View Full Version : Another transitional fossil found
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc&printer=1;_ylt=ArU2ePV8TiRFx8u31d.4aa0iANEA
China finds new species of big, bird-like dinosaur
By Tan Ee Lyn and Ben BlanchardWed Jun 13, 6:52 AM ET
China has uncovered the skeletal remains of a gigantic, surprisingly bird-like dinosaur, which has been classed as a new species.
Eight meters (26 ft) long and standing at twice the height of a man at the shoulder, the fossil of the feathered but flightless Gigantoraptor erlianensis was found in the Erlian basin in Inner Mongolia, researchers wrote in the latest issue of Nature.
The researchers said the dinosaur, discovered in April 2005, weighed about 1.4 tonnes and lived some 85 million years ago.
According to lines of arrested growth detected on its bones, it died as a young adult in its 11th year of life.
What was particularly surprising was its sheer size and weight because most theories point to carnivorous dinosaurs getting smaller as they got more bird-like.
"It had no teeth and had a beak. Its forelimbs were very long and we believe it had feathers," Xu Xing at the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology & Paleonanthropology said in a telephone interview.
Through analyzing its skeleton, the researchers believe the Gigantoraptor shared the same ancestor and belonged to the same family as the Oviraptor.
With a beak and feathers, the Oviraptor is also bird-like and flightless, but weighed a mere 1 to 2 kg, Xu said.
Other similar feathered dinosaurs rarely weighed over 40 kg, which means the Gigantoraptor was about 35 times heavier.
The largest known feathered animal before the Chinese discovery was the half-tonne Stirton's Thunder Bird, which lived in Australia more than six million years ago.
"It's a giant dinosaur that looked very much like a bird ... whereas from what we have known before, bird-like dinosaurs were very, very small. Large dinosaurs are usually not bird-like. So this Gigantoraptor was an exception," Xu said.
If the Gigantoraptor had lived to a full-sized adult, it would have been a lot larger, but Xu could not estimate what that would have been.
However, the researchers believe it had an accelerated growth rate that was faster than the large North American tyrannosaurs.
SURPRISING DISCOVERY
The scientists had originally thought they had found tyrannosaur bones, as they were so large.
"It was a very surprising discovery, not at all what we expected," Xu said later at a news conference in Beijing. "So we spent a lot of time investigating the fossils which is why it took us so long to announce the results."
The scientists showed off two huge fossilized bones from the animal, and a model of its beaked head.
Its feathers were likely for show and for keeping its eggs warm, Xu added.
"We think it's the largest feathered animal ever to have been discovered," he said.
It had both herbivorous features -- a small head and long neck -- but also carnivorous ones -- sharp claws for tearing meat -- and could likely run fast on its long, powerful legs, the professor said.
"Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure," he added.
Its site of discovery, near Erenhot on the Chinese-Mongolian border, is known for fossils and calls itself "dinosaur town."
The city of just 100,000 is hoping to leverage this fame to attract tourists, said its Communist Party chief Zhang Guohua, and will spend more than 100 million yuan ($13.11 million) on a new dinosaur fossil museum this year.
Jiddy78
06-13-2007, 01:30 PM
Get back to me when they find a snake, some broad and an apple core.
Vegas
06-13-2007, 02:54 PM
How is it transitional?
How is it transitional?
How is it not?
Vegas
06-13-2007, 03:01 PM
How is it not?
Everything is fully formed. And if it is transitional, what is it transitional between?
Everything is fully formed. And if it is transitional, what is it transitional between?
Transitional doesn't mean something isn't fully formed. I've tried to explain that before.
As for what it transitions between...reptiles and birds.
Vegas
06-13-2007, 03:15 PM
Transitional doesn't mean something isn't fully formed. I've tried to explain that before.
As for what it transitions between...reptiles and birds.
If there are no forms that come before or after, it's not transitional.
If there are no forms that come before or after, it's not transitional.
You lost me with that one.
Vegas
06-13-2007, 03:18 PM
You lost me with that one.
If you discover a fossil and call it transitional, does that not imply that you can prove it came from one from and eventually turned into another?
If you discover a fossil and call it transitional, does that not imply that you can prove it came from one from and eventually turned into another?
No, because that is not what is meant by transitional.
Vegas
06-13-2007, 05:17 PM
No, because that is not what is meant by transitional.
Then you're playing semantics.
Then you're playing semantics.
No, I'm playing what's meant by the word.
Perhaps I have what you're meaning wrong.
Do you mean transition between genus, species, etc or do you mean transition of one organism to another in one life span. I took your meaning to mean the latter. I take it as the former.
So you have dinosaurs (reptiles) and birds (avians). Both in the same kingdom. After that, my classifications are not remembered, but the basic premise in evolution is that birds evolved from reptiles. So here we have a reptilian that has characteristics of a bird. No teeth, a beak, thought to have feathers. So it's a transitional form between what we know today as reptiles and birds. It doesn't mean that a reptile, a bird, or whatever was in between birds and reptiles was malformed, incomplete, or whatever. I means it was a class, order, family, genus, or species that had characteristics of both reptiles and birds. And since birds are thought to be less primitive than reptiles (mostly based on their warm bloodedness), then it's thought to be part of the transition from a reptile to a bird through evolution. Thus a transitional form.
Semantics or not.
Vegas
06-13-2007, 05:52 PM
No, I'm playing what's meant by the word.
Perhaps I have what you're meaning wrong.
Do you mean transition between genus, species, etc or do you mean transition of one organism to another in one life span. I took your meaning to mean the latter. I take it as the former.
So you have dinosaurs (reptiles) and birds (avians). Both in the same kingdom. After that, my classifications are not remembered, but the basic premise in evolution is that birds evolved from reptiles. So here we have a reptilian that has characteristics of a bird. No teeth, a beak, thought to have feathers. So it's a transitional form between what we know today as reptiles and birds. It doesn't mean that a reptile, a bird, or whatever was in between birds and reptiles was malformed, incomplete, or whatever. I means it was a class, order, family, genus, or species that had characteristics of both reptiles and birds. And since birds are thought to be less primitive than reptiles (mostly based on their warm bloodedness), then it's thought to be part of the transition from a reptile to a bird through evolution. Thus a transitional form.
Semantics or not.
There are no transitional fossils to support the theory that reptiles became birds. There are literally billions of fossils classified, but nobody has even come close to showing the progression of one form to another.
There are no transitional fossils to support the theory that reptiles became birds. There are literally billions of fossils classified, but nobody has even come close to showing the progression of one form to another.
Except for the finding that these reptiles have feathers.
Are there any other organisms that have feathers besides birds?
Nobody has come close, eh? I assume that's your conclusion driving your analysis rather than the analysis driving the conclusion.
And we're going to disagree on this til the day each of us keels over.
You're wrong.
I'm wrong.
You're wrong.
I'm wrong.
I'm right.
You're right.
I'm right.
You're right.
Repeat.
The data are there. You can choose to ignore if you'd like.
Good day.
Vegas
06-13-2007, 06:25 PM
Except for the finding that these reptiles have feathers.
Are there any other organisms that have feathers besides birds?
Nobody has come close, eh? I assume that's your conclusion driving your analysis rather than the analysis driving the conclusion.
And we're going to disagree on this til the day each of us keels over.
You're wrong.
I'm wrong.
You're wrong.
I'm wrong.
I'm right.
You're right.
I'm right.
You're right.
Repeat.
The data are there. You can choose to ignore if you'd like.
Good day.
The "data are there" has been used for several hoaxes over the years. Piltdown man, the peppered moth deal, Archaeopteryx, and several others are still taught as "science" in schools even though they are acknowledged to have been fabricated. Even if this latest find is real, it doesn't show a progression of one form to another. You can choose to ignore this, too.
Tom Joad
06-13-2007, 06:26 PM
The "data are there" has been used for several hoaxes over the years. Piltdown man, the peppered moth deal, Archaeopteryx, and several others are still taught as "science" in schools even though they are acknowledged to have been fabricated. Even if this latest find is real, it doesn't show a progression of one form to another. You can choose to ignore this, too.
The human footprint inside the dinosaur footprint...
The "data are there" has been used for several hoaxes over the years. Piltdown man, the peppered moth deal, Archaeopteryx, and several others are still taught as "science" in schools even though they are acknowledged to have been fabricated. Even if this latest find is real, it doesn't show a progression of one form to another. You can choose to ignore this, too.
Yeah, I suppose. Of all the scientific discoveries of the past 150 years, we can all assume most of them are fabricated because a few were heralded a little too much.
And, as I seen you've forgotten, one of those "hoaxes" you allude to has already been addressed by me before, and what actually happened was that the anti-evolutionists made the peppered moth thing out to be something that science didn't purport it to be. So yes, by fabricating what science says about something, you can say that it's not right.
No one claims (at least in text that I've seen) that the peppered moth points to evolution directly. Every instance I see is that it describes adaptation, only a part of what evolution has going for it. So to say that the peppered moth is a hoax is a hoax in itself.
Hoax away.
Vegas
06-13-2007, 06:38 PM
Yeah, I suppose. Of all the scientific discoveries of the past 150 years, we can all assume most of them are fabricated because a few were heralded a little too much.
And, as I seen you've forgotten, one of those "hoaxes" you allude to has already been addressed by me before, and what actually happened was that the anti-evolutionists made the peppered moth thing out to be something that science didn't purport it to be. So yes, by fabricating what science says about something, you can say that it's not right.
No one claims (at least in text that I've seen) that the peppered moth points to evolution directly. Every instance I see is that it describes adaptation, only a part of what evolution has going for it. So to say that the peppered moth is a hoax is a hoax in itself.
Hoax away.
You are underestimating how much those specific examples have been used as "proof" of evolution. If you don't see gluing dead moths onto a tree where they don't go and saying that's adaptation and not a hoax, well it certainly isn't a proof or real science, is it?
You are underestimating how much those specific examples have been used as "proof" of evolution. If you don't see gluing dead moths onto a tree where they don't go and saying that's adaptation and not a hoax, well it certainly isn't a proof or real science, is it?
Well, considering I went through great lengths to look this up in texts and explanations online and then write about it, and you still jump back to the same explanation with no regards to any of what I've put forth, I'm not sure I should bother rewriting what I've already written on this subject. So I'll just refer back to it.
http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=464&postcount=10
Perhaps it's just that you're trying to confuse the subject with the gluing of the moths on a tree.
I do not dispute that.
But how often do you think you'll find moths that have been selected against (thus, be low in numbers) show up right next to a moth that has an adaptation on the same tree right at the point that you are looking at the tree and have a camera ready to take a high quality picture? My guess would be...not very often.
So, to use the moths as an example, what do you do? You take two moths from the location you're talking about, put them on a dark tree and a light tree and describe how the soot from the factories provided an environment better suited for the dark allele and the areas without factories without soot provided an environment suited for the light allele.
It has not one thing to do with glue or anything that the fact that they were glued there in regards to the demonstration that was being made, which was when the factories produced soot that darkened the light colored trees, the dark moths were hidden better than the light moths. When there were no factories and the trees were lighter, the lighter moths were hidden better than the light ones.
Thus, you have selection based on a light or dark allele. Selecting for one genetic characteristic based on the environment.
It wouldn't matter if there was a nail sticking right through the moth, it wouldn't change what the image was doing, and that's showing an example of how the environment can serve to select certain traits in the organisms residing in said environment.
Now, where evolution comes into play is when, because of the soot, the light and dark individuals are separated (light don't live well where there's soot, and vice versa for the dark). Eventually, if separated long enough, the dark moth could develop traits that the light moth wouldn't because of different environments. At some point along that time (a very long time), the moths might even become divergent and be separate species. Of course that doesn't mean the original species disappears, just that there is a new one based on the separation or isolation.
Damn, now I went and wasted all that time and energy.
Fuck it.
pnkpanther
06-13-2007, 06:56 PM
creationist want us to find a half tiger half rhino before they'll be happy
creationist want us to find a half tiger half rhino before they'll be happy
and a crocoduck.
Oh, and as for piltdown being a cornerstone of evolutionary theory that teachers can't wait to warp our minds with, I've been in biology for a baker's dozen years now, and I ONLY heard of piltdown when Vegas talked about it a few months ago.
Being that it's the big thing in evolution, I'm going to have to go back and chew some people out for not teaching it to me.
Oh, and as for piltdown being a cornerstone of evolutionary theory that teachers can't wait to warp our minds with, I've been in biology for a baker's dozen years now, and I ONLY heard of piltdown when Vegas talked about it a few months ago.
Being that it's the big thing in evolution, I'm going to have to go back and chew some people out for not teaching it to me.
Even more amazing, it was referenced in this thread as STILL BEING TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS...
Where? Kansas?
Vegas
06-13-2007, 07:00 PM
Oh, and as for piltdown being a cornerstone of evolutionary theory that teachers can't wait to warp our minds with, I've been in biology for a baker's dozen years now, and I ONLY heard of piltdown when Vegas talked about it a few months ago.
Being that it's the big thing in evolution, I'm going to have to go back and chew some people out for not teaching it to me.
Just because you weren't taught about it doesn't mean that it isn't being currently taught in schools.
Tom Joad
06-13-2007, 07:09 PM
Wikipedia claims Piltdown was discovered to be a forgery in 1953. Any science teacher that still teaches it must be really, really, really old.
Hotpapa666
06-14-2007, 02:40 AM
I was taught about Piltdown Man in biology class in high school It was duscussed as a a fraud and used as a spring board for how NOT to do science.
If Piltdown Man is being taught as a transitional species in a serious biology class (not a "religious biology" class) in any high school anywhere in the nation then name the school district and show us the ciriculum or a text book, or a reference to a text book and I'll believe you. The burden of proof lies with the person who says Piltdown Man is being taught in this way and you can't just say 'it's being taught'. Show some proof.
Just because you weren't taught about it doesn't mean that it isn't being currently taught in schools.
So let me get this straight.
I've been in at least one biology class every year since 1995, meaning in that time, I've been exposed to a lot of ways people are taught biology, including one evolution class in college, and I've never heard of piltdown. But that's inferior information to yours.
Now, to your information. You haven't taken a biology class in what...20...30 years? You're not in the field of biology? But what you know about what is taught and how it is taught better than...me?
Are you fucking serious?
Give me a break.
This is no longer a debate. It's you spreading lies and misrepresentations.
And I'm done.
creationist want us to find a half tiger half rhino before they'll be happy
http://www.bat-girl.com/archives/liger.jpg
Pretty much my favorite animal
Tom Joad
06-14-2007, 12:52 PM
http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/scientific_republican_1.jpg
Nixon's Head
06-14-2007, 01:39 PM
and a crocoduck.http://www.geocities.com/anuragvit/cross/crocoduck.jpg
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.