Human's "Missing Link" found

chcr said:
Umm... All apes are related to "modern humans." In fact, we're not just related to apes. "Modern humans" (Homo sapiens) are in fact a species of the great ape family.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: So are cetaceans, if you want to go that far. Perhaps I should've said 'direct descendant'...

chcr said:
Here you go. You'll have to register but I highly recommend it.
Click to expand...
 
Horny new 'ballerina' Tyrannosaur was light on its feet


Delicate dino coexisted uneasily with bigger brethren

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Biology, 6th October 2009 10:06 GMT



Archaeologists say they have discovered a new kind of tyrannosaurus, very different to the big bruiser tyrannosaurs already well known. The new dino was slim, light on its feet, horny and partial to meat, according to the boffins.
A altai, the new horny lightweight tyrannosaur. Credit: Jason Brougham


"Compared to Tyrannosaurus, this new animal is like a ballerina," says Stephen Brusatte of the American Museum of Natural History.

"Not all tyrannosaurs were megapredators adapted for stalking and dismembering large prey. Some tyrannosaurs were small and slender," adds the researcher.

The new, more graceful tyrannosaur is named Alioramus altai. Its fossilised remains were discovered during a 2001 bone-digging expedition to the Gobi Desert in Mongolia co-chiefed by the Museum's paleontology chief, Mark Norell.

A. altai apparently has a similar skeleton to larger Tyrannosaur-type dinos such as Tarbosaurus, Alioramus, Gorgosaurus etc. But among these burly heavyweights, A. altai was surely the butt of cruel locker-room bullying and dino towel-snapping, weighing in at a puny 800 pounds or so - half the weight of the regular tyrannosaurs. The ballerina-esque, "gracile" A. altai also differed from the big boys in having horns and an elongated snout.

"This fossil reveals an entirely new body type among tyrannosaurs, a group we thought we understood pretty well," says Norell. "The different body forms probably allowed Alioramus and Tarbosaurus to coexist."

The comparatively sensitive and delicate little tyrannosaurs still liked meat, though, probably going for smaller prey as they would be unable to cope with really big bones.
Click to expand...

source

I wonder how many times a week they say those exact same words.
 
See my previous statement about the mindset a 'scientist' is supposed to carry ... Science is supposed to be about discovery. But anytime a 'scientist' thinks 'we understand this' they blind themselves to what may come next ... even if it's decades later.

That's the mistake the church has made, and that scien-tic love to bash on.
 
Yes, it is. Which is why it's stupid to see so many discoveries labeled as unexpected.

Drawing conclusions, when the pieces aren't all there is akin to prognosticating. Fun for awhile but hardly useful.

Let them tell us what they know & leave the crystal balls to ther Haitiian nuts.
 
I saw a show about some guy's theory that T-Rex was a scavenger and not a predator. He based his theory on the fact that it had huge olfactory senses and that since the femur was so long compared to the lower leg, it was too slow to out run its prey.

I did not agree with him, however, it did get me thinking. There is strong evidence that humans evolved to run down their prey (not out run, run down). A human in top shape, i.e. not me, can run after deer ect... until they simply can't run any longer. At that point, it is just a matter of thumping 'em and mucking 'em on down.

This is where that long femur comes in. You run slow, but you can run a long time. Now, of course, you need a way to keep track of your prey while it runs ahead. Our eyes are pretty poor in most respects to other animals, but we do see shapes and colors a lot better. Perhaps this is what allowed us to see an animal trying to hide in the brush. Perhaps T-Rex hunted the same way, but used his nose to keep track, instead of his eyes.

Is this theory correct? Yes. All theories are correct until they break down. Take a flat earth theory. It is correct if you are talking about about limited distances. It breaks down when you try to go too far with it. It still works though for building a patio, house, etc... The theory of evolution may some day find its limits, but for now it works just fine.
 
Gonz said:
Yes, it is. Which is why it's stupid to see so many discoveries labeled as unexpected.

Drawing conclusions, when the pieces aren't all there is akin to prognosticating. Fun for awhile but hardly useful.

Let them tell us what they know & leave the crystal balls to ther Haitiian nuts.
Click to expand...
Someone discovered that Science can be heavily politicized as well as profitable if used as political leverage.

Global warming fear mongering is a clear example of this, although not the first.

Good Science can hold up in reasonable open debate, just ask Algore.
 
The anti-global warming crowd does not hold up in reasonable open debate. Yet the it gets politicized and made profitable if the oil companies convince enough to ignore the facts in favor of their profits.
 
spike said:
The anti-global warming crowd does not hold up in reasonable open debate. Yet the it gets politicized and made profitable if the oil companies convince enough to ignore the facts in favor of their profits.
Click to expand...
That must be why Algore accepts so many debates with notable scientist that do not agree with him isn't it?
 
ResearchMonkey said:
That must be why Algore accepts so many debates with notable scientist that do not agree with him isn't it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what Gore's debate record is or what it would prove. However most scientists in the field ...

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground.[22] Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls. [23][24][25]

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[26] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[27] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.

In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[28] The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[29][30]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Consensus

Yeah Wiki, sourced with facts. There's much more consensus if you care to read the whole article.

Doing something about your effect on the environment is all about taking personal responsibility.
 
As you can see, all that C02 we're pumping into the atmosphere is having a disastrous effect on Neptune as well.

neptunetempsr.jpg


I know, we're not talking about Neptune.
 
spike said:
I'm not sure what you think that graph showed. Wanna break it down?
Click to expand...

Sun-spots and other solar activity anomalies have a closer link to our mean average temperature than the level of CO2 in our atmosphere does... as evidenced by another planet with a similar level of activity on their average temperature without human activity taken into effect.
 
MrBishop said:
Sun-spots and other solar activity anomalies have a closer link to our mean average temperature than the level of CO2 in our atmosphere does... as evidenced by another planet with a similar level of activity on their average temperature without human activity taken into effect.
Click to expand...

Hey hey hey! The debate is over! Capitalist Pigs are the only possible cause of global warming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top