Dinosaur evolution may need radical revision, new findings

[Jay GW]

Revueltosaurus skeleton unearthed at Petrified Forest upsets dinosaur tale

Berkeley - The fossilized skeleton of a small crocodile relative excavated last year at Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona throws a wrench into theories of how and where the dinosaurs arose more than 210 million years ago at the end of the Triassic Period.




The animal, one of many creatures from the Late Triassic known only from their teeth, was thought to be an ancestor of the plant-eating ornithischian dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Triceratops, which roamed the world millions of years later in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

The fact that this presumed dinosaur, Revueltosaurus callenderi, is instead a crocodile ancestor does not merely disappoint rockhounds, who sell the abundant teeth as "dinosaur teeth," but it also throws into question the identity of other presumed dinosaur ancestors known only from teeth, which includes all Late Triassic ornithischians outside South America.

[....]

If, as the team concludes, the first ornithischians outside South America did not appear until 25 million years later than people thought, the picture of dinosaur evolution radically shifts.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...revuelto.shtml

I'm getting confused by this story, not being at all familiar paleontology/archeology - but are they saying that they relied on teeth to create the model of evolution for dinosaurs and now the teeth they used turn out to be from a completely different kind of animal?

So then, the ancestors of some dinosaurs they knew only from the teeth, when more of the animal is found, turns out it's not the ancestor but another branch that's unrelated. Is that right?

[jojo]

Good post Jay GW.

Let's hear it for evolutionary propaganda.

[johann_moritz]

I'm totally lost in this story.

[Fayebelle]

[Myrddin]

It doesn't cast doubt on evolution jojo so don't get excited.

If you are looking at reptile teeth it is probably hard to tell if the animal was a crocodile or a dinosaur or some other form of reptile without looking at the rest of the skeleton, all you can tell really is what the animal probably ate and its size. There are few complete (or even semi complete) skeletons from the Triassic (a very long time ago) so deciding what an animal looked like from a few teeth is hard. There is need for more fossil finds from this era to clarify the picture and find out what branch of the dinosaur family evolved where, when and from what.

[johann_moritz]

Hey mr. fayebelle, at least I got the conclusion. Duh!

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Myrddin

It doesn't cast doubt on evolution jojo so don't get excited.

It certainly doesn't do much to support it.

[Fayebelle]

Originally Posted by johann_moritz

Hey mr. fayebelle, at least I got the conclusion. Duh!

You concluded that I'm a Mister? Great detective work Sherlock

[Myrddin]

Originally Posted by jojo

It certainly doesn't do much to support it.

It is much more supported than the idea of making people from mud or ribs is.

[johann_moritz]

Originally Posted by Fayebelle

You concluded that I'm a Mister? Great detective work Sherlock

OK! I'm going home now!

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Myrddin

It is much more supported than the idea of making people from mud or ribs is.

Are we counting heads?

[Fayebelle]

Originally Posted by johann_moritz

OK! I'm going home now!

cheer up

[Odysseus]

Interesting.

This is a good example of the continuous evolution of scientific theories as we discover new evidence. This is how science works, naysayers.

JoJo, I know what you, as well as those who share your beliefs, will think. This just proves that evolution is wrong, right? Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it right (according to Gallop, 45% of Americans believe in creationism or some form of it). If that were true then the earth really would be flat. The problem that I have with creationists is that they make no efforts to prove anything. Rather they simply use their ONE reference and refuse to accept any evidence collected over the last few hundred years that differs from their view. Creationists have no flexibility in their theories, and that is the fundamental problem. Any scientist worth his salt will be the first to admit that theories will evolve as more evidence is discovered and none are so arrogant to say that their theory is 100% true. The problem is that the earth is VERY big, and the conditions for fossilization VERY specific, so naturally it will take a long time to find all the fossils we need to connect all the dots correctly, if we even can.

At least science is friggin trying, and not just using ONE source to try and prove their ONE source and explain their ONE source, and discounting everything that does not agree with a 2000 year old piece of fiction.

[Epicius]

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Interesting.

This is a good example of the continuous evolution of scientific theories as we discover new evidence. This is how science works, naysayers.

JoJo, I know what you, as well as those who share your beliefs, will think. This just proves that evolution is wrong, right? Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it right (according to Gallop, 45% of Americans believe in creationism or some form of it). If that were true then the earth really would be flat. The problem that I have with creationists is that they make no efforts to prove anything. Rather they simply use their ONE reference and refuse to accept any evidence collected over the last few hundred years that differs from their view. Creationists have no flexibility in their theories, and that is the fundamental problem. Any scientist worth his salt will be the first to admit that theories will evolve as more evidence is discovered and none are so arrogant to say that their theory is 100% true. The problem is that the earth is VERY big, and the conditions for fossilization VERY specific, so naturally it will take a long time to find all the fossils we need to connect all the dots correctly, if we even can.

At least science is friggin trying, and not just using ONE source to try and prove their ONE source and explain their ONE source, and discounting everything that does not agree with a 2000 year old piece of fiction.

Too right, I prefer the tale of the Gitche Manitou and the oven, myself! Sod that garden of eden rubbish

[Snouter]

Originally Posted by Jay GW

So then, the ancestors of some dinosaurs they knew only from the teeth, when more of the animal is found, turns out it's not the ancestor but another branch that's unrelated. Is that right?

"Scientists" have a history of incorrect research in regards to evolution. I believe at one time they thought an elephant's knee cap was a piece of a skull of a "missing link."

"Basically, you have two groups that were thought to appear at the same time and co-evolve, and now you have one completely wiped away," Parker said. "So where did the ornithischian dinosaurs come from? We don't know right now.

Throughout earth's history, it appears species of all kinds emerged suddenly and on occasion, disappear suddenly relatively speaking. If evolution was real, no species would ever become extinct, the creatures would respond to changing environmental conditions and adapt. (This is where turtle_o comes in and says her biology teacher says, "blah, blah, blah.")

Also, how the hell did giant monsters weighing many tons evolve into birds weighing a few ounces?

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by Odysseus

This is a good example of the continuous evolution of scientific theories as we discover new evidence. This is how science works, naysayers.

Exactly. Even as we fine tune and hone our theories to align with empirical observation, the "bible" of the jojos of the world continues to rot and wither from stagnation and increasing irrelevance. Gotta love the attitude they often display at times like this: "Ha! Your silly theory is wrong, all wrong!", sitting smugly in the castle they've built on a solid foundation of air.

At least science is friggin trying, and not just using ONE source to try and prove their ONE source and explain their ONE source, and discounting everything that does not agree with a 2000 year old piece of fiction.

Bronze age sheepherder fairy tales and mythology. No more meaningful or relevant than any of the other creation myths over the eons. Myths such as:

Mesoamerican: "Coatlique got pregnant by an obsidian knife through which she produced her one legitimate litter of moon and stars. When she got pregnant, shamefully, a second time, she gave birth to the god of war, Huitzilopochtli, who murdered his siblings."

Germanic:: "In the beginning was the great void, Ginnungagap. A fiery region developed to the south and a windy, icy region to the norh. Together they produced chaos and out of chaos sprang life. "

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr.../aa010698b.htm

and other equally nonsensial fables.

"Also, how the hell did giant monsters weighing many tons evolve into birds weighing a few ounces?"

Funny how the questioner doesn't apply the same requirement for common sense to his own beliefs which I'll assume are biblical fire & brimstone. Instead, while demanding answers from science he gives a pass to theological dogma, conveniently bypassing the overarching issue nagging his "side" about how Noah got these monsters onto his wee boat and kept them all fed for all that time. That is of course if he can get around the tens of millions of years of difference between when they roamed the earth and when god supposedly created everything and then wanted to murder all life (even fish? with a flood? ) I'd also like to know how Noah roamed the earth in search of elephant seals, platypuses, polar bears, rhinos and hippos, elephants, mole rats, tarantulas, koala bears, penguins etc none of which are likely to have made the trek to Noah & Sons Shipbuilding Yards in the time given by god all by themselves. Maybe the creationists can clarify without creating fiction themselves...

He argues about things like extinction events and exposes ignorance of the subject of evolution by expecting all creatures to adapt literally overnight (in evolutionary terms) to something geologically instantaneous like an asteroid impact. What would he say if I were to ask why the body of a shooting victim didn't "adapt" instead of just bleeding out? Is that proof to him that evolution is bunk?

Yeah, scientific theories are reconsidered when new evidence comes to light. That's just good science. All the biblethumpers have been able to do is ride science's coattails for the last 300 years trying to keep up and retain some shred of dignity and relevance. In all that time, they've yet to make any meaningful "advances" in their field. It's all just the same old same old.

[Myrddin]

Originally Posted by jojo

Are we counting heads?

Fossilised skulls perhaps.

[Von Apfelstrudel]

Welcome to the ever-evolving, thought-provoking world of scientific theories (as opposed to one of cast in marble religious dogma...)

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Snouter

"Scientists" have a history of incorrect research in regards to evolution. I believe at one time they thought an elephant's knee cap was a piece of a skull of a "missing link."

While I appreciate the efforts of scientific community to pursue knowledge, I cannot help but think that if Satan really did rule the earth (referring to the current Big Debate thread) that those in control of mankinds destiny would consist of scientific types. The same types that despite attempts to "discover" the origins of the universe continue to submit inconsistent findings such as elephants knee caps in an effort to bring attention to themselves.

[Von Apfelstrudel]

Originally Posted by jojo

I cannot help but think that if Satan really did rule the earth (referring to the current Big Debate thread) that those in control of mankinds destiny would consist of scientific types.

I agree scientist can get out of control, and have (ex in Nzi germany): as (the most profane) Rabelais said; "Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" . But why give such an emphasis on
sicentific types, when it would likewise be possible to contend that "if Satan did rule the earth, those in control of mankinds destiny would consist of religious types" . I trust Snouter would agree to this one ("Islamofascists", anyone ?)
[geek]besides, if you want to read a good story of the world, Satan, God, and the Age fo Reason, you should pick up a copy of Micheal Moorkcok's "the War Hound and the World's pain" [/geek]