China finds new species of big, bird-like dinosaur

Yahoo News/Reuters ^ | Wed Jun 13 | Tan Ee Lyn and Ben Blanchard

[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.

[EndWelfareToday]

Can we all say, "Peaking Man?" HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[metmom]

A fossil from China. Seems to me archeoraptor was also *found* in China.

Does it have *Made in China* stamped on its butt?

[SolidWood]

The Chinese will figure out how to eat it.

[Hang'emAll]

Peking Duck.

[Coyoteman]

That's Pekin Man.

---

Fossil: Pekin Man

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:

Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=43

[Ingtar]

[EndWelfareToday]

That's Pekin Man.

Yeah! That's him. ;-) He was found to be a hoax much like I suspect this Gigantoraptor erlianensis will be. (LOL)

Thanks.

I wonder what "evolved" from the Gigantoraptor erlianensis?
Any ideas?

[nhoward14]

I believe the answer is in post 6.

[EndWelfareToday]

I believe the answer is in post 6.

So that's where liberals came from!?

[Coyoteman]

He was found to be a hoax much like I suspect this Gigantoraptor erlianensis will be.

Sorry, not true.

(Where do you come up with this stuff?)

[EndWelfareToday]

From sources evolutionists don’t like. Real Scientists. ;)

[Coyoteman]

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?)

[pabianice]

Polly wanna human?

[Larry Lucido]

More like Peking Duck.

[Larry Lucido]

Darn you!

[Hang'emAll]

First thing that came to mind. Peking duck is good though.

[EndWelfareToday]

I apologize if I have offended you Coyoteman. After spending almost half a century following the lies that have been perpetrated upon society by the evolutionists I am really not open to get into a flaming competition with you or anyone else. I know for a fact that evolution is nothing more than a theory which has NO evidence to support it's claims. For me to sit and try to argue with you about who's sources are more credible will only further the evolutionist's agenda by giving it attention it does not deserve. For over 150 years people have been buying into Darwin's drug induced hallucination's while at the same time ignoring his own conclusions. The original Pekin Man as your own post shows was never brought to a lab and examined. In fact he supposedly vanished during a military action never to be seen again.

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.

Be well!

[Coyoteman]

I know for a fact that evolution is nothing more than a theory which has NO evidence to support it's claims.

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.)

[norton]

Sorry to break in and risk some sort of escalation.

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.

[EndWelfareToday]

I'm not confusing anything my friend. Just do a Google search if you'd like. Every single "missing link" to date has been proven to be a hoax.

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.

[EndWelfareToday]

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(?)

A very good point. I guess when I read that this bird had been found in China it reminded me of the Pekin Man which as you know was an alleged "missing-link" in man's evolution. I thought it would be fun to see what people thought might have "evolved" from this newest "find."

Don't get me wrong folks. I love anthropology. In fact a good friend of my had the Krzyzanowskisaurus named after him. It too was a bird like creature (Much smaller mind you.) I just don't buy into the whole junk science religion or it's evolutionary hooey.

[Coyoteman]

I'm not confusing anything my friend. Just do a Google search if you'd like. Every single "missing link" to date has been proven to be a hoax.

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.

I am not upset in the least. I am only disagreeing with your idea that Pekin Man was a hoax.

I spent six years in grad school, half of it in evolution and closely related fields, so I have actually looked at the data.

But if you don't want to argue I'll just wish you a pleasant day. Bye for now.

[ahayes]

Wow. I’ve rarely seen projection on such a massive scale.

[gcruse]

” I love anthropology.’

You love it so much, you don’t even know what it means. LOL

[dontposttome]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

From the Creation Museum maybe? ;)

[Renfield]

More here, with nice illustrations, if you are interested...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2007-06-13-gigantic-bird-dinosaur_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[ex-snook]

The Peking Bird?

[blam]

[EndWelfareToday]

You love it so much, you don’t even know what it means. LOL

I don't? Hmmmm? Why would you assume that I don't know what it means?

[mutley]

More here, with nice illustrations, if you are interested...

Wowee! That would take a very large rotisserie.

[gcruse]

Because you said...

“Don’t get me wrong folks. I love anthropology. In fact a good friend of my had the Krzyzanowskisaurus named after him. It too was a bird like creature (Much smaller mind you.)”

What does anthropology [study of human beings at all times and in all places] have to do with anything following “in fact” ?

[EndWelfareToday]

Please forgive me for not simplifying my post. I didn't take the time to formulate a response in a manner that would have foreseen someone trying to attack my intelligence but what can I say? I screwed up. Had I not separated this sentence "I guess when I read that this bird had been found in China it reminded me of the Pekin Man which as you know was an alleged 'missing-link' in man's evolution." from the one you've chosen to cheery pick out of my post my thoughts might have been easier for you to comprehend?

Then again maybe not.

I don't always stop to sort out what occasionally turns out to be a hodgepodge of rambling thoughts. If they confused you... well. Too bad. ;-)

[Stultis]

I know for a fact that evolution is nothing more than a theory which has NO evidence to support it's claims.

You couldn't have done a better job in illustrating your lack of understanding as to the nature and requirements of scientific theories. It's absolutely contradictory to refer to a "theory" with no supporting evidence. No scientific idea gets anywhere near to the point of being properly called a "theory" without extensive and/or specific evidence in its support.

[EndWelfareToday]

You couldn't have done a better job in illustrating your lack of understanding as to the nature and requirements of scientific theories.

Yeah. I know. Everyone in the world that cherishes Scientific fact over theories are idiots and beneath you elitists. Sorry! Maybe you will have mercy on those of us less evolved than you eh?!

[Coyoteman]

Yeah. I know. Everyone in the world that cherishes Scientific fact over theories are idiots and beneath you elitists.

It is not a matter of selecting one over the other. Both facts and theories are required in order to do science.

I think Heinlein may have expressed this best:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.

Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481

[Stultis]

Everyone in the world that cherishes Scientific fact over theories are idiots and beneath you elitists.

Well, yeah, actually. "Cherishing" fact over theory is a bit idiotic. So is "cherishing" theory over fact. Either is at least as idiotic as criticizing a car mechanic for (supposedly) "cherishing" wrenches over screwdrivers, or vice versa. Or maybe hand tools over engine hoists would be a better example.

In any case, whether wrenches vs screwdrivers or hand tools vs engine hoists, both are necessary to rebuild an engine. By the same token both facts and theories are necessary to do science. They're just different kinds of things is all. Facts (and laws) are descriptive, whereas theories are explanatory.

The job of a scientific theory is to explain facts. (And the job in turn of scientific facts is to test theories.) Furthermore the requirements of a scientific theory are such that the explanations provided must be non gratuitous (not ad hoc and based on the consequences of the theory's model or mechanisms) and that a given theory must explain at least some facts that are not accounted for by previous or would-be-competing theories. So theoretical explanations must be non-gratuitous, specific, and in at least some cases unique. Therefore the facts explained by a theory (at least those not accounted for equally well by other theories) must also constitute evidence for the theory.

This is why your previous reference to evolution as a "theory," but one for which there is "NO evidence," is so nonsensical. It's equivalent to saying evolution is a theory which explains nothing. But a theory that explains nothing is not a theory.

The problem here is obvious. You think facts are "good" and theories are "bad". Again this is just like (and just as idiotic as) saying that wrenches are "good" and screw drivers are "bad" wrt to the needs of mechanic. Or like saying that apples are "good" and oranges are "bad," and etc.

[Stultis]

Interestingly I hadn't yet read your reply while composing mine.

Coyoteman:

Both facts and theories are required in order to do science

Stultis:

both facts and theories are necessary to do science

...great minds...

[Coyoteman]

Science is what it is.

All the claims and deliberate misstatements by the creationists will not change the way science works; the scientific method has been narrowed down to a pretty workable and efficient way of getting results in the real world. And it produces verifiable results!

They can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.

I'll stick to science.

[Stultis]

The original Pekin Man as your own post shows was never brought to a lab and examined. In fact he supposedly vanished during a military action never to be seen again.

That's wildly false. Granted the original "Peking Man" (Chinese Homo erectus from Zhoukoudian) fossils never left China, and were lost with the baggage of the U.S. Marines evacuating ahead of the Japanese, but they certainly were studied extensively in laboratories. Davidson Black, and following his death in 1934 Franz Weidenreich, made highly accurate casts and sent them to scientists and institutions around the world. There were also photographs, measurements, detailed descriptions, and even X-rays. All of this record material was brought back to the United States by Weidenreich who left China ahead of the Marines in 1941. For instance here is one of the x-rays (and an ordinary photograph) of Skull XII:

Here's a better image of the same skull:

What's more further remains of Homo erectus have been excavated, in situ, at the original "Peking Man" site since the war, and we still have those fossils.

Indeed peices of a skull were found in 1966 that matched perfectly with casts of material found by Davidson Black in 1934. Here's a picture and description of that skull from chineseprehistory.org:

Skull V from Zhoukoudian has an interesting history. Portions of this skull-cap were first found in the 1930s. Along with the rest of the human fossil collection from Zhoukoudian these fragments were lost during World War II. Excellent molds of all the human specimens were made, however, and primary casts are still available at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and the American Museum in New York. In 1966 the frontal bone and a portion of the occipital bone of Skull 5 were found during renewed excavations at Zhoukoudian. They fit perfectly with casts of the original pieces found in 1934 and 1936, allowing for the reconstruction of a nearly complete skull-cap. Skull 5 is thought to come from younger deposits at Zhoukoudian and to show certain relatively advanced features compared to other crania from the site. In overall character, however, it does not differ significantly from previously known specimens of "Peking Man."

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Creationist Arguments: Peking Man (talkorigins)
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html

Thanks to the InternetArchive we can still access the extensive information and resources at the recently defunct "ChinesePrehistory.org":
web.archive.org/web/20060428134041/http://www.chineseprehistory.org/

[Nachoman]

Looks more like a dinosaur-like bird to me.

[Coyoteman]

Good post.

Of course it doesn't mean anything.

Because these fossils have been called a "missing link" we are being told that they are a hoax. As are all other "missing links." Hoaxes all!

Never mind that "missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific one. Never mind that the term is wildly inaccurate -- the newspapers said it, its science! Please ignore the fact that about 99.9% of newspaper reporters are ignorant of the science they are reporting. (If they knew anything about science they wouldn't have to be reporters!)

Somewhere, some creationist website (for religious reasons) decided that Pekin Man is a hoax and that claim has been repeated endlessly on the creationist circuit, so that is what creationists believe. And that is what they parrot on these threads. They don't know this for a fact, they have not personally studied the subject, they have never handled the casts nor read the descriptions of the original scientists -- but they know that these fossils are a hoax! And the scientists who have studied the casts, spent their entire careers immersed in the subject, well, they know nothing. They are non-believers, "evilutionists."

What a crock. Perfect examples of Heinlein said:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[Stultis]

I still think you must be confusing that find with Piltdown Man, which was a hoax.

Just for the record I don't see how that could be the explanation. In the message you were replying to EndWelfareToday says: "In fact he [the original Peking Man] supposedly vanished during a military action never to be seen again."

That could only be referring to Peking Man (the loss of the pre-War Zhoukoudian fossils during the Japanese invasion).

[Coyoteman]

I still think you must be confusing that find with Piltdown Man, which was a hoax.

Just for the record I don't see how that could be the explanation. In the message you were replying to EndWelfareToday says: "In fact he [the original Peking Man] supposedly vanished during a military action never to be seen again."

That could only be referring to Peking Man (the loss of the pre-War Zhoukoudian fossils during the Japanese invasion).

But Pekin Man was not a "hoax." The only hoax I know of in evolution is Piltdown Man.

But I have looked back at previous posts, and find that Peking Man was indeed claimed to be a hoax -- because it was a "missing link" and all missing links have been shown to be hoaxes. So, you are correct in your statement.

This is another example of creation "science" at work -- it is obvious that creation "science" has no necessary connection to real science or to the real world; it is based strictly on religious belief. Creationists oppose real science whenever it does not coincide with their religious beliefs.

[Stultis]

Oh, Lord. Creationists at one time or another (and often enough at the same time) have claimed nearly everything about Peking Man. It was a monkey, it was an ape, it was human, Zhoukoudian wasn't even a cave but a lime-works (this from a idiotic Catholic Priest who happened to be in the country at the but never even visited the site, and yet whose ludicrous accounts are accepted uncritically by later creationists), that the anatomically modern humans from the upper cave were really found in the lower cave and were "suppressed", and on and on and on.

The only common denominator is resolutely ignoring mountains of fact, and lying with equal resolution about the rest.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Renfield. Added, but not going to ping, just another cr/evo bloodbath.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You claimed Pekin Man was a hoax. Lets see your evidence.

Let's have a look at Peking man. Surprise! It was all packed in a box and lost. But if you go to the Chinese Peking man museum you may, on a lucky day, get to see one of two small skull fragments that are sometimes on display.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Davidson Black, and following his death in 1934 Franz Weidenreich, made highly accurate casts and sent them to scientists and institutions around the world.

Davidson Black previously worked on Piltdown Man, no?

[Theo]

You’re a brave man, trying to bring truth to the lie of anti-God Darwinism when Coyoteman and his gang are waiting in the wings to attack anyone who believes that God indeed made “all this” and that the evidence doesn’t support the contention that “meaning” and “complexity” sprang from disordered slime over the course of billions of years.

As for me, I avoid crevo threads because the conversation is fruitless. Pigs and pearls and all that. If people are predisposed to hate God (or at least see Him as irrelevant), they are drawn inextricably to Darwinism. It’s a convenient way to assuage the guilt of sin (which can truly only be dealt with by bringing it to the cross).

[Theo]

The only hoax I know of in evolution is Piltdown Man

Two words: Nebraska Man.

[Stultis]

Davidson Black previously worked on Piltdown Man, no?

Not exactly, but close. Black was a student of Grafton Elliot Smith at the time Smith was working with Piltdown. G.E. Smith was certainly an ethusiatic supporter of Piltdown, but Black, intrigued as he was with human evolution, appears not to have been entirely convinced. And so he left England and instead went to Asia to look for human ancestors.