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.

[gore3000]

Without hypothesis and conjecture there is no point to research. It's just stamp collecting.

Nothing wrong with hypothesis. What is wrong is to call something true on the basis of a hypothesis. Science is about proving by observation, experiment, etc. a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not science, the facts proven under a hypothesis are. Anyone can hypothesize. It is those that prove a hypothesis that are the scientists.

[AndrewC]

I am glad you also noted what I have noticed. NakatuX acted in a completely honorable manner

If Nakatu X can convince others, then there might be hope for the agreement. I wish Nakatu X well.

[Aric2000]

It was a joke Andrew, and as far as an apology is concerned, I don't think so.

You are NOT a signer of the agreement, therefore what you have to say for and against it shall remain, as they say, ignored.

If you care to critique me, then get on board, otherwise, forget about it.

You and G3K seem to be hypersensitive since your buddy, who shall remain nameless, tried to trap us with the agreement and shot his credibility out the door along with putting his foot in his mouth

Well, your continued defense of such a poster tells me a great deal about both of you.

So, thanks for playing....

Leave him alone when he jumps and attacks someone, yet attack us when we spout off to each other.

It's amazing, totally and completely amazing.

And you call us hypocrites?

Geez, talk about laughable.

Have a great night!!

[ALS]

Your opinion is worth as much as Hillary's. You didn't have the decency to do what gore3000 has done, so you have no say in anything but your own demise, and even then only to yip and screech as it happens.

shoo fly

[Aric2000]

Good enough then.

Since someone, who has signed on to the agreement, and who has earned my respect far more then ANYONE else in these threads, has explained in a very carefully thought out, logical, UNOFFENDING, and noncondescending manner, that my comment could have been taken offensively by some posters.

The comment was NOT meant to offend, it was in fun, therefore, I apologize to anyone that might have taken offense to the comment.

Per the agreement that I have in good faith signed.

Again, I apologize to anyone that might have been offended by the comment.

[ALS]

Which comment?

To: Right Wing Professor

If there were a designer, he would have had to have been drunk.

Placemarker for me, and a shot of Jim Beam all around!!

263 posted on 08/15/2003 7:04 PM CDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963744/posts?page=263#263


This one?

[AndrewC]

It was a joke Andrew, and as far as an apology is concerned, I don't think so.

Your shallow treatment of others is evident. Your failure to keep your word is also evident. You disparage others without cause or are complicit and then have the gall to call others on your actions. The posts are evident. The chit chat, no matter between whom, was public. If you wish to joke, do it by freepmail. When you disparage others you break your word. I did not sign on as I have stated and you have repeated. I also said I would abide by the rules with the proviso that I would respond in kind. I am a complier, you are not. You broke your word and you aggravate it with your lame excuses. I have documented the occurrences and you have acknowledged them by attempting to brush them off ---It was a joke Andrew,. A joke may nonetheless be belittling.

Now you attempt to brush off my documentations by saying I was not a "signer" of the agreement. You were. And my pointing that out to others does not require me to be anything but a member of this forum. You do not own this place nor do your words in anyway possess the imagined force you seem to think are behind them. You are the hypocrite.

[Nataku X]

If Nakatu X can convince others, then there might be hope for the agreement. I wish Nakatu X well.

*sweatdrop* You sure don't have low expectations, do you? If I expressed my entire thoughts about the situation, I'd probably make an enemy out of nearly everyone involved. Emotions are extremely high, everyone's very defensive, and for anyone to try to "make peace" would be like hammering cold steel into a sword. The time is not right for either side.

Ecclesiastes 3:1,7-8 1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: ...
7 a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Both sides need to have an opportunity where they can talk about their frustrations in a calm, reasoned manner, and to be open-minded and open-hearted when others speak about them. But, you have my promise that I will try my best to bring this about, but you think too highly of me.

Even though you both are no longer party to the agreement, I encourage you to suggest provisions and create "suggested guidelines" that you believe may help avoid situations like this one? Committees, formalized way of bringing charges, jokes between members, et cetera?

[Doc Savage]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. We, my humble family and I, are being most grateful for you feet to be stopping in restaurant.

I am being your good and most excellent host, Rupa, for this, your evening meal. Today, we are be having, and for you too it most ccompletely wonderful, a dinsosaur hash with those funny little baby corns you get in Chinese food. We are being hopeful that beyond all you will be eating this most delicious thing.

[Aric2000]

I am Not even going to comment about any of that post.

Your hypersensitivity is amazing, and perhaps, just perhaps you should have followed the thread a bit further before posting your comment

[ALS]

He was dead on accurate and you should be thanking him for teaching you some lessons in life you've failed to learn.

[AndrewC]

I encourage you to suggest provisions and create "suggested guidelines" that you believe may help avoid situations like this one?

The very first version of the agreement was acceptable. When the shaping and gouging progressed on, one could see the weapon being fashioned. Proponents from one side needed loophole after loophole for their tastes. Those proponents were the first to use that weapon. Meanwhile, they continued their belittling behavior on a newcomer to the threads. We do not need to call people names. We also do not need scarlet letters pinned on people.

[AndrewC]

Your hypersensitivity is amazing, and perhaps, just perhaps you should have followed the thread a bit further before posting your comment

I did. I recognize crocodile tears when I see them.

[Aric2000]

NO, I got a freepmail from someone who I respect, who is NOT a hypcrite, who does NOT let one poster get away with hell, and then jump another for posting a joke.

THat poster explained that yes, some posters might have been offended, and because of that, I should apologize to those who might have been offended.

That freepmail was succinct, to the point, and above all not condescending and NOT from a hypersensitive nonsigner to the agreement that has jumped EVERY one of us, EVERY little opportunity given, for what would not even be considered an actual violation.

But since your boy is being ignored, I guess you have decided that you are the one to do it instead.

Consider yourself on ignore, your hypersensitivity, and your defense of a troll tells me that your motivations cannot be trusted.

[AndrewC]

Consider yourself on ignore, your hypersensitivity, and your defense of a troll tells me that your motivations cannot be trusted.

Am I supposed to feel bad for this comment from a hypocrite? You failed to recognize it on your own. You have no moral compass. There would have been no comment 56 without a comment 51. Which in turn came from a process which was belittling Dittojed2. It continued with your callous repeat of a something which you now agree was belittling. I will be happy to not hear from you.

[ALS]

And stop making posts to me and about me as well. Your trollfest posts are not needed here.

[gore3000]

And you call us hypocrites?

You are worse than that, you are dishonorable. You entered into an agreement wish was supposed to be about behaving in a civil manner and you used it to insult people. You agreed not to connive against people and that is the first thing you guys did. Further, the whole lot of you broke one of the first rules of civility - NOT PUBLISHING PRIVATE E-MAIL in order to further your schemes. So yes, you are a completely dishonorable person.

[gore3000]

Even though you both are no longer party to the agreement,

I tried, one of the things they said was that those who were not part of the agreement had no right to correct one who had taken part in the agreement. In other words they consdired everyone else a 2nd class citizen and themselves above any rules.

[Nataku X]

I (not they) was the one who made that provision suggestion, G3K, and of course it could have flaws. That's the point of making suggestions--some ideas are good ones, some ideas are bad ones.

My only concern was that a noncomplying person could not intentionally engage in abusive language and demand the others to stop--in that case, it is voluntary for the accused to take it "seriously" or not. Ideally, the honor of the accused would lead him to examine all charges against him, no matter from whom the charges came from.

But, I see the flaw in it, and I'm sorry. If someone throws boulders and I throw pebbles, and the person throwing boulders demands me to stop, it still doesn't mean that I'm right in throwing the pebbles.

If you see any more flaws in my suggestions (or anyone else's), feel free to point them out. That's what the thread is for. I promise you I am not trying to give people within the agreement special rights.

[Ichneumon]

You are in violation of your agreement.

And you're reaching.

This is another example of why I did not sign the agreement.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Despite all the pious excuses I've seen so far, it looks to me as if all of the "refuseniks" are primarily driven by a desire to be able to nitpick the signers to death while being completely immune from such criticism themselves.

If you don't even have the stones to *try* following the agreement yourself and be on an equal footing with those who have, you don't look too good whining about whether anyone else is or is not living up to it. Leave that up to the aggrieved signer -- if they even care about it as much as you claim to.

This reminds me of the "PC police" who raise hell about how something is offensive to some minority they're not a part of, and later it's discovered that the minority didn't have any problem with it (e.g. the high school sports teams with "Indian" names that the Native Americans didn't mind).