Evidence of Swimming Dinosaur Found

AP - Science ^ | 2005-10-18 | BOB MOEN

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We see animals ever day.... carnivores that go into water... but don't hunt fish. Don't swim out to sea.... aren't part reptile part giant bird."

I am sure you had a point but just forgot to make it.


"Would you agree that there is not a shred of evidence beyond the foot prints as to what this new friend really was or what it looked like?"

The footprints ARE the evidence. Why do you assume nothing can be learned from footprints?

[kjam22]

The article specifically says....

The finding would be significant because so far no one has been able to prove that aquatic dinosaurs existed, Joanna Wright, assistant professor of geology at the University of Colorado-Denver, said Monday. There were swimming reptiles that are now extinct, Wright said.

So it's pretty much necessary to have the speculation in order to make the article significant... don't you think? The idea that this animal swam out to sea and fed off of fish etc. Other wise it just becomes an animal with no better swimming skills... and no better intention than my dog has. Isn't that right?

[kjam22]

I don't assume that nothing can be learned from foot prints. But I'm not sure you can construct a part bird, part reptile animal that swims out to sea to eat fish and carrion for it's food source..... from foot prints. Why would you assume that one could?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So it's pretty much necessary to have the speculation in order to make the article significant... don't you think? The idea that this animal swam out to sea and fed off of fish etc. Other wise it just becomes an animal with no better swimming skills... and no better intention than my dog has. Isn't that right?"

At this point its behavior is highly speculative. But you said, "and we haven't found anything to tell us what made the prints...", meaning we can't even have an idea what type of animal it was. That's nonsense. It's not just *another animal*, it's a dinosaur. We can tell by the tracks. The article never said that the rest was anything more than tentative; it said more info is needed. There WAS evidence that the tracks were made going into water though. But the scientists, unlike creationists, know when to be cautious in making assertions. That's because the scientists who made the discovery are not arrogant enough to think they know everything.

[kjam22]

I think this article was very unscientific. I think it intentionally took liberties with what can and can't be known about this animal... and I think it did it for the sensationalism. So that the scientist can make the talk circuit. That's my observation of the article.

A fair and accurate representation would be to say ... we found dinasour tracks... we think it's 165 million years old.... it appears they headed into water. We're looking for bones to figure out what the animal looked like.

[Stultis]

So the comments as posted about out 165 million year old new friend... are those theory, speculation, a good guess, silliness, an opinion, or just fun reading?

Presumably the strata have been dated, or are bracketed by dated strata, or the figure would not have been cited. In that case the statement would implicate the theories (and the technical practices) involved in the dating procedures that were utilized. So, I'd say...

It's a claim deduced from data as interpreted by generally accepted theories appropriate to interpreting that data.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I think this article was very unscientific."

That's nice.

[kjam22]

Do you really see evidence there to construct a part bird, part reptile animal?

[Junior]

Where do you get the "part bird" part? Nothing in the article said it was "part bird."

[kjam22]

Researchers have found tracks of a previously unknown, two-legged swimming dinosaur with birdlike characteristics in northern Wyoming and are looking for bones and other remains in order further identify and name it.

What do you understand it to mean when it says "birdlike characteristics".

"The swimming dinosaur had four limbs and it walked on its hind legs, which each had three toes," she said.

What have they found that says demonstrates there were two limbs that never touched the ground?

[Junior]

What do you understand it to mean when it says "birdlike characteristics".

"Bird-like characteristics" does not equal (!=) "part bird." Pteranodons had "bat-like wings." This does not mean they were part bat. What have they found that says demonstrates there were two limbs that never touched the ground?

There were no tracks of the forelimbs? Only two feet left the tracks, not four. This would indicate the dinosaur was bipedal, as indeed many dinosaurs were.

[kjam22]

And so what are those bird like characteristics?? And how do these tracks tell us that our new friend had these characteristics?

[Junior]

Bipedalism. A fleshy, three-toed foot ending in a claw-like nail.

What's with the double question marks?

[kjam22]

"It was about the size of an ostrich,

Maybe it was an ostrich with wierd feet? 175 million years ago... an Ostrich could have had any sort of feet don't you think. Maybe it was a big bird.

[kjam22]

You've posted a nearly worthless article and then attacked people who were pointing out it's worthlessness by claiming to be smarter than everybody else.

Who knows..... maybe you're a big bird :) Just kidding

[Junior]

Must have been worth it enough for you, though, as you've been on this thread since its inception.

[kjam22]

It wasn't the article... it was you Junior that made my time here worthwhile.....

[Senator Bedfellow]

Maybe it was a big bird.

Maybe it was an elf. Or a leprechaun. Or one of the Lizard Men of Zeta Reticuli.

[Junior]

Ostriches weren't around 165 million years ago. And, considering the ecological niches for megafauna (anything over 45 kg) were all filled with dinosaurs at the time, and bipedal, three-toed dinosaurs were known to exist at that time and place, what makes you think it was a bird? What line of reasoning were you following?

You are taking a data point in a vacuum. You do realize there is a lot more data out there regarding this time period, its flora and fauna, don't you? The researchers are interpreting this data point in the context of all that other data.

[kjam22]

But you agree there is no real evidence that it's really a 4 legged dinasour that walks on it's hind legs with bird like characteristics, and swims out to sea to feed on fish and carrion? Don't you??