Skip to comments.China finds new species of big, bird-like dinosaur
Posted on 06/13/2007 8:09:23 AM PDT by EndWelfareToday
HONG KONG/BEIJING (Reuters) - China has uncovered the skeletal remains of a gigantic, surprisingly bird-like dinosaur, which has been classed as a new species.
Eight meters (26 ft) long and standing at twice the height of a man at the shoulder, the fossil of the feathered but flightless Gigantoraptor erlianensis was found in the Erlian basin in Inner Mongolia, researchers wrote in the latest issue of Nature.
The researchers said the dinosaur, discovered in April 2005, weighed about 1.4 tonnes and lived some 85 million years ago.
According to lines of arrested growth detected on its bones, it died as a young adult in its 11th year of life.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
A fossil from China. Seems to me archeoraptor was also *found* in China.
Does it have *Made in China* stamped on its butt?
The Chinese will figure out how to eat it.
Site: Zhoukoudian Cave, China (1)
Discovered By: W.C. Pei, 1928-1937 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 400,000 ya - 500,000 ya, * determined by Faunal, archaeological, radiometric, paleomagnetic & pollen data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo erectus (1), Homo erectus erectus (25)
Gender: Male (based on size) (15)
Cranial Capacity: 1043 cc (8)
Information: Original bones disappeared during WWII (casts made and now reside in New York) (1, 3, 7, 8)
Remains of 40 individuals found (along with stone tools and animal remains) (1, 7)
Interpretation: First evidence of human use of fire found here (1)
No evidence of fire in Zhoukoudian Cave (bones naturally burned and washed into cave) (7)
See original source for notes:
Yeah! That's him. ;-) He was found to be a hoax much like I suspect this Gigantoraptor erlianensis will be. (LOL)
I wonder what "evolved" from the Gigantoraptor erlianensis?
I believe the answer is in post 6.
So that's where liberals came from!?
Sorry, not true.
(Where do you come up with this stuff?)
From sources evolutionists don’t like. Real Scientists. ;)
You claimed Pekin Man was a hoax. Lets see your evidence.
(Or are you confusing Pekin Man with Piltdown Man, which was a hoax?)
Polly wanna human?
More like Peking Duck.
First thing that came to mind. Peking duck is good though.
Look... If it makes you feel better to believe in junk-science then please don't let me rain on your parade. I posted this article more as a lark for those of us that know the truth than to upset those of you sensitive to the challenges to your religion.
I hope that you will forgive me.
No flame wars, just asking for you to support a claim you made. Pekin Man was not a hoax; I still think you must be confusing that find with Piltdown Man, which was a hoax.
And I am aware that evolution is a theory; I have posted definitions many times of what a theory is in science (they are on my FR home page). But in science, a theory is one or more related hypotheses which have a lot of supporting data, which make predictions, and which have withstood the test of time. "Theory" in science does not mean "guess" or "hunch."
By the way, the Pekin Man find was not just one individual. It was quite a few, and they were studied by the scientist who found them. Since the war, other finds have been made in the same area, though none as spectacular as the original ones.
(See? No flame war.)
But I don't see where finding, or maybe finding, or claiming to have found, a new, bigger and better, bird like fossil makes a case for or against darwinism(?)
Evolution itself, changes in, and adaption of, structure over time, is pretty well assumed. Other implications of that theory are what causes debate.
What is not universally granted, what is possibly the minority view, is that life results from cataclismic soup and that humankind itself is part of Gigantoraptor Erlianensis' family tree.
I don't see where disagreement over the validity or lack thereof of Peking Man bears on that debate. There is a huge pile of evidence telling us that humans differ from each other across time and geography.
What's wrong with simply marveling at the possibility of another critter in the record?
It ain't like anyone is going to posit a featherless, huge, beaked, upright, lizard (or not) as somekind of missing link to Paris Hilton.
Rosy O'Donnell - maybe.
Sorry. As I said I am not interested in arguing. If I knew that I was going to upset anyone I would not have posted this article. I find Junk Science and all it's facets (Evolution, Environmentalism, etc.) to be absolutely hilarious. I was trying to put a smile on people's faces.
I hope you understand.