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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-265 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-265 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