Skip to comments.New Dinosaur Species Found in India
Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
2 hours, 55 minutes ago
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.
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.
That's approximately the story of the metasequoia (dawn redwood). they were known from cretaceous fossils, but a stand was found in China in the 1940s. http://www.icogitate.com/~tree/dawn.redwood.timeline.ac10.htm
Haven't we all met a few geniuses and retarded folks in our lives? Haven't we all met a few "shaved ape" strongmen and humans more classically built? Which ones are more fully human? How would anyone decide that?
Not to detract from them, but a lot of the credit goes to the Admin Mod who canned als.
It was like a notebook of sayings and had recounted a number of Christ's parables and teachings from the Sermon on the Mount along with other sayings which don't comport with the Word. Generally, it did not "ring true" in my Spirit as I read through it - as the Gospels of John, Matthew, Mark and Luke do.
On to the next one!
The Pseudepigrapha however also includes the Midrashic book Life of Adam and Eve which is dated to the first century A.D. That particular book clearly describes Adam and Eve being in Paradise and includes sections which Satan blaming his banishment on Adam, Eve's recounting how it all happened, repentance, etc.
This is quite fascinating - especially the overlapping between the texts of Nag Hammadi and the Pseudepigrapha!
I find that telling. If they were confident they were right, they'd post such links.
Okay, let's see if I can explain it this way...
First, part of your confusion (in this, and in a lot of other topics in this thread) comes from your insistence on declaring that things must be 100% A or 100% B. The living world is not so black and white. The range of living things is a continuum more often than it's either/or. And not just across time, either -- several people have asked you to ponder the existence of "ring species", but I haven't seen you tackle it yet.
Furthermore, creationists often fail to appreciate the significance of the "nested hierarchies" of living things. It's as incorrect to say that a specific creature must be *either* a human *or* an ape as it is to say that a creature must be *either* a lion *or* a cat. Ponder that one for a moment, and then you'll be ready to understand the point of the essay You Are an Ape. Please read it.
Finally, even if you cling to the view that there's some "required" combination of genetic differences which, as soon as they're acquired, turn a "mere ape" into a "human", *bang*, that still doesn't make the evolution of one into the other a problem, or create any "breeding impossibilities". Here's how it works...
First, keep in mind that even if the "special" combination of genes which make primate DNA be considered human DNA has to all be present before *you'd* finally agree to label the resulting organism "finally human", a creature with only, say, 99% of those genes would still look pretty darned human and not so "classicly" apelike, since it would consist of 99% of the things that "separate" humans from apes. It'd only be missing one little thing out of the full set, so only one part of it would still be "apish" -- for example maybe it'd have more of a protruding brow than most people but all other human characterstics.
The other thing to keep in mind is that any one (or five, or fifty, or...) genetic differences is usually not enough to prevent interbreeding. The genetic differences just "mix and match" in members of the popuation, in the same way that both the blue-eyed gene and the brown-eyed gene swirl through human populations without any big deal.
So now that you've got some of the background, the way in which an "ape" population would evolve into a "human" population is straightforward. At some time a mutation X1 appears in the birth of a member of the population which offers some small advantage by virtue of being a small improvement (which in this example happens to bring the individual slightly closer to the advantages of being "humanlike"). The change is likely to be barely noticeable to those around him, perhaps he stands just slightly more upright, or has a slightly larger brain, or his hands are just a bit more talented, or he can voice a slightly wider range of sounds -- whatever. It's due to a small DNA change within him which just happens, by luck, to make a biochemical improvement to a particular protein in his body in a way that makes some function in his body perform just a touch better than was possible without the change. So, unlike many other mutations in the population, which made no difference, or the ones which caused damage to the functioning of the affected individual and got weeded out by natural selection, the individual who was lucky enough to receive X1 does a little better than the others in his species, and passes on his new X1 gene when he has children.
But wait, you ask, he's a "mutant", wouldn't that prevent him from mating with all the rest of the population since they don't have X1? No, it wouldn't, any more than your brown-eyed gene would prevent you from having children with a blue-eyed man. The "owner" of X1 mates with a woman who has the original form of the gene, call it Q1. Due to ordinary genetics, each of their children will have 2 X1's, or 2 Q1's, or 1 X1 and 1 Q1, by random chance. But because X1 gives a survival boost, more of the children who drew X1's from the genetic deck will have their own children than those who missed out. And so on and so on across generations, causing X1 to become more and more prevalent in the population than the competing "obsolete" Q1. Statistically, eventually X1 will "fix" in the population by virtue of being the only variety of that gene existing in the population, the Q1's having gone extinct when the last few individuals who still had a Q1 either didn't manage to have children, or had children but their children drew X1's from their parents genetic "deck".
So now the whole population is made of individuals with X1 genes and no Q1 genes.
Repeat this process for X2, another gene change which is a step along the road from "apeness" to "humanness". Then for X3, and X4, and... Finally, at some point the population will have genes X1 through X(N-1) out of the N genes which you believe are required to make them "fully human". They already look and behave pretty much entirely human, since they have almost every genetic feature which makes a species human, but you're still unwilling to declare them human because they're missing X(N), the last gene of the set. Okay, fine -- repeat the process I described above about X1 to gene mutation X(N). The first individual which gets that mutation is now "fully human" in your book. Hooray for him. However, he really isn't noticeably different from the other members of his species, since he only varies from them by a single genetic difference. So other than being the guy (or girl) who loses that last tiny remnant of "apeness" which is barely even noticeable in the population (maybe jaws on average protrude just 3% more than his or his offspring will), he has no problem having children with the mate of his choice, because they only differ by a single mutation. And eventually his X(N) gene spreads through the population over the next fifty generations until the old-style Q(N) gene gets replaced by it, and all of his kind are now 100% human instead of 99.9% human as they had been before the X(N) mutation.
And note that all the above is *standard* population genetics, *extremely* well established as ordinary processes which occur all the time in nature. It's not just an "imagine if" story.
Also note that I've simplified it somewhat by implying that, for example, mutation X46 wouldn't happen until mutation X45 had finished "fixing" in the population. Instead, it's just as easy for it to occur and be spreading into the population *while* X45 is in the process of doing so as well, for example. But this just makes the process even *more* likely, not less. There are always multiple sets of alleles floating around in populations without ill effect -- if there weren't we'd all be identical and homozygous clones.
Frankly, though, I don't think we're fully human *yet* -- if nothing else, we really need to get rid of the ape genes we still carry that cause these damned wisdom teeth which fit nicely and were useful in the longer ape jaw but just get jammed up and cause health problems in the rear of our smaller more human jaw. It looks as if we're still waiting for X(N) and haven't quite gotten the "full human" transformation finished just yet...
Another prediction that turned out to be true.
Why? When did he ever lie, maliciously smear someone he disagreed with, or otherwise act in a way that showed a lack of integrety?
I would say that there are people walking around now, dressed in shirts and jeans, that are not fully human. A few examples are; Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and the 2 guys who killed Jesse Dirkhising. So I don't believe we've reached the point yet where we're all fully human.
If you put a herd of 100 stallions and 100 female donkeys on an island, and came back in 100 years, there wouldn't be any equidae at all there. Sounds like different speicies to me, by any reasonable definition.
You acknowledge they have a common ancestor. But now they can't produce fertile offspring.
If they're really the same 'kind', what did Noah save? Donkeys, horses, zebras, what? If they're different 'kinds', how can they have a common ancestor?
Oh, nooooo - not that thing. I despised that movie, I have to say - stories about the eeeevil Catholic church suppressing some revelatory theological truth get really old after a while. Fortunately, my wife restrained me from pulling an Elvis and shooting out the picture tube on the TV ;)
Generally, it did not "ring true" in my Spirit as I read through it - as the Gospels of John, Matthew, Mark and Luke do.
That doesn't surprise me. As the Thomas FAQ suggests, the perspective of the text is a sort of lite-beer version of gnosticism - basically, that the Kingdom of Heaven is all around us, if only we can open our eyes to it, and not in some otherworldly place. An interesting perspective, to be sure, but not exactly orthodox.
I just finished the Apocalype of Adam. I recognized it, as I did the gospel of Thomas. So I went to the Pseudepigrapha texts, and sure enough, that is where I first read it!
I'm not familiar with that collection. Sigh - I really need more reading time, but there's very little chance of that in the near future ;)
Nice! You put a lot of work into your posts
Couldn't agree more!
Ichy, I am amazed by your patience, hard work, and erudition. I also learn a lot from your posts. Thanks
The same question applies to other isolated groups like Australian natives, Amazonian tribes, and highlanders in remote Indonesian areas.
An interesting case is the Basque people. they have the highest rate of Rh- blood in the world. If the parents have different Rh types, (I forget the details), if the first child and the mother have different types the mother can build up antibodies, so that if a second child differs from the mother there is (often) a miscarriage.
I don't know if this has added to the isolation of the Basques or not, but if it were just a bit more extreme (no babies survive) then we'd have human speciation.
Yours is an example. As I mentioned at 2177, I see the firmament as the separation between the spiritual realm and physical realm and not a geometric boundary (space/time.) Hence, I find myself largely in agreement with that statement as Spiritual truth, that the spiritual realm is co-existent.
I do not however see the Kingdom of God as arrived - the Lord's Prayer and the book of Revelation, etc. indicate that all that is not the name of God (person, character, etc.) must be culled before His Kingdom comes.
I do hope you get a chance to read the Pseudepigrapha. Its in two volumes, edited by Charlesworth. With each ancient text, they go through language, history, provenance, theological importance, relationship to canonical books and apocryphal books and so much more.
How about the occasional whale that's born with legs? reference
Based on what evidence? I thought he was a Whig, into free trade, against slavery, and so forth.
I could give you a long list as long as your arm as to how he lacked integrity, but you would not understand even one of my reasons I have no doubt whatsoever.
If you say so.
Because some of the evidence of the hieirarchy is things like fossil viruses, which were certainly not put there by God (but I guess they could have been by some less-concientious designer).
From Talk Origns
In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.
Poorly-documented? Rare, but well-documented
Your source (AiG) said
Ignoring for the moment the purely anecdotal nature of the evidence, what is it that is being claimed? Sperm whales are massive up to about 19m (62 feet) long. A 14 cm (5.5 inch) bump on its side would look like an almost unnoticeable pimple. Inside the bump is a piece of bone, some 12.5 cm (5 inches) long. There is no evidence given of anything which could reasonably be called a leg.
Whereas TO said
These bones [referring to a photo] are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919.
...The museum's director, Francis Kermode, presented the bones to Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. Andrews reported the findings, along with photographs of the whale from the whaling crew, in American Museum Novitates, the journal of the AMNH. Andrews identified in the remains a shrunken cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal. Both legs initially were over four feet long and covered in normal blubber and skin
So, who to believe? The AMNH journal is not online, and I don't have access to a university library. But the fact is, the AiG article doesn't even address this particular claim, simply calling them all anecdotal. Personally, I don't consider things published in museum journals anecdotes.
Is there an intent to deceive? Are they lying? Be specific.
This statement leads me to believe you have very little knowledge of the real world. Nearly all species place an innate value on their members which exceeds that placed on members outside that species. When dogs (or blue jays, or elk) fight, it is never intentionally to the death. Why should humans be any different? Even pre-Christian and non-Christian people had to be taught to kill other humans to make them effective soldiers. Of course, you always have the occasional person who loves to kill (humans appear to be the only critters thus encumbered -- which makes certain arguments about "made in the image of God"), so he'll find any convenient excuse to ply his hobby without being removed by his fellow man.
In another attempt to "come to grips with the creationists' continuing research program at Grand Canyon", I consulted another of the references cited in Vail (2003, p. 103). Dr. Vardiman (1999) offers an even more startling insight into creationists' geological thinking. He discusses the problem of the occurrence of animal tracks in the Coconino Sandstone, just below the rim of the Canyon, as follows:
"Another fascinating mystery is why there were animals leaving footprints so late in the flood. Dinosaur tracks which are often found in the Morrison formation are located at even higher levels in the geologic strata. It would appear that some animals were able to escape the water until later in the flood. Many were strong swimmers but they may have migrated to higher ground or clung to floating vegetation and were killed later as the waters finally reached them. Dr. John Baumgardner, a research scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, has suggested that circulating water inundating the continents may have formed giant whirlpools with dry floors near the center until late in the flood. This may have allowed animals near the center of the continents to initially escape the flood waters but were then overwhelmed when the events of the flood reached their zenith." (Vardiman, 1999, p.17).
The Morrison Formation occurs approximately 10,000 ft above the crystalline basement rocks. A simple calculation of the centrifugal force necessary to sustain a whirlpool 10, 000 ft deep and with a radius of 5, 000 ft requires its base to rotate at approximately 4,000 ft/sec (27,000 mph)! We see footprints of dinosaurs, but where are the footprints of these supersonic whirlpools?
Yes there are, because after the (pick an ape species) lineage and the human lineage(s) split and went their separate ways, the apes would continue to accumulate mutations which the human wouldn't have, and vice versa.
What's interesting is that the number and type of mutations which ape species have is consistent with what one would expect if a) we did share a common ancestor with them, and b) the time of the split was around the time indicated by the fossil record.
What's even more to the point though, is the number and type of mutations that we *share*. Those are extremely hard, if not impossible, to explain via "separate creation" scenarios, but very perfectly explained by common descent.
By your reasoning this would argue for uncommon decent.
Then I may not have explained my reasoning well enough. No, it would not.
By my reasoning, the similarities that man and apes have genetically would cause me to think that similar mutations would affect both groups. A creature with very different genetics would be affected by the same mutating function in a different way.
The problem with that idea is that the various "mutating functions" have been studied at great length, and they don't act the way you suggest they might.
We can find some mutations that we share, which would go to our genetic similarities, and some mutations we don't share, which would go to our genetic differences.
The degree to which different species share the same mutation is far, far greater (and of a kind) than could possibly be explained by "similarly susceptible to mutations".
A plague that sweeps the globe like the Bubonic would possibly hammer the ape population in the same way as it hammered the human population, precisely because of our shared genetic designs.
Let's take that example as a case study of what I said above.
Background: Retroviruses reproduce by entering a cell of a host (like, say, a human), then embedding their own viral DNA into the cell's own DNA, which has the effect of adding a "recipe" for manufacturing more viruses to the cell's "instruction book". The cell then follows those instructions because it has no reason (or way) to "mistrust" the DNA instructions it contains. So the virus has converted the cell into a virus factory, and the new viruses leave the cell, and go find more cells to infect, etc.
However, every once in a while a virus's invasion plans don't function exactly as they should, and the virus's DNA (or portions of it) gets embedded into the cell's DNA in a "broken" manner. It's stuck into there, becoming part of the cell's DNA, but it's unable to produce new viruses. So there it remains, causing no harm. If this happens in a regular body cell, it just remains there for life as a "fossil" of the past infection and goes to the grave with the individual it's stuck in. All of us almost certainly contain countless such relics of the past viral infections we've fought off.
However... By chance this sometimes happens to a special cell in the body, a gametocyte cell that's one of the ones responsible for making sperm in males and egg cells in females, and if so subsequent sperm/eggs produced by that cell will contain copies of the "fossil" virus, since now it's just a portion of the entire DNA package of the cell. And once in a blue moon such a sperm or egg is lucky enough to be one of the few which participate in fertilization and are used to produce a child -- who will now inherit copies of the "fossilized" viral DNA in every cell of his/her body, since all are copied from the DNA of the original modified sperm/egg.
So now the "fossilized" viral DNA sequence will be passed on to *their* children, and their children's children, and so on. Through a process called neutral genetic drift, given enough time (it happens faster in smaller populations than large) the "fossil" viral DNA will either be flushed out of the population eventually, *or* by luck of the draw end up in every member of the population X generations down the road. It all depends on a roll of the genetic dice.
Due to the hurdles, "fossil" retroviral DNA strings (known by the technical name of "endogenous retroviruses") don't end up ubiquitous in a species very often, but it provably *does* happen. In fact, the Human DNA project has identified literally *thousands* of such fossilized "relics" of long-ago ancestral infections in the human DNA.
And several features of these DNA relics can be used to demonstrate common descent, including their *location*. The reason is that retroviruses aren't picky about where their DNA gets inserted into the host DNA. Even in an infection in a *single* individual, each infected cell has the retroviral DNA inserted into different locations than any other cell. Because the host DNA is so enormous (billions of basepairs in humans, for example), the odds of any retroviral insertion event matching the insertion location of any other insertion event are astronomically low. The only plausible mechanism by which two individuals could have retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same location in their respective DNAs is if they inherited copies of that DNA from the same source -- a common ancestor.
Thus, shared endogenous retroviruses between, say, ape and man is almost irrefutable evidence that they descended from a common ancestor. *Unless* you want to suggest that they were created separately, and then a virus they were both susceptible to infected both a man and an ape in EXACTLY the same location in their DNAs (the odds of such a match by luck are literally on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1...), *and* that the infections both happened in their gametocyte cells (combined odds on the order of 1,000,000 to 1) *and* that the one particular affected gametocyte is the one which produces the egg or sperm which is destined to produce an offspring (*HUGE* odds against), and *then* the resulting modified genome of the offspring becomes "fixed" in each respective population (1 out of population_size^squared)...
Then repeat that for *each* shared endogenous retrovirus (there are many) you'd like to claim was acquired independently and *not* from a shared ancestor...
Finally, you'd have to explain why, for say species A, B, and C, the pattern of shared same-location retroviruses is always *nested*, never *overlapped*. For example, all three will share some retroviruses, then A and B will both share several more, but if so then B *never* shares one with C that A doesn't also have (or at least remnants of).
In your "shared infection due to genetic similarities" suggestion, even leaving aside the near statistical impossibility of the infections leaving genetic "scars" in *exactly* the same locations in independent infections, one would expect to find cases of three species X, Y, and Z, where the degree of similarity was such that Y was "between" X and Z on some similarity scale, causing the same disease to befall X and Y but not Z, and another disease to affect Y and Z but not X. And yet, we don't find this in genetic markers. The markers are found in nested sequence, which is precisely what we would expect to see in cases of inheritance from common ancestry.
Here, for example, is an ancestry tree showing the pattern of shared same-location endogenous retroviruses of type HERV-K among primates:
This is just a partial list for illustration purposes -- there are many more.
Each labeled arrow on the chart shows an ERV shared in common by all the branches to the right, and *not* the branches that are "left-and-down". This is the pattern that common descent would make. And common descent is the *only* plausible explanation for it. Furthermore, similar findings tie together larger mammal groups into successively larger "superfamilies" of creatures all descended from a common ancestor.
Any presumption of independent acquisition is literally astronomically unlikely. And "God chose to put broken relics of viral infections that never actually happened into our DNA and line them up only in patterns that would provide incredibly strong evidence of common descent which hadn't actually happened" just strains credulity (not to mention would raise troubling questions about God's motives for such a misleading act).
Once again, the evidence for common descent -- as opposed to any other conceivable alternative explanation -- is clear and overwhelming.
Wait, want more? Endogenous retroviruses are just *one* type of genetic "tag" that makes perfect sense evolutionary and *no* sense under any other scenario. In addition to ERV's, there are also similar arguments for the patterns across species of Protein functional redundancies, DNA coding redundancies, shared Processed pseudogenes, shared Transposons (including *several* independent varieties, such as SINEs and LINEs), shared redundant pseudogenes, etc. etc. Here, for example, is a small map of shared SINE events among various mammal groups:
Like ERV's, any scenario which suggests that these shared DNA features were acquired separately strains the laws of probability beyond the breaking point, but they make perfect sense from an evolutionary common-descent scenario. In the above data, it is clear that the only logical conclusion is that, for example, the cetaceans, hippos, and ruminants shared a common ancestor, in which SINE events B and C entered its DNA and then was passed on to its descendants, yet this occurred after the point in time where an earlier common ancestor had given rise both to that species, and to the lineage which later became pigs.
And this pattern (giving the *same* results) is repeated over and over and over again when various kinds of molecular evidence from DNA is examined in detail.
The molecular evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming. The only alternative is for creationists to deny the obvious and say, "well maybe God decided to set up all DNA in *only* ways that were consistent with an evolutionary result even though He'd have a lot more options open to him, even including parts which by every measure are useless and exactly mimic copy errors, ancient infections, stutters, and other garbage inherited from nonexistent shared ancestors"...
Behemoth was clearly the hippo (then as now a very formidable animal, hippos in Africa kill more people annually than any other animal).
Leviathan was a local version of the age-old dragon myth, which dates back to at least 5000 BC with the Sumerians of Mesopotamia, the right time and place for the writers of the Bible to have heard and believed it and incorporated it into their writings.
These may be the remains of a biblical monster:
Argh, yes it does. Thanks for the correction. Yet again, my old eyes were having trouble spotting a difference between a "C" and a "G". Either I start posting with my bifocals on, or I bump up my monitor's font size.
Plus unless the macaque is a kissin cousin to the rat and mouse there is another 3 mutation spot.
Good point, I hadn't noticed that. But then that only pops up during second-order analysis from presumed phylogenies, and I was really trying to keep away from that as much as possible, because that opens up a whole new level of having to explain how we know what and why. It was better to stick with the less controversial relationships, and just lump the primates together, and the ungulates, and the rodents, and then expound on what those can teach us. Cladograms can wait for another day.
Apparently it's yet another creationist ad hoc'ism for how the footprints might have been possible in otherwise impossible circumstances -- giant whirlpools which held back the oceans and left portions of the seafloor unflooded even during a worldwide flood, just to "reconcile" a) fossil footprints that sure looked like they were made on land, and b) their desire to claim the flood was involved...
At some point, isn't it just simpler to throw up your hands and declare, "and then a miracle occurred because we sure can't invent a natural explanation that makes things work like we want it to"?
(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
X. 38 opened and both of the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping 39 watch); and while they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other (lit. the 40 one), and a cross following, after them. And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him that 41 was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they 42 heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast thou (or Thou hast) preached unto them that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross, saying: Yea.Just a tiny summary. I remember my Bible professor reading the Gospel of Peter aloud in class and acting out the cross's part. Quite hilarious. :-) Still, these extracanonical Gospels are an entertaining read and a photograph into ancient thought.
This is a libelous statement. I think you should produce your long list or shut up. Your charges against Darwin sound exactly like those made by another former freeper.
Indeed, that last part of the Gospel of Thomas was over-the-top. I hadn't gotten to the Gospel of Peter yet, but the excerpt about the talking cross puts it on the top of today's reading list!