NationStates Jolt Archive


The Conventional Theory of Evolution Contradicted?

Feuerlande
13-01-2005, 21:16
This was originally posted in a small section of my ISP, CompuServes, sign on page. What do you think about this?



Bizarre Find Rewrites History of Mammals

The fossilized remains of a tiny dinosaur have been found inside the stomach of a mammal. The bizarre discovery in northeast China in the rich fossil beds of Liaoning province has rewritten the history of mammals as this offers the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago, reports The Associated Press.

Conventional evolutionary theory has just been contradicted. It's always been assumed that early mammals were incapable of attacking and eating a dinosaur because those early mammals were no bigger than a chipmunk and were likely quite timid in the mammoth shadow cast by giant dinosaurs. Turns out, that's all wrong. In this particular case, the mammal was about the size of a large cat and the unlucky dinosaur was a very young "parrot dinosaur" that was just 5 inches long. The dinosaur-eater, which measured just 2 feet long and weighed about 15 pounds, belongs to a species called Repenomamus robustus, which was known previously only from skull fragments, notes AP. It has no modern relatives.

There was another big find at the same site: A mammal fossil that is the size of a modern dog, making it by far the largest early mammal ever found. It was gigantic for its time--about 20 times larger than most mammals living in the early Cretaceous Period, notes AP. This, too, is rewriting the history book of mammals. Now scientists think the time period known as the Age of Dinosaurs may have been very different than we have always thought. While mammals probably never attacked the 85-ton dinosaurs, smaller dinosaurs may well have been on the dinner menu for some meat-eating mammals. "This new evidence gives us a drastically new picture," paleontologist Meng Jin of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City and a co-author of the study, told AP.

It's long been thought that mammals were small in this time period because the larger dinosaurs were hunting them, and they only grew larger when dinosaurs became extinct. Now the discovery of this much larger mammal is reversing some of that speculation. The study findings were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
CthulhuFhtagn
13-01-2005, 21:21
This was originally posted in a small section of my ISP, CompuServes, sign on page. What do you think about this?
It doesn't contradict the theory of evolution at all. The only that that it contradicts is the Theory of Journalists Having an Understanding of Science.
Sdaeriji
13-01-2005, 21:23
How does that in any way contradict evolution?
Drunk commies
13-01-2005, 21:23
It actually clarifies the theory of evolution by fleshing out the fossil record. It shows that dog-sized mammals evolved earlier than previous evidence indicated.
CelebrityFrogs
13-01-2005, 21:24
The original theory of evolution contradicted?

Nah. The theory is about how evolution occurs, not what evolved and when!
Feuerlande
13-01-2005, 21:31
It doesn't contradict the theory of evolution at all. The only that that it contradicts is the Theory of Journalists Having an Understanding of Science.

That's what I had first suspected. But I figured this might be a good topic of discussion here.
E B Guvegrra
13-01-2005, 22:00
That's what I had first suspected. But I figured this might be a good topic of discussion here.Discussion? About evolution? Here? :)
Poptartrea
13-01-2005, 22:04
Seems like scientist's perception of mammals during whatever period that was in is contradicted, not evolution itself.
Tactical Grace
13-01-2005, 22:04
Could be a hoax, there have been pretty big palaentological hoaxes in China before. In which case it could be years before people get to the bottom of it.
You Forgot Poland
13-01-2005, 22:20
Nice try, science. Everybody knows that parrot-sized-dinosaur-eating dog-things were created by God 6,914 years ago, in the image of His own parrot-sized-dinosaur-eating dog-thing.
Drunk commies
13-01-2005, 22:23
Nice try, science. Everybody knows that parrot-sized-dinosaur-eating dog-things were created by God 6,914 years ago, in the image of His own parrot-sized-dinosaur-eating dog-thing.
What was the collar made of?
Hughski
13-01-2005, 22:34
What was the collar made of?

Holy Leather.
Drunk commies
13-01-2005, 22:36
Holy Leather.
I was hoping for plastic. That would really blow everyone's mind.
Hughski
13-01-2005, 22:37
I was hoping for plastic. That would really blow everyone's mind.

No no, the muzzle was made of Holy Plastic.
You Forgot Poland
13-01-2005, 22:39
What was the collar made of?

Why, parrot-sized-dinosaur-eating dog-thing rib, of course.
Hughski
13-01-2005, 22:41
Bah, and they said my book was factually correct! LIES!
Dempublicents
13-01-2005, 23:15
It actually clarifies the theory of evolution by fleshing out the fossil record. It shows that dog-sized mammals evolved earlier than previous evidence indicated.

Yay! Science at work! =)
Roxleys
14-01-2005, 12:54
Hehe, you guys are cracking me up. :) I think any scientist would tell you that science doesn't have all the answers yet (that would take all the fun out of it, for one thing) but I don't see how this disproves evolution...the dinosaurs did live and now don't; mammals started at some point and still do. Where's the conflict?
Tactical Grace
14-01-2005, 13:42
The journalist screwed up there. (S)he obviously has no clear understanding of what evolution is. It is certainly not about some fossilized animal's diet.
Pithica
14-01-2005, 16:17
Seems like scientist's perception of mammals during whatever period that was in is contradicted, not evolution itself.

That's only if it isn't like some other 'major finds' that have come out to be hoaxes.

Of course, it would provide a better explanation for the 'mammal explosion' 60ish Million years ago. Conventional theory only had a small number of not very diverse mammal species growing into a large number of very diverse. If mammal populations were higher and more diverse (and especially larger) earlier, it would straighten the curve a little and strengthen evolutionary theory as it would increase the odds of a mammal takeover, when whatever killed off the dinosaurs finally got them.
E B Guvegrra
17-01-2005, 11:37
That's only if it isn't like some other 'major finds' that have come out to be hoaxes.

Of course, it would provide a better explanation for the 'mammal explosion' 60ish Million years ago. Conventional theory only had a small number of not very diverse mammal species growing into a large number of very diverse. If mammal populations were higher and more diverse (and especially larger) earlier, it would straighten the curve a little and strengthen evolutionary theory as it would increase the odds of a mammal takeover, when whatever killed off the dinosaurs finally got them.It slightly scotches the "Mammals survived because they were all small burrowing creatures that escaped the flames/dust/continuous winters/whatever" theory, but then crocodiles survived (essentially estivating, using the mechanism that Saharan crocodiles use today?) and so I'm happy to accept that it tipped the balance enough for the mammals to take over, and if there were larger Mammals around then they may or may not have survived, but we know from emperical evidence (our existence and our observations of other mammals' existences) that some did (and not necessarily this dinophage discovery) the end result being a Mammalian Dynasty.

(Though to be fair to the other dominant forms of life, we must not forget that the Band Of Beetles outnumber us, in variety, quantity and even combined weight, and the Bacterium Massive outdo even them, but decreasingly count because they are increasingly "not anything like us"... Still, at least it's an advance on a pure anthropocentric POV... :))