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]

And using a scientific theory for political cause or social change of some sort is inconsistent with what science is all about as well.

Therefore to try and tag Nazism etc as "darwins" fault is intellectually dishonest. Because they would have latched onto anything to do what they did.

Power does strange things to people and always has.

The church at one time had literally total power, to make and break kings etc. It was then perverted by those that coveted that power and use it to their own ends.

It was NOT christianity that was the problem, it was the people that used it as an excuse to do what they did.

Just as it is NOT the theory of evolution that is at fault, but the people that perverted it to their own ends.

It is called personal responsibility, and I believe in it highly, as do most conservatives.

[DittoJed2]

Faith is. God is too, but science does not recognize him.

[RadioAstronomer]

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?

Huh? Where did I say that. Like I said, I prefer to keep my faith personal.

I am sorry you don't want to discuss the Bible. In my experience, you are the first Christian who has ever not wanted to. I am very surprized.

Anyway have a nice day.

p.s. If you throw arguments out there that state we are alone and the Bible says so, you should not be surprized that folks would like to see your side of the picture.

[DittoJed2]

All I was doing, Aric, was drawing out philosophical implications of the worldview called Darwinism - as seen through history. The abuses of the church powers didn't come out of Christianity but more politics than anything.

[biblewonk]

I am sorry you don't want to discuss the Bible. In my experience, you are the first Christian who has ever not wanted to. I am very surprized.

You just said that you don't want to discuss your belief and claim to believe what it says. These two don't go together. Jesus didn't say go and keep your belief personal. You are not being very straight forward with where you are coming from.

[Aric2000]

Science cannot recognize him, the individual scientists can, and most do.

Science is about nature and the natural laws that govern it.

God is outside those natural laws, therefore science cannot use god as a causation.

TO say that science should use god as a causation is like saying that I ought to toss in a bit of arsenic in my bread because it is there. So what if it kills me, use it anyway.

Science cannot use god as a causation, because god is outside the natural laws etc that it is trying to understand and explain.

When you toss god into it, then the quesiton is already answered, so why dig deeper.

To use god as a causation would basically put science at a standstill.

[Right Wing Professor]

All I was doing, Aric, was drawing out philosophical implications of the worldview called Darwinism - as seen through history.

If the theory of evolution is a 'worldview', what political system does it tell us we should adopt? What does it tell us about the proper penalty for murder? What foods does it say we should or should not eat? How does it advocate we spend our free time?

[DittoJed2]

Oh, I didn't believe it did argue for killing folks. Not even in the racist rants of Huxley. But it did set up the environment for such to occur. Hitler was a whacko. He used social Darwinistic views and sought to purify the races from their underevolved selves. A sick philosophy, for sure, and not directly in any way promoted by Darwin- but not inconsistent with it either. Again, Darwinism is a Worldview with moral implications. If there is no moral law-giver than it is every man's preference. We would prefer Hitler not kill the Jews, but in Darwin's philosophy where all are part of some primordial goo and there is no lawgiver to hand things down, then it is every man for himself and one can not logically claim Hitler was right or wrong. Just that we don't like what he did.

[PatrickHenry]

What I find disturbing is that in doing so, her arguments about Hitler, etc.] will go unrebutted

One bit of rebuttal, but not addressed to that certain person who is now on Virtual Ignore:

If evolution leads to such horrible things, as that person alleges, why wasn't Darwin, the arch-eeevil-lou-shunist himself, a rapist, murderer, dictator, etc.? Of the thousands of biology teachers, who among them has been convicted of such atrocities? Of the thousands of people doing biological research, how many go on to be mass murderers? How many of the world's dictators were serious students of biology? Stalin was a seminary student; Hitler a would-be artist and architect, but there are no biologists among the world's monstrous tyrants. Isn't it odd that those who are the most exposed to this ghastly theory seem somehow to lead quiet, peaceful, law-abiding lives.

Will any of this quell the wild accusations? No, of course not. That's why Virtual Ignore is the only solution.

[Aric2000]

And the perversion of a scientific theory for political gain was the same.

It is NOT a worldview, it is a scientific theory, and claims to be nothing more.

It has no moral implications, it just is.

It does NOT claim to have the answers for all of oour human problems, it just seeks to explain the scientific evidence and how it fits together.

You use the SAME argument for the church, but cannot for some reason see it in that way when it comes to a scientific theory. Fascinating.

[DittoJed2]

If the theory of evolution is a 'worldview', what political system does it tell us we should adopt?
Logically, that would be a democracy that would eventually degenerate into anarchy or totalitarianism. Our representative republic was founded based upon Judeo-Christian principles and standards. Without a foundation for such principles, it's whatever the "village" decides.

What does it tell us about the proper penalty for murder?
Whatever the village decides.

What foods does it say we should or should not eat?
Whatever one would prefer. If survival of the species is a preference, then foods that help that species to survive. If death is loved, then whatever causes death.

How does it advocate we spend our free time?However one wishes. One can not spend right or wrong free time, only preference.

[RadioAstronomer]

I seem to remember you as being an evolutionist and I always seem to see you on these threads.

Evolutionist is not the word I would use.

I accept that the evolutionary model is the best we have from the evidence gathered to date.

Mostly I post about what I do know. Orbit theory, spacecraft, astronomy, etc. It rather quickly goes over my head during the biology, paleontology, and geology discussions here. Albeit, since my dad was a PhD geologist, I learned something about geology as I grew up. :-)

[DittoJed2]

I would encourage you to read Francis Schaeffer.

[Right Wing Professor]

Between 1865 and 1965, literally thousands of black Americans were lynched; thousands of others were burned out of their homes; millions were deprived of fundamental consitutional rights. What would you say was the 'worldview' of the people who did those things? Given that that 'worldview' resulted in untold human misery, would you say it was an evil 'worldview'?

[Da_Shrimp]

DittoJed2

Many people used biblical views to justify the cleansing/purification of non-christian peoples from their impure path. A sick philosophy, but not really in any way promoted by the bible (and I really do mean that most sincerely).

Christianity has a worldwide moral implication, inasmuch as anyone who doesn't follow that worldview is doomed to eternal torment. May as well kill 'em now, then?

[DittoJed2]

I don't see where eternal judgment in hell logically precedes "kill them now." The Bible does make moral judgments. Of course. It also has a rescue mechanism which forbids killing them now. Vengeance and final judgment are the Lord's. I don't know who is saved or who is not. I just tell the story.

[RadioAstronomer]

Faith is. God is too, but science does not recognize him.

How can you fit God or faith into a scientific model or a mathematical equation?

[biblewonk]

Mostly I post about what I do know. Orbit theory, spacecraft, astronomy, etc. It rather quickly goes over my head during the biology, paleontology, and geology discussions here. Albeit, since my dad was a PhD geologist, I learned something about geology as I grew up. :-)

I had a thought the other day as I walked down the hall of this large avionics manufacturing factory inwhich I work. It seemed that almost everyone I saw had some kind of a rather nasty infirmity. One guy was 400 lbs and could barely walk, one guy was in an electric wheel chair and had twisted limbs. One guy had a shrunken arm, most of us wore glasses, many had very clumsy inefficient walks as if they had had broken limbs.

It occurred to me that we have come to a point in technology where the least fit do just fine. It really took very little time for this to be the case too. Only a few hundred years ago most of these people would probably not be alive. So if evolution were true then the whole concept is blown out the window by man and his ability to invent things. Now there is no reason for us to improve.

The other thing is that if you consider how fast we went from bible technology to today's technology, it is really silly to imagine that man could have lived in caves for 2 million years and then exponentially accelerated his development in the last 2000 years.

[DittoJed2]

Not Christianity. It may have been a hybrid, but 1865-1965 was also marked by the rise and thriving of evolutionary theory, so if you want to draw implications. The Bible nowhere says to torture or kill slaves. It treats slaves as equals of non-slaves in humanity and demands that they be treated well. Evil people have seen them as less than human, including some Darwinists who paraded around at least one dark skinned human in a cage as a "missing link" at carnivals.

[Right Wing Professor]

If the theory of evolution is a 'worldview', what political system does it tell us we should adopt?

Logically, that would be a democracy that would eventually degenerate into anarchy or totalitarianism

Could you briefly sketch how a theory that species arose from mutation followed by natural selection tells us we should govern ourselves by means of an unstable democracy?

What does it tell us about the proper penalty for murder?

Whatever the village decides.

Again, could you briefly sketch how the above theory leads to the precept that we should do whatever the village decides? After all, Adolf Hitler, whom you claim was guided by Darwinism, thought it should be whatever he decided.

What foods does it say we should or should not eat?

Whatever one would prefer.

It's not much a world view if it doesn't tell us what food to eat or how to spend our free time, is it? And I'm really hazy on why you think it tells us to govern ourselves democratically. After all, there are many many kinds of social organization in nature, and I can't think of one species that organizes itself democratically.