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

Skip to comments.

Fossil finds shake up dinosaur theories
The Mercury News ^ | July 19, 2007 | Betsy Mason

Posted on 07/22/2007 8:19:41 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Dinosaur fossils found in New Mexico are challenging the idea that when dinosaurs appeared on the scene some 235 million years ago, they quickly rose to dominate the landscape.

Buried among the dinosaur bones, a team led by UC Berkeley paleontologists discovered the remnants of the dinosaurs' predecessors, dinosauromorphs, that lived 15-20 million years after the first dinosaur showed up.

"It was very exciting because we knew this was a type of animal that no one thought you'd find anywhere at any time in North America," said paleontologist Randall Irmis, a graduate student at UC Berkeley and lead author of the study which appears today in Science.

The discovery means that dinosaurs didn't simply replace their ancestors. Instead, the two types of animals lived side-by-side and competed for resources for millions of years.

"It has shaken up the old theory," said Bill Parker, a paleontologist at Petrified Forest National Park who also studies dinosaurs. "Everything was nice and neat before."

Scientists thought dinosaurs evolved from the dinosauromorphs in South America. Then, they may have driven their predecessors to extinction by outcompeting them with their bigger, faster and stronger bodies. Or, their ancestors and other animals suddenly went extinct for another reason, and the dinosaurs took advantage of the newly empty ecological niches.

Either way, the belief was that by the time dinosaurs were roaming North America, the dinosauromorphs were long gone.

"Everybody thought those animals had gone extinct," Parker said. "I think people are going to be surprised."

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevo; dinosaur; dinosaurs; evolution; fsmdidit; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-265 next last

1 posted on 07/22/2007 8:19:43 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me

2 posted on 07/22/2007 8:20:15 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; AnalogReigns; banalblues; Baraonda; ...

I wonder if they can even articulate what the ‘old’ theory that got shaken up was.


3 posted on 07/22/2007 8:24:28 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"It has shaken up the old theory," said Bill (Colonel) Parker

I'm all shook up ... uhhuehh heyyaaa


4 posted on 07/22/2007 8:32:46 PM PDT by Mr_Moonlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Give it up.

There is nothing in this science article that supports creationism.

5 posted on 07/22/2007 8:40:24 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Moonlight

Another ‘living fossil,’ I see...


6 posted on 07/22/2007 8:40:29 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"It was very exciting because we knew this was a type of animal that no one thought you'd find anywhere at any time in North America," said paleontologist Randall Irmis

If anyone found a fossil human in rock that was "200-million-years old", of course that would raise serious doubts about the theory. But, of course, such a fossil has never been found.

But here we have an fossil being found which really wasn't supposed to be there at this time and this place. It goes against the theory.

Is anyone going say that serious doubts about the theory are raised? No. Don't be stupid. The theory cannot be question. We hold on to the theory no matter what. We just tweak it whenever contradictory evidence is found. That's (ahem) science.

7 posted on 07/22/2007 8:40:59 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Hypothesized lounge lizard ancestor:

8 posted on 07/22/2007 8:51:25 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But here we have an fossil being found which really wasn't supposed to be there at this time and this place. It goes against the theory.

Is anyone going say that serious doubts about the theory are raised? No. Don't be stupid. The theory cannot be question. We hold on to the theory no matter what. We just tweak it whenever contradictory evidence is found. That's (ahem) science.

You are wrong throughout.

Scientific theories are always modified if the data changes or if additional data is found. If the theory can't accommodate the new data, the theory has to be scrapped and a new theory developed. In this case, this is a very minor detail and does not change anything in the underlying theory of evolution. It just fills in a missing piece of the puzzle.

It is religious dogma that can't change to accommodate new data: new data such as the age of the earth (ca. 4.5 billion years) or the lack of a global flood about 4350 years ago.

9 posted on 07/22/2007 8:51:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; DaveLoneRanger
"Give it up.
There is nothing in this science article that supports creationism."

Shows how little understanding you have of the issue. - The facts of the article fully support what one would expect in a specially created world, and the opposite of what the dumwinists wish to portray.

10 posted on 07/22/2007 8:52:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I don’t think dinosaurs ever existed and God put the bones and stuff around just to mess with our heads.


11 posted on 07/22/2007 8:58:06 PM PDT by whereasandsoforth (Stamp out liberals with the big boot of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Thanks for the ping!


12 posted on 07/22/2007 9:03:19 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
In this case, this is a very minor detail and does not change anything in the underlying theory of evolution. It just fills in a missing piece of the puzzle.

Well, if you'd read the article, those guys disagree with you.

"It was very exciting because we knew this was a type of animal that no one thought you'd find anywhere at any time in North America," said paleontologist Randall Irmis, a graduate student at UC Berkeley and lead author of the study which appears today in Science.

"It has shaken up the old theory," said Bill Parker, a paleontologist at Petrified Forest National Park who also studies dinosaurs. "Everything was nice and neat before."

Oh, let me guess, they aren't *real* scientists. Their opinion doesn't count.

The discovery means that dinosaurs didn't simply replace their ancestors. Instead, the two types of animals lived side-by-side and competed for resources for millions of years.

Then how did they differentiate enough to become two distinct species if they shared the same environment? The initial genetic changes should not have been enough to prevent inbreeding for several generations, at least. So how DID they differentiate?

13 posted on 07/22/2007 9:10:24 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: whereasandsoforth
"God put the bones and stuff around just to mess with our heads."

And he messed with those Inca's heads pretty good too; made them scratch imaginary pictures on rocks! ;o)

14 posted on 07/22/2007 9:13:55 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Are insults necessary?


15 posted on 07/22/2007 9:14:08 PM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Don’t worry, they’ll find some way of fitting it into the ToE, because, after all, there will never be any evidence that doesn’t support it.

Creationists are always challenged to find evidence that would disprove the ToE and laughed at with the *if you can find any* comment. So they have decided already that there will never be any evidence that would disprove the ToE.

The amazing elastic one size fits all theory will go on being stretched to fit. They even admit it themselves; *the theory is adjusted as new data comes in*. No room for disproof there.


16 posted on 07/22/2007 9:14:40 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
"Are insults necessary?"

I don't know, why don't you ask him?

17 posted on 07/22/2007 9:15:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Then how did they differentiate enough to become two distinct species if they shared the same environment?

Humans and dogs share the same environment. How did they differentiate?

18 posted on 07/22/2007 9:21:07 PM PDT by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Newton’s theory of gravity was adjusted by Einstein, who had new data that Newton didn’t have. That doesn’t mean Newton was wrong or that gravity doesn’t exist. It’s the same thing with evolution.


19 posted on 07/22/2007 9:21:25 PM PDT by conserveababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“There is nothing in this science article that supports creationism.”

Maybe, but do it change facts? Is there nothing left to learn?


20 posted on 07/22/2007 9:23:06 PM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
“There is nothing in this science article that supports creationism.”

Maybe, but do it change facts? Is there nothing left to learn?

Not according to the creationists in this thread who appear to maintain that a theory must be complete and unalterable upon its creation, and any modification or addition to it PROVES that its false.

21 posted on 07/22/2007 9:31:07 PM PDT by MichiganMan (Last year, this consumer spent over $150 on native Linux games. Who wants my business next year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
It is religious dogma that can't change to accommodate new data: new data such as the age of the earth (ca. 4.5 billion years) or the lack of a global flood about 4350 years ago.

Complete bullshit. Speaking for my own faith, we accept avolutionary processes, etc, etc... (and we don't say "hey, religion is self correcting!" as an excuse if something turns out to be incorrect).

22 posted on 07/22/2007 9:43:04 PM PDT by Hacksaw (Appalachian by the grace of God! Montani Semper Liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Then how did they differentiate enough to become two distinct species if they shared the same environment? The initial genetic changes should not have been enough to prevent inbreeding for several generations, at least. So how DID they differentiate?"

The same ways ANY two species differentiate ( look up, allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation).

If you accept that wolves and coyotes have a common ancestor, you should be able to answer your own question.
23 posted on 07/22/2007 10:00:32 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

A better headline:

Scientists wrong yet again...


24 posted on 07/22/2007 10:25:25 PM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"Scientific theories are always modified if the data changes or if additional data is found. If the theory can't accommodate the new data, the theory has to be scrapped and a new theory developed. In this case, this is a very minor detail and does not change anything in the underlying theory of evolution." - Coyoteman

That's difficult to corroborate. The Theory of Evolution lacks any peer-reviewed falsification criteria in any established, recognized scientific publication...so whether or not new evidence changes (or falsifies) Evolutionary Theory is an open question.

25 posted on 07/22/2007 10:36:13 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ndt
"The same ways ANY two species differentiate ( look up, allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation). If you accept that wolves and coyotes have a common ancestor, you should be able to answer your own question."

Any two species? Nope.

That doesn't hold true for the very first two species of life. Impossible, mathematically, for the first species of life to cross-breed.

26 posted on 07/22/2007 10:38:40 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"That doesn't hold true for the very first two species of life. Impossible, mathematically, for the first species of life to cross-breed."

Not that I said anything about the first two species of life cross breeding (let me look.... nope never said that), but I'd love to see that mathematical proof you have. Please post.

So to recap

1) We aren't talking about the first to species

2) Differentiate is not a synonym of crossbreed

3) I'm waiting for your mathematical proof that shows what I never said is mathematically impossible
27 posted on 07/22/2007 10:46:58 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
"Scientists wrong yet again..."

Except that the discovery was made by scientists so the title would be "Scientists make yet another discovery" or maybe "Scientists 186,282 creationists 0"
28 posted on 07/22/2007 10:53:17 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The facts of the article fully support what one would expect in a specially created world..

This is so amazingly stupid that no reply I could make is fully up to the task.

I would only point out that ANY cobbled together "facts of the article" or ANY science fiction, ANY fantasy from "Lord of the Rings" to "The Courts of Amber", or indeed ANY description of ANY world or worlds with ANY conditions unlimited by anything but imagination could be expected in a specially created world.

29 posted on 07/22/2007 10:58:31 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

More-

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/07/22/news/r
egional/b5e31a410ba6d7418725731e0070435f.txt

Yahoo news search reveals about 84 related articles. (Search term: “dinosaurs” “lived” “together”


30 posted on 07/22/2007 11:17:16 PM PDT by MacDorcha ("So what if smoking kills me when I'm 80? Who wants to live to 90 anyway?"- SouthPark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/07/22/news/regional/b5e31a410ba6d7418725731e0070435f.txt

How did that happen???


31 posted on 07/22/2007 11:18:49 PM PDT by MacDorcha ("So what if smoking kills me when I'm 80? Who wants to live to 90 anyway?"- SouthPark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Amazing, the more things change the more they stay the same. We humans still don’t know anything, while many, mostly the secular darwinist humanists claim they know almost everything. When something arises to challenge their thinking, you get a whole lot of packpeddling. Meanwhile, there has yet to be any proof that the Bible has been wrong on anything, end of story.


32 posted on 07/22/2007 11:19:20 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Instead, the two types of animals lived side-by-side and competed for resources for millions of years.

Probably went shopping together for alligator shoes. They must have had "Smart Growth" back then too. Didn't want dinosaur sprawl.

33 posted on 07/22/2007 11:20:06 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Dinosaurs’ Rise Was Slow, Not “Lucky Break,” New Fossils Suggest
National Geographic News | July 19, 2007 | Susan Brown
Posted on 07/20/2007 4:20:19 AM EDT by indcons
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868851/posts


34 posted on 07/22/2007 11:21:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Saturday, July 21, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.

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)

35 posted on 07/22/2007 11:22:36 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Saturday, July 21, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Meanwhile, there has yet to be any proof that the Bible has been wrong on anything, end of story.

Well, I may or may not be a "secular darwinist," I don't know what that is, but I know there are a lot more things I don't know besides that.

But one of the things I DO know is that you wouldn't be persuaded that your statement as reproduced above is wrong, even if you were given locked-down, no-questions, bomb-resistant, angel-endorsed, carved-in-stone-by-bolts-of-lightning proof. Which I am sure there is.

The Bible has never been literally true. It's more like poetry. And that's the end of MY story.

36 posted on 07/22/2007 11:45:15 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Evolution is an impossibility, when will science give up trying to prove something that, no matter how much time is given, did not happen, period.

The probability that a single celled life form even started on its own is about 1:10 to the 40,000th power. Anything at or above 1:10 to the 50th power is no chance at all. Even given all the time and concessions science wants to give to evolution, at best the probability is 1:10 to the 132nd power, still an impossibility.

Then to suggest that a human evolved, the probability is 1:10 to the 1,000,000,000,000th power. Again, impossible. Evolution is just a Theory with no evidence to back it up.

It is science that can not change when its religious dogma to evolution can not be supported, either by the fossle record or existing life.

Its time to get over this evolution fairy tale.

37 posted on 07/23/2007 12:19:07 AM PDT by coincheck (America, the most generous country on the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: whereasandsoforth; editor-surveyor
You two are both wrong.

It was the aliens that are messing with us. They turned the nearest generation of dinosaurs into paleontologist that dig up old bones. That’s why there are two sets of bones there.

38 posted on 07/23/2007 12:45:08 AM PDT by SaltyJoe ("Social Justice" for the Unborn Child)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SaltyJoe

Well, there’s one thing evolution is good for. Without it, we wouldn’t have all these sci fi books and movies about all these aliens from outer space. Comic books wouldn’t be the same without all those mutant superheroes. Evolution may be an unfalsifiable conjecture that doesn’t make much sense but it makes for some great entertainment!


39 posted on 07/23/2007 2:24:11 AM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: coincheck

The more time you have, the more chances things will get worse, not better. The con game is in thinking that you can come up with everything you need with an idea that deals with tiny undetectable changes over unobserved ridiculously long amounts of time.

or in other words...The Darwin business plan:
1) start with a penny
2) wait a few billion years
3) ???
4) profit!


40 posted on 07/23/2007 2:38:26 AM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

OOOPS!

Time to change the science books again!


41 posted on 07/23/2007 3:10:46 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 2 ..GWB, we hardly knew you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webheart
Humans and dogs share the same environment. How did they differentiate?

Both derived from a common ancestor probably 100+ million years ago. Some physiology never changed: if you clip your dog's nails, you'll notice that the fronts grow twice as fast as the rears. Just like us!

42 posted on 07/23/2007 3:38:30 AM PDT by Does so
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Time won’t help at all, the probability of even a mycoplasma cell spontainously coming to life w/all the amino acids(about 400) to give it life is one chance in 10 to the 119,800th power and the time it would take(the age of the earth times 10 to the 119,800th power) still makes it impossible.

Evolution is a theory and thats all. It is sad that it is taught as fact in our schools and universities with no evidence to back it up. Someones best guess that science has turned into a religeon.


43 posted on 07/23/2007 3:52:45 AM PDT by coincheck (America, the most generous country on the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

One would think you would know better by now.


44 posted on 07/23/2007 4:58:07 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I think them dinosauromorphs have been hiding in my basement all this time along with a heap of other stuff.

Another good reason to put off cleaning it.


45 posted on 07/23/2007 4:59:13 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus ("Eat yer groatcakes, Porgy!" "Heavy on the thirty weight, Mom!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coincheck
w/all the amino acids(about 400)

It's easy to know everything when you know just about nothing, isn't it?

There are 20 standard amino acids used by most organisms to build proteins.

46 posted on 07/23/2007 5:02:54 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ahayes; coincheck

Woho....why we have a scientific moralist...

“It’s easy to know everything when you know just about nothing, isn’t it?”

Judgmental too, likes to cast the first stone!


47 posted on 07/23/2007 5:18:02 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ndt

Except that my suggested title is more accurate than yours...


48 posted on 07/23/2007 5:40:59 AM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Heck yes, except in the arena of science it goes, “Let he who is most qualified among you throw the first stone.” That would be me. :-D


49 posted on 07/23/2007 5:53:00 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

“That would be me”

If you say so....


50 posted on 07/23/2007 6:02:50 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-265 next last

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