To end this once and for all about spinosaurus

It looks like there was more to highlight after i highlighted that last slash mark, so maybe i didnt highlight it all.

Uhhh, Mr Happy, you AND Rex Fan have said it was weakly built before numberous  times.

Here's the image.

"In 2008 a spinosaurus vertabra was recovered. Part of the tall neural spine of the bone was broken off. It appeared to have been bitten in half. Its been suggested that the bite had been inflicted by carcharodontosaurus."

 http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/dinosaur/lost-world.html

@ S-Rex probably was wekly built, but hey, again my theory

We say lightly built, in comparison to other large theropods. Maybe the last part isn't as obvious, but that's what I mean. My reasoning is that if it had a mainly piscivourous lifestyle, it wouldn't need to be heavily built for combat (just my opinion/theory).

And what do you have to support your theory? I have said several times why it is likely not the case

Quote: Probably wasn't adapted for terrestrial prey, or fighting other theropods. But that's MY THEORY.

For once I actually agree with you, which is what I have been saying this entire time dude... Although the part about fighting is debatable

In fact i can PROVE Rex Fan has on another site.

That's exactly why he does have to prove his theory, because you think it is unlikely. Just deal with it that we have different opinions than you, ok? Just. Deal. With. It. 

multiple things bud.

1.) the mere FACT we have next to nothing on spinosaurus, you cannot say you know all of these things about its anatomy.

2.) It's a FACt dinosaurs died at 65MYA, so we don't really know anything. You cannot claim stuff said above is irresputable. Professional paleontologists can't even do that without coming under heavy criticism.

So a few nearly complete rostra do not qualify as knowing something about the animal?

also, you made zero sense in what you just posted. You said nothing about my theory, you just went on your "spinos ability to grip shpeel again'

and NO! goddamn, you have part of it's face. that is all. with part of it's spine! i don't think that qualifies for any knowledge on Spinosaurus.

You can state anything claiming it to be a fact, when in reality, 99% is opinion. 

and no offense bud, but i'll wait for a scientific study of the Spinosaurus' jaws before i take your words as the 100% undisputable truth.

Oh shit, my bad, I meant Thoery

You mean the link to the picture that I ended up posting? Yeah, we saw that.

the comparison? i did, didn't make sense to your argument, like most of your posts. Carchy has a more robust skull. that is all. larger spots for jaw muscles too, that adds to how robust and strong an animals skull is i believe.

Quote: the comparison? i did, didn't make sense to your argument, like most of your posts.

Why not?

Quote: Carchy has a more robust skull. that is all.

The truth is, it does not in terms of build... Sure it is possible that it was much stronger vertically (for EVOLUTIONARY REASONS), but this has nothing to do about robusticity buddy. Spinosaurus' snout was denser and more compact, albeit weaker vertically.

Quote: larger spots for jaw muscles too, that adds to how robust and strong an animals skull is i believe.

Actually, the capacity for which its snout is strong is attributed to its depth, nothing more. 

Spinosaurus, however, was less well designed for killing in the same way. It did not possess an exceptionally deep snout or slicing dentition and was rather not well designed for killing but instead gripping. The large fenestrae present in carcharodontosaurus' rostrum (which is fundamentally one of the primary factors contributing to its lessened ability to grip without injury) evolved to lighten its skull, as it simply did not require such impressive gripping resistance; spinosaurus in turn was characterized by a much less lightly-constructed rostrum that was more-so a solid piece of bone (it was not 100% solid of course, but it was still a generally dense structure for the most part). Based on what evidence we have, spinosaurus simply seems far better adapted for gripping resistance which is in strong correspondence with its primary diet of large fish.

your comparing apples and oranges man. You are way better off comparing spino to other spinosaurs, or modern day crocodilians. Of course Carchy wasn't adept at gripping, it's skull was simply not made for it! this is like your allosaurus comparison..lets focus on your carcharodontosaurus comment:

Those large circles at the back, are you saying those AREN'T for jaw muscles?