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.

[DittoJed2]

I look at evolution as a hypothesis concerning the origin of the species. Part of that hypothesis includes how the earliest organism formed. I have stated several times that evolutionists are divided regarding this early organism. That's why you have theories such as punctuated equillibrium, panspermia, and the like. The reason I went to the big bang is because evolutionists do. As I said, I'm perfectly willing to throw that theory out. I will also limit discussion to just biological evolution here on earth and try to ignore how the non-living minerals that made up the primordial soup that joined together to form living organisms got here.

[StolarStorm]

You don't seem to have any problem lecturing scientists about evolution.

[Aric2000]

Yes indeed, and ALL of them were from the 1800's before evolution was really understood and accepted.

Before Darwin ALL scientists were creationists, because that's all there was.

NOT literalists, but creationists, because there was NO scientific theory for the origins of the species, as Darwin wrote.

God created the heavens and the earth, was pretty much a given, it was HOW did he create the heavens and the earth that was question, and we have been answering it ever since.

Your problem with evolution, big bang etc, is that you feel that it takes god out of the equation.

Science CANNOT use god as a causation, because the natural laws do not apply to god, therefore to use god as a causation is pretty much destroying the whole point of the exercise.

Science started because someone asked, "how did god do this" and we have been going like gangbusters ever since.

You may not like it, it may make you uncomfortable, but the only reason it does is because you are a literalist, on the fringe of the christian religion.

A very high percentage of scientists are christians, they believe in god, but they know that science cannot use god as a causation, therefore they do not.

They separate their religious faith, from their scientific evidence and theories, but I assure you, ALL scientists look in awe at the universe and want to know how it works, that is why they are scientists. Some have their faith strengthened by doing what they do, and others are weakened, but ALL are fascinated with the world around them.

God cannot be used as acausation in science, you are just going to have to learn to live with that.

Religion is for god, science is for natural phenomona and trying to explain how he did it.

And you call us arrogant.

We don't write off 90% of scientific findings because it might hurt our worldview.

No, that is the ULTIMATE in arrogance, writing off 90% of science because it disagrees with your literal interpretation of the bible.

[Physicist]

I come to FR by way of Usenet,

As do I. I consider FR to be a gentle harbor of repose and decorum on the internet.

[Right Wing Professor]

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.

This is a misrepresentation. Georges Cuvier did not believe in the Genesis account of creation; in fact, he explicity rejected it. He believed the earth was far more ancient than Genesis allowed, and that there had been many catastrophes which had wiped out the extinct species he observed in the fossil record. This is in good accord with modern knowledge about the CT and other mass extinctions. Since he died before the Origin of Species, he could hardly reject Darwinian evolution.

He did, however, like the geological column you so vehemently reject. See footnote 241 of this reference.

[longshadow]

If one has two time-like dimensions, it seems that one then really needs three such.

This idea of two or three time dimensions is appealing to me; I'd very much like to do my "aging" at this stage of life in a time coordinate that is orthogonal to the one we normally (no pun intended) experience.

Or did "Dorian Gray" beat me to it?

[Aric2000]

Sorry stud, but you obviously studied with an agenda, because you continue to post with one.

Ignoring evidence does NOT make it go away.

I will stand by that post.

Your agenda is so obvious that it is insane, your religious beliefs act as a blinder to facts that you don't like, so you ignore them.

I trust my information far more then I would YOURS, because you again, put blinders on and ignore anything that does NOT agree with you.

You may have a degree or whatever, but I have an open mind and do not have an agenda.

[PatrickHenry]

When I see something in a post that I want to rebut, and if that post is from someone to whom I generally don't respond ("Virtual Ignore" you know), what I do is just quote the thing I'm rebutting (along with its byline from the end of the post), write my rebuttal, and address the thing to "All." It's every bit as effective as a post addressed to the person being ignored, and the "target" then can't complain of unwanted pings.

On the other hand, I've sometimes been the target of a certain poster in these threads whose posts are generally incoherent. There have been times when he was definitely stalking me from thread to thread with his rants, each addressed to me. I've actually hit the abuse button on him, twice, the last time maybe a year ago, but there was never any mod response of any kind, so in my experience the mods really don't care about unwanted pings -- even those involving incoherent, rambling, insulting, and apparently deranged posts.

What the mods really do seem to care about is being bothered by a lot of petty crapola.

[general_re]

I concur. Probably why the late unpleasantness was so...unpleasant. ;)

[Alamo-Girl]

Agreed, it is hard evidence (from our space/time coordinates.) Thank you so much for your post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up to the necessity for an odd number of time dimensions! This gives me something very engaging to research (the why of it) --- no hints, please - it "sticks" better if I figure it out on my own. Hugs!

[VadeRetro]

Historically speaking, most of the greatest scientists of all time have approached the world with a creationist point of view.

Most of the history of science--and thus most of the basic groundbreaking work--comes before Darwin, yes. But by far most of the knowledge we have now accumulated was learned in the last century.

In 1900, we didn't have a good model for the atom. We had barely begun to notice that there are forms of radiation besides visible light. Communication by telegraph wire, which had been around for fifty years, was as modern as it got. Radio waves had been noticed, but not harnessed.

In 1900, medicine was extremely primitive. We had only barely figured out that microorganisms caused disease. Antibiotics were decades away. Surgeons worked very quickly, getting in and out before the patient could lose enough blood to die.

Astronomers weren't sure if blobs of glowing matter in the sky were groups of stars like our solar system or most likely merely glowing dust clouds. The term "nebulla" as used then included what we now call a galaxy.

In 1900, nobody flew anywhere. A rocket was a fireworks toy. The latest thing was the tin lizzy, which threatened to replace the horse if things continued.

In biology, the concept of "gene"--a unit of heritable change--had been identified by Mendel, but his work had not been widely published. Most people were unaware of it. Nobody knew what the genes were, anyway.

Darwin had been published in 1859, and his influence was now felt worldwide. Most of the paleontological record we have now--African hominids, walking whales, chinese feathered dinosaurs, legged sirenians, quite a long list, really--had not yet been unearthed, but it would all support Darwin. If he wasn't right, he was the luckiest charlatan in history.

[bondserv]

If the item can spoil, it has previously been contaminated by the information of life. If the information of life cannot access the material it will never become alive.

Therefore athiest's are stuck with Alien's from parallel universes that are older than ours, seeding our planet. So atheist's really believe in the God of the Aliens.

Sounds like the deciever to me.

If one believe's in the God of the Bible and evolution, you are forced to believe the Bible is poopycock, therefore His biography and standards are subjective at best.

Sounds like the deciever to me.

Chief Justice Moore is fighting a losing battle, fore the Ten Commandments hold no authority if evolution is true.

[VadeRetro]

One thing you learn at a golf range, don't try to help someone with their swing unless they ask.

The guy on the golf range isn't trolling for converts to his bad swing.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed! I'm trying to quit too...

[js1138]

You responded to some question that I didn't ask, not to the question I asked.

[DittoJed2]

No. Because I have facts to back up my assertions. Aric is the king of unsubstantiated assertions, and the assertions in his post are clearly false.

[Physicist]

I would advise you to run from this subject quickly and do not turn back.

And I would advise you to take an interest in physics, to study and appreciate its wonder and beauty, and to learn how we know what we know.

[Aric2000]

If one believe's in the God of the Bible and evolution, you are forced to believe the Bible is poopycock, therefore His biography and standards are subjective at best.

Come on Bondserv, even you know better then that.

Understanding evolution does NOT make the bible poppycock, it makes the bible nonliteral. You have to look for the message within the stories.

Yes, it is a bit tougher that way, and yes, the story itself gets a bit more complicated when you don't take it literally, but the fact is, genesis not taken literally does NOTHING to the basic tenets of the christian religion, not taking genesis literally does NOT effect the Jewish religion either, nor it's basic tenets.

I know hundreds of christians, and NONE of them have found their faith weakend by not taking genesis literally.

I find the whole idea that if you are a christian and do not take the bible literally that you are not a true Christian offensive, and actually rather ridiculous.

Some of the most christian like conduct I find from nonliteralist christians, most of the literalist christians I have talked to and met, are some of the most arrogant people that I have ever met.

There is one on this thread proving that to me each time he posts.

Arrogance in the fact that somehow taking the bible literally somehow makes them right and everyone else wrong, taking the bible literally somehow disproves science and all the answers that it has found, etc, etc.

That is arrogance, to think that somehow taking the bible literally gives you all the answers, when in fact all it does is make you quit asking questions. Except to disprove science somehow, because you can't have those questions lying around, it might put your faith in jeopardy.

This is NOT an attack and please do not take it as such, it is my personal opinion based on my experiences.

[DittoJed2]

Okay, Joseph Lister - disinfectant antiseptic.

The medical laboratory question is irrelevant.