Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Undermining long-held paradigms
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 124 (345589)
08-31-2006 11:33 PM


"In China, scientists have identified the fossilized remains of a tiny dinosaur in the stomach of a mammal. Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago.
It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.
In this case, the mammal was about the size of a large cat, and the victim was a very young "parrot dinosaur" that measured about 5 inches long.
A second mammal fossil found at the same site claims the distinction of being the largest early mammal ever found. It's about the size of a modern dog, a breathtaking 20 times larger than most mammals living in the early Cretaceous Period."
This is what the live science article explains. What makes it particularly interesting is that according to virtually all evolutionary biologists, very small mammals barely eking out of existence, should have ever been contemporaneous with dinosaurs. The prevailing theory, obviously, having mammals made their rise to glory after a profound cataclymsic event caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, allowing for the proliferation of small mammals.
This is one of several contradictions concerning the the long-held paradigms of evolution that have been undermined in recent years. Another example and a more notorious case being the discovery of unfossilized fascial tissue attached to an alleged 70 million year old T-Rex. How should modern biology feel about such discoveries, and is it in the best interest of the entire biological community to rethink some of their timescales in lieu of such discrepancies?

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminFaith, posted 09-01-2006 12:21 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2006 12:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 6 by anglagard, posted 09-01-2006 1:01 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 9 by anglagard, posted 09-01-2006 1:27 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 10 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-01-2006 1:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 09-01-2006 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 124 (345603)
09-01-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 11:33 PM


Forum of your choice? Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 11:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 12:23 AM AdminFaith has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 124 (345604)
09-01-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminFaith
09-01-2006 12:21 AM


Topic
Eh, surprise me. I'm not too particular about this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminFaith, posted 09-01-2006 12:21 AM AdminFaith has not replied

  
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 124 (345607)
09-01-2006 12:24 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 5 of 124 (345609)
09-01-2006 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 11:33 PM


timescales don't need to be readjusted for this.
just our views on the evolutionary history of mammals.
it honestly doesn't surprise me that there actually was a bigger mammal then the mice sized ones we so often see from that era.
I mean, the explanation--they stayed small so that they weren't hunted isn't very good. the thing is, until these new mammalian fossils, what other explanation was there?
my guess is that these cat and small dog sized mammals lived in the forests, arguably much safer from the larger predators--why is a raptor, much less a t-rex gonna hunt something the size of a dog? not worth it, energy wise.
and in the forests, you don't have to worry about the massive, 85 ton herbivores crushing you--for the most part.
I will say this--when the asteroid struck, it was the small mammals that survived, and for good reason. one of those being endothermy.
It was the small mammal that gave rise to the current mammals--even the article suggests this, as it states that the genus Repenomamus has no modern relatives. if they did survive the asteroid, then something else took them out of the picture (the new old big mammals)

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 11:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 1:46 AM kuresu has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 6 of 124 (345612)
09-01-2006 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 11:33 PM


Another Untrue Assertion
Nemesis-Juggernaut:
What makes it particularly interesting is that according to virtually all evolutionary biologists, very small mammals barely eking out of existence, should have ever been contemporaneous with dinosaurs. The prevailing theory, obviously, having mammals made their rise to glory after a profound cataclymsic event caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, allowing for the proliferation of small mammals.
This assertion, that most biologists believe mammals did not exist along with dinosaurs, is false and has been false since at least the late 60s when I first started following paleontology.
A very basic google search would show this:
Mammal - Wikipedia
Additionally, mammals obviously had to exist contemporaneous with dinosaurs in order to supersede them after the K-T extinction event, unless of course, they were poofed into existance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 11:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2006 1:17 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2006 6:24 AM anglagard has replied
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 11:34 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2006 11:10 AM anglagard has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 7 of 124 (345616)
09-01-2006 1:13 AM


is it me or does anyone else not see a valid factual argument here?
So mammals ate baby dinosaurs. Not exactly news. Many mammals scavanged, just like many dinosaurs, and many were nest robbers.
I can't find anything on this alleged facial tissue, but I know for a fact that soft tissue has been discussed here and how it doesn't support creation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 11:45 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 8 of 124 (345618)
09-01-2006 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by anglagard
09-01-2006 1:01 AM


Re: Another Untrue Assertion
I'm ashamed. I totally missed that. hmmm. bad kuresu,bad bad kuresu.
i guess it's time out in the corner for me, as I'm no jack horner.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by anglagard, posted 09-01-2006 1:01 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 9 of 124 (345622)
09-01-2006 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 11:33 PM


Yet More Untruths
NJ misrepresenting biologists concerning contemporaneous existance of mammals and dinosaurs states:
This is one of several contradictions concerning the the long-held paradigms of evolution that have been undermined in recent years.
Name them. I would bet every single one is due to the fact you, and your apparent sources at AIG and ICR either misinterpret or misrepresent science.
Another example and a more notorious case being the discovery of unfossilized fascial tissue attached to an alleged 70 million year old T-Rex. How should modern biology feel about such discoveries, and is it in the best interest of the entire biological community to rethink some of their timescales in lieu of such discrepancies?
The tissue in question is not unfossilized facial tissue. It is from a leg bone. More disinformation from NJ.
T. rex Fossil Yields Soft Tissue | NSF - National Science Foundation
Do you hate telling the truth? How do you think your God may respond to such falsehoods should there be a judgement day?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 11:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 2:57 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 10 of 124 (345624)
09-01-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 11:33 PM


Repenomamus & T rex
I'm delighted to see something about Repenomamus robustus again. Exciting discovery!
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fierce mammal ate dinos for lunch
n_j:
What makes it particularly interesting is that according to virtually all evolutionary biologists, very small mammals barely eking out of existence, should have ever been contemporaneous with dinosaurs. The prevailing theory, obviously, having mammals made their rise to glory after a profound cataclymsic event caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, allowing for the proliferation of small mammals.
It's hard to make sense of this statement. You seem to have mistaken notions about mammal evolution.
No one doubted the existence of mammals all throughout the Mesozoic (dinosaur) Era. A number of species have been identified. Mammals had evolved earlier, in the Permian Era, from the therapsids. So the discovery of a previously unknown species of mammal in the Mesozoic causes no problems.
It's just that this critter is very, very interesting. Most Mesozoic mammals tended to be small, shrew-like creatures. Dinosaurs and other creatures occupied most of the ecological niches. This new discovery shows us that at least one species of mammal grew large enough to pose a threat to the big boys--even if only to the baby versions of them.
Mammals did not 'suddenly appear' after the K-T event--that is, after the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. They had long been around. They just starting growing larger and diversifying at that point because many previously occupied ecological niches came open.
This is one of several contradictions concerning the the long-held paradigms of evolution that have been undermined in recent years.
What contradiction? What undermining? This is an exciting discovery that poses no problem at all for evolution.
Another example and a more notorious case
Notorious? Paleontologists are buzzed!
You've got to quit snorting so much Hovind. That stuff will rot your brain.
being the discovery of unfossilized fascial tissue attached to an alleged 70 million year old T-Rex.
It is not unfossilized and it is not fascial tissue. It is remarkably well preserved bone marrow.
Soft tissue structures of such delicacy are rarely preseved--or so scientists thought. But then, most paleontologists don't open bones, either. So this is a very exciting find and it raises the possibility of more discoveries to be made in bones we already have.
Fossilization can be a very complex process mineralogically. This fossilized bone marrow certainly has the chemists going to work.
Here's an excerpt from the BBC story:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | T. rex fossil has 'soft tissues'

"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.
"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC.
But if there are fragments, at least, of the original dinosaur molecules, their details could provide new clues to the relationship between T. rex and living species, such as birds.
Inevitably, people will wonder whether the creature's DNA might also be found. But the "life molecule" degrades rapidly over thousand-year timescales, and the chances of a sample surviving from the Cretaceous are not considered seriously.
"I actually don't work with DNA and my lab is not set up to do that," said [discoverer] Dr [Mary] Schweitzer. "Our goal is more to look to see what we can find with respect to the proteins that are coded by the DNA.
"To a large degree, most of the chemical studies that have been done suggest proteins are more durable than DNA and they have almost the same kind of information because they use DNA as their template."
Dr Collins added: "I would agree that proteins are the molecules to go for - they are the major macromolecules in bone.
"We've got some very interesting research coming out from a number of labs looking at stable isotopes (different forms of the same atom) in bones and clearly information about diets which comes from such isotopes may now be amenable from these dinosaur materials."
However, he cautioned that the great age of MOR 1125 may put such detail beyond the investigating scientists.
As you can see, scientists are hardly going back to the drawing board on evolutionary theory or timescales. This fossil promises to give us exciting new information about how dinosaurs evolved.
How should modern biology feel about such discoveries, and is it in the best interest of the entire biological community to rethink some of their timescales in lieu of such discrepancies?
Again with the feelings! Earlier you were trying to decide your 'feelings' about the Big Bang. Every scientific discovery is something you have to decide your 'feelings' about. Well, I guess that's how it has to be when so many discoveries cure your diseases and so many other discoveries challenge your beliefs...
Whatever you decide for yourself, scientists are excited, as you can see. Neither discovery poses any problem for evolutionary theory. On the contrary, both give us fascinating new details about it.
Very good days for science--both discoveries.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 11:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 124 (345625)
09-01-2006 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by kuresu
09-01-2006 12:35 AM


Timescales
timescales don't need to be readjusted for this.
just our views on the evolutionary history of mammals. it honestly doesn't surprise me that there actually was a bigger mammal then the mice sized ones we so often see from that era.
I didn't think the argument was going to make or break the entire theory of evolution, its just one more clue to build a case against and demonstrates that much of the theory has to keep reinventing itself.
I mean, the explanation--they stayed small so that they weren't hunted isn't very good. the thing is, until these new mammalian fossils, what other explanation was there?
No, that isn't a good explanation.
my guess is that these cat and small dog sized mammals lived in the forests, arguably much safer from the larger predators--why is a raptor, much less a t-rex gonna hunt something the size of a dog? not worth it, energy wise.
I don't know. Maybe T-Rex was a omnivore. If I'm not mistaken, within the crevices of some T-Rex teeth have been detected trace amounts of chloroplasts. What if T-Rex ended up being an herbivore? Aside from which, anything more than this is just a guess, something I've noticed often becomes hard fact over night. Discovery's "Walking with Dinosaurs" solidifies that point quite nicely.
I will say this--when the asteroid struck, it was the small mammals that survived, and for good reason. one of those being endothermy. It was the small mammal that gave rise to the current mammals--even the article suggests this, as it states that the genus Repenomamus has no modern relatives. if they did survive the asteroid, then something else took them out of the picture (the new old big mammals)
Here's what we know for certain:
1. Dinosaurs are extinct and mammals are not.
2. The earth shows signs of being bombarded by asteroids.
Here's the assertion:
1. It was an asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaur. Its not a terrible guesstimate, but lets not get carried away and call it facvt when its far from anything factual at this point.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2006 12:35 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 09-01-2006 1:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 13 by anglagard, posted 09-01-2006 2:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 14 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-01-2006 2:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 09-01-2006 9:30 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 09-01-2006 9:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2006 9:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 27 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-01-2006 12:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 38 by nator, posted 09-01-2006 5:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 12 of 124 (345627)
09-01-2006 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 1:46 AM


Re: Timescales
ever take a look at the K-T boundary. that's the extinction event, the end the cretaceous and started the (tertiary?) periods.
A good layer around most of the world, dating to 65 million years ago, and get this--way too much irridium (not globally, but there is still a well defined K-T boundary across the world). irridium ain't common in the earth's crust--certainly not in the concentration we've found close to the impact zone.
we also have the crater mapped out--it's at the yucatan peninsula.
we know that an asteroid or coment hit--more likely asteroid.
what we don't know is if this was the culminating factor or the event that started the chain of events leading to the extinction of the dinos.
as to your guess about t-rex--many predators have eaten plant material--often for no mroe purpose than staying regular.
in the case of the T-rex--if it is true, and it isn't contaminated--how about this. in the process of chasing down some prey, he snapped, missed, and got a mouthful of plant. really quite possible.
try to do some research on this stuff before you make yourself sound like an idiot.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 1:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 13 of 124 (345628)
09-01-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 1:46 AM


Re: Timescales
Nemesis_Juggernaut:
Here's what we know for certain:
1. Dinosaurs are extinct and mammals are not.
2. The earth shows signs of being bombarded by asteroids.
Here's the assertion:
1. It was an asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaur. Its not a terrible guesstimate, but lets not get carried away and call it facvt when its far from anything factual at this point.
"Far from anything factual" in anti-science fantasyland, there is a lot of evidence. An asteroid Chicxulub, strikes the Earth, as shown by geology. Strangely enough there is all these shocked quartz grains showing up all around the event. Stranger still, there is all this iridium, rare on Earth but more common on certain asteroids, showing up in this very narrow layer of sediments. Dinosaur fossils show up below the layer but not above. What kind of conclusion is one supposed to make?
Sure a few blame the volcanism of the Deccan traps, but as stated here before, the events are in all likelihood directly related. I think the asteroid caused the volcanism.
The evidence is compelling. Many of your assertions, given your history here, are not.
ABE - I guess we are making progress if you accept that dinosaurs are extinct and asteroids strike the planet.
Edited by anglagard, : misplaced quotes and NJ progress
Edited by anglagard, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 1:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 14 of 124 (345629)
09-01-2006 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-01-2006 1:46 AM


Re: Timescales
n_j:
Here's what we know for certain:
1. Dinosaurs are extinct and mammals are not.
Non-avian dinosaurs are extinct. The others are here.
2. The earth shows signs of being bombarded by asteroids.
An object hit the Yucatan Peninsula area 65 million years ago--the time of the K-T event.
Here's the assertion:
1. It was an asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaur. Its not a terrible guesstimate, but lets not get carried away and call it facvt when its far from anything factual at this point.
No one is 'guessing' about the impact. The crater has been found and it's the right age. The environmental effects would have been severe all over the world. But the exact role of the impact in the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs and the other large species is debated. No one is 'carried away.' Other natural factors are implicated, as is always the case with mass extinctions.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 1:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 09-01-2006 3:17 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 5:01 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 15 of 124 (345634)
09-01-2006 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Archer Opteryx
09-01-2006 2:05 AM


Technically Correct
Non-avian dinosaurs are extinct. The others are here.
Technically that is correct under the modified Benton Classification system. The Class Aves (birds) is under the Order Saurischia.
An object hit the Yucatan Peninsula area 65 million years ago--the time of the K-T event.
I think you are being conservative in this. The object would be an asteroid or comet I would think. The iridium argument is based upon the chemical makeup of certian types of asteroids. I am unfamiliar with iridium being considered a trace constituent of comets. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-01-2006 2:05 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024