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]

That's true, I will let you guys deal with her then, your posts are always a lot better then mine anyway.

I'll just lurk and learn, as I sometimes do.

[longshadow]

"Mars approaches opposition" placemarker

[biblewonk]

Maybe my response should have been "have you ever read the bible?". Then if you said yes I could have asked if you believe it and then if you said yes I could have mentioned the creation account of stars and the sun being made on the 4th day etc.

If I'm gunshy it's because I've been shot so many times on this forum.

Sorry

[Aric2000]

Well, if you are ever set up, you let us know where and when.

We will support you in any way shape or form we can.

Believe it or not, we actually like you AndrewC, Lord knows why, ;), but we'll back you up if that ever becomes necassary, and I think I speak for most of us on this side of the aisle, so to speak.

In the meantime though, I am NOT acting on my suspicions and will not, unless absolutely and totally 100% convinced, in the meantime, VI will be my friend.

[Da_Shrimp]

There is nowhere in Scripture that the Bible makes a universal command to force conversion, torture, or anything of the like.

It happened nonetheless. Darwin did NOT make his theory into something that allowed elimination of 'lesser' peoples, but sundry nutters latched onto it. Is that Darwin's fault?

[Right Wing Professor]

As far as "Christians" doing these things, I just don't believe that these people were Christians- at least not in the biblical sense.

I don't believe that the people who practised social Darwinism understood that the theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, cannot be used to provide a moral basis for actions.

[Aric2000]

And you're a poophead for being able to see it when I can't!!

I saw it as a little red dot in the sky, you get to see the icecaps, argh, ya bum!! ;)

[whattajoke]

I don't recall anyone answering that, because they all the sudden seem to appear, like the Cambrian explosion

No fair. You are not allowed to use "Cambrian explosion" in any of your arguements. In your world, there is no such thing, no "Cambrian" period at all, and only 2 "explosions" with the Adam and Eve procreation miracle, and the post-Noah incest fest.

At any rate, your personal inability to comprehend something does not mean it didn't happen.

[Right Wing Professor]

Away with yer modesty!

[DittoJed2]

At any rate, your personal inability to comprehend something does not mean it didn't happen.
Tell it to the "scientists" who can't use the scientific method to explain God creating the universe so they try to explain him away by postulating it through naturalistic means.

[RadioAstronomer]

Oh, are you a Christian?

Does that matter? I have never denigrated Christian beliefs on this site, nor ever will. What I believe or not believe is very personal to me and I prefer not to post them publicly.

However, I have no problem discussing the bible or biblical passages. Nor do I intend to disparage them in anyway either.

[DittoJed2]

No, but they were not inconsistent in latching onto it. To use Christianity as an excuse to kill folks or force conversions is being completely inconsistent with the plain sense of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments taken in the historical and theological contexts).

[RadioAstronomer]

Sorry

Nawww... My fault as well. I overreacted.

[AndrewC]

In the meantime though, I am NOT acting on my suspicions and will not, unless absolutely and totally 100% convinced, in the meantime, VI will be my friend.

There is no harm in that, but ignoring means ignoring. (HEADLINE left off of tagline.)

[biblewonk]

OK so you read the bible but don't believe it. Then what good does it do me to point out where it says what?

[DittoJed2]

I don't believe that the people who practised social Darwinism understood that the theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, cannot be used to provide a moral basis for actions.
Could be. Or it could be that evolution can not be considered philosophically neutral. The scientific method itself is, certainly. But Darwinism is a world view. Those becoming social Darwins were not being inconsistent with the implications of that worldview. Others who didn't take that path weren't being inconsistent either.

[RadioAstronomer]

Tell it to the "scientists" who can't use the scientific method to explain God

Except God and faith are not apart of science.

[biblewonk]

Well, I've spent so many hours debating with people on the whole spectrum of belief from C vs E threads to RC vs Protestant threads to Calvin vs Arminian threads that it's really really hard to figure out where to start. I seem to remember you as being an evolutionist and I always seem to see you on these threads. If the FR had a really good search engine I could go back and try and remember what our relationship is but it doesn't so I can't.

[Right Wing Professor]

But Darwinism is a world view

No, it's just a scientific theory. Dawkins made an excellent point in 'The Selfish Gene' that were the scientific ideas he was putting forward to be turned into a moral philosophy, he would reject them.

[Da_Shrimp]

To use Christianity as an excuse to kill folks or force conversions is being completely inconsistent with the plain sense of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments taken in the historical and theological contexts).

Thanks for the answer, DittoJed2, I appreciate it!

I'm going to argue with you, though: the 'plain sense' of 'Darwinism' does not argue a case for killing folks either. It's a faulty interpretation completely inconsistent with Darwin' writings.