Why Didn't the Dinosaurs get Arthritis?

First, here's my general line of explanation I believe the dinosaur extinction may have been because they were cold blooded (endothermic) and this would be how and why they went extinct. As in my explanation precession began in the Jurassic because of the uneven torque between the N and S ocean with the continuous band of water caused by the breakup of the one continent of gondwanaland and the evidence known for the submergence of the land bridge between S SA and antarctica 87 million years ago, this would have caused seasonal winds because of the increase of the precession that would have caused the winds and colder temperatures farther north and south of the equator, the dinosaurs lived in an ever narrower band of warm tropic weather and the birds and mammals had a large N and S realm left unoccupied by the dinosaurs. When the impact hit the tropics the dinosaurs had the bad luck of already being weakened and the luck that the impact hit the tropics. (The other reptiles like the snakes and lizards didn't go extinct would be because they were on the other side of the world.) Thus the rise of the birds and mammals and the extinction of the dinosaurs would be explained by essentially the idea that the dinosaurs were endotherms.

..
The dinosaurs were by far the largest land animal and the weather before the precession was good and constant for millions of years in their evolution. The earth was spinning faster and the precession and it's seasonal change that would have stressed the dinosaurs wasn't yet involved, so the sun may have been burning warmer as I say on this site, there would have been constant good weather for millions of years as in the times between the ice ages which are of much shorter duration than the times like the mesozoic.

The constant warm weather and it's even temperature because the earth was spinning faster with not much seasonal weather change would explain how the dinosaurs are found to have been living not just in the tropics but also the arctic and antarctic too. The warm and even temperatures would have made the dinosaurs endothermic because for more giant size which evolution would have favored, if the dinosaurs were actually exotherms they would have generated far too much heat to live. Giants like the herbivores if exotherms would have had to eat so much they couldn't have stayed alive because they would have had larger need of food to maintain the inner fire. The small mouth of the brachiosaurus and brontosaurs would have been because they both didn't have to eat a lot and they had no way to eat a lot. Most of the body mass they added they would have kept. The dinosaurs giant size would be because it was an advantage in evolution, a large animal fears no predators, an elephant just sits on their competitors! When there's more food available like in our own evolution larger size and height soon follows. The dinosaurs unlike mammals and reptiles today were in a constant sea of good weather and the food was available "year round". The weather was good for millions of years and each night there wasn't so much heat stress, or the seasonal lack of food and stress of winter. Even so the easy availability of food and the need to stay endothermic once they evolved in the heat both would have slowed down the dinosaurs and it would have been easier to go slow, that is to not have as much of an evolutionary acceleration as the warm blooded life has. The external temperature was nonetheless stressful for a more giant dinosaur because the core body temperature would have been more constant and cool and the outer temperature would fall and rise in the 24 hours. Reptiles in the desert today overheat later in the day and burrow to stay cool, they have to spend a large portion of their day either in the sun to stay warm or burrowing to moderate the heat. This would have taken up most of the dinosaur's time with less time to play or evolve big brains since the solution to find heat or cool was simple and didn't take much of the web sites to solve. With the large body mass of the giant dinosaurs even a small change in the outside air temperature would have been stressful because of more metabolic power needed to compensate. A larger dinosaur would have more to make up for, Thus though being an endotherm would have allowed the dinosaurs giant size, at even larger size it might also have been a limit too.

Many things are thus explained by the dinosaurs being endothermic, their small brain size because of easy to reach food and no tendency to speed up beyond a certain level due to the metabolic stress, and how the comet impact was fatal to them and not the mammals and birds.

As I say elsewhere my definition of endotherm is a functional one, an animal that can't live in the cold weather is by definition and endotherm. This definition is general enough to define endotherm in a reliable enough way to those who say there is no real definition for endotherm or exotherms because the physiology of life is too complex.

That the dinosaurs have been found to have not gotten arthritis could also be because of the slower metabolism constant higher heat would have caused. If the fastest and animal like allosaurus could run just 35 mph and was limited by the air temperature, and all the other dinosaurs had the same limit, neither would the herbivores have to run faster from them, so even if the weight on their bones was great the dinosaurs would have had reduced scraping on without so much running and if their metabolism was generally slow their immune system would have had reduced volatility. Though the top speed was 35 miles per hour the average speed may have been slow! much slower than life like mammals today. Higher speed evolution is also more unpredictable, so our own warm blooded evolution would have more risk of errors like attacking our own tissues as in autoimmune illness like arthritis. Thus as the dinosaurs were more slowly evolving to giant size evolution would have proofread and corrected autoimmune illness more accurately so the dinosaurs wouldn't have had this limit and this seems to predict that the dinosaurs would have had fewer immune problems than other life like the birds or mammals if we can find proof of this like in the dinosaur fossils with DNA.

..
This seems to be more evidence that the dinosaurs were endothermic because of slower evolution both in running and the speed of the evolution of the changes in their metabolism. And it also tells us the obvious reason for lo impact aerobics being better to reduce the risk of arthritis, even so we might also look at our older evolution to see when we first started to evolve arthritis and then try to undo out DNA from that time so arthritis would be cured for us too.

WOULD STRONG LARGER SCALE MAGNETIC FIELDS BE OF WORTH TO MAKE A CHEAPER GIANT TELESCOPE TO RESOLVE EARTHLIKE WORLDS?

Magnetic bubbles may make a telescope with great high resolution, or at any rate a telescope with a high cash value! As I say here the large size of the field may enable us to make a telescope with the lense of the field lines of any size up to the size of the solar system or more. A beam sent through the somewhat shimmered field to a near sensor or a light on the other side would then be processed by the computer to find the image, an earthlike world, or anything else in the cosmos we would hope to resolve well.

..
We read where it will be many years perhaps 50 or more in the hiatus from when the exosolar planets were seen in the 1990's to when the proof of life on some earthlike worlds will be proven. This was an underestimation (knowing me!) and the magnetic bubble method means we may see life on other worlds without the wait! This would be better than any telescope for resolution, even so there is some cost, although it would be the cheapest cost/resolution by far, the only way I can think of to build this much resolution.
....
If in 100 years we actually build a sensor to sense the change in the light as it moves through the more distant magnetic fields it would be low cost. A problem with this more giant scope would be that because we can't move much relative to the more distant magnetic fields, so we have to either wait till we slowly move with the refracted line of sight till it's where we can see the more distant cosmic light show, or move our own sensors to see through the lense, and each image because of the slow motion of the giant wheel would be mostly all we got. No more resolution and no more images than what the optics would allow.
..
Even so this seems like a good way to see Earthlike worlds or search with much more web zoom map power for advanced worlds by merely using a source a receiver and a sensor to make the giant telescope that might change our world, change is inevitable, other than from a giant vending machine!

....
Also of use and cheaper yet than building this machine may be to use the radiation of planets like Jupiter or Saturn to refract the light with a powerful wave, a ready to go lense at no cost for the field maintenance (To make the bubble field machine in more Euclidian realms the most cheap, reflecting the waves to make standing waves, and using solitons may save a lot. Another option might be to block all the field lines with a cowl or shield ectcetra except for the lines to see just the stars we want to see while saving power.). The massive fields of planets are cost saving till we might be able to build a truly giant field telescope with more power like fusion power. Here's my site about Inertial Focus Fusion and why it seems to have advantages over other fusion machines.

...
Whatever type of higher power machines we may build in the years ahead for now at any rate cost will be important. For nearer travels in non lightyears using the already powerful fields of Jupiter or Saturn seems of use (the sun's is just .5 Gauss, and Jupiter’s is about 100). From Earth to other planets like the larger cosmic fields the line of site through the fields is limited, this could be solved by moving a set of satellites to continual orbit around Jupiter. When one machine was in site of what we want to see e.g. mom's win at sewing the stars on her weave in mom's county celebration, the line of site as it changes as the ship moves through the field would tell us about via of the distant light or other field, and as it would travel out of conjunction to line of sight the job would be relayed to the next machine. This method may tell us about distant radiance like no other machine may allow because it's moving through the strong magnetic field and also at more than one frequency.
..
Lensing by electric or magnetic fields is a much stronger effect than Einstein's gravitational lensing because of the much higher intrinsic strength of the field, and this is optical lensing, or at any rate may be more useful to lense the radiation in the form of electrons and of considerable use for light too, depending on the wavelength and energy.


..

About Objections To Morgan's Promotion of Her Idea That We Evolved Into the Water like Other Mammals...
..

Evolution Into the Water and A Return On Our Walk To Life...

..As I say here I think Morgan's idea (that we evolved into the water perhaps to be safer from wolves and then returned walking upright after being uplifted by the water hydraulics) and my possible improvement (we then perhaps only later evolved our hands to reach in the branches in a second higher level of evolution) makes sense because evolution e.g in physiology is often just a series of accidents; our bodies are more like a city built in many layers with time and no advance plan often with contradictary buildings and superhighways added later.

..
..Two seperate steps, standing upright in the water, then using our hands to become smart would explain why we got smart latere in our evolution and why no other animals have so much so; many other animals like the dolphin, the whale, the elephant, the manatee and others may have evolved into the water as Morgan believes, but we by our standing upright in our evolution and evolving back to land and only then using our hands may have become wiser. Evolution goes by luck, not a plan, and our luck was better.
..
..Nina G. Jablonski in her Feburary 2010 Scientific American article offers her belief that we evolved upright later than Morgan's causology because the woodlands where we (our ancient relatives) lived became drier when the earth entered a global cooling phase about 3 million years ago, the woodlands were more open savannah grasslands, so we had to walk further for our food and water, and we became meat eaters around 2.6 million years ago, based on the records of what we munched (the original calmag vitamins no doubt) and the first stone tools at 2.6 milion years. Jablonski holds that we evolved to have no fur at least by 1.2 million years ago, this is the earliest the MC1R gene has been found for dark skin, she presumes that we evolved soon after we lost our fur to shield us from the heat of the tropics where our ancient relatives lived before the invention of fire.

..
..This might explain why we evolved no hair, even so it seems lacking as a cause of our walking upright; there has been evolutionary pressure for hundreds of millions of years for life to evolve upright by way of weather like this, and we are the only life with advanced civilization. Why only us? The evolution of our life into the water would be a logical way and cause by the lighter "weigh" of hydraulics.
..
..Jablonski offers three objections to our evolution into the water;
..
..She says Morgan offers evidence based on several anatomical features humans share with mammals that live in the water, but not with savannah mammals. These include fat deposits under the skin, salty tears to reduce an over salty sea environment from toxifying our circulation, reduced hair, and hair on our heads which was out of the water and not the rest of our body and other traits as I say in the link above.
..
..Jablonski counters with the observation that water dwelling mammals are not defined well enough in the correlation between the environment an animal lives in say the amount of hair it has or how salty its circulation. But this is part of the same type of other evidence Jablonski uses in support of her own conclusions and I would say she may be somewhat unaware of one of the foundations of life science, that heredity is stored environment, environment must have something to do with our life... While no doubt the use of like morphology for a few traits may not be proof of anything, for more than 5 or 10 shared traits like Morgan promotes, even if no one is definite, the combination of many seems to become more than just random. We may not have to need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and in chess, computers use just this, heuristic wagers, and there are now no humans who can outwit these machines. The use of shared traits may be of real worth and certainly seems at least as much proof of Morgan as Jablonski, probably more, and disproof of neither. Morgan doesn't just compare the traits of out physiology to other water dwelling mammals, she also compares them to the physics of water, for example Morgan says our noses have holes near the mouth not higher because we would have often been upright with our head just above the water, and the way our hair is patterned on our body is just the way water flows when we would have been in and out of the water to dry off the best.

..
..Jablonski's second objection to Morgan's belief is about the fossil record. The shores where Morgan and others believe we lived in E Africa rose around 5 to 7 million years ago by techtonic changes and perhaps presumably cut us off from the tropical forests and had us living in by the shore and into the water "A region then were thick with hungry crocociles and agressive hippotamuses. Our small, defenseless ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such creatures.". But as on this site all or most of the fossils found are near the water like Lucy who was found near fossils of crocodoiles. If we were mostly near the shore we couldn't have been so far from the water life! And there is no absolute definition of land and water. We could have just stayed in the water to stay away from the wolves as Morgan says and stayed on land to flee the crocodiles, danger both places, same risk. We must have evolved somehow. We being small may have been in easier reach of the shore and we could have scampered up the branches, or there may have been other prey in the air the crocodiles would have spent more time chasing.

..
..Jablonski's third caution is that our evolution into the water and then returning to land is too complex. Nina quotes John H. Langdon of the University of Indianopolis who has argued that a more straightforward interpretation 0f the fossil record seems to show that humans always lived on land where the driving force for the evolution of our naked skin was climate change. And as I say however, this seems rhetorical (her good side of the issue) because Nina doesn't mention Morgan's belief that climate change was also the driving force that caused us to walk upright by evolving into the water (there was more rain there!) and this would be why no other life than us of so many other animals could have walked upright before us in evolution with hundreds of millions of years of evolution and climate change. "From a scientific perespective, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". But not always. Insects haven't evolved to large size because of an "evolutionary sidetrack" the physics of air inward limit the breathing tubes they use. And a tiger won't eat vegetables even though they have lots of energy because once it was a meat eater it stayed thus in evolution. It would have been simple for bees to have evolved to larger size or for the Jaguar to have been herbivorous to find more energy, more energy is simple and more ways to win yet this isn't so. A lot goes on not by simplicity, rather by convention. Evolution works both by luck and by simple motifs, if the evolution of higher intelligence were simple, other life would have as much as we have with our higher civilization and culture.

And it wouldn't have been much unconventional for us to have evolved into the water 10 million years ago. Life is evolving and doing this all the time..It's actually simple and not much more complex to believe we may have evolved into the water like dolphins, whales, manatees with just "one extra step" when we evolved back out.

..
..If we were carnivorous at 2.6 million years and needed to walk farther (and walked because of this somehow or before this perhaps by way of the waves) to get more food with the woodlands becoming grassland and then we lost our fur to stay cool while walking in the heat for greater distance, evolution would haved caused elephants and other water based mammals to have dark skin like us then too.
..
..The idea that large mammals in the heat like elephants or rhinos overheat (due to larger surface area/body mass compared to smaller mammals that evolved no hair were like us in our more active life then at 2.6 million years ago) seems to not be proof of Nina's belief that we evolved dark skin after we lost our fur just 2.6 million years ago so this seems to hold more water, and no water too.
..
.. We could have had no fur by water like elephants ect. before when we were in the water and just have continued the trend for other use as often happens in evolution. Three fourths of the world's people and even most life like fish live within 5 or 10 miles of the shore, so our evolution in both land and water are not mutually exclusive, and some of Nina's evidence is millions of years after 10 million years B.P. when Morgan believes we may have evolved into the water. Though Nina holds that we have bare skin unlike other animals that can signal with their fur, and that we evolved language and culture to make up for this deficiency at least somewhat, it seems more probable we evolved civilization in most part because of our hands (an ancient greek belief), after all elephants and other animals without fur don't have language.
.
" The ancient fossils shows that our early ancestors had evolved essentially modern body proportions by 1.6 million years ago, which would have permitted prolonged walking and running. Calculations show that the hip, knee, and ankle of these ancestors make clear that they actually exerted themselves this way. Thus according to the fossil record, the transition to naked skin and an eccrine based sweating system must have been well under way by 1.6 million years ago to offset the greater heat loads that accompanied out ancestors newly strenuous way of life." But this seems to be her interpretation (or guess) and not solid proof when we lost our coat.
..
..There are no fossils to prove or disprove that we didn't lose our fur sooner in our evolution. The MC1R gene isn't disproof we weren't in the water in our evolution before this because we may have first evolved into and out of the water 10 to 8 million years ago and walked upright as Morgan holds and had already lost our fur, then into the shade in woods near the shore and stayed there till around 3 million years ago when the woods were grasslands, then when we walked in the heat we got the MC1R gene.

I don't think it's true we were small and lost our fur to stay cool in the heat of the woods if they were cooler and if there are all kinds of tropical mammals with fur who are our size or larger who are more active than us. This would be because we went in the water like some of the other mammals, while the land mammals didn't (Bravo! author!). The giant mammals may have lost fur to stay cool but we weren't giant. We may have indeed gone into the water to cool off. You may say, what about a mammal like a mink? They love to swim in water and have fur. If we compare general likes to likes for mammals of like size and physiology, and not e.g.ones living in tropical to colder environments we may be often able to make valid conclusions like what may have been our evolution into the special wave machine of life and our life in the ancient times and to know what research may be of worth, or see if it's possible before discounting it offhand..

*******

And consider THIS PAGE.; a forum about the disproofs of Elaine Morgan's PR for her belief in our evolution into the water. Here we see;

Gorillas and other primates walk on two feet only when in the water, "and this is actually not true" (Evidence - Morgan);

"We don't swim any better than other animals, less actually" (- Morgan);

"Our breathing is just an accident and we didn't breath better because we went in the water and got breathing exercises by the water pressure (Anti Wave Radio Evolution, And BOOZE)"

"We didn't evolve in a warmer savannah environment by way of the proof about microfauna so Morgan's idea that we wouldn't have lost our fur because of the overheating is disproven."

We evolved body fat all around like the whale and unlike all other primates Morgan says "But this isn't so"

...All of these councils against Morgan are either disproven on the same page by other authors or can be at least accounted for by Morgan's PR. For instance gorillas and other primates are supposed to not walk like us in the water, this could be because we evolved into the water for more than a short while, like millions of years.

..That we don't swim as well as other animals is answered by the other critic who retorts that we swim much better than the dog paddle, with many moves, and we don't fall out of the pool like they do,

..That our breathing would seem to be disproof of our evolution into the water seems logical till you look at the other post where they say it's just a coincidence having to do with our limbs being upright and not constricting the breathing,

..This is just what we would expect if we evolved upright into the water because our arms would be lifted up by the water!

..If we were evolving into a warmer savannah and had already lost our fur before we wouldn't have to lose it the second time. Thus later warmth isn't disproof of our evolution into the waves where we may have lost our fur and evolved to walk before.

..That we have fat more like other primates than the whale isn't disproof or proof by itself because e.g. we may have lost most of it later in our evolution to be cool on the planes of the ancients, then real ancient..

..And one of Morgan's questions always remains, why are we so unlike all the other primates?

Most of the rest of the forum you see on the page link is spent on rhetoric or critisms of the worth of rhetoric to Morgan and other comic "creativity" and revels of the site. And for all the forums may achieve, we notice on this page that not one of the tricks is either disproven by more evidence of the other would be discreditors, or accounted for by a closer look like via my observations above.

For further reading, contrast this wikipedia site

With this site that lists many more of the advantages of Morgan's promotion.

..As the second site says, the lack of fossil evidence that is considered disproof by the orthodox view isn't a true disproof because all the evidence used for isn't provable by anatomy itself in the fossil record. On the site the author mentions that the best bet for where our ancestors may have evolved into the water may have been the broad shallow lake of E Africa that had been cut off from the sea. As on the site, most critics of Morgan don't consider that there is no necessity that we were in the water all the time. We could have thus essentially been dwelling on both the land and water part of the time, and this could explain why all the features that have other land based explanations as on the wikipedia site, and yet they can be explained by our evolution in water too. The wikipedia site goes on to say that all the anatomy of the water based origin have been proven to take place at other times in our evolution, not one definite time. Morgan and others think it may have been a longer time, as much as 4 million years.

..If all the fossil evidence has been removed from the region where the inland lake was where this is believed to have taken place by later glaciers of the pliestocene as is known, this would be where our ancestors like others around them went in and then were isolated perhaps for millions of years, then they reemerged and went on to be our own civilization eventually. This would seem to be a possible explanation of the missing link, the evidence not seen because of this.

..It might seem by Morgan's idea when we went into the realm of the lake we were like other primates, and were isolated with no evidence of this time in our evolution (other than one of us then possibly wandering over a low mountain pass, a fossil of which might one day be found). Even so the fossil record shows no definite discontinuity of sudden changes that would presumably be after our evolution more into the water and at first glance there would be a seem to need to be definite time when we would suddenly reemerge in the fossil record when a path was more open to our travels. If the key word here is travel, we have what seems to be the evidence that we evolved into the water, or at least no disproof of it, and yet the evidence seems to also show no discontinuity in the record, so to explain both I offer the following;

... The lake became divided from the ocean and most of our ancient relatives went into the lake, our family was small 10 million years ago so when a few of us moved to the lake, the rest may have followed. The mountains around the lake may have continued to rise perhaps creating the pressure to go in the water more often, even so the mountains may have stayed to a moderate height so there were always some of us willing to climb over the mountain to reach the other side, and vice versa. Thus even though we evolved into the water, by way of the continuous connection with the outside world, no matter what fossils we do find, they are continuous.

The pressure to evolve into the water thus may explain why we are unlike the other primates, even today if there's is a hill to climb, there are a considerable number of people who will opt out of seeing the other side by climbing it, and there are always a few who will.

..This may mean our evolution into the water may actually be provable after all because the pressure on to stay one side of the mountains near the water would mean we might find more fossils there, or at least more where the shore can be found, and the gene pool may have been in accordance with the pressure to stay, thus we might find more fossils, say 4 out of 5 near the lake, and because of our evolution into the water by pressure we might have more families near the water to the same degree if there were less advantagous realms on the other side of the range. If there were no pressure, there would be the same number of us on both sides and the gene pool would the same over all of our realm of N Africa.

If we are unlike the other primates because of this, the same may hold for other mammals like the whale and elephant that evolved into the water. We might expect that even if they often went into the water naturally just for a drink and for food and to cool off and then just went in for more food, even so we might expect in some of their histories, some of them may have been under pressure like us to evolve to the water (otherwise why not all mammals if so). Even if there are few examples, if there are some, this at least would prove that Morgan's belief is possible and be more in favor of it.

QWERTYUIOPxx

No doubt all this will eventually be decided by more evidence, for instance if fossils were found with no fur 4 million years ago, before the land was drying and we walked out into the heat, even if the lake shore was scoured by the glaciers, the continuity of the fossils if connected mostly so there in no discontinuity would seem to allow reflections in the record outside the area while in the general realm, and so we would expect to see most of the fossils with no fur sooner if most of our relatives lived by the shore and we got our water based physiology from them. There would seem to be a connection between the lake and us now, and if so this connection would show we had no fur. This may be eventually proven with more DNA science if not with the fossil record. I offer this site in support of my belief that the evidence is more for the possibility of our evolution into water than Nina G. and others believe, for now at any rate. We want research funding to consider more than one belief in science, if other than conventional ways may have value too.

..

...CLICK HERE FOR THE SITE ABOVE!

.....