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.

[Nataku X]

Let's imagine for a moment that you're alone in a room of femi-nazis with your Freeper male buddy, and that for some reason you were trying to make peace with them. Would you make the old "what do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes", in everyone's hearing?

I honestly found the Designer joke a bit offensive, too, but let it slide because (1) of the noise interference that Aric2000 talked about which is gone now, and (2) I knew that no one meant any harm by it.

There are more constructive ways to make your point about the universe or the human body appearing to not to be a result of design than to suggest that the Designer (normally taken to be the Christian God in these threads) is intoxicated. And, potentially offensive jokes should be kept between freepmails.

No, we will probably never get the apologies or admissions we want... but that does not mean that we should not do the right thing ourselves: apologize unconditionally, think of how the situation could be avoided next time, and just move on... Aric2000, I know you already apologized and meant it, but, really, it did come across as being very defensive... :-(

I'm beginning to understand a little of how Alamo-Girl feels, being under pressure from both sides... from the evos to correct her own side, and the other to give the "wrong" side the smackdown.

[balrog666]

Grand Canyon was rapidly formed when a dam broke.

That statement displays a total ignorance of basic Geology, hydrodynamics, and plate techtonics. Please go and learn something that most children learn in grade school before your ignorance makes you look any worse.

[Aric2000]

That's because when you live life with blinders on, no amount of evidence or experience will change your mind.

See no evil, hear no evil, the schultz syndrom is what I call it.

There are few creationists that do not have schultz syndrom as far as I am concerned.

[StolarStorm]

All right, I was going stop. But I can't resist this. If you have a creature and you make minor changes (micro-evolution) eventually you will have so many changes that you can't recognize what the creature looked like in the beginning... that is macro evolution. One eon, shorten the tail slightly (minor change). Another eon, remove the tail. Another eon, get less hairy. Another eon, walk on two feet. Another eon, make the head bigger. Another eon, and so forth. Eventually you have so many small changes (changes compound just like interest) that you have a whole new type of creature. Small changes equal big changes when there is a enough of them. logic 101.

[balrog666]

It is my understanding that the very root of the evolution theory begins with an explanation, any explanation of origins as long a God or a special creator is not in the picture. A Godless creation if you will.

Buzz, wrong. There are many theistic evolutions here that credit God for both the Creation and evolution.

[Aric2000]

You do not have ANYTHING that turns a fish into a dog though.

What? What are you talking about?

Where, oh where, does evolution state that a fish all of a sudden turned into a dog? Just where does it says this?

Oh, I see, since a cow does not give birth to a pig this somehow disproves evolution? Let me put it another way, if a cow gave birth to a pig, naturally, it would DISPROVE evolution.

The statement of a fish turning into a dog, tells me that you have no idea what you are critiquing.

If you are clueless as to what evolution is, then how can you, with any credibility critiuqe it?

You go and figure out what evolution ACTUALLY is, then come back and see us, until then, I don't think that I will even bother responding to any more of your posts, my 7 year old knows more about evolution then you obviously do.

[AndrewC]

You go and figure out what evolution ACTUALLY is, then come back and see us, until then, I don't think that I will even bother responding to any more of your posts, my 7 year old knows more about evolution then you obviously do.

Where have you documented that Dittojed2 has "earned" this belittling characterization?

[f.Christian]

my 7 year old knows more about evolution then you obviously do.

Strange ... why didn't ah2 say science ?

[gore3000]

All right, I was going stop. But I can't resist this. If you have a creature and you make minor changes (micro-evolution) eventually you will have so many changes that you can't recognize what the creature looked like in the beginning... that is macro evolution.

You can call it what you will, however, evolution cannot be true if it cannot even explain how major organs can arise gradually. Look around and you will see that in the billions of pages out there on the internet there is no such explanation to be found. If you do find one that claims to give such an explanation I will show you that it does not. Check it out.

[AndrewC]

Strange ... why didn't ah2 say science ?

Good question.

[gore3000]

The statement of a fish turning into a dog, tells me that you have no idea what you are critiquing.

Actually he is correct. It is you who does not understand the problems (or refuse to acknowledge them). The science of genetics tells us that the progeny will bear the traits of the parents. The science of genetics also tells us that species cannot reproduce with other species. In addition to the above, no one has observed the transformation of one species into another but we daily see millions of examples of the progeny being like the parents. So unless you have some scientifically verifiable evidence contradicting the above evolution has to be false.

BTW - you continue to dishonor your promises by insulting those who in a civil manner are disagreeing with you.

[f.Christian]

Must be an admission ... that evolution is for the retarded - infantile and --- science is for the adult - intelligent !

[Aric2000]

As you can ALL see, AC has decided that he cannot read.

Dittojed said this "You do not have ANYTHING that turns a fish into a dog though."

Therefore he is OBVIOUSLY clueless as to what evolution actually is, because to say that a fish turns into a dog is a creationist strawman used by creationists that are clueless as to what evolution ACTUALLY states.

Again, the hypersensitivity is showing, I advise caution and a good amount of skepticism when reading a post by AndrewC while he is "policing" the agreement, an agreement that he himself has not signed onto.

And why did I say evolution, and not science, because we are discussing a specific theory of science, which is evolution, and I was being VERY specific.

Again, the hypersensitivity is showing, and since ALS is on ignore, and therefore is not able to "police" as he originally intended, his buddies have decided that they will do the job for him.

Sorry guys, but you hypersensitivity and your obvious not reading the context of the post tells me that your motivations are questionable at best.

[AndrewC]

Wind and a little time turns sandstone into arches that resemble flying buttresses. It does not follow, to many people, that more time using the same process will result in the formation of Notre Dame Cathedral.

Sandstone arch image

Flying buttress image

Notre Dame Cathedral image

[AndrewC]

Sorry guys, but you hypersensitivity and your obvious not reading the context of the post tells me that your motivations are questionable at best

Belittling language is belittling and a violation of your agreement. You fail to meet your word.

[Aric2000]

Quit Whining AndrewC, if a signatory feels that I have been belittling, or did not back up my statements, they will say so.

Until then, there will nothing for you forthcoming.

Thanks for caring though, too bad it doesn't matter a hill of beans to me what YOU think.

[ThinkPlease]

You both are out of control. Take a deep breath, and decide if the argument is worth it.

[AndrewC]

Quit Whining AndrewC, if a signatory feels that I have been belittling, or did not back up my statements, they will say so.

I say you are belittling someone. And you have admitted through apology that you have done it before on this thread. Also noting that no one of your said signers reminded you in public. I do their task. And I would do so agreement or no. You have belittled and continue to act as you did prior to the agreement.

[AndrewC]

You both are out of control.

Have I, unprovoked, belittled anyone?

[gore3000]

Quit Whining

Quit insulting. Your post shows how ill tempered you are that even when trying to excuse your insults you do so by hurling even more insults. You clearly continue to dishonor your vows.