Sean Murtha
Scientists have discovered a fossil in New Mexico that looks like a sixfoot-long, two-legged dinosaur, but is
actually an ancient relative of alligators and crocodiles.
Posted on 01/26/2006 3:31:41 AM PST by Pharmboy
Sean Murtha
Scientists have discovered a fossil in New Mexico that looks like a sixfoot-long, two-legged dinosaur, but is
actually an ancient relative of alligators and crocodiles.
Scientists at the American Museum of Natural History have discovered a fossil in New Mexico that looks like a six-foot-long, two-legged dinosaur along the lines of a tyrannosaur or a velociraptor. But it is actually an ancient relative of today's alligators and crocodiles.
The discovery is a striking example of how different animals can evolve the same kind of body over and over again.
For almost 60 years, the 210-million-year-old fossil has been hiding in plain sight. It was lodged in a slab of rock dug up in 1947 in New Mexico by a team led by Edward Colbert, a paleontologist at the museum.
The site, called Ghost Ranch Quarry, is famous for hundreds of fossils of a very early dinosaur, Coelophysis. Coelophysis kept Dr. Colbert busy for decades, and he left several slabs unopened at the museum.
"We always collect more than we can study," said Mark Norell, the chairman of paleontology.
In 2005 one of Dr. Norell's graduate students, Sterling Nesbitt, began to open the slabs. One rock contained a pelvis and an ankle. The bones clearly did not belong to a dinosaur. They showed distinctive features found only in living crocodiles and alligators, as well as their extinct relatives. That alone made the discovery exciting, because it represented one of the oldest crocodilelike fossils.
Mr. Nesbitt paged through Colbert's notebooks to figure out which slabs had been next to the one with the pelvis and ankle. When he opened them, he found almost all the remaining bones in the skeleton.
It quickly became clear that the fossil was unlike any crocodilelike species ever found.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So if it evolves the same body over and over again, how is that evolving?
It's not the same creature evolving the same body over and over. It's different creatures going through the same phase as the progress.
"After all the other variants have gone by the wayside, the one best suited for a particular set of conditions remains."
Why would the other variants go by the wayside? What would cause variants that weren't suitable?
Sorry, I'm not going to get caught up in your circular question-begging this time. Playing dumb is cute for a while, but it does not lead to intelligent discourse, and it is clear that you have no intention of dealing with this with an open mind.
Suffice to say, the seed that falls in good soil will grow, that which falls on rocks will not take root, and that which falls among weeds will be choked to death. Nice discussion on evolution straight from Jesus.
If you don't know the answer to something, just say so. How is asking a question circular reasoning? And the seed parable, do you really think that equates to evolution? Maybe I'm not the only one who needs a high school biology refresher course.
"Suffice to say, the seed that falls in good soil will grow, that which falls on rocks will not take root, and that which falls among weeds will be choked to death. Nice discussion on evolution straight from Jesus.
"
It's been my experience that you need to provide chapter and verse for these things. Most of those you're directing such examples to are not that familiar with the Bible.
Matthew 13:3-8
It's circular reasoning when you keep asking questions for which the answers are readily apparent, in the hopes that an answer offered in all sincerity will fall into your playbook. As for the seed parable, such examples are the very basis of evolution, when a combination of external factors and the ability to adapt to those factors optimize an organism's chances to pass on its particular genetic code.
I'm sorry but I didn't realize you needed a high school biology refresher course.
Thanks for taking up my slack, MM.
Sure, once in a while.
"the seed that falls in good soil will grow, that which falls on rocks will not take root, and that which falls among weeds will be choked to death"
So how is the seed evolving? Of course it isn't. It depends on the soil, etc. to grow. The seed will eventually produce after its kind or it won't. A morning glory seed will produce morning glories, not petunias.
The seed itself is not evolving. Its progeny, however, do not have exactly the same genetic code. It is this variation that is part of the process that inquiring people call evolution.
What made the seed fall there? Was it the way it bounced? Its aerodynamic qualities? Its ability to roll off of stones until it hit soft ground? Why does a maple seed have a wing on it? Because if the seeds fall too close to the parent tree, the will not get enough light or nutrient to grow. The bigger the wing, the farther it falls from the parent, and the better its chance of surviving.
I am not disputing God's hand in evolution. I am simply saying that the process is evident even in the short span of time that we can observe it.
But the maple tree produces more maple trees. The maple tree doesn't change into an oak tree. That is my only point. Kind after kind, as Genesis states.
Sharks, icthyasaurs and dolphins, for example. Very similar looking critters, one a fish, one a reptile, and one a mammal.
The ecological niche drives the shape.
It's simply the shape of success...
Show me any two maple trees that are exactly alike (outside of a Korean cloning lab). Slight variations occur all the time. Some favorable, some not. As conditions change, the variations that meet these new conditions are the ones that survive more readily, which accounts for different types of maples in different climates. Given time and enough change in conditions, variations may go far enough that the latest generation no longer resembles the original, but it is the result of gradual change, not instantaneous jump in speciation. Your argument about a maple producing an oak is disingenuous, as even the most devoutly atheistic evolutionist will agree that such leaps do not take place.
During the Triassic, the niche filled by crocodiles today was filled by thecodonts called phytosaurs. Although they closely resembled crocodillians, and belonged to the same Archosaur subclass, they weren't really that closely related. The most telling difference: in phytosaurs, the nostrils were located all the way up, right in front of the eyes:
"Your argument about a maple producing an oak is disingenuous, as even the most devoutly atheistic evolutionist will agree that such leaps do not take place."
However, these devout atheists have no problem assuming they descended from ape-like creatures yet don't believe a maple tree could evolve into an oak tree.
More distortion to make your point? Given enough time, amazing changes are possible. No one that I have come across believes these things happen overnight. Somewhere in the past, the oak and maple had a common ancestor that was neither oak nor maple, and these variations evolved. It didn't happen in 6,000 years. It took much, much longer. This is fun, but we're not going to change each others' minds, and I have to get back to work. Have a glorious day and be safe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.