Posted on 10/18/2005 7:19:16 AM PDT by Junior
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - 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.
"It was about the size of an ostrich, and it was a meat-eater," said Debra Mickelson, a University of Colorado graduate student in geological sciences. "The tracks suggest it waded along the shoreline and swam offshore, perhaps to feed on fish or carrion."
The tracks indicate a dinosaur that was about 6 feet tall and lived about 165 million years ago along an ancient inland sea, Mickelson said in a university news release.
"The swimming dinosaur had four limbs and it walked on its hind legs, which each had three toes," she said. "The tracks show how it became more buoyant as it waded into deeper water — the full footprints gradually become half-footprints and then only claw marks."
Mickelson said research so far by herself and others supports the "conclusion that the dinosaurs were intentionally swimming out to sea, perhaps to feed."
Mickelson was presenting her findings at the Geological Society of America's annual meeting this week in Salt Lake City and was unavailable for comment.
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.
Wright said she has not reviewed what Mickelson and other researchers involved have found, but she would be interested in seeing photos of the tracks.
The news has perked up the ears of some prominent paleontologists.
"I'm not a trackway specialist, but it sounds pretty cool to me," Jack Horner, curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies and one of the nation's leading fossil hunters, said by telephone from Bozeman, Mont.
Horner said he was unaware of any previously discovered dinosaur tracks "where it actually goes from land into the water."
The unique tracks were found at a number of sites in northern Wyoming, including the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area along the Wyoming-Montana state line.
The tracks are embedded in a layer of rock known as the Middle Jurassic Bajocian Gypsum Spring Formation. Geologists believe an inland sea covered Wyoming and a large area of the western United States during the Jurassic period from about 157 million to 165 million years ago.
Mickelson said the unidentified dinosaur tracks are found among tracks left by many animals, including ancient crocodiles and marine worms, and are of different sizes.
The tracks suggest that the dinosaur traveled in packs and exhibited some variation in overall size, she said.
Mickelson collaborated her findings with researchers from CU-Boulder, Indiana University, Dartmouth College, Tennessee Technological University and the University of Massachusetts.
So there is a chance that if I drop enough rocks ... one will go up instead of down.... :)
Still don't get it? The claim, "a spaceship can orbit the earth," is not a scientific theory. It's a specific assertion. Theories must be general, applicable to any and all specific instances within their bounds.
If we make the observation, "here's a spaceship, and it's orbiting the earth," then that is a fact which may well comprise a test of a theory or be explicable by a theory. (Actually this fact would variously implicate a number of theories.)
And you know this because?? Because you know every science theory that there ever was first hand? Or because you don't think there was? How can you be so certain to say "there is no". You seem more certain of that than you do that a space ship can circle the earth.
I'm just curious....If a theory hasn't been proved mathematically, but it has been "proved" by test (actually accomplished).... does that mean that the theory isn't proved, or does it mean that we don't understand enough about math to prove it with math?
Specifically the article says that our friend probably waded into the water to eat fish. Since I've observed first hand animals that wade into the water for a variety of reasons but don't hunt fish in any way.... what credence should I lend to this assertion?
There are a couple of points in there, actually. JMO, but the assertion that the animal waded into the water seems quite solid. That it did so in order to catch fish is rather more speculative, as you point out. It's a reasonable hypothesis to explain the behavior of a carnivore entering the water, but it's not at all a certainty.
And I wonder how it's determined that they were swiming "out to sea". Is that 10 meters, 100 yards, 2 miles.... Or is it like my border collie who swims around when it's real hot and then gets out and lays under a shade tree to cool off.
In a practical sense, of course, we are really just talking semantics. . . after all, everyone knows what happens when you drop a rock within the atmosphere of planet Earth.
Did you ever see Jim Carey in "Dumb and Dumber"? Remember where he asks the girl if there's a chance for him to get together with her? She says "yeah, like a million to one". He excitedly responds, "So, you're saying there's a chance. I can work with that". Hilarious scene.
In a scientific sense, though, Gravity AS A THEORY is only valid as long as no one proves it wrong, i.e., no one finds the one in a blue million exception to it. So, if you do drop a rock and it goes up, then you have cause for demanding them to discard or amend the theory based on your information.
As for Evolution being a testable hypothesis, well, that has been debated ad nauseum here and there is no point in re-hashing it. The old textbooks from the 60's and 70's used to say that it could never be tested b/c it takes too long to observe. Now the scientists say it can be tested in a lab and verified.
So given this level of specific... would you say that the theory / opinion / idea / speculation being advanced by this article is pretty much worthless? Does it basically say we found some foot prints that go into where we think water was 165 million years ago.... and we haven't found anything to tell us what made the prints... but we're still looking?
"So given this level of specific... would you say that the theory / opinion / idea / speculation being advanced by this article is pretty much worthless? "
No.
"Does it basically say we found some foot prints that go into where we think water was 165 million years ago.... and we haven't found anything to tell us what made the prints... but we're still looking?"
No.
"So given this level of specific... would you say that the theory / opinion / idea / speculation being advanced by this article is pretty much worthless? "
No.
"Does it basically say we found some foot prints that go into where we think water was 165 million years ago.... and we haven't found anything to tell us what made the prints... but we're still looking?"
No.
I think the problem becomes ... if you're a researcher.... and you release information like this in the way I've stated it.... no one cares. But if you can somehow embellish that a little... then you maybe get to do the speaking circuit deal? Is that a fair guess on my part?
Don't know why that double posted, I only hit the button once.
In light of all of the first hand observations you have made yourself.... why would you suspect that this article is anything more that I have suggested it is... (leave out your personal desire for it to be true).
"In light of all of the first hand observations you have made yourself.... why would you suspect that this article is anything more that I have suggested it is... (leave out your personal desire for it to be true)."
Because I understood what was written and you didn't. :)
:) that's a cop out....
Appears they were up to to their axxes in global warming back then.
Or possibly just enjoying a balmy day at the beach...
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. 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?
":) that's a cop out...."
Nope, it's true. You said,
"...and we haven't found anything to tell us what made the prints..."
That's simply not true. Your statement shows either willful ignorance, an inability to read, or outright deceit. All of the above could very well be it.
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.