New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[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.

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.

[DittoJed2]

I'll try to find it. I was at my library this week and have to return some books in 3.

[DittoJed2]

I just don't like the spirit of the site. I am aware of evolutionist bias (probably more than you all are) and can deal with it. TO gives the appearance that it is relatively unbiased and it is not. That's all.

[DittoJed2]

Of these species concepts, I like Recognition Species Concept the best. However, I have recognized that evolutionists have different concepts so that is why I have emphasized the ability to procreate.

[DittoJed2]

I haven't heard creationists totally deny speciation. But what I would argue is that the examples you are showing are micro evolution and not macro. You see, we share 53% of our DNA with a cabbage, but that doesn't mean that we had a common ancestor. (I know some cabbage-heads, but don't think a cabbage was their ancestor). It means we have a common designer who has set certain perimeters within all of creation which sustain life. I'll go back to my pie analogy. I can bake a pie, I can stick it in the sun, I can let it rot until it is no longer edible and stuff grows on top of it, but it is still a pie (a much fuzzier one but still by nature a pie). It will never turn into a cake, even though it has many of the same ingredients and may indeed be 95% similar in some of its ingredients. It is still a pie. We share 40 something percent of our DNA with Bananas, but we aren't related to them. We share 70% of our DNA with yeast, but are we all going to go volunteer to be Betty Crocker's next big baking experiment. The point is, just because there is a lot of similarity between our DNA and a chimps, does not mean that we share the same ancestors. And just as time plus a pie will not equal a cake, time plus similar genes has never been proven to produce the kind of species transformation which Darwinism has promised.

[DittoJed2]

Now here is your misconception: there is no such thing as "fully human" or "fully ape". There is no guarantee that we (or they) will remain what we consider at the moment to be "fully human" resp. "fully ape".

This is a hypothesis of how things are and is not backed up in fact. You can point to certain similarities, but that does not make this hypothesis correct. I, by the way, am fully human and I don't care if the world lasted 500 zillion years more, any offspring I have will also be fully human.

Somehow you seem to think that there is a predetermined goal towards which a population must evolve.
No I don't. I don't believe in evolution first off, and secondly I'm just addressing the evolution that evolutionists claim has already occurred. From soup to you plus chance and millions of millions and millions of years.

You can imagine such a population as a cloud that moves in a certain direction (determined by external influences).
This is getting scary. Could it be possible that the external influence might be called "God" and He created this population? Huh?

Within this "cloud" every individual is compatible with the rest so every male and female can have offspring.

Now at some point this "cloud" splits up and the two halves drift apart. But the more they depart from each other the harder it is for an indivdual from one "cloud" to produce offspring with an other individual from the other "cloud". Of course within each "cloud" males and females are still able to have viable and fertile offspring together.

A good example of two such "clouds" that have separated only recently are donkeys and horses: they can produce viable but infertile offspring.

An other example where these the two "clouds" moved even further appart is the camel and the llama: here you have to use artificial insemination to get any offspring.


First, I never denied that donkeys and horses probably had the same ancestors. If you had a donkey mate with a jackrabbit then you'd have something.
Second, donkeys are essentially a different kind of horse. Llamas and camels are also of the same family and the differences in each are clear examples of micro evolution or variation within species. They aren't examples of macro evolution. Remember, species is an artificial term designated by men to describe different types of animals. KIND is the biblical term and it is the boundary that cannot be transgressed. You may plant an ape embryo in a human someday and through medical manipulation allow that human to carry the ape, but the ape will be born exactly that, an ape. It isn't going to happen naturally. Some species may have been rendered infertile. That indicates genetic damage but not completely new information.

[DittoJed2]

Except what was posted doesn't support it at all. You have different types of the same thing (like different types of cat or dog).

[DittoJed2]

If "some" could make an actual case that circular reasoning was truly involved, I would admit that the observations should not count as supporting evidence.
How is the age of a fossil determined?

[DittoJed2]

Honestly, my definition of kind is less scientific sounding than that. What God meant to go together will go together and what He didn't won't. If it goes together and can reproduce, its a kind. If it goes together and suddenly stops producing even within the kind, it is still that original kind. It has mutated but it hasn't turned into a totally different "kind".

[jennyp]

From here: The Darwin Papers

I took a look at that website. The following snippet caught my eye. It does not fill me with confidence:

Even by evolutionists' own admission, this theory does not have one shred of evidence to support it. Ted Holden has written: "It is a pure pseudo-science seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could see or hear them, they wouldn't be witches...)”

Holden further wrote: ...

[general_re]

Holden further wrote: ...

"...Darwin - the stupidest white man ever!"

Can't believe they left that part out ;)

[Doctor Stochastic]

So, by your definition, individuals can be of the same "kind" even if they cannot mate?

[AndrewC]

Brian and Mike are of the same kind.

[DittoJed2]

If God meant for them to go together. When God told Noah to pack the Ark, he told him to get a male and female of every Kind. The purpose was to replenish the earth. Of that original sample group, there were likely no infertile kinds of animals and they all reproduced. Remember, up until the flood, people lived a really long time and it is likely that young animals were probably pretty disease free. After the flood, something changed drastically in the atmosphere to where people didn't live as long and within a few generations it leveled out to around 120 years max. The animals had probably bred considerably in that time as well and you began to see variations within the species. Some, even went extinct, and some ceased to be viable mates with others. But you did not see the animals ever becoming a different type of animal. Animals stick to their own kind, just as creation would predict.

[f.Christian]

ct ...

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one

Those are the most illuminated words you have said.

fC (( 7 - 28 - 2003 )) ...

To: conservababeJen

Evolution is only compatible with liberal statist socialism ... what it is founded upon and the militant variety is fascist - communist and all of conservatism and fundamentalism is at emnity to its core issue and base belief sytem!

They are irrevocable opposites ... anti thetical ... unassimilable !

I read a favorite story of Abraham Lincoln was asking people if we called the dog's tail a leg ... how many legs would the dog have ?

When thay answered ' five' ... he would smile wryly and say no ... ' only four ' --- the fifth leg is a lie !

Obviously he took his oath of office seriously to the reality of severe sacrifice - PRINCIPLE and not compromise !

415 posted on 07/28/2003 1:12 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)

[DittoJed2]

Great quote! Speaking of quotes, thought this was interesting. It's probably been posted before but just thought it interesting:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/darwinhitlertest.html

I'm late on the game. Was Holden the Medved that the Freeps were talking about about 2000 posts ago?

[AndrewC]

The very same.

|                    . .                     , ,                               
|                 ____)/                     \(____                            
|        _,--''''',-'/(                       )\`-.`````--._                 
|     ,-'       ,'  |  \       _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.             
|   ,'         /    |   `._   /\\   //\   _,'   |     \        `.            
|  |          |      `.    `-( ,\\_//  )-'    .'       |         |           
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\  ____`\o'_`o/'____  /_.----._ |_,----._ `.          
| |/'        \'        `\(      \(_)/      )/'        `/        `\|
| `                      `       V V       '                      '            

Splifford the bat says: Always remember:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an e********ist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.

[DittoJed2]

Where did he go?

[Doctor Stochastic]

So far you haven't given any indication of what a "kind" is.

[general_re]

He got hisself banned. Opinions will vary as to whether that banning was deserved or not, to put it mildly...

[DittoJed2]

Wrong. I gave an explanation of how I would define it but because it contained a supernatural element it doesn't count.