Evolution - from Carnivore to Herbivore?

Posted 5 May 2005 by Dave Thomas

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/evolution-from.html

Say hello to Falcarius utahensis.

This creature was becoming a herbivore (plant-eater), but fossils described in today’s Nature indicate his (or her) ancestors were most definitely carnivorous (meat-eaters).

The story can be read on-line here. Here’s the significant “bite”:

Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.

It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.

‘I doubt seriously this animal could cut a steak with that mouth,’ said Utah state paleontologist James Kirkland, one of those who discovered the bones of the beast in east-central Utah.

This relates to the never-ending creationism saga in several ways, including one that shows an important distinction between Evolution and Creationism:

Creationists insist that, if creatures changed their eating habits in the past, it was from herbivores (before the Fall, when the Creation was Good) to carnivores (after the Fall, and the introduction of sin and death into the world).

I should mention that I went to New Mexico Tech with the discoverer, Dr. Jim “Boston” Kirkland, during the late 70’s.

Jim is a regular “Dr. Grant” type of paleontologist, and this image was most definitely reinforced when his discovery of Utahraptor came at the height of Jurassic Park-inspired interest in “raptors.”

Back in the day, between beer bashes and band gigs and classes, we even managed to get in some good field trips to the Glass Mountains of Texas, the Bisti Badlands of New Mexico, and more.

But, I digress. What features of the find indicate its transition from carnivore to herbivore? The AP article mentions this:

It ate plants, but its bones show the transition from its carnivorous ancestors while still in progress.

All plant-eating dinosaurs were ultimately descended from a meat-eater, and switchovers to plant-eating occurred several times. The newly discovered species, which lived 125 million years ago, could help scientists understand details of how the changeovers took place.

It’s ‘our first really good case of a dinosaur in the midst of shifting from the meat-eating body to a plant-eating one,’ said an expert not involved in the discovery, Thomas R. Holtz Jr. of the University of Maryland.

‘It’s definitely eating a substantial amount of plants, (but) we still see the original imprint of meat-eating upon it.’

The find will be presented in Thursday’s Nature. The AP article also mentions that

… analysis revealed that Falcarius was the earliest known member of a bizarre-looking group of plant-eaters called therizinosaurs (pronounced THAY-rih-ZY-no-sores.) Found mostly in Asia, the barrel-bodied creatures waddled upright like Godzilla or ‘a pot-bellied bear,’ Kirkland said.

Falcarius, very early in its evolution into the therizinosaur body type, retained the rather horizontal posture and powerful legs of its meat-eating ancestors. And its teeth were more suited for eating plants, [Utah scientist Lindsay] Zanno said.

It also showed some change toward the larger gut needed to digest plant material rather than meat, as well as a lengthened neck and smaller head associated with eating plants, she said.

Holtz said Falcarius still had fairly slender proportions overall rather than the barrel body of later therizinosaurs. ‘This one could probably move fairly quickly,’ he said, whereas its more evolved relatives ‘would have had problems hunting things faster than a tree.’

Kirkland and Zanno said they suspect Falcarius probably ate some meat in addition to plants.

‘I wouldn’t doubt this thing would eat a lizard or two in a pinch,’ Kirkland said.

The Nature article has some more “meat” to it:

The creature’s teeth have a shape that seems to be adapted to leaf shredding, the researchers report. Similar teeth can be found in modern iguanas, for example, a reptilian family that also has a varied diet.

Falcarius utahensis also has a slightly widened pelvis, Kirkland’s team points out, which would have been necessary to accommodate the longer gut needed to extract nutrients from plants.

But the dinosaur’s legs reveal that it still has adaptations suited for meat eating as well. The creature’s thigh bones were longer than its shin bones, suggesting that it could run at an impressive pace. “The legs are still adapted for running after prey,” says Kirkland. Later therizinosauroids have longer shin bones, which suggests that they waddled around like long-legged birds.

The real nitty-gritty is in the Nature paper itself, of course. A sample:

The dentary teeth share several features with the teeth of other
therizinosauroids (Fig. 2). Similarities include posteriorly small,
lanceolate and basally constricted crowns that become taller anteriorly,
as well as the presence of inflated, circular roots.
…
A phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 3) provides strong support for the
hypothesis that Falcarius is the basalmost therizinosauroid known.

Translation: yes, this creature really is related to the plant-eating therizinosauroids which came later. It is a transitional fossil!

And there we have it - a real test of Creation versus Evolution!

The standard creationist claim that all creatures were originally vegetarian appears all over the web. Here is one example:

The Bible teaches the following. People and animals alike were given plants to eat in the beginning (Genesis 1:29—30). There was no meat-eating before the Fall, whether by man or by animal. The carnivorous part of the present food chain’ did not exist. And God appropriately described His creation as very good’ (Genesis 1:31)….

As mentioned already here at the Thumb, Steve said

the week won’t end without Answers In Genesis claiming that it somehow destroys evolution and confirms creationism.

A good prediction! I’ll wager that claim will involve this observation from the AP article:

Bones from hundreds or maybe thousands of these dinosaurs were discovered at a two-acre dig site in east-central Utah, south of the town of Green River. Nobody knows why they gathered there or what killed them, Kirkland said.

I’ll bet a virtual brew that Answers in Genesis will be touting this as evidence of “The Great World-wide Flood,” while conveniently overlooking that sticky point about some dinosaurs becoming herbivores after the Fall, contrary to Scripture.

I’m inviting Prof. Steve Steve to break away from Kansas to visit New Mexico later this summer, and collaborate with me on the Definitive Proof that there ain’t no way the Fossil Record is compatible with a single, Noachian deluge. But that will be down the road a month or two. Come on down, Prof. Steve Steve!

As always, please observe the Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity policy. (In other words, Play nice, people! And stay on topic!)

61 Comments

Harq al-Ada · 5 May 2005

I have to say, I'm proud of my state. While amateur Utahns with shovels are in Mexico looking for steel and horses buried in Aztec ruins to prove the Book of Mormon, we've made a fair amount of paleontological discoveries back here in Zion.

Trying to debunk a YEC claim is fruitless. The thing is, they are so thoroughly debunked that those who believe in a young Earth are the types who don't listen to facts anyway. I doubt this will phase Hovind and his dinasaur watchers.

sylvilagus · 5 May 2005

Where does this dinosaur fit into the dinosaur bird transition? Is it a very recent find?

steve · 5 May 2005

I'm confident that the creationists will pretend that this dino supports them, but I can't get to their sites. IDtheFuture seems to be down.

Dave Thomas · 5 May 2005

Where does this dinosaur fit into the dinosaur bird transition? Is it a very recent find?

It's from the early Cretaceous, and thus about 127 to 121 Millions of years old (the Barremian sub-division of the early Cretaceous period). The Nature article shows the detailed phylogeny. Falcarius is a sister group with herbivorous oviraptors, and more distantly to the raptors, which include Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis and other creatures related to early birds. Falcarius is still more distantly related to the ostrich-like dinosaurs (Struthiomimus), and even more so to Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, etc. The Tree of Life is an excellent resource for such questions.

Sir_Toejam · 5 May 2005

Steve is correct.

many of the primary ID sites seem to either have their sql servers incapacitated, or are having some sort of DNS error.

interesting.

It's probably because they forgot to plan for the increase in traffic generated by Kansas Kangaroo.

However, when they finally get "it" back up again, they will probably claim some sort of terrorist attack by those "atheistic darwimps!"

PZ Myers · 5 May 2005

I put the http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/falcarius_utahensis/cladogram on Pharyngula.

David Barnaby · 5 May 2005

If you're so certain that you're scientifically correct, why are you so emotional, political and anti-religious? A scientists aim is to dispassionately uncover the truth. Why are you so passionate?

And why do you misrepresent the scientific understandings of those who dispute the idea of evolution of humans from apes?

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

But everyone is entitled to hold their own views, for their own reasons.

All the best,

David

PZ Myers · 5 May 2005

I put the cladogram on Pharyngula.

Sir_Toejam · 5 May 2005

"But everyone is entitled to hold their own views, for their own reasons."

that's true, David, the problem here in the US, is that those who hold religious views are trying to impose them on the rest of us, and our kids.

it goes a lot farther than "evolved from apes"

you should look a bit closer.

mark · 5 May 2005

I had just spotted a headline for an editorial in the York (down the road from Dover, PA) Dispatch, "National ID Act Misguided" and I thought, Damn! What's our junior senator up to now? I didn't see any mention of this at Panda's Thumb!!...Then I remembered the national driver's license (IDentification) debate. But the same edition, under Top Stories, carried the AP article on Falcarius. I thought it quite refreshing, during the ongoing Dover ID war, to see an article in the local paper discuss the evolution of such a critter in a straightforward, rational manner without trying to "balance" it with Creationist horsehockey. I wish the readers could be treated to Dave's discussion as well.

Great White Wonder · 5 May 2005

Dave

Falcarius is a sister group with herbivorous oviraptors, and more distantly to the raptors, which include Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis and other creatures related to early birds. Falcarius is still more distantly related to the ostrich-like dinosaurs (Struthiomimus), and even more so to Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, etc. The Tree of Life is an excellent resource for such questions.

That Tree of Life site is beautiful. But I couldn't figure out how to answer the question asked by sylvilagus, above, using the site. Is that where you found the answer, Dave? Help me out.

Danial Hocson · 5 May 2005

I think that the appropriate ID response would be:

"It wasn't evolving, it was in the process of being Intelligently (re)Designed".

Andrew · 5 May 2005

No, no, isn't it obvious? Falcarius utahensis is "100% BIRD!" Either that, or it's a hoax. And the picture on the front is very clearly a drawing, not a photograph, and it is scientific fraud to have any article accompanied by such lies. And remember Nebraska man??? They reconstructed an entire "missing link" from a PIG'S TOOTH!

Did you come from a MONKEY???

Brian Andrews · 5 May 2005

"And why do you misrepresent the scientific understandings of those who dispute the idea of evolution of humans from apes?"

In an age where China, India and every other industrialized country is rapidly overtaking us in science and technology it's maddening to see our science curriculum being torn apart to be replaced by religion instruction. The religious right wants to dismantle broad swaths of science to fit their ideas that we're on a young earth and evolution didn't occur. In twenty years we'll be a scientific backwater.

RBH · 5 May 2005

David Barnaby wrote

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

Barnaby read all the evidence? I find that hard to believe. I first took physical anthropology in the late 1960s and have followed the creation/evolution debates since the lat 1980s, and have read more than I care to think about now, and I am dead certain sure that I've not read all the evidence. That's an amazing feat for a mathematician/lawyer. You'll forgive me if I express just the tiniest dab of doubt about the claim. RBH

Russell · 5 May 2005

If you're so certain that you're scientifically correct, why are you so emotional, political and anti-religious? A scientists aim is to dispassionately uncover the truth. Why are you so passionate?
— One David Barnaby

Whom are you addressing here? Did you find the original post "emotional, anti-religious and passionate"? If so, I'm perplexed. Or are you addressing one or more of the commenters?

After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

You seem to have some trouble accepting the evidence, but is it not awfully arrogant of you to tell all the folks who have worked entire lifetimes in this field that "there IS no evidence"? And is it not awfully presumptious to tell us you've read "all" the evidence? That seems like a remarkably bold claim, especially coming from a mathematician, whom I would expect to be more careful with quantitative language.

Russell · 5 May 2005

By the way - I was in Toronto last weekend where I got a chance to see the Feathered Dinosaur exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum. If you're in the area, don't miss it.

Dave Thomas · 5 May 2005

GWW said

That Tree of Life site is beautiful. But I couldn't figure out how to answer the question asked by sylvilagus, above, using the site. Is that where you found the answer, Dave? Help me out.

Actually, that is on-line at PZ Myers' article on Falcarius, specifically here. OK? David Barnaby wrote

If you're so certain that you're scientifically correct, why are you so emotional, political and anti-religious? ...

Ahem. You have fallen for the creationist assertion that one must choose between God and evolution. Not so. The struggle is not between believers and atheists. It is between one particular group of religious believers and everyone else, believers or not. This particular group of believers, the "evolution deniers," think they understand the world so perfectly that they can tell Everyone what beliefs are correct, and can even tell God what natural methods He is allowed to employ for His designs. Traditionally, the "evolution deniers" have been known as creationists. But they share the same beliefs, and insist on telling God how to run the Universe, as do the Intelligent Design crowd. -Dave

bill · 5 May 2005

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

I have a PhD in Chemistry, a minor in Biology and have studied evolution for 30 years. After reading all the mathematical journals I find it pretty clear that Fermat's Last Theorem remains unproved. All the mathematicians who claim otherwise are either wrong or lying or both. So there.

steve · 5 May 2005

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

I have an undergrad in physics. I believe the Magna Carta is a fake.

Hiero5ant · 5 May 2005

I am a law student, which, like Philip Johnson, makes me an expert in critical thinking and logic. Therefore, HIV does not cause AIDS.

Intelligent Design Theorist Timmy · 5 May 2005

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

I have a G.E.D. After reading all the evidence, I find it pretty clear that there is no "Australia".

Jeffery Keown · 5 May 2005

I believe the Creationists will herald this as a creature "caught in the act" of transitioning TO Herbivore FROM Carnivore. Cuz, ya know, God didn't do it just after the apple was munched, it was the next generation of animals were meat-a-saurs. Or something like that.

caerbannog · 5 May 2005

I have an MSEE from a prestigious university. And I know for a fact that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

Download http://www.pwasoh.com/media/miscmovies/moontruth.mpg and see for yourself.

Stuart Weinstein · 5 May 2005

David writes: "And why do you misrepresent the scientific understandings of those who dispute the idea of evolution of humans from apes?

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia."

Which is not evidence that you have any understanding of science at all.

Zoonhollis · 5 May 2005

David Barnaby wrote

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

I'm no biologist, but do evolutionary theorists actually maintain that we evolved from apes? I think it's more correct to say that humans and apes both evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Among creationists, this seems to be a peculiar (and deliberate?) misrepresentation of human evolution.

Colin · 5 May 2005

Indeed. One wonders how a man who claims to be so conversant with the research could make such a basic mistake.

Moses · 5 May 2005

If you're so certain that you're scientifically correct, why are you so emotional, political and anti-religious? A scientists aim is to dispassionately uncover the truth. Why are you so passionate?

There's nothing in science that says you must be dispassionate. My wife is a scientist. She gets quite passionate about her science. This is a common misconception by people who are ignorant about science and are too busy trying to push their sterotypes on others. As for being political? You and your kind have done your best to put them in the back of the bus. Now you want to kick them off the bus. All while pretending YOU'RE the victim.

And why do you misrepresent the scientific understandings of those who dispute the idea of evolution of humans from apes?

My reading over the years has shown me that the Creationist side continously distorts to the point it's fair to say they lie. To make it even funnier is not only do they lie, but they go right on out there and they do what most any grouping of disparate-faith religious associations do and engage in doctrinal heresy conflicts and internal fighting. Evolutionists don't need to disprove Creationist theories. The Creationists do that for them all the time. The science side does its best to present the information and educate. But, as we've all seen, on occassion, lapse into normal irritation of dealing with zelots and ID dunderheads that believe they know enough to make an informed decision or are clever enough to not get suckered in by a fallacious argument. When clearly they're not. Yet, day after day, they're attacked as if they're "morally deficient," by these "good Christians." Not quite as bad as the "good Christians" with their "God hates fags" signs, but the message of moral turpitude is there every day.

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

Ha ha ha ha ha... You have no more qualifications to judge the biology being discussed than your average Art History major who spent most of his time getting drunk at frat parties. You see why scientist get annoyed? You see why they become so "passionate?"

Dave Thomas · 5 May 2005

Moses wrote in comment 28484

Not quite as bad as the "good Christians" with their "God hates fags" signs, but the message of moral turpitude is there every day.

We just had the "God Hate Fags" group sleaze their way through New Mexico a couple of weeks ago. No, I'll not grace this page with a link to their site. If you simply must soak up some Hate, you'll have to find them on your own. But, Folks, if these hatemongers come to your town, here's one way to handle them, with Peace, Love and Understanding. Yes, it's the "Big Ass Angel Wings" protest. Check it out! Cheers, Dave

Globigerinoides · 5 May 2005

To its credit, the Mormon Church has not fallen for the blandishments of creationism and evolution denial, due in large part, I think, to the outstanding fossil localities and blatantly obvious stratigraphy of its home state.

The church-owned Deseret News covered the story without one bit of doubt about the validity of evolution and a great deal of "home town pride" over Utah's place in the world of paleontology.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600131494,00.html

Tom Curtis · 5 May 2005

David Barnaby has recieved a number of excellent replies above, but I will also put my two cents worth in. He writes:

If you're so certain that you're scientifically correct, why are you so emotional, political and anti-religious? A scientists aim is to dispassionately uncover the truth. Why are you so passionate?

Well, I am passionate about science anyway. But what really riles me is people who should know better teaching ignorance to children, and to an already poorly informed public. For example:

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

No evidence? Can you be seriously asserting there has been no scientific discovery such that, your estimate of the probability that humans and apes share a recent common ancestor is higher given that fact than it was before you new that fact? That is what "no evidence" means. Are you sugesting the discovery that humans are biochemically closer to apes than to any other group (and closer to chimps than any other ape) gives no reason to improve your estimate of the probability of common descent? Or the fact that chimps and humans share a pseodogene for vitamin c, disabled at the same locus, does nothing to increase your estimate of the probability of common descent? Or the discovery of a chimp like ape that was distinctive in walking upright did nothing to increase your estimate of the probability of common descent? If that is indeed true, then it demonstrates nothing but your complete dogmatism on this issue. It shows your belief that humans and apes do not share a recent common ancestor is not open to revision on the basis of evidence. And what I get het up about is that you and your ilk want this dogmatism to be given the name of science, and taught instead of the genuine article.

Great White Wonder · 5 May 2005

To its credit, the Mormon Church has not fallen for the blandishments of creationism and evolution denial, due in large part, I think, to the outstanding fossil localities and blatantly obvious stratigraphy of its home state.

I think that makes sense. It would be interesting to see if so-called "born-again" and/or "evangelical" and/or other "non-denominational" Christians in Utah or Wyoming are more likely to discount ID peddling than similar Christians in neighboring states with less interesting stratigraphy and less outstanding fossil localities.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 5 May 2005

If you're so certain that you're scientifically correct, why are you so emotional, political and anti-religious?

"Anti-religious"? I'm a bit curious as to why you brought this up. IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with advancing religion. NOTHING AT ALL. So if IDers are correct when they claim that ID is not religion (and I, of course, think they are lying right through their teeth when they say that), then I'm a bit curious as to how you think criticism of ID constitutes beign "anti-religious". Would you mind explaining to me how you got from poitn A to point B here? Or are IDers simply lying to us when they claim their crap isn't religious in nature . . . . . . ?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 5 May 2005

I have a PhD in mathematics from the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Laws from Sydney Australia. After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

I see. And we should care about your uninformed opinion on the matter because . . . . ?

Hiero5ant · 5 May 2005

Lenny, they're not "lying to us when they claim their crap isn't religious in nature"; after all, as long as they accurately quote the words of Meyer or Dembski or Beckwith *saying* it's not religious, they have ipso facto presented an accurate rendition of the fact of the matter. Sheesh, with the program here...

Tristram · 5 May 2005

I'm considered the "Isaac Newton of Rhabdomancy" and, after making up all the evidence, I find it pretty clear that the Intelligent Designer lives in Key West.

It takes a bit of hubris for a non-specialist, a non-scientist no less, to claim to have read and understood all the evidence of a subject that encompasses such a wide range of disciplines as evolution, and to find all of those evolutionary researchers to be wrong.

JSB · 5 May 2005

After reading all the evidence I find it pretty clear that there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

This piece of evidence is about 10 years old--I just read it today, but you must have already seen it. What is the alternative explanation for why we, apes, and old world monkeys make amylase in our saliva, but not new world monkeys? Why do only we and apes have an additional endogenous retrovirus involved?

Randall Wald · 5 May 2005

Guys, I think it's fair to say that David Barnaby's arguments has been fairly well destroyed. We need to stop beating a dead Eohippus, at least unless and until he decided to surface again.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 5 May 2005

Lenny, they're not "lying to us when they claim their crap isn't religious in nature"; after all, as long as they accurately quote the words of Meyer or Dembski or Beckwith *saying* it's not religious, they have ipso facto presented an accurate rendition of the fact of the matter. Sheesh, with the program here . . .

Sorry, I do tend to forget that it's Dembski and Beckwith and Nelson et al who are lying when they claim ID isn't religious, and the braindead minions simply parrot this because they're too willfully uninformed to know any better.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 5 May 2005

Guys, I think it's fair to say that David Barnaby's arguments has been fairly well destroyed. We need to stop beating a dead Eohippus, at least unless and until he decided to surface again.

I would still like an answer to my question, though, since it speaks directly to the matter of what the supporters of ID understand it's aim to be, and whether that aim matches the evasive one given by the dishonest poobahs at the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture. My question to David, again:

"Anti-religious"? I'm a bit curious as to why you brought this up. IDers keep telling us that their crap is SCIENCE and has NOTHING TO DO with advancing religion. NOTHING AT ALL. So if IDers are correct when they claim that ID is not religion (and I, of course, think they are lying right through their teeth when they say that), then I'm a bit curious as to how you think criticism of ID constitutes beign "anti-religious". Would you mind explaining to me how you got from poitn A to point B here? Or are IDers simply lying to us when they claim their crap isn't religious in nature . . . . . . ?

Joe E. · 5 May 2005

Perhaps I missed it earlier, but does anyone here have a link to some images of actual fossils of this theropod? I'm particularly interested in seeing the teeth. I am BY NO MEANS a paleontologist and have next to no training in comparative anatomy, but I would still be interested in looking at the teeth and jaw of this animal and comparing them to, say, a human. After all, the human jaw and teeth just look like look less-than-efficient for a predator species like homo sapiens. I don't know, I just find it odd that a human mouth can have such trouble processing a steak yet it is still possible (though not very healthy) for a human to be completely carnivorous.

Or I guess I could just wait for the paper to come out and just read that...

Jim Harrison · 5 May 2005

Knives, forks, fire....

Joseph O'Donnell · 5 May 2005

Try the trackback link at the bottom, the blog there has some pictures of the teeth, well a couple of teeth anyway.

Henry J · 5 May 2005

This writeup of it has some pictures:
Killer Dinos Turned Vegetarian

Adam · 5 May 2005

In the picture of the fossils of the bone, the terminal bones do not appear to be suitable to terminal phalageal bone. Can there be a missing bone or is it just a case of case of a bad joint?

Ginger Yellow · 6 May 2005

Nonsense. If we don't keep beating the horse it might turn into a monkey.

I have a degree in English. From Oxford, no less. And it's obvious to me that Gödel's theorem is a fraud.

Andy · 6 May 2005

This is just so incredibly cool.

Nat Whilk · 6 May 2005

Globigerinoides wrote:

To its credit, the Mormon Church has not fallen for the blandishments of creationism and evolution denial, due in large part, I think, to the outstanding fossil localities and blatantly obvious stratigraphy of its home state. The church-owned Deseret News covered the story without one bit of doubt about the validity of evolution and a great deal of "home town pride" over Utah's place in the world of paleontology.

And, in fact, a large portion of the paleontological work done in Utah has been done by devout Mormons. But, of course, that doesn't stop people like Harq al-Ada from using this story to take an irrelevant potshot at them. If folks like him could manage to show a little self-restraint, evolutionary biologists might be able to make some headway in convincing the American public that they're not hostile to religion.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 May 2005

Nat Whilk:

And, in fact, a large portion of the paleontological work done in Utah has been done by devout Mormons. But, of course, that doesn't stop people like Harq al-Ada from using this story to take an irrelevant potshot at them.

Hmmmm. It seems to me you're using the category of "devout Mormons" to mean two very different kinds of people here. A devout Mormon who goes looking for steel and horses in Mayan Mexico and a devout Mormon who goes looking for fossils in Utah are, from the standpoint of science, two very different "devout Mormons". Much like a "devout Christian" who goes on a wild chase for Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat is different from a "devout Christian" archaeologist who digs out remains of ancient civilizations.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 May 2005

Sorry, my bad: Aztec Mexico, of course.

Nat Whilk · 6 May 2005

Aureola Nominee, FCD wrote:

A devout Mormon who goes looking for steel and horses in Mayan Mexico and a devout Mormon who goes looking for fossils in Utah are, from the standpoint of science, two very different "devout Mormons".

The devout Mormon paleontologists I know accept the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and that's what I assumed Harq al-Ada was mocking. If he was only mocking those too stupid to know that Aztec civilization was founded roughly 1000 years after the last purported events recounted in the Book of Mormon, then I owe him an apology.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. · 6 May 2005

RE: where Falcarius fits with regards to the origin of birds.

Birds are a clade within the larger group Eumaniraptora. The other branch is the Deinonychosauria ("raptors" such as Microraptor, Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Troodon, Mei, etc.).

The eumaniraptorans are part of a larger complex of feathered dinosaurs called Maniraptora. Other branches of the maniraptoran tree include the bizarre Alvarezsauridae and a clade comprised of the omnivorous Oviraptorosauria (such as Caudipteryx, Incisivosaurus, and Oviraptor) and Therizinosauroidea.

So therizinosauroids share an ancestor with birds among the larger context of Maniraptora, but represent an entirely different branch of that assemblage. The common ancestor of that whole shebang would have been (based on the ancestral states within each branch, plus data from lineages futher out) a small bipedal long-tailed long-limbed feathered animal with elongate forelimbs which could fold up close to the body by means of a semilunate carpal (wristbone) block.

You can check out the relevant webnotes for my undergradute dinosaur course at:
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/10423coel.htm
and
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/10424arch.htm

JSB · 6 May 2005

A devout Mormon who goes looking for steel and horses in Mayan Mexico and a devout Mormon who goes looking for fossils in Utah are, from the standpoint of science, two very different "devout Mormons".

Regardless, I'm not aware of any Mormon attempts to have "alternative views," specific to the religion, taught as science in public schools.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 May 2005

JSB:

Of course, but that was not the point. Nat Whilk had read Harq al-Ada's post as being somehow against devout Mormons, while I read it as highlighting the difference between real science and pseudo-science. That's all.

Arun · 6 May 2005

I don't exactly follow this :

But the dinosaur's legs reveal that it still has adaptations suited for meat eating as well. The creature's thigh bones were longer than its shin bones, suggesting that it could run at an impressive pace. "The legs are still adapted for running after prey," says Kirkland.

The legs could be adapted to running away from hunters. I guess what Kirkland means to say is that the earlier adaption (for running after prey) has, for whatever reason, persisted. -Arun

Ken Shackleton · 6 May 2005

Creationists insist that, if creatures changed their eating habits in the past, it was from herbivores (before the Fall, when the Creation was Good) to carnivores (after the Fall, and the introduction of sin and death into the world).
— Dave Thomas

Now they will insist that they did first become carnivores after the fall, but reverted back to herbivores in time for the flood. Science will never convince a "True Believer"

St. McHinx · 6 May 2005

I have a M.S. in Computer Science (science!) and, after thoroughly inspecting my wife's 1974 VW Beetle for why it doesn't run, I discovered the cause. Under the hood there is no engine!!

Much to our great fortune, I have a friend, another creationist as it turns out, who also has a 1974 Beetle. And he says he'll get our Beetle running, because his Beetle has a spare engine in the back which he'll give us!

steve · 7 May 2005

the week won't end without Answers In Genesis claiming that it somehow destroys evolution and confirms creationism.

I hate to report that I'm a little wrong. Yesterday, here's what Ansers in Genisis said:

This afternoon before I left for the airport, I was interviewed by a Christian news group about the article that appeared recently claiming that evidence for some dinosaurs evolving from meat-eaters to plant-eaters was found. They also claimed the dinosaurs were "probably" covered with feathers. These sorts of articles are so frustrating---we don't have the documentation or pictures to show what has been found (that will come later)---it is so hard to comment on the claims because we just don't have access to the actual evidence. However, I did my best to explain that evolutionists are interpreting evidence on the basis of the belief system etc.

I think I'll leave them a comment. Oh wait, they're creationists, comments are turned off.

Sir_Toejam · 8 May 2005

Steve-

"However, I did my best to explain that evolutionists are interpreting evidence on the basis of the belief system etc"

nope, i'd say you were right on, as this is the only argument they ever really make. trying to turn the world on it's head and say that "darwinism" is the dogmatic religion, instead of ID. This IS how they will claim that interpreting fossil evidence "destroys evolution".

it doesn't matter what the specific fossil evidence is.

PJ Newby · 9 May 2005

My first time to view this webstite. I find it very disturbing that there are so many stupid people living today.

hank · 10 May 2005

.... a PhD in mathematics ... and a Bachelor of Laws ..... there's no evidence that human "evolved" from apes.

Trolling, and quite well done too.

I make a living correcting lawyers' writing, and this is perfect, elegant, misdirection.

You might go on to say that there's no evidence that humans evolved from monkeys, either.

No evidence that monkeys evolved from chimps, that chimps evolved from apes, or any other apples-and-oranges sort of comparison.

Apples didn't evolve from oranges.

What we're ignoring here is the evidence that both evolved -- from something earlier.

Good one! This is the sort of clever wording that makes lawyers what they are today -- and from which they can evolve into being politicians.