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.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

You can read and have not been brainwashed. What have you read? Who's theories? Are you sure you have not been brainwahed?

[Right Wing Professor]

If there were a designer, he would have had to have been drunk.

You are in violation of your agreement.

Absolutely not. One major criticism of intelligent design as that if we accept the premise of design, the design does not look intelligent. There are, as I discussed, elements to the human genome that would make one question not just the putative designer's intelligence, but also his sanity or sobriety.

I reject your attempt to restrict criticism of intelligent design which examines the quality of the alleged design.

[StolarStorm]

That's not my position. I believe simply that God created the universe with a set of natural laws that would result in the outcome that we see today. Something had to initiate the big bang that is outside natural laws (something can't come from nothing).

I could be wrong. Unlike the brain washed, I'm very aware that there isn't a person living on this planet that really knows how everything came about. But as things stand now, the vast amount of evidence suggests that the world is far older than 6000 years and that we have tailbones for a reason. You can make facts fit a theory or have a theory you make up facts to fit. Ignoring the way the world really is to fit some odd intrepretation of a story about creation that was written for people mostly ignorant of science, is insulting to God. My God is all powerful and fully capable of creating the universe from the beginning knowing that several billions of years later, we come about. And so far research has know that's what he did. When someone can intelligently explain to me why I have a tailbone I might re-evaluate my position.

[Aric2000]

Evolution does NOT seek to explain origins and never has.

Once life was here, evolution takes over.

If it was planted, god started it, whether it just popped out of nothing, evolution does not care, and does not say, it does not seek to answer that question.

Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that is seeking to explain the origins of life, and that is what it is, a hypothesis.

[StolarStorm]

I'd like to know how anyone reasonably traveled and read could possibly believe that evolution as a process isn't real. The world is full of examples of species that have gone under dramatic change to fit an environment. it boggles the mind, how something can be right in front of somebody and yet they still deny it. It is almost as if their faith is so fragile that letting in something that contradicts what their evangelical minister told them, scares them into ignoring what they can see for themselves. Ministers aren't God. They don't have a lock on truth. They aren't always right, and that shouldn't impact someone's faith.

[AndrewC]

And you're reaching.

And you are wrong. One person has truly apologized and another apologized with croc tears after being prompted. And you, with the hypocritical troublemaker who posted after you, continue to attempt to aggravate the situation which has now been settled. So buzz off.

[PatrickHenry]

He was doing the devil's work so that is why you approve of his actions.
304 posted on 08/16/2003 8:43 AM EDT by gore3000

It's comments like that which give these science threads their unique flavor. I love FreeRepublic!

[AndrewC]

Absolutely not.

You are. Specifically section 5

5 Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes;

I request that you be reminded that calling someone insane or drunk is belittling.

[DittoJed2]

You base this upon a geological column. You do not base it upon dating methods such as Carbon 14 or Potassium Argon because both do not work. The dates come from some man's theory and I don't care if you find it absurd, there is ample evidence that the earth is young. If you could get passed the geological column, then maybe you could see this.

[f.Christian]

Could truth be relative ?

Do you know the difference between a republic and a democracy ?

[StolarStorm]

In order for the earth to be 6000 years old, you would have to invalidate whole branches of knowledge. Are you sure you want to call in question areas of science that have produced real, concrete, and directly observable results? I'm not even talking about geology here.

[DittoJed2]

I'd like to know how anyone reasonably traveled and read could possibly believe that evolution as a process isn't real. The world is full of examples of species that have gone under dramatic change to fit an environment.
That is MICRO-Evolution. It is variation within species. You do not have ANYTHING that turns a fish into a dog though. NOTHING. It is absurd to think that something came from nothing. That impersonal matter created highly complex personal beings. THAT is what is absurd.

it boggles the mind, how something can be right in front of somebody and yet they still deny it.
It does, doesn't it. It boggles the mind that someone could see a baby in the womb and say "chance." It boggles the mind that one could see the complexity of an eyeball that is so complex that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to evolve- and say "evolution." The complexity and beauty of God's creation is all around us and it is stunning that people will still scream "random processes of natural selection." It is called willful ignorance, and it is VERY sad.

It is almost as if their faith is so fragile that letting in something that contradicts what their evangelical minister told them, scares them into ignoring what they can see for themselves.
It is almost as if their faith is so fragile that letting in something that contradicts what their science professor told them, scares them into ignoring what they can see for themselves. Scientists aren't God. They don't have a lock on truth. They aren't always right, and that shouldn't impact someone's faith.

[StolarStorm]

Micro-evolution turns into macro evolution, over time. Little changes add up to creat BIG changes. Say for example, Adam and Eve had tails at one time (thus explaining why I have a tailbone). If that were true, why couldn't they have been hairy too, and perhaps walked on all fours? You may call them monkeys now, but God may have called them the start of primates which resulted in man, over time.

[DittoJed2]

In order for the earth to be 6000 years old, you would have to invalidate whole branches of knowledge. Are you sure you want to call in question areas of science that have produced real, concrete, and directly observable results? I'm not even talking about geology here.
Yes, I am. These "observable results" make many invalid assumptions. One of them being uniformity. Another biggy is that the geological column is correct. These "branches of knowledge" invalidate themselves in many cases and "scientists" go back to the drawing board to try to come up with a better theory that will explain the impossible. Evolution says in the beginning nothing exploded. And out of nothing, there was molten lava that got rained on for millions-billions of years ( a figure that crawfishes all the time), and whalah- one day, we had man- all by chance, all contrary to the rules of reason. Evolution is a fantasy. It is not science.

[DittoJed2]

Micro-evolution turns into macro evolution, over time. Little changes add up to creat BIG changes. Say for example, Adam and Eve had tails at one time (thus explaining why I have a tailbone). If that were true, why couldn't they have been hairy too, and perhaps walked on all fours? You may call them monkeys now, but God may have called them the start of primates which resulted in man, over time.

Adam and Eve did not have tails. If you think your tailbone is useless, I know someone who will pay for your operation to have it removed. There are ligaments that attach to it and it has a reason for being there. Can you live without it? Yes. But you can live without an arm a leg or whatever. Doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

[DittoJed2]

Micro-Evolution has NEVER turned into Macro-Evolution. PERIOD.

[gore3000]

Absolutely not.

You are absolutely in violation of your promise. You can discuss intelligent design without bashing religion. Yours was a deliberate, unprovoked and pointless attack on religion which proved nothing except your enmity towards religion.

[StolarStorm]

You know, I really don't want you to lose your faith in God. Apparently, your faith is very dependant on the notion that the earth is 6000 years old. Mine isn't, so I have room to question it. Rather than lead you astray, I'll simply end this discussion (on my part) and simply say 'Go with God'.

[gore3000]

Micro-evolution turns into macro evolution, over time.

Such is an assumption which has never been observed or verified in any way. There are strong reasons for disbelieving it. One of the strongest is that evolutionists have never even been able to show the possibility of any complex organ ever arising through gradual evolution according to present scientific knowledge.

[Aric2000]

Never say never, because you DO NOT KNOW!!

Science does NOT claim that it is the truth, or indeed that it is proven, it is a theory. like everything in science, but to say that macroevolution has never been observed is a fallacy and downright wrong.

Do a little studying on your own, I will let you find it, but there have been examples of speciation seen in the wild.

Look for it, and you shall find, google is your friend.

"Observed speciation" ought to do just fine as a search term.

Happy hunting, and again, NEVER say never, because your credibility goes to hell in a handbasket when it turns out that you are wrong.