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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, your tagline makes an important point:

"Ignorance never settles a question."

This particular thread has become a treasure trove of points and counter points in the evolution v creation debate with insightful links and disclaimers. Hopefully, there will be a similar thread in the intelligent design v evolution debate.

Kudos to DittoJed2 and all her correspondents for a job exceedingly well done!

I'm confident that this "velvet glove" is more helpful to everyone here - especially the Lurkers - than any other style of debate.

[VadeRetro]

A thousand points of light. Whip Inflation Now! The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind. Puff the Magic Dragon, too.

I love you!
You love me!
We're a happy family!

BANG!

[Thump!]

[VadeRetro]

Have there been any studies about whether the Congo pygmies or the Kalahari bushmen mingle reproductively with the surrounding populations?

I don't know of any. The assault traditional lifestyles are under everywhere includes having the kids go off to school in the big city and marry outside the group. If the bushmen and pygmies aren't seeing that yet, they may soon.

[VadeRetro]

Are you saying ALS posted that thing about Lincoln and the dog's tail as a fifth leg? I thought I'd been seeing that a lot, lately!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Your post 2110.

WOW!!

[Junior]

It would be interesting to see whose body parts they are willing to give copious amounts of ...

[balrog666]

Well ... I thought so too.

"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err."

[Alamo-Girl]

Another great quote! Thank you! And thank you for your agreement!

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

Llamas and camels are of the same family, why not chimps and humans?

[DittoJed2]

Well, I don't know the man. But it would surprise me if he were as self-serving as you suggest. It would be very interesting to hear his explanation. Right now, I think it is sloppy. Don't have the evidence yet to say that he did so with some sort of malicious motives.

[Right Wing Professor]

Well, maybe I'll email him and find out.

[DittoJed2]

That's where new species arise, but not what they are. By the dawn of the age of exploration, the human race had spread around the globe. The varying environments and the isolation of various subgroups from the rest of the gene pool had produced the beginnings of speciation processes that would eventually have gone to completion had we not re-discovered each other and re-connected all the gene pools. Now we're basically re-melding.
Okay, so you are trying to say that by the time, say, of Christopher Columbus, humans had already started evolving and given that sacred element "time" if we hadn't gotten back together we would have turned into something other than a human being?

[DittoJed2]

There are plenty of fossils interpreted towards evolution that are frankly either ape skulls or human skulls with deformations/variations. I can think of a man right now that goes to my church who I imagine if you saw his skull it would look significantly different than mine. He has a very large browbone and other distinctive features. He is not deformed. He just looks very different. Cro-magnon forward are probably just human beings. Backwards are apes.

Incidentally, your elitism is showing. I am not an "uneducated grown up child" and calling the folks at AIG and ICR "charlatans" who are telling lies has neither been shown to be true nor is it true. If anything is a lie it is the oft repeated inferrence that Darwinian evolution is incontrovertably proven fact.

As for my hopeful monster, I'm not "spinning away" from anything. This thread is not a thesis paper and the posts should not be required to exhibit a fully detailed explanation every time. Did I simplify Darwinian belief as I see it? Yes. In all these posts though, I have not been shown where what I believe in my head regarding Darwin is some sort of a distortion. As a matter of fact, when the theory was explained to me by your side, I wasn't surprised by a thing. Darwinists believe that over millions of years of time, gradual evolution occurred to where primordial soup eventually through random chance mutations became complex humanity. To me, this kind of thinking truly is a fairy tale. I go out in nature and I just look at all that God has done and I am amazed. To look at the complexity of everything around, or even the complexity in a tiny little baby and say "chance" is stunningly audacious.

Science views certain assumptions of theirs as "infallible". The view their dating schemes as infallible (for without them the theory is destroyed) and assume uniformity of conditions. They view the possibility of the kind of changes that they expect to see as infallible, even though they have NEVER seen what they are claiming to see (your skull pictures do not count and are frankly pretty misleading.) They show similar looking bones that are placed next to one another but they don't prove that they are of the same ancestry - hence, they are disputed. I could take my vertebrae and several totally unrelated species vertebrae and line them up together, and view similarities. It does not mean that we came from the same ancestor. That is one hypothesis, sure, but it could just mean that God designed many of his creatures with similar features. You see, evolutionists assume that their interpretation of what they see is the correct one. Because the metaphysical may be involved, they refuse to consider a creationist's point of view. Instead, they exalt science as the one with all the answers and non-evolutionists as charlatans.

For the record, I have two masters degrees, and a bachelors. Two of those degrees I received from large secular universities. While in those universities I was taught Darwinian evolution. I remain as unconvinced today as I did then. To call creationists just uneducated and highly susceptible children is the epitomy of ignorance as far as I'm concerned, but it glaringly illustrates the utter arrogance with which some evolutionists (I did not say all as some even on this thread have been respectful and have not assumed I'm an idiot because I disagree with them) have towards ANYONE who does not share their point of view.

[DittoJed2]

Once again, you are assuming I don't know what you believe. That is a wrong assumption as several of my posts SHOULD indicate.

[VadeRetro]

There are plenty of fossils interpreted towards evolution that are frankly either ape skulls or human skulls with deformations/variations.

Forgive the canned answer, but I deal with this sort of thing a lot. The creationist bin game, subheading: Hominid Fossils.

As for the rest of your post: perform better and you won't have to keep explaining that you actually know better. Please try to learn something from non-cult sources about evolution.

[DittoJed2]

Then it doesn't appear to be Breaking news. That is, if the only think that they are referring to is a month old paper. It could be that there is additional research within the paper on other dating methods, so I'm still withholding judgment that this should be dismissed out of hand. If they only thing they refer to is a month old paper, then I would still like to see their rebuttal to criticisms; however, my contention that you had not read it would be false and my apologies are extended (if that is all they have in their paper).

[VadeRetro]

Okay, so you are trying to say that by the time, say, of Christopher Columbus, humans had already started evolving and given that sacred element "time" if we hadn't gotten back together we would have turned into something other than a human being?

Wrong. Again, your protests about the exposure you have had to non-cult treatments of evolution are instantly belied. You not only don't already know what I'm saying--something any evo already knew--but you can't read it correctly.

I said that humanity as a whole was on the way to fragmenting into some number of distinct-from-each-other species. We wouldn't all "have turned into something other than a human being." Without the reversal of events occasioned by remixing the gene pool, we would have continued to become more different from each other until, at some rather fuzzy stage, compatibility was lost forever.

I used the horse-donkey example to show the other side (the "after" picture) of speciation. Thus you see how speciation looks, "before" and "after."

Protesting that your posts show how much you know about evolution avails nothing if they show the opposite.

[DittoJed2]

Common ancestry simply makes far more sense than "common designer." Why fill the ocean with fish, but then make whales from mammal parts? Why also put fossils in the rocks that seem to show land animals slowly losing their legs and becoming whales?

Part A, why assume that it was a "mammal part" that was put in the whale? Why not assume that it was a part with purpose (like an eyeball) that whales and mammals happen to share since the part was DESIGNED for a specific purpose?

Part B. The fossil record does not show this. It is your interpretation that some land animal lost its legs and became a whale, but there is no proof (and don't use the alleged hip bones inside the whale as evidence as those bones are not vestigial even today but assist in a very important process for the whale- reproduction).

Why use something homologous to insectivore tree-dweller hands to make bat wings, but something like dinosaur claws to make bird wings, and just one incredibly stretched-out reptilian pinkie to support the pterodactyl wing? The supposed answer: you can't question the designer. (That's an answer!!??)
Because He's creative. Just because the designer did not design things the way the omniscient scientist would have liked for him to does not mean that it was a design flaw. Also, you can question the creator all you want. Just be prepared, like Job, to understand exactly whom you are talking to.

If something looks like design, it's proof of design. If it doesn't look like design, you're not allowed to notice or question. Can this be right?
Wrong question. If something looks like design, we aren't even allowed to consider the fact that it could have been designed. If something doesn't look like design, we aren't even allowed to consider the fact that our perceptions and understanding regarding the use of an object may be quite limited but instead must consider that this is obvious evidence against creation/I.D. and for evolution. Can That be right???

The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate.
Theological and philosophical. Evolution makes assumptions and doesn't allow for any explanations outside of its materialistic bent. I understand, science can not explain God, but does that mean that we have to blindly look the other way when something gives evidence of His existence (i.e. design)? Is it not okay to ever say "we don't know, and will probably never know because some things are just out of the reach of science?" No, because materialistic darwinian science is a god unto itself and absolutely refuses to admit anything other than its own ultimate authority.

[DittoJed2]

The answer is both biological and theological. Theological, we were created in God's image. No other animal was. Biological, there may be similarities in appearance and even DNA (as I pointed out earlier, we share a lot of our DNA with a cabbage but aren't decended from them), but we can not breed with them nor is there any evidence that we ever did breed with them or a shared ancestor. There is really no evidence of a shared ancestor (bones don't show that they had ANY offspring period, just that they died), just a bunch of skulls (and skull portions) that scientists say this one is ape, this one is less ape, this one appears to be taking on the shape of being a little more human, etc.,

[PatrickHenry]

A time of love, a time of hate
A time of war, a time of peace
A time you may embrace
A time to refrain from embracing

Turn, Turn, Turn by The Byrds.