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

Skip to comments.

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
2 hours, 55 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer

BOMBAY, India - U.S. and Indian scientists said Wednesday they have discovered a new carnivorous dinosaur species in India after finding bones in the western part of the country.

Photo
AP Photo


Missed Tech Tuesday?
Check out the powerful new PDA crop, plus the best buys for any budget


The new dinosaur species was named Rajasaurus narmadensis, or "Regal reptile from the Narmada," after the Narmada River region where the bones were found.

The dinosaurs were between 25-30 feet long, had a horn above their skulls, were relatively heavy and walked on two legs, scientists said. They preyed on long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs on the Indian subcontinent during the Cretaceous Period at the end of the dinosaur age, 65 million years ago.

"It's fabulous to be able to see this dinosaur which lived as the age of dinosaurs came to a close," said Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "It was a significant predator that was related to species on continental Africa, Madagascar and South America."

Working with Indian scientists, Sereno and paleontologist Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan reconstructed the dinosaur skull in a project funded partly by the National Geographic (news - web sites) Society.

A model of the assembled skull was presented Wednesday by the American scientists to their counterparts from Punjab University in northern India and the Geological Survey of India during a Bombay news conference.

Scientists said they hope the discovery will help explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and the shifting of the continents — how India separated from Africa, Madagascar, Australia and Antarctica and collided with Asia.

The dinosaur bones were discovered during the past 18 years by Indian scientists Suresh Srivastava of the Geological Survey of India and Ashok Sahni, a paleontologist at Punjab University.

When the bones were examined, "we realized we had a partial skeleton of an undiscovered species," Sereno said.

The scientists said they believe the Rajasaurus roamed the Southern Hemisphere land masses of present-day Madagascar, Africa and South America.

"People don't realize dinosaurs are the only large-bodied animal that lived, evolved and died at a time when all continents were united," Sereno said.

The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The Rajasaurus discovery may provide crucial clues, Sereno said.

India has seen quite a few paleontological discoveries recently.

In 1997, villagers discovered about 300 fossilized dinosaur eggs in Pisdura, 440 miles northeast of Bombay, that Indian scientists said were laid by four-legged, long-necked vegetarian creatures.

Indian scientists said the dinosaur embryos in the eggs may have suffocated during volcanic eruptions.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; antarctica; australia; catastrophism; crevolist; dino; dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs; ichthyostega; india; madagascar; narmadabasin; narmadensis; paleontology; rajasaurus; rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 3,101-3,129 next last

1 posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nwrep

2 posted on 08/13/2003 9:03:50 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Is that corned beef or ham?
3 posted on 08/13/2003 9:05:37 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
Its dinosaur beef with fins.
4 posted on 08/13/2003 9:07:34 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Cool! Except for the 65 million years part. The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The cause is not the only thing still debated, or even that they are entirely extinct. Dinosaurs were just big lizards and very likely lived with human beings. Some may even be alive today.
5 posted on 08/13/2003 9:08:01 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
It's Java-the-hut man!
6 posted on 08/13/2003 9:09:02 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Dinosaurs were just big lizards and very likely lived with human beings.

Um, no.

7 posted on 08/13/2003 9:10:22 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Um, yeah.
8 posted on 08/13/2003 9:12:13 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2

9 posted on 08/13/2003 9:14:06 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Another species that Noah forgot to put on the ark?
10 posted on 08/13/2003 9:16:58 PM PDT by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
Noah put animals in the ark according to KIND, not species. You can have several different variations within say the dog family, but you only had to have a minimal amount of original ancestors. Dinosaurs were likely on the ark, and are likely mentioned in the Bible as well. Noah was old enough (over 600) to know not to bring full grown dinosaurs on the boat when babies could do.
11 posted on 08/13/2003 9:21:02 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Hillary again????

Sheesh, man her types are showing up all over the place :-)

12 posted on 08/13/2003 9:23:17 PM PDT by prophetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Are Dinosaurs alive today?

Where Jurassic Park went wrong


By Robert Doolan
First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 15(4):12–15 September–November 1993

WHILE movie mogul Steven Spielberg prepared for the premiere of his US $50 million blockbuster dinosaur film Jurassic Park in early 1993, equally spectacular dinosaur-type news was flowing in from around the world.

From China there were claims that more than 1,000 people had seen a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang.1

From Scotland came the latest Loch Ness monster sighting: Mrs Edna MacInnes reported on June 24 that she had seen a 15-metre-long creature with a neck like a giraffe in Loch Ness.2

From Canada, Professor P. LeBlond of the University of British Columbia told a meeting of zoologists about the many sightings of 'Caddy'—short for Cadborosaurus — around the British Columbia coast and as far south as Oregon. The remains of a three-metre juvenile 'Caddy' have actually been found in the stomach of a whale.3

It's been a big year for monsters. Russian scientists were startled to find remains of dwarf mammoths on Wrangel Island, off the Siberian coast, which they said were living only 3,700 years ago4 And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons.5

Whether it's Spielberg or stegodons, 'Nessie' or 'Caddy'-dinosaurs and such creatures are on news reports and in conversations everywhere. And because most people have heard only the evolutionary viewpoint about these creatures, it is important that Christians know how to respond to the evolutionary comments.

Take Jurassic Park for instance The plot revolves around a quirky billionaire who sets out to recreate dinosaurs from DNA extracted from a blood. sucking insect which had dined on dinosaur and had then been trapped in amber (fossilized tree resin).

Dinosaurs are then genetically recreated for the tycoon's dinosaur theme park. But the dinosaurs break out of control, escape from the park, and start feasting on passing vehicles. People around the world have been asking if scientists could really resurrect these robust reptiles from DNA extracted from a preserved insect allegedly more than 100 million years old.

The answer is No!

Despite the hype, Jurassic Park is fiction. Scientists have not yet found dinosaur DNA in any amber-preserved insects. But if they did, even evolutionists admit that the DNA, a notoriously unstable molecule, would be too degraded to carry a complete dinosaur genetic blueprint.6

In fact, Oxford molecular biologist Bryan Sykes admitted in the journal Nature that the rate at which DNA breaks down in the laboratory is such that 'no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years.'7

That is enough to kill the theory. But, in addition, reconstructing the genetic blueprint of an extinct creature poses seemingly insurmountable problems. Molecular geneticist Russell Higuchi compares the task to 'finding an encyclopaedia ripped into shreds and written in a language you barely comprehend, and having to reassemble it in the dark, without using your hands.'8
About four million fragments would have to be linked in the correct order- without knowing what that order was!

So, despite what you hear about multi-million-year-old insects being found, DNA in them means the insect can be only thousands of years old at most. And how to bring the creature back to life is something science today has no idea how to do-a fact overlooked in Jurassic Park.

Dinosaur Sightings



But could real dinosaurs be living today? What about all the reported sightings? If dinosaurs died out more than 60 million years ago, as evolutionists propose, then there can't be any convincing evidence for their living today, or even in recent times.

Yet fresh, unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found. In 1987, a young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo), working with scientist from Memorial University, Newfoundland (Canada), on Bylot Island, found a bone which was identified as part of a lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaurs.

In 1981, scientists identified dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. The bones had been so fresh (relatively speaking) that the geologist who had found them thought at first they must have been bison bones. They have now been identified as belonging to horned dinosaurs, duckbill dinosaurs, and small carnivorous dinosaurs.'

Bones, of course, don't stay fresh very long-certainly not for millions of years. These discoveries clearly indicate that dinosaurs were around recently.

American Indians have stories of creatures they call 'thunderbirds', the description of which resembles that of a pterosaur. It is possible that the reason they can describe and draw these creatures is because their ancestors saw them.

Less conclusive perhaps, but not necessarily to be dismissed, are modern claims of sightings of dinosaur-type creatures. Yet even among these there seem credible eyewitnesses. Some scientific attempts to verify the existence of dinosaurs today have centred around the remote jungles of the Republic of the Congo, in central western Africa.

Several scientific expeditions have taken place there, with the help and sponsorship of the Congolese Government, in an effort to verify reports of previously unidentified animals. One of these animals, known to the local natives as Mokele-mbembe, fits the description of a small plant-eating dinosaur.

Biologist Dr Roy P. Mackal, from the University of Chicago, has led some of these trips through the harsh, humid, swampy environment of the Congo. He has written a book about his excursions, which includes summaries from other researchers who have been on expeditions to the Congo's Likouala region."

New Species Identified



Mackal says that a giant turtle and a monkey-eating bird have been identified with some certainty as living in the Likouala swamps. An unknown species of large crocodile also seems to inhabit the area.

If this is where things were left, there would be general agreement that these are exciting discoveries for science, and that more research would be worthwhile. But Dr Mackal also reports sightings of other unidentified creatures, including Mokele-mbembe, which he is fairly convinced is a small sauropod dinosaur.

This is where less open-minded scientists switch off. But Mackal has support from other scientists and researchers who say they have seen evidence of Mokele-mbembe on their expeditions. Some have been on these nerve-racking dinosaur hunts several times. As Mackal says, he would 'not endure extreme hardship and danger, even risk my life, to pursue a dream with no basis in reality.'

Biologist Marcellin Agnagna is another trained scientist who officially reported seeing Mokele-mbembe. He said that on May I, 1983, he and members of his party came across a Mokele-mbembe in the Congo's remote Lake Tele.12 It had a wide back, a long neck, and a small head. The front of it was brown, and its back appeared black. It was in the shallow water of the lake, and the length visible above the waterline was about five metres (16 feet). Agnagna said, 'It can be said with certainty that the animal we saw was Mokele-mbembe, that it was quite alive, and, furthermore, that it is known to many inhabitants of the Likouala region.'

It is therefore possible that at least one type of dinosaur may be living today. If it is indisputably accepted after further investigation, it would not be the first time that creatures which evolutionists had thought had died out millions of years ago have actually been found alive.

But it is important to distinguish between fantasy, feasibility, and fact.

Jurassic Park, though seemingly based on high-tech real science, is fantasy. Tests show that DNA would not last much more than 10,000 years, certainly not millions; reconstructing the genetic blueprint of such long-gone creatures is overwhelmingly complex and is probably impossible; and getting life back into those molecules or cells is something which science today has no idea how to do.

The feasibility of the idea that some dinosaurs may still be alive has a little more support, although at this time we would have to say it is not conclusive.

The fact, however, is that creationists are in a better position than evolutionists on these matters. Whether you consider the DNA aspect or the fresh dinosaur bones aspect, the evolutionary idea of millions of years does not look credible.

And when you consider the complexity involved in the genetic code-and that the fossil record shows no dinosaur evolution-the God-honouring conviction that dinosaurs and all other life came about through supernatural creation looks very convincing indeed.
13 posted on 08/13/2003 9:29:09 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
What is the scientific definition of "kind"? Where are the descendants of these dinosaurs now? Dinosaurs were warm blooded. They were not lizards! I'll tell you who the descendants are: the birds!
14 posted on 08/13/2003 9:29:44 PM PDT by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
Please read the above for an answer on that. Incidentally, Many scientists are beginning to back off of the bird theory. Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor which was a known hoax) was not a dinosaur. It was a bird.
15 posted on 08/13/2003 9:32:53 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Are Dinosaurs alive today?


16 posted on 08/13/2003 9:34:52 PM PDT by My2Cents ("I'm the party pooper..." -- Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
What is the scientific definition of "kind"?
A good working definition would probably be that which can produce after itself. You aren't going to have a cat, for example, mating with a dog- but dogs mate with wolves. Those create hybrid species, but you do not get a monkey say from a banana.
17 posted on 08/13/2003 9:34:59 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
There we go! It's conclusive!!!
18 posted on 08/13/2003 9:35:25 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
There are also Christian missionaries who have reported seeing teradactyls (sp?) in remote New Zealand jungles.
19 posted on 08/13/2003 9:40:51 PM PDT by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
Yeah. I have heard about that. And the natives from the region who see drawings of a pterodactyl (I'm not sure if that's right myself in spelling) recognize it as a living species in their region. They also fear them.
20 posted on 08/13/2003 9:44:17 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
Incidentally, in your theory, what does the warm-blooded/cold-blooded distinction have to do with anything? Evolutionists believe we came from a rock! Whats a little blood temperature in comparison to that?
21 posted on 08/13/2003 9:45:37 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
New Dinosaur Species Found in India

And here I thought they were referring to the American IT worker.

22 posted on 08/13/2003 9:47:07 PM PDT by Euro-American Scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
By the way, dinosaurs were reptiles as are lizards. Lizards are ectotherms, not just "cold-blooded". Their body temperature varies.
23 posted on 08/13/2003 10:15:38 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Clarification on my previous post (which I'll admit was a little confusing). Lizards are ectotherms as opposed to endotherms. Dinosaurs are also ectotherms as well. They are just great big lizards, in other words. An example of a non-creationist who agrees is found here:http://oregonstate.edu/dept/science-record/dinos.html
24 posted on 08/13/2003 10:29:37 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
This link is interesting on pterodactyls http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/konga/konga.htm
25 posted on 08/13/2003 11:00:13 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Incidentally, Many scientists are beginning to back off of the bird theory.

And most have not. Furthermore, recent discoveries have filled in even more of the "missing links" in the dinosaur-to-bird transition. More information. Another excellent site. Here's an amusing excerpt from that last link:

And really, the Birds-Are-Not-Dinosaurs (BAND) group seriously are a constant source of amusement to me. As soon as one theory on why birds cannot be dinosaurs is demolished by a new discovery, the BAND crowd come up with a new theory that is even less plausible than their previous one. Over the past few years, these folks have adopted more positions than the Kama Sutra.

Archaeopteryx [...] was not a dinosaur. It was a bird.

It's always funny listening to creationists try to explain Archaeopteryx. The reason it's so funny is that half of them declare it to be "obviously" just a bird -- and the other half declare it to be "obviously" just a reptile.

So it's a bird, eh? Well that explains the wings and feathers and so on. But how then do you explain these clearly reptilian features?

Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered. This is posh talk for "does not have a bill."

Trunk region vertebra are free. In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.

Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section. A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds.

Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it. This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards.

Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds. The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs.

Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets. This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface: "The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds" (de Beer 1954, p. 17).

Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle). Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.

Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth. No modern bird possess teeth.

Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum. Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.

Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).

The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra. This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae!

Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible. This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused.

Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole). This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds.

Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles. Typical of reptiles but not found in birds.

Claws on 3 unfused digits. No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits.

The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg. This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced. [When you eat a chicken drumstick, the fibula is the toothpick-like sliver of bone you find lying alongside the large "legbone", which is the tibia. Ich.]

Metatarsals (foot bones) free. In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus.

Gastralia present. Gastralia are "ventral ribs," elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds

[The above condensed from All About Archaeopteryx by Chris Nedin, which has far more information and quotes from primary research.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

I have to warn you, if you've gotten your "information" from creationist sources, you've likely been woefully misinformed and underinformed.

(unlike Archaeoraptor which was a known hoax)

That's overstating the case. It's more accurate to say it was a fraud. And not by those evil(tm) evolutionists, either, as creationists like to imply. More than anything else, it was a comedy of errors.

The Chinese farmer who found the original specimen knew that it would sell for more money to fossil collectors if it was more complete, so he shaped and glued plausible (to him) pieces he had found nearby onto a broken specimen. He was just trying to make a buck, not hoax anyone into any particular scientific conclusion.

It was eventually bought by a husband-wife team of semi-professional fossil collectors (dubbed "hobbyists" in some accounts), who decided they had something interesting and brought it to the attention of National Geographic magazine, hoping for fame and fortune. If it turned out to be significant, it could be their Big Break in the fossil community.

National Geographic normally doesn't publish new discoveries without first having them peer-reviewed in advance by scientists (even though, note, National Geographic is not itself a "scientific" publication). For various reasons they neglected to do so this time, and the result was egg on their faces.

Through a number of communication failures, red flags raised by several members of the team examining the specimen were not communicated to the right people (some of which were out in the field working on other projects), and eventually National Geographic went to press with an announcment of a new "discovery" that turned out to have been incorrectly assembled like a jigsaw puzzle. (Note: The fact that the specimen was glued together in several places was not itself a tip-off, since specimens are often broken into several pieces naturally prior to being discovered, or broken during recovery, and then glued together to retain their form.)

It was only a matter of weeks before the attention created by the publication resulted in a flood of scientists pointing out the obviously inauthentic nature of the specimen, and National Geographic published an embarrassed retraction and post-mortem analysis of how they had managed to screw up.

Significantly, the two *science* journals to which the fossil owners had submitted papers on the specimen (prior to the National Geographic publication) had rejected them. The journal Nature rejected it because National Geographic would not give them enough time to properly peer review the matter before NG's publication, and they would not print it without peer review (good for them, this is why peer-review is a critical scientific "reality check").

The paper was then submitted to the journal Science, which rejected it, saying they required more proof of Archaeoraptor's birdlike qualities. The paper was rewritten and resubmitted, and again rejected as inadequate.

So contrary to creationist claims about this debacle, 1) the fraud was perpetrated by a Chinese farmer out to make a buck, not an agenda-driven scientist, 2) the mass-market magazine National Geographic was responsible for the premature announcement of its alleged "missing link" status, not the science community nor science journals, 3) actual science journals rejected it, and 4) scientists were the first to identify it as a fraud as soon as they got a look at it.

Rather than being a story of science's alleged frauds or errors, it's actually a story of how self-correcting science is.

26 posted on 08/14/2003 1:13:51 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
By the way, dinosaurs were reptiles as are lizards. Lizards are ectotherms, not just "cold-blooded". Their body temperature varies.

This much is correct.

Clarification on my previous post (which I'll admit was a little confusing). Lizards are ectotherms as opposed to endotherms.

And so is this.

Dinosaurs are also ectotherms as well. They are just great big lizards, in other words.

This, on the other hand... Dinosaurs may or may not have been ectotherms. There's a lot of debate and contradictory evidence about that. One of the latest views is that they actually had some features of both ectothermic and endothermic metabolisms (i.e., it may not be either-or, they may have been sort of in-between).

But even if they were ectothermic, that does *not* make them "big lizards". Ectothermia is hardly the defining characteristic of what makes a reptile a lizard. If it were, turtles and snakes would be "lizards" as well, and they're not.

Dinosaurs are their own distinct category, as specialized and different from lizards as lizards are from snakes/turtles.

27 posted on 08/14/2003 1:32:24 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
And most have not. Furthermore, recent discoveries have filled in even more of the "missing links" in the dinosaur-to-bird transition. More information. Another excellent site.

First, your assumption that "Most have not" is an assertion. It is not proven. It is your assertion. Only 55% of Scientists reportedly believe in Darwinian evolution. But even if all of the scientists believed that dinosaurs became birds, what would that prove? A couple of hundred years, most scientists "Believed" in bloodletting. Many many years ago most scientists believed the earth was flat (incidentally, the Bible has always claimed the earth was round). A hundred years ago, the universe was only 2 Billion years old and now it is 4.6 billion (better act quick, this place is gettin' old QUICK!). What Scientists take on faith is not proof of anything. There are some MAJOR problems with the dino-to-bird theory, but rather than admit them, dogmatists insist that dinosaurs "obviously" became birds, we just have to prove how. They start with an assumption that they are taking on faith, but have observed squat. Repeatable observation is usually what defines true science. Your scientists have a theory and nothing more.

Here's an amusing excerpt from that last link:

And really, the Birds-Are-Not-Dinosaurs (BAND) group seriously are a constant source of amusement to me.


Glad he finds us so amusing. Of course, the notion that a complex human being that came from a non-personal rock is pretty rip roaring hilarious too, don'tcha admit???

As soon as one theory on why birds cannot be dinosaurs is demolished by a new discovery, the BAND crowd come up with a new theory that is even less plausible than their previous one. Over the past few years, these folks have adopted more positions than the Kama Sutra.

And Darwinists haven't???? Give me a break here!!!! This dog isn't going to hunt. Anyone who has studied any of evolution at all know that the vast majority of Darwinian scientists don't even agree amongst themselves and are CONSTANTLY coming out with new theories of how the earth evolved. These theories range anywhere from the traditional big-bang primordial soup gig to panspermia (which is a position held by DNA co-founder Francis Crick stating that the world shows intelligent design, but OBVIOUSLY we can't admit God could have done all this, so the aliens came here millions and millions of years ago and planted seeds- boy that's science!).

Archaeopteryx [...] was not a dinosaur. It was a bird.
It's always funny listening to creationists try to explain Archaeopteryx. The reason it's so funny is that half of them declare it to be "obviously" just a bird -- and the other half declare it to be "obviously" just a reptile.

Smoke-screen, and a blatantly arrogant one at that. I have stated that it is a bird. Some of your other "dino-birds" that have been postulated to be transitional species ARE, in fact, just reptiles. (see Sinosauropteryx) Appealing to what other people have or have not said (most creationists I have heard of say it is a bird) does not address the issue at point. One thing is for sure, it is not a bird-a-tile.

So it's a bird, eh? Well that explains the wings and feathers and so on.
And so on... Why not spell out the "and so on" Things like lung design that is that of a bird and not of a reptile. Jaw design (bird). It's wishbone (bird). Foot design (bird). Etc.,

But how then do you explain these clearly reptilian features?
Mammals and reptiles share many common features. Does not prove we came from one another, just that we had the same designer. How do you explain the fish on Free Republic (rat-faced something or 'nother) that had a horn growing out of its head? Most fish don't have these, but it doesn't mean that it is a reptile.

Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered. This is posh talk for "does not have a bill."
And a dinosaur's maxilla does not move. Birds do.

Trunk region vertebra are free. In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.
Paleontologists classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. It may be different from most birds
Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section. A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds.
Which proves nothing, other than this bird is different from most other birds as dromaeosaurs are different from other dinosaurs.

Many of the features you named within this section are comparing this saur from that saur and saying well, Archaeopteryx really looks more like the saurs than like birds. But examine that. The fact that this saur has this feature and that saur has that feature shows that there are frequently things within each classification that may be unique to a particular species. For example, plesiosaurs don't have wings like pterodactyls. Some dinosaurs don't have long necks, some eat vegetables and some eat meat. Doesn't prove anything other than God's creation is diverse. Just because something LOOKs like something else, does not mean it evolved from something else.

Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle). Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.
"In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archaeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans is very similar to those of Archaeopteryx. One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile." "

Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth. No modern bird possess teeth.
Several early birds did have teeth. So is Archy a modern or an early bird???

The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra. This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae!

See above.

Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible. This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused.
Yes, and most mammals have free moving joints in their wrists. Moles don't. Does that mean a mole is not a mammal? Most birds may have fused carpo-metacarpus. This one doesn't. So???

Claws on 3 unfused digits. No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits.
This is incorrect. There are at least 3 modern birds with claws on their wings.


Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Are you?

I have to warn you, if you've gotten your "information" from creationist sources, you've likely been woefully misinformed and underinformed.

Herein lies your problem. You are throwing out evidence simply because you know that the source does not agree with your theory. You make an unsubstatiated assertion, appealing to only the authority of your own opinion on such sources, but I would hasten to say that I doubt you've really studied these creationist sources in much detail at all. Your pro-evolution bias is merely religion in another form. If you choose to believe these things, fine. But you show your hand when you refuse to consider what any source has to say because "it's creationist."

Evolution is a failed theory. It has contributed SQUAT to the scientific effort. When it doesn't work and is proven not to work, rather than consider other options, the evolutionist stubbornly clings to the theory and postulates things such as punctuated equilibrium to explain what he can't explain. The bias is so strong that it is simply UNTHINKABLE to admit everything shows design, and if there is design there is a designer, and that designer just might be a God to whom we are ALL accountable. We can NEVER admit that. I don't find evolutionists "amusing". I find them pathetically sad. I also find them angering because they willfully distort the record in text books to get kids to believe the lie of evolution while suppressing anything that even sounds like creation. This is not science. It is indoctrination of a religious dogma.

(unlike Archaeoraptor which was a known hoax)
That's overstating the case. It's more accurate to say it was a fraud. And not by those evil(tm) evolutionists, either, as creationists like to imply. More than anything else, it was a comedy of errors.


You just can't admit a wrong can you? Archaeoraptor WAS a known hoax. It wasn't perpetrated by a creationist, or believed by creationists either. Rather, it was believed by evolutionists and tauted as a possible "missing link". It became known to be a hoax and was a real embarassment to the evolution community. No "comedy of errors" It was a deliberate hoax and the evolutionist religionists were willing to bite.
28 posted on 08/14/2003 10:31:28 AM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
29 posted on 08/14/2003 12:01:14 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Note that no "Creation Scientist" contributed to the debunking. (Similarly for Piltdown.) Peer review is probably the most important component of scientific endeavor. (Too bad, the House of Commons is trying get rid of its own Peer review.)
30 posted on 08/14/2003 12:07:22 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Dinosaurs were just big lizards and very likely lived with human beings. Some may even be alive today.

And when you aren't watching, they eat from your table.


31 posted on 08/14/2003 12:10:53 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Only 55% of Scientists reportedly believe in Darwinian evolution.

Cite, please.

Many many years ago most scientists believed the earth was flat

Which scientists, when?

(incidentally, the Bible has always claimed the earth was round).

Round, as in a flat disk.

These theories range anywhere from the traditional big-bang primordial soup gig to panspermia (which is a position held by DNA co-founder Francis Crick stating that the world shows intelligent design, but OBVIOUSLY we can't admit God could have done all this, so the aliens came here millions and millions of years ago and planted seeds- boy that's science!

Crick wrote one paper discussing the possibility of panspermia. He has not to my knowledge ever stated the world shows intelligent design.

32 posted on 08/14/2003 12:11:06 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Dinosaurs were just big lizards and very likely lived with human beings.

Oh my. I'm certain you have plenty of evidence to support both the contentions you made above, otherwise you wouldn't have made them. I'd like to see what you've got, if you don't mind.

33 posted on 08/14/2003 12:11:41 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Medved lives!
34 posted on 08/14/2003 12:13:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
You found FLUFFY !

I missed her. She looks a little skinny, though. I'll have to get a stronger leash this time.

Bad Fluffy...bad !
35 posted on 08/14/2003 12:14:31 PM PDT by PoorMuttly (chasetailchasetailchasetailchasetailchasetai........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Evolutionists believe we came from a rock!

No, we don't. However, the Bible teaches man was formed from dirt, so one could make the claim that that which you attribute to evolutionists more accurately portrays creationists.

36 posted on 08/14/2003 12:18:03 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
By the way, dinosaurs were reptiles as are lizards.

Actually, dinosaurs are now considered a separate group, descended from reptiles (as were mammals) but with unique features setting them apart from reptiles.

37 posted on 08/14/2003 12:19:48 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I was reading about Fred Hoyle the other day. His objection to abiogenesis was the assumed absense of a reducing atmosphere in the early earth. He also suggested panspermia. It pushes first life back further without adding much explanation.
38 posted on 08/14/2003 12:25:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I dunno. He lacks old Ted's flair.
39 posted on 08/14/2003 12:28:27 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Junior
True, no flair. But he has an amazing capacity to pack a large number of creationisms into a single post. You gotta give credit where it's due.
40 posted on 08/14/2003 12:30:45 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: All
While we're at it: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American.
41 posted on 08/14/2003 12:34:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons.5

But weren't, apparently...

MAMMOTH TALES

Back in Blather 1.52, mention was made of having seen and heard retired Royal Engineer Colonel John Blashford-Snell at UnCon98, speaking about his 'Mammoth Hunt' to Nepal.
Back then, Blather promised to bring you a discussion of the book *Mammoth Hunt -- In Search of the Giant Elephants of Nepal*, co-written by Blashford-Snell with actress Rula Lenska. Well, finally perused, and finally closed a matter of hours ago, *Mammoth Hunt* is one of those rare books that can only be described as a Damned Good Read.

Around 1987, Blashford-Snell (hitherto referred to as JBS) was made aware of rumours concerning 'giant mammoths' which were pillaging villages in remote areas of Nepal. JBS, who has been leading expeditions to remote regions for many years -- with Operation Raleigh, Discovery Expeditions and the Scientific Exploration Society -- decided that Nepal was a good place to bring the *clients* of Discovery Expeditions. In all, some seven separate expeditions were executed between 1991 and 1997, the first team containing many tired and listless executives in need of a good shaking up, as well as one Mark O'Shea, described as being a 'mad Irish snake expert'.

While *Mammoth Hunt* isn't the kind of book usually discussed in Blather, i.e. it doesn't deal with phenomenalism, at least not in any deliberate sense, *Mammoth Hunt* would be of definite interest to everyone from the armchair-adventurer, those interested in travelling to more *exotic* locations, and to readers with even just a passing interest in cryptozoology.
Not that these expeditions were of a consciously cryptozoological nature -- the word doesn't appear in the book -- but it does illustrate how rumours of apparently impossibly animals, such as live mammoths, rubbished by many, did in fact have some element of 'truth' to them.

The entire seven year adventure holds tales of rafting down the Karnali river, drives along precarious cliff-top roads and horrendous bus crashes, remote tribes who shun agriculture, army anti-poaching squads who live in the woods, lost Babylonic citadels in the jungle, whitewater rafting, encounters with tigers, rhino, leeches and savage sloths. . . and the elephants, both wild and domesticated.

When scouting for the 'Beasts of Bardia' -- Bardia being the forest where the giant elephants had been seen -- JBS and his teams of Europeans, Nepalese naturalists, rafters, mahouts and phanits (both classes of elephant drivers), quite rightly decided to travel on tame elephants. And so we are introduced to these intelligent animals and their engaging personalities. Most of us are unaware that some elephants can respond to between thirty and sixty different verbal commands, or that, in Lenska's words 'they can be mischievous and cheeky, sad and depressed, volatile and bad tempered, lazy and frisky, sulky and cuddly and happy. They also cry with fear and pain and emotional hurt.'

After much searching. the expeditions found two large temperamental and peculiar-looking bull elephants wandering about the woods, the larger one becoming known as *Raja Gaj* - meaning King Elephant, while the smaller was known as *Kancha* -- Youngest. The elephants were much larger than the average Indian elephant, with a shoulder height of over 11ft (3.35m) for Raja Gaj, and they had a strange sloping back, protuberant forehead, and a thick tail.

Finding such huge volatile playboys lolling about the jungle seems to have brought its own problems, as these elephants were possibly exiles from a herd, led by a *bigger* bull. One particular encounter with Raja Gaj was even more hair-raising than normal, as he was in *musth* - male heat, with irritating yellow fluid seeping from behind his eye. Not only was the King in search of lurve, he was angry too, and I'm sure that even sitting in a *howdah* (seat on an elephants back) of even the fiercest of matriarchal elephants can't have felt too safe. In fact, Madu Mala Kali (Honey Blossom), the aforementioned matriarch saw fit, in the middle of night, to briefly elope with Raja Gaj -- he snapped her chains effortlessly, but she was reclaimed (the word 'recapture' seems inappropriate here) without too much effort.

DNA of these huge wild creatures was recovered, from their dung, and while they don't seem to be 'mammoths' as such, they are certainly in a class of their own. Dr Adrian Lister, a palaeontologist who was on three trips to Bardia with JBS, gave the following statement in October 1995:

'Within the Asian elephants we have to compare the Nepalese beasts with populations in India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Burma, to see if the Nepalese animals are genetically distinct, maybe forming grouping with nearby populations from northern India. It would not surprise me to find that the Nepalese population has genetic variability, due to a phenomenon we call "bottlenecking", a result of isolation and the small numbers in the area. This might in turn account for the unusual anatomy of the Bardia elephants.'

In this writer's opinion, and even though JBS found this news 'somewhat disappointing', these finding are no less magical than finding a prehistoric survivor. It's always intriguing to consider many of the allegations of mysterious animals, while respecting the 1938 discovery of a living coelacanth, previously only known from fossil records. But there are others -- and *Nessie* is no exception -- that seem to be continuously interpreted as living prehistoric animals, with the intimation that any other possibility, e.g. a new mammal, is somehow less interesting.

By the time you read this issue of Blather its author will be at Lake Seljord in Norway, help to ascertain facts about the existence of an alleged mysterious water animal. While we would be thrilled to find a new species, it doesn't have to be a *dinosaur*.

*Mammoth Hunt -- In Search of the Giant Elephants of Nepal*
John Blashford-Snell and Rula Lenska
Harper Collins 1997
(ISBN 0-00-638741-1)
'All profits from the sale of this book will be used by the Scientific Exploration Society for the protection of and preservation of endangered wildlife, and the Asian elephant in particular'

Dave (daev) Walsh
Written on July 23rd, 1998
LINK

A new supspecies of the Indian elephant would certainly be an interesting discovery, and I don't discount the possibility of finding new large or lost species, even today. Just a few years ago, an new subspecies of the Javan rhinocerous was discovered in Vietnam.


42 posted on 08/14/2003 12:38:04 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Viva la 187!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
Be nice. DittoJed2 is on his own here.
43 posted on 08/14/2003 12:44:47 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
No one is ever alone or on their own.
44 posted on 08/14/2003 12:46:29 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

New Dinosaur found in India

Us Science Museams looking to outsource work away from more expensive American Dinosaurs..

45 posted on 08/14/2003 12:46:42 PM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
For your information: many of the regulars on the science threads here on Free Republic have joined in the AGREEMENT OF THE WILLING to promote civil discourse and to avoid flame wars which lead to excessive use of the abuse button, transfer to the Smokey Backroom, and ultimately ... thread deletion. I respectfully ask that you read the linked agreement so that you will know what the willing parties expect of one another and their dealings with others.
46 posted on 08/14/2003 12:48:48 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
The Javan Rhino is indeed a very interesting creature. Thanks for the article.
47 posted on 08/14/2003 12:52:00 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
;^)>
48 posted on 08/14/2003 12:54:07 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...
Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

49 posted on 08/14/2003 12:55:49 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
True, no flair. But he has an amazing capacity to pack a large number of creationisms into a single post. You gotta give credit where it's due.

Wow, the show never stops, does it?

50 posted on 08/14/2003 1:09:31 PM PDT by balrog666 (Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 3,101-3,129 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