Slashdot Mirror
Giant Dinosaur Bird Discovered
Cyclist110 writes "The BBC has the story of the discovery, in Inner Mongolia, of a Dinosaur bird twice the size of a man and weighing in at over 3000 lbs. From the article: 'Chinese researchers uncovered the fossilised remains of the flightless giant in the Erlian basin in Inner Mongolia. The researchers had originally thought they had found the bones of a tyrannosaur — the group of dinosaurs to which T. rex belongs — due to their large size.'"
So this will be discredited when?
Waaaaaark!
I have already spent years mastering the control of these beasts!
If birdlike dinosaurs got that big then giant chickens must be possible. Just imagine the MacNuggets!
But, in general, I agree with your shock and horror of picturing a 1500 pound man...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Yes, it would kill the plant life ... but that doesn't matter, because they'll think of some "reason" why it wouldn't, even if they have to fall back on "Goddidit." Creationism (like any other a priori position) does not rely on logic, reason, or evidence.
That's not to say that I feel that religion or faith or a priori knowledge is worthless--heck, I'm a theist myself. But (IMHO) when a person's gotten to the point that they'll explain away fundamental facts--as Creationists attempt to do--then argument is a waste of time.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
(score -1: really, really f'ing lame)
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
Phorusrhacids (marketed as Terror Birds!!! by the ever highbrow Scientific American) are cooler giant extinct birds. I like the way in the SciAm pictures they have a thoughtful, confident expression too, like they're thinking "I could bite that dude's head clean off. I don't think he knows that"
8 01_050801_terrorbirds.html
E.g. see the picture here -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It said 8m long, not 8m tall.
By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
The height of a horse is measured to the withers, basically its shoulders. I suspect that applies to quadrupeds in general. It's because it's a fairly stable place to measure to, but it's hard to keep a horse steady.
This bird isn't a quadruped, but if it has a long and neck it's more meaningful to measure to the shoulder than the top of its head.
The 8 meters is length, rather than height: tip of its head to the top of its tail, and the height is measured foot to shoulder. (I'm inferring that the thing has a tail. I'd much rather get my science news from Science News than from the BBC.)
I am too lazy to find hard references, but Xing Xu, the researcher who found
9 50967.htm
this fossil was once involed in the discovery of another "dinosaur bird" which
was shown as a fraud. To his credit, he was also involved in the team that discovered
the fraud (isn't it strange?)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1
FTFA : In 2001 he was embroiled in controversy over the discovery of a fossil believed to be the 'missing link between dinosaurs and birds, which tests revealed to be a clever fraud.
Well, it's pretty simple, actually. I believe in some way, shape or form, God created the thing. Maybe He made it evolve, maybe He made it appear out of thin air...essentially I don't know, and don't need to. Creationism and science aren't necessarily exclusive. I simply believe that the scientific reasons behind what happens exist at the behest of a supreme being.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
You rationalize like a creationist.
For starters humans are larger than most other primates and our fossil record shows a progression in height.
Aside from that, evolution makes no prediction about size. Evolution is not (does not have to be) linear. What is predictable, is that if size matters (either smaller or larger) a population will tend to the beneficial size over time.
-CF
This thing cannot fly; it can only run. It is the Chocobo.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I for one mourn the loss of our Gigantoraptor overlords. May we always be rulled by beings as humble and powerful as the Gigantoraptor.
Error:
I too am glad that /. doesn't have a webcam facility.
Cogito, ergo sig.
Seed extraction.
Read more about darwin's finches and how they had selective pressures to get better at seed extraction, both to overcome selective pressures of competition, but also about fruits developing more elaborate protection membranes. Depending on circumstances, beaks can and do vary in size over a matter of decades, depending on which fruits are available (i.e. more/less rain that year, new fruit from nearby island, etc).
Digging for seeds and pecking a tree might seem to be about the same thing, but they hardly are. Seeds are a vital supply of many creatures' vital nutrients. It might also seem trivial for us to extract seeds from an apple using our fingers and a teethed jaw. Now imagine it with just your teethed jaw and no fingers - suddenly beaks become a pretty darn good idea - especially when considering the seed is also hard to open, since it's developed a tough membrane due to its own selective pressures.
There are numerous articles and books detailing what we (think) we know about these finches, it'd be unfair for me to attempt a summary here, especially considering this is well outside my expertise.
I agree almost completely... but I was raised fundamentalist Christian and argued the creationist side of things many times in my teens. Then around 17 or so all the good points by others started adding up and I had doubts. And then I went through an agnostic phase, and finally settled as a happy well adjusted atheist :) My sister followed a similar path on a different timeline. So I'm just saying that discussion with religious types isn't always 100% useless. They'll probably never admit it during the argument but you can plant the seeds for later thinking, and people can sometimes change their mind.
In other words, I believe (perhaps irrationally) that respectful debate is not always just a waste of time.
Cheers.