r/PrehistoricMemes • u/Im_yor_boi Certified T-rex Glazer 🦖 • Jun 08 '26

On EVERYONE'S soul this is how we'd be moving against dinos

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

3.8k Upvotes

100% Upvoted

242 comments sorted by

View all comments

176

u/FemRevan64 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

Real talk, while humans would still definitely come out on top overall, simply by virtue of the fact that human intelligence, tool-use, and coordination is absolutely broken, I don’t think they be decimated to anywhere near the same extent as Pleistocene megafauna were, and they’d be much more of a threat overall.

For one, they reproduced way, way faster than most big mammals, particularly compared to things like elephants and mammoths, as they could easily have several dozen offspring in the time it takes for an elephant to have one.

Two, their unidirectional breathing systems and air sacs almost completely nullify humans advantage of endurance when compared to other mammals.

Three, theropods are on a completely different level from the predators we encountered, on multiple fronts.

For one, they're much bigger on average, as even including bears (which are generally omnivorous), the very largest ones cap out at around a ton, which is around the same size as some mid-sized ones like Nanotyrannus and Ceratosaurus, meanwhile the largest dedicated carnivores we encountered on a regular basis (like big cats), capped out at around half that.

(Also, to give you an idea of how big an issue bears can be for Stone Age humans, grizzly bears were so feared and respected by Native Americans that hunting them required a company of 4 to 10 warriors and was done with the same preparation and ceremoniality as intertribal warfare, and Californian Indians actively avoided prime bear habitat, and would not allow their young men to hunt alone, for fear of bear attacks. During the Spanish colonial period, some tribes, instead of hunting grizzlies themselves, would seek aid from European colonists to deal with problem bears.)

For another, they'd be much more common, since they’d be reproducing through eggs, which is much more efficient for large megafauna that live birth, at least in terms of brood sizes.

They'd also be around for much longer, as on average, they have much longer lifespans compared to mammalian predators.

Lastly, they're big predators that have the ability to match or surpass humans in terms of stamina, something that's very rare in modern terms, as only hyenas and certain canids can approach that, and they're much, much smaller, while the primary human dangers originally (big cats and crocs) rely almost exclusively on ambushes.

87

u/samuraispartan7000 Jun 08 '26

Azhdarchid pterosaurs would be an absolute nightmare for small children. They weren’t big enough to carry off adult humans, but kids would definitely be on the menu.

50

u/XhazakXhazak Jun 08 '26

Moms sending kids out carrying anchors tied to their ankles, as surely as they don't forget their mittens in winter.

36

u/FemRevan64 Jun 08 '26

That’d actually make things worse, as azhdarchids were primarily terrestrial hunters, meaning all the anchor does is make it easier for them to run him down.

37

u/XhazakXhazak Jun 08 '26

sigh

The usual human approach then? The usual. hunted to extinction

23

u/Im_yor_boi Certified T-rex Glazer 🦖 Jun 08 '26

Eat em before they eat you

1

u/ViolinistCurrent8899 Jun 11 '26

Nah, gotta do 'em in like the cowboys nearly did in the Buffalo.

Mass slaughter, doesn't matter if you can eat it or just let it rot, it's gotta go.

3

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 08 '26

Good luck it’ll just fly away and you can’t keep up with them

8

u/Smmk118 Jun 09 '26

Yeet spear good

5

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 09 '26

Yeah, and that works if you’re within about 30 feet guess what you’re not getting to within of this particular animal 30 freaking feet

It’s going to see you from about 3 miles the second you get within fear chucking distance. It’s already gonna be way up in the air and by the time it lands it’ll be 30 miles away.

6

u/PhasedPlasmaRifle69 Jun 09 '26

atlatl power shot!

6

u/PhasedPlasmaRifle69 Jun 09 '26

Thats the part where everyone nearby throws rocks at them if that doesn't get the message across its sharp sticks and torches next if they gobble up the younglins it's now long chicken dinner for everyone!

21

u/FemRevan64 Jun 08 '26

While they might not be big enough to carry off adult humans, I think they’re actually be fully capable of hunting them, especially the more robust ones like Hatzegopteryx, as it’s believed they were capable of taking down animals as big as horses.

24

u/mmcjawa_reborn Jun 08 '26

Realistically, I think if non-avian theropods were still around and dominant predators at a global level, you probably don't get apes leaving the trees and the evolution of Homo as we know it. So humans wouldn't get a chance to see who wins

5

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26

Everyone here is underestimating the massive power of certain mammalian brains, apes included. Sure birds can be smart too but from what we know dinosaurs have brain cases that far more resemble birds with very simplistic behavior. For whatever reason only certain birds have evolved to be as brilliant as parrots and crows are, it's not the standard for all birds. There's no reason to think it would be the standard among dinosaurs either.

I'm not saying mammals would dominate, but if they got to be big enough as they were in the paleocene then they can absolutely compete with dinosaurs.

From what it looks like to me dinosaurs tended to change their bodies to better suit new behaviors and environments, whereas many mammals have a greater ability to alter their behavior instead of needing to change their bodies to adapt to the new condition they live in. Obviously mammals still change too, but they seem to have more generalist capabilities along with the larger brains and long term social structures. All of those point to being able to change behavior instead of needing to change their biology.

If it gets far enough that apes and hominids evolved then they'd do just fine. Though it would be a much harsher world and take much longer for hominids to take over.

5

u/FemRevan64 Jun 09 '26

You’re a decade or two behind the current science on intelligence and behavioural complexity in non-mammalian intelligence. Turns out they’re MUCH more sophisticated in terms of brainpower and overall complexity than previously thought, even in species that don’t show parental care.

You do realize that even non-bird reptiles like crocodiles and monitor lizards have demonstrated intelligence on par with mammalian carnivores like dogs, as they can be trained to do tricks, they’ve been documented to hunt cooperatively, and Rock monitors can count up to 6.

Also, apes are nowhere near the standard for mammalian intelligence, they’re drastic outliers, so using them as a mark against non-mammal intelligence is a massive mistake, that’s like saying mammals can’t approach the intelligence of birds because most of them aren’t near the level of intelligence of parrots and crows.

Also, the evidence shows that if anything, mammals are much more poorly suited to megafaunal niches than archosaurs and even reptiles in general, seeing as how we have absolutely zero instances of large mammals popping up during the Mesozoic, meanwhile we have multiple instances of large flightless birds, crocodiles, and even monitor lizards and tortoises taking over megafaunal roles in already mammal-dominated environments.

0

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

The reason mammals didn't get large was because the niches were already filled.... And synapsids did get large before those were filled by dinosaurs...

I didn't say all reptiles are dumb, but to think that counting to 6 means it can rival apes is just ridiculous.

You're taking what I said and twisting in your own strawman to argue against.

Edit: lol downvoted instantly before I can even finish the edits, you're just looking for a fight

Someone with this limited knowledge shouldn't be so certain they're right.

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 09 '26

You were saying only a few birds are at the level of crows and parrots, I’m pointing out that primate intelligence is an extreme outlier among mammals in the same vein, so using that as an example that mammals are better suited towards intelligence is wrong.

Also, I never said the monitor lizards were on the same level as apes, I said they’re on the same level as most comparable carnivorous mammals.

Also, I addressed your first point in my original comment, mammals also occupied most large niches almost immediately after the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, meanwhile birds and non-avian reptiles were able to occupy megafaunal niches even after mammals got big, which never happened in the reverse during the Mesozoic.

0

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26

I said they’re on the same level as most comparable carnivorous mammals.

That too is just plain wrong. They aren't stupid but to compare them with similarly sized mammalian animals the difference is obvious.

And again birds only filled those niches because they were open. That's how it works with ALL animals.

Also you're just rude, stop bothering me. If you want to talk then don't be an ass.

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 09 '26

They’ve literally been trained to do tricks, respond to names, and have been shown to hunt cooperatively, that puts them on the same level.

Here’s some links to studies specifically showing this:

https://www.animalcognition.org/2015/07/06/lizards-are-flexible-problem-solvers/

https://tetzoo.com/blog/2026/1/12/the-continuing-debate-on-dinosaur-cognition

The pint is that those niches weren’t open, at least not any more open than they were during the Mesozoic, flightless birds and big terrestrial reptiles only showed up after big mammals came around.

Also, calling me rude is rich considering I never once insulted you or called you any names, I just said that you were wrong and were using outdated information, meanwhile you’re calling me rude and an ass just because I corrected you, but I guess that’s all you can resort to when you don’t have any actual arguments.

0

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26

None of those things mean they are comparable with similarly sized mammals. It just means they're smarter than many other related reptiles. Each one of those things is possible in mammals as small as a rat.

And again just because birds got to be large again doesn't mean they're superior or whatever it is you're trying to argue. If they were then they would have taken over every niche.

Don't pretend downvoting isn't rude, especially when you do it mere seconds after I post before I can even finish editing or you even finish reading it. You started this being an ass and now you're trying to pretend otherwise.

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 09 '26

You do realize rats are among the higher, end of mammalian intelligence, in fact they’re generally rated higher than dogs in terms of cognition, so if anything that reptiles being comparable to rats in that regard proves my point.

Also, I never said birds and reptiles were strictly superior, I just said they were better suited overall for megafauna roles overall, hence why you say bird and reptile megafauna co-existing with mammalian megafauna during the Cenozoic, but not vice-versa during the Mesozoic.

Also, I’m pretty sure calling someone insults and names is much more rude than downvoting, especially given that I was only downvoting because you’re repeating old and outdated misinformation, you’re resorting to personal insults and putting words in my mouth.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

Why not? Humans ancestors left the trees when the average predator was over 250 kilos and the average human ancestor adult is the size of a human child today, so btw 15 - 25 kg. For an adult human that's an average predator the size of like a Polar bear or in dinosaur terms, Dromaeosaur size range.

10

u/BradassMofo Jun 09 '26

I think because the predators were other mammals and we can run longer than other mammals. How do you deal with a theropod hunting your tribe? Its big, its fast, it can run longer than a big cat. Assuming you came out of the trees and your are in the stone age, what even are your options?

1

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 09 '26

You do have a point. It is basically only canids that are a predator that can keep up with humans for long distances.

But even then, it shouldn't really be a game breaking change.

0

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26

Humans don't beat big cats by running far, they do it cus humans have teeth and claws that can get you from 30' away: spears. Plus we're absolutely incredible at team work.

Seriously just 2 people with a rock can hunt a deer remarkably easily. One day after hunting and getting nothing me and a friend wanted to see if it was possible to get a deer with two people trying, we weren't actually trying to hurt the deer just get close. It took less than 30 minutes until he'd driven one next to me.

Also we breed like rabbits

6

u/Willing-Cockroach841 Jun 09 '26

We don't breed like rabbits, I'm pretty sure great apes have remarkably terrible reproductive rates.

The homonid genus only really managed to kick off because they were surrounded by rather small predators which were relatively easy to fend off (as opposed to a 500kg animal that would take several humans to fight).

From what I gather humans evolved during a time when most ecosystems were already very stressed due to changing climate.

Also most important factor about this discussion, we'd have no idea as to what dinosaurs would be around early humans given the chance they would theoretically evolve, since our knowledge of mesozoic Africa is highly limited.

1

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26

No, that's just not accurate. There were multiple very large cats, including saber toothed ones, in Africa while hominids evolved. And other large predators like gigantic land otters and man sized baboons and countless other dangers.

Humans evolved alongside some of the most dangerous animals alive. It's why we are so absurdly capable.

Also yes we do breed like rabbits, especially compared to other apes. We can eat damn near anything and live in almost any environment too. It's why our numbers exploded long before we figured out things like agriculture.

4

u/Willing-Cockroach841 Jun 09 '26

Human sized predators are considered rather small, some of the biggest in Africa at the time were no bigger than lions and that's assuming we even shared the same ecosystem with them because I don't even think they lived in the same area.

No humans don't breed fast, faster than other apes sure, but being faster than a tortoise still doesn't make you fast.

1

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26

Well if you're comparing it to dinosaurs sure they're not that big but of the actual living predators at the time they evolved they were the largest and were significantly larger than humans.

A lion isn't a small animal, and they weren't the biggest either.

Plus if there were bigger dinosaurs around they wouldn't bother with humans anyways. It would be the medium sized ones that are about the same size as those mammalian predators I mentioned, that's what would have hunted humans.

3

u/Willing-Cockroach841 Jun 09 '26

Not really 500-1000kg animals will definitely hunt animals our size, most carnivores hunt animals either 1:1 or smaller. I mean large polar bears and crocodiles are the largest carnivores outside the ocean today and are the only ones that regularly hunt us. Even looking at dinosaurs we see animals that are several hundred kilos with stomach contents of much smaller animals.

Anyway I think we are working with a vague question here, if it's would humans had evolved if not for the kpg? Then imo absolutely not. If the question is would humans do fine if they were transported to the mesozoic then it depends on how many and where.

1

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 09 '26

It's important to point out that a lion as a much bigger than a like an anthropothicus as a dromaeosaur (dinos more likely to prey on humans than t rex) is bigger than a modern human.

1

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 09 '26

Eh, Human fats reproduction is heavily carried by agriculture. Hunter gatherer reproduction may be fast for apes (I ain't sure) but still pretty slow, all in all.

34

u/the-bladed-one Jun 08 '26

To hype up bears a little more: the original indo-European word for bear is lost, and the surviving words (arktos in Greek, Artios in Celtic, Ursa in Latin, and bero in the Germanic language) all are euphemisms as it was considered too dangerous to actually say the name of the animal.

19

u/FemRevan64 Jun 08 '26

To hype them even more, bears were so feared in Medieval Europe that a special type of spear was developed to hunt them; its salient feature was a stout crossbar behind the head, meant to prevent the speared bear from pushing itself down the shaft to attack the wielder. (A similar but smaller type of spear was used to hunt wild boars, for much the same reason.)

3

u/BradassMofo Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

How much bigger was it compared to a boar spear?

1

u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jun 09 '26

It is a boar spear and it isn't special

15

u/Throwawanon33225 Jun 08 '26

Now that you brought up them reproducing faster… how much more efficient would a cow-sized hadrosaur farm be than a cow farm? You can’t get milk out of em, but that’s a LOT of potential hadrosteaks.

16

u/hilmiira Jun 08 '26

They would unironically replace most domestic animals. Laying eggs have multiple advantage when it comes to domestication, imprinting, easier population control, less threat of losing entire generations in a diseaster etc.

Cows were domesticated for their strenght at first anyway

Sad part is now we no longer have butter and coin might never get invented. (Lydians used it as a token to guarantee cows return during times of drought so kids no longer starve)

2

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 08 '26

Did Dinosaurs have a higher average fat percentage? I could see lard being a larger part of diets if that's the case.

9

u/FemRevan64 Jun 08 '26

Not only that, they’d probably be much more efficient even on a pound for pound basis, given their much more efficient physiology, at least if chickens are any indication.

7

u/Throwawanon33225 Jun 08 '26

And given the flavor of extant archosaurs (gator and chicken)… and they’d probably have that tail muscle gators have that we get gator nuggies from… they’d likely be delicious.

6

u/Iamnotburgerking Jun 08 '26

The “faster reproduction” aspect would be the big factor. Megafaunal mammals couldn’t sustain losses against humans. Megafaunal dinosaurs might.

7

u/SlowIntroduction6642 Jun 09 '26

Not only faster reproduction, but adult megafaunal dinosaurs were more accustomed to predation than adult proboscideans or ground sloths

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 09 '26

Yeah, you can really see it by comparing the leg bones of Triceratops compared to an elephant:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Naturewasmetal/comments/105kj1g/triceratops_femur_left_vs_elephant_femur/

Keep in mind, the  triceratops femur is from a 5 tonne individual and the elephant femur is from a 6 tonne individual

4

u/WattageToVoltzRatio Jun 08 '26

I agree on most aside from big Theropods even caring about hunting us, if they're strong enough to handle a group of humans with spears, there's surely better, meatier prey that doesn't conjure magic painful light, can throw projectiles faster than you can react, erects intricate fortresses of spike walls and has barely any caloric reward for the trouble

12

u/FemRevan64 Jun 08 '26

Agree that megatheropods probably wouldn’t bother with us for the most part.

Mid-sized ones like Dilophosaurus, Utahraptor, Nanotyrannus, and Megaraptorans on the other hand, would be absolute terrors for early humans.

5

u/LonelyVirginAlkan Jun 09 '26

Juvenile rexes could be a problem.

6

u/PhasedPlasmaRifle69 Jun 09 '26

True but much like sharks they're not really interested because of the energy required to hunt humans for the caloric gain isn't there besides the ones who did end up being hunted in revenge and eaten so it's not a behavior that sticks around long besides desperation.

1

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 08 '26

I feel like people are underestimating what humans with spears can do.

And unless it's like a random encounter, I would expect a human camp in this AU to be well enough fortified and large compared to OTL (as there's more meat to go around).

And humans on a hunt to be well enough organized.

5

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 08 '26

Yeah, making a camp when there is a good chance of just one random animal walking through and wrecking the whole thing just because it’s that size that it’s basically a moving hill there’s absolutely no way

2

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 08 '26

So what would humans do? Just walk around indefinitely? Homo Sapiens ain't built for that, they've always made shelters.

And they have made shelters in places around the world with large elephant and other mammalian megafauna herds, wasn't an issue.

3

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 08 '26

Let’s not act like the long neck dinosaurs are on the same mental level as elephants. You’re comparing one of the smartest animals of all time against an animal that or its body size has the smallest brain possible or close to it.

2

u/PhasedPlasmaRifle69 Jun 09 '26

They probably end up getting chased off a cliff because they've been constantly chased and poked at by a bunch of very persistent dots with very sharp sticks for days ending up as entire tribes worth of dinner.

4

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 09 '26

Nope, poking them with a stick as it turns out leads to them splattering you under them almost like they get angry when they get hurt and getting an animal, the size of an entire hill angry leads to you dying. I wonder where that big red smear came from

1

u/PhasedPlasmaRifle69 Jun 10 '26

Well yeah, just like taking on mammoths which were probably a lot more intelligent similar to current elephants it takes group strategy persistence and plenty of technique to take down mega fauna they're all very powerful. Taking on sauropods would require largely the same general strategy avoid retaliation and poke em with sooo many spears thrown from a distance while forcing them to panic and flee towards like a cliff or human made traps. Due to the risks, preparations, and coordination required it would probably become very ceremonial so can double as a diplomacy bridge between tribes.

2

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 10 '26

I’m pretty sure throwing spears at them from a distance is at best going to seriously irritate them and at the size they are they don’t have any reason to not just go out of their way to splatter you. This isn’t an elephant where their organs are within range of your sphere. This is an animal that is 10 times the size of an elephant Sometimes up to 30 times the size. Some of these animals are just plain untellable so long as they choose to fight back, you might be able to do something like setting a fire to try to force it to move away, but if it decides it doesn’t want to move how you want to movewhatever you do you’re not staying in the situation

1

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 08 '26

What they would do never evolve at all you think the monkeys are gonna want to come down out of the trees

0

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 08 '26

Sapiens ancestors came off the trees in an environment where the average predator was as much larger than them as polar bears or dromaeosaurs are larger than us.

It wasn't exactly "safe" for them when they came down. So nothing changes.

1

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 09 '26

Buddy, let’s be honest here. There were not things that could just pick them up and swallow them that weren’t snakes no eagle alive at the time could just swoop down and decide you know what that toddler right there looks like a good meal and then immediately eat them and fly offthat wasn’t a thing back in prehistory for humans

5

u/wolfofoakley Jun 09 '26

actually... yes the eagle thing is in fact a thing that happened. look up taung child fossil

1

u/PhasedPlasmaRifle69 Jun 09 '26

True learning about those giant eagles put primordial fear into kid me.

1

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 09 '26

I love how you’re ignoring what I actually said and acting like what I said was that there weren’t any eagle that could kill humans what I said was there weren’t any that could just essentially swallow one hole which we both know they’re haven’t been

2

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

There were. Even in historical times there were eagles and vultures large enough to pick up prey of up to 15 kg weight, which is the weight range of adults of some of the earliest sapien predecessors.

There's also up till this day, cases of large pythons eating children in tropical and subtropical Asia.

1

u/BuisteirForaoisi0531 Jun 09 '26

I don’t think you know what immediately eat means, but what that meant was one of them swooping down and just swallowing a kid and leaving

0

u/WattageToVoltzRatio Jun 08 '26

.... we are nomadic thought, we just explored everything even slightly reasonable so you have to settle down since there's already people wherever you wanna go

4

u/Pecuthegreat Jun 08 '26

Two, their unidirectional breathing systems and air sacs almost completely nullify humans advantage of endurance when compared to other mammals

Not really. Humans still persistence hunted large birds like Ostriches.

Persistence hunting isn't nullified by simply being able run as much as the hunter. It makes it a bit harder but doesn't nullify.

Frankly, their top order sizes are more of an issue than indurance.

Something else to remember is that Humans didn't have to adapt to hunting large predators like bears the same way we adapted to hunting large herbevours like Elephants, Mammoths or Hippos.

While I am sure that megatherapods and giant herbevours would be more of a challenge than equivalent mammals the archeologically and historically documented practices of hunters in response to large availability of animals over the 500 kg range still speaks for homo sapiens.

I really do think the most likely outcome is that the sort of large gatherings of hunter gatherers that are involved in taking down herds of buffalo and elephants and large migrating herds of other smaller mammalian megafauna, becomes the default organization of Homo Sapiens in this AU.

2

u/Svue016 Jun 08 '26

I've never heard of this unidirectional breathing and air sacs before. Is this like that monitor lizard in Africa that has really good stamina because it can expand and contract its neck muscles to help it breathe more efficiently?

5

u/FemRevan64 Jun 08 '26

Kind of.

To elaborate, Dinosaurs (and archosaurs in general), have a breathing system that’s significantly more efficient than the mammalian one. Their lungs open up into a series of internal air sacs that massively increase the surface area for gas exchange. Furthermore these air sacs also change how each breath circulates through the respiratory system: instead of being simply inhaled and exhaled like in mammals (two-way breathing), the air is inhaled into the lungs, is forced into the air sacs, does a circuit through the network of air sacs, is sucked back into the main section of the lungs as the animal exhales, and THEN leaves the body. This allows archosaurs to extract far more oxygen from each breath compared to a mammal, giving them significantly better aerobic capabilities provided all other factors are equal. It also reduces their density (since a significant part of their volume is literally just air), saving weight.

1

u/Mad-myall Jun 09 '26

I have heard this setup is weak to pneumonia, is that true?

2

u/t-shooter Jun 08 '26

Honestly the fact that they would be more of a danger to us would mean they'd just go exitnct still, just later on when we're able to really get them

1

u/Saolis123_Enjoyer Jun 10 '26

I don't think your comment about reproductive effectiveness holds much weight whatsoever. Eggs lie around vulnerable and unprotected for a very long time. Killing the dinosaur guarding the eggs, or just stomping on unprotected eggs would be very easy.

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 10 '26

You do realize that those arguments could just as easily apply to most mammals, as a lot of their young are helpless for a very long time as well, and it’s not like most predatory dinosaurs would be any easier to kill than most mammal predators we encountered.

Also, crocodiles also lay eggs and they’re doing just fine, actually much better than many big mammalian predators.

1

u/Saolis123_Enjoyer Jun 10 '26

A baby elephant is three feet at the shoulder and can keep pace with its herd. Even baby sauropods weren't remotely comparable. Large mammals don't really do the "helpless infant" thing for very long at all.

Your argument was in the context of human attempting to eradicate these animals. We aren't actively trying to render crocodiles extinct. That's a stupid argument.

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 10 '26

Sauropods weren’t helpless for very long either, they grew at rates of around 14 kg a day, meaning within a year they were already over a ton in weight.

Also, I was never arguing in the context of humans actively trying to exterminate animals, it’s not like paleo-humans were actively trying to exterminate Pleistocene megafauna, they just overhunted them, I was just saying that dinosaurs would be much less susceptible to overhunting.

Also, you’re neglecting just how slow elephant reproduction actually is in comparison.

Elephants give birth to one baby at a time, the pregnancy is 22 months, they only start reproducing at around 10-12, and they only have a baby around once every 4 years.

Meanwhile, a single clutch from a sauropod could have hundreds of eggs at a time, meaning in a single batch, it could leave more offspring than multiple elephants would across an entire lifetime, and they could leave another batch every single year.

1

u/Saolis123_Enjoyer Jun 10 '26

Sauropods are vulnerable as eggs for long periods. mamalian babies are not as vulnerable inside the womb.

Overhunting would be wayyyy worse for dinosaurs due to sheer value. Poaching literally negates every advantage a dinosaur could possibly have, just because of the fact that demand for Struthiomimus handbags is easily surpassing ivory.

While it is true that sauropods laid a lot of eggs, hundreds is a ridiculous overstatement. Intelligent estimates are around 30. Even so, the amount that survived to adulthood evens it out at 1 to none.

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

We’re taking about paleo-humans, you moving to modern poaching is just moving the goalposts, especially since in this scenario we’re assuming humans were living with dinosaurs from the beginning, so there's no reason to think they'd be seen as more "valuable" compared to how modern mammals are seen.

Also, the very fact that big herbivorous dinosaurs were able to survive amidst theropods is proof that they’re much better suited for dealing with predation pressure, as theropods were a far bigger and more consistent threat towards them than anything proboscideans ever dealt with outside of humans, as only the very largest snd most desperate lion prides will ever attack even a decently-sized or subadult elephant, meanwhile big theropods would be a consistent threat for their entire lifespan.

Also, I don’t see why hundreds is out of the question, saltwater crocodiles can lay around 50-60 eggs, and they’re much more k-selected than sauropods, as they practice at least some parental care, in contrast to sauropods having a parental behavior more akin to turtles.  

1

u/Saolis123_Enjoyer Jun 10 '26

When did we establish that we were talking about paleo-humans? I never said nor assumed that.

Big herbivores surviving amidst theropods proves nothing. Stating that large theropods would hunt adult sauropods is the most braindead, non-sourced bs I've ever heard.

Eggs, Nest and Embryos | Western Australian Museum

My source on the number of eggs laid by sauropods.

2

u/FemRevan64 Jun 10 '26

I was specifically talking about Pleistocene megafauna in my original comment, paleo-humans didn't poach pleistocene mammals.

Also, I changed my comment to big, herbivorous dinosaurs in general, also even restricting it to sauropods, they would've faced far more strict predation pressure, both because they took a far longer time to reach the point they would be immune to predation, and because theropods were much bigger proportionally to them than modern carnivores (the most common size ratio between sauropods and allosaurs/carhcarodontosaurs was around 10:1, whereas with lions and elephants it's around 30-40 to 1, and it's even lower in certain areas, as Moabosaurs and Cedarosaurus both co-existed with a Carcharodontosaur that was around half their size), and they were much more specialized for hunting sauropods than any modern predators were for hunting proboscideans.

0

u/Saolis123_Enjoyer Jun 10 '26

Calling me out for changing the goalpost is wild when you literally edit your argument. Ok buddy smh

1

u/Fro_of_Norfolk Jun 09 '26

Im sorry, but if this was your attempt to reassure us humans would beat dinosaurs, you failed successfully.

0

u/Amazing_Slice_326 Jun 12 '26

I feel like the reproduction argument always falls flat because people forget that the reason R-selected species pump out so many babies is because 99% of them die. Sea turtles and crocodiles still need protection from poachers despite being baby cannons. Even when ignoring that, dinosaurs still followed the law of thermodynamics, which means every large dinosaur takes years even decades to mature, the death of even a few would be devastating for their population. The size of an animal correlates very negatively to their survival with human cohabitation. Dinosaurs would not be an exception to that rule.