Althouse: "An enormous crocodile ancestor with blade-like teeth walked on two legs and was at the very top of North America's food chain 231 million years ago...."

March 19, 2015

"An enormous crocodile ancestor with blade-like teeth walked on two legs and was at the very top of North America's food chain 231 million years ago...."

The newly discovered "Carolina Butcher" (Carnufex carolinensis) lived before the time of the dinosaurs.

77 comments:

rehajm said...: Newly discovered? We've had images of this creature for some time.; 3/19/15, 10:27 AM
MadisonMan said...: I eagerly await jr565's explanations.; 3/19/15, 10:28 AM
rhhardin said...: Climate change is a bitch.; 3/19/15, 10:28 AM
Big Mike said...: Ah, I have news for the author of that article. The Triassic is generally consider to be part of the "time of the dinosaurs."; 3/19/15, 10:41 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "time of the dinosaurs" is my phrase, a paraphrase of the article. Maybe I missed something.; 3/19/15, 10:42 AM
Ann Althouse said...: They said "reign"...

There were dinosaurs, perhaps, but they were not yet reigning???; 3/19/15, 10:43 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I try to avoid trite bullshit like "reign of the dinosaurs."

Only human beings reign.; 3/19/15, 10:43 AM
n.n said...: A whale-like fish was extrapolated from a single tooth. A dinosaur was removed from existence through liberal doses of inference. A universe was constructed as a hypothesis to satisfy a belief. Science has been conflated with philosophy, faith, and even fantasy by children playing in the sandbox looking for pretty patterns in the sand and competing for political, economic, and social leverage. Oh, well. It does serve a purpose to occupy their time and bring meaning to their lives.; 3/19/15, 10:46 AM
Tibore said...: You know, they still do the two legs thing: Tumblr link.

;); 3/19/15, 10:48 AM
Nonapod said...: A bipedal nightmare. The "Carolina Butcher" sounds like a moniker for a serial killer.; 3/19/15, 11:06 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: I'll reserve my enthusiasm for when they unearth the Carolina Baker and the Carolina Candlestick Maker.; 3/19/15, 11:18 AM
clint said...: "Ann Althouse said...
I try to avoid trite bullshit like "reign of the dinosaurs."

Only human beings reign."

But... but... Tyrannosaurus Rex. It's right there in the name.; 3/19/15, 11:21 AM
rehajm said...: Carolina Candlestick Maker. Heh.; 3/19/15, 11:30 AM
Fernandinande said...: rhhardin said...
Climate change is a bitch.

Crocodiles used to live at Greenland's latitude.

MadisonMan said...
I eagerly await jr565's explanations.

This one probably decided to evolve from dolphins with two dog stomachs.; 3/19/15, 11:52 AM
Fernandinande said...: Ann Althouse said...
Only human beings reign.

Wrong again.

3. To be predominant or prevalent; 3/19/15, 11:54 AM
sparrow said...: I don't buy the bipedal claim judging from the image and tail. So much of archeology is speculative. The evidence is so rare it's easy to make an unverifiable claim.; 3/19/15, 12:08 PM
David said...: Carville's lost ancestor.; 3/19/15, 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: So much of archeology is speculative.

You mean complete and total bull hockey?

Yeah, and yet MadisonMan will write;

I eagerly await jr565's explanations.

As if anyone should need to spend time explaining anything these fantasists come up with.

Everyone is always so sure of dating that we can say 231 million years with any accuracy.

Look, how about you start by dating things that happened in the last few centuries accurately before you try and tell me what happened eons ago.; 3/19/15, 12:14 PM
David said...: 231 million years of dating? Please. A decade was more than enough.

Far better to find your mate in a small gaggle of blog commenters.; 3/19/15, 12:18 PM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, I get your point at 10:43. As I understand it the Triassic was a time when numerous reptilian phyla other than the dinosaurs were around, such as the dicynodonts and rauisuchids. But there were dinosaurs back then, such as eoraptor, coelophysis, and plateosaurs. Not until the Jurassic did the dinosaurs occupy nearly all of the important ecological niches.; 3/19/15, 12:24 PM
Big Mike said...: Everyone is always so sure of dating that we can say 231 million years with any accuracy.

Look up potassium-argon dating and other forms of dating based on radioactive decay. This is a good place to start.; 3/19/15, 12:27 PM
Paco Wové said...: This is the word of Wikipedia:

"A specialized subgroup of archosaurs, dinosaurs, first appeared in the Late Triassic but did not become dominant until the succeeding Jurassic."

Wikipedia hath spoken. Thanks be to Wikipedia.; 3/19/15, 12:57 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: How exciting when humans appeared. Humans are, by a margin so vast as to make them incomparable, the most interesting animals.; 3/19/15, 1:25 PM
n.n said...: eric:

With liberal doses of uniformity, independence, correlation, and inference, any philosophy, faith, and even fantasy can be represented as a form of "science". People need to believe.; 3/19/15, 1:26 PM
madAsHell said...: Look's like a social worker!!; 3/19/15, 2:11 PM
Mark said...: Sparrow, you do realize this is paleontology not archeology?

When you do not even understand what the field is called, perhaps you should not be commenting on their evidence.

Hint for the future, if humans are not involved it is not archaeology.

MadisonMan, I am glad you can read the ill informed opinion on evolution here. It is so clearly not even trying that I find it of no interest or merit.; 3/19/15, 2:35 PM
Alex said...: I could get along with this creature better than a social justice warrior. I could have coffee with this guy.; 3/19/15, 2:43 PM
Alex said...: Freeman Hunt said...
How exciting when humans appeared. Humans are, by a margin so vast as to make them incomparable, the most interesting animals.

Species-ism. Humans are not intrinsically worthy more than a worm.

Now open up your Bibles and read the Book of Genesis!; 3/19/15, 2:44 PM
Fernandinande said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/19/15, 3:04 PM
Fernandinande said...: eric said...
You mean complete and total bull hockey?

Just because you don't know anything doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't know anything.

For non-mindless people, here's the original paper.; 3/19/15, 3:13 PM
n.n said...: Alex:

Human exceptionalism is a scientifically sound principle that was established through observation that humans are capable of expressing greater degrees of freedom. The ability to conflate science, philosophy, faith, and even fantasy represents an elevated level of "freedom" that has not been observed in other lifeforms. This doesn't imply that animals and plants are not self-righteous and pretentious, but that this quality has not been detected through natural and enhanced sentience. Although, there is a myriad of circumstantial evidence that house cats and simian derivatives are full of themselves.; 3/19/15, 4:14 PM
jr565 said...: "I eagerly await jr565's explanations"
Sure. See, there are billions of animals that went extinct that we have no idea about thst could have existed along side other animals. And these animals may not have evolved at all. Just because we find superficial similarities to a croc like animal then doesn't mean crocs evolved from them.; 3/19/15, 5:26 PM
jr565 said...: "This one probably decided to evolve from a dolphin with two stomaches"
Actually would that be far fetched to evolutionists? Since they argue thet a dolphin with extra flippers evolved from a wolf like creature.
At least here, the croc like creature still looks like a croc nowadays. It's not as much of a stretch.; 3/19/15, 5:28 PM
ken in tx said...: The Word of the Innertubes for the people of the Innertubes, Thanks be to the Innertubes.; 3/19/15, 5:34 PM
jr565 said...: "By the end of the Late Triassic, all of the large predators on land, except dinosaurs, had been wiped from the face of the planet," Zanno explained. "Scientists aren't yet sure why, but the prevailing hypothesis is that the absence of other competitors gave theropods (carnivorous dinosaurs) a big boost on the Mesozoic playing field.

"Smaller ancestors of crocodiles made it through the extinction event, and later on found their ecological niche. They re-evolved into the larger sizes exhibited by crocodiles and alligators today.

So there were smaller crocodile like creatures thst survived the extinction event. So they existed at the same time roughly as this crocodile that stood upright? So then you can have croc type animals that are small, and others thwt stand upright and it doesn't require evolution to explain it. or did these big crocs evolve down to,little crocs and then back up to medium size crocs?; 3/19/15, 5:38 PM
jr565 said...: Prior to this discovery did evolutionists think that crocs existed before dinosaurs? The whole hypothesis then has to change once you find a new fossil that makes you have to reorder life on the tree. no big whoop. But yes it is a big whoop.
And it can always be explained by evolution and millions of years passed without ever having to explain what thwt means.
All we have as a linkage between the croc of then and the croc of now is a fossil from billions of years ago. The proble with this is that you are taking fossils out of context and assigning linkages thst are simply not proven. How many other fossils from that time period don't we have that might tell a different story.; 3/19/15, 5:44 PM
jr565 said...: Sparrow wrote:
I don't buy the bipedal claim judging from the image and tail. So much of archeology is speculative. The evidence is so rare it's easy to make an unverifiable claim.

Yes, and that's the same problem with evolutionary data. At least from the fossil record. It's speculative.
Crocs existed after dinosaurs. Oh wait. Here's another fossil that looks like a croc. So now they exist before the dinosaurs.; 3/19/15, 6:03 PM
sinz52 said...: jr565 asked: "Prior to this discovery did evolutionists think that crocs existed before dinosaurs?"

Yes.

The archosaur group was well known from other fossils of other species.

In fact, the popular TV series "Walking with Dinosaurs" (1999) depicted them co-existing with the first dinosaurs during the Early Triassic, but going extinct afterward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx4EmvDhf5E; 3/19/15, 6:08 PM
jr565 said...: Crocs did not exist before dinosaurs. A separate group of animals existed before dinosaurs. Or during the same time as dinosaurs. Archosaurs are not crocodiles.; 3/19/15, 6:18 PM
Unknown said...: Once I observe a person embarrass themselves by disputing over evolution I'm embarrassed to realize that these same people are usually on the right side in questions of freedom and civil society. The left has their warmists. We've got bone heads who dispute the plain truth within which biology is lifted from simple observation to a field reaching for equality with physics or astronomy, illustrating processes both eons long and as ubiquitous as genetics. Surely there are socialists somewhere as uncomfortable with warmists as I am with creationists. If there are, it does nothing to reform socialism. I'd be glad to spot some of them anyway.; 3/19/15, 6:20 PM
jr565 said...: In 2009 the came out with a study thst suggested that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs that dinosaurs might have descended from birds.

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2010/feb/study-challenges-bird-dinosaur-theory-evolution-–-was-it-other-way-around

It's supposedly settled science yet it could go either way apparently. Or maybe both are not related at all and evolved separately. Or maybe never evolved at all.
As the article says "“Pesky new fossils . . . sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up,” Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. “Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution.”
Yes, regard it with caution.
I'm simply saying I'm skeptical. And I have a right to be considering this study undercuts 20 years of conventional wisdom about dinosaurs and birds.
It's not proven.

Again from the article: "This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away,” Ruben said. “On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals – the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense.”

isn't the conclusion they are coming up with equally full of conjecture? They're still clingIngrid to evolution, but they've just argued something thst has as little evidence to support as that birds evolved from Dinos. Though they make it sound eminently plausible.

Based on what proof?; 3/19/15, 6:44 PM
Original Mike said...: "Once I observe a person embarrass themselves by disputing over evolution I'm embarrassed to realize that these same people are usually on the right side in questions of freedom and civil society."

They're not usually big on freedom either.; 3/19/15, 6:45 PM
Unknown said...: So it may be, Original Mike. It's tempting to expand the crowd one can make common cause with, is all. As well as disheartening to witness willful ignorance. Such is the human animal, though.; 3/19/15, 7:05 PM
Original Mike said...: "It's supposedly settled science ..."

depends on the meaning of the word "it"

"yet it could go either way apparently."

So, apparently "it" means the hypothesis that birds come from dinosaurs. I'm not an expert, but it's not my impression that birds evolved from dinosaurs is "settled".

"Or maybe both are not related at all and evolved separately."

Maybe.

"Or maybe never evolved at all."

Nope. Birds evolved from something.

This thing you do where you point to holes in our knowledge regarding lineage (of which there are many) and claim it disproves evolution itself is childish.; 3/19/15, 7:16 PM
jr565 said...: In 1998 they discovered two dinosaur fossils and the Dino's apparently had feathers!
http://www.nature.com/news/1998/980702/full/news980702-8.html
The article came to the following conclusion:
"The fossils of two new species of dinosaur have been discovered in China - dinosaurs with feathers. These creatures effectively close the debate on whether or not birds and dinosaurs share a close evolutionary heritage. The answer is a resounding 'yes'. Yet these fossils make it clear that feathers appeared in evolution long before flight, and long before the appearance of birds in anything like their modern form."
Everyone of these assumptions are not proven at all. The mere fact that we find a dinosaur fossil with feathers doesn't mean that feathers evolved before flight. Because there could be a fossil of a flying creature thst existed at the same time. The same way they found invertebrates existing at the same time as vertebrates.
Now we have mammals thst live in water. We have duck bill platypuses. Similarly there could be dinosaurs thst had feathers.
We're these dinosaurs flying dinosaurs or land based?
Well the other study I linked to suggested that there was no way birds evolved from dinosaurs. In fact it's the other way around.
But now we have Dino's with feathers, but no ability to fly.
I'd like the people who concluded thst Dino's did not come from birds to work these two fossils into their conclusions to explain how a birds body couldn't evolve from a dinosaurs but that theses Dino's had feathers.
Evolution is applying a linkage that may not in fact be there. And scientists may in fact be largely in the dark.; 3/19/15, 7:18 PM
Unknown said...: With a couple of minor cosmetic changes you might find your typical creationist using a sledgehammer on Mesopotamian antiquities. Polemics amuse me, OM, but I don't really hope for any surprises in this area.; 3/19/15, 7:22 PM
Unknown said...: It's been a hundred years at least since it was even vaguely reasonable to speak of biological evolution as theoretical. It makes as much sense to speak of the theory of gravity - another natural fact for which the details remain under investigation.

I tell myself every time to avoid arguing with religious convictions. I should listen to myself better.; 3/19/15, 7:32 PM
jr565 said...: nope Birds evolved from something.

This thing you do where you point to holes in our knowledge regarding lineage (of which there are many) and claim it disproves evolution itself is childish.

I'm merely pointing out that that what you say is a given is not close to being proven. And is being disproven in fact every time a new fossil comes out.
because the linkages were never real to begin with.
Invertebrates had to evolve to vertebrates. Thsts the theory. But we find vertebrates at the same time as invertebrates. But what proof was there that invertebrates must evolve to vertebrates anyway? Other than the theory of evolution saying it must be so what proof is there thwt it is so?
So now you have to say, well invertebrates still came first only now we have to find the fossil that is even earlier than the previous earliest fossil we had of an invertebrate to prove it. But it's still true. Well, no it isn't. And even if you found that fossil it's not going to prove evolution because finding thst fossil doesn't prove that there isn't an earlier example of a vertebrate in existence. All it shows is thst at certain period in time an animal existed thst had certsin characteristics.
But we all know this. Billions of animals were in existence that are extinct that we will never know about. So, if that's true you could have a croc looking animal thst walked on all fours, or even upright. That simply went extinct.; 3/19/15, 7:33 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/19/15, 7:36 PM
Original Mike said...: "I'm merely pointing out that that what you say is a given is not close to being proven. And is being disproven in fact every time a new fossil comes out."

Who said what was a given?; 3/19/15, 7:37 PM
Original Mike said...: "I tell myself every time to avoid arguing with religious convictions. I should listen to myself better."

Yeah, I know better too.; 3/19/15, 7:41 PM
jr565 said...: "They're not usually big on freedom either."
Is that tied into our conversation on Garnwr selling loosies? And my assertion htst cops had every right to arrest him? How did Garner have the RIGHT to sell illegal things? You are free to exercise your rights but your rights are not absolute. And you don't have a right to things that aren't legal.
So when you say im not big on freedom I strongly disagree. Youhave a right to sell cigaretts, but you have to follow the law when you do. So if The mayor makes the taxes on cigarettes too high, and you want to sell cigaretttes, tough. You don't get additional rights to sell without a license sell to minors, linger outside of stores and sell to passersby and not pay the govt it's sales tax.; 3/19/15, 7:43 PM
Unknown said...: There are no few people today who would jail you for speaking in disagreement with Orthodox thought. When they get that into law will you still see no tension between freedom and legality?; 3/19/15, 7:49 PM
jr565 said...: There is micro evolution and macro evoution. Most "creationists" beleive in microevolution. Microevolution is true and observable. Macro evolution to me is theoretical.; 3/19/15, 7:55 PM
jr565 said...: "There are no few people today who would jail you for speaking in disagreement with Orthodox thought. When they get that into law will you still see no tension between freedom and legality?"

You can speak out about how you think loosies should be legal to sell. Thsts a different question than selling loosies despite the law saying it's illegal.
I might argue thst the drinking age should be 16, but if the drinking age is 21 and aim selling booze to 16 year olds I'm going to run into problems, no?; 3/19/15, 7:58 PM
Unknown said...: Tell me all about it after the Euro style speech laws come here.

No, wait. Never mind.; 3/19/15, 8:01 PM
MadisonMan said...: This thing you do where you point to holes in our knowledge regarding lineage (of which there are many) and claim it disproves evolution itself is childish.

Consider it a warped evolution-focused version of Laslo. Then it's comedy gold, almost.; 3/19/15, 8:11 PM
jr565 said...: I wasn't tslking about speech I was tslking about action. Original Mike, being the libertarian he is somehow thinks Garner being held to account for illegal behavior means that it's anti anti freedom. Simple because he doesn't like the law.; 3/19/15, 8:26 PM
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of New York said...: Ah the old Paleontology vs Archaeology kerfuffle.

Where is Ross to straighten this out?; 3/19/15, 8:54 PM
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of New York said...: One of my most intelligent friends is a believing creationist. He never discusses it, that's on account of he is smart.; 3/19/15, 8:57 PM
Original Mike said...: "Consider it a warped evolution-focused version of Laslo. Then it's comedy gold, almost."

There is a comedic quality to it.; 3/19/15, 9:01 PM
jr565 said...: Back to evolution. I question some of the premises for example the idea that because animals Share a similar feature, that it's evidence of a common ancestor. For example, the limb bone of vertebrates.
For example birds, bats and humans all share a similar limb bone structure and so share a common ancestor with the basic pentadcytl limb structure.
Thats a pretty flimsy basis for determining common ancestry especially considering you are only looking at similarities and not differences.
We all have DNA, we all have bone structures, and so there will be some overlap in nature beciase they are the same basic building blocks used in all forms.

But what if you look at more features together it's less easy to discern commonality or say they come from a common source.

Even if you look at the supposed commonalities you csn often find subtle differences, suggesting that they are not derived from a common ancestor.

For example, limb bones of vertebrates develop differently. Even if they superficially look the same. But eve if they were exact you couldn't detrrmine common ancestry becuse of other differences.

Evolutionists work out the features they think show common ancestry by first assuming evolution is true and then add them to the tree accordingly.
They construct the tree and then infer which features suggest common ancestry in the tree. These features are homologous.
However, the only reason they are considered homologous is because it was inferred by the evolutionist who put it on the tree as an example.
That's the problem with much of evolution. The truth is that it was inferred by the person making the claim.; 3/19/15, 9:02 PM
Original Mike said...: "That's the problem with much of evolution. The truth is that it was inferred by the person making the claim."

Yeah, so? How do you think science works?; 3/19/15, 9:12 PM
jr565 said...: (Cont) and common ancestry was assumed in order to make the inference. So then it's not true except that the evolutionist say it is. And the evidence is that it's on the tree. Put there by the evolutionist.

And this keeps happening over and over again. An inference is assumed to be a fact simply because the evolutionist notes a similarity and then constructs an elaborate story that is based purely on his inference.
Which is why it so often happens that we find a new fossil which totally changes our ideas of where animals are on the tree.; 3/19/15, 9:15 PM
Original Mike said...: 100 million years ago there were no elephants. Now, there are elephants. Where do you think the elephants came from?; 3/19/15, 9:19 PM
jr565 said...: Evolution then is true because evolutionists beleive it to be so, not because they prove that it is so. The same way astrology is true for those who beleive in astrology.
If you didn't believe in evolution as a fact would you accept such shoddy proofs as proofs?; 3/19/15, 9:21 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/19/15, 9:26 PM
jr565 said...: Do you think elephants came from sea cows? Why is that less crazy than believing thst elephants were created as elephants?; 3/19/15, 9:27 PM
Original Mike said...: So God created elephants. All right then. You've studiously avoided saying that. Wasn't sure what you believed.; 3/19/15, 9:34 PM
jr565 said...: Original Mike,
I assume thst DNA with all its complications needs to have been created, much like computer programs need to be written. They don't construct themselves out of randomness.; 3/19/15, 10:41 PM
jr565 said...: Most of the animal phyla that exist today appeared in a small window in the Cambrian period, fully formed.

speaking about this evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyama said:

"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
Even if you ascribe it to evolution there appears to be intelligence behind it. Animals randomly over time completely reform their bone structure and shape and even DNA, and learn things like how to fly and develop wings to do so. You talk about transitions from sea lions to elephants who go from existing in water to existing on land. Thst is some profound physiological changes. Even if gradual, a species would need to survive every step of the way all the time having a body that allowed it to function in completely different environments. Natural selection and mutation would allow for changes that are allowed for in DNA, (ie variations) but not to completely transform creaturs from fish to apes. Even over time.; 3/19/15, 10:53 PM
Original Mike said...: I didn't ask about DNA. I asked about the elephant, which appeared relatively recently. Strange that God belatedly decided the world needed elephants, but I guess he had a reason.; 3/19/15, 10:54 PM
jr565 said...: Phillip Johnson p, albeit a critic of Darwinism and evolution had this to say:
"Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing."
Now regardless of whether he's right about evoultion he does appear to be right about the fossil record. Even Stephen Gould said as much which is why he came up with punctuated equilibrium.; 3/19/15, 10:59 PM
Original Mike said...: "Even if gradual, a species would need to survive every step of the way all the time having a body that allowed it to function in completely different environments."

You keep saying this, but it's not the case.; 3/19/15, 11:02 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/20/15, 2:24 AM
Quaestor said...: jr565 wrote: Archosaurs are not crocodiles.

Error. The archosauria were a huge group of tremendous diversity, but they're mostly gone now except for two clades -- the crocs, formally and ironically known as the Pseudosuchia, and the birds, the sole survivors of the Avemetatarsalia, which includes the extinct dinosaurs families and the totally extinct pterosaurs.; 3/20/15, 2:39 AM
Quaestor said...: Althouse wrote: There were dinosaurs, perhaps, but they were not yet reigning???

That's about the size of it. Though both the dinosauria and the pterosauria got their evolutionary start during the Triassic, it wasn't until after the great mass-extinction event at its end, about 200 million years ago, which killed off about 80% of all animal species, leaving the crocodylomorphs reduced mainly to the more familiar aquatic types and the therapsids (mammal-like reptiles) also greatly reduced, that the dinosaurs got their opportunity, an opportunity they fully exploited in the following Jurassic Period, the flowering of the dinosaurs.; 3/20/15, 2:41 AM