Skip to comments.Dinosaurs' Rise Was Slow, Not "Lucky Break," New Fossils Suggest
Posted on 07/20/2007 1:20:19 AM PDT by indcons
A new species of dinosaur ancestor is among a fossil trove recently uncovered in New Mexico that suggests the rise of the dinosaurs was a gradual process.
The find counters the theory that dinos came to dominate the landscape suddenly as the result of an evolutionary "lucky break."
Until now, fossils of dinosaur precursors had been found only in rocks more than 230 million years old. The first true dinosaurs were found in much younger deposits.
This lack of overlap led many experts to conclude that dinosaurs had burst onto the scene after intense competition or a dramatic extinction event wiped out their predecessors.
But the latest bounty of bones from late Triassic rocks—between 210 million and 220 million years old—includes fossils of several different kinds of dinosaur relatives alongside those of early true dinosaurs.
The mixed assembly led the paleontologists who found the fossils to conclude that the two groups lived side-by-side for 15 million to 20 million years.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
here we go again
for decaes now, scientists told us how all the evidence ‘proved’ how the dinosaurs came to be, and now
all of a sudden the previous theory is abandoned and anyone who believed it is a luddite
Scientists couldn't find any evidence of an overlap, which was extremely puzzling, and attempted a whole bunch of unsatisfactory explanations. There was no generally accepted theory for why dinosaurs' ancestors disappeared if there wasn't an overlap.
But I love this creationist canard: on the one hand, you folks accuse scientists of sticking dogmatically to theories regardless of the evidence. On the other hand, you attack them for adjusting theories to fit the available evidence. So which is it?
Some folks just don't like science. I guess it comes up with inconvenient answers.
As to “all of a sudden”, well there have been competing theories, THEORIES mind you, about the rise of dino’s for a long time... Maybe this one’s the right one or maybe, since they’re digging up more fossils all the time, we’re going to find out that the species is older than we thought!
It’s called scientific investigation.
And I’m sorry if it doesn’t fit in you 15 min. time frame to have all the answers... Get a grip please.
no, the funny thing about ‘science’ is that for decades anyone who told the story one way was considered smart and all who disagreed were considered flat earthers (a ‘scientific belief’), only to have a new theory arise, and then the cycle repeats with new initiates who spread the latest flake theory about something that never happened, evolution, and then again claim that those who oppose it are flakes...
While all along, it has always said, “In the beginning, God...”
It’s actually both; you stick to the false religion of evolution while constantly revising how it happened and when or how long it took
evolution is so fun, you can change the means to ANY zany postulate!
Really? The fundamental mechanism has changed? Care to elaborate?
And by change, I mean since the modern evolutionary synthesis with the field of genetics in the 1930s. Have the fundamentals of the theory of evolution changed?
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·|
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)
That isn't science; that's faith.
While all along, it has always said, In the beginning, God...
Pictures would’ve been nice.
Maybe Dr. Hovind can sell National Geographic some of his. He lived with dinosaurs.
punctuated equilibrium vs graduated equilibrium an old debate. Most likely both are correct.
This contrasts to the creationists, who cherry pick from both the bible and quackery, in the fear that any real evidence would mean that the bible isn't LITERALLY true.
As someone who is open to the existence of a deity, I cannot accept, nor respect the ideas of the creationists, due to their lack of understanding of the scientific method, and use of obfuscation at best, and outright lies at the worst, simply because if science is right, their whole metaphysical worldview will collapse.
Science is always accepting and examining new evidence. Can't really say that about the creationists, can we?
“God created the sun, the stars, the heavens and the earth, and then made Adam and Eve,” Everett said last Friday, before the Red Sox lost two of three in Atlanta. “The Bible never says anything about dinosaurs. You can’t say there were dinosaurs when you never saw them. Someone actually saw Adam and Eve. No one ever saw a Tyrannosaurus rex.”
What about dinosaur bones?
“Made by man,” he says.
That god argument is for punctuated equilibrium. (/s) Of course this has to completly ignore natural selection (both natural and human induced) which has been documented by science and recorded history.
Scientists are constantly looking for a single story that fits all of the evidence. Creationists are looking for all of the evidence that supports a single story.
You think this fossil discovery is part of a public relations offensive? There have been a number of catastrophic extinction events in our planet's history. The emergence of the dinosaurs just doesn't seem to be linked to one.
1. Chicxulub predates the KT boundary and is not the cause for the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: Evidence from NE Mexico
I believe there was an FR topic on Keller. The fact is, impacts do occur, they have disastrous and widespread (depending on the energy involved) or planetary effects, and Keller is just regurg’ing Dewey McLean’s claims that volcanism was involved, while denying that the impact did anything. I find it kind of sad.
also mentioned in a post in the blog topic:
Yes, there have been, and finding fossils from millions of years before a catastrophe which wiped out competition supports just such a link.
“I’m very happy they have done the analysis based on the literature and come up with the same conclusions that palaeontologists have been preaching all along,” Keller says.