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 me guess--f.Christian's a LISP programmer?

[DittoJed2]

The column is a fact, not a scared anything.

Aside from typing skills, you apparently need to learn the difference between unsubstantiated assertions and facts. You also need to do a little research on flood geology with an open mind, which your posts indicate you do not possess. If the earth were proved to be old, it would not affect my faith. The theory of evolution has never been proven and if the column falls so does the theory. Hince, its "sacred" nature (sacred:5 a : UNASSAILABLE, INVIOLABLE b : highly valued and important ) in the eyes of evolutionists such as yourself. You simply will not even CONSIDER the fact that the column is not true. This is not evidentiary, but faith-based. You are entitled to believe it, but it is YOU who cannot let go of an essential part of a theory lest your belief collapse.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Once again, thank you for a very well thought out and researched post. I always look forward to them.

[StolarStorm]

I wonder if it's even possible to debate issues that sometimes go to the core of someone's basic beliefs, without offending. To a YE creationist, questioning a belief that they hold sacred (their intrepretation of the bible and their very faith in God), is going to be offensive no matter how it is stated.

To a evolutionist, questioning something that they know is true, is also going to be met with extreme frustration, always. To them (and myself) stating that the earth is 6000 years old, is like pointing to a blue sky and telling everyone that the sky is yellow. It's very difficult to read such things and not groan with frustration.

[whattajoke]

Champ is one such creature (could also be a zeugolodon (sp?) or some yet unidentified species.

Actually, I believe the species has been narrowed down to one of two. Respected scientists are still debating however which one is more plausible, Acer saccharum or Quercus velutina.

Another Hovind fan? The man does spin a good yarn, I'll give him that.

Question: I'm sure you've seen the Japanese trawler photos as well as the more recent hunk of possible pleisiosaur flesh in South America. So... are these guys Fresh (Lake Champlain, Loch Ness) water or ocean dwelling modern day dinosaurs?

[Aric2000]

Come one Dittojed, I didn't complain and I won't.

He was giving you a hard time, and yes, most of the "evidence" that you cite, is indeed laughable, and has been refuted so many times by ACTUAL scientific evidence, that I will no longer even respond to such silliness.

It was a nice try though, but not even close to being scientific by any stretch of the imagination.

When science takes any of that "evidence" seriously, is when god comes down from on high, and says, "gotcha, I sure fooled you guys!!"

[Da_Shrimp]

With or without discussing the Wooly Mammoth????

With, if you need to.

[Da_Shrimp]

First of all, the flood wasn't 40 days. It was over a year. The rain fell 40 days, but Noah was on the boat for a year. Second, I'm not sure what GC you are referring to here, the Canyon or the Column.

Sorry, I should have made it clear: GC refers to Grand Canyon. Seriously, I'd like to know the Creationist explanation for features such as unconformities and karst topography, not to mention the Cocconino Sandstones with their well-defined tracks.

[Aric2000]

The ONLY people that claim that the column is not true, are Fundamentalist creationists, and YEC's of course.

To say that you are more qualified to state scientific findings then a geologist or a paleontologist is quite amusing.

When you go and get your doctorate degree in geology, or paleontology, and then go out and study the columns first hand and then come back and tell me what you just told me, perhaps, JUST perhaps I might find it more then something to Laugh about.

Until then, your credibility is just as credible as my 7 year old telling me that there is a monster under her bed.

[whattajoke]

To a YE creationist, questioning a belief that they hold sacred (their intrepretation of the bible and their very faith in God), is going to be offensive no matter how it is stated.

Exactly. This is why I abstained from the agreement (for the most part). Certain posters (at least one since banned) would find your very post "offensive" which gets no one anywhere.

[DittoJed2]

I wonder if it's even possible to debate issues that sometimes go to the core of someone's basic beliefs, without offending. To a YE creationist, questioning a belief that they hold sacred (their intrepretation of the bible and their very faith in God), is going to be offensive no matter how it is stated.

To a evolutionist, questioning something that they know is true, is also going to be met with extreme frustration, always. To them (and myself) stating that the earth is 6000 years old, is like pointing to a blue sky and telling everyone that the sky is yellow. It's very difficult to read such things and not groan with frustration.

There is a little bias written into this post. Note, you said that the creationist "believes" something to be true, but the evolutionist "knows" it to be true. The evolutionist is operating on a deeply held belief as well. Evolution is a theory of origins. And, yes, for those who hold the view of an old earth saying that it is less thatn 10,000 years old I imagine would be upsetting. Less upsetting, I would add, than it would be to a creationist since 6,000 years is not 100% necessary for one to be a Christian. My faith is not contingent upon how God did something, just that he did something. The fact that there is ample evidence for a young earth bolsters that interpretation of Scripture (which I believe to be correct) and is helpful, but all of Scripture would not collapse if there is say a gap in between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. There is a major problem with putting millions of years in between the days of creation, however, as that has physical and theological implications.

[Physicist]

I'm not suggesting withholding any material information. I merely hope that all parties make an effort to "put themselves in the other guy's shoes." IMHO, that will help all of us to raise the level of mutual respect.

I agree...but let's explore what those things mean. When I see someone seriously maintain that the universe is 6000 years old, it is clear to me that the person is deeply mired in ignorance. Putting myself in their shoes, if I were holding beliefs so deeply in conflict with established facts, I would insist upon being disabused of them immediately. For me to patronize them by saying, "OK, that's your perspective," or, "well, your 6,000-year history of the universe is just as valid as my 13.7-billion-year history," would just be rank disrespect.

I challenge people's misconceptions because I respect them as adults, and because I wish all of my own misconceptions to be destroyed as soon as evidence permits. In fact, that's what it means to choose a career in science.

[Aric2000]

Oh, and it is NOT faith based.

It is based on scientific evidence to the sontrary of what you state.

NO faith needed, a LOT of faith is needed to actually believe what you are spouting though, because the evidence points in a totally opposite direction.

When I have a tool that works, I use it, science is a tool that works and comes up with answers based on evidence.

Your tool is broken, therefore I will not use it, it has answers, and then goes and looks for evidence.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I noticed the bias myself but after reading all the posts here which belittle Creationists, I have decided they don't want our take anyway. They are convinced that what they think is science and what the creationist thinks is religion. I just don't see how that can be overcome. I admire you for trying though.

[VadeRetro]

Also going a few rounds with Woodmorappe/Peczkis, former YEC Glenn R. Morton.

[Alamo-Girl]

Well, I happen to believe that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old from the space/time coordinate of inception and 15 billion years old (more or less) from our space/time coordinates. I base this on the Word and the inflationary model. Freeper Views on Origins

Likewise, I believe there was indeed a worldwide flood, but that it was targeted to the patches of civilization where Adamic man would have lived. I base this on the Word and archeological evidence. Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs

In other words, I can have a "young earth" point of view, as a Fundamentalist Christian - and at the same time embrace science and have a wonderful discussion on the science threads!

[VadeRetro]

Second try at linking, former YEC Glenn R. Morton.

[RightWingNilla]

Well, I happen to believe that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old from the space/time coordinate of inception and 15 billion years old (more or less) from our space/time coordinates. I base this on the Word and the inflationary model. Freeper Views on Origins

Isn't there a Hebrew scholar who explains this idea further? A-G, I think you gave the link over a year ago.

[DittoJed2]

Acer saccharum or Quercus velutina
Aren't these species of trees??

The Japanese photos are debatable (which is one reason I didn't bring them up). Theory one says it is a plesiosaur. Theory two says it is basking shark. DNA sampling seems to indicate the latter, however there is only 96% similarity in the genetics and we don't know what plesiosaur DNA looks like. There is also DNA similarity between humans and apes (more than with the shark and the sample), but humans and apes can not mate and reproduce a cross-species.

[DittoJed2]

What is your degree in?