Skip to comments.Fossil finds shake up dinosaur theories
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 ...
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.
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).
A better headline:
Scientists wrong yet again...
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.
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.
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.
Yahoo news search reveals about 84 related articles. (Search term: “dinosaurs” “lived” “together”
How did that happen???
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.
Probably went shopping together for alligator shoes. They must have had "Smart Growth" back then too. Didn't want dinosaur sprawl.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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