Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

When Dinosaurs Battled Crurotarsans 181

Posted by kdawson from the thunder-gator dept.
onehitwonder writes "Reuters reported yesterday on new scientific research that indicates how dinosaurs beat out another early reptilian species for domination of the earth. Roughly 200 million years ago, dinosaurs battled with another dinosaur-like animal, the crurotarsan, which is related to the crocodile. Some species grew to 39 feet long, according to the article, at an epoch when few dinosaurs exceeded 10 feet in length. Scientists used to believe that dinosaurs beat out the crurotarsans because the dinosaurs were physiologically superior. But new research indicates that dinosaurs might have won out due to a large stroke of cosmic luck, the nature of which is speculative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When Dinosaurs Battled Crurotarsans More

When Dinosaurs Battled Crurotarsans

Comments Filter:

  • Errata (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bemopolis ( 698691 ) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:12AM (#24978785)

    Roughly 6000 years ago, dinosaurs battled with another dinosaur-like animal,

    Fixed that for you, Kansas.

    • Re:Errata (Score:5, Funny)

      by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:16AM (#24978859) Journal

      Roughly 6000 years ago, dinosaurs snuggled and played with another dinosaur-like animal,

      Fixed that for you, Kansas.

      Fixed your fix. This was the garden of Eden, remember? Everybody loved everybody in Eden.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Empiric ( 675968 )

        And outside this particular garden was the rest of the Earth, surrounded by the people and animals who pre-existed the ones in said garden.

        If you were from Kansas, you'd have read what it says.

        Well, maybe not Kansas, but certainly Alexandria.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Poltras ( 680608 )

          Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          And outside this particular garden was the rest of the Earth, surrounded by the people and animals who pre-existed the ones in said garden.

          If you were from Kansas, you'd have read what it says.

          Well, maybe not Kansas, but certainly Alexandria.

          Huh? Read what WHAT says? If I was from Alexandria, would this post make more sense to me?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Empiric ( 675968 )
            If I was from Alexandria, would this post make more sense to me?

            Probably.

            But don't worry. Natural Deselection will sort it out for both of us.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jamesh ( 87723 )

              But don't worry. Natural Deselection will sort it out for both of us.

              Or possibly, Intelligent Redesign.

      • Fixed your fix. This was the garden of Eden, remember? Everybody loved everybody in Eden.

        What, like hot dinosaur on crurotarsan action, or just a friendly cuddle? ;-)

        Cheers

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          I don't think that in the fundies minds there was any sex at all going on in Eden. Sex is nasty and dirty and there wasn't any of that. But seeing as how nobody was mortal yet, and nobody ate anybody else, breeding probably wasn't necessary. And if it was, well, I think you had a friendly cuddle and maybe rubbed your barbie doll crotches together and then God flew down in the form of a stork and pulled a baby out of a cabbage patch for you. Or something.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by sumdumass ( 711423 )

            Lol.. Sex wasn't even a consideration until Eve ate the apple.

            But I don't know any fundies that think sex is nasty or dirty, they think it is private and talking about it or displaying it to others is nasty and dirty. A big difference there if you care to notice. I'm betting that to some degree, you will agree with that too. I mean do you want someone to watch your wife get undressed and masturbate herself because you don't finish the job? Or do you want someone watching you masturbate because she won't giv

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by spun ( 1352 )

              Erm, the wife and I have an open marriage. We have three ways. We've been to orgies. We discuss sex in frank and matter of fact ways with our friends. We are not at all embarrassed by sex, and consider it private only in that we don't do it in public. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, as long as there are no kids present. The only reason that people think it should be private is because they think it is dirty, like taking a dump.

              • Seriously, I think whoever modded this 'flamebait' must be a teensy bit jealous. Off topic, I could see, but flamebait? Just because it made your sad little basement dwelling ass jealous, and made you feel like flaming me, does not make the above comment flamebait.

                Tell you what, sad little virginal mods, I'm going out with a new hot chick this Saturday, I'll screw her once extra just for y'all.

                • Re:Flamebait? Jealous Much? (Score:5, Funny)

                  by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Friday September 12, 2008 @02:53PM (#24983307)

                  Tell you what, sad little virginal mods, I'm going out with a new hot chick this Saturday, I'll screw her once extra just for y'all.

                  You tell em! We studs gotta stick together.

                  I'm actually going to be getting it on with Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, Avril Lavigne, Lacey Chabert, and Keira Knightly tomorrow night. I've saved Natalie Portman and the hot tub full of grits for Sunday.

                  So just get yer jealous selves outta here and let a playa play.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Trogre ( 513942 )

                Erm, the wife and I have an open marriage

                You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by hkmwbz ( 531650 )

                  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

                  Why?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by spun ( 1352 )

                  We're married under the law, as witnessed by our friends and family and certified by the State of California. We aren't religious, so we never sought the blessings of such. We've been together eight years, and married for five. We're not only married, we're doing a better job of it than many people.

              • Lol.. No, they think it should be private because it is intimate as in their intimate relationship. [wikipedia.org]

                It isn't like taking a dump and from your post, I'm going to suggest that you have never experienced that type of love or meaningful relationship which is why you equate if with defecation.

                I'm sure your having fun in your open marriage. But your missing out on a few of the better things in life. It doesn't matter to me, you can chase the golden goose all you want. But I think you have a lot to learn about rela

                • If anything, it looks like you have a lot to learn about people, and how different they really can be.

                  • Different doesn't mean more fulfilled. I Understand how people are different and all, I even understand how people want to be different. I even know people that are different.

                    When the intimacy in a relationship breaks down, that is when people go looking for other relationships to supplement what they are lacking in their own. It is often the cause of infidelity and often divorce even though money issues and stress is are cited the most. It may be that people have never experienced a real intimate relations

                    • I could list every single one of the claims you make and tell you why they aren't close to being universally true, but it really all ends up in that all of your assumptions about what people want, think and feel in certain situations represent a failure to understand that all people are different, and want, think and feel in their own ways - ways that aren't always the ways that you describe.

                    • Lol.. No. The point isn't that all people want that. It isn't that all people enjoy that. It is that people have that and the Parents lack of ability to understand it means he doesn't know what he is missing.

                      You can want to call a women that has had more strange dick them most porn stars a wife. That's your prerogative. You could be perfectly fine with your wife/girlfriend having to find sexual satisfaction outside her relationship with you, that's your choice. But because you can't understand the intimacy

                    • It seems that everything you're arguing could be applied in reverse.

                      You say that "different doesn't mean more fulfilled" in a post where you more or less provide nothing but your take on why the parent is wrong. If different doesn't mean more fulfilled, then who are you to say that your difference to him is more fulfilling than his difference to you?

                      You repeatedly say that the parent to your post is missing out on things, and you claim that his views on intimacy are wrong, and that yours are right. You clai

                    • It seems that everything you're arguing could be applied in reverse.

                      You say that "different doesn't mean more fulfilled" in a post where you more or less provide nothing but your take on why the parent is wrong. If different doesn't mean more fulfilled, then who are you to say that your difference to him is more fulfilling than his difference to you?

                      No, it couldn't be applies in reverse. And no, it isn't more fulfilling. He/she is looking for many mates to make up for the inefficiencies and abilities of

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by spun ( 1352 )

                  I've been with my wife for eight years, and married for five. We were monogamous for the first five years. I have also had a five year and three year monogamous relationship (living together but not married). I have had as much love and meaning in my relationships as an human being on the planet.

                  I wasn't equating relationships with taking a dump, once again you fail basic reading comprehension. I said 'people,' as in other people, think sex is dirty, like taking a dump. Sex, not relationships. Other people,

              • they think it is dirty, like taking a dump.

                I thought Germans were supposed to be into that sort of thing.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by spun ( 1352 )

                  "Mom, if you were ever in a German Schiesse video, you'd tell me, right?"

                  "Of course, sweetykins!"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aliquis ( 678370 )

        Except Adam and Eve because they got no apples so they was all grumpy.

    • You know, that's totally ridiculous...

      I'm not from Kansas. I do believe in God, yet, I also believe that the bible and the timelines involved were adjusted to something meaningful to the people of the time.

      ie - they didn't understand millions/billions/trillions - they didn't understand genetics - they had no clue about space / cosmos.

      The dates / times / timelines in the bible and other religious books all have to be taken with a grain of salt (or was it a peck). Before people, who can say how long a *day*

      • He wasn't referring to people like you. He was commenting on people who want to take it literally and get mad at anyone suggesting that anything happened more than approx 6000 ago.

        You are obviously not one of those people, so relax.

        • Well, the problem is that the bible says nothing about 6000 years. That was just a supposed time line a church came up with based around the genealogy laid out in the bible. So both, saying it is true as well as saying that all religious people believe because it's in the bible is pretty much wrong/false.

      • You might believe that way, but there's literally millions of Americans who do not. They believe the Earth really is 6500 years old. Most of them will probably be voting for McCain/Palin, since Palin also believes the same thing.

        It'd be really nice if all Christians believed the way you do; then we wouldn't have all these silly arguments about creationism, the age of the earth, etc. popping up here. Many people like me would have a much better opinion of Christians and Christianity in general too. Unfor

        • It'd be really nice if all Christians believed the way you do; then we wouldn't have all these silly arguments about creationism, the age of the earth, etc. popping up here.

          I have yet to see a thread started where a christian injected that the earth is only 6000 or so years old. Every thread on every forum that I can remember in the 15+ years I have been on the internet, it is always someone making fun of the entire 6000 year thing that starts it. So maybe if people like you wouldn't go out of your way to

          • I have yet to see a thread started where a christian injected that the earth is only 6000 or so years old.

            There are two possible explanations for that.

            1) Such people don't exist.
            2) Such people don't know how to use a computer.

            I know where I'd put my money...

            • Here is a third explanation: people don't go into hostile environments and make claims that they know will cause an issue unless they are trolling. Not too many of the Holy Rollers will troll the internet. The ones who do probably stick with AOL.

              I think people are smart enough to know that even though they believe something else, Science uses X explanations and they have to use it when dealing with science. It typically, at least in my experience, doesn't bother someone who is committed to the bible to play

    • Is "beat out" some sort of horrible sexual reference or just another inane Americanism ?

  • Crurotarsans are... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by metamechanical ( 545566 ) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:18AM (#24978879)
    some kinda crocodile? Aw, here and I had this pegged for them to be the monster of the week on the SciFi late night "movie" "specials".

    • It does sound like a great idea for a made-for-scifi movie.

      note that the made-for-scifi is a qualifier to movie. It would be horrible idea for a movie, which means it's very appropriate for a made-for-scifi. Watching a made-for-scifi movie is like drinking a bottle of vodka without any of the good side effects.

      • That's not vodka at all, sir. I believe this would dovetail more neatly into the great pantheon of bum wines [bumwine.com]: your Mad Dog 20/20, Thunderbird, and what have you. :)
        • Clearly you never tried Nikolai vodka. 1L 100 proof in an easy grip bottle for $7 in PA(which has relatively high excise taxes). My friend and I back when we were PCS(poor college students)had $7 between us and calculated that was the most alcohol we could buy....God I miss college.
      • When I read the second sentence of the summary, I started hearing it in Don LaFontaine's [wikipedia.org] voice: "200 million years ago, in a world where dinosaurs and crurotarsans struggled for supremacy..."

        • Yeah I did, and it was going fine until I tried to figure out how to pronounce "crurotarsans."

          Can someone help me out?

          • Yeah I did, and it was going fine until I tried to figure out how to pronounce "crurotarsans."

            Can someone help me out?

            I'm guessing it's something like "crew-row-tar-zans". Not exactly something that rolls off the tongue, is it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      You mean "crurotarsan" might be derived from a Japanese proper name like "Krurota-san"?

      • You mean "crurotarsan" might be derived from a Japanese proper name like "Krurota-san"?

        No, more likely crouton.

        Mmmm. Salads.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gardyloo ( 512791 )

      You're disappointed by 39-foot-long crocodiles? I guess I have to raise my standards somehow. (Not directed at you, honey)

  • I can see it now, a new video at the Creationist museum, Dinosaurs vs. Crurotarsans, with humans trying to avoid being stomped (or eaten as a quick snack).

    Or maybe a Hollywood movie, where after an earthquake, a huuuuge lost cavern cracks open, and crurotarsans come out. Then, just when we're striking back against Giant Creatures Immune to bullets, explosives, etc, another earthquake strikes, and another huuuge cavern opens, and out come dinosaurs....

    mark "b

  • But new research indicates that dinosaurs might have won out due to a large stroke of cosmic luck, the nature of which is speculative.

    This sounds like the perfect fit for /.

  • This isn't science, it's speculation. There's not actual evidence what happened (and probably never will be) so somebody came up with a guess that there was some sort of disaster that caused the dinosaurs to win out. This is what's properly called an ad hoc hypothesis, where somebody comes up with the idea of something unprovable to explain something. Phlogiston, the Continuous Creation of Hydrogen and the Luminiferous Ether are well-known examples from history, and there was a time I suspected that Dark

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xtifr ( 1323 )

      Ah yes. Speculation (also known as "forming a hypothesis") is clearly not any part of science. So glad you could point that out. :)

      I agree, this one seems fairly ad hoc, but that doesn't mean it can't be tested by examining the evidence in light of this hypothesis. And I would have to say that your examples seem cherry-picked, since you left out: atomic theory, continental drift, relativity, speciation, neutrinos, Technicium, and much much more. Its true that random speculation (and its complement, sere

      • I would tend to suspect that the fault lies with the reporter in that case, not the speculator who, it must be admitted, did come up with an interesting hypothesis, if not a very solid one.

        I did RTFA, and it's hard to say how much is the reporter and how much the person who came up with the idea. And, I'm not so much objecting to the idea as reminding people that it's just speculation. Already, even in the few early comments, I could see some people were accepting this guess as proven fact and I wanted

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xtifr ( 1323 )

          Fair enough. The "scientists-say" factor in reporting is always annoying. Compared to the "scientists [read: one biologist with crackpot theories of physics] say that the LHC may destroy the world" reporting we've already seen recently, this seems pretty innocuous. Still, it never hurts to point out when someone's speculating in advance of the evidence. I think it's going a little far to say "that's not science", but I suppose that if that's what it takes to get the point across, no harm done. :)

          cheers

    • I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not scientific, but I'm not sure its big news. He looked at the theory that dinosaurs evolved a direct superiority over crurotarsi, examined the one of the bases for it (physiological diversity as evidenced by fossils) and found it didn't fit the theory.

      What's the next step in the scientific method? Reformulate the hypothesis. So what are the facts? Approximately 30 million years of co-existance before one group died out and another survived at the Triassic/Jurassic bo
      • In short, this doesn't sound unscientific at all. It's more likely a poorly written article compounded with us the readers having trouble jiving it with all the things we learned about dinosaurs in grade school.

        I think you may have misunderstood me a little. I didn't say it was unscientific, just that it shouldn't be considered science (in the sense of having been proven) when it's not. Too many people, here on Slashdot and other places, are prone to believe that if a Scientist says it, It Must Be True

        • As far as relativity being considered an ad hoc hypothesis, I'd not heard that, although I do know it took a number of years before it was accepted by the physics community.

          Actually, I think I was a little premature in considering relativity ad hoc because it reasonably replaced the existing theory rather than pushing an assumption to save the theory. Aether was the standard model because every scientist knew and could prove in their garage that light behaved like a wave, and the nature of a wave suggests i

  • I would be a lot more interested in that. Think of the awful movie possibilities!

  • Okay, this is somewhat OT, but the article is on my short list for the award for worst web design. The link to page 2 doesn't function if you have javascript turned off. So okay, I told noscript to temporarily allow javascript on this page. But once you have javascript allowed, you get a distracting text banner scrolling across the top of the article, like something from someone's geocities homepage from 1995. Wow, let's combine the worst of web 1.0 and web 2.0!

  • Forget Alien vs Predator. I am so waiting for Dinosaurs vs Crurotarsans.

  • The gigantic, fearsome, cubic Crouton-o-saurians cam rumbling through the low frisee, green leaf, and iceberg lettuces, smashing every living thing in their path. But they were lightweights, and when the comet smashed into Earth they knew they were in trouble. "Crumbs!," cried the Crouton-o-saurians, "we're toast!"

  • Oooh - look, Sci Fi's "Attack of the Hyper-Crurotarsans, species from River Dune is on in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

    Pug

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close