Slashdot Mirror


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."

16 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Questions: by gartogg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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?

    --
    I'm a concientious .sig objector.
    1. Re:Questions: by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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".

      --

      It hurts when I pee.
    2. Re:Questions: by skwang · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Re:Easily explained by Havokmon · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Have you ever seen the fjords in Scandanavia? I did that.."

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  3. Re:Easily explained by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 3

    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...)

    --

    It hurts when I pee.
  4. Re:Easily explained by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 3

    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.

    --

    It hurts when I pee.
  5. Re:Easily explained by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 2

    But it's so fun and easy!

    --

    It hurts when I pee.
  6. Re:Easily explained by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

    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?

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  7. Re:Easily explained by Lars+T. · · Score: 2
    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?

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  8. Re:Easily explained by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 2

    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.

    --

    It hurts when I pee.
  9. Re:Easily explained by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 2

    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.

    --

    It hurts when I pee.
  10. Re:Easily explained by bpowell423 · · Score: 2

    -- 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?

  11. Re:Easily explained by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

    So the Kangooroos walked from Mt. Arrarat to Australia.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  12. Re:Easily explained by bpowell423 · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Re:Easily explained by Lars+T. · · Score: 2
    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.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  14. Re:Easily explained by revscat · · Score: 2

    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.