs were extinct - that predators other than t-rex (and the tiny ostrich ones) again roamed the earth. Nothing but a cataclysm could dethrone the king!
No one contests or disputes that the ancestors of the T-rex (the group is called tyrannosaurids) were predators. Proponents of the idea that T-rex was strictly a scavenger must explain these points:
A) Why, during the final portion of the dinosaur age (Mesozoic) was there suddenly no predators around except ostrich dinosaurs? The excellence of the T-rex as a predator provides the only logical explanation.
B) And why, after all other predators went away, did no other large predator evolve to prey upon the myriad kinds of large herbivores during the last millions of years of the Mesozoic? Again, the excellence of the T-rex as a predator provides the only logical explanation.
C) Why, after the tyrannosaurids were a very successful group of predators, did the final, most powerful one, suddenly evolve to be a scavenger?
Argument from wounds
Dinosaurs have been bitten by T-rexes and survived (a healed tail bone has been found for example), so we know T-rexes bit living herbivores who escaped. This needs no explanation; it would be incredible to believe scavengers bit herbivores without intending to eat them!
Argument from behavior (argument from poop)
T-rexes preferentially ate hadrosaurs (duckbills). We know this from analyzing their fossilized poop. They must have found duckbills easy prey (or just tasty!) because in T-rex poop there are far more bones of them than of triceratops or other contemporary herbivores (triceratopses are deadly with their horns, so this makes sense!). Scavengers eat whatever they find – they never pick and choose what kind of dead flesh, they eat all dead flesh. If T-rex was primarily a predator, the preferential eating makes a lot of sense. The idea that T-rex was a picky scavenger needs a lot of explanation.
Argument from bite
Scientists believe it would be impossible for a t-rex to not have a septic bite. The komodo dragon (and some other lizards) have this feature as well. But since this is a side effect of eating meat, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this feature evolved specifically to kill prey, right? Actually, there were little notches that seem to have been for that very reason – to capture pieces of meat so that the bite would be septic. In other words, it seems that the septic bite – which is utterly useless for a scavenger – was intentional in the design of the teeth. This makes the t-rex a little less cool to me, and even superfluous since the t-rex’s bite was so powerful that 500 lbs of meat could be ripped off (and if that isn’t killing power, what is?). I mean, why do we need the greatest and most powerful ever of all land predators to have venom?
Argument from teeth
“Dinosaur Jack” Horner discovered that they replaced hundreds of teeth per year (much like a crocodilian). Although he believes they were scavengers, in his book he never addresses this issue: why would they need to constantly be growing new teeth if they ate soft, rotting meat? They also had the largest teeth of any carnivorous dinosaur – in fact, they had the largest teeth in proportion to its body (oversized teeth), giving it an advantage over other predators. Why do scavengers need the largest teeth of any carnivorous dinosaur? Indeed, why did the tyrannosaurids, all of whom were predators, suddenly evolve one with even larger teeth, but that doesn’t use them to kill? Why would a scavenger, eating rotting and soft meat, require a constant replenishment of teeth? Using teeth for grabbing and killing prey explains why teeth would be often torn out and lost, but as a scavenger this presents a mystery.
Argument from jaws
Scientists have designed a metal jaw that replicated what the T-rex could have done with its jaws. It was discovered that the jaws could have crushed through a car. Also, the Tyrannosaurids had an increasingly powerful bite as time went on (through changes in the skull) culminating in the T-rex with the most powerful bite. In fact, Jack Horner himself says “No meat-eating dinosaur had a more powerfully made head than t-rex…[scientists see] a lot of killing potential to it.” Why did the skull of the predatory tyrannosaurids continually evolve more and more powerful bites only to have the final tyrannosaurid (T-rex) sport the most powerful bite while simultaneously becoming a scavenger?
Argument from eyes
The eyes are in the front like a predator – and the skull was designed for good binocular vision – in fact, scientists think that the vision of tyrannosaurids progressed over time until T-rex had the best! Scavengers may need good eyes too, but the placement of the eyes implies predatory, rather than scavenger ability (a scavenger would benefit from a larger field of view rather than a focusing view like a predator’s binocular vision).
Argument by body design
There are two ways of classifying body design in animals – gracile (swift built) and robust (strong built). T-rex was built just as gracile as ornithomemus (an ostrich dinosaur). That is incredible! It means that if the quick, darting ostrich dinosaurs could grow to be 40 feet high but retained their proportions they would be similar to a T-rex! This also means T-rex was more gracile than humans – or bears. It’s not that scavengers can’t be gracile, but why does a titanic “scavenger” like t-rex need to be proportionally as swift as an ostrich dinosaur? As a predator, the necessity is obvious.
Argument by size
Towards the end of the Cretaceous herbivores evolved to be larger and larger. Consequently, their predators likewise became larger to be capable of hunting them. The T-rex itself actually evolved during its span to be larger and larger. Scavengers have no reason to increase in size in proportion to any other animals; their size is dependent upon other evolutionary factors, having no need of being in relation to the size of either herbivores or carnivores in its ecosystem. The T-rex is the last and largest tyrannosaurid. It makes sense that it evolved from earlier tyrannosaurids to be able to prey on the increasinly larger herbivores of the late Cretaceous. Remember, no one disputes that T-rex’s ancestors were predators. So, if it was a scavenger, why did it evolve to be larger than its predatory ancestors, and why did itself evolve to become larger over time if it wasn’t compensating for the larger herbivores?
Argument from neck
Its neck muscles were incredibly strong – not only stronger than all other theropods (all the bipedal, mostly carnivorous dinosaurs), but also stronger in proportion to its size than any other theropod. A carnivorous theropod has need of a strong neck in proportion to its jaws so they can work in tandem to rip huge chunks of flesh from prey (Horner himself says 500 lbs of flesh in one bite). A scavenger has no need for a supremely strong neck for ripping flesh; they eat rotting and soft meat.
Argument from nasal cavities
The T-rex had a specially designed skull with fused nasal arches which allowed it to be exceptionally strong so that it could apply huge pressure with its bites without harming itself. Scavengers, eating soft meat and not needing the force of their jaws to kill, have no need to protect themselves from the force of their own bite.
Argument from lungs
T-rex had a proportionately larger cavity for lungs than other theropods (carnivores). This ties in to the fact that it is a gracile (swift built) animal. It is designed for aerobic chases. As a scavenger is it just trying to be the first one to the carcass? Or is it because its prey runs away?
Argument of the conclusion inferred from all the other arguments
We have a slough of reasons that don’t merely indicate that T-rex was indeed a predator. They indicate that T-rex was probably the most powerful and effective predator of its size, or possibly even of any size of theropod (cetainly of any tyrannosaurid). In other words, it was not just a predator, it was a really good one. Had it been a scavenger not only would all of these reasons be evolutionarily vestigial, but there is no real indication it would have been a great scavenger - it would have been mediocore.
Countering the arguments for scavenger:
Rebutting the argument of size
The T-rexes are so large, some argue, that it needed so much energy to move and hunt it could not have possibly gotten enough through living prey. Therefore, it was not designed to hunt, but to scavenge. We don’t need science to disprove this one. Just a little logic. There were other carnivorous dinosaurs (though not many) that were larger than T-rex that nobody believes were exclusive scavengers. The giganotosaurus is a good example. Its teeth, neck, jaw muscles, and other predatory instruments were weaker and smaller than T-rex both absolutely and in proportion, yet no one believes it was exclusively a scavenger! If it, being larger than the T-rex but seemingly less capable (weaker jaw, etc.) could find enough energy by hunting to survive, why not the T-rex?
Rebutting the argument of sense of smell
Some argue that the large olfactory senses of T-rex made it a good scavenger. This is silly (or even disingenuous), because predators can benefit from a good sense of smell. In other words, sense of smell is not designed specifically for scavengers, it can be designed for predators as well. There are plenty of diverse examples today of creatures who use their sense of smell to hunt. (And scientists increasingly believe T-rex’s good sense of smell was designed for them to be good night hunters). Also as a bonus point of this rebuttal, the placement of the nostrils of T-rex suggests the sense of smell was not for dead, but for living meat. The nostrils are in the front like a predator’s, not back on the nose like a scavenger (scavengers eat soft, rotting meat which can clog up the nostrils, so scavengers evolve nostrils away from the end of the mouth).
Rebutting the argument of tiny arms
They had small arms, of no use for a predator. It is true scientists have not yet discovered the use of their small arms (though there are theories). However, a T-rex has plenty of obvious ways of hunting, killing and eating without needing its arms. And what purpose do they use if it’s a scavenger? And furthermore, there are other theropods (which are undisputed predators) with tiny forearms that are useless! If they can have small arms and be predators, why not T-rex? This is perhaps the silliest and easiest to explode argument for it being a strict scavenger.
Rebutting the argument of eyes
They had proportionally small eyes, and so some argue that maybe they couldn’t see well. This is silly. The proportion of eyes to head or body has nothing to do with the aptitude of the eyes. Blue whale eyes are smaller than a fist, which means in proportion to its body they are incredibly tiny. Yet blue whales do not suffer a lack of vision for it; animals simply don’t suffer bad eyesight because of the proportion of its eyes to its body. Bears, wolves and many other animals have small eyes to hunt with and do remarkably well. And T-rex has larger eyes than them! Besides, as stated above, the skull was designed for good binocular vision! This is almost as silly an argument as the tiny arms theory.
Rebutting the argument of speed
Because of their size and design, t-rexes could not run very fast, or possibly not at all. Predators need to be fast to catch prey, right? As stated before, the t-rex is actually more swiftly built in proportion than a bear or even a human, not to mention most other theropods. It was not bulky – in fact it was designed to be a quick walker, rather than a runner. Because of its size, a walking t-rex may have reached about 25 mph! The t-rex only has to be as fast or faster than its prey – it doesn’t have to be a runner or sprinter. The process of moving (walking instead of running) is irrelevant. How fast is your prey, and can you get it? In fact, in his own book Jack Horner says: “[t-rex has] massive legs to chase down prey.” Horner himself does not count speed as a primary reason he believes it was a scavenger.
Rebutting the argument of injury
Jack Horner also argues that if a t-rex ever fell, its own sheer weight would cripple it, and without effective arms it might be unable to right itself, therefore being forever pinned to the earth. The latter part of this point is disingenuous, because if a t-rex cannot move at all, how could it scavenge? So the real question is, should it be crippled, how could it hunt? The simple answer is, there are plenty of examples of animals today whose activities involve potential serious injury. I will take much of my response here from http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-of-scavenger.html
“A fall can be fatal to a giraffe and yet they frequently run. Monkeys die falling from trees but it doesnt mean they stop climbing…Injury in herbivorous dinosaurs is comparatively rare, however one quarter of all theropod dinosaur skeletons show a fracture in an arm or leg.”
Here are injuries sustained by an Allisaur:
• Fractured left lower leg bone
• Infected right foot bone
• Fractured tail
• Fractured abdominal ribs
• Fractured right rib
• Damaged claw sheath on the second finger of left hand
• Infected and fractured second and third fingers on the right hand
• The second finger of right hand twisted
• Fractured second finger on left hand
• Partial fracture in one right rib
• Infection in right shoulder
• Damage to left pelvic bone, a re-healed fracture.
Apparently, injury is just a part of life for a theropod. Why should t-rex be any different? This is not an evolved feature of the t-rex that allows it to scavenge. This is merely an inference supposing a hazardous life if it hunted.
Come on, after encountering many evolved features of why the t-rex was a great predator, we have yet to actually encounter an evolved feature that specifically denotes scavenging abilities! This is because there are none! There are only evolved features indicating it was a predator! This fact alone is a separate argument in favor of t-rex being a predator. The only evolved feature that is argued to specifically denote scavenging abilities is the sense of smell – but this could indicate that it was a good hunter as well, we could even posit it needed a good sense of smell for night hunting. Yet no single evolved feature that denotes it was a predator can reasonably be seen as a feature helping it to scavenge effectively!
My first argument was that Jack Horner is the only prominent paleontologist who believed t-rex was exclusively a scavenger and we, as non-scientists, should probably go with the super majority. Most of the arguments for t-rex being a scavenger were taken from his book or writings of people who have studied his work. However, in his book Horner reveals “I’m not convinced t-rex was only a scavenger, though I will say so sometimes just to be contrary and get my colleagues arguing.” So what have I been arguing for? Jack Horner is smart enough to know that there is too much evidence to pin t-rex down as exclusively a scavenger. And, as stated before, no one believes t-rex will pass up a free dead meal, so Horner isn’t completely wrong. But there’s just too much to say about how t-rex was an incredible killing machine. I believe she was the best that ever lived on land.
Arthur Petersen
Presenting the arguments for predator:
Argument from expertise
No one believes T-rex was exclusively a predator. Most dinosaur paleontologists believe they were primarily a predator, and may have scavenged when they found meat, much like lions today. However, “Dinosaur Jack” (John Horner) is the only important paleontologist who believes T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. I own and have read his book “The Complete T-rex” in which he argues why (I’ll go into detail about his arguments later as they appear). There’s more prominent scientists who disbelieve in global warming! There’s probably more music industry history experts that believe Elvis is still alive.
Argument from evolution
T-rex lived at the very end of the age of the dinosaurs, during the last part of the Cretaceous. The Jurassic, Triassic and most of the Cretaceous contained plenty of predators. But when the T-rex lived, at the end of the dinosaurs, there were no other predators in the same areas except for very small ones; there were no predators living in the same places who would eat the same size things. For example there was Coelurosaurus which weighed like 200, maybe 300 lbs tops compared to the 5 ton T-rex. A comparison could be like if wherever you find lions, the only other predator you find is one that weighs about 10 lbs or less. Obviously, the lion and the ten pounder will be eating vastly different things. In other words, T-rexes filled every predatory niche larger than "really small." Adolescents ate medium prey, and adults ate the bigger prey. They weren’t just predators, they were so good at it, they out-competed all other predators! And they didn’t just out-compete them, they out-competed them and prevented any other predators from evolving the entire time t-rex was around! It wasn’t until the mass extinction at the end of the Mesozoic - after all dinosaurs were extinct - that predators other than t-rex (and the tiny ostrich ones) again roamed the earth. Nothing but a cataclysm could dethrone the king!
No one contests or disputes that the ancestors of the T-rex (the group is called tyrannosaurids) were predators. Proponents of the idea that T-rex was strictly a scavenger must explain these points:
A) Why, during the final portion of the dinosaur age (Mesozoic) was there suddenly no predators around except ostrich dinosaurs? The excellence of the T-rex as a predator provides the only logical explanation.
B) And why, after all other predators went away, did no other large predator evolve to prey upon the myriad kinds of large herbivores during the last millions of years of the Mesozoic? Again, the excellence of the T-rex as a predator provides the only logical explanation.
C) Why, after the tyrannosaurids were a very successful group of predators, did the final, most powerful one, suddenly evolve to be a scavenger?
Argument from wounds
Dinosaurs have been bitten by T-rexes and survived (a healed tail bone has been found for example), so we know T-rexes bit living herbivores who escaped. This needs no explanation; it would be incredible to believe scavengers bit herbivores without intending to eat them!
Argument from behavior (argument from poop)
T-rexes preferentially ate hadrosaurs (duckbills). We know this from analyzing their fossilized poop. They must have found duckbills easy prey (or just tasty!) because in T-rex poop there are far more bones of them than of triceratops or other contemporary herbivores (triceratopses are deadly with their horns, so this makes sense!). Scavengers eat whatever they find – they never pick and choose what kind of dead flesh, they eat all dead flesh. If T-rex was primarily a predator, the preferential eating makes a lot of sense. The idea that T-rex was a picky scavenger needs a lot of explanation.
Argument from bite
Scientists believe it would be impossible for a t-rex to not have a septic bite. The komodo dragon (and some other lizards) have this feature as well. But since this is a side effect of eating meat, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this feature evolved specifically to kill prey, right? Actually, there were little notches that seem to have been for that very reason – to capture pieces of meat so that the bite would be septic. In other words, it seems that the septic bite – which is utterly useless for a scavenger – was intentional in the design of the teeth. This makes the t-rex a little less cool to me, and even superfluous since the t-rex’s bite was so powerful that 500 lbs of meat could be ripped off (and if that isn’t killing power, what is?). I mean, why do we need the greatest and most powerful ever of all land predators to have venom?
Argument from teeth
“Dinosaur Jack” Horner discovered that they replaced hundreds of teeth per year (much like a crocodilian). Although he believes they were scavengers, in his book he never addresses this issue: why would they need to constantly be growing new teeth if they ate soft, rotting meat? They also had the largest teeth of any carnivorous dinosaur – in fact, they had the largest teeth in proportion to its body (oversized teeth), giving it an advantage over other predators. Why do scavengers need the largest teeth of any carnivorous dinosaur? Indeed, why did the tyrannosaurids, all of whom were predators, suddenly evolve one with even larger teeth, but that doesn’t use them to kill? Why would a scavenger, eating rotting and soft meat, require a constant replenishment of teeth? Using teeth for grabbing and killing prey explains why teeth would be often torn out and lost, but as a scavenger this presents a mystery.
Argument from jaws
Scientists have designed a metal jaw that replicated what the T-rex could have done with its jaws. It was discovered that the jaws could have crushed through a car. Also, the Tyrannosaurids had an increasingly powerful bite as time went on (through changes in the skull) culminating in the T-rex with the most powerful bite. In fact, Jack Horner himself says “No meat-eating dinosaur had a more powerfully made head than t-rex…[scientists see] a lot of killing potential to it.” Why did the skull of the predatory tyrannosaurids continually evolve more and more powerful bites only to have the final tyrannosaurid (T-rex) sport the most powerful bite while simultaneously becoming a scavenger?
Argument from eyes
The eyes are in the front like a predator – and the skull was designed for good binocular vision – in fact, scientists think that the vision of tyrannosaurids progressed over time until T-rex had the best! Scavengers may need good eyes too, but the placement of the eyes implies predatory, rather than scavenger ability (a scavenger would benefit from a larger field of view rather than a focusing view like a predator’s binocular vision).
Argument by body design
There are two ways of classifying body design in animals – gracile (swift built) and robust (strong built). T-rex was built just as gracile as ornithomemus (an ostrich dinosaur). That is incredible! It means that if the quick, darting ostrich dinosaurs could grow to be 40 feet high but retained their proportions they would be similar to a T-rex! This also means T-rex was more gracile than humans – or bears. It’s not that scavengers can’t be gracile, but why does a titanic “scavenger” like t-rex need to be proportionally as swift as an ostrich dinosaur? As a predator, the necessity is obvious.
Argument by size
Towards the end of the Cretaceous herbivores evolved to be larger and larger. Consequently, their predators likewise became larger to be capable of hunting them. The T-rex itself actually evolved during its span to be larger and larger. Scavengers have no reason to increase in size in proportion to any other animals; their size is dependent upon other evolutionary factors, having no need of being in relation to the size of either herbivores or carnivores in its ecosystem. The T-rex is the last and largest tyrannosaurid. It makes sense that it evolved from earlier tyrannosaurids to be able to prey on the increasinly larger herbivores of the late Cretaceous. Remember, no one disputes that T-rex’s ancestors were predators. So, if it was a scavenger, why did it evolve to be larger than its predatory ancestors, and why did itself evolve to become larger over time if it wasn’t compensating for the larger herbivores?
Argument from neck
Its neck muscles were incredibly strong – not only stronger than all other theropods (all the bipedal, mostly carnivorous dinosaurs), but also stronger in proportion to its size than any other theropod. A carnivorous theropod has need of a strong neck in proportion to its jaws so they can work in tandem to rip huge chunks of flesh from prey (Horner himself says 500 lbs of flesh in one bite). A scavenger has no need for a supremely strong neck for ripping flesh; they eat rotting and soft meat.
Argument from nasal cavities
The T-rex had a specially designed skull with fused nasal arches which allowed it to be exceptionally strong so that it could apply huge pressure with its bites without harming itself. Scavengers, eating soft meat and not needing the force of their jaws to kill, have no need to protect themselves from the force of their own bite.
Argument from lungs
T-rex had a proportionately larger cavity for lungs than other theropods (carnivores). This ties in to the fact that it is a gracile (swift built) animal. It is designed for aerobic chases. As a scavenger is it just trying to be the first one to the carcass? Or is it because its prey runs away?
Argument of the conclusion inferred from all the other arguments
We have a slough of reasons that don’t merely indicate that T-rex was indeed a predator. They indicate that T-rex was probably the most powerful and effective predator of its size, or possibly even of any size of theropod (cetainly of any tyrannosaurid). In other words, it was not just a predator, it was a really good one. Had it been a scavenger not only would all of these reasons be evolutionarily vestigial, but there is no real indication it would have been a great scavenger - it would have been mediocore.
Countering the arguments for scavenger:
Rebutting the argument of size
The T-rexes are so large, some argue, that it needed so much energy to move and hunt it could not have possibly gotten enough through living prey. Therefore, it was not designed to hunt, but to scavenge. We don’t need science to disprove this one. Just a little logic. There were other carnivorous dinosaurs (though not many) that were larger than T-rex that nobody believes were exclusive scavengers. The giganotosaurus is a good example. Its teeth, neck, jaw muscles, and other predatory instruments were weaker and smaller than T-rex both absolutely and in proportion, yet no one believes it was exclusively a scavenger! If it, being larger than the T-rex but seemingly less capable (weaker jaw, etc.) could find enough energy by hunting to survive, why not the T-rex?
Rebutting the argument of sense of smell
Some argue that the large olfactory senses of T-rex made it a good scavenger. This is silly (or even disingenuous), because predators can benefit from a good sense of smell. In other words, sense of smell is not designed specifically for scavengers, it can be designed for predators as well. There are plenty of diverse examples today of creatures who use their sense of smell to hunt. (And scientists increasingly believe T-rex’s good sense of smell was designed for them to be good night hunters). Also as a bonus point of this rebuttal, the placement of the nostrils of T-rex suggests the sense of smell was not for dead, but for living meat. The nostrils are in the front like a predator’s, not back on the nose like a scavenger (scavengers eat soft, rotting meat which can clog up the nostrils, so scavengers evolve nostrils away from the end of the mouth).
Rebutting the argument of tiny arms
They had small arms, of no use for a predator. It is true scientists have not yet discovered the use of their small arms (though there are theories). However, a T-rex has plenty of obvious ways of hunting, killing and eating without needing its arms. And what purpose do they use if it’s a scavenger? And furthermore, there are other theropods (which are undisputed predators) with tiny forearms that are useless! If they can have small arms and be predators, why not T-rex? This is perhaps the silliest and easiest to explode argument for it being a strict scavenger.
Rebutting the argument of eyes
They had proportionally small eyes, and so some argue that maybe they couldn’t see well. This is silly. The proportion of eyes to head or body has nothing to do with the aptitude of the eyes. Blue whale eyes are smaller than a fist, which means in proportion to its body they are incredibly tiny. Yet blue whales do not suffer a lack of vision for it; animals simply don’t suffer bad eyesight because of the proportion of its eyes to its body. Bears, wolves and many other animals have small eyes to hunt with and do remarkably well. And T-rex has larger eyes than them! Besides, as stated above, the skull was designed for good binocular vision! This is almost as silly an argument as the tiny arms theory.
Rebutting the argument of speed
Because of their size and design, t-rexes could not run very fast, or possibly not at all. Predators need to be fast to catch prey, right? As stated before, the t-rex is actually more swiftly built in proportion than a bear or even a human, not to mention most other theropods. It was not bulky – in fact it was designed to be a quick walker, rather than a runner. Because of its size, a walking t-rex may have reached about 25 mph! The t-rex only has to be as fast or faster than its prey – it doesn’t have to be a runner or sprinter. The process of moving (walking instead of running) is irrelevant. How fast is your prey, and can you get it? In fact, in his own book Jack Horner says: “[t-rex has] massive legs to chase down prey.” Horner himself does not count speed as a primary reason he believes it was a scavenger.
Rebutting the argument of injury
Jack Horner also argues that if a t-rex ever fell, its own sheer weight would cripple it, and without effective arms it might be unable to right itself, therefore being forever pinned to the earth. The latter part of this point is disingenuous, because if a t-rex cannot move at all, how could it scavenge? So the real question is, should it be crippled, how could it hunt? The simple answer is, there are plenty of examples of animals today whose activities involve potential serious injury. I will take much of my response here from http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-of-scavenger.html
“A fall can be fatal to a giraffe and yet they frequently run. Monkeys die falling from trees but it doesnt mean they stop climbing…Injury in herbivorous dinosaurs is comparatively rare, however one quarter of all theropod dinosaur skeletons show a fracture in an arm or leg.”
Here are injuries sustained by an Allisaur:
• Fractured left lower leg bone
• Infected right foot bone
• Fractured tail
• Fractured abdominal ribs
• Fractured right rib
• Damaged claw sheath on the second finger of left hand
• Infected and fractured second and third fingers on the right hand
• The second finger of right hand twisted
• Fractured second finger on left hand
• Partial fracture in one right rib
• Infection in right shoulder
• Damage to left pelvic bone, a re-healed fracture.
Apparently, injury is just a part of life for a theropod. Why should t-rex be any different? This is not an evolved feature of the t-rex that allows it to scavenge. This is merely an inference supposing a hazardous life if it hunted.
Come on, after encountering many evolved features of why the t-rex was a great predator, we have yet to actually encounter an evolved feature that specifically denotes scavenging abilities! This is because there are none! There are only evolved features indicating it was a predator! This fact alone is a separate argument in favor of t-rex being a predator. The only evolved feature that is argued to specifically denote scavenging abilities is the sense of smell – but this could indicate that it was a good hunter as well, we could even posit it needed a good sense of smell for night hunting. Yet no single evolved feature that denotes it was a predator can reasonably be seen as a feature helping it to scavenge effectively!
My first argument was that Jack Horner is the only prominent paleontologist who believed t-rex was exclusively a scavenger and we, as non-scientists, should probably go with the super majority. Most of the arguments for t-rex being a scavenger were taken from his book or writings of people who have studied his work. However, in his book Horner reveals “I’m not convinced t-rex was only a scavenger, though I will say so sometimes just to be contrary and get my colleagues arguing.” So what have I been arguing for? Jack Horner is smart enough to know that there is too much evidence to pin t-rex down as exclusively a scavenger. And, as stated before, no one believes t-rex will pass up a free dead meal, so Horner isn’t completely wrong. But there’s just too much to say about how t-rex was an incredible killing machine. I believe she was the best that ever lived on land.
Arthur Petersen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
