Slashdot Mirror
190 Million Year Old Dinosaur Embyro
leprasmurf writes "Sci Tech Today is reporting that scientists have cracked open a 190-million-year-old egg to reveal the oldest known dinosaur embryo. Examination of the fetal skeleton suggests the hatchling would have required parental care to survive. This would be the earliest evidence of nurturant behavior, more than 100 million years earlier than previous examples." The University of Toronto has a release about this as well. From the article: "According to Reisz, what makes this discovery particularly significant is the ability to put the embryos into a growth series and work out for the first time how these animals grew from a tiny, 15 centimetre embryo into a five metre adult. 'This has never been done for a dinosaur. Only Massospondylus is represented by embryos as well as by numerous articulated skeletons of juveniles and adults. The results have major implications for our understanding of how these animals grew and evolved,' he says."
Pah. This is old news.
no really...it is.
Does anyone have a screenshot?
</osnews>
Seriously though, a picture would be nice.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
...they have cracked the mystery of Dinosaur development.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well, we know the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, so any measure that veers too far off that is bound to be inaccurate. The most accurate known dating method is counting backwards through the geneologies in the book of Genesis. Unfortunately, this egg is not mentioned there, so we'll probably never know its true age.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
Elephants grow from tiny embryos into huge animals, too...
Considering that modern birds are almost all nurturers of their young, it stands to reason that dinosaurs, the precursors to birds, would also have exhibited nurturing behaviors towards their hatchlings. On the other hand, reptiles, the other modern descendant of the dinosaurs by and large do not nurture their young, some, like the green sea turtle, lay their eggs in the sand and never see the babies again.
I wonder how much nurturing had a part in the evolution of birds and reptiles. Whether the nurturing behavior in early birdlike dinosaurs led to the modern birds of today. And whether the non-nurturing behavior of other dinosaurs led to the separate branch which is populated by modern-day reptiles.
But the question on everyone's mind is, how tasty are those embryos?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
from the NY Times
you type in your question into the little searchbox, and out come 50 billion answers.
from http://www.caspercollege.edu/tate/faq_24.htm
"We can get an idea of how old dinosaur bones are relative to each other by using the principles of stratigraphy. Here's an example: The bones of Deinonychus are found in the Cloverly Formation. In another formation, the Thermopolis Shale, we find the bones of a different dinosaur, Nodosaurus. Whenever the two formations are found in the same area, the Thermopolis Shale is always on top of the Cloverly. The principle of superposition states that whenever one formation is found on top of the other, the one on top is the younger (you can see the same principle at work in your own bedroom - the shirt that you dropped on the floor just last night is going to be on top of the socks that you dropped on the floor last Tuesday morning.) So we know that Nodosaurus lived after Deinonychus."
To be fair, not all biblical literalists think this 6000 year number is anywhere near accurate. Many accept values between 10 and 30 thousand years. In any case, while I don't buy into evolution personally*, I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications. Don't church-supported universities also engage in this kind of research? Even the 6000 year crowd must surely be interested in knowing how these dinosaurs lived.
Any thoughts?
* I am origin agnostic, I haven't seen a good scientific theory yet for how things got here.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2- 13-1443_1745931,00.html
Umm, evolution is origin agnostic. It doesn't explain how life started, just what happened once it did.
> To be fair, not all biblical literalists think this 6000 year number is anywhere near accurate. Many accept values between 10 and 30 thousand years.
Wow, that means they're only... well, still 4.5 billion years off.
> In any case, while I don't buy into evolution personally
Why don't you buy into evolution? And when you mention "how things got here" are you talking about biology, or cosmology?
> I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications.
ID isn't interested in any kind of research. They just want you to hear their "proofs" that God^w some incredibly powerful intelligent being created us - no questions from the audience, please. (Though they have been stung enough by our pointing out that real scientists publish in the peer reviewed literature that they're trying to make some end runs on peer review so they can claim that they've published in it.)
As for other kinds of creationists, some do take interest in explaining dinosaurs. Everything from carving fake human footprints among the Paluxy dinosaur tracks to having clueless amateurs excavate priceless specimens. And I think Ken Ham has a dino museum now.
Though their notion of research publications is - hard to imagine - even worse than the IDists'.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"This is a UNIX system! I know this!"
I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications.
Waiting for this kind of reasearch is like waiting for Duke Nukem Forever to be released. Need I say more?
Beware the Wrath of God!
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
I don't buy into evolution for the litany of reasons that creationists give to "prove" creation.
Those reasons are bogus. Even the Pope has given up and accepted that the fossil record is pretty conclusive and hence evolution is true. Only a few misguided fundementalists in America stick to this ridiculous literal interpretation of the bible.
Even if scientists cannot extract the entire genetic code of dinosaurs from the blood samples, the scientists could make educated guesses. They then complete what, in their opinion, is the genetic code of a particular dinosaur. They then inject this code into a de-nuclearized egg of, say, a Komodo lizard to create a cloned embryo. Scientists can then use the embryonic fossilized bones to verify whether their guess is accurate. The scientists simply compare the fossilized bones with the bones of the developing embryo. If they are an exact match, then the scientists have likely cloned the genetic code of a particular dinosaur specimen.
I forgot to respond to this:
> Don't church-supported universities also engage in this kind of research?
I think most of them stick to real science. Even at Baylor U (affiliated with the Southern Baptists, IIRC) the science faculty threw a fit when the university president tried to set up one of the leading ID "researchers" with a position lending a false sense of scientific respectability to his views.
(FWIW, he finally landed in the Theology department at another university.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Dinosaurs prefer to enjoy an evening of fine dining and wine, followed by a moonlit walk on the beach, followed by some dirty talk about the Cretaceous era. After this, the female dinosaur may invite the male dinosaur over for a cup of coffee and the creative use of a clit-tickler.
... and then they built the supercollider.
i wasn't aware there was a popular theory regarding life origins. i know there are several untested hypotheses. since these hypotheses often also talk about such things as historical global floods and demons, i personally doubt their scientific veracity.
Part of the problem is that there are really very few points of similarity. Dinosaurs were warm-blooded, had medullary bone and laid eggs individually. None of this is true for reptiles.
The other part of the problem is that the term "Dinosaur" originated with Victorian scientists and translates loosely to "Terrible Lizard". The idea stuck, even though the fossil record simply doesn't support the theory any more.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't think so. Everyone knows that life begins in the third trimester.
"To be fair, not all biblical literalists think this 6000 year number is anywhere near accurate. Many accept values between 10 and 30 thousand years."
I don't know wether one would consider me a literalist or fundamentalist or not. I, personally, consider myself a pretty hardline Christian that doesn't particularly prescribe to any one denomination (all I know of are corrupt). I prefer to read the Bible and make up my own damn mind, plus I like to read other religious text and make up my own damn mind if they are right or wrong (the whole religion thing being between me and God thing, no one else can tell me how to live my life). It depends on your definition of fundi or literalist - some mean that to mean the "crazies", some mean it to be me.
Anyway, the Bible isn't clear on time tables - any attempt to make it so will not be verifiable, and likely not correct. We know some about the language, we know some about how the stories are written (say, taking 40 days and 40 nights literally is like taking "It's raining cats and dogs" literal today), and given that one can not be conclusive. In fact, God is very explicit that his version of time is not anything like ours. To paraphrase - "your life is but a blink of my eye". Some take that to mean the equivilent of as you get older 10 years is less signifigant, for an immortal hundreds is a flash. It could also be easily read as a true literal - time doesn't mean the same, literally that our life goes in a blink of his eye so what was "seven days"? It could also mean an amalgam of those (my personaly beliefe, along with the general idea that the Bible is a collection of oral stories told through the generations and has creep inherrent in it). Of course, you can find any number of beliefes on this.
"In any case, while I don't buy into evolution personally*,"
What is commonly meant by evolution I support fully (however, evolution as a concrete thing has been shown to be wrong, there are more modern theories that better fit the data set. But that is for Biologist nitpickers to argue over). I just do not see them as being mutually exclusive - why can God not act through natural events? Seems to me that the all powerful creator of the universe can do whatever the hell he wants even if it isn't what I would do. Not to mention I like the Futurama episode where Bender meets God, I really like that idea. That do too much and they become to dependant, not enough and they loose hope, the perfect balance is to not be sure someone/something is out there. There is just too many coincidences out there for me to think "nothing but random chance".
"I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications. Don't church-supported universities also engage in this kind of research?"
There is some, but it is hard to find. Nor do I find it particularly interesting. For one thing religion and science seem to ask different questions - one is how, one is why. I can perfectly believe that a rose is red because God wanted it so, I can also be interested in pigments and genetic research. Personally I can seperate the two - "because God wanted it so" is not a sufficient, or even relevant, answer to any question with regards to science.
"Even the 6000 year crowd must surely be interested in knowing how these dinosaurs lived."
No, they are not. That is the "crazy" group. Like any person who holds truth in the face of all opposition or without any evidence (this goes for believing that there is no Creator - something one can not show and may be true) there is nothing past the idea. They generally think that it is a test and can be safely ignored. Or that it was a smiting God bestowed on the animals. One should never exclude any idea that *may* be true (I'll even accept that "random chance" is true - it could work, though I will need proof that mine is wrong - or proof yours is right - before I change), once you go over that line you move into total and complete faith ragardless of reality.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Oh come on! Before I was born there was nothing.
-- Cheers!
I had the opportunity to actually take several courses with Dr. Reisz several years ago at UTM, including my first introduction to human anatomy and physiology course. At the time, I was certainly surprised to learn about the homology that musculoskeletal systems had across species, even those separated by millions of years of evolution.
I was also farily surprised to learn about some of the more optimal "solutions" that evolution came up with, including things such as the development of the cardiovascular systems ranging from say two-chambered hearts, to four-chambered hearts.
It's also very sensible to presume that quadrapeds eventually evolved into bipeds in some dinosaur species. Of course, all we needed was proof for that assumption, and that's what this discovery was all about.
Is it possible that the species found in the egg had congenital defects or was simply too small for its developmental age? Highly unlikely in my opinion. Too many other morphological factors involved.
while i find your overall post to be overall quite worthwhile, BM Luethke , i find the line about disbelief and and belief in a creator being equal despite evidence to be rather humorous. if one is going to take a rational, scientific approach to analysing the material world, the default state must be skepticsm. there is no concrete evidence of a creator, so disbelief is the only rational position. while it is correct that the statement "there is no god" is no more valid than the statement "there is a god", the statement "i do not believe in a god due to the paucity of evidence" is more valid than the statement "i believe in a god despite the paucity of evidence". to say otherwise is to merely rationalize away cognitive dissonance. forgive me if i misinterpreted what you meant.
DNA sequencing and analysis, as well as good old-fashioned taxonomy shows that man belongs to the primates.
That and the fossil record lacking humanoid fossils older than a few million years, and having clear primates before that for a few million years, suggests humans are primates who weren't around at the creation of the first primates, but are genetically related to existing primates. *That* suggests common descent.
Darwin's theory explains (or attempts to) how even though we are related by common descent to other primates, we are clearly different species now. I.e. it is a general mechanism, not a specific claim about primate taxonomy.
Now, on the other hand, opponents of Darwin are primarily motivated by opposition to the idea that man was not an instance of special creation. Given the genetic and paleontological evidence, one would think they would carefully describe how God created, by hand, each primitive hominid, and the other primates, and then carefully destroyed each, replacing it with a more modern form, until, one day *shazam* Man was created, and all God's hand tuning could stop, except for sending Christ. Of course, they don't have such a theory. And their theory would ignore all sorts of issues about how human races developed, and how different continents got populated, and how the millions of other species existing and extinct did or did not get modified by the hand of God.
In any case, Darwin does not provide the key to hominid origins. Field and lab work provides lots of facts that need to be explained. Darwininan theory certainly favors a classical taxonomy, that postulates common descent of primates. But it is neither sufficient or necessary. But any biologist who treats humans in the same was as horses or birds or insects would be left with the same conclusion.
It just so happens that Darwin proposed his theory (and wrote Descent of Man) at a time when things like the age of the earth and the fossil record were still being understood, and all the DNA analysis and substantial field work happened afterward. The creationists simply ignore all the biology of the last 150 years, and attack what they perceive as the root of the "problem" but was really just historically early. You could imagine an alternative world, where DNA and modern taxonomy had determined the family tree of primates, and then a 21st century Darwin finally figured out how speciation worked.
The early appearance of Darwinism with only a little bit of the current evidence in some sense demonstrates how natural his ideas are.
From the article: 'The third area, he said, is the most speculative. Some of the embryos were clearly ready to hatch, he said, but they have no teeth, "and that suggests to us that some form of parental care was required ... not just protecting but active feeding." '
Speculating on whether hatchlngs were precocial or altricial based on absence of teeth is quite a stretch.
Among birds, most birds that spend most of their time on the ground walking are born precocial (feathered, able to walk and feed minutes after hatching). Birds that spend most of their time in trees and flying are altricial (naked, unable to fly, walk, or feed themselves and hence need parental nurturing fore some time).
However, coupled with other clues from the article, the altricial speculation seems more credible: "...the proportions of the limbs, neck and head suggest that as a baby and young animal this species walked on four legs, but as an adult it was able to walk on two legs some of the time." And, "...Mr. Reisz and colleagues reported that the Massospondylus hatchling was born four-legged with a relatively short tail, a horizontally held neck, long forelimbs and a huge head. As the animal matured, the neck grew faster than the rest of the body, but the forelimbs and head grew more slowly. The end result was a two-legged animal that looked very different from the four-legged embryo. Mr. Reisz suggested that the change from four- to two-legged could be a matter of balance related to the development of the animal's neck."
The long neck suggests adult animals were browsers rather than grazers. As such, young clearly could not feed except on very low-growing shrubs. On the other hand, perhaps the young grazed during development and gradually adapted to browsing. If so, it further erodes the altricial speculation.
Altricial young usually lack an ability critical to survival (e.g. flight among birds, foraging/hunting among mamallian carnivores and omnivores such as bears and chimpanzees) that involves both post-natal development and learning by minicry of the parents.
Precocial young (common in most mammalian herbivores) have essential abilities (feeding, mobility--to feed, keep up with herd, escape predators) from birth often as an adaptation to allow "following the food." It therefore seems unlikely that an herbivorous species would bear altricial young because it would tie parents to a location during post-natal development, and the copious quantities of vegetation required by such large animals would deplete immediate-area resources rather quickly.
Lack of teeth does not preclude suckling, another trait common among precocial herbivores.
My vote therefore goes for precocial.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
unless of course that's banned by dino-law...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
"This is the dumbest thing ever. You either have faith or you don't. If you do research to try and prove you're in some way correct in your faith, you totally defeat your whole argument."
Actually, modern science arose mostly from Biblical creationists trying to learn more about the world. The difference between a Biblical creationists and a secular scientists, is that a Biblical creationist will trust the Bible to be a valid starting point. You seem to be confusing having a solid starting point with also having an ending point.
Engineering and the Ultimate