Dragons Are Real!

Afternoon break from politics and such. Personally, I find this pretty cool

dragon bonPalaeontologists digging in a brickyard in southern Poland have discovered the fossilised remains of a dinosaur that they say is a previously unknown ancestor of the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

The predator dinosaur, given the working name “Dragon”, lived around 200 million years ago, team member Dr Tomasz Sulej of the Polish Science Academy told Reuters.

It was 5 metres (yards) long and moved on two legs. Its longest teeth were 7 cm (2 inches) long.

“This is a completely new type of dinosaur that was so far unknown,” Sulej said on Friday. “Nobody even expected that members of this group lived in that time, so this gives us new knowledge about the whole evolution of the T-Rex group.”

I’ll be interested to see what kind of portrayal the palaeontologists will come up, based on the bones.

I’d also wonder what this does to the whole Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate, but, that would be throwing gas on kerosene:D

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Dragons Are Real!”

  1. Silke says:

    Teach said: I’d also wonder what this does to the whole Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate

    No need to wonder. According to the article it gives new insight into the evolution of the T-Rex group (i.e. that ancestral species split and give rise to new species). I found it interesting that they also found a dicynodon – a reptile that was a direct predecessor of mammals.

  2. Yes, it is interesting. But, who says it was not designed that way, rather the just random mutation?

    Anyhow, it is cool as hell.

  3. Silke says:

    Who says evolution is “just random mutation?” Natural selection is anything but random. The point is, whenever a new fossil is found it is usually similar to but slightly different from an ancestral species and they are usually found in the same region and within the same geologic column – indicating cumulative change over very long periods of time.

    I agree. It is cool!

  4. Stacy says:

    From that, they’ll discover that they smelled like peanut butter and liked to fart in a field of daisies. I get totally p.o.’d when they assign characteristics to fossils that in now way portray anything.

  5. Uh, Silke? Random mutation is a huge part of Darwin’s theory.

    Ummm, peanut butter. It is interesting how they create a picture of a fossil. Then completely change it years later because it was wrong. 😉

  6. Silke says:

    Teach said: Random mutation is a huge part of Darwin’s theory.

    Actually Darwin never used the words “random mutation.” He called it “variation” because he had no knowledge of genetics or DNA at the time. He knew that offspring inherited certain characteristics from both parents but he didn’t know the exact mechanism. That’s why using the term “Darwinism” is outdated.

    Besides, you said “just random mutation” and completely ignored natural selection. That’s also a huge part of the modern theory of evolution.

    It is interesting how they create a picture of a fossil. Then completely change it years later because it was wrong.

    Yes, as you accumulate more information that’s how science works. It’s self-correcting.

  7. Stacy says:

    But Silke, they teach that as fact. You can watch documentary after documentary and see irresponsible presentation of theory as facts. My husband and I joke around about dinosaurs being pink with white polk-a-dots. I’m tired of the guessing.

  8. Silke says:

    Stacy, I see your point but I wouldn’t condemn all of science for a few bad documentaries.

    Personally, I think there is a lot of confusion about what facts and theories are in science. Facts are observations (independently confirmed and repeatable). Theories represent our best explanation for those observations. The best theories make useful predictions – so scientific theories that stand the test of time are actually more important than facts.

    I’m tired of the guessing

    Well if you’re looking for absolute certainty don’t blame science. By definition all science is provisional. It a progressive body of knowledge based on a self-correcting process. As we gather more data and our instruments become more precise that body of knowledge gets refined. I don’t see that as a weakness. I see that as science’s greatest strength.

    And remember, science is conducted by human beings who occasionally make mistakes – that’s why the peer-review process is so important.

Pirate's Cove