Everyone has encountered a T. rex in books, movies or museums. Besides its size and menacing jaws one of the most striking features of a T. rex is its diminutive arms. So why were the arms of T. rex so short? There have been many hypotheses including: 1) they had no use and were like a vestigial organ, 2) they were used to hold on to potential mates, 3) they were used to hold onto small prey while they ate, 4) they were used to help them get up when they fell down or 5) some combination of these explanations. Can these hypotheses be tested? Well, yes and no. Behavior traits are notoriously difficult, by not impossible, to assess with the fossil record. For example, see my post on extinct elephant behaviors deduced from fossil footprints (Preservation of Behavior: Fossilized Elephant Tracks from the Arabian Peninsula) or what we can learn from piles of fossil poo (Piles of Fossil Poo: Providing a Peak into the Past). What about the first hypothesis that the arms were useless? The assumption here is that over time the arms became useless and so atrophied to the point of being these tiny little nubs in comparison with the entire animal. In effect maybe there are just useless vestigial organs. This hypothesis can be tested and shown to be unlikely to be true. The bones of the arms show evidence of large muscle/tendon attachment points. Analyses of these arms then suggest that they were very strong even if they were very small. There is also the presence of two sharp claws at the end. These observations can be used to strongly support the hypotheses that the arms had some use even if we may not understand what that use may have been.
Rather than go on debating these speculative hypotheses, I want to look at a more fundamental question that I often ask my students: How do we know that T. rex had short arms?
Sounds like a simple question. After all, doesn’t every know that they had laughably small arms!? But ask yourself, how do you know this to be true? Have you ever seen a Tyrannosaurus rex in person? If you were not there to witness T. rex’s arms can how can you be sure they had short arms? Has anyone seen a T. rex in person? I don’t think so. If they lived 65 million years ago how can we be sure today that they had short arms?
So what is this evidence that we all find so convincing. It is nothing more than bones turned to rock. As philosopher Carol Cleland would say, there is your “smoking gun” evidence (see Origins Science and Misconceptions of Historical Science for a further discussion and references). The bones have left evidence or a “trace” of history that we can use to test our hypotheses about the lengths of the arms of T. rex and carnosaurs in general. How much total evidence is there to support this conclusion? Surprisingly little with respect to actual data points! I haven’t been able to find firm numbers but it seems that there are fewer than 15 near complete skeletons of T. rex that have ever been found. Of those I am not sure how many of these even had the arms actually attached to the shoulder blades but I would be surprised if it were more than a couple (the first was not found until 1989!). Of course there have been man more pieces of skeletons found and I am sure many arm bones have been found in the vicinity of other T. rex bones. The smoking gun evidence is found in those few that are actually attached but the observance of other small arm bones near other T. rex bones also adds to our conviction (or you could call it theory) that T. rex had short arms. So just a few bones that are found next to a shoulder bone of a T. rex are the foundation of every image you have ever seen of a T. rex with short arms. The lesson here is not that we should doubt that T. rex actually had short arms but rather that some forms of historical evidence are very very good and we can have great confidence that we can “know” that diminutive arms were found on these massive animals. I can’t test this theory by going back in time but the evidence that we can gather in the present can yield a high degree of confidence in our conclusions about the past.
But, let us continue to follow the path of what we think we know from historical science and see if our study of dinosaurs yields another more provocative conclusions than just the length of this beasts arms.
How do we know that many dinosaurs ate only plants and what plants did they eat? Teeth are one clue because we can compare their teeth to teeth from various animals alive today but while strong evidence it is not the smoking gun. Dinosaur coprolites (yeah, that’s dino-poop) in and around skeletons of tooth-implied plant eaters provide further evidence of the herb-loving nature of these dinosaurs. The teeth along with the lack of any evidence of bones in their coprolites and an abundance of plant tissues and spores and pollen combine to form the smoking gun evidence that has convinced everyone that these dinosaurs where plant eaters. Another way of putting this is that there evidence brings us to have no reasonable doubt that this is what these dinosaurs actually ate.
But let us look just a bit closer here. What specific kinds of plants did they eat? Cross sections of plant-eating dino-poops reveal very clear evidence of the types of plants that were eaten. Pieces of stems and leaves often pass right through the gut and pollen and spores of plants are especially well-preserved. The anatomy of these plant parts and structures of these spores can be examined in detail and the types of plants determined veryreliably In this case what is found that a large number of plant-eating dinosaurs ate ferns, tree-ferns, lycopods, and primitive forms of conifers. What is missing in this list? Yes, flowering plants. Today’s the most dominant plant form on earth are flowering plants which include most trees and the grasses. No large herbivore today could possibly eat plants and not get at least some flowering plant pollen in them much less any other parts. Yet, there are at least hundreds of dinosaur coprolites that have been examined from all over the world and they lack pollen and flowering plant parts. There are anatomical cell types that are unique to flowering plants which could easily be seen in these specimens if they were present. Microscope examination would be predicted to reveal flowering plant parts and pollen in any coprolite were it present.
How do scientists interpret this coprolite evidence?
These fossilized coprolites tell us that some dinosaurs only eat plants and that globally what the vast majority of all plant-eating dinosaurs had to eat were non-flowering plants including many plants that are extinct today. How confident are scientists that most dinosaurs had nothing to eat by a fern and conifer diet? I would say that their confidence level approaches that of their confidence level that T. rex had short arms and that some dinosaurs at plants and some ate meat. The preponderance of evidence is great and includes many other independent lines of evidence that I don’t have time to explore here today.
Young Earth Creationists, Dinosaurs and Historical Data
If you were to visit Ken Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky you would find dinosaurs of various kinds on display there including plant and meat eaters and a model of T. rex with his short arms. Ken Ham is fond of asking people who think the world is old: “Were you there?” He frequently suggests that we can’t be confident about things from the distant past because we were not witnesses and only the Bible is a witness to these events. So I ask you, why does he have such confidence that T. rex had short arms? Was he or anyone else alive and reported that they saw a T. rex with short arms? Does the Bible provide us with a physical description of T. rex? No! So the evidence that T. rex has short arms comes from observations of fossils and the assumptions about those fossils (eg. they actually represent parts of formerly living things and that bones next to other bones represent their order of attachment in the real organism). Ken Ham and AIG have published numerous books with recreations of dinosaurs and even discuss their behaviors all based solely on bones of stone found in the ground. He clearly accepts the evidence and interpretations of this evidence derived via the historical sciences without qualification. But what happened to that origins science vs operational science distinction that Ham and others of so fond of espousing? (see HEREfor more about this distinction). Origins science is the label YECs like to slap on any conclusion of historical science that they deem contradictory to their interpretation of scripture. But how do they know when something is or isn’t under the purview of what they call origins science? To me re-creating the shape and size of an animal now extinct and never spoken of in the Bible sounds a whole like what they want to call origins science but since the don’t have a problem with these particular interpretations of historical science they don’t call them into question.
I’m really can’t blame Ham and company for accepting that T. rex had short arm as the evidence, though not abundant, is very strong. It is not unreasonable at all that they accept this but then what are we to make of the diets of the plant eaters? I am sure young earth creationists would readily accept the observation of coprolites full of bones as evidence that T. rex was a carnivore but then what do they do with the coprolites of dinosaurs from the Triassic and Jurassic ages that contain 100% ferns, lycopods and conifers and 0% flowering plants. Maybe they could dismiss a single coprolite as a dinosaur browsing in a bog full of ferns and confers. But when all coprolites from a single geological period all lack flowering plant pollen and plant parts and those coprolites are found associated with multiple species of dinosaurs in multiple locations on earth, it become very difficult to deny that the food that dinosaurs had available to eat did not include flowering plants. Someone might claim that dinosaurs found in these geological periods just didn’t like flowering plants and avoided them. This is very unlikely and would clearly be an ad-hoc hypothesis. Today all large herbivores very much prefer flowering plant leaves like grass over pine needles and ferns, but even if they tried to avoid all leaves and stems of flowering plants they should have still eaten pollen grains inadvertently since they are everywhere in the environment. When you combine the lack of flowering plants in dino poop along with the lack of flowering plant pollen and plant parts in the rocks that the same dinosaurs skeletons are found preserved in this becomes the smoking gun evidence for the theory that flowering plants did not even exist at the time that the dinosaurs lived in the Triassic and most of the Jurassic Periods.
****A side note here: For YECs, the dinosaurs preserved in the fossil record were preserved during a Global flood and they generally view those dinosaurs as running to escape the flood which is their explanation for why dinosaur fossils are not found in the lower portions of the geological column. There are millions and probably many billions of preserved dino-poops in the same rock layers that the dinosaur bones are found. Since these dinosaurs were presumably running around trying to avoid this chaotic flood the food they ate would have been whatever they could find which should have been a random mixture of the plants alive at the time of the flood. This makes it even more unlikely that they could have avoided eating flowering plants and that we would observe such a distinct pattern in their coprolites.****
What do YECs do with this data. They generally ignore it but when forced to confront it they deny that flowering plants were not present and prefer to say “How do you know, where you there?” In addition it is likely they would suggest that historical scientists don’t have the right worldview and so can’t interpret the data properly. They put models of dinosaurs in their museum surrounded by fruit trees and print books with dinosaurs helping people pluck fruit from trees. At the end of the day, they are sure that T. rex has short arms based on a couple of bones but they are more than willing to ignore hundreds of pieces of data that all point to the lack of flowering plants in most dinosaur diets. There seems to a picking and choosing what historical science data they want to accept.
Comments are closed.
The only thing not menacing about the king of the tyrant lizards was its tiny arms. T. rex wasn't the only dinosaur with small arms compared with the rest of its body; many of its theropod cousins — a group of bipedal, mostly meat-eating dinosaurs — shared this trait.What was the purpose of T. rex's tiny arms? ›
rexes might have found their tiny arms useful during feeding frenzies. If the carnivorous dinosaurs ate in packs like scavenging hyenas, crowding round the carcasses of Triceratops and other enormous contemporaries, it might have been tricky to keep larger arms out of the way of a rogue pair of jaws.Did the T. rex use its arms for anything? ›
rex might have had a huge, five-foot-long skull, yet its arms were only three feet long — the equivalent of a six-foot human with five-inch arms. According to a recent study, scientists believe the reason that the iconic T. rex had such short arms was to protect them during feeding frenzies on carcasses.Did T. rex have wings instead of arms? ›
It's also been said that the T-Rex's short arms may have actually been wings - as if there haven't been enough memes about their little arms. So, the feather theory states that the arms of the T-Rex might actually have been inverted, like that of an ostrich.Why did so many dinosaurs have small arms? ›
In this hypothesis, scientists suggest that the larger the skull, the more valuable it becomes for snatching prey. The arms then reduce as the skull takes over most, if not all, predatory functions. Still, the authors point out that the musculature of the arms suggests they were far from a useless, vestigial limb.What did T. rex evolve from? ›
Daspletosaurus torosus is most widely accepted as the direct ancestor to Tyrannosaurus rex. The only notable differences between the two are that Daspletosaurus possesses proportionally larger teeth, longer arms, and smaller feet, and is overall more muscular and heavily built than Tyrannosaurus.Could the T. rex have had wings? ›
Unambiguous evidence of wings was only found in maniraptoriform dinosaurs (ornithomimosaurs+Maniraptora). T. rex was a close relative of this group but not part of it.How did Tyrannosaurus Rex get their arms? ›
T. REX ARMS originally began as a Kydex company in September of 2013. I was in a cramped garage with hand tools, a band saw, and a dozen blue guns. From the start, I produced a few models of custom holsters made to customers specifications.Did dinosaurs have Down syndrome? ›
Why or why not? No.Is there proof that T. rex existed? ›
Almost everything about Tyrannosaurus rex indicates the enormous power of one of the largest theropod dinosaurs that ever existed. The first skeleton of Tyrannosaurus rex was discovered in 1902 in Hell Creek, Montana, by the Museum's famous fossil hunter Barnum Brown.
It is an unlikely relationship, but the humble pigeon is a descendant of the group of dinosaurs that also includes the mighty T. rex. The two species share a remarkable biological past.What animal is a descendant of T. rex? ›
T. rex's collagen proved to be most similar to chickens and ostriches; its next closest match was to alligators. Chickens and ostriches are only distantly related to each other, so the research says little about what kind of birds might be the closest relatives of the famous carnivore.Can at Rex see you if you stand still? ›
The Tyrannous Rex not only could see just fine, whether the object was moving or non-moving (which helps one not run into things), there's also quite a bit of evidence that the T-Rex's sight was extremely good, very possibly better than modern-day hawks and eagles.Is the T. rex blind? ›
The eye position of Tyrannosaurus rex was similar to that of modern humans, but their eyes and optic lobe were much larger than that of modern humans. T. rex, unlike most dinosaurs, had a combination of powerful eyesight and a great sense of smell.Did T. rex have feathers yes or no? ›
Paleontologists think feathers may have first evolved to keep dinosaurs warm. But while a young T. rex probably had a thin coat of downy feathers, an adult T. rex would not have needed feathers to stay warm.