Reverend AtheiStar Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060905_dinosaur.htm Most dinosaurs still unaccounted for, study finds Sept. 5, 2006 Courtesy University of Pennsylvania and World Science staff The golden age of dinosaur discovery is yet to come, two researchers say in a study that suggests most types of dinosaurs are still undiscovered. Dinosaur tracks on the banks of the Purgatoire River in southeastern Colorado. (Courtesy U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The scientists used a statistical method to estimate the total number of dinosaur genera—taxonomic groups each containing one or more species—based on finds to date. Their result: 71 percent of dinosaur genera have yet to be unearthed, not counting dinosaurs that may be undiscoverable because they didn’t fossilize. Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Steve C. Wang of Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, Penn. detailed the findings in this week’s advance online issue of the research journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers also offered evidence that dinosaur populations were stable shortly before their extinction 65 million years ago. Dodson proposes that 1,850 genera will eventually be discovered, in total. Since dinosaur research began in earnest in the 19th century, only 527 genera have so far been found, although that number is rising at the rate of 10 to 20 per year. “It’s a safe bet that a child born today could expect a very fruitful career in dinosaur paleontology,” said Dodson. But “the child’s grandchildren won’t be so fortunate, as new discoveries will likely decline sharply in the early 22nd century.” The researchers predicted that 75 percent of discoverable genera will be found within a century and 90 percent within the next 140 years. “The 1990s saw an 85% increase in the number of new fossil discoveries,” Dodson said. The diversity of dinosaur explorers is also on the rise, he added. Historically, Dodson contends, dinosaur discovery was largely in the hands of British, Canadian and American researchers. But in recent decades the discovery of new fossil beds, especially in China and Mongolia and South America, has opened the field to many researchers from those countries. Dodson and Wang’s estimates for total dinosaur diversity take into account the number of dinosaurs already found, the rate of discovery and potential richness of the fossil locations that can be reasonably explored. It’s unknown whether the calculation of discoverable genera mirrors the actual diversity of dinosaurs that lived, the pair said, since it’s estimated that nearly half of dinosaur genera left no fossil evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I've always figured this to be the case. If we could hop into a time machine and actually go back to the Cretaceous and the Jurrassic, i bet what we'd find would be a lot different than what we think we know about dinosaurs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 My first reaction to this is Duh! Considering the difficulties not only in fossilization itself, which is a nasty hurdle to get over, but also in finding what little has been fossilized. I can't remember the last time I had the idea that we had found most of the dinosaurs. This quote sums it up nicely It’s unknown whether the calculation of discoverable genera mirrors the actual diversity of dinosaurs that lived, the pair said, since it’s estimated that nearly half of dinosaur genera left no fossil evidence. I bet that estimate is even a bit optimistic. [Holy shit in a bag, it's Neil!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted September 10, 2006 Author Share Posted September 10, 2006 I've always figured this to be the case. If we could hop into a time machine and actually go back to the Cretaceous and the Jurrassic, i bet what we'd find would be a lot different than what we think we know about dinosaurs now. Oh, how wonderful that would be! You could actually witness evolution in reverse! You could stare into the eyes of our ancestors all the way back. It'd have to be outfitted with some kind of cloaking decice, though, as your very presence would change the future if you impacted it it any way. My first reaction to this is Duh! Considering the difficulties not only in fossilization itself, which is a nasty hurdle to get over, but also in finding what little has been fossilized. I can't remember the last time I had the idea that we had found most of the dinosaurs. This quote sums it up nicely It’s unknown whether the calculation of discoverable genera mirrors the actual diversity of dinosaurs that lived, the pair said, since it’s estimated that nearly half of dinosaur genera left no fossil evidence. I bet that estimate is even a bit optimistic. [Holy shit in a bag, it's Neil!] Just because it's painfully obvious, that doesn't mean that everyone realizes this truth. Creationists instantly come to mind. Studies like this are great to point to when they ask where the rest of the fossils are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Just because it's painfully obvious, that doesn't mean that everyone realizes this truth. Creationists instantly come to mind. Studies like this are great to point to when they ask where the rest of the fossils are.Good point, although in many cases it doesn't matter if you have a source or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted September 12, 2006 Author Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just because it's painfully obvious, that doesn't mean that everyone realizes this truth. Creationists instantly come to mind. Studies like this are great to point to when they ask where the rest of the fossils are.Good point, although in many cases it doesn't matter if you have a source or not. lol... Yeah, sadly that is true sometimes. You can present a case filled to the brim with wonderful evidence and it just doesn't reach them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Satan sure has been busy burying all those bones to make god fearing people stray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted September 14, 2006 Author Share Posted September 14, 2006 Satan sure has been busy burying all those bones to make god fearing people stray. In that same vein: God sure has been busy pulling the strings of his puppet, Satan, for him to bury all those bones! lol... We all know a good mob boss works through many intermediates as to allay blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 When I was a kid, I was fascinated by dinosaurs, but of course the ones that got the attention were the "heavies"...tyrannosaurus, bronchosaurus, you know...the giants. Since then, I've read (somewhere) that most so-called dinosaurs were no bigger than the average chicken, and probably resembled them in some ways. It could be interesting as all this paleontological effort unfolds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts