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:   Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach (against evolution
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 20 (177746)
01-17-2005 5:07 AM


I saw this news report -
Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines
quote:
By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, AP Science Writer
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.
Photo
AP Photo
AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: Dinosaurs and Fossils
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.
Considering the specimens in tandem, scientists suggest the period in which these animals lived may have been much different than is commonly understood as the Age of Dinosaurs a time dominated by long-necked, 85-ton plant-eaters and the emergence of terrifying hunters with bladelike teeth and sickle claws.
It appears that at least some smaller dinosaurs had to look over their shoulders for snarling, meat-eating mammals claiming the same turf.
"This new evidence gives us a drastically new picture," said paleontologist Meng Jin of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, a co-author of the study in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Other scientists who did not work on the bones described the discoveries as "exhilarating."
"This size range really has surprised everybody," said Zhexi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, who digs in the same area of northeast China. "It dispels the conventional wisdom."
The fossils were found more than two years ago by villagers in the rich fossil beds of Liaoning province. The specimens were taken to a Beijing lab, where they were cleaned and analyzed by Chinese and American scientists. The dinosaur-eater belongs to a species called Repenomamus robustus, known previously from skull fragments. It has no modern relatives.
The squat, toothy specimen measures a little less than 2 feet long, and probably weighed about 15 pounds. On R. robustus' left side and under the ribs in the area of its stomach are the fragmented remains of a very young Psittacosaurus. This common, fast-moving plant-eater is known as the "parrot dinosaur" because it had a small head with a curved, horny beak. Its arms were much shorter than its legs. Adults grew to be 6 feet long, but the one that was devoured was just 5 inches.
The remains still are recognizable, indicating that R. robustus ripped its prey like a crocodile, but probably had not developed the ability to chew food like more advanced mammals. "It must have swallowed food in large hunks," Meng said.
The larger, second fossil also is a Repenomamus, but considerably larger more than 3 feet long with a likely weight of more than 30 pounds. Dubbed R. giganticus, it weighed 20 times more than most of the 290 known early mammals, Meng said.
A larger mammal could roam and hunt aggressively, preying on young dinosaurs. "Giganticus is in a league by itself," Luo said. "It's the world champion so far for body mass in any Mesozoic mammal."
This new class of predatory mammals has set off new speculation. Originally, scientists believed that mammals remained small because larger dinosaurs were hunting them. Only after dinosaurs went extinct by 65 million years ago did surviving mammals begin to grow larger, they reasoned.
Now, the discovery of larger mammals is reversing some of the speculation. The Liaoning region already is famous for its trove of small feathered dinosaurs and early birds. "Maybe small dinosaurs got larger or got off the ground to avoid rapacious mammals," wonders Duke University paleontologist Anne Weil.
Equally mysterious is how these specimens died. Neither shows evidence of being hunted itself. The Yixian rock formation in which their bones were encased is a combination of river sediments and volcanic ash. The formation also includes the fossils of insects, frogs and other creatures, suggesting a mass die-off.
"It's possible that poisonous volcanic gas killed the animals when they were sleeping," Meng said. "Then there was a catastrophic explosion that buried the whole thing."
The important element is this:
quote:
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.
So does it?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-17-2005 05:08 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 01-17-2005 7:54 AM CK has not replied
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 5:10 PM CK has not replied

AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 20 (177752)
01-17-2005 7:48 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 20 (177758)
01-17-2005 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
01-17-2005 5:07 AM


Yes, I'd say it does. Not in the earth shaking way that they imply but it does mean that the conventinal picture of mammal evolution is somewhat out. It also implies that mammals were able to out-compete dinosaurs in niches to which they were already adapted; and that is interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 01-17-2005 5:07 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gengar, posted 01-17-2005 8:29 AM Dr Jack has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 20 (177762)
01-17-2005 8:05 AM


Much ado about nothing
Reptiles and birds eat small mammals today in the "age of mammals" when the largest terrestrial and aquatic animals are mammals.
Exactly which part of the theory of evolution has been overturned or contradicted. It all seems to be a bit of hyperbole added to what was an interesting and surprising discovery in its own right.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 01-17-2005 8:42 AM wj has not replied

gengar
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 20 (177770)
01-17-2005 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
01-17-2005 7:54 AM


It also implies that mammals were able to out-compete dinosaurs in niches to which they were already adapted; and that is interesting.
Indeed it is. Perhaps us mammals don't have as much to thank the KT asteroid for as we think...
So the article is being a bit sensationalist, as whilst these findings call certain ideas about evolutionary *history* into question (when mammals began to diversify) they don't have any impact on the underlying theory.
Odds on that this quote will be haunting us for years, though...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 01-17-2005 7:54 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 20 (177774)
01-17-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by wj
01-17-2005 8:05 AM


Re: Much ado about nothing
Exactly which part of the theory of evolution has been overturned or contradicted. It all seems to be a bit of hyperbole added to what was an interesting and surprising discovery in its own right.
We're back to the usual fuzziness about what exactly "evolutionary theory" means - if we're talking how the theory of how evolution happens, or whether it happens there's no change here but if we're discussing the particulars of evolutionary history as it actually happened then this is news (at least to my knowledge, I don't work in the area so it may be that there are prior cases of larger dinosaur-contemporary mammals) because it modifies the existing view of mammalian evolution: i.e. only very small mammals existed until after the fall of the dinosaurs when they were able to radiate (evolutionarily) into the niches freshly vacated by the dinosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by wj, posted 01-17-2005 8:05 AM wj has not replied

Sisyphus
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 20 (177777)
01-17-2005 8:48 AM


Whilst the large size may be a surprise, small mammals have long been believed to consume dinosaur eggs (if Oviraptors didn't get there first); to extrapolate that to 'very tiny young' is hardly earthshaking.

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 8 of 20 (177825)
01-17-2005 11:55 AM


Personally, I don’t find this at all surprising. It was theorized that mammals remained small till after the dinosaur die-off mainly because there was no data to suggest otherwise. A safe assumption to be surebut still, we’re talking about millions of years, and hey, they had to start getting large at some pointright? Could not this simply have been a brief experiment in size that leads nowhere? With that in mind, two questions come to my mind. Where did they come from and where did they go? That is to say, it will now be quite interesting to search for their evolutionary ancestors AND to look for a continuation of the lineageI think.

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 9 of 20 (177910)
01-17-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
01-17-2005 5:07 AM


quote:
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.
So does it?
i found nothing suprising in that article.
there were lots of largish mammalian predators, especially towards the end of the "reign of dinosaurs." and there were always small dinosaurs. it was never unthinkable that mammalian carnivore would eat small dinosaurs. in fact, i would be awfully suprised if this was the first example of that. i'm quite sure dino eggs would make a good meal for mammals of the age.
they're basically arguing a strawman -- there's nothing in any evolutionary theory that says that mammales didn't eat reptiles or dinosaurs.
edit: now THIS would contradict the current evolutionary theory.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-17-2005 17:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 01-17-2005 5:07 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Specter, posted 05-19-2005 10:01 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 14 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-19-2005 5:17 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-19-2005 8:23 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Specter
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 20 (209635)
05-19-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
01-17-2005 5:10 PM


Well, Well.
So let me get this straight: Will all the evos in this forum say who you are now? I don't see how this evidence can keep you an evo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 5:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 05-19-2005 10:05 AM Specter has not replied
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 05-19-2005 12:34 PM Specter has not replied
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 05-19-2005 3:21 PM Specter has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 20 (209636)
05-19-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Specter
05-19-2005 10:01 AM


Re: Well, Well.
Which evidence are you talking about ?
The original post or the pictures in Message 9 ?
And if you're joking could you please make it clearer ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Specter, posted 05-19-2005 10:01 AM Specter has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 20 (209670)
05-19-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Specter
05-19-2005 10:01 AM


Re: Well, Well.
Finding a mammal with dinos is not suprising. Finding a mammal who has eaten a dino is neat. We have already known for a long time that mammals existed with dinos so your suprise is a little unwarranted.
There are plenty of other things that legitimatly WOULD cause trouble for the TOE like finding the remains of a human inside a T-Rex fossil. If we ever found something like that it would turn a few heads.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Specter, posted 05-19-2005 10:01 AM Specter has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 20 (209717)
05-19-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Specter
05-19-2005 10:01 AM


Re: Well, Well.
So let me get this straight: Will all the evos in this forum say who you are now? I don't see how this evidence can keep you an evo.
because it's not evidence. it's an april fool's joke.
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html
http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.html

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Specter, posted 05-19-2005 10:01 AM Specter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 05-19-2005 5:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 14 of 20 (209743)
05-19-2005 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
01-17-2005 5:10 PM


Uh-oh...
That guy in the top right corner looks a bit like Ron Wyatt...

Mat 27:5 And he went and hanged himself
Luk 10:37 Go, and do thou likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 01-17-2005 5:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 05-19-2005 8:08 PM Dead Parrot has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 15 of 20 (209752)
05-19-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
05-19-2005 3:21 PM


Re: Well, Well.
Was he even talking about the nmsr joke?
I thought he was thinking that the finding of dino bones in a mammal was somehow a problem for evolution. If he legitimatly thought that the nmsr joke was real he would at least have a basis for his statement.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 05-19-2005 3:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 05-19-2005 8:05 PM Jazzns 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