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!

Museum IDs New Species of Dinosaur

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the dinosuars-rock dept.

Education 79

Uryugen writes "A new dinosaur species was a plant-eater with yard-long horns over its eyebrows, suggesting an evolutionary middle step between older dinosaurs with even larger horns and the small-horned creatures that followed, experts said. The dinosaur's horns, thick as a human arm, are like those of triceratops — which came 10 million years later. However, this animal belonged to a subfamily that usually had bony nubbins a few inches long above their eyes"

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

I For One (3, Funny)

ReidMaynard (161608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237098)

Welcome our new Horny Dinosaur Overlords

Just three words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18237580)

Size

Doesn't

Matter

Re:I For One (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18244082)

Oh - dinosaurs? At first I thought this was a post about Windows Vista.

Oh no he didn't (-1, Troll)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237136)

Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said.

He should give it a spiffy name like JesusisLordatops to keep the army of fundies at bay.

Re:Oh no he didn't (3, Funny)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237188)

Or it proves that God's a really devious bastard who likes to test our faith by leaving fake fossils to fool the unbelievers.

Re:Oh no he didn't (5, Funny)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237460)

Not at all. The fossils are real, but the dinosaurs co-existed with humans relatively recently, probably between the time when God created the Earth and the middle ages - and some dinosaurs probably still exist today. I can prove all of this because it's written in an old book. It's also written plainly in the Dinosaur article on Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] .

(I'm thinking of signing up as a Conservapedia editor purely to expand on articles like these.)

Re:Oh no he didn't (4, Funny)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237852)

Conservapedia have done it, they have beaten wikipedia!

Yes, Wikipedia are no-longer the least authoritative source of information on the internet.

Re:Oh no he didn't (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237904)

That article is both funny and bad. It's funny because they continue to spout creationist nonsense, even though everything that is said has been refuted at least a million times, and bad because it continues the propogation of junk science. Specifically, the part about humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

As if to reinforce the continuing spread of misinformation, there is a christian theater not too far from me which is running a production showing men and dinosaurs living side-by-side. Sadly, they're not saying it's a work of fiction.

*sigh* I guess it's easier to believe in a fairy tale than in reality.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240200)

You know, the Spiderman movies aren't advertised as works of fiction either.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18241038)

Actually, they are. It is usually in the opening credits that a blurb the the effect that all events depicted in the movie are based on works of fiction. In the Spiderman movies case, viewers are told that the events are based on comics created by Stan Lee and Marvel Comics.

Then again, if one needs to be told that a person who is bit by a radioactive spider can't then spin webs from their wrists or climb walls, that person has other problems.

Re:Oh no he didn't (0)

Soothh (473349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240996)

Its been refuted? I refute that you don't have an IQ over 10... does that make it correct?

And if you actually stop to think about it for a minute, its alot easier to beleive in christianity,
than all of the trillions of "chance" reactions that evolution tries to claim.

Like DNA is the start of something living... really? If i put a frog into a blender, how long does it take
to turn back into something living? All the DNA is there.

Re:Oh no he didn't (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18241252)

If something has been refuted, it has been shown to be false based on the evidence. In the case of the continued, wrongheaded stance by the American Taliban that dinosaurs and humans lived together, it has been conclusively shown that the two did not coexist at any time in the past. Every supposed example that has been usedt to show that this event did happen has been shown to be false.

The biggest reason for the refutation is that the majority of these claims are based on the false stance that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It has been shown, 100%, to be billions of years old yet there are those who refuse to acknowledge it and continue to spout nonsense, thereby passing on their ignorance to others.

If DNA isn't the start of something living, then what is? If you say it's an unknown being, then you have to show evidence for that being.

And no, it is not easier to believe in christianity when one considers it is based the idea that a woman got pregant without being touched by a man when we know for an absolute fact the only way for a woman to get pregnat is to be impregnated by a man.

Apparently you do believe in fairy tales.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Soothh (473349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18241376)

How has the earth been proven to be 100 billion years old? Ive never seen "proof" of this.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18241730)

Read what I said again. I never said it was 100 billion years old. I said it was shown to be billions of years old. The 100% means it has been absolutely, positively, without contradiction, shown to be billions of years old.

The only real debate about the age of the Earth is the exact age. It's been creeping upwards for decades as new findings come to light but there is no doubt it is billions of years old.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Soothh (473349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18241786)

I have doubt that its billions of years old. what kind of proof exists for this?
and no carbon dating.. thats been shown to be unreliable.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

rynoski (682205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18247442)

This is a site for nerds. Nerds are stereotypically smart. Nerds are the ones who ask the question "why?. We don't have blind faith, but we do have group think. And you are on the wrong site. You can have all the doubt you want about the age of the earth and even carbon dating for that matter. But the scientists, the uber nerds, they have proven that the earth is older than young earth creationism can allow for. If I went into the desert and saw "God" and wrote a book they would call me crazy. but not the guys you have blind faith in, apparently.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Soothh (473349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18248748)

Wrong. Im asking because I have never seen any proof of the earth being billions of years old. scientists methods do get proven wrong from time to time. Besides, the Bible does talk about these large creatures, but it doesnt call them dino's because that word it only 200 years old.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

rynoski (682205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18257024)

There is no proof that gravity exists, but instead of just thinking the earth is flat or God made it so we stick to the ground, science has studied the phenomenon and made a theory about why white men can't jump. It is only a theory, not proof, so I guess that isn't good enough for you. Sure some things are proven wrong, such as the planets moving in circles, rather than elipses, but they were only out slightly. How could you be out billions of years? Here is why I think the idea that fossils are only thosands of years old is wrong- People who have been in peat for thosands of years are not turned to stone. Also, When fossils are found they are deep down under many layers of rock. This rock is like rings in a tree. How could these animals (and plants) get under millions of years of rock if "young earth" is correct? And what about ice drilling? how do you explain thousands of years worth of layers of ice?

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18244578)

And no, it is not easier to believe in christianity when one considers it is based the idea that a woman got pregant without being touched by a man when we know for an absolute fact the only way for a woman to get pregnat is to be impregnated by a man.

If that's all that's holding you back then I suggest you look up parthenogenesis [wikipedia.org] some time.

Re:Oh no he didn't (2, Funny)

D4rk Fx (862399) | more than 7 years ago | (#18238974)

(I'm thinking of signing up as a Conservapedia editor purely to expand on articles like these.)
Then you can post evidence of the population of living dinosaurs tripling in the past six months.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239592)

post evidence of the population of living dinosaurs tripling in the past six months

Ironically, going from a population of X living dinosaurs six months ago to 3*X living dinosaurs today would be one of the few literally true facts on Conservapedia.

-

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239282)

"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness"."

This site is an absolute comedy gold mine! Either that, or it's a huge troll.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239372)

I really enjoyed the talk page for the dinosaur article, where the conservative Americans flame the conservative Brit for being British, and the complaints that right wing Catholic nutjob dogma is being censored in favor of Southern Baptist nutjob dogma.

Their article on Stephen Colbert makes me doubt the site's a huge troll; if it was it would surely be full of glowing praise for the leading conservative thinker of our time. As it is, I'm pretty sure they don't get his criticism of Wikipedia; it's practically the opposite of their own criticism.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240198)

complaints that right wing Catholic nutjob dogma is being censored in favor of Southern Baptist nutjob dogma.

You know what that site needs? A few good Conservative Muslim Creationist contributors.

-

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240162)

This site is an absolute comedy gold mine! Either that, or it's a huge troll.

The site is legit. It was founded by some fundie nut and his 37 homeschool victims.... errr I mean homeschool students. On the other hand, yes, many of the pages are troll. The site has been hugely vandalized. They have reverted the most blatant vandalism, however some of the vandals added Colbert style satire and the fundies are too crazy and stupid to be able to recognize the satire and they have accepted and "improved upon" many of the satire edits. I managed to identify at least one of the satire vandals accounts for certain, but I'm not going to name it because I wouldn't want the chance of one of the genuine Conservapedia nutcases to find out and do a mass revert of his work :D All I'll say is that the account name satirically screams in your face it's conservative identity.

By the way, Conservapedia now has a Wikipedia entry. And amusingly many on the talk page are worried and maybe a feeling a little guilty about balance... that every single source for the Wikipedia article are negative criticisms of Conservapedia and that they haven't be able to find a single positive source to quote about Conservapedia. Wikipedians take balance an NPOV very seriously and often bend over backwards for them.... but you can't manufacture balance where it just doesn't exist LOL.

You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness"."

Someone accidentally typed the word "political" in the middle of that sentence. PleaseFix.

-

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

purify0583 (1063046) | more than 7 years ago | (#18242296)

Wow...its things like conservapedia that make me ashamed to admit I go to church. I dont even think there are many, if any, mainstream theologians who will claim the earth is 5000 years old. Most christians simply believe "God created" us, which is perfectly compatible with say...God being the "first cause" of the big bang, and planning that eventually the earth would form and evolution would take its course resulting in the existence of you and me. The problem is ignorant fools take the Bible literally and come up with horseshit like this and then are able to hide behind religion. And the church claims that they simply have a different interpertation and turn a blind eye towards it. In fact it is border-line herasy to claim the "young earth" view. If the earth is only 5000 years old, then why do we percieve it by every mechanism of science to be 5 billion years old, and for life to be 3 billion years old? To claim that the earth is really only 5000 years old is to claim that God put dinosaur bones that can be carbon dated back millions of years here to decieved us. And calling God a deciever is a herasy. We need religious leadership to speak out against crap like "conservapedia", because shit like that is exactly why many people refuse to attend church. It really bothers me to watch other christians alienate society with bogus interpertations of the Bible when we should be focused on reaching out and helping other people.

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249180)

And calling God a deciever is a herasy.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Didn't God ask Abraham to set his son on fire? And didn't God play the situation entirely seriously right up until the last second, when he said something to the tune of, 'No, I was actually just testing you. A lamb would be fine.' Endless evidence for evolution and the extreme age of the Earth could be construed as a test of our faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible, just as 'Burn your son' was a test of Abraham in the Old Testament. The Bible itself provides plenty of fuel for the conservative, wacko interpretations that you're rightfully criticizing.

Re:Oh no he didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18244226)

From the conservapedia article: "For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur"

One questions the possible types of training they received. Something along the lines of --> beer goggles + lizard = "Johnshon...wouldya look at that?? thass real cool! *burp*"

Re:Oh no he didn't (1)

kaysan (972266) | more than 7 years ago | (#18248008)

Conservapedia's list of charges against wikipedia's 'liberal' inclinations are especially compelling, consider:

2. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

Christianity is about as much the inspiration for the Renaissance as any fundamentalist christian's control-freak parents are for his converting to atheism.

Re:Oh no he didn't (2, Informative)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237270)

Its gratifying every time one of these "missing links" is found. My favorite is probably the lobe-finned fishes:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/04 05_060405_fish_2.htm/ [nationalgeographic.com] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/ph otogalleries/tetrapod/index.html/ [nationalgeographic.com]

Of course the creationists will just deny these anyway, but then again, they would never argued about this for so long if they were rational to begin with.

Re:Oh no he didn't (0, Offtopic)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237300)

Your links don't work. 404 not found error.

Re:Oh no he didn't (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18237334)

Remove the slashes after the 'html' part of the address.

Did I really have to explain that on a site like Slashdot?

Re:Oh no he didn't (3, Insightful)

LGV (68807) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237564)

Oh, the creationists won't deny them. You see, instead of one gap, they can now point to two! They've set rules by which they can't lose.

Re:Oh no he didn't (3, Informative)

Nutty_Irishman (729030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237572)

Yes, those truly are "missing links" ;)

Nice fine nonetheless, here are the "non-missing links":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/04 05_060405_fish.html [nationalgeographic.com]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/ph otogalleries/tetrapod/index.html [nationalgeographic.com]

More links (2, Informative)

Comboman (895500) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239088)

Here's my favorite "missing link", between dinosaurs and birds:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/11 20_021120_raptor.html [nationalgeographic.com]

Creationists try to deny this too, but there's concrete, physical evidence so you'd be a fool to deny it right?

Re:More links (1)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18241298)

That ok

Science parades it's mistakes for all to see and punishes those responsible.

Religion canonizes its mistakes and sanctifies those responsible.

Big difference if you are concerned with reality.

   

Two Responses (2, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237140)

yard-long horns over its eyebrows
<evolutionist's response>
Humans got the evolutionary shaft.
Human: "Oooh, look at me! I've got an enlarged Broca's region in my frontal lobe! DE-FENSE!"
Zuniceratops: "Oh yeah? Well how about this--BAM, the ole' horn in the eye!"
Good thing we're separated by millions of years...
</evolutionist's response>
--
<creationist's response>
For thousands of years, lawyers have been laying the foundation for the greatest devil inspired hoax to grace God's earth ... watch the press in all it's evil glory perpetrate it even further!
</creationist's response>

Re:Two Responses (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18237378)

I swear, if it weren't for the creationists, you morons wouldn't have even a single particle of interest in any scientific development that doesn't go into either your computer case or Star Trek. How sad are the comments on every single science story here?

Re:Two Responses (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18237428)

I swear, if it weren't for the creationists, you morons wouldn't have even a single particle of interest in any scientific development that doesn't go into either your computer case or Star Trek. How sad are the comments on every single science story here?
Well, the last post [slashdot.org] I had was about none of that.

I try to say something funny and someone bitches at me.

"Christ, you know it ain't easy, they're going to crucify me." - John Lennon

Re:Two Responses (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237606)

Human: "Oooh, look at me! I've got an enlarged Broca's region in my frontal lobe! DE-FENSE!"
Zuniceratops: "Oh yeah? Well how about this--BAM, the ole' horn in the eye!"

Human: Oh, we have those, too. They're smaller, but they travel faster from these bow things we invented, and we can hit you from 100 feet away.
(Arrow "thwip" sound)
Zuniceratops: Ow! My eye!
(Arrow "thwip" sound)
Zuniceratops: Ow! My other eye!
Human: Ha ha ha! We're going to eat you!
Zuniceratops: Noooooo!
Human: And use your balls as an aphrodesiac.
Zuniceratops: OK, now that was unnecessary.
Human: And *these* are spears!
(woosh!)
Zuniceratops: Argh!

Re:Two Responses (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239122)

OK then, if evolution has all of the answers, how do you explain that movie with Raquel Welsh in which human beings can clearly been seen interacting with dinosaurs?

Re:Two Responses (1)

Micklewhite (1031232) | more than 7 years ago | (#18246338)

Fella I'd hate to tell you this but you're completely wrong to the extent of being laughably STUPID. And I mean that in the most offensive way possible. *cough* Creationists have accepted that dinosaurs existed but they lived with people just like in the Flintstones. Turns out Noah brought them on the Arc with him. But they were all killed somehow all of 6000 years ago by Cthulhu.. when he threw a tugboat at them.

Now with horns! (0, Troll)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237158)

New bones found! Slightly different than other bones!

"Nubbins" (0, Offtopic)

Diordna (815458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237176)

Am I the only one who chuckles whenever they read or hear the word "nubbins"?

Re:"Nubbins" (1, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237268)

I would suggest tagging the article nubbins for just that reason.

Re:"Nubbins" (0, Offtopic)

wolff000 (447340) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237356)

hehehe Nope I laughed too. For those that think we are childish all I have to say is my dad can beat up your dad, so HAH.

Re:"Nubbins" (0, Offtopic)

TheRon6 (929989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237398)

I, for one, have already chuckled when I heard the word "nubbin."

O'Malley: Where's the mouse on this thing?

Doc: It has one of those little red rubber dot thingies on the keyboard. That's way better than a mouse. I call it the nubbin. Who wants to touch my nubbin?

-Red vs. Blue [roosterteeth.com] , Episode 45

There's a word you don't hear every day ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18237220)

a subfamily that usually had bony nubbins a few inches long above their eyes


I think I'm going to add the phrase "bony nubbin" to my online dating profile ... then prepare for the flood of IMs and email.

What's in a name? (-1, Offtopic)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237250)

Had I the choice, I would have dubbed it 'antistoogeisaur' ("Why-I-oughta... Ooch, my poor hand!")

I wonder if the bulls had any trouble with competition and eye loss during mating season.

Ryan Fenton

# new species == # new grad students (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237272)

We have a joke in the earth science biz: the number entities discovered multiplies with the number of reserachers looking to obtain PhDs or tenure.

Re:# new species == # new grad students (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237642)

...reserachers looking to obtain PhDs

Did you give your resesarch assisatant the day off again?

Re:# new species == # new grad students (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240984)

Yeah, just like with computer and modeling languages. Computer science hasn't actually changed in the last 20 years, it is just the nomenclature that keep changing.

Nubbin == third nipple (2, Insightful)

Ron Harwood (136613) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237396)

Sorry, anytime I see nubbin I'm going to think of Chandler from Friends.

Re:Nubbin == third nipple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18240584)

Sorry, anytime I see nubbin I'm going to think of Chandler from Friends.

I guess even on Slashdot there's no accounting for taste.

Horns and eyebrows (1, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237418)

Scientists have been able to produce an image of the ancient beast. [httphttp]

Re:Horns and eyebrows (1)

LiLWiP (918943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237764)

Scientists have been able to produce an image of the ancient beast. [httphttp]


Not 100% sure what that link points to, but it definately doesn't work....
Lets try http://www.filmdeculte.com/photo/dossier/scorsese/ portrait/2.jpg [filmdeculte.com]
Preview works wonders...

Also (2, Funny)

liak12345 (967676) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237436)

The first dinosaur categorized as "Herbivore and incidental carnivore" whenever it happened to accidentally spear something tasty hiding behind the plant it was eating.

A New Source of Oil (5, Funny)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237610)

Cool, a new source of oil!

And you guys said it wasn't renewable. See, that's why I like science. They are always finding new species. More oil. More oil. I'm going to go buy a Hummer.

Dino-Poop Power for the People.

Wait...Oh, I see the flaw. Nevermind.

wait... (1)

phynodedotnet (1071728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237794)

won't anybody welcome our new extinct dinosaur overlords?

Horny Animals (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237884)

Those were the good ol' days: huge animals with giant horns. We don't get that as much these days, outside of elephant tusks. I am surprised whales don't have horns. When killer wales attack their kids, a common problem for them, if they had spikes of some sort, parents could ward off the killer wales with a good poke or two. The best they can do is flail their tail at them, which is not very effective. I am surprised evolution didn't give them a spike. Time for a Creator to step in :-)

Re:Horny Animals (1)

bullsbarry (862452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18237948)

Let me introduce you to the Narwhal [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Horny Animals (2, Funny)

kahei (466208) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239160)

I am surprised whales don't have horns.

You too, huh? I feel the same. It's one of the most surprising things I know. It's just baffling. I'm not even sure I believe it -- it just seems so far-fetched.

Yet amazingly -- it's true! They don't have horns! Unless you glue one or more horns on! Which is very dangerous to you *and* the whale, trust me on that.

'Lo and behold' (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18238016)

"Unquestionably, it's an important find," said Peter Dodson, a University of Pennsylvania paleontologist. "It was sort of the grandfather or great-uncle of the really diverse horned dinosaurs that came after it."

Ryan named the new dinosaur Albertaceratops nesmoi, after the region and Cecil Nesmo, a rancher near Manyberries, Alberta, who has helped fossil hunters.

The creature was about 20 feet long and lived 78 million years ago.

The oldest known horned dinosaur in North America is called Zuniceratops. It lived 12 million years before Ryan's find, and also had large horns.

That makes the newly found creature an intermediate between older forms with large horns and later small-horned relatives, said State of Utah paleontologist Jim Kirkland, who with Douglas Wolfe identified Zuniceratops in New Mexico in 1998. He predicted then that something like Ryan's find would turn up.

"Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said.
- Lo and behold? We knew that evolution works for a long long time now, but does anyone know whether these remains can be used for DNA sequencing so an evolution map could be setup for such creatures?

Re:'Lo and behold' (2, Insightful)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18238528)

Please note the difference between evolution and evolutionary theory. Evolution is a process that we know happens - we can observe it in labs. Its a fact. Evolutionary Theory is our current best understanding of the what's, why's, and how's of process by which evolution (the fact) occurs. People can (and often do) dispute evolutionary theory all day long without disputing the fact that evolution itself happens - and that's fine, that's science in progress. Its the people who debate on whether or not evolution itself actually happens that frighten me.

New dinosaur species? Unlikely (1)

gjuk (940514) | more than 7 years ago | (#18238060)

Given that dinosaurs (broadly speaking) died out rather a long time ago - it's very unlikely that there are any new species.

Perhaps there's a newly identified species?

I'll get my coat.

When I read the headline... (4, Funny)

Hanners1979 (959741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18238124)

...it translated in my head as "Museum Intelligently Designs New Species of Dinosaur".

I've obviously been getting involved in too many evolution-related debates.

Re:When I read the headline... (4, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240256)

Those aren't horns... they're handle bars for Adam to hold onto while riding it.

-

Place names in the region (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18238262)

I'm surprised nobody decided to make fun of the local population centre called Manyberries. I've driven through the area on a Digital Confluence Project quest. Other places in the area are Wild Horse (at the Alberta/Montana border), Onefour (there is an Ag Canada research station there), and Seven Persons. The area is consistently windy there, and quite dry. Most fence posts around there seem to have old car tires at there base to keep the soil from being blown away.

Yay! (1)

idhindsight (920184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18238956)

New species of Jesus Horse found! \o/

Hmm . . . sounds familiar (1)

heritage727 (693099) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239098)

A dinosaur with yard-long growths over its eyes--isn't that Andy Rooney?

Moo (2, Interesting)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18239308)

Parlimentary inquiry.

How do we know this is indicative of an entire species, and not just a single freak of nature?

Re:Moo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18241330)

Can you think of other such one-off beings?

Severe mutations do show up every now and then, but they're usually easy to link to the unmutated species. You might get a two-headed dog, but not a dog-fish.

Additionally it's statistically likely that anything that has been fossilized is representative of a significant population.

Skull fragment? (1)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240228)

IANAP(aleontologist), but this always bugs me about fossil findings. Did they find a whole skeleton, or only the skull fragment pictured? If it's only the fragment pictured, couldn't this just be a triceratops? The "nose" part of the skull appears to be missing.

Finally! (2, Funny)

mollace (751119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240348)

Can we call this one a Brontosaurus and settle the whole problem?

Not extinct? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18240952)

New species heh? So I take it that the tales of the dinosaur extinction were much over hyped?

Badges? We don't need no stinking... (1)

agentkhaki (92172) | more than 7 years ago | (#18245636)

I must be tired. It took me several reads of the headline -- "Museum IDs New Species of Dinosaur" -- before I realized that the museum had apparently discovered a new species of dinosaur, and not that their identification cards had evolved into an otherwise extinct life-form...

It sounds like that museum could use new lighting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18245774)

Was the fossil hidden in the dark depths of the basement forgotten by time? How lucky the curator must have felt when he stumbled across this amazing find.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?