Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A new giant dinosaur gives insight into why many prehistoric meat-eaters had such tiny arms


A team co-led by University of Minnesota Twin Cities researcher Peter Makovicky and Argentinean colleagues Juan Canale and Sebastian Apesteguía has discovered a new huge, meat-eating dinosaur, dubbed Meraxes gigas. The new dinosaur provides clues about the evolution and biology of dinosaurs such as the Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex—specifically, why these animals had such big skulls and tiny arms.

The study is published in Current Biology, a peer-reviewed scientific biology journal.

Illustration of Meraxes
An international team that includes a University of Minnesota Twin Cities researcher has discovered a new big, meat-eating dinosaur, dubbed Meraxes gigas. Credit: Jorge Gonzalez

The researchers initially discovered Meraxes in Patagonia in 2012 and have spent the last several years extracting, preparing, and analyzing the specimen. The dinosaur is part of the Carcharodontosauridae family, a group of giant carnivorous theropods that also includes Giganotosaurus, one of the largest known meat-eating dinosaurs and one of the reptilian stars of the recently released “Jurassic World: Dominion” movie. 

Though not the largest among carcharodontosaurids, Meraxes was still an imposing animal measuring around 36 feet from snout to tail tip and weighing approximately 9,000 pounds. The researchers recovered the Meraxes from rocks that are around 90-95 million years old, alongside other dinosaurs including several long-necked sauropod specimens.

Meraxes is among the most complete carcharodontosaurid skeleton paleontologists have found yet in the southern hemisphere and includes nearly the entirety of the animal’s skull, hips, and both left and right arms and legs. 

“The neat thing is that we found the body plan is surprisingly similar to tyrannosaurs like T. rex,” said Peter Makovicky, one of the principal authors of the study and a professor in the University of Minnesota N.H. Winchell School of Earth and Environmental Sciences. “But, they’re not particularly closely related to T. rex. They’re from very different branches of the meat-eating dinosaur family tree. So, having this new discovery allowed us to probe the question of, ‘Why do these meat-eating dinosaurs get so big and have these dinky little arms?’”

With the statistical data that Meraxes provided, the researchers found that large, mega-predatory dinosaurs in all three families of therapods grew in similar ways. As they evolved, their skulls grew larger and their arms progressively shortened.

The possible uses of the tiny forelimbs in T. rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs have been the topic of much speculation and debate. 

“What we’re suggesting is that there’s a different take on this,” Makovicky said. “We shouldn’t worry so much about what the arms are being used for, because the arms are actually being reduced as a consequence of the skulls becoming massive. Whatever the arms may or may not have been used for, they’re taking on a secondary function since the skull is being optimized to handle larger prey.”

The researchers also found that carcharodontosaurids including species from Patagonia evolved very quickly, but then disappeared suddenly from the fossil record very soon after.

“Usually when animals are on the verge of extinction, it’s because they’re evolutionary rates are quite slow, meaning they aren’t adapting very quickly to their environment,” explained  Juan Canale, the study’s lead author and a researcher at the National University of Río Negro. “Here, we have evidence that Meraxes and its relatives were evolving quite fast and yet within a few million years of being around, they disappeared, and we don’t know why. It’s one of these finds where you answer some questions, but it generates more questions for the future.”

Note that the conclusions from the evolutionary model are contradicted by the fossil evidence presented.

The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, Municipalidad de Villa El Chocón, Fundación “Félix de Azara,” and the Field Museum in Chicago.


This study provides an opportunity to ask the question: Does adaptation evince rationality? The authors of the article are searching for and expecting to find a sensible explanation for what they term a natural adaptation seen in their observations of past living creatures. This type of rational explanation is different from what is used to explain observable phenomena in the physical sciences. (“Why is the sky blue?” “Because blue light scatters from air molecules up to 16 times more strongly than red light does.”) A physics explanation simply agrees with the mathematical predictions of the laws of physics. In contrast, there is no law of nature that mathematically predicts that carnivorous theropods should have “dinky little arms.” So, what warrant do we have to expect that unguided processes within an evolutionary model should yield rational outcomes? The expectation that the features of living things should have a rationally convincing purpose belongs within the paradigm of intelligent design.

Yes, but I'm still amazed at the "announcement" of a major discovery consisting of a vacuous speculation of an inverse between head size and forearm size. My guess is that these forearms are highly functional, while Darwinists guess that this is yet another random change such as what gave rise to "junk" DNA and "vestigial" organs such as the thyroid was originally thought to be. -Q Querius
Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is incapable of producing metazoans. So, forget about dinosaurs. ET
So, what's the new insight that Darwinists discovered here? Sounds more like this "discovery" is simply a new speculation to be piled on top of all the others without a shred of scientific evidence. And they think this is "science"? Really? -Q Querius
What’s the big mystery? Everybody knows that dinosaurs came from eggs–even little kids know that…..
you sure ? from eggs? how do you know ? what about a live-birth ? martin_r
CD at 10, Where does food come from? The store? :) relatd
Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Seversky
Martin_r/8 What's the big mystery? Everybody knows that dinosaurs came from eggs--even little kids know that..... chuckdarwin
To SA: Yes. Caspian
talking about dinos, all what matters is, that Darwinists have no clue where dinosaurs come from ... from Natural history museum website:
For over 170 million years they dominated the land, from small creatures just a few feet long to some of the largest animals ever to have walked Earth. But despite their long evolutionary history, the origin of dinosaurs remains shrouded in mystery… The earliest definitive dinosaur is not one animal but an entire ecosystem containing a few different species. There’s no universally accepted dinosaur species that lived earlier in time.
full article https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/where-did-dinosaurs-come-from.html martin_r
There’s not very much insight here in my opinion ...
i can only agree with you ... it is a grotesque .... the title of the article makes a bold claim, but all what you get is just another Darwinian conjecture / just-so story.... martin_r
Just a nickname
I sea. JHolo
Is it Eric? Silver Asiatic
To CD: Just a nickname Caspian
So, what gives with the recent nom de plume bylining these articles? chuckdarwin
There's not very much insight here in my opinion. The authors struggle to rationalize how evolution "musta" favored shorter arms:
“What we’re suggesting is that there’s a different take on this,” Makovicky says. “We shouldn’t worry so much about what the arms are being used for, because the arms are actually being reduced as a consequence of the skulls becoming massive. Whatever the arms may or may not have been used for, they’re taking on a secondary function since the skull is being optimized to handle larger prey.”
I'm really not sure how convincing their explanation is for the correlation between skull size and arm length beyond coincidence. I think there are better speculations based on stronger data that have been put forward in the past: - Such massive animals are likely to have been homoeothermic, otherwise it would take the entire day for them to warm up. - Falls by such massive animals would likely have been fatal. - Massive animals like this are likely to be very slow. - Their teeth and long and scary looking, but are relatively weakly rooted. Speculative conclusion: These animals were not predators, but rather scavengers of other large dinosaurs also found in Patagonia. The claws on their short arms could tear up rotting flesh, perhaps similar to how chickens tear up the ground to expose worms, or hold it in place while it's mouth tore off chucks to swallow. It could not use its hind legs for this task because Meraxes gigas needed stable legs just to avoid falling over. -Q Querius
As I've suggested in the past, an intelligent designer who knows ahead of time what the parameters are for a given planet with a certain atmosphere and gravity will reuse body plans and even make relatively minor design modifications. Blind, unguided chance just stumbling onto such a complex interaction of bones, muscles and related nervous system and sensory organ interactions is not credible. relatd

Leave a Reply