New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[nwrep]

New Dinosaur Species Found in India

2 hours, 55 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

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.

AP Photo Missed Tech Tuesday? Check out the powerful new PDA crop, plus the best buys for any budget

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.

[Aric2000]

Sorry, that Gallop poll that you stated is NOT at ALL what it asked.

It asked scientists whether they were Atheistic evolutionists or theistic evolutionists. NOT whether they believed in evolution or not.

55% of them said that they were ATHEISTIC evolutionists, and 45% stated that they were Theistic evolutionists.

That's it, that's all.

[DittoJed2]

There is evidence both ways. And the link I provided seems to indicate that they were cold rather than warm blooded.

[ALS]

http://designeduniverse.com/images/incasaurs.jpg

http://designeduniverse.com/images/IcaPeruBurialStones3.jpg

http://designeduniverse.com/images/IcaPeruDinoFigurines.jpg

[DittoJed2]

I believe the poll I'm speaking of compared the general population's belief to scientists and it stated 55% of Scientists believed in naturalistic evolution. Not every evolutionist is a Darwinist, and not every Scientist is an evolutionist. It is not as universally held as one might think was my point. Evolutionary belief is strong in the realm of science, but even within the ranks of scientists it is still theory which is being modified over and over and over again. The only thing that doesn't seem to be safe to modify is one's faith in macroevolution occuring. Everything else seems to be up for grabs.

[Aric2000]

Yes, and your point is?

Evolution is a theory, and is being changed every day as scientific evidence comes to light.

And it is as universally accepted in the scientific community as one would think.

Evolution is a theory, and has never been claimed to be otherwise.

An OVERWHELMING amount of scientists agree that it is the BEST scientific theory to explain the available evidence at this time, and if any scientist told YOU otherwise, I would question their scientific credentials.

[Virginia-American]

It has contributed SQUAT to the scientific effort.

didn't it suggest that Piltdown man was a hoax? As was later proven by microscopic examination?

Did any anti-evo contribute anything to unmasking this hoax?

[gore3000]

Discussions regarding a purely scientific topic do not require any input from those who have no belief (or understanding) of the scientific method.

It is the evolutionists who have no regard for the scientific method. The words 'imagine', 'possibly', 'perhaps', and 'maybe' are not scientific terms. They are used constantly by evolutionists and are the staple of Darwin's so called 'proofs' of evolution.

[DittoJed2]

Evolutionists believe we came from a rock!

No, we don't. However, the Bible teaches man was formed from dirt, so one could make the claim that that which you attribute to evolutionists more accurately portrays creationists.

Yes you do. Let me spell things out for you. In the beginning, there was NOTHING. Then NOTHING exploded and made SOMETHING. And that something was called Matter. Matter was really really hot. And it rained for billions of years on that big ball of matter (rock) until there was this primordial soup. And in the primordial soup, low and behold life sprang up. And that life, which was impersonal, begat personal and impersonal alike so that millions of years later YOU, yes YOU, can confidentally say that you have about as much meaning and worth as a kiwi plant! Evolutionists teach that the rain hit the rock - hence, evolutionists believe that we came from a rock, or rather a rock was our ancestor. In actuality, evolutionists teach we came from either NOTHING or Matter which always existed.

Creationists, on the other hand, recognize the extreme complexity of EVERYTHING we see. From the human eye to the smallest of bacteria. Life is too complex to have evolved by chance. It has a design and a designer. Man was created by that designer out of the clay of the earth, but the designer could have just said let there be man and he would have been. Man was created in God's image and therefore is of infinite value. God is man's law-giver and therefore man is accountable. In evolution, there is no source for law. There is only survival of the fittest and bully, I mean majority rule. Evolution has netted us nothing - but sorrow. Christianity, or rather, Christ, has netted us everything.

[Virginia-American]

[new Asian elephants]

Intersting article. The romantic side of me loves cryptozoology, but I really doubt we'll ever find a sauropod or carnosaur.

I've read of suggestions to breed mammoths by using the uteri of elephants, but nothing seems to have come of it.

[DittoJed2]

Evolution is a theory, and has never been claimed to be otherwise.
Evolution is TAUGHT as fact. If you don't believe me, pick up a high-school biology book. It will read something like "4.6 billion years ago the earth evolved." Not MAY have evolved, or we believe it evolved, it did it.

My college science teacher at a secular university and I got in an argument one day over the word theory. I said evolution is a theory. It is not proven fact. It has evidences which people can accept or reject, but it is a theory, not fact. He said a theory is a fact in this case. How do you argue with such idiocy? Evolution is a theory. Creation is a theory. The best material from BOTH should be taught, and they should be taught as theories.

I will not deny that the majority of scientists believe in evolution. I will not say it is universal though because there are far too many highly credentialled folks who believe it is poppycock.

[DittoJed2]

They contributed by quietly taking their exhibits down. Of course, there was Nebraska man too. Wonderful how they can find out how this guy looked (and his wife too) all from one single solitary tooth (which ended up being a pig's tooth anyway).

[f.Christian]

"Why does this matter?"

"Because one of the charges against Mel Gibson and The Passion is that reliance upon the Gospels is typical Christian hillbilly mentality - and yet this is the ... precise belief structure (( link )) --- that created the vast majority of intellectual understanding of the modern world. Fidelity to truth, confidence that our truth is the shadowy outline of a loving Creator, and unprecedented genius which flowed directly from that confidence is the surest evidence serious Christians cannot be dismissed by serious critics as hayseeds or kooks."

[DittoJed2]

They, being the evolutionists of course. Of course anti-evos are forever critiquing evolutionary "evidence." Evos won't listen and anti-evolutionary scientists are heavily discriminated against, but they are speaking up.

[Virginia-American]

They contributed by quietly taking their exhibits down

What are you talking about? Who took what down?

[Aric2000]

OH Puhlease,

Evolution is based on scientific evidence, Creationism is based on religious faith and belief.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2.

Creationism is NOT based on scientific evidence, therefore it has NO place in a science classroom.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and yes, most scienitist assume it to be pretty damn accurate to what actually took place.

And yes, to say that it is pretty much proven to the scientific community is a pretty fair assessment.

It may not be a FACT to your view, but most scientists agree that it is as close as you can get in science.

[DittoJed2]

How different would the world have been if Jesus never would have been born. Creationists such as the following may never have contributed to our base of knowledge as they have, and science would not have been advanced as it has.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method

Johann Kepler (1571–1630) Scientific astronomy

Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor

John Wilkins (1614–1672)

Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer

Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics

Robert Boyle (1627–1691) Chemistry; Gas dynamics

John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history

Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics

Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy

Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology

Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy

Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

Isaac Newton (1642–1727) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician

John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy

William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology

Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician

John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician

John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology

William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology

John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology

Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology

Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system

Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology

Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy

William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus

James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician

John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics

Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator

William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist

Jedidian Horse (1761–1826) Geographer

Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist

John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry

Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology

Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy

Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist

John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry

Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp

Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist

Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist

Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor

David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope

William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist

William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (

Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (

Michael Faraday (1791–1867) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator

Samuel F. B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph

Charles Babbage (1792–1871) Operations research; Computer science; Ophthalmoscope

John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy

Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology

William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer

Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology

Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography

Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology

Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology

John Murray (1808–1892) Publisher

James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology

Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology

Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist

James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology

James Dana (1813–1895) Geology

Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist

James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics

Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist

Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy

George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics

John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology

Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) Genetics

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization

Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects

William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable

William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry

Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries

Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery

Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity

James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)

Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis

John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist

John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases

Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy

Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy

A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist

George Romanes (1848–1894) Biology; Physiology

John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist

George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor

L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology

Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist

Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology

Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology

Dr Frank Marsh, Biology

Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer

Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy

William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist

William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation

Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist

A. Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon

Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon

Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist

Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)

Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

[f.Christian]

I watched a tv special about ayres rock in australia and it was the most convoluted evolution bs I'd ever seen .

My theory -- explantion is ... it's an underground blowup - out --- through a soft spot hole in the earth's crust - plate !

If evolution was true and these were plates turned sideways ... their would be some fossil evidence in them and my theory would make their presence nearly impossible --- they could be drawn in from the surface and resurfaced in the extruding process !

* Here it is * ...


Most of the canyons and gorges (( revealing layers forming below surface cambrian layers )) actually formed by drying - shrinking cracks ... water naturally flowing through them because of their lower elevations - depth !

At some point plates collapsed upon themselves forming rocky mountains and some fragmenting - opening allowing islands and mountains to protrude - rise above and through the plate valley - ocean floor edges !

Heating and cooling would have changed the size of the earth ... probably hot --- very small !

Starting to cool forming a surface crust ... getting larger again --- and then like a cake bubbling rising up sections and with more cooling drying cracks !

Towards the center top middle half of the geologic column life forms appear fully formed ... cambrian explosion --- nothing below !

There are ... No precambrian fossils --- except for worms - mollusks !

While the top layers were being formed from flooding and volcanic activity ... most of the column layers were formed from below and at the same time forming most of the above ground ... i.e., buttes - hills - mountains -- surface plate geography we see today --- not enough time for all this evolution nonsense that wouldn't be possible with unlimited time anyway --- pure fantasy- fiction !


Cambrian plates are on mountain tops and rising mountains would raise plate and ocean floors to various elevations !

All this geology and life washing out of a mudball is OBVIOUSLY an evolution hoax -- legend !

[DittoJed2]

You obviously haven't read an ounce of scientific study by creation scientists. Try starting with Michael Behe and Intelligent design. We can work with you from there. Creationism has PLENTY of evidence, all springing from design. The kind of pompous commentary like what you just spewed shows why it isn't given a wide audience.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a religious faith. It has not been observed, nor is it repeatable. There are evidences, but none beyond dispute. It is a theory taken by faith. Just like Creationism.

[Virginia-American]

Of course, there was Nebraska man too. Wonderful how they can find out how this guy looked (and his wife too) all from one single solitary tooth (which ended up being a pig's tooth anyway).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

From the referenced site:

"Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii."

"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."

"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)

Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:

"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."

In fact, the identification of the tooth as peccary (pig-like), not apish, was made in 1927, and received front-page coverage in the NYT and articles in Nature and Science. As usual, the anti-evos had nothing to do with this.

Why do the anti-evos keep harping on a mistake that was corrected within a decade, and is more than 7 decades old? Don't they have any research in the interim?!

[f.Christian]

Evolution is a 2nd act play - farce ... w / o an act one and three --- clowns !