Log In | Register
38 Comments
PrintScientists: New dinosaur species found in SAfrica
Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:58 AM EST
Images 
(showing 1 of 5 photos)
(showing 1 of 5 photos)advertisement
JOHANNESBURG — A newly discovered dinosaur species that roamed the Earth about 200 million years ago may help explain how the creatures evolved into the largest animals on land, scientists in South Africa said Wednesday.
The Aardonyx celestae was a 23-foot- (7-meter-) long small-headed herbivore with a huge barrel of a chest. It walked on its hind legs but also could drop to all fours, and scientists told reporters that could prove to be a missing evolutionary link.
This is a species "that no one has seen before and one that has a very significant position in the family tree of dinosaurs," said Australian paleontologist Adam Yates.
Yates, who is based at the University of the Witwatersrand's Bernard Price Institute for Paleontological Research, led the research with a number of other local and international scientists.
Their findings were published Wednesday in the Proceedings of The Royal Society B, a London-based peer-reviewed journal.
The Aardonyx celestae species dates back to the early Jurassic period. Yates said the creature found in South Africa stood nearly 6 feet (about 1.7 meters) high at the hip and weighed about 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms). It was about 10 years old when it died, and its death may have been caused by drought.
The newly discovered species shares many characteristics with the plant-eating herbivores that walked on two legs, Yates said. But the new species also has similar attributes to dinosaurs known as sauropods, or brontosaurs, that grew to massive sizes and went about on all fours with long necks and whip-like tails.
"The discovery of Aardonyx helps to fill a marked gap in our knowledge of sauropod evolution, showing how a primarily two-legged animal could start to acquire the specific features necessary for a life spent on all-fours," said Paul Barrett, a paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum who assisted on the dig that led to the finding but was not directly involved in the research.
Why and how dinosaurs grew into such massive creatures is a question that scientists have been trying to answer for a long time.
Walking on all fours allowed animals to carry more weight, and size was often their only defense against sharp-toothed carnivores, said one of the report's co-authors, Matthew Bonnan of Western Illinois University, by video conference from the United States.
The discovery of the new species was made by postgraduate student Marc Blackbeard, who was excavating two sites in central South Africa about five years ago.
It was a site that had been largely ignored by scientists who felt the bone fragments found there would prove to be a common dinosaur species found across the country. On the first day of excavation, a bone too large to belong to this ordinary species was found.
"We knew we had something new, something very, very exciting," Yates said.
The scattered bones were collected and cleaned of the heavy cement-like rock that clung to them. Scientists then began the slow process of studying the bones and trying to order them.
They were pleased with how much of the skeleton they could reconstruct and especially that a large part of the skull was found.
Bonnan said he also was thrilled to be part of this discovery: "It has been a childhood dream to discover a new dinosaur," he said.
___
On the Net:
http://web.wits.ac.za/Academic/Science/GeoSciences/BPI
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
17 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Celean Jacobson's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: South Africa , Traverse City/Cadillac
- Public Discussion (38)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
18
{"commentId":10613393,"authorDomain":"donstahoe"}
but of-course there is, scientist can make mistakes...
sarcasm turned off
{"commentId":10613393,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"donstahoe"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:20 AM EST{"commentId":10613420,"authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
[sniff, sniff] I tink I remember dis one. I ate-ah. Is honor to be eaten first!
{"commentId":10613420,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
- 3 votes
#2 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:24 AM EST{"commentId":10614023,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
kool..I love this kind of stuff...too worn out to make a more intelligent comment but I am intelligent just ask my mom she thinks so lights are on but I am not home yet
{"commentId":10614023,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:19 AM EST{"commentId":10621175,"authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
lol, Dixielee!
lights are on but I am not home yet
{"commentId":10621175,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10614094,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
to my newsvine family, hate to ruin this seed but I have not posted this yet and I have to do it some where. My 18 year old son died during a seizure Saturday October 24 around 3:00-3:30pm while I was at work commenting to Quest for Fire and he was at home. May he rest in peace in the Lord's arms for eternity.
{"commentId":10614094,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:24 AM EST{"commentId":10618641,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
You have my greatest sympathy for your loss. I hope you find peace of mind and heart soon.
{"commentId":10618641,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10619559,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
Thank-you
{"commentId":10619559,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10621200,"authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
Oh, Dixie, how heartbreaking. My heart aches for you.
{"commentId":10621200,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10621374,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
Thank-you my friend.
{"commentId":10621374,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10618987,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
"and scientists told reporters that could prove to be a missing evolutionary link."
If that proves to be true, it will be the first. I find it amazing that there is not a single example of one species evolving into another species out of the millions of fossil records found. For evolution to be the correct answer to the origin of life, there would have to very large numbers of these "missing links" and it implausible that we have yet to discover any.
{"commentId":10618987,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 PM EST{"commentId":10623466,"authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
Google "transitional fossils" The examples are there.
{"commentId":10623466,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10619218,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
Is it feasible that the Lord created with a genetic history intact and fossil records in place? You can't ignore the carbon dating though--that is fact----Did He present it all to us in a manner to substantiate His existence? If He did that was pretty slick....Although I am a Christian, I still am going to have to support the theory of evolution.
It is possible that the transitory species were simply not viable, maybe there were leaps in genetic variation rather than small mutations
{"commentId":10619218,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:50 PM EST{"commentId":10620389,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
dixielee, because of the reproduction rates of even the simplest life forms, the earth is simply not old enough to have the diversity it has.
The mathematical probability of the proteins required to create an amoeba (smallest possible free living life form) being formed spontaneously (as calculated by Frederick Hoyle, a believer in evolution) is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. That is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. That would be just to create the proteins, not to mention the other components. That process would have to be accomplished numerous times to get to where a single unit achieved life and reproduction.
As he stated, there is a greater chance that a tornado would hit a junkyard and assemble a 747.
Ernst Haeckel, one of the chief proponents of Darwinism, stated in 1876: "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation."
If you read it carefully, you would see that there is no place where I advocated creationism. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it is definitely not that life spontaneously occurred.
For further proof, please see the works of Harold Morowitz (Yale physicist), Robert Shapiro, Francis Crick and George Wald.
Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
{"commentId":10620389,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 2 votes
#7 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:49 PM EST{"commentId":10621062,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
Oh, but it was a miracle.
{"commentId":10621062,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10621612,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
Sorry, I don't understand what you were trying to say.
{"commentId":10621612,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10622360,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
A miracle of God.
{"commentId":10622360,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10622863,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
Now I'm really confused. I believe that previously you were of the opinion that evolution was a valid explanation for the origin of life. Either way, I am not trying to be a picker of nits. I just don't like assuming the intent of cryptic posts.
{"commentId":10622863,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 2 votes
#8 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:31 PM EST{"commentId":10623402,"authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
Evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life. It's a separate field of study called abiogenesis.
Evolution only deals with how and why life diversified.
Doesn't matter what Ernst Haeckel said, or anyone else. What matters is what the tenets of evolution are.
If Isaac Newton said he was wrong about gravity apples would stubbornly continue to fall from trees.
{"commentId":10623402,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10623654,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
I don't believe I am being cryptic. Everything is not either black or white--there are greys and many believe in the origin of life billions of years ago and in the evolutionary process under the guiding hand of God---I for one believe that
{"commentId":10623654,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10623690,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
therefore, it was a miracle
{"commentId":10623690,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10629134,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
Ben, by it's definition, the theory of evolution purports to determine the origin of species. Abiogenesis is also known as spontaneous generation and autogenesis. It seeks to try to determne if life sprung from lifeless matter. Mathematics proves that it did not.
What you seem to calling evolution is actually adaptation. It would require millions of occurrences of a species becoming another species for evolution to be the answer, and many more for it to be successful. Not a single instance of that happening has been found in the fossil record. The earth is simply far too young, even by the most liberal estimates, for this much life and this much diversity to have developed.
dixielee, I understand your positionand belief. Thank you for clearing that up.
I, too, believe in the origin of life billions of years ago. I do not know what happened, but it is certain that Darwin got it wrong.
{"commentId":10629134,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10623294,"authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
[suspect that this was a fake story. for me to blat on. was good. funny. thank you.}
{"commentId":10623294,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
- 1 vote
#9 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:50 PM EST{"commentId":10623317,"authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
dinosaurs are neat. i want one.
{"commentId":10623317,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
- 1 vote
#10 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:51 PM EST{"commentId":10623819,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
I can see that I love your new avatar
{"commentId":10623819,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10626022,"authorDomain":"sme5028"}
why can't it be just like Dinotopia???
{"commentId":10626022,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"sme5028"}
- 2 votes
#11 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:01 PM EST{"commentId":10626258,"authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
It is now! tee hee!!
{"commentId":10626258,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"blackcat8838"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:13 PM EST{"commentId":10636528,"authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
Lee- ...by it's definition, the theory of evolution purports to determine the origin of species.
Origin of species, not origin of life. How and why did life develop all the different species. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origins of life.
Saying evolution is just really adaptation is somewhat of a semantics issue. Adaptation is a part of the evolutionary process.
Natural selection acts upon genetic mutation and increases an organisms chance of survival , or not. The genetic trait that helps the organism survive is the adaptation.
{"commentId":10636528,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
- 2 votes
#13 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:34 AM EST{"commentId":10638853,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
Ben, you are not entitled to have it both ways. Either life started as a single cell organism and evolved or it did not. The most basic tenet of evolution is that we are all evolved from a common ancestor.
I will commend Darwin for a rare moment of lucidity on his part, quote: " To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic abberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
If, as you posit, adaptation is merely a part of the evolutionary process, then we would expect to find many instances where one species evolved into another species. It would be a necessary occurrence millions of times to accomplish the diversity of life present on earth. And yet there is still no known instance of this. Not one.
For evolution to be the explanation of life's diversity, the earth would have to be many trillions of times older than it is. It is a mathematical impossibility. There is a greater possibility of every member of your family, extended to include all branches of your family tree, getting hit by lightning every day for more than a million years.
It is because of the orders of magnitude against the theory of evolution being correct that makes a stubborn adherence to it so inappropriate.
{"commentId":10638853,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:08 PM EST{"commentId":10642277,"authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
Lee- The most basic tenet of evolution is that we are all evolved from a common ancestor.
Agreed. That still doesn't mean that evolutionary theory addresses how , when, or where that common ancestor appeared. That's why leading proponents don't really get into that discussion within the context of evolution. Admittedly, they are related, but entirely separate fields.I don't recall anything in Darwin's works that talks about how, when, or where that first life appeared. Incidentally, I'm not entirely sold on the idea of abiogenesis.
Your cherry picked quote about the eye has been refuted and discredited many times in the past. Get a copy of On the Origin of Species and read the entire quote. Your selected part is taken out of context. You seem like an intelligent person. It does not befit you to use such tactics.
Regarding instances of one species evolving into another...
Are you looking for a half frog/half monkey type critter? If so, there aren't any. Evolution doesn't work that way.
If you care to do a little research there is plenty of evidence of speciation. Whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you.
Much of your argument against evolution seems based on" the argument from incredulity". It seems impossible/ I just can't believe it/ it is so improbable, etc.
Here are some other things that are or were hard to believe, but true.
The earth rotates
The stars, moon, etc. don't go around the earth- even though it appears that way every night
Quantum physics- really weird stuff going on there- like entanglement
Liquid, with a special additive, can run uphill
Black holes
One needs to be careful if using the argument from incredulity to determine the truth or validity of something.
{"commentId":10642277,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10649896,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
As I said, a rare moment of lucidity.
Your arguments are sophmoric. You confuse those things which we can prove, either by observation or experimentation, with the theory of evolution, which cannot be proven. It is neither repeatable nor observable.
Perhaps the following article will let you begin to see the complexity of the problem.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/
I notice that you eschew any refutation of the mathematics involved, particularly as they relate to the age of earth and the sheer impossibility of the observed magnitude of diversity. I don't blame you. It is not an enviable task, but will be required to support the theory of evolution. And that disregards any discussion of spontaneous generation.
One indeed needs to be careful of incorrectly characterizing another's argument.
{"commentId":10649896,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
{"commentId":10640885,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
Use this link and read Our Evolutionary History---interesting
Evolution and Eden: balancing original sin and contemporary science - Google Books Result
by Jerry D. Korsmeyer - 1998 - Religion - 170 pages
Life came out of the sea and learned to live on the land. ... We can see this mirrored today in the development of a human embryo. ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0809138158...
{"commentId":10640885,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:34 PM EST{"commentId":10649916,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
Interesting reading, but misses the point entirely. See my reply to Ben above.
{"commentId":10649916,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
{"commentId":10650393,"authorDomain":"dixielee"}
Not necessarily my point Lee Dear, I just think it is awesome how they parallel. I understand what you are saying that Darwin may have missed the boat .. I have no answer for that except that everything is not always black or white. I guess Darwin made a good start of it....What is the answer then..I don't know..Maybe someday we will have an answer, maybe not, maybe the answer is beyond logic.
{"commentId":10650393,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"dixielee"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10653724,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
dixielee, I, too, do not have the answer. I am merely eliminating possibilities. Given the overall weight of the science involved, yours may very well be the strongest position.
{"commentId":10653724,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10651047,"authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
Lee,
I can see you are getting agitated . You're posts now include name calling and belittling . I prefer to stay on topic.
I'm curious to know if you looked up the entire passage from the partial quote you employed.
The one about the eye.
The one Answers in Genesis recommends people not use anymore.
Did you look it up?
{"commentId":10651047,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
#16 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:20 PM EST{"commentId":10653813,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
Ben, I am neither getting agitated nor am I resorting to ad hominem attack. I am merely stating facts. I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are referring to the word sophmoric. It simply means less than fully developed and is not intended as a slur.
That your argument is sophmoric is further advanced by your attempts to evade the central question. You see, if you are to successfully defend the theory of evolution, you will, by necessity, be required to refute the mathematics.
Unlike you, I do not lay claim to having an answer. I am merely following scientific method (the real one, not what the Darwin apologists claim) that requires us to accept as disproven that which fails to support the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is proven to fail, in this case by mathematical exclusion, then the theory derived from that hypothesis is not valid.
As to your question, yes, I have read the entirety of Darwin's attempt at one possible explanation of the evolution of the eye. If one reads it carefully, you will find that Darwin notes that the evolution of the eye is far less important than the origin of life. Please note that it refutes your contention that the theory of evolution is not origin based, while doing nothing to dispel the proposition of a rare moment of lucidity.
You appear to have a rudimentary understanding of the slogans, but lack in-depth examination of the foundations. This is not an attack, merely an observation. One cannot begin their understanding of the theory of evolution in the middle and expect to successfully defend it.
Please also note that this theory was introduced without proceeding through the recognized steps of the scientific method. It was introduced as a theory and then presented as fact, almost immediately. "Scientists" have ever since been trying to prove it by torturing the significance of their findings to fit into a tree they had already established.
Also note that when they are forced to admit that a discovery does not fit, they claim that it is the result of following scientific method. Surely you see the paradox.
If you simply take any "tree" presented by the evolutionists, you will find that there is more than one way to arrange it. Scientific method requires that before you are allowed to call something a fact, you must have eliminated all other plausible explanations. This has not been done.
If you wish to continue this exchange, please address the central point. I have addressed your points and answered your questions entirely. You have addressed none of my points. Please do me the favor of reciprocating.
{"commentId":10653813,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
{"commentId":10655715,"authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
Lee,
With all due respect, I need to end this exchange. Your ability to misunderstand, misinterpret, and spin doctor is tiring.
I wish you well.
{"commentId":10655715,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"Ben947448"}
{"commentId":10657590,"authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
I suspected you would not engage on the issues. I am disappointed because I falsely believed you might address the issues rather than obfuscate.
If you think I have spun anything, cite it.
It would have been far more honest if you had simply said you did not have the ability to refute the mathematics. Too bad.
{"commentId":10657590,"threadId":"721696","contentId":"3489100","authorDomain":"leenorton33"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"721696","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
