'Biggest dinosaur ever' discovered

>My point is, Wadlow's death was effectively a matter of poor luck - a blister popped up and went septic that he didn't notice soon enough, but others had previously been spotted and dealt with.

It wasn't a matter of luck, it was because of his condition that he couldn't feel his feet and thus developed blisters. It was just a matter of time until one of his blisters or other feet injuries got infected. And in the bronze age with no knowledge of germ theory, much less antibiotics, these infections would likely prove lethal.

Robert Wadlow wouldn't have lived very long in a tribe in ancient France with a condition that caused chronic blisters and foot wounds. Furthermore gigantism causes extremely high blood pressure leading to varicose ulcers in the legs and again, infection.

However, the blister alone wasn't what killed him, he had an autoimmune problem caused by his disorder that contributed to his death, and he had an enlarged heart and was generally unhealthy.

>Who's to say that no Iron Age 20 year old could possibly do better?

It's not do better, it's significantly better with vastly inferior medicine. Even if his growth rate remained at the rate it was during the last few years of his life he would have to have lived almost 20 more years to grow another 3 feet. In addition his growth rate most likely would have slowed or stopped eventually.

If he had continued growing the strain on his skeleton and circulatory system would have killed him way before he got to 12'. This kind of gigantism is a disorder that causes immense strain on the body, humans just aren't build to handle that level of growth hormone.

Have you noticed that there are only 3 people in all of recorded history who reached 8.5' tall. The reason is because that is basically the upper limit of what is survivable.

Even if it were possible for a 12' tall man to live, given a population 10 times larger (all the people who ever lived compared to all those born in the 20th century) what's the chance that this population produced a man 3 feet taller than the tallest in recorded history--Keeping in mind that people with this disorder would have been likely to die even earlier than the giants of the modern era due to the lack of any semblance of modern medicine.

I'm really fascinated by the possibilities of paleontological discoveries. We have excavated such a minuscule portion of our planet (you might just round it down to 0%) that there absolutely must be an enormous amount of fantastic things out there waiting to be discovered.

I hope we can develop things like clear underground imaging from aircraft, and start finding more and more of these incredible types of discoveries.

FYI, my comment was a nebulous reference to "Steel Beach" by John Varley, about a future space civilization where dinosaurs had been cloned and were raised as game meat.

No sense of humor around here, looks like. The fact is, if we could revive dinosaurs, they would become game meat. What other purpose would they serve? To strip a forest in a day? To hunt and kill all the mammals?

As for the fundamental question of whether we should revive ancient species, the answer is "Of course!" To clone an animal using fully sequenced DNA would be an amazing achievement, and the programmed behavior in the DNA would be fascinating to study.

Of course, it's much more likely and scientifically feasible that we could clone more recent species such as Neanderthals which according to at least one scientist might be achievable today, or in the very near future. But dinosaurs are what capture people's imagination, and the bigger, the better.

Sea creatures don't need to support their own weight.

Though I'm anything but expert on the topic, my understanding is that many dinosaurs were surprisingly light-weight for their size, and masses of many dinosaurs have been revised downward. As ancestors of birds, whose own bodies are generally of very low mass, and incorporate interesting features (hollow bones and internal air sacs) this isn't entirely surprising.

So the problem is - the very concept of a species is not particularly well defined, and loses a large degree of meaning in paleontology amidst lack of fossil-record data (both extreme scarcity and geographical patchiness) and the additional dimension of time.

A species is a particular genetic type which does not routinely interbreed with other related types it encounters, and retains some physiological differences from them, as a forked, internally consistent genetic branch.

We're a hundred million years late to demonstrate that the sauropods were or weren't interbreeding. We don't have that behavior to observe. We don't have any DNA, a fairly accurate way of demonstrating breeding pools, to work with. We only have the occasional left third rib, and equations derived from the most similar complete skeletons we know of. Even when we do find a complete skeleton, we can only date it to a certain degree of precision, and while understanding that there is an evolutionary tree that is constantly sprouting and changing branches, we have nothing to really demarcate when one species "becomes" another - we are speculating about two specimens' reproductive compatibility with millions of years between them.

Could you breed with a proto-human? Would you? How far back? Would the kids come out alright? Would you call them a new subspecies or pick one of the parents' taxonomy? On top of that, to represent the last several millions of years of subtle changes, new branches, & trimmed branches in hominid genetics, what if you only have 6 specimens closer than chimpanzees, mostly age/sex-indeterminate, only one of which is a complete skeleton? How do you draw an org chart of the hominids then?

There are size variations corresponding to age and gender, heritable variations within a breeding pool, variations corresponding to differential nutrition & the good times vs the bad times for a population, variations corresponding to individual sickness and injury, variations corresponding to the entire population getting steadily larger or smaller for a thousand or thirty thousand or a million years, variations corresponding to sudden changes in habit associated with adaptations to rapid changes in environment, variations corresponding to drift from a parent population associated with permanent reproductive incompatibility as well as reversible reproductive isolation.

The historical paleontological record is thousands of times richer in micro-scale detail than we have the data to describe, even if we did have good words to describe it with that the popular media could understand. But they want to talk in terms of species, because that's what people are familiar with.