Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs' Rise Was Slow, Not "Lucky Break," New Fossils Suggest
National Geographic News ^ | July 19, 2007 | Susan Brown

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs

1 posted on 07/20/2007 1:20:21 AM PDT by indcons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Ping


2 posted on 07/20/2007 1:20:39 AM PDT by indcons (Please contribute to FreeRepublic; what would we do without this forum?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons

here we go again

for decaes now, scientists told us how all the evidence ‘proved’ how the dinosaurs came to be, and now

viola

all of a sudden the previous theory is abandoned and anyone who believed it is a luddite


3 posted on 07/20/2007 2:44:56 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Well, actually you've got it wrong.

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?

4 posted on 07/20/2007 6:20:07 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
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.

5 posted on 07/20/2007 6:37:12 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Funny thing about science... When a better explanation shows up, it wins out over the old one based on the information found... Funny that... /s

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.

6 posted on 07/20/2007 6:54:32 AM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

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...”


7 posted on 07/20/2007 7:38:20 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

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!


8 posted on 07/20/2007 7:39:48 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
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

Really? The fundamental mechanism has changed? Care to elaborate?

9 posted on 07/20/2007 9:04:05 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

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?


10 posted on 07/20/2007 9:05:13 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; AFPhys; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; BenLurkin; Berosus; ...
This is part of the anti-impact / catastrophic extinction public relations offensive which has been going on for a while. Thanks indcons.
 
Catastrophism
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

11 posted on 07/20/2007 10:02:42 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, July 18, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons; blam; FairOpinion; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks indcons!

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)

12 posted on 07/20/2007 10:05:57 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, July 18, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons

:-)

13 posted on 07/20/2007 10:10:08 AM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
While all along, it has always said, “In the beginning, God...”

That isn't science; that's faith.

14 posted on 07/20/2007 10:29:35 AM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

While all along, it has always said, “In the beginning, God...”


Maybe in your book, but not mine.


15 posted on 07/20/2007 10:32:37 AM PDT by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: indcons

Pictures would’ve been nice.

Maybe Dr. Hovind can sell National Geographic some of his. He lived with dinosaurs.


16 posted on 07/20/2007 10:35:40 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons

punctuated equilibrium vs graduated equilibrium an old debate. Most likely both are correct.


17 posted on 07/20/2007 11:17:35 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Science is based on objective physical evidence. When new evidence comes to light, scientists, using the SM, test their hypothesis and take into account the new discoveries, based on merit.

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?

18 posted on 07/20/2007 11:21:52 AM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indcons

Dinosaurs?

“Didn’t exist.”

“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.


19 posted on 07/20/2007 11:23:30 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

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.


20 posted on 07/20/2007 11:24:13 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

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.


21 posted on 07/20/2007 11:25:00 AM PDT by SlowBoat407 (It's never a good time to get sucked into an evil vortex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
This is part of the anti-impact / catastrophic extinction public relations offensive which has been going on for a while.

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.

22 posted on 07/20/2007 12:02:25 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/chicxpage1.html

1. Chicxulub predates the KT boundary and is not the cause for the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: Evidence from NE Mexico

FYI

23 posted on 07/20/2007 6:23:10 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

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.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891257/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/983238/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991929/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088837/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333931/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707717/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725888/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840136/posts

also mentioned in a post in the blog topic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1607979/posts


24 posted on 07/20/2007 11:34:44 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, July 18, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Yes, there have been, and finding fossils from millions of years before a catastrophe which wiped out competition supports just such a link.


25 posted on 07/20/2007 11:37:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, July 18, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1725090/posts

“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.


26 posted on 07/20/2007 11:38:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, July 18, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

THANKS...


27 posted on 07/21/2007 3:52:22 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson