Dinosaur Evolution Comes Into Focus

nickynicky9doors writes: "National Geographic has an article celebrating the work of dinosaur hunter Paul Sereno and his colleagues. New Thinking On Dino Evolution provides an overview of the recent discoveries and the conclusions and questions that follow the discoveries. One of the lines of inquiry asks how the breakup of the SuperContenient Pangaea impacted the evolution of the dinosaurs."

Comments

At least SOME dinosaurs evolve...

[ringbarer]

Not the piece of unflexable unwieldly shit that is Mozilla.

Re:At least SOME dinosaurs evolve...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please take note of the article on OpenBSD and StarOffice as well...

Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

If you throw out the ludicrous *theory* of evolution, you can see that everything was clearly created 6,000 years ago by a benevolent Creator. This Creator also "fast-forwarded" the geologic timescale to make it appear as if the universe was many years older.

If evolution were true, then the timescales necessary to facilitate it would be immense, millions upon millions of years. But at that timescale erosion would have leveled the mountains, the moon would have spun off course, and dust on the moon would be several meters thick.

No, the evidence shows that the universe is young and only designed to look old.

The Creator didn't make a mistake in His design, like many will argue. He gives us clues to His magnificence through these discrepancies in the geologic record.

Re:Easily explained

[Havokmon]

"Have you ever seen the fjords in Scandanavia? I did that.."

Re:Easily explained

[TheGreenLantern]

I think I'll respond by recounting a conversation I had with a Sunday School teacher back when I was a kid. Paraphrased, as sadly I had not the foresight to record it:

Teacher: The Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. There were no such things as dinosaurs.
Me: Then where do all these bones come from?
Teacher: God put them there.
Me: Why? To tempt people into not believing in the bible? Isn't that Satan's job?
Teacher: Ummm....
Me: Cause if God is all loving, and wants us all in heaven, why would he tempt people into not believing in his word? And if he's all knowing, doesn't he already know who would believe in dinosaurs and who wouldn't?
Teacher: .....God works in mysterious ways.
Some Other Kid: Maybe the 6 days are really like 6 billion years, and all the dinosaurs and stuff happened during like the 3rd and 4th day, which was really billions of years?
Teacher: No, that's not how it is at all. Let's move onto something else...

(Still waiting for Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson to blame dinosaurs on gays and minorities...)

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because your Sunday school teacher was a bumbling parrot, it doesn't mean that you're right or that he's wrong.

The fact is that although many things appear to be very old, there is deducible evidence to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Re:Easily explained

[TheGreenLantern]

OK, so "many things" on Earth appear to be very old, but the Earth itself is only 6000 years old? Dinosaur bones from space? Someone added a few too many zero's to estimated ages of deep ice core samples from the Arctic? Carbon dating a liberal myth? Help me out here.

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Don Quixote,

You are responding to a troll. Please cease and desist immediately. The best thing to do with Creation trolls is ignore them and they will go away.

Yours truly,

Creation troll

Re:Easily explained

[TheGreenLantern]

But it's so fun and easy!

Re:Easily explained

[Lars T.]

I wonder if you can tell me when god made the angels, and why he made them so powerful that one can at least rival him? And if all humans are decendants of Adam and Eve, why are they so different - no wait, I also forgot that we all have Noah in our lineage. Talking about Noah, how did he fill all kinds of animal existing (and those who once existed but have since been exterminated by man) into that little ark? And why is there no mention of say kangooroos in Noahs tale or the dozens of distinct finches Darwin described?

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

1) when god made the angels

Duh. In the beginning. I'd estimate that to be somewhere around 6,000 years ago.

2) why he made them so powerful that one can at least rival him?

Hardly a rival. The book of Revelations says that Satan will be cast into the pit of Despair with other non-believers.

if all humans are decendants of Adam and Eve, why are they so different - no wait, I also forgot that we all have Noah in our lineage.

Genetic drift explains the races. The tower of Babel explains the cultures.

Talking about Noah, how did he fill all kinds of animal existing (and those who once existed but have since been exterminated by man) into that little ark?

The ark was huge. The specs are in Genesis. He only took baby animals (they're much cuter and tamer and smaller than the adults).

why is there no mention of say kangooroos in Noahs tale or the dozens of distinct finches Darwin described?

There's no mention of many different animals in the story of Noah's ark. Does this mean that they don't exist? Finches and other birds can fly and did not need to be kept explicitely on the ark. They would have found their way to it regardless (it was the only dry land available for landing)

Re:Easily explained

[FireAtWill]

"He only took baby animals (they're much cuter and tamer and smaller than the adults)."

Baby cockroaches, ringworms and fruit flies? How the heck do you find and catch baby fruit flies? What did he keep them in? Did he have an inventory? How did he know he got everything? Hey, why did water dwelling creatures get a pass? I mean a flood doesn't affect them much. Why didn't the massive tidal forces cause Mount Ararat to be submerged?

So many questions.... I hope you can help.

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Baby cockroaches

You can chalk that one up to bad hygiene. Roaches were probably everywhere, creeping everyone out, I'm sure.

ringworms and fruit flies

Twofer. You get a couple pigs, and you'll get yourself a whole swarm of pests. Besides, God protected all the animals that were worth saving (as much as we'd argue the 'worth' of an animal) by guiding Noah's hand in selecting the animals.

What did he keep them in?

Jars. *rimshot*

No, of course the pests were kept in the ark.

Did he have an inventory?

Large inventory. Did he keep it written down? Probably not, but what's the point when anything you didn't bring aboard would be killed anyway?

Hey, why did water dwelling creatures get a pass?

Because they could swim? What's the question?

Why didn't the massive tidal forces cause Mount Ararat to be submerged?

The waters were subsiding when the ark landed on Mt Ararat.

Re:Easily explained

[FireAtWill]

Cool. How long did this take him? How big was the boat? What about the insects who have life spans measured in days? Or the one's who only come out every few years? How many species were aboard? All of them? How did the tree that the branch was brought back from survive being violently submerged?

Re:Easily explained

[Gleng]

Why didn't the lions and tigers eat Noah? Or at least eat all the smaller animals? Hehe...they must have been full on the griffins and unicorns ;)

Re:Easily explained

[Lars T.]

1) So why doesn't it say so in the bible?

2) And still he almost completely rules the world. Or so the preachers say.

3) The Tower of Babel barely explains the different languages (and their similarities and differences), but it does not explain different cultures. Oh and about that genetic drift - you mean mankind changed? As in evolved?

4) The Ark was tiny compared to modern ships.

The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

That would be (ca.) 450 feet (150 m) long, 75' (25 m) wide, and 45' (15 m) high.

5)Genesis 7;14 They [Noah's family], and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Sorry dude, the book says he had all the birds on board. (Isn't the internet wonderful? God must have created it.) Let's ignore that the Bible doesn't mention all the different animals that exist - how did they get where they are now? Did Noah drop them off? Why doesn't that get mentioned either?

Re:Easily explained

[Mr.Intel]

I'll bite. What if the earth was formed from already existing materials? In other words, the dinosaurs lived on a planet that was destroyed and the stuff from that planet was "re-organized" into the earth. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it would satisfy the existense of bones, radio carbon dating and most other time related issues with creationism.

Re:Easily explained

[TheGreenLantern]

But that of course suggests that God had previously created one or more other planets that were capable of sustaining life, which is totally against creationism.

Re:Easily explained

[Mr.Intel]

I wonder if you can tell me when god made the angels, and why he made them so powerful that one can at least rival him?

How about Satan/Lucifer? Revelation talks about a war in heaven... Just because God won does not mean it was a landslide.

And if all humans are decendants of Adam and Eve, why are they so different

Let's see there is the curse of Cain (a skin of blackness) and the tower of babel to give us different languages and of course thousands of years in various parts of the earth to give us culture. Sounds pretty easy to me.

how did he fill all kinds of animal existing (and those who once existed but have since been exterminated by man) into that little ark? And why is there no mention of say kangooroos in Noahs tale or the dozens of distinct finches Darwin described?

Good questions! The Ark was big by defenition so I don't think it is too far fetched to believe that he fit all the animals on the ark. Keep in mind he only needed to worry about air breathing animals (insects, mammals, reptiles, etc.) It probably took a long time, but I recall something in Genesis that mentioned God's help in getting all the little crawlies to cooperate. As for Darwin's finches, who is to say that they didn't get on the ark with Noah? There is no proof either way and you are left with faith (for or against) which is the basis for any religion anyway.

Re:Easily explained

[Mr.Intel]

which is totally against creationism.

Maybe the maistream creationists would balk at this notion, but certainly not me! It would be terribly egotistical to say that we are the only sentient beings God has created (assuming you believe in a creation). If God has all power, then He certainly can create more than one life supporting earth! May I ask why you think this is the case?

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I don't know... why don't the lions and tigers at the circus eat the monkeys?

Re:Easily explained

[TheGreenLantern]

Well, that's pretty much what I believe as well, along with some other concepts (6 days=~6 billion years, evolution is a natural process God created). I've found, however, that arguing points like this tends to get you labled as "non-creationist", at least by those who steadfastly hold to the literal definition of creation as it's described in the Bible.

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

How long did this take him?

Until the rains got really bad. Probably a while.

How big was the boat?

Specs are in Genesis. You can look them up. Measurements are in cubits, so please account for the conversion factor.

What about the insects who have life spans measured in days?

Their reproductive cycle must also be on the order of days, so there's no problem.

Or the one's who only come out every few years?

Considering that they exist today, it isn't hard to extrapolate that Noah was able to fit them onboard.

How many species were aboard? All of them?

Well, all the ones we have today.

How did the tree that the branch was brought back from survive being violently submerged?

Trees are tough and the branch was probably broken off already anyway. I don't think a dove can tear an olive tree branch off so easily.

Re:Easily explained

[bpowell423]

-- 3) The Tower of Babel barely explains the different languages (and their similarities and differences), but it does not explain different cultures. Oh and about that genetic drift - you mean mankind changed? As in evolved?

Of course mankind has changed. I'm not a carbon copy of my parents. Nobody argues that species don't change and evolve. The argument is whether or not they change into other species. The argument is over whether or not an aligator, a canary, AIDS and people all have a common ancestor.

Secondly, about different cultures... what needs to be explained? It is common sense and observable fact that cultures change. It doesn't need an explaination in the Bible, and it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution (or not) of species.

-- 4) The Ark was tiny compared to modern ships.

Modern cruise ships and supertankers are in the neighborhood of 1000 feet (~300 m) long. Modern aircraft carriers are on the order of 600 feet long. So 450 feet long is smaller than the world's largest modern ships, but hardly tiny.

"every bird of every sort" is referring to the fact that every type of bird was represented, not that every bird on the face of the earth was in the boat. Read verse 3 and you'll see that. Why ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't mention all the different animals that exist? It never attempts to list them all, what's the point? Noah was instructed to take seven pairs of each type of clean animals, 2 pairs of each type of unclean animals, and 7 pairs of each type of bird. And why do you question how animals got to where they are now? Don't you think they walked, swam or flew?

Re:Easily explained

[Lars T.]

So the Kangooroos walked from Mt. Arrarat to Australia.

Re:Easily explained

[bpowell423]

All your questions are answered in Genesis. Noah spent 120 years building the Ark. The dimensions have been previously posted here. The olive branch was newly grown. Seeds would have survived the flood. 40 days after the ark came to rest on the mountain, Noah sent out a dove, but it came back with nothing. He waited another week and sent it out again, and this time it came back with the olive leaf. So the olive leaf had had 47 days to grow.

Re:Easily explained

[Mr.Intel]

I've found, however, that arguing points like this tends to get you labled as "non-creationist", at least by those who steadfastly hold to the literal definition of creation as it's described in the Bible.

It's narrowmindedness like this that makes the world a dark and dreary place. However it is god to know that there are those who still search for answers without blindly accepting the majority view.

Re:Easily explained

[bpowell423]

I'm not sure why you ask that last question. Mount Ararat WAS submerged. It was 150 days after the rain stopped that the ark came to rest on the mountain. Even then the mountain would have still been underwater.

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid. They hopped.

Re:Easily explained

[A Bugg]

actually the largest supertankers are on the order of up to 1500 feet long and can weigh up to 400,000 tons and aircraft carriers are 1000-1102 feet long, and slightly under 100,000 tons of displacement. and both are nearly 200 feet wide (the width is dictated by the width of the locks in panama). so the largest ships today are substantially larger than predicted size of noak's ark.

Re:Easily explained

[Lars T.]

1) Cain: Ah so colored people decend from Cain. What about Asians? Which of Noah's daughters-in-law was black?

2) What about plants? They don't like being submerged several thousand feet below water, even if it isn't salt water. Which brings us to fish - there are salt water fish and sweet water fish.

Re:Easily explained

[Mr.Intel]

What about plants? They don't like being submerged several thousand feet below water, even if it isn't salt water. Which brings us to fish - there are salt water fish and sweet water fish.

To quote Gen 6:19-20 "19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

So 'every living thing' would encompass just about every animal/plant/fish etc...

Which of Noah's daughters-in-law was black?

Gen 10:6-20 details the lineage of Ham. We see that his descendants populated what is now Egypt, the Middle East and Africa. While there is no biblical account of Ham or any of his descendants receiving a curse like Cain, it seems likely that they indeed did.

What about Asians?

Again, there is no biblical account of every race or creed of mankind. Suffice it to say that skin color, eye shape and any other physical attribute of men can be said to be influenced by environment. The science behind that is pretty evidencial (especially for skin color.) However, we don't know for sure since there were no records kept and there is not a person alive today that can act a witness to the changes. Who knows, but the childred and grand children of Noah had all the genetic diversity to support the entire spectra of human races.

Re:Easily explained

[Black Parrot]

> If you throw out the ludicrous *theory* of evolution...

Here's betting that you don't know what the word "theory" means to a scientist.

> This Creator also "fast-forwarded" the geologic timescale to make it appear as if the universe was many years older.

No, I had a beer with him last week, and he told me that the geology was correct and it was the Bible that was faked. He had originally toyed with the idea of faking the geology just to have a joke at scientists' expense, but decided faking the book would make for a much better prank.

Re:Easily explained

[revscat]

The science behind that is pretty evidencial (especially for skin color.) However, we don't know for sure since there were no records kept and there is not a person alive today that can act a witness to the changes.

Well, science is based on "evidencial" evidence, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. However, in response to your comment about no records being kept, I point you towards your friendly neighborhood anthropologist or archaeologist; either will be able to give you some rather good unwritten records of the progress of human culture, and how almost all of it predates anything in the Bible.

Re:Easily explained

[Mr.Intel]

However, in response to your comment about no records being kept, I point you towards your friendly neighborhood anthropologist or archaeologist; either will be able to give you some rather good unwritten records of the progress of human culture, and how almost all of it predates anything in the Bible.

I have spoken with a few anthropologists on this subject two years ago. One fellow from the University of Arizona was very complementary of the bible and its record of human history. As for predating things in the bible, where do you get this idea?

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't have a beer with you.

- God

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

You still believe in god?
Geez, we grown-ups gave that up along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Re:Easily explained

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

"While there is no biblical account of Ham or any of his descendants receiving a curse like Cain, it seems likely that they indeed did.
"

Can't you feel the lurve? Thanks for showing your racist colors, you bigoted little worm.

Re:Easily explained

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't write stupid one-liners to Slashdot either.

- God

Re:Easily explained

[Mr.Intel]

How do you know I'm not black, you ill-informed jackass. Cain *was* cursed "with a skin of blackness". I was merely following the logic through to Ham. I didn't curse Cain! God did. Ask Him for the whys and hows and don't blame other people for *thinking*.

Re:Easily explained

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

You call that "thinking"? You snivelling little bigot, you don't know the meaning of the word. I know you're not black, because nobody who's black thinks of their own skin as a "curse".

Now kindly FOAD.

Questions:

[gartogg]

"For one thing, that the breakup of the ancient supercontinent Pangaea was not rapid, as widely believed, but slow enough to drastically limit dinosaur evolution in the region. "

I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?

The article repeatedly discusses the amazing radiation, yet they wonder how it occurred as they ask about how the supercontinent broke up?

"In a 1999 report in the journal Science, Sereno said: 'I think there was some kind of a tenuous land bridge [linking Europe and Africa] for several million years' after initial breakup of Pangaea. 'That land mass prevented the evolution, in isolation, of a unique southern dinosaur fauna.'"

Is it absolutely crazt to think that with the same pressures, and starting from the same genetic base, the two continents would develop similar dinosaurs?

Does the article explain this that badly (I assume) or are these scientists just dumb?

Re:Questions:

[prizzznecious]

I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but punctuated equilibrium is an aspect of evolution that posits that evolution occurs in accelerated spurts rather than continually and gradually. Geographic isolation would seem to tend to slow evolution rather than encourage it, as evolution depends on competition for its impetus.

Is it absolutely crazt to think that with the same pressures, and starting from the same genetic base, the two continents would develop similar dinosaurs?

Er yes, it is pretty crazy, unless you're being very loose with your definition of similar. The two continents would likely have very different climates, which would affect the developing dinosaurs directly, as well as providing completely different vegetation and even bacteria surrounding the two different groups of dinosaurs.

Re:Questions:

[gartogg]

"yes, it is pretty crazy, unless you're being very loose with your definition of similar. The two continents would likely have very different climates, which would affect the developing dinosaurs directly, as well as providing completely different vegetation and even bacteria surrounding the two different groups of dinosaurs."

The problem I have with this is that the bacteria and vegetation are the same, all coming from the bacteria and vegetation on pangaea. Also, the climate didn't differe very much, because of the slow rate of movement of the continents. The exact timing (couple dozen million years) of when there was a land bridge shouldn't matter that much.

Anyways, I don't think the article explains it well, because it makes very little sense.

Re:Questions:

[TheGreenLantern]

Keep in mind that, if you buy into evolution, in theory very small changes could have very drastic effects down the road.

This is all completely hypothetical, but let's say you have Pangea, starting to break apart. At this time they have pretty much the same animals wandering around. Now, when they finally do become seperated and start drifting apart, one of the new continents begins to see average temperatures a few degrees lower than on the others. These few degrees perhaps has a negative effect on the incubation periods of several key predators eggs, resulting in a mini-mass extinction of certain predators on the "colder" new land mass.

With a bunch of predators gone, there is suddenly a gap, which predators who were previously lower on the food chain can exploit. Or perhaps prey start dominating the landscape for a while, growing tremendously in size. The process just continues to domino effect from there on.

The point being that there are so many factors that could send evolution branching in so many different ways, it's very unlikely that dinosaurs would have continued to evolve in much the same way on seperated landmasses. Hence the idea that the breakup took a very long time, and the possibilities of "land bridges".

Re:Questions:

[Bullschmidt]

The only problem I have here is "the bacteria and vegetation are the same, all coming from the bacteria and vegetation on pangaea." Just take a look at North america for an example of why this isn't necessarily valid. We have dramatically different climates all over North America. If it were to break up, the local climate would push for whatever is best best suited for the area. Before you may have had some immigration and other outside forces, but now, with the contitent segmented, this wouldn't happen as much.

So each subcontinent of Pangaea wouldn't be "the same." The different climates would already have created some differentiation.

Re:Questions:

[skwang]

I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?

I believe that traditional evolutionary theories point toward the idea that isolated populations develop more rapidly. The example of Drawin's finches, usualy widely in high school textbooks, illustrates (among other things) that the isolated populations evolved more rapidly than their continental ancestors/contemporaries.

The selection pressures from living on small islands with limited food resources, a single (helpful) trait among an isolated finch population would most likely to be expressed. If these finches with a new trait were still on the mainland, the presence of so many other "unaltered" finches would eventaully "dilute" that genetic variation, because there is no selection pressure on the mainland for that trait, individuals with and without the modification survive.

However, on an island, there is a natural selection pressure for said trait to have an advantage over "unaltered" finches. These finches would not survive, leaving the new birds to multiply.

Re:Questions:

[gartogg]

Half of the worlds landmass isn't really "isolated."

Any evolution that occurs would be on such a large timescale that it seems as though a landbridge for a couple million years wouldn't matter.

Re:Questions:

[nickynicky9doors]

I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?

As much as I revel in correcting others, (When being corrected I tend toward covering my ears and yelling: "I can't hear you!"), the material requires something more than my amateur handling. Try the following: Jeffrey H. Schwartz "Sudden origins: fossils, genes, and the emergence of species" New York Wiley 1999

...

[global_diffusion]

the SuperContenient Pangaea

this sounds too much like an anime title.

Time is an Illusion...

[jcsehak]

...lunchtime doubly so.

Ever think that you simply don't understand how time works? Einstein proved it's relative; I feel certain it's not even linear. I think you'd make a lot more sense claiming the earth was created yesterday and everything in the past is just memories. When you say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, you're playing by science's rules, which prove the earth to be a lot older than that (but of course can't prove it wasn't created. In fact, I think the Big Bang theory is the most creationist postulaion ever to come from science, because you have to ask: who lit the fuse?).

Actually...

[soren]

I had the same experience going to St. Josephs
elementary for my first single formally
educated years...

However, the only change to you story would be a
simple s/God/SATAN/g

Thank God^H^H^Hgoodness my parents yanked me out after the first frightful nun-slapping incident... :-)

:-)