Yale Scientists Discover the Last Living Dinosaur

CTV ^ | Sat Jul. 16 2011

[nickcarraway]

A fossil discovered in Montana has given new momentum to the hypothesis that dinosaurs were thriving right up until a devastating meteor hit Earth 65 million years ago, causing their extinction.

Scientists from Yale University have found what is believed to be the youngest dinosaur fossil ever found, thought to be from just before the mass extinction took place.

The discovery, described in a study published in the online edition of the journal Biology Letters, contradicts the theory that the dinosaurs slowly went extinct before the cosmic impact.

The fossil -- a 45-centimetre horn believed to be from a triceratops -- was found in Montana's Hell Creek formation. It was located just below the K-T boundary, the band of the Earth's crust that represents the time period in which the meteor struck.

One of the main problems with the meteor theory has been the lack of any non-avian dinosaur fossils buried within 10 feet of the boundary -- known as the 'three metre gap.'

The absence of fossils, some paleontologists say, indicates dinosaurs were already extinct when the cosmic impact occurred.

Yale paleontologist Tyler Lyson, lead author of the study, says the new discovery proves otherwise.

"To all of our surprise the boundary was no more than 13 centimetres above this horn, and the significance is this indicates that at least some dinosaurs were doing quite well in this locale at the time of the meteor impact," he told CTV.ca.

There is evidence that avian dinosaurs thrived up to and into the K-T boundary. In fact, they are believed to have survived the meteor and evolved into modern-day birds.

[allmendream]

Where did the extra mass come from?

How did the Earth substantially decrease its mass such that gravity was decreased, join the planetary mass loss diet plan?

[allmendream]

Or would that be INCREASE in mass. Oh yeah, cuz the dinosaurs couldn't stand with present day gravity - according to idiots - so gravity had to be LESS.

Where did this substantial extra mass come from? Did the laws of the universe change, or did the Earth suddenly start gaining substantial amounts of mass?

How funny that you reject actual science for such science fiction nonsense.

Did mankind live in those times of less gravity with floaty dinosaurs? Was it a Yabba Dabba Do good time?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Just like Angkor Watt. They don’t really know when it was built, or who really built it.” <<

.
SO what?

Why would it matter?

Actually, the written histories of the mongol peoples give a very good indication of when it must have been built, and the vegitation enveloping the structures gives a time frame close to 1000 years ago.

My point was that such an accurate depiction of a Stego indicates that they had a few stegos around to model, thus plowing another 65 million year hole in the dinosaur time table, to go along with all the written european discriptions of dinos only 500 years ago.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “So, you are saying that then the upper layers of the atmosphere are breached, there is no loss (venting) of the atmosphere into space?” <<

.
The upper atmosphere is essentially a void, and yes, the atmosphere has always been completely “vented” to space.

.
>> “For being nothing, it sure does a lot” <<

.
That is because it is ionized by solar radiation; an almost infinite source of energy. Every particle that is up there is carrying a tremendous eletrical charge.

The reason for our atmosphere is #1, gravity, and #2, the fact that the gasses are constantly being replenished by the planet itself.

.
>> OTHER THINGS WE THINK WE UNDERSTAND, but DON’T:

Tornadoes and Hurricanes. Made of NOTHING” <<

.
We understand them just fine. Its called centrifugal force.

All storms turn due to the differential in solar activity between the two hemispheres, and that spin generateds centrifugal force, leaving almost nothing in the center.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for the response. I always appreciate the feedback from someone willing to be open-minded and discuss an interesting subject, especially when they seem to have a good understanding of the topic.

The reason for our atmosphere is #1, gravity, and #2, the fact that the gasses are constantly being replenished by the planet itself.

So, the claim by scientists/government that our atmosphere is all venting out the ozone holes at the poles, and we are all going to die was just a ruse?

We understand them just fine. Its called centrifugal force. All storms turn due to the differential in solar activity between the two hemispheres,

STOP. Are you saying that tornadoes turn due to the differential between hemispheres?

and that spin generateds centrifugal force, leaving almost nothing in the center.

That does explain why NOTHING is in the center, but it doesn't explain why centrifugal force doesn't throw everything AWAY from the storm completely. Why does material continue to spin round and round the storm. What force hold it 'to' the storm(tornado,hurricane, etc)?

If this concept is true, then what causes galaxies to spin (I don't believe it is a differential in the hemispheres)? Why do scientists conclude that there is SOMETHING (a black hole is their current theory) that keeps the matter spinning around the center instead of it all being thrown off into remote space?

I understand their explanation that they cannot 'perceive' enough mass to explain the gravitational effects, but isn't that just a matter of their ability to perceive (the limit of our equipment)?

[UCANSEE2]

How did the Earth substantially decrease its mass such that gravity was decreased, join the planetary mass loss diet plan?

I must not have communicated very well. The Earth was smaller, and had less gravity. Animals grew larger because there was less gravity. As time has gone on, animals have become smaller and smaller. This is in response to the increase in gravity on the planet, which is (supposedly) a result of increased mass.

Our planet is growing, and is constantly pelted with material (rocks and ice) from outer space. We aren't sure what causes it, but the planet is also expanding from the inside, just like a fruit growing on a tree.

[UCANSEE2]

My point was that such an accurate depiction of a Stego indicates that they had a few stegos around to model, thus plowing another 65 million year hole in the dinosaur time table, to go along with all the written european discriptions of dinos only 500 years ago.

It may very well be that 1000 years ago, there were finds of 'stegos' very well preserved, maybe even where they were excavating to build Angkor Watt.

We have pictures of dinos, realistic models, etc., yet there are no live dinos around for us to model. So... carvings of dinos on a building is certainly no proof that dinos were alive when the building was built.

Just because we think older civilizations were stupid, and could not have 'known' about the dinos unless they were walking the streets of Angkor Watt, means nothing.

Apparently the builders of Angkor Watt were very smart. After all, the building still stands after at least a 1000 years. Can you say that for the buildings WE build?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “We have pictures of dinos, realistic models, etc., yet there are no live dinos around for us to model.” <<

.
Nonsense!

There are many live dinos, especially in the tropical regions. Coelecanths show up in asian markets often, and Plesiosaurs have been caught in nets, and their cousins have been filmed in Scotland’s deep lakes. The Congo has critters that look much like the brontos sketched in textbooks.

Let’s just pray for the extinction of the breed of liars that work so hard to cover up these facts.

[UCANSEE2]

You know what I meant. They don’t usually put carvings of coelacanths on the sides of buildings.

However, tons of money have been made making movies of T-REX’s, yet I doubt you can find one alive.

Where did we find out what they looked like?
Why couldn’t previous civilizations done the same thing?

[UCANSEE2]

P.S. Since you brought up the point of certain ‘dinosaurs’ still being found alive, I would have to say that the Title of the article at the beginning of this thread must be completely false.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Where did we find out what they looked like?” <<

.
Years and years of painstaking digging with spoons and tooth brushes, at numerous different sites, because until recently most specimens were 10 - 20% of the animal at best.

You have this romantic image of digging up a complete specimen intact that gave a clear image of the living animal, and that is pure bunk.

[allmendream]

The amount of debris added to the Earth from space is very very little. How long do you suppose Earth had to collect space debris to substantially increase its mass - because a few billion years at the current rate still adds up to next to nothing.

How would “expanding from the inside” increase gravity? Does mass create more mass in your fantasy - or is it that the same mass now occupies more volume - if that was the case - that would cause a decrease in the amount of gravity experienced at the surface.

But I really didn’t expect your “model” to be self consistent, make sense, or be based upon anything but ignorance and delusion. You didn’t disappoint! :)

[UCANSEE2]

There are buildings with carvings of DRAGONS on them, and GARGOYLES on top of the roofs.

Where did we find those fossils?

Could the civilization that built Angkor Watt have used descriptions they got handed down through their history? Maybe from previous civilizations?

Is it possible that the reason we don't find complete specimens is that all the easy to find, complete specimens were found 1000's or more years ago?

Is it possible that there were still some Stegosaurus's alive approx. 1000 years ago? (I would say it is possible).

Is it possible there were other 'dinos' that didn't die off completely, and survived much longer than we think?

[UCANSEE2]

How would “expanding from the inside” increase gravity? Does mass create more mass in your fantasy - or is it that the same mass now occupies more volume - if that was the case - that would cause a decrease in the amount of gravity experienced at the surface.

The people in Hawaii want to know where the 2 mile tall volcano they live on came from, if the planet is not actually growing. Is the center of the Earth hollow by now, from spewing magma to the surface constantly?

Did the Earth pop into existence, the exact size it is now?

[allmendream]

Islands come up and islands sink down irrespective of the supposed “growing” of the Earth. It has to do with vulcanism and the shifting of tectonic plates. You Can see new island growing up out of the sea at one end of the chain - and old islands sunk below the sea at the other end. Not that I would expect you to let actual data influence your fantasy.

And if the Earth is growing outward - that would NOT -despite your ignorant delusions - increase the gravity experienced at the surface - it would decrease it.

Do you understand why?

Now how long would Earth have to collect space debris to actually increase its mass enough to change the effect of gravity? And wouldn't this be counterbalanced by your supposed “hollow Earth” nonsense?

When you give up on evidence based reality - this is what you are left with boys and girls - a raving loon who thinks he has all the answers but doesn't understand even the basics and will believe just about anything so long as it fits in with their preconceived delusions!

[UCANSEE2]

or be based upon anything but ignorance and delusion.

Ah, you are correct. The Earth is exactly the same size it was the day the Universe was created, and the Moon is still in the exact same orbit and distance from Earth, and the Universe started from a single point and expanded and will eventually fall back into itself due to gravity and entropy.

Only problem is that none of those things are true.

[TheOldLady]

Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby Dragon!

All Babies Love Their Bottles

Please donate, monthly if possible

A Sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor

Donate monthly and end FReepathons!

[allmendream]

Strawman. I didn't say that the Earth was the exact same size always - I said it has not changed in mass (and thus gravity) substantially from the time of the dinosaurs - and it is not picking up matter from space at a rate that would account for such - even after BILLIONS of years.

Now why don't you explain to me how a Earth becoming hollow and occupying more space with less mass will lead to an increase in the force of gravity experienced at the surface.

One delusion- that large dinosaurs could only exist in lower gravity - leads you to another delusion - that the Earth substantially increased its mass - and then you throw in a contrary delusion that you are not even smart enough to see that it contradicts - that the Earth is growing hollow!

Now if I wanted an illustration at just how idiotic and craptacular the thinking of creationist is, how they will believe anything and understand nothing, just what fanciful garbage passes for “creation science” - I couldn't have hoped for a better poster than you!

Now please explain to me how an Earth growing hollow will INCREASE the force of gravity experienced at the surface!

This should be really entertaining!!!!! LOL!!!

[editor-surveyor]

The photo you posted is a joke.

Dragon was the original term for dinosaur. There are countless writings from Europe on encounters with them, and none of the descriptions are of T-Rex; they fit the Apatosaurus much better, indicating that the nature of A-saurus was much more agressive than modern writers wish to assume.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for your response. I hope you understand that I don't mind you challenging my points, and me yours. The hope is that through this exchange of possibilities we can come up with better answers.

I didn't say that the Earth was the exact same size always

Agreed.

I said it has not changed in mass (and thus gravity) substantially from the time of the dinosaurs.

And what is your proof?

and it is not picking up matter from space at a rate that would account for such - even after BILLIONS of years.

Is there anything else that would change the 'gravity' besides a change in mass?

Now why don't you explain to me how a Earth becoming hollow and occupying more space with less mass will lead to an increase in the force of gravity experienced at the surface.

I see I was unclear. I don't believe the Earth has become hollow due to the extrusion of magma to the surface. I was saying that you would 'think' it would become hollow with all the magma coming to the surface over billions of years. Yes there are subduction zones where one edge of the crust is shoved under another, but is that enough to compensate for the amount exuded by all the volcanoes (and there are 1000's of volcanoes under the oceans that we have just become aware of) ?

If you look at the ring of fire, you will see folds like waves growing and spreading out from the ring of fire, and which have been doing so for billions of years. How could this happen if the Earth has not 'grown' in size? How could this happen if the tectonic plates were not 'growing'? The 'old' explanation about how the tectonic plates move around and cause the above ocean land masses (such as the North and South American Continent having once been butted up against Africa) does not work because they show the CONTINENTS moving independently of the tectonic plates, which is impossible.

I do not claim the Earth is hollow, anymore than I would that an apple or watermelon is hollow simply because it grows in size.

The Earth grows because it is FED. Fed by the same thing everything else is. Take the watermelon. It starts from a very small seed. The mass achieved by the watermelon is way beyond the mass it started with. Of course, water comprises much of it (as dos the Earth), but where does the rest of the mass come from? The 'dirt' doesn't disappear from where the watermelon is growing. What else contributes to the 'creation' of this additional mass?

One delusion- that large dinosaurs could only exist in lower gravity

I don't believe that it is the only reason. It is just one of the possibilities. A difference in the composition of the atmosphere (higher oxygen content) could make a difference as well. The average temperature could have an affect.

Land animals, and plants were all much larger than they are now. Animals and plants grow to suit the environment, where 'environment' can include atmospheric composition, temperature, rainfall, and gravity, among many other factors. What is your explanation for why they were so large?

Now please explain to me how an Earth growing hollow will INCREASE the force of gravity experienced at the surface!

As I said, I don't think it is hollow at all. I think it has grown, and the whole Earth with it. Or is Earth not 'alive'? Does it not feed off the SUN like everything else ? If you had no SUN whatsoever, would you 'grow'?