MAMMALS

Asteroid that killed dinosaurs is not the only catastrophic event candidate to explain their sudden extinction, which is strange, because there's no need for any catastrophe. We observe mammals being on top of the food chain in almost all environments. It's obvious why dinosaurs went extinct. It's the same reason large reptiles are so rare today: their ability to move largely depends on temperature of the environment. Crocodiles and anakondas made it because they spend most of the time in water. Komodo dragons are an isolated endemic island specie - they had no competition.

Yet scientists keep looking for the catastrophe as if they are not aware of natural selection. I don't trust their dating technologies, but even if we accept that the extinction did happen, they claim precision of 250,000 years. This is more than enough for several species of mammals to eat everything that is not them all over the globe. Size and might of a dinosaur wouldn't help because they were born relatively small.

IMHO this is an example of science selling the religious apocalyptic mythology. Very similar to "Attila The Hun" story: "The End" comes for no reason, "once upon a time". I'm afraid that's not the only lie in paleontology, but this one is too obvious, and makes you question everything else.

I don't doubt that large reptiles ruled the Earth at some point. Their bones didn't survive. What they dig up is petrified fossils, a rock in a shape of something that was there millions of years ago. Can you make giant bone-like artificial rock, considering the demand? This would explain why we don't see giant mammals today, but there were giant dinosaurs 70 million years ago. Typical mythological hyperbolization. When I was in school, we were told the T. rex was the largest, up to 30m tall now he's been downgraded to 13m and a new giant Argentinosaurus was discovered instead: