Skip to comments.
New Dinosaur Species Found in India
AP ^
| August 13, 2003
| RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM
Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
New Dinosaur Species Found in India
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.
TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; antarctica; australia; catastrophism; crevolist; dino; dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs; ichthyostega; india; madagascar; narmadabasin; narmadensis; paleontology; rajasaurus; rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,821-1,840, 1,841-1,860, 1,861-1,880 ... 3,121-3,129 next last
To: PatrickHenry
What makes sense is that mutations tend to have their limits. You can make a wholphin through genetic manipulation but you can not make a "felineolphin" (I know that is an extreme but we are talking kind to kind here). Dogs are limited to mutations within the dog family. Cats within the cat family. Horses within the horse family. This is observable science.
Even if you may end up with some freakish specimin that looks like a sphinx (head of a human body of an animal) or something, getting that freak to procreate and spread the deformity throughout the species until it indeed takes off on its own is an entirely different thing. First, you'd have to get another specimin with the same genetics. Even with some intermarriage, the "blue people" of Appalachia stopped being blue and the mutant gene faded away. Second, You don't have a part ape mating with a human being I don't care what their visual similarities are. Talk about a problem worse than where Cain got his wife from! Ya'll propose that some human somewhere had offspring with a part-ape.
To: f.Christian
Hey quite picking on her! Or as Bender might say:
* slap * bite * slap * my * slap * shiny * slap * metal * slap * ass * slap *
1,842
posted on
08/21/2003 9:41:25 AM PDT
by
balrog666
(Ignorance never settles a question. -Benjamin Disraeli)
To: DittoJed2
Ya'll propose that some human somewhere had offspring with a part-ape. Where did we-all do that? Part ape and part what? And when did we-all say that happened?
This isn't some kind of a strawman argument, is it? Not saying it is, but tell me it isn't!
To: Physicist
In layman's terms, a kind is that which produces offspring with itself. Regardless of the genetic similarities between a human and a chimp (which is a good example), you aren't going to have a human (this is gross) having sex with a chimp and have a huepansee. That is my definition of "kind". You may end up with a similar ancestor between a zebra and horse, possibly. Another example would be the bird-dinosaur theory. It is debated whether dinos were warm or cold blooded, which is an issue in itself, but lung structure of birds apparently negates the theory anyway. You aren't going to have lizards mating with birds and coming up with a transitional species.
To: f.Christian
LOLOL! Thanks for the hugs! And here's hugs25 to you!!! As to the hidden message, DittoJed2 is doing a great job on the creationist message. I'm very confident that other creationist views are welcome!
Personally, I've contributed very little because my intelligent design views are not helpful to the discussion at hand. But if anyone wishes to engage a sidebar on that aspect, I'm happy to discuss it.
To: VadeRetro
You Hawaiians talk funny. No doubt you mean "... what you done revealed here." Actually, this may be the first effdot post ever that benefits from adding punctuation - I think it may be intended to be read as "if you wanted to have a shallow, one-sided debate by hypocrites, you have succeeded immensely via what you have done, revealed here".
Notice how the clarity is immensely improved by the addition of a few commas and a hyphen. I may have to bookmark this thread...
1,846
posted on
08/21/2003 9:56:05 AM PDT
by
general_re
(A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
To: Alamo-Girl
God does work in mysterious ways ... so does satan --- among the brethern too !
I miss als and gore3000 !
1,847
posted on
08/21/2003 9:57:41 AM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: DittoJed2
If you are going to introduce individual persons as evidence, you have made the argument by definition ad hominem. If you claim X and Y are great scientists and support creationism, then the only reasonable rebuttal is 'X and Y are not great scientists'. I agree ad hominems are in general unacceptable, but if a positive ad hominem is introduced as evidence for a point, a negative ad hominem in rebuttal is only to be expected.
Regarding the individuals: Behe's Darwin's Black Box book is unconvincing and sloppy. However, I am familiar with his previous physical chemistry work on DNA, and it was scientifically rigorous. Damadian's 1972 patent does not include an NMR imager as it is understood by either the NMR or the more general imaging community.
To: Eternal_Bear
"I'll tell you who the descendants are: the birds!"
So some believe.
To: f.Christian
Howdy pardner.
To: Junior
It is not a misconception. In order to become two kinds of species that can not overlap, then new genetic information would have to be added to enough of one group to cause them to go off in an entirely different direction. You can't just have Norm's grandson getting a mutation, moving to Omaha and "eventually" starting a new colony that can't mate with Norm's other offspring at all. First, the grandson would have to have had one strong mutation to withstand the natural weeding out process. Also, mutations of this kind dont tend to affect an entire species and they don't make them turn into different kinds of animals. The dinosaur who runs around and gets "Frayed scales" may have messed up scales, but he doesn't get feathers, became a debatably warm-blooded creature, and take to flight.
Finally, the fossil record does not support what you are saying. The best you have is a few highly disputed examples of what you call transitional species based upon external similarities. I can see external similarities between a giraffe and a lot of long-necked dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they had the same ancestor.
To: f.Christian
Thanks for your reply! Indeed, God does work in mysterious ways! I don't know where gore3000 went. He usually has a number of links and excerpts to post on a thread like this which is hitting so many areas of science all at the same time.
To: AndrewC
The sock pop up puppets are relentless --- gremlins ... whack - whack - whack !
1,853
posted on
08/21/2003 10:01:45 AM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: DittoJed2
The list admits to the possibility of being not 100% accurate.In fact, it doesn't admit to being 10% accurate. If you post a list which includes the admission that some unknown fraction of the list may be bogus, what does that prove?
My wife happens to have served recently on an NSF panel with one member of the list, and attended grad. school in the institution at which he teaches. She says she has never heard of his being an evolution skeptic, and is extremely doubtful that he is.
To: Ichneumon
Another word - the word "could". It is a hypothesis. As I stated earlier, the Bible seems to indicate the continents were at one point closer together. Then the earth was broken up (during the time of Peleg). I reject the Pangea model because it has to shrink Africa and ignores other countries in central and south America. Because of erosion, shrinking Africa in the very beginning should result in an even smaller country today, not bigger.
To: Junior
He said they would not have been "capable of comprehending". You can legitimately take that two ways, and leaning towards intelligence is the stronger case of the two.
To: VadeRetro
ROFL!! Reminds be of your 'bin' theory ;)
1,857
posted on
08/21/2003 10:05:04 AM PDT
by
BMCDA
To: general_re
Actually, the *hugs* are the real message and the rest is just camouflage.
To: BMCDA; VadeRetro
be = me
1,859
posted on
08/21/2003 10:06:01 AM PDT
by
BMCDA
To: VadeRetro
There is no astounding discovery to rescue the YECs from this hopeless position. Something that overturns all of biology won't do it. Something that overturns all of astronomy won't do it. Something that revolutionizes cosmology won't do it. Something that revolutionizes geology won't do it.
The return of the Creator will do it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,821-1,840, 1,841-1,860, 1,861-1,880 ... 3,121-3,129 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson