New Dinosaur Species Is a Missing Link

An anonymous reader writes "A new dinosaur provides a link between what paleontologists consider 'early' and 'later' dinosaurs. There's a gap in the fossil record between the oldest known dinosaurs, which walked or ran on their hind legs about 230 million years ago in Argentina and Brazil, and other predatory dinosaurs that lived much later. Daemonosaurus chauliodus helps fill in a blank in dinosaur history."

Comments

And now there are TWO gaps!

[Anonymous Coward]

And now there are TWO gaps!

"Daemon"osaurus?

[TheABomb]

Did it run on Linux?

Sorry, but it is /., so I had to ask.

Re:"Daemon"osaurus?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

It ran on the ground, but Linux may well have ran on it.

If you watch closely, you can see it running in the background in Jurassic Park.

Species 404?

[PPH]

The missing link?

Now there are two gaps ..

[jc42]

In the ongoing "discussion" with the creationists, it has occasionally been pointed out that whenever a biologist finds a fossil that fills in a gap in the fossil record, one result is to replace the one gap with two gaps. Thus, no such discovery can ever persuade the creationists; it just adds to their list of known gaps in the fossil record To them, evolutionary theory can't be ready for prime time until all the fossil gaps are filled in. They don't acknowledge the patterns that biologists find in the (admittedly very sketchy) fossil record.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Cos they get on our school boards and tell our kids what to think.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

How many kids do you have, and how many school districts are they attending, exactly? Aside from your entire argument, that was a great argument.

As a parent of two kids in public school in Kansas, yes, I am concerned. I could also point you to several other states, Tennessee being the most recent that I know of, who are attempting to pass laws to let Creationism in through the backdoor. The Creationist movement is quite active, and if we don't stand up to these idiots, they will happily eviscerate public school science education.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Nursie]

"In the grand scheme of your daily life, and continued existence on this planet, how has the knowledge that humans evolved from monkeys, and so on and so forth down to single celled whatnot, been an important factor in your continued success as a person?"

Biological and medical science wouldn't be where they are without knowledge of evolution and DNA, part of the whole picture is our evolutionary pattern.

BTW, not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys several million years ago.

Sure, it may be ignorance, but I can be ignorant about a lot of things, and live a perfectly healthy and normal life.

Teaching ignorance of life sciences to an entire generation is a recipe for total scientific failure later on, not to mention that teaching blind faith over critical thinking in general is a terrible idea.

What one person believes is irrelevant. What is taught to entire generations of children will have an impact on the future of the country.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[c6gunner]

For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man. All we can say is that man and whatever fossil shared a common ancestor.

Homo Heidelbergensis
Homo Antecessor
Homo Erectus
Australopithecus Afarensis
Ardipithecus

How far back do you want to go?

It's rather irrelevant, anyway. Let me rephrase your complaint:

"You've shown me two of your cousins, five of your brothers, three of your sisters, two uncles, and a niece. But you can't show me your mother or father, so clearly you were miracled into existence."

Yep. Makes perfect sense.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[internettoughguy]

He is probably more opposed to the presentation of both "sides" as if they stand on equal footing. For example no one will complain if a social studies teacher explains the conflict between religious fundamentalism and science.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Black Parrot]

Cos they get on our school boards and tell our kids what to think.

Of course, if the rest of us weren't so complacent when it's time to vote for the school board, that problem might go away.

The Texas State School Board pulled some of its usual idiocy not too many years ago, and actually motivated people to get out and vote some more sensible people in. But by the next election complacency had set in again, so the kooks got their seats back.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[adamofgreyskull]

You can have a decent life because you don't need to know how a hybrid electric automobile works, this is fair comment, so should schools be allowed to teach that small fairies and leprechauns sprinkle each motor with magic dust and that's what makes it work? Allowing children to remain ignorant of the theory of evolution is one thing, actively teaching them that creationism is just as valid as evolution is quite the other.

Your analogies are ridiculous and they fail spectacularly. They fail because we're not only talking about ignorance of subject matter, but also actively teaching an alternative "theory" (it's not a real theory because it can't be tested) which is based on hand-waving, supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Not all children will grow up to specialise in fields that require them to know about the theory of evolution, just as most won't need to know about the workings of the internal combustion engine, but why fuck them up before they begin?

It's not just about some petty squabble between two different ideologies. People are railing against a culture of willful ignorance and an inability to think critically that could have extremely serious implications in the future. If you can look further than the end of your own nose, you should be worried.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Nursie]

"You are no different that the person you are trying to pain me as. Except, rather than "make shit up that seems to be a hole (when it isn't)," you make shit up that seems to be my argument, when it isn't."

Where did I do that?

I asked a couple of questions of you, but I didn't make up a straw man and knock it down, as far as I can tell. Who's making shit up now?

I wasn't accusing you of pushing your agenda into schools, by the way, I have no reason to think you (specifically) are doing that.

However, 99% of the "questioning" of evolutionary theory in this day and age is exactly of that character. Sorry if that means you have to make it extra clear that's not what your about, but the signal to noise ration is pretty extreme right now.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Zakabog]

160,000 years ago

I mean its not very hard to find which is surprising considering how hard fossils are to make.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

So you don't provide any guidance in the education of your children? You let the schools do it all yourself? You can't logically educate your child regarding your own beliefs and let them decide which way they want to go?

I do. I also choose not to have my children lied to in school, which makes educating them a lot harder.

I am a creationist, I studied Biology at University and I am still a creationist.

Then you reject the biology you claimed to have studied, and for what? A handful of Bronze age myths that you find more compelling than empirical evidence? I guess congratulations are in order, if you find that to be laudable enough to admit in public.

My kids will be taught evolution, and I have taught them my beliefs. I won't force either point of view on them - at some point they will make up their own mind. But at least they will be educated regarding both point of views.

Are you also going to educate them in every other creation myth from every other religion? My kids know about Creationism. We dissect that oddball assertion on a regular basis, as they have a lot of school friends who spout off the popular rhetoric of the churches they attend. But it's mythology, and doesn't belong in a science class. Nor does it rank anywhere near the level of science.

I don't think, or claim, that Evolutionists are "idiots" - I don't need to resort to name calling to try and discount the other point of view.

Should I award you a medal? You apparently don't understand the difference between groundless assertions and methodical research. Here's a hint: when a person chooses to reject the latter in favor of the former, they are an idiot. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about Creationism, conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine beliefs or the coming of Xenu. If you choose bullshit over knowledge, don't expect to be respected by the rest of us.

Having a child taught something at school is not "through the backdoor" - you're aware of it, you are ultimately responsible for your child - so don't blame their school for your inability to argue your point of view.

The backdoor is the attempt to teach Creationism as science. Let me make this totally clear for you: CREATIONISM IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE. I don't care one whit if you teach it in comparative religion class. I don't care if your pastor spouts off about it while you sit in a pew. You are free to believe any whacked out crap that you want, but KEEP IT OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM!

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Black Parrot]

Actually, they just want a fossil that we can point to and say, "This species evolved into that species." For example we keep finding primate fossils that are very close relatives to man. Unfortunately, we have never found a fossil that is a direct ancestor of man.

Someone has already responded to that last faux pas. As for the rest, consider how sparse the fossil record must be. If you went looking for the skeletons of your ancestors, what percentage of them could you find from two generations ago? From ten generations ago? A hundred generations? A thousand?

And that's a species that likes to put its dead where they can be found again.

Now consider what are the odds of any individual (dinosaur) that lived at least 65,000,000 years ago would be preserved to start with, remain undestroyed for all those years, and then be found by us. It's no surprise that some species are represented by only a single partial skeleton: Most species probably aren't represented in our collections at all.

Also, there's not necessarily a notable change in morphology when a new species arises. Biologists generally think of species in therms of interbreeding; when a population splits into two new populations due to some barrier to breeding, you may not be able to see any difference by looking at skeletons - sometimes it's purely a matter of behavior. The morphological differentiation is able to set in because of the lack of interbreeding, but it might take many, many generations before it is significant enough to identify a skeleton as belonging to one or the other.

According to Wikipedia, the familiar T. rex ranged over most of western North America for a million and a half years, and we've only got a bit over 30 specimens. "some of which are nearly complete skeletons". And then the article goes on to call this an abundance - most species are not nearly so well represented. But this "abundance" is about one full or partial skeleton from the entire species every 50,000 years - for a species numerous enough to sustain a breeding population across almost half a continent.

So go figure the odds of any species being represented at all, let alone a record that shows a single recognizable evolutionary step.

Looking for examples of "this species evolved into that" is basically a fool's errand, arising from ignorance and/or lack of critical thinking about both biology and taphonomy. Science can only find what's there to find, not any and every arbitrary demand. IMO we're lucky to be able to learn as much about our universe as we have.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[Creedo]

you would think that we could find one species somewhere that is a direct ancestor of another.

We can and do, where we can prove a complete relationship. Primarily bacteria, in this case.

But we are primarily talking about fossils here. We have to have definitive proof that species X was the direct ancestor of species Y to make that claim. We can use a variety of methods(DNA, and morphology, for example) to determine that species are in a familial lineage, but that's not proof of direct ancestry. So, this being science and not applied mythology, we can only state that these two species are part of an ancestral line.

Finally, you apparently don't understand that species evolve as groups, and that there is no clean break between any two species as they diverge. It's not like species X will suddenly start giving birth to species Y. And by the time reproductive isolation has brought about complete speciation, there may have been dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of subspecies which developed in this lineage. Coming millions of years later, which one will you arbitrarily pick as the definitive ancestor? The fact that you don't see the problem with your question betrays a deep misunderstanding of how the process of evolution works.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[shadowofwind]

My take on the whole controversy....

Evolution by natural selection poses a problem for Christianity because its very brutal process. If its God's natural order, then this brings into question the goodness of God. It also brings into question the idea of sin, since natural selection is argued to produce behaviors historically regarded as sinful. Furthermore nasty animal traits appear to go back hundreds of millions of years, which is difficult to square with common concepts of a 'fall' from paradise.

Individual Christians may deal with these issues by just leaving them unanswered. I think that for most people that is a reasonably pragmatic approach. However, not everybody is comfortable with that, they want certain things to make a certain kind of sense. So broadly speaking, some try to resolve the conflict by disbelieving in science, and others by disbelieving in religious ideas of right and wrong.

At the heart of most Christian criticism of evolution by natural selection, as I understand it, is the feeling that something of importance has been left out. I think this feeling is correct. On the other side, people react against what appears to be a tendency to make up stuff which stands in contraction of known facts, calling it the truth. I'm sympathetic too that view also.

I think that the apparent contradiction between natural selection and morality can be resolved, and in a way that actually deepens and enhances our grasp of the essential truths that both sides care about. But it seems that very few people are interested in reaching for that. Christians I've talked to who question evolution seem not to realize how strong the scientific case really is, and how weak their own arguments are. And they mostly seem uninterested in educating themselves on the subject so that they can find better arguments. I guess that would take a great deal of time and energy, without any obvious payoff, and along the way they'd have be willing to give up anything they previously believed that turns out not to be true. On the other side, understanding what's of value in the criticisms of evolution would require a humility and desire to do that, which apparently isn't as much fun and personally empowering as making fun of stupid people. So both sides keep going over the same ground over and over, and not much new is learned.

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[cbhacking]

Exactly. The process of evolution is gradual. Speciation doesn't occur in a single generation, or even in a single lifetime.

Consider equines. Horses and donkeys clearly share an evolutionary ancestor. In fact, they haven't even completely diverged from that ancestor; despite "obviously" being different species, they are inter-fertile. The offspring (mules) are infertile, so it is reasonable to call horses and donkeys different species; they can produce live offspring, but those offspring are a genetic dead end.

OK, how does that relate to my point? Well, sometime many millennia ago, there were a group of equines that, although not exactly like today's donkeys, were close enough that you would call them donkeys. There was a similar group of "horses". Here's the weird thing: they were the same species (interfertile and producing viable offspring). Somewhere over the millennia since then, the two groups, breeding primarily within their own group and not between groups, reinforced certain traits to the point where cross-group offspring were no longer fertile.

The question for you: how the heck do you define where speciation occurred? Was it when the (still interfertile) groups started moving apart? Was it the first member of each group that could not produce fertile offspring with more than half the potential mates in the other group? Was it when there was one member of each group which were mutually incapable of producing fertile offspring with any descendents of the other? For that matter, how do you define thr groups themselves? There were probably some fertile proto-mules for a while, which didn't fit cleanly into either group. They either died out without reproducing or were merged back into one of the groups, the line would nonetheless have been somewhat blurry.

Now, next question: how do you determine, from the fossil record, where that speciation occurred? Which of a bunch of old horse/donkey-skeleton-like rocks (that's all fossils are) was once an animal that gave rise to modern horses which can't produce fertile offspring with modern donkeys? How do you distinguish, from the fossils, that it was X, and not the parents of X, or the children of X, or possibly the specific children of X by Y? How do you distinguish that it was X and not X's sibling that got a slightly different set of chromosomes and was no longer able to produce fertile offspring with his or her corresponding member of the other group, yet went on to breed successfully and pass those chromosomes onto the other members of the group?

Seriously, demanding to see "direct ancestors" in the fossil record is absolute stupidity. I'm no biologist (as I'm sure any biologist reading my post noted) but I understand enough basic genetics to know that even with genetic evidence it's non-trivial to trace direct ancestry, and without it the task is nearly hopeless. Combine that with the way that most individuals never get fossilized, much less last long enough after fossilization to be found today (never mind the many fossils that we don't have yet; new finds are still occurring). Given all that, it'd be a minor miracle to have gaps of only 1000 generations in a direct chain of ancestry. That's enough generations for some pretty significant changes, when you're looking for incremental differences between a horse and a donkey. 1000 generations ago, your ancestors were recognizably human, but they still looked different enough from you today that you wouldn't have been able to call them a "direct ancestor" or not from fossilized bones - and they were probably still close enough that you'd have been interfertile!

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[hawkinspeter]

How about a complete lack of critical thinking?

Teaching kids to just believe anything as "it's a matter of faith"?

Teaching kids to ignore what their own senses/experiences tell them and instead believe some stuff written in a book ages ago that makes no rational sense?

I always thought that schools are about education, not indoctrination. If "God" wants to be in schools, he can damn well give the lessons himself (unless he's too busy planting fossils to test our faith).

Re:Now there are two gaps ..

[c6gunner]

Everyone else kinda jumped on you and decimated most of your comment (cbhacking did a particularly good job), so I'll just take the bit that's left:

And again, since you're reading comprehension is obviously weak, I never said that the the lack of this evidence is proof that evolution is false. I said that this is a pretty big fucking piece of evidence that we have not found YET and if I even bring it up, I'm instantly ridiculed. It's almost as if I walked into a %place-of-worship% and started saying that %Deity% doesn't exist.

You're being ridiculed because you clearly don't understand how evolution works, and instead of trying to learn you're going around complaining that there's missing evidence. The fact that you're making comparisons to religion only makes you more worthy of derision.

If you start saying things like "you know, we have no direct evidence that any Jews were gassed in WW2", what do you think the implication would be there? If you say "We have no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved with 9/11", what's the implication there? If you go around claiming "You know, nobody on the Earth could ACTUALLY see Apollo 8 on it's way to the Moon", what do you suppose might be the implication there?

You don't get to make idiotic statements with ominous implications, and then pretend that you're "just asking question". It's dishonest, it's cowardly, and it's fucking annoying. Yes, I know all the conspiracy theorists do it all the time; if they're your role-model, you've got serious issues.

New* Dinosaur Species

[FiloEleven]

*For very old values of New.

*BSD is dying

[tepples]

Where else would a "daemon" run but on FreeBSD? But then of course, Netcraft confirms that FreeBSD is dead.

Re:*BSD is dying

[Black Parrot]

But then of course, Netcraft confirms that FreeBSD is dead.

And so are the dinosaurs - I think you're on to something!

Re:Missing Links

[DaveWick79]

To be subjective, was the fossil dated based on its features attributing it to be a transitional fossil between the Eoraptor and Tawa?
Or was it placed in that gap because it was dated such first?

It's an important distinction, as if the three species overlapped in date (two were alive at the same time) or this new find is newer than the species it was supposed to transition to, its status as a "missing link" or even a transitional fossil is false. There's not much information out yet about this but my guess is that it is placed in a gap due more to convenience than any proven time period. This is why these missing link discoveries are so ridiculed by creationists, and until this unscientific procedure of placing fossils in the timeline is improved, it is deservedly so.

Re:Missing Links

[Nursie]

Every creature that reproduced, you mean!

Anything that dies before it spawns is a dead end.

Evolution is a continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

The is no such thing as a missing link, because there is no stable state - every new generation is a link to subsequent generations.

Re:Evolution is a continuum

[m50d]

Which is why we need a better definition of species than the current notion of being able to interbreed - every creature could interbreed with its parents, yet somehow along the way we end up with different species.

Re:Much Later?

[Black Parrot]

It is too bad that they didn't define "much later" in the article. 230 million years ago and 205 million years ago is only about 10% difference in gap from now. If much later is 65 million years ago, then I'm not sure if this really fills a gap.

When people express interest in a "missing link", it's not the chronological gap that interests them. It's the gap in the record of the evolutionary development of features - usually morphology, when talking about dinosaurs.

Re:Missing Links

[Kjella]

Are you trying to say a dog can't have evolved from a wolf, because we still have wolves? That a species branches off doesn't imply the old species must go extinct, they may very well exist in parallel. Even if it turns out a crossbreed isn't the transitional form and newer than that, it's still strong evidence of a common ancestry. That we today have mules is strong evidence of a past common evolution of donkeys and horses sharing ancestors.

In short, you're spouting creationist garbage and while it doesn't sound like you're one of them, you're certainly one of their useful idiots. Science is fallible, we know our knowledge is incomplete and keep improving it. Sometimes we learn that what we thought in the past was wrong, but we learn and improve. Like others have pointed out, filling one gap makes two new so you can't win.

Dear USA

[Intrepid imaginaut]

We don't care about your internal sectarian strife between extremist protestant cults and academia, and would like to read interesting comments about the new dinosaur. So far in this thread there have been none, not a one.
Kind regards
The rest of the world