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 ...
I wonder if they can even articulate what the ‘old’ theory that got shaken up was.
There is nothing in this science article that supports creationism.
Another ‘living fossil,’ I see...
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think dinosaurs ever existed and God put the bones and stuff around just to mess with our heads.
Thanks for the ping!
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?
And he messed with those Inca's heads pretty good too; made them scratch imaginary pictures on rocks! ;o)
Are insults necessary?
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.
I don't know, why don't you ask him?
Humans and dogs share the same environment. How did they differentiate?
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.
“There is nothing in this science article that supports creationism.”
Maybe, but do it change facts? Is there nothing left to learn?
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.
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”
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
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868851/posts
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
3) ???
4) profit!
OOOPS!
Time to change the science books again!
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!
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.
One would think you would know better by now.
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.
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.
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!
Except that my suggested title is more accurate than yours...
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
“That would be me”
If you say so....
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.
