New dinosaur species is a missing link
April 12th, 2011
07:15 PM ET

New dinosaur species is a missing link

It's fitting that a place called Ghost Ranch, New Mexico, would yield the discovery of a scary-looking creature. But it's not a ghost - it's a dinosaur.

This dog-sized, ferocious-looking critter is called Daemonosaurus chauliodus, which means something along the lines of  “buck-toothed evil lizard,” says Hans-Dieter Sues, lead author of the published research describing this dinosaur, and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

The illustration above compares the head and neck with a quarter. You can see that it has a short snout and enormous front teeth.

Scientists found the skull and neck of this previously unrecognized dinosaur, and described it in a study in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

This dinosaur provides a link between what paleontologists consider "early" and "later" dinosaurs. There's a gap in the fossil record between the oldest known dinosaurs, which walked or ran on their hind legs about 230 million years ago in Argentina and Brazil, and other predatory dinosaurs that lived much later. Daemonosaurus chauliodus helps fill in a blank in dinosaur history.

This newly discovered species lived about 205 million years ago, and probably preyed on other dinosaurs and other small animals, Sues said. At that time, what is now the American Southwest was located close to the equator, so it was warm and monsoon-like with heavy seasonal precipitation. This dinosaur was probably active during the day, although its large eyes suggest it could have seen at night as well.

How did it go extinct? It may have fallen victim to an extinction event that occurred about 200 million years ago. As the continents were separating, there was a large zone of volcanic activity. Enormous quantities of lava was released, doing "horrible things to the atmosphere." Most dinosaurs made it through (that is, until an asteroid struck around 65 million years ago), but perhaps not this one.

"It just shows that even here in the United States, there are still many new dinosaurs to be found," Sues said. "People always think we have to go to some remote places, but, right here in northern New Mexico, we can still find new dinosaurs."

Post by:
Filed under: Animals • Dinosaurs
soundoff (565 Responses)
  1. L64

    'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'

    April 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm | Report abuse |
  2. LeGrisbi

    new dinosaur species missing a nickle ..... it fell from it's ear

    April 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm | Report abuse |
  3. ronineko

    I must need a life. I just spent 5 minutes sorting through a whole lot of moronic to and fros hoping for a glimpse of logic and intelligence. You people need lives!

    April 12, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jazzzzzzz

      Read again, You obviously didn't graduate kindergarten. Carry on PPL

      April 12, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Report abuse |
  4. banasy

    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

     Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

    Now, I believe there's a higher power at work in the universe; I also think that religion and science can coexist with each other. I also think that there's quite a few missing links posting here tonight!

    April 12, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Report abuse |
  5. ronineko

    I must need a life. I just spent 5 minutes sorting through a whole lot of moronic to and fros hoping for a glimpse of logic and intelligence. You people need lives! Well, maybe not all of you.........

    April 12, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • wzrd1

      ROFLMAO! I feel your pain, but I didn't bother reading all the blather.
      I personally, HAVE no personal life. I'm married and the kids are out of the house. 😉

      April 12, 2011 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
  6. CT73

    @JaC: I trust, then, that you do not believe in the existence of molecules, atoms, germs, or light waves. That's essentially what you're saying.

    Evolution is a fact. It's based on a variety of evidence types, each of which independently confirms the other. These include the fossil record, carbon dating, ice dating, etc. Your "belief" in evolution is completely irrelevant; it doesn't need your support. Either you know about evolution or you choose to remain ignorant.

    In fact, evolution can be observed in rapidly evolving species of bacterium. So, you could see it if you had access.

    I'm tired of people lamely attempting to muddy issues they do not understand. America needs to grow up and join the rest of the world.

    April 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      "Evolution is a fact"

      This depends on what type of "evolution" you mean.

      If by evolution you mean "change over time", you are correct.

      If by evolution you mean Darwin's theory, you are standing on shaky ground.

      I admit: Darwin was a very intelligent man. However, there are major flaws in his theory.

      1) Natural Selection does not create new traits. Nobel Prize Winner T. H. Morgan stated “[Natural] Selection, then, has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individuals”. In other words, natural selection can explain why a specific trait may be predominant in a certain ecosystem (such as fur in a cold climate), but not why certain organisms have traits that other species do not even possess. Natural selection can explain why a dog has four legs, but fails to explain why an octopus has four more. However, Morgan stated “[Macro]Evolution, however, means producing new things, not more of what already exists”. Natural selection does not create new traits.

      2) Genetic mutation does not cause real change. First off, mutation rates are very low. The chances of a mutation occurring are about 1 in 10,000,000. The chances of this mutation being carried on to the next generation are much lower. At this low rate "...it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences," as stated by Susumo Ohno. With a touch of humor, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould presents a problem with this: "But how can a series of reasonable intermediates be constructed?... The dung-mimicking insect is well protected, but can there be any edge in looking only 5 percent like a turd?". In other words, because genetic change takes such a great length of time, certain traits will be so minor that there would be no reason for that trait to become dominant in a society, as an organism with it would have no significant advantage over one that doesn't. Also, mutations are almost always negative. Contrary to Darwin's theory, genetic mutation does not improve a species; if anything, it makes it worse. Even if a positive mutation did occur, it would never be significant enough to cause real change. Even if it were, it would almost certainly be outweighed by negative mutations. In short, mutation is not a legitimate way of explaining the introduction of new and better traits.

      3): A third problem with Darwin's theory is some things in nature are as simple as they could be yet still function. This is known as Irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is when an object is as simple as it could be yet still function. Take a mouse trap for example: no part can be removed from it and allow it to still function. Similarly, irreducibly complex organisms can be found in nature. Darwin himself admitted "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist, has studied complex organisms down to the molecular level. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, he concluded that numerous things found in nature, such as cilium, antibodies, and the bacterial flagellum, are irreducibly complex. If any function of these organisms were removed, the entire organism could not function, and therefore could not evolve. If these organisms did evolve, they would have to develop all of their functions at the same time, which is against the nature of "slow, successive steps" in Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory does not explain the irreducible complexity found in certain organisms.

      4) There is no more, if not, less, proof for Darwin's theory today than there was when Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Fossil record have not shown the change from one species to a completely different species. Every year, scientists claim they have discovered the missing link. However, they are later disproven. With trilobites, for example, you can by a fossil of them at a geology store for less than $20, but scientists have yet to find their predecessor. In short, fossils do not help prove Darwin's theory.

      "In fact, evolution can be observed in rapidly evolving species of bacterium".

      You're correct. "Evolution" (change over time) can be found in evolving species of bacterium. However, "Darwin's theory" is not. Bacterium makes minor changes so they can be better suited to their "enviorment". However, they do not evolve into a completely new species.

      Call me a creationist if you want, but Darwin's theory is little more than a decaying theory.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • david

      Beautiful summary Evan, very well said. I am so tired of people thinking that someone who is religious or who has a faith is stupid or cannot grasp scientific issues. The truth is, there are things in the earth and in the universe that science cannot, and will not ever, explain. Your key point is correct: There is nothing in the fossil record, related to bacterium or otherwise, that shows one form of life evolving into another "kind".

      April 12, 2011 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Themagicrat

      I don't think anybody is saying that people with a faith or who consider themselves religious are necessarily stupid. Most scientists claim a faith or religion and still go to work and do the hard science.

      The problem is that good science cannot be done with ANY prejudice. That means that you can't go into a scientific field HOPING to prove that God exists for instance, or hoping to disprove evolution because your particular religion doesn't countenance it. Of course its impossible to remove every shred of prejudice from even the most objective observer (which is basically what a scientist is), but you have to let science take its course according to the rigorous tests for developing scientific theory.

      What Evan put forth is eloquent, and at least makes the attempt to put his belief in a creator into scientific terms by pointing out flaws and deficiencies that he perceives in the theory (though some of the work he cites has been discredited). No one claims the theory of evolution is perfect and many scientists work at it and are constantly refining its tenets. Its possible at some point, the basic theory itself will be shelved in favor of a more modern version as our knowledge increases. But it will still be a version of evolution. As you say, there may be things we can never explain, but we damn sure need to keep trying, and maybe in the end that's what will bring us as close to God as we can ever get.

      As much on the side of science as I am, when you boil everything we know down to the Big Bang, it still boggles my mind that this incomprehensibly enormous void exists that contains all the matter in the universe that blew up and is expanding outward. There is always room for a Creator, exactly because we can never know everything, and that can always be where he is waiting.

      The problem I have is when people try to dictate or restrain science based on the "rules" of their religion. God may have created the void, and the Big Bang, and everything since then just goes as it will, including evolution, while he sits back to watch us slowly work it all out. So don't try to sway science or bury it. Let it do it's work. It shouldn't sway your belief in God to find out that the world wasn't created the way or in the time frame the Bible describes it. I think that may be the biggest sticking point for some people and maybe my biggest issue: many people equate a book written by mere mortals, translated a myriad of times, and revised to suit regimes and rulers for their own benefit, as the true word of God. There's some idiot preacher named Harold Camping out there who has persuaded thousand of people to quit their jobs and and school and give all their possessions away because May 21st begins the Rapture and signaling the beginning of the days of judgment, with the world ending on October 21st. He got this from his own mathematical calculations based on the King James Bible. That is the kind of evil that religion that isn't tempered by common sense can bring to the world and drives us scientific types up the wall.

      Religion and science can co-exist. Just leave each other alone.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:50 am | Report abuse |
    • Sohei

      Eloquently put. Seventh-day adventists have predicted many dates as the "coming". For over a hundred years. As a former, I was first taught that fossils were fake, then products of the devil. Meh

      April 13, 2011 at 1:28 am | Report abuse |
    • Einstein

      Actually, I am saying people who practice religion are stupid.

      April 13, 2011 at 8:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      Einstein, that's an incredibly watered-down, setereotypical view of a religious person. I am Christian, and I'm making straight A's in school.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Straight A's

      @Evan
      I'm sure you're a great student at "Liberty" University.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Think

      Well put. Interestingly the phrase "Big Bang" was coined by an atheist scientist to denigrate the theory for it's theistic implications. It is only the most narrow minded fundimentalists that try to put God in a little box and say "Any evidence that doesn't fit in this box is false." By the way, the peson who came up with the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest. The atheist who coined the term? The great scientist, Fred Hoyle who later came to faith in a creator though scientific inquiry. Funny how today fundimentalists try to undermine the theory as discounting God, and atheists try to use it as proof against God.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Only Way

      Yet another failed attempt to prove evolution!!! When I show a person closely related drug molecules that I synthezised and if this person who has no knowledge about how these molecules were come about tells others that it is the proof of evolution WHAT WOULD YOU CALL this person?

      April 12, 2011 at 11:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • hockeyguy

      don't act like you know anything about synthesizing molecules.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:12 am | Report abuse |
    • Polaris

      @ Ewan awesome analysis...:)

      April 12, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      Only if you know tragically, tragically little about evolutionary biology.

      Although, as is evidently the case, most people know tragically tragically little about evolutionary biology.

      April 13, 2011 at 7:21 am | Report abuse |
    • apple

      TL;DR

      April 12, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Polaris

      Correction: "Evan"

      April 12, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • James

      You do realize all you did was say stuff and not prove anything right? Al ofl your arguments have no bone... You might want to evolve your thinking. Read up on how to make a sound argument.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      James, nice try. Falsely accusing someone of commiting a logical fallacy while not attacking their arguments or defending your own position is itself a logical fallacy (The Question-Begging Epithet Fallacy, to be more specific).

      April 13, 2011 at 12:11 am | Report abuse |
    • Yes URA Uneducated Sheep

      I was more specific Evan. Why don't you do what Xstain apologists all do and dress up well worn outdated points and pretend they're new.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:43 am | Report abuse |
    • easter_bunny

      rubbish.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      If more people in your camp presented logical, well thought out arguments such as these as opposed to what we find in the rest of these comments, this discussion would be much more enlightening to everyone involved.

      That having been said, and despite disagreeing with you, it is a breath of fresh air to see a counter-argument to the theory of evolution that doesn't involve religion. For that, I salute you.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:33 am | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      This was, of course, directed at Evan. Don't know why it didn't respond to his original post.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:36 am | Report abuse |
    • zike

      @Evan, I don't have time to respond to all of your arguments, but I hope you'll excuse me for not giving a proper reference to debunk of irreducible complexity. Another debunk is your appeal for authority, a Nobel Prize Winner T. H. Morgan. What he says is not relevant at all. He's got his Nobel Prize for "his discovery of the white-eyed mutation in the fruit fly, Drosophila". I don't want to discount his contribution to the science and humanity, but his statement would be relevant if he got his Nobel Prize for debunking evolution.
      Since 1933. scientists improved the knowledge of evolution that Morgan wasn't aware of.

      I can't comment about Susumu Ohno, but as stated on Wikipedia, "Ohno argued that gene duplication is the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor."
      He knew about a common ancestor, so he "believed" that we came from a common ancestor, which means that he "believed" that there was enough time to "produce" enough beneficial mutations for new species to emerge.

      Lack of time doesn't allow me to dive deeper into the subject, but I hope others can continue where I stopped.

      April 13, 2011 at 3:30 am | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      1) I like how you're quoting a scientist's views on natural selection who died before we even knew DNA had a double helix. Back then, we had no idea how new traits could come about just from natural variation... lucky for us, genetic research isn't constrained by 1800s and early 1900s scientific research. Why you're quoting him as an authority on a subject not discovered when he died... well, I'm not sure, I guess you think it makes a point. But we now know of things like gene duplication, subst-tution and deletion which could act on things like duplicated genes and generate entirely new phenotypes. If you want a example of a new trait coming about, just look up Lenski's experiment. But then again, I'm betting you'll have the same reaction Schlafly did, and just plug your ears.

      2) Cite. See, you've got a bunch of problems. See, mutation rates change based on organism. Bacteria for example have massive amounts of variance between generations compared to humans. I think you meant "inheritable mutations", but even there "1 in 10,000,000" seems sorta meaningless. I think, however, you meant "out of every 10,000,000 nucleotides, there is a single mutation".
      Which would seem fairly reasonable. There are roughly three billion base pairs in DNA, meaning at a 1 in 10,000,000 mutation rate, you still have 300 mutations per individual. Not a ton, but not insignificant either. And a 1% change in DNA base pair sequences is a LOT of information. I don't believe you quite understand how very closely related we are to other apes.

      Oh, and most mutations are benign. DNA codes in codons, sets of 3, with 4 possible base pairs, leading 64 different possible combination. Of these, three are stop codons, and the rest codes for about 20 different amino acids. That means there is a lot of redundancy in DNA, you can have a mutation with NO change in phenotype. Then, even beyond that, you have 4 main groups of amino acids which act relatively similar. Polar, nonpolar, acidic, or basic. There's generally a limited change of phenotype when you switch amino acid within the general group, you don't get major changes unless you have mutations cause coding for fundamentally different types of amino acids.

      This is the kinda stuff you should have learned in any competent biology course, saying "most mutations are negative" is absurd. Seriously, have you EVER taken an actual course on evolutionary biology? The things you're saying should have been addressed in your high school education.

      3) Dover Trial, Day 11, PM Session. Michael Behe, the guy who came up with Irreducible Complexity.

      Read it. Learn why everything you just said is so very, very wrong. Seriously, the guy comes out and says that IC qualifies as much as a scientific theory as astrology or the eather theory. In other words, blatantly silly and wrong.

      4) No, the popular press talks about "missing links", scientists talk about "transitional fossils" because scientists are aware that "missing link" is a misnomer. Every time scientists find a new "missing link", two new gaps come out from the hole filled. We find another two, two more holes pop out so now you have four. We find four more, now we have eight gaps. There will always be more "missing links" to find, scientists don't care about that word, they use "transitional fossil" because that is what's relevant.

      But if you want a list of some transitional fossils, and the papers discussing some, I've got them listed on the previous page.

      Not that I venture you care about looking at actual evidence when asking disingenuous questions is so much easier.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:34 am | Report abuse |
    • JSinKC

      *Bows down in admiration to Andrew*

      April 13, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      @ Evan

      1) I like how you're quoting a scientist's views on natural selection who died before we even knew DNA had a double helix. Back then, we had no idea how new traits could come about just from natural variation... lucky for us, genetic research isn't constrained by 1800s and early 1900s scientific research. Why you're quoting him as an authority on a subject not discovered when he died... well, I'm not sure, I guess you think it makes a point. But we now know of things like gene duplication, subst-tution and deletion which could act on things like duplicated genes and generate entirely new phenotypes. If you want a example of a new trait coming about, just look up Lenski's experiment. But then again, I'm betting you'll have the same reaction Schlafly did, and just plug your ears.

      2) Cite. See, you've got a bunch of problems. See, mutation rates change based on organism. Bacteria for example have m-ssive amounts of variance between generations compared to humans. I think you meant "inheritable mutations", but even there "1 in 10,000,000" seems sorta meaningless. I think, however, you meant "out of every 10,000,000 nucleotides, there is a single mutation".
      Which would seem fairly reasonable. There are roughly three billion base pairs in DNA, meaning at a 1 in 10,000,000 mutation rate, you still have 300 mutations per individual. Not a ton, but not insignificant either. And a 1% change in DNA base pair sequences is a LOT of information. I don't believe you quite understand how very closely related we are to other apes.

      Oh, and most mutations are benign. DNA codes in codons, sets of 3, with 4 possible base pairs, leading 64 different possible combination. Of these, three are stop codons, and the rest codes for about 20 different amino acids. That means there is a lot of redundancy in DNA, you can have a mutation with NO change in phenotype. Then, even beyond that, you have 4 main groups of amino acids which act relatively similar. Polar, nonpolar, acidic, or basic. There's generally a limited change of phenotype when you switch amino acid within the general group, you don't get major changes unless you have mutations cause coding for fundamentally different types of amino acids.

      This is the kinda stuff you should have learned in any competent biology course, saying "most mutations are negative" is absurd. Seriously, have you EVER taken an actual course on evolutionary biology? The things you're saying should have been addressed in your high school education.

      3) Dover Trial, Day 11, PM Session. Michael Behe, the guy who came up with Irreducible Complexity.

      Read it. Learn why everything you just said is so very, very wrong. Seriously, the guy comes out and says that IC qualifies as much as a scientific theory as astrology or the eather theory. In other words, blatantly silly and wrong.

      4) No, the popular press talks about "missing links", scientists talk about "transitional fossils" because scientists are aware that "missing link" is a misnomer. Every time scientists find a new "missing link", two new gaps come out from the hole filled. We find another two, two more holes pop out so now you have four. We find four more, now we have eight gaps. There will always be more "missing links" to find, scientists don't care about that word, they use "transitional fossil" because that is what's relevant.

      But if you want a list of some transitional fossils, and the papers discussing some, I've got them listed on the previous page.

      Not that I venture you care about looking at actual evidence when asking disingenuous questions is so much easier.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      "I like how you're quoting a scientist's views on natural selection who died before we even knew DNA had a double helix".

      Darwin didn't know that either.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      No, no he didn't, in fact the fact that he had no idea what passed on genetic material and what caused variation among individuals was a major failing in his early theory. Now, granted, it still explained the diversity of life significantly better than creationism did at the time, which is why it became immediately accepted, but as far as our knowledge of how it functioned or how natural selection could cause diversity, Darwin's theory was wholly inadequate.

      ... I'm confused, is that somehow supposed to make creationism seem less untenable? Cause if so, I fail to see how.

      April 14, 2011 at 12:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      Proof of evolution: snakes no longer understand language and no longer can talk.

      April 14, 2011 at 12:15 am | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      @Even,

      You fail at the most basic of augruements....sigh... I guess the POOF's we are here have it.... Will leave with this, no one in the past 2000 years since his supposed first viewing has anyone (outside of the occasional dream) seen your deity BAR NONE! And dude this is a FACT.

      “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

      April 13, 2011 at 9:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Mudfoot

      Yeah! You tell 'em Evan

      April 13, 2011 at 9:14 am | Report abuse |
    • f

      The final point is that Darwins' theory was interesting years ago. It has been disputed in so many ways that it should no longer be taught in schools. Evolution does not change in day. No one person or living being can "will" themselves to go grow thick fur so they can live in cold climates, grow big sensitive eyes to see at night, etc., no matter how much the being needs these features. If the creautes did grow a "good" featrue" they probabaly would have been the only one to do so. Its not possible that one eveolved creatue could change the entire species. And that's only one species. What about the millions of others on Earth? Darwin is dead. Give it up. Evolution exists only as far as minor changes to existing species occur over many millions of years. Even man has been said to walk upright in some form for millions of years. We still haven't grown wings so we can fly to work instead of driving.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
    • gerc

      If evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact, where are the REPRODUCIBLE data to back it up?

      April 13, 2011 at 9:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Chartreux

      Ever heard of drug-resistant bacteria? That's evolution.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Beam

      If you'd take off your blinders and do some research objectively, you would see that the factual evidence supporting evolution is nothing more than assumptions. Not sure about you, but I've never heard of a cocci evolving to a bacilli. If something as simple as that hasn't happened in nature, how can it be a "fact" that even more complex organisms have evolved into totally different species. The simplest answer, it hasn't. Ockham's Razor is enough to debunk evolution.

      May 2, 2011 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
  7. scroo yoo

    Awesome,a Mulletsaurus

    April 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
  8. wzrd1

    1: They FINALLY found Fred Flintstone's pet, Dino!
    2: Advanced death, a state WAY past rigor mortise and more stony.
    3: They ACTUALLY don't know, but they think IT died off when the Earth became VERY, VERY flatulent from a breakup of a lousy marriage between crustal plates. Can't blame them, being all crusty like that.
    4: A mother-in-law.

    How'd I do?

    April 12, 2011 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jazzzzzzz

      LMAO, welcome to the club:)

      April 12, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jazzzzzzz

      The above post was meant for "WZRD" this didn't post with the reply to added , o well what can u expect from CNN. , Nite all:)

      April 12, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Jazzzzzzz

    @ Banasy, Completely agree with u on the point that "going to church does not make u a christian"
    Dont understand what u mean by " A few missing links posting here tonight"
    Great post

    April 12, 2011 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Polaris

    @ banasy, I concur...I too believe science and religion can coexist...like I said before: they compliment each other.

    April 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
  11. L64

    @banasy: l agree. I believe that in the end science and God will be found to have been one and the same all along. Oh, we always said that going to church doesn't make you a christian anymore than kittens born in an oven makes them biscuits! Maybe that's a southern thang. 😉

    April 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
  12. cesar

    Ooooooo Patrick told someone off.

    April 12, 2011 at 10:09 pm | Report abuse |
  13. AJ

    Gah, 99.99% of these comments have nothing to do with the topic. So, moving on...

    Are there a lot of other discoveries that fill in the gaps? I wonder if anything from that time would be considered a "missing link"

    April 12, 2011 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
  14. lancesackless

    yes, nevermind the probability of stumbling upon the remains of some neanderthal's dinner...it's really a new creature.

    Ahh...you wacky scientists...

    April 12, 2011 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Themagicrat

      That makes no sense at all. Whether or not it's the remains of a neanderthal's dinner, doesn't make it any less a new creature. Or to be more accurate, a hitherto-undiscovered creature. If you caught a shark, and gutted it and discovered a new species of fish inside, its still a new species of fish.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Jazzzzzzz

    Don't worry folks, you'll find out soon enough, HEHEH.

    April 12, 2011 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15