What evolutional benefit is that?
The best answer comes down to two factors; oxygen and food. Oxygen levels were much higher 45 million years ago than they are today, and exposure to high amounts of oxygen have shown to drastically increase the productivity of the human body, so why not the same for animals. Second comes down to food. The more food, the more of an animal. The bigger the prey, the bigger the preditor needs to be or they need to be in greater numbers. When creatures like brachiosaure exist, it would understandable be difficult to kill it when small, thus animals that were larger would have better chances, or conversely animals that worked together. Of course, this is somewhat speculation and there could be other factors involved, but this is the simplest answer that makes sense.
I’m not sure of the answer, but generally not everything has to have an evolutionary benefit. As long as it isn’t detrimental to a species reproducing, it will continue to exist in the population.
People think of evolution as it’s needed straight A+ to pass, when C is enough.
Also what’s the definition of “passing?” The dinos we are talking about are extinct, they didn’t “pass” for long. A+ creatures things like alligators, ants, and crabs. On average a given species survives around a million years before going extinct. How long do you have to exist before you’re considered a successful species?
100+ million years qualifies as right in the middle of “for long” in my book. The fact that an asteroid or comet of biblical proportions wiped them out has nothing to do with evolutionary effectiveness. Most of the animals that did survive either A) lived in water or B) lived underground.
