|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Undermining long-held paradigms | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
Forum of your choice? Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Eh, surprise me. I'm not too particular about this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
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'
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024