Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Researchers: Dinosaurs evolved a single physiology from the very start

arroba Email

Kind of an alternative use of the word “evolved,” no?

From “Light Shed On South Pole Dinosaurs” (ScienceDaily, Aug. 5, 2011), we learn:

Dog-sized dinosaurs that lived near the South Pole, sometimes in the dark for months at a time, had bone tissue very similar to dinosaurs that lived everywhere on the planet, according to a doctoral candidate at Montana State University.

That surprising fact falsifies a 13-year-old study and may help explain why dinosaurs were able to dominate the planet for 160 million years, said Holly Woodward, MSU graduate student in the Department of Earth Sciences and co-author of a paper published Aug. 3 in the journal PLoS ONE.

The scientists had expected to find that South Pole dinosaurs differed from others, as an earlier study implied.

“This tells us something very interesting; that basically from the very start, early dinosaurs, or even the ancestors of dinosaurs, evolved a physiology that allowed an entire group of animals to successfully exploit a multitude of environmental conditions for millions of years,” Woodward said.

We also learn that dinosaur bones have annual growth lines and those specimens that don’t have them are not yet a year old.

The south pole lands were indeed not there. Only at the biblical flood event did the earth separate suddenly from a single land mass. The presumption error here is indeed the lands were at the poles. Thats the mistake. not biology but geology. Evolutionism is always cheating with geology. Not faithful to its biological lover. So its kids don't look right. Robert Byers
africangenesis: "Darkness doesn’t necessarily mean no source of heat. Ocean currents deliver heat poleward." ==== It also doesn't mean that it was necessarily completely dark just because of the location of North and south Poles as we know them today. What if the atmospheric conditions were structured differently so as to allow reflective light from the winter sun just below the horizon to hit high atmospheric clouds above the poles to reflect radiant light onto the landscape surface below ??? I'm not talking heat here, just light. One thing that vegetation does seem to need is light and given the massive biodiversity found at BOTH poles, certainly some measure of light would have helped. Heat itself could/would have been from an underground hydrothermal source for which a much heavier atmosphere above would have helped trap and moderate the climate. Even the Aurora Borealis/Austalis (Polaris) could have behaved much differently. Bottomline is that science for the most part knows that the poles basically stand placed in their relative position today as they always have been. Today there is a phenomena over Arctic regions known here in Scandinavia as "Blue Light", though other colours such as red , orange and yellows can be seen. Here's a beautiful video for mere illustrative purposes only of what I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmwv94WKmnI One thing they do know for a FACT is that the poles temps never got below 15 or 14 celsius. Not only did it not snow, but it NEVER broke a frost. They actually know this due to the sad climate change phenomena known argumentively as "Global Warming" which has melted glaciers in both polar regions and revealed a treasure trove of actual mummified wood, branches, twigs, leaves, needles, seed pods and cones, etc. From these they've done various Oxygen Isotope studies to reveal the specific source of the water for which hydrated the vegetation. It's to lengthy to go into here and probably won't be appreciated by either side anyway, but it has revealed that storms DID NOT form normally as they do today over oceans and move over continents and fall as rain. Just incredible amounts of stuff in the research for which the actual scientists who originated the findings are baffled as to how to explain such a world. The key here is you cannot explain that world in terms of survival of life as we know it now and presently in the environment. Even life over 100 years ago does not behave as it does today. Of course this is due to so-called scientific progress which has destroyed a great portion of our globe die to an incessant desire for more and more raw natural resource material for profiteering economies. I'm in a hurry, so forgive the usual spelling errors. Eocene
Ilion, Darkness doesn't necessarily mean no source of heat. Ocean currents deliver heat poleward. Our period of successive ice ages and polar ice caps didn't occur until Antarctica reached the south pole and continental drift had closed the isthmus of Panama. africangenesis
Dr. Rec, Ilion. Well, I have no reason to doubt the authors, and I'm no Darwinist, but if the paleomagnetic data indicates 75°S and 80°S in the early cretaceous, and there were fossils of reptiles, I'm inclined to believe they live quite happily in whatever climate was present. Ice-caps were not a permanent feature of the planet, and hybernation is a perfectly reasonable way to spend 4-5 months of the year. Garter snakes survive quite nicely up to 60°N in the middle of Canada, and a more moderate climate (especially if surrounded by water) would let them survive much farther north. From an ID front-loading and genetic entropy perspective, I would expect that the earliest forms of any creature would be MORE robust and adaptable than those that followed. SCheesman
DrRec @ 4, What great scientistical faith and credulity you must have, that you can believe that reptiles, and fairly large ones at that, could have lived within either artic circle. Believing that the continents have floated around, such that territory once in the tropics is now arctic, is at least credible. But, to believe that territory which receives little to no light or heat for six months or more at a time can support a complex flora and fauna, of the sort that lives on and depends upon solar irradiation, seems to require the sort of credulity that only Darwinists, in this age of rampant skepticism, seem able to muster up. Ilion
Illion @2: The first sentence of the body of the open-access paper is: "During the Early Cretaceous, the state of Victoria, Australia, lay within the Antarctic Circle between the paleolatitudes of 75°S and 80°S." I guess it is easier to find and mock "scientistical statements" if you don't bother reading the science, or giving the authors some credit. DrREC
OT: Research team discovers new conducting properties of bacteria-produced wires - August 2011 Excerpt: The Geobacter filaments function like a true wire. In nature, Geobacter use their microbial nanowires to transfer electrons onto iron oxides, natural rust-like minerals in soil, that for Geobacter serve the same function as oxygen does for humans. "What Geobacter can do with its nanowires is akin to breathing through a snorkel that's 10 kilometers long," says Malvankar. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-team-properties-bacteria-produced-wires.html bornagain77
"Dog-sized dinosaurs that lived near the South Pole, sometimes in the dark for months at a time ..." One thing that always throws me about scientistical statements like this is that, as I understand it, Antarctica is supposed not to have always been located at or around the South Pole. Ilion
The dino-bird lung vindicated! Mung

Leave a Reply