The Earliest Known Dino?

sciencehabit writes "A team of paleontologists thinks it may have identified the earliest known dinosaur — a creature no bigger than a Labrador retriever that lived about 243 million years ago. That's at least 10 million years earlier than the oldest known dinos and could change researchers' views of how they evolved. But some scientists, including the study's authors, caution that the fossils could instead represent a close dino relative."

Comments

Re:Hmmmm?

[bmo]

Ok, this one always makes me laugh.

Since God (should he exist) is omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, why does Satan have all this power if God doesn't let him?

Answer, please, if you can.

The god of the old testament especially seems like a petulant kid running his own "Sims Universe" like this guy:

MaxxLarge [TotalFark] 2010-06-11 05:53:28 PM

I was HORRIBLE to my poor Sims.

I'd build GIANT houses with concrete floors, coffin-lining wallpaper, and hallways one tile wide leading in a giant spiral all the way to the center...where a staircase led to a second level with another spiral that reversed itself to the outer wall. The toilet was at one end, and the 'fridge was at the other. No beds, doors, windows, chairs, or bathing facilities. And there'd be four of 'em living in there, all with conflicting personalities, and no way to walk around each other. Then I'd put the time clock on high speed, and watch as all of their misery meters red-lined. Completely hilarious.

After a few days of them whining about the lack of a shower, I'd take the 'fridge just to show 'em what REAL misery was. Then, a few days later, I'd put in a window, and then I'd put an end table just outside with a big, juicy roast turkey on it. The poor little digital bastards had to sit there, clustered around the window, crying about how the flies were eating like kings while they slowly starved to death. They just stood there in their own Windex-blue pee, sobbing and begging for relief that would never come. Eventually, I'd hang up the clown painting, then watch as he popped in and tried in vain to cheer them up. About then is when I'd start the fires.

GOD, I was horrendous. But I'm still giggling like a little girl just remembering it. I'm convinced that being able to take out my frustrations on little computer jerks kept me out of therapy, and made it so I could be nice to meat-people.

"Hey, let's convince Abraham to kill his kid. It'll be hilarious!"

--
BMO

Re:Birds and dinosaurs

[Sique]

"Reptiles" is a paraphyletic group, and is no longer used. The classification "reptile" has some serious problems, as for instance turtles branched early from the other reptiles, later the mammal-like reptiles, and then the other branches of reptiles radiated. So reptiles would cover a very incomplete tree where one early branch is missing (mammals) and one very late one (birds). Instead we are talking "amniotes", meaning animals whose early development involves the growing of an amnios, a pouch in which the embryo develops. The amniotes then branch into Anapsides (including turtles), Synapsides (mammals and their predecessors) and Diapsides (all other reptile-like animals including the birds).

Re:Birds and dinosaurs

[Sique]

Upon reading a little about those groups, I noticed that molecular analysis does suggest that even though turtles have no additional holes in their skulls (which would morphologically put them into the anapsid group), it seems that they are closer related to some diapsid groups, especially lepidosauridae (lizards, snakes etc.pp.). So the point in time when the last common ancestor of turtles and other reptiles lived, is still debated.
So the question for this reconstructed animal is not so much if it fits a morphological definition of a dinosaur, but rather if the last common ancestor of this animal and a bird was living later than the last common ancestor of birds and crocodiles. If yes, then it would put it definitely into dinosaur territory, being either an early dinosaur or a member of one of the sister groups of early dinosaurs. If no, it might still be an archosaur, closer related to recent birds and crocodiles than to other lizards and snakes.

Re:Birds and dinosaurs

[serviscope_minor]

"Reptiles" is a paraphyletic group, and is no longer used.

Well, that's a little harsh. It's widely understood what it means, and is easier to say than non mamallian, non avian amniotes. :)

It's no worse than fish, which would include all vertibrates, and possibly hagfish too, depending on how you feel about it. (Though to my mind, "is a hagfish a fish" is up there with "is pluto a planet".)

Perhaps they're not used all that much when one is working in the taxonomy/classification literature, bit I've definitely heard cell biologists claim they work with fish instead of mice.

Re:Hmmmm?

[InterArmaEnimSil]

Article about dinosaur bones.

Comments about science? Paleontology? Dinosaurs? Not one.

Rants about creationism and insults to theists? Forty. ...I thought this was a science and tech site, not one dedicated to the analysis and criticism of religion. Apparently I was wrong.

You guys are more obsessed with creationism than the creationists.

Re:Hmmmm?

[InterArmaEnimSil]

I'm not even trying to touch on the issue of fundamentalism, endorsing it or countering it. Maybe fundamentalism in America needs to be countered, maybe not. I don't even mean to remark on that. As far as congressional committees go, I think you are giving the US too much credit. Give it a couple hundred years and this country won't even exist any more. My point was more about how useless Slashdot is becoming with regard to these sorts of articles.

I'm just saying, this is a sci/tech news site. I'd like it if my time spent reading comments added to my knowledge of the topic. Instead, that time doesn't give me any new topical knowledge. It just adds to my knowledge of the fact that yes, the majority of Slashdot members are quite hateful and condemning people, and truly despise religion and everyone who takes value from it.

You say something interesting,

After the thousandth time you're told you're going to Hell....it's time to bash back.

So, you're hitting them because someone - maybe a parent, or a former pastor - bashed you "for the thousandth time." I'm sorry you were hurt by someone telling you that you were going to Hell. Probably wasn't the best way to approach the situation. But bashing back isn't really the way to go. Everyone from Jesus to John Stuart Mill would agree on that. It's petty.

Moreover, ranting on Slashdot isn't bashing creationists. It's more like *trying* to hit a creationist and instead swiping at thin air. The creationists are in Southern Baptist churches, not on Slashdot. I'd bet that less than 0.1% of Slashdot readers are YECs...so ranting about how wrong you think YEC is on this site is (pardon the religious idiom) preaching to the choir. It's pointless. I'd like to read science instead of spending time scrolling across a bunch of people who already all believe, with all their heart, the same thing, and sit around telling one another how right that belief is, when they all already agree. I don't know of any "Christian Warriors" who are going to be reached by picking on creationism here.

I could direct myself to several sites which are dedicated to ridiculing Christianity. There are tons of those sites, and they're easy to find. Instead, I come to a tech news site. I just wish the comments would discuss tech news instead of how silly they think religion is, in keeping with the whole point of why Slashdot exists.