Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Paleontologists Find a 'Near-Perfect' Dinosaur Fossil

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the aber-nicht-ganz-perfekt dept.

Earth 99

First time accepted submitter howzit writes "German paleontologists have discovered what they believe is the best-preserved dinosaur skeleton ever found. The flesh-eating member of the theropod subgroup, which walked on its hind legs, is about 98 percent complete, and also includes preserved bits of skin. 'The around 135-million-year-old fossil is of outstanding scientific importance.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How much skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806552)

How does this fossil compare to Leonardo, the Mummy Dinosaur from Malta Montana?

Re:How much skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806566)

There's a pretty good picture in TFA to answer your question

Re:How much skin? (0)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 years ago | (#37806996)

Better yet, can we extract DNA and start a Jurassic Park with this discovery?

If so, sign me up for the beta!

Re:How much skin? (1, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 years ago | (#37807392)

If you're not a mathematician, an eight year-old boy, a 12 year-old girl, or a paleontologist you might want to rethink that plan.

ESPECIALLY if you're a lawyer or game warden.

Re:How much skin? (1)

pieisgood (841871) | about 3 years ago | (#37808058)

It just so happens that I am studying math at university, nothing in chaos theory though. Wish me luck!

Re:How much skin? (1)

sosume (680416) | about 3 years ago | (#37808358)

but .. do you know UNIX ?

First post (-1, Troll)

pictron (2491566) | about 3 years ago | (#37806562)

First post brought to you by the GNAA

Shut up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806584)

Just go away.

Re:Shut up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806626)

Just go away.

Uh, get with the times you backwoods inbred racist redneck bastard.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is the way they are born. They just want to be tolerated. Ok?! And there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a nigger. They are simply different and have had a very hard time here since being forced away from their African homeland to do slave labor. They have had a very long struggle to achieve civil rights and equality. The clock isn't going to turn back. Get used to it.

And these days, the word "nigger" is a badge of honor. It represents generations of suffering that no one else had to endure and the strong people who weren't broken by it. Yes they like to associate with like-minded people. So we are gay. We are niggers. We associate. We are also in America, incidentally.

Hence, we are the Gay Nigger Association of America. If Canada doesn't have a GNAC, well they should. And there's nothing wrong with that, you bigot.

If you hate niggers or you hate gay people maybe you can tell us what your problem with them is. Guarantee you it isn't their fault but is caused by institutionalized bigotry and racism. But if you think it isn't, let's hear it.

Re:Shut up (0)

angiasaa (758006) | about 3 years ago | (#37806634)

What do you call those who live in Taiwan? GNAT? :-)

Re:Shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806668)

And the Gay Niggers Union is..GNU!

Re:Shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806726)

And the Gay Niggers Union is..GNU!

Yes. Yes indeedy. And the Gay Niggers On Slashdot Who Make Up Stupid Acronyms is ... GNOSWMUSA!

Strangely enough.

Re:Shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806772)

I wish I was a gay colored person...

Re:Shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806854)

I wish I was a gay colored person...

At least you can still be gay.

Oh yeah, guess you could always get a tan and lose your education and get some welfare checks and knock up a bunch of women you don't love so you can abandon your bastard children and commit a bunch of crimes and steal things and smoke crack.

Guess being gay is easier than being colored. But it can be done. Where there's a will, there's a muthafuckin' way.

Re:Shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806882)

White's a color...

Re:Shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807384)

White's a color...

Actually white the absence of color, and black is an even mix of all primary colors..

Re:Shut up (1)

Jello B. (950817) | about 3 years ago | (#37807422)

Unless you're a graphic designer working in CMYK, you've got it backwards.

Re:Shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807612)

You have that backwards.

Uhmmm... presvered skin? (0)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 years ago | (#37806600)

How?

Seriously... how? How could *ANY* amount of skin be preserved for that amount of time?

Also.... "loaned" to a museum?

For crying out loud, why? Give it to them, sell it to them, or whatever... but what are you going to do with a 135 million year old dinosaur fossil?

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806658)

what are you going to do with a 135 million year old dinosaur fossil?

Science?

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806674)

Seriously... how? How could *ANY* amount of skin be preserved for that amount of time?

I don't know. Do you know why it wouldn't be preserved for that amount of time? No? Then do some research or ask a paleontologist, rather than frothing about it on Slashdot.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

zoloto (586738) | about 3 years ago | (#37806748)

Well considering it's normal for a dead body to be completely "absorbed" by the nature around it in a matter of months, yes this is a very pertinent question to ask.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about 3 years ago | (#37808744)

It happens if the dead body is immediately covered by an air tight layer of e.g. sand, tar or mud. So you find many well preserved fossils in former swamps, river banks or tar pits. In this case it seems to have been preserved by sinking in the seabed of the Paratethys, part of the Tethys, which was an ocean between Africa and Eurasia, and whose remainings are the contemporan Mediterran.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 3 years ago | (#37839844)

The story is rather light on detail, but the location given is along strike from the location of the Solnhofen limestone outcrops and quarries that have yielded (amongst others), the specimens of Archaeopteryx.

IF this is an appropriate correlation, then the environment of deposition is likely to have been an intermittently stratified and anoxic lagoon of brackish water with active deposition of (phytoplanktonic) carbonate. Storm- or flood-driven overturning events are thought to have lead to intermittent depletion of oxygen in surface waters, leading to occasional mass-death events in the marine fossils, which then sink to the seabed which rapidly returns to being anoxic. bodies that fall to the sea floor are slowly buried in very anoxic limestone mud. The most important point is not the mineralogy of the sediment, but it's fine grain size.

That's a first-cut description of the environment of the Solnhofen area, and it's no great stretch to extend 50-odd km. Time (135Ma BP) is suitable too.

Concerning the issues some people raise about the ownership of the specimen ... "Meh". The locals don't express any great concerns over the issue, and certainly don't seem to be expressing any desire to replace their functioning federated law system with a foreign one based on a different interpretation of "right behavior".

Sounds a nice specimen - better than most of the Archy specimens.

(Incidentally, the recent Chinese bird fossil gold mine has come from another anoxic fresh-to brackish lake environment. The precise dating is a little more recent than for Solenhofen, but some formations are probably somewhat older. So really, we're looking for an "Urvogel" somewhat earlier than Archy and probably a 3-way intermediate between Archy, the Chinese "dragons", and an early maniraptorean theropod. Until we find that "Urvogel", at which point we start looking for three more "intermediate fossils")

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806680)

People loan such finds to museums rather than donating outright so that they retain some control over how the find is maintained, displayed, and so on. If the museum does a poor job of maintaining the fossil or puts it in some back closet where the public can't see it, one would like to be able to take it back and loan it to a museum that will treat it better.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806684)

Plenty of things are loaned out (See what NASA does alot) simply so they retain their rights over the product while still allowing it to be showcased (recognition) or allowed to be further researched. Generally speaking, this is standard practice for stuff like these. The main reason is, that the person maintain control over who gets to see it and where it's located and under what conditions. One example is that instead of a museum owning it and showing it only in 1 city, a person may loan out the bones to various museums for various period of time allowing for a greater amount of people who will see the fossil.

As for the skin, no idea. Hard to say but it probably has something to do with how well the entire fossil is preserved. It might be such that a condition allows for bits of the skin to be preserved in some form. There is too little information on how and the conditions at which the fossil was found.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (-1, Offtopic)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 years ago | (#37807400)

simply so they retain their rights over the product

Jesus-fuck corporate shills have even ruined our fucking language.

You couldn't have said, "So they keep control of the find"? You had to use corporate-fuck-head speak?

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (2)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#37806688)

They're going to take it to an island off New Zealand and clone it?

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806796)

Preferably one near Wellington, so the clones can go nuts and kill our politicians.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#37807460)

Just remember, feeding politicians to the keas is a bad idea - their natural diet is nuts and the added protein would be bad for them.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 3 years ago | (#37810942)

feeding politicians to the keas is a bad idea - their natural diet is nuts and the added protein would be bad for them.

Protein bad for them? How about the saturated fats?

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807554)

Wouldn't the climate be more suited to dinosaurs up around Auckland? Wellington is a bit cold IMHO (I was born in Hastings)

Anyway it seems silly to start your Jurassic park with meat eaters. You should populate it with plant eaters first, so the allosaurs and T rexs have something to eat and don't have to chase after people.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#37807922)

That's why New Zealand is already working on cloning Moas. Plenty of meat for T Rex and the KFC fast food chains to divide between them.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about 3 years ago | (#37807596)

Best /. thread EV----ER---!

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

INeededALogin (771371) | about 3 years ago | (#37807652)

They're going to take it to an island off New Zealand and clone it?

They declared it a cultural asset so... the fossil can't leave Germany... so no cloning:-(

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 3 years ago | (#37808544)

They declared it a cultural asset

German culture is very old . . . but THAT old? Old like dinosaurs?

"Hey, who y'all callin' my kin-folk dinosaurs!?"

Is it really dinosaur skin that they found? Or dinosaur Lederhosen?

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#37815398)

Well, it was found in Bavaria after all. Our state's motto could as well be "Get off my lawn!" - so our traditions might be derived in an unbroken chain from a long lost dinosaur high culture... And, by the way, proper Lederhosen are made from deer skin. Dinosaur leather is for tourists and Prussians. Period. Now get off my lawn! (Or, to put it in proper Bavarian - "Schleich Di!")

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (4, Insightful)

jasen666 (88727) | about 3 years ago | (#37806692)

The "skin" is still fossilized, but you can see the texture and possibly structure of it. It's not preserved in the way you're thinking. Although, they have found some biological matter preserved in the center of large bones before. T-rex bones, I believe.

A fossil like this is rare and worth a decent amount. Collectors will pay obscene amounts for it, amounts that a museum may not be able to match. So just be happy they loaned it to a museum at all, so at least we can glean some scientific knowledge from it.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (5, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 3 years ago | (#37806792)

A fossil like this is rare and worth a decent amount. Collectors will pay obscene amounts for it, amounts that a museum may not be able to match. So just be happy they loaned it to a museum at all, so at least we can glean some scientific knowledge from it.

Some good news on that front, from the article:

"The fossil, discovered between one and two years ago, has been registered as a German cultural asset, giving it a status that drastically lowers its monetary worth, but ensures the artefact will remain in the country.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807056)

it's very common for artifacts and pcs of artwork to be on loan to a museum or other institution. Typically they are loaned in perpetuity, for a century( or other long period) or until the owner dies, when commonly the item is willed to the museum, or it is willed to another but only if they agree to leave it with the museum. technically, the person or persons who own the object retain ownership but are not responsible for insuring it or for it's upkeep/ repair, that becomes the responsibility of the museum.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (0)

snowgirl (978879) | about 3 years ago | (#37808284)

Although, they have found some biological matter preserved in the center of large bones before. T-rex bones, I believe.

Not exactly, I don't remember the specifics exactly, but it wasn't soft matter itself. It was either fossilized itself or only the successor chemicals to like hemoglobin or such like that. (There are some YouTube videos that talk about it, probably try C0nc0rdance [youtube.com] ). I know this detail because some creationists bring it up as a statement of "oh, well, this stuff breaks up in only a couple thousand years, so obviously the remains couldn't be as old as scientists claim it to be." Don't worry about being misled, all of the media articles about it were either unclear or wrong.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

John Da' Baddest (1686670) | about 3 years ago | (#37808706)

Do you suppose the skin remnants could give a clue to its original color? The common artistic display usually shows these guys as elephant-grey but who knows.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806888)

How could *ANY* amount of skin be preserved for that amount of time?

skin can be preserved for thousands of years

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37810360)

It isn't the skin itself (it's not mummified or otherwise preserved as original soft tissue). If you have the right conditions at the time of burial, the bacteria causing the decay of the soft tissues trigger additional chemical changes in the sediment that cause the precipitation of minerals. It's those minerals that then preserve.

Somebody owns the specimen. They can't legally take it out of Germany, but apparently they don't want to give up possession. But they are willing to loan it to a museum for study. It's not an ideal situation, but better than it sitting on a shelf in someone's house forever.

Re:Uhmmm... presvered skin? (1)

deets52 (2347216) | about 3 years ago | (#37817500)

Also.... "loaned" to a museum? For crying out loud, why? Give it to them, sell it to them, or whatever...

The reason is very simple. If you loan it to them then they can't turn around and sell the parts off to make money (fund raising) or decide its not worth the time and just throw it away or do anything that might destroy it. You will basically not get it back unless they say they no longer want it, then you find another museum who might want it.

Whit, what? 135M yr old? (5, Funny)

Trigger31415 (1912176) | about 3 years ago | (#37806602)

Obviously, 'scientific made a msiatke, as Eearth was created in 6000 yrs.
Source: Conservapedia [conservapedia.com]
[/irony]
This post was here to show a type of (unexpected) reaction to this type of news nowadays.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806636)

And a way to stick in religion hate so that you get modded up to 5 insightful or informative.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (4, Insightful)

publiclurker (952615) | about 3 years ago | (#37806908)

Pointing out the ignorance of people who believe this superstitious BS should be marked insightful. So what if the truth makes you look bad.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807160)

I agree young earthers are nuts, but the fact that it's the truth doesn't make it any less flamebait. It's also a bit boring, yes yes we know they're nuts, don't have to comment it on every single fricken dinosaur article.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

snowgirl (978879) | about 3 years ago | (#37808294)

Quoted from below.

If you are wondering how skin could last for such a long time you may find this (http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation) article relevant.

I agree it's boring, but they still keep dragging themselves out into public discourse...

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37808122)

How about pointing out the ignorance of people who think science has proven otherwise? The belief that these people have is based on their belief that God exists and created the world as it was 6000 years ago. If you allow that as a possibility, you can't prove either way scientifically. Science is practically useless when dealing with anything theological.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809086)

You right that science is useless in this area. Science isn't the study of mythology.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807882)

And a way to stick in religion hate so that you get modded up to 5 insightful or informative.

I'm a druid so it should get a 5 Insightful. Why do I have to ignore billions of years of history just because it offends a handful of religious zealots? Life begins at conception but there was no life prior to 6,000 years ago!!!! Several candidates for President believe the world will end on their watch. How vain and arrogant! Human life could end and the planet would barely notice. Conditions would actually improve. Who is insane the ones that think they go to heaven and get to pollute because it's their birthright or my side who thinks they get to fertilize plants when they die and the only rebirth is the in the form of trees that get to feed off your rotting corpse? I don't need faith I have proof and science to back me up. Faith is believing what that guy on Sunday morning tells you to believe. You know the one with a wife and a girlfriend, or boy friend, on the side to support. Remember that something like 90% of the televangelist have been caught with hookers and girlfriends and a few had boy friends. Hypocrisy is another word for faith.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806694)

No no no.... the earth wasn't created in 6000 years. It was created in 6 days (7 if you count vacation days). The apparent much greater age arises from the universe being created in an "adult" state so that it would be ready to utilize for the life forms to be placed within, not to deceive the life forms within, but to simply be utilizable. Adam and Eve, for example, were created as fully formed adults, it is ludicrous to think that the universe itself would not be. Because we associate that maturity with actual time passing, we perceive that the earth is much older than it is... so if we believe the universe to be many millions of years old because of how old it appears, we are actually deceiving ourselves - it is not God who deceives us.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807346)

Did Adam have a bone-mend from when he broke his arm as a kid? Or memories of being raised by his (non-existent) parents?

Then why are there supernova remnants existing from the moment of creation, with an entire fictitious history of the explosion written in the cascade of photons between there and Earth?

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807568)

No. Adam would not remember his parents because he never had any. Even a mere instant after his creation, he would have appeared to absolutely any amount of physiological study to be a fully matured adult, and absolutely no degree of scrutiny would be able to detect otherwise. He was physically mature, with the ability to reason, to communicate coherently, and to cognitively understand his surroundings, all properties that today we only acquire through time and experience. One key difference between him and people today, however, is that he would not be able to draw upon any past experiences, and the result would be someone who by modern standards could easily be called childishly naive.

With a nebula, we can only observe what it looks like, and measure its physical properties to the best of our ability. Again, however, resorting to physical evidence only, we are limiting ourselves to what we understand about reality, which because we weren't around when the universe was made, means that we naturally associate apparent age, or any physical evidence that is uniformly associated with age in our experience with actual passage of time. The creation of the universe is something wholly outside of all human experience, and no person who was ever born has ever had any personal knowledge or experience of anything coming out of nothing, so it's not really unreasonable for anyone to conclude that a nebula is actually many billions of years old based on that experience... But rational or not, such a conclusion based solely on that experience is really nothing more than rationalized self-deception.

Of course, given your apparent disposition to the subject, I would not be surprised if you were to suggest that I might be guilty of the same thing.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 3 years ago | (#37808380)

Personally, I am an Old Earth Creationist and consider Genesis to be largely allegorical (though, I do believe Adam and Eve actually existed, as "metaphysical clones", if you will, from a pre-existing population of humans per se), but I do find this "per the laws of physics, the apparent artifacts of time must be present for a viable physical structure" position to be able to be taken remarkably far...

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

drxenos (573895) | about 3 years ago | (#37809194)

Old-Earth, Young Earth. You're still a nut-bar.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 3 years ago | (#37812276)

Convincing argument, there.

I'll let entropy handle you.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Snorbert Xangox (10583) | about 3 years ago | (#37808786)

The creation of the universe is something wholly outside of all human experience, and no person who was ever born has ever had any personal knowledge or experience of anything coming out of nothing, so it's not really unreasonable for anyone to conclude that a nebula is actually many billions of years old based on that experience... But rational or not, such a conclusion based solely on that experience is really nothing more than rationalized self-deception.

It is also true that no person who was ever born has ever had any personal knowledge or experience of any impossible state of affairs. That does not make any impossible thing more possible just because we don't know what it would be like to experience that impossible thing. Or, indeed, help us work out which impossible thing would be more likely.

How about you work out a consensus "God(s) made everything we see just like so" story with all the other religions than the one you happen to cleave to? Because, by the same token you would not necessarily know how to recognise the world as a creation of Brahma, Eurynome and Ophion, Mazda, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, rather than your god. Who knows, you might end up looking at the world to find evidence of a specific creation story. How would you weigh one religion's claim for justification based on one piece of evidence with other evidence that supports your preferred religion? Or different interpretations of the same evidence? You might need to develop some theories of natural science that let you tell the commonplace from the extraordinary. You will no doubt be relieved to find that there happen to be some quite useful theories of that sort knocking around already, that have been refined for many centuries. Feel free to use them to rationalise however much self-deception you need in order to elevate your creation story over all the others.

the simulation has been running for a week now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37808620)

Naturally, the world we know is merely a simulation being run within another simulated world.

And naturally, the simulation did not begin with the big bang. That would just be a waste of time, even with the accelerated pace that the simulation allows.

So the first six days were spent creating the background, and now we're on the seventh day - the interesting bit - a recreation of humanity and the birth of God.

It's almost midnight.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37813614)

You have it all wrong. The physical universe and the earth were all created in ONE day. Genesis 2:4. BTW, day != 24 hours. Even in English, day != 24 hours.

Definition of day in the World English Dictionary, entry 4. (sometimes plural) a period or point in time: he was a good singer in his day; in days gone by; any day now

So whether six 'days' or one 'day', the Bible never said it was 6x24 hours or 6x1000 years. Just that each creative period had a beginning and an end where a process was started and the end result achieved. The seventh day awaits an end result - a restoration of humans who want to be ruled by God to perfect human life like what Adam and Eve had before they rebelled and the proper management of the beautiful earth that was made for humans to live on.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Quirkz (1206400) | about 3 years ago | (#37819904)

Are you willfully neglecting the phrase "and the evening and the morning were the first day" in your analysis of what "day" means? Or do you have equally flexible definitions of evening and morning put together to make epochs rather than a single day?

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 3 years ago | (#37806740)

Are you 12?

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 3 years ago | (#37806802)

If you're going to troll, at least have the decency to use proper spelling and typing.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806884)

Poor spelling is a classic liberal trait. I'm guessing that he prefers sodomy over Bible-study and is quite overweight.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807174)

Any sane person would prefer sodomy over Bible-study.

It should also be noted that sodomy is not forbidden by the 10 commandments while the creation of an image of Jesus that is common in churches all around the world is.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth - Exodus 20:1-17

Why (2, Insightful)

publiclurker (952615) | about 3 years ago | (#37806914)

If you are going to pretend to be a bible banging fool, shouldn't you spell like one also?

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Trigger31415 (1912176) | about 3 years ago | (#37807532)

Sry, I didn't check the message before posting + Eng isn't my native language. Actually, deleting this message would be totally fine with me.

Anyone who modded parent Troll, instead of Funny.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807276)

...should get out and fuck more often, as his lack of ..."release"... makes the whole of him a dick.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

hozozco (856621) | about 3 years ago | (#37807926)

Thanks for the link - I hadn't heard of the Conservapdeia before. Now I'm not sure whether to laugh or despair for humankind. I'm Australian, so I'll just have beer and ignore it! :-)

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 3 years ago | (#37808264)

yeah, hopefully they'll find Fred Flintstone (or one of his neighbours) close by...

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#37813566)

>>Source: Conservapedia

Sigh. Conservapedia's entire science section should be hauled out behind the barn and shot. They're doing everything they can to reinforce the stereotype of the anti-science conservative (which the a lot aren't, though you'd never know it from the stereotyping that goes on here).

That said, they tend to be better than Wikipedia on certain topics, such as the history of the Cold War. On wikipedia, consensus dictates that the "Red Scare" had no basis in reality, was nothing but a witch hunt, etc., and even mentioning things like the Venona intercepts on certain people is enough to get your edits deleted. So you get all the history of a person, minus any communist leanings, communist party memberships, or communist espionage activities. Conservapedia, OTOH, will gleefully repeat any and all facts and rumours linking a person to communism.

So between the two, you can establish a balanced POV on a subject.

Re:Whit, what? 135M yr old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37814152)

The truly scary part is there really are people raising their children to believe in creationist nonsense. They worship the second coming and believe that George W Bush was a messenger of god.

And yes, they live in the US and they ALL vote!

It really says something for the older less 'democratic' models of political systems.

Ussher In a New Age (2, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | about 3 years ago | (#37806604)

I hope they found his saddle so the Creation Museum can update their exhibits.

I know the name... (4, Funny)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 3 years ago | (#37806620)

It's a Wolpertinger!

Re:I know the name... (1)

migla (1099771) | about 3 years ago | (#37806712)

How about "Rory Calhoun"?

Unfortunately... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806730)

... a German satellite fell and broke it to bits... karma sucks!

Beautiful (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 3 years ago | (#37806732)

Truly a beautiful find.

Bone Parts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37806820)

Is it just me, or do the 'hands' look backwards? Can anyone tell if the arms are backwards or is that what the dinosaur actually looked like?

Also, is that an extra ass bone or a damaged hip? I don't know much about dinosaur structure.

Re:Bone Parts? (4, Interesting)

ld a,b (1207022) | about 3 years ago | (#37807444)

The arms in theropods are like avian wings in that for most species they are in a rigid clapping position. There was a Slashdot article about this some time ago. Actually clapping doesn't quite describe it as you'll find ancient bird fossils have their claws facing forwards just like this one.
The "damaged" hip is actually one of the two main features used to tell a theropod away from other dinosaurs. The theropods ischium is facing backwards, while their illium faces forwards. This is the ancestral configuration, although it was secondarily lost in the species most closely related to birds, which have *both* facing backwards,
Plant-eating Ornithischia, like the Triceratops, on the other hand, evolved that "new" hip configuration much earlier.

dumb question (1)

dhammabum (190105) | about 3 years ago | (#37814144)

Why does it have such a long tail?

Re:dumb question (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | about 3 years ago | (#37817160)

Balance!

Best preserved... IN EUROPE (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 3 years ago | (#37807452)

That's like best educated... IN THE USA.

Re:Best preserved... IN EUROPE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807516)

Ironic because Europe has some damn-good sites for preserving dinosaur-age animals (Solnhofen limestone of Germany [berkeley.edu] ). Also US dominates the world university list...

Preservation details (2)

Statecraftsman (718862) | about 3 years ago | (#37807464)

Some questions the fine article could have answered: * What material was this fossil found in? * Where was it found roughly? * What theories exist for why it was so well preserved?

Re:Preservation details (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807560)

Some questions the fine article could have answered:

The fossil found in the central Bavarian community of Kelheim

Though the 72-centimeter juvenile dinosaur is preserved in stone, a number of anatomical details remain

RIFY: Read It For You

Re:Preservation details (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 3 years ago | (#37809126)

"Preserved in stone" doe not answer the GP's question. Also, does it has feathers? And how are they?

The article makes a very nice job of explaining nothing of importance, out of the "this is the best preserved dinossaur fossil" bit.

obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807544)

Does the Near Perfect Dinosaur Fossil hop on one leg screaming "Developers developers developers developers developers"?

This is huge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807642)

The skin is the best part. Deep fry that puppy and you have dino-rinds.

nonsense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807858)

Skin doesn't last millions of years. The earth is only 6 thousand years old. The Bible history is correct.
____________________________________________
evolution has no scientific evidence.

Preserved bits of skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37807874)

If you are wondering how skin could last for such a long time you may find this (http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation) article relevant.

And I wonder how long it will take (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about 3 years ago | (#37808142)

For the young earther crowd to say this is just their God testing them.

Plus it's already been established that modern humans date back over 100,000 years now. So I'd say that their 6,000 year old earth theory is complete bunk.

And now, we have evidence of a fossil from 135 Million years ago. It's getting good.

Re:And I wonder how long it will take (1)

dkf (304284) | about 3 years ago | (#37808346)

So I'd say that their 6,000 year old earth theory is complete bunk.

Either that or their "theory of creation" is true, and God's telling everyone a vastly elaborate lie with all those sneaky isotopic ratios and photon distributions in the CMB.

Re:And I wonder how long it will take (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about 3 years ago | (#37809312)

Which of course brings up another issue entirely that their God is a deceitful character. You get the idea that he's a very unsavory individual from reading the Old Testament. And if you read the entire text of both the old and new Testaments, you see a definitive change in their God. In essence in the latter God takes back seat to Jesus.

There is one other thing that irritates me about the religious dominionists/fundamentalists. It's the fact that the vast majority of them have never read the entire text of the Bible. Instead they've allowed themselves to be spoon fed the drivel that their priest or pastor has as an agenda.

Young earthers without beards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37808950)

Young earthers without beards

www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/hair-cutting-attacks-stir-fear-in-amish-ohio.html

Long bearders, watch out

Cold vs Warm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37810060)

Any chance this discovery will allow us to finally know whether they were warm blooded or cold blooded? Also any chance they could clone this well preserved find?

T-Rex Sue almost fully preserved (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 3 years ago | (#37810802)

Theres a cast on loan to our local museum. Only a handful of substitute bones in it.

Nothing ever changes (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 3 years ago | (#37832276)

Even 135million years ago, the top 2% received special treatment, ducking out of fossilization.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?