Study: Dinosaurs Lived With Predecessors

Fossils From New Mexico Show Dinosaurs Replaced Ancestors Gradually Over Millions Of Years

(AP)  Dinosaurs shared the Earth for millions of years with the species that were their ancestors, a new study concludes.

Dinosaurs arose in the Late Triassic, between 235 million and 200 million years ago, and came to dominate the planet in the Jurassic, 200 million to 120 million years ago.

Scientists had thought the dinosaurs rapidly replaced their ancestor species. Indeed, until 2003, when a creature called Silesaurus was discovered in Poland, no dinosaur precursors had been found from the Late Triassic.

Now, researchers report in the journal Science they have evidence from northern New Mexico that dinosaurs and their precursor species coexisted for tens of millions of years.

Matthew T. Carrano, curator of dinosauria at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said there has been a long-standing debate over whether dinosaurs replaced earlier species gradually or suddenly.

"What they have is a snapshot of the transition, and it's clear there is a persistent environment with dinosaurs and these other older animals. So, at least in this place in the southwestern U.S., it was not abrupt," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.

"Finding dinosaur precursors ... together with dinosaurs tells us something about the pace of changeover. If there was any competition between the precursors and dinosaurs, then it was a very prolonged competition," Randall Irmis, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley and co-author of the report, said in a statement.

The team reported finding 1,300 fossil specimens, including several complete bones, at Hayden Quarry at Ghost Ranch, near Abiquiu, N.M., an area made famous through the paintings of Georgia O'Keeffe.

There were no complete skeletons, and researchers are continuing to work at the site.

Their finds included bones from both early dinosaurs and dinosaur precursors as well as remains of crocodile ancestors, fish and amphibians, all dating between 220 million and 210 million years ago.

Included were leg bones of the carnivorous Chindesaurus bryansmalli, a close relative of the Coelophysis, a well-known Triassic dinosaur. They said both walked on two legs, reminiscent of the much later Velociraptor depicted in the film "Jurassic Park."

They also found remains of a Dromomeron romeri, a relative of the 235 million-year-old Argentinian middle Triassic precursor called Lagerpeton. Dromomeron was between three and five feet long, the authors concluded.

Another discovery was an unnamed, four-footed beaked grazer about three times the size of Dromomeron, they said.

The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Fund and the Jurassic Foundation.

[sy2502]

We know you want to shut up the Christian voice actornaught, as do many socialists and atheists on these boards.
Posted by singinrick at 11:40 PM : Jul 21, 2007

That is not true rick, and although I can't speak for all atheists here, I do think that hypothesis, like creationism, that have nothing to do with science should stay out of science classes and science forums. They have their place in philosophy, mythology, sociology, etc. Poking holes in well established science does not qualify as science, if you don't offer scientifically viable and verifiable alternatives. Show me the equations for god and creation. Tell me what scientific experiments we can conduct to verify creationism. Give me predictions for natural behavior that I can observe and confirm. That's what science is. Reciting bible passages is not science. Appeal to faith is not science. Blaming the devil is not science. Calling scientists evil is not science.

[hwk_i67]

The devil has done a number on millions since corrupting a man name Charles Darwin. He has even successfully deceived several "Christian" denominations with this atheistic doctrine of evolution.

Posted by singinrick at 07:31 PM : Jul 21, 2007

I've read this article and the following posts with much amusement and bemusement. And while I agree with the insulting another human being for the opinions and beliefs is childish and immature, comments like this one smack of ignorance.

Singingrick, just because Charles Darwin found the link between species over time, this does not necessarily make him "evil" or "deceived." I choose to believe (I consider myself a scientist AND a Christian) that he instead saw the wonders of God's works in their minutest detail. Remember, the bible is not the book of God; it is the book of man, and therefore, will be an interpretation of God's word.

To not accept at least in some degree that evolution did occur on this planet, you plead ignorance to that which is all around you and demean God's work.

Peace and tolerance.

[actornaught]

NOT intolerant of christians, just s'ick & his off topic messiah complex clogging up the comments sections of article after article.

Report Abuse, people...

[jankebenz]

Bobgee: read proverbs19:2-3 or better yet the whole book, it will reveal logic and stupidity and where the problem lies

[valendog10]

Gaye5 wrote:"However the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all natural systems degenerate when left to themselves..."

Point of clarification: evolutionary theory does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

In essence, the 2nd law states that for a *closed* system, the disorder (quantified as 'entropy') will tend to increase over time. However, the biosphere (or, for the purposes of this discussion--the Earth) is a very poor approximation to a closed system (i.e., one in which no energy--be it organized like light or work, or disorganized like heat--is allowed to be exchanged between the system and its surroundings). Naturally, the Earth is constantly bathed by the radiance of the sun (of course an enormous source of energy to the biosphere), and if the solar system were treated as a closed system (pretty good approximation), then any slight decrease in entropy that could be associated with life on Earth-or its evolution-would be dwarfed (by orders of magnitude) by the entropy of the sun. Yes, living things do represent self-organizing systems, but they are by no means closed systems, and they must do this at the expense of an increase in entropy on some larger scale. Evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics any more than the development of a baby in its mother's womb, or the organization of soap molecules into micelles (achieved primarily by the maximizing the disorder/freedom of the surrounding water molecules-which also stabilizes cellular membranes).

[jankebenz]

Gentryfunk : any branch of biology starts at the basic cell, a single microscopic single cell,yet that little cell is so complex that all of science with all of modern technology can not decipher the complete genetic or molecular structure thereof,can not duplicate or imitate it , much less put any form of life into anything, save artificial. So did life evolve? obviously not, it had to be created as in the "breath of life" found in Genesis

[gaye5]

afmca you are so funny with your first statement, but in a way WalMart is right, Animals which are described in the bible sound very much like the Dinosaurs.
passerby2, There is no need to put someone down for their opinions, which we are all aloud to to voice and if you don't like what singingrick or others say, just don't read their posts, but please don't lower the tone of the many excellent comments with nastiness..
Many scientists don't believe in evolution but the media wont print it.. I have an excellent video from a Scientist Dr Karl Bough, who used to believe in evolution, then he realized it is impossible and he now debunks evolution..

[gaye5]

cofmanaaron, as a student of a science you would perhaps have learn't that many scientists become aware of something greater than just chance. I wonder why, could it be that in realising the complexity of the universes and even the complexity of a unicellular organisms that they feel that there has to be another reason for every thing to exist.

Scientific beliefs are changing all the time. Most biologists believe that the modern theory of evolution arose from a history of mutations, but from what I have read, I thought that there was a difficulty in mutations breeding, however if one something did breed it only takes about 5 to 7 generations of mating with the normal of its kind for it to be totally normal again, so for it to find another which has mutated would be a far greater chance.

Evolutionists say that changes occur in living organisms to help increase their adaptability making them better and better.. I didn't know that the DNA can change and I thought that they could only produce what was in the DNA. Of course adoptions occur like the white butterfly and the black butterfly, but if it wasn't in its DNA it wouldn't have happened.
However the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. This is why everything falls apart and decays over time, it does NOT improve other than things adapt, and yes the weaker ones die off, but that is not evolution...

[gentryfunk-2009]

I am not surprised that creationists have commented here; what does surprise me is the questions Singinrick reveal that he does not understand or know the scientific method much less have any basic understanding of cellular biology.

So, singinrick and any other creationists out there: take a look at cellular biology (or for that matter any other branch of scientific biology) and then come back. You cannot ask intelligent questions if you don't already know something about the process. For example, you ask, "why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind?" If you understand why species reproduce, then you would understand why producing more makes that species more viable as a group. Fewer offspring generally means fewer descendents and fewer chances to pass on DNA. (You can find a few exceptions that would help your arguments, BTW).

[gaye5]

The article says that Dinosaurs shared the Earth for millions of years with the species that were their ancestors.

If they shared the earth together and if one evolved?? from the other they would of course been much the same and of course they would have mated causing there to be no difference between them unless of course there was a sudden massive change in the species, thus they didn't mate, or is it that it was just totally another species and man is just trying to make a monkey of himself again..

I would love to have the faith of an evolutionist, who believes that first of all there was totally nothing out there and then nothing exploded, hmmm.
then that nothing which had exploded turned into a one cell which then turned into Dinosaurs, viruses, trees, insects fish etc.. wow.then they all became smaller to what we have now. When we see the different sizes of dogs we would have to presume that they are all evolving, but no wait, they are all the same species and will mate with each other if free to do so...
Then we have Chinese, Germans, Africans etc who are all different but they are all from the same species.. If all races intermarried it would cause us to become one race so why didn't these Dinosaurs???
Could it possibly be because they were actually a different species and thus to different.
If you believe that nothing became Dinosaurs then you can believe in anything.