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.

[Right Wing Professor]

Interesting confession.

Not really. Didn't say I'd done with with the benefit of hallucinogens. Are you belittling me?

[Right Wing Professor]

It was a joke haiku (though not in 5/7/5/form) in response to yours. Or can it be you don't know what a haiku is?

Either way, I suggest you beg, borrow, or steal a sense of humor.

[VadeRetro]

... this latest seems primarily a ploy to try to silence me from continuing to point out when he is in error, being inconsistent, employing a double-standard, making unfair accusations, or behaving badly.

You're threatening the guy's whole game, here!

[VadeRetro]

Out of curiosity, how would you feel about such things as the following, had they been posted by a signer of the agreement?

Funny thing is ... they all were posted by a signer of the agreement! I earlier asked him if he was withdrawing from same. No response so far.

[editor-surveyor]

I suggest that you devote considerable time to reading God's word; it doesn't leave any room for doubt.

[Right Wing Professor]

I must say I'm disappointed in you, AndrewC. Ichneumon's posts are perhaps the most content-rich of anyone on the crevo threads. Ich ain't a troll, and ain't a spammer. Furthermore, this is an open forum, and as long as the other poster isn't being abusive, you can't reasonably expect them not to respond to your posts.

This looks very much like an attempt to silence Ich, and by pulling in Admin Moderator, to consign another thread to the backroom. I honestly thought more of you than this.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

LOL You so funny

[Physicist]

I'm just speculating here. If one has two time-like dimensions, it seems that one then really needs three such.

Speculate no more, you are entirely correct. Well done.

[VadeRetro]

Is there anything you can write to him to make him understand that it is polite to leave people alone when they request to be left alone?

You have refused the same consideration to me before, and that after you had earlier hit Abuse on me for merely responding to your posts.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Yeah, the rock layers.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps a Double Dactyl would have been more blatant.

Higgamus Hoggamus
Our Right Wing Professor has
Written a haiku that
Lampooned a post.

Hoggamus Higgamus
Those lacking humor will
Likely be people of-
Fended the most.

[VadeRetro]

Therefore, Andrew's request is not unprecedented, and will probably also be expected to be honored.

I don't know. The request basically says, "Please! No return fire around my sniper's nest!"

[Doctor Stochastic]

Thanks. I was just winging it.

[DittoJed2]

Because Big Bang is the prevailing theory of evolutionists of how life occurred on earth. There are other theories, but I'm addressing the primary theory. It is all part of the "evolutionary package."

Huh? Big bang is a cosmological theory. What does it have to do with anything else? Doesn't it stand or fall on its own merits, just like any other theory?

As Jennyp pointed out, Darwin certainly never heard of such a thing as big bang theory. He just studied life as it is.

I have never heard the theory discussed in full without the big bang also being discussed; but, hey, if you want to discard it as unimportant, I'm willing to stick to what we see here on earth. Of course, I believe it was Jennyp who also wanted to discount evidence of living dinosaurs (forgive me if it was someone else), so I don't know where we are supposed to stop on that one.

[VadeRetro]

No response so far.

That is, not to the question.

[general_re]

Clearly, it will have to be a two-way street. If Alice secures a ruling that Bob is not to post to her any more, and then turns around and posts that Bob sure is a real jerk, or continues to publicly critique Bob's posts, Alice is likely to meet with universal disapproval about her choice of tactics, and the rule about no replies will clearly be null and void. I do not think the moderators have any interest in enforcing a "you can't hit me back" rule, and the derision an attempt to create one would undoubtedly generate would be rightfully spawned, IMO - and so therefore I presume that such is not the intent of either of the parties concerned.

[Right Wing Professor]

Funny, I thought you were being funny; I was even willing to cede the extra syllable.

[DittoJed2]

No it's not! The only thing the Theory of Evolution "needs" from cosmology (for the ToE to not be falsified) is for the Earth to be at least 4 billion years old, and that only because the oldest fossils look like they're over 3 billion years old.

As I said, to Virginia American, if you want to throw out the big bang, I don't blame you. I would too. We can discuss just the earth evidence.

By the way, how do you know that something "looks like" it is over 3 billion years old???

I can come up with a dozen hypotheses about how the universe came to be that would be compatible with the earth being 4 billion years old - including "God spoke the primordial universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, then sat back & watched with excitement as His grand physics experiment played out". See? It's irrelevant to the theory of biological evolution.

Yes, but your hypothesis would not go hand in hand with the rest of the scientific community. When origins are discussed in detail, and you ask the question "where did that come from?" then most evolutionists will eventually get to "the big bang" caused it and they will even add how they are just on the verge of seeing where the big bang occurred in time. I agree that the hypothesis called evolution does not stand or fall on the big bang hypothesis, but to ignore its significance in what is taught even to school children regarding biological evolution seems disingenous. If it isn't necessary, then why teach it? In the very least, it is often taught as fact, which it is not.

[VadeRetro]

I do not think the moderators have any interest in enforcing a "you can't hit me back" rule, and the derision an attempt to create one would undoubtedly generate would be rightfully spawned, IMO ...

You'd think.

[Right Wing Professor]

Indeed, at this point it appears to be impossible by construction for there to be any sort of evidence against intelligent design.

Except we can nicely demonstrate the design isn't intelligent. That can't be evaded except by invoking some mysterious, unfathomable intention of the alleged designer. The real tough one to disprove would be 'stupid design' or 'capricious design'. Suppose you had something like the son-god of the gnostics; powerful, but neither intelligent nor particularly benign? I could well see such an entity coming up with the human genome as we know it.

And there is always Q. :-)