-----------------------------
Published on November 11, 2005 By ----- In Misc
Is it me, or does this creature sound kind of like the "loch Ness" monster so infamously known? Just wonderin...

-Lucas




[B]Scientists reveal prehistoric terror


(CNN) -- Scientists say they have discovered the intact fossilized skull of a marine crocodile with a dinosaur-like head and a fish-like tail that likely terrorized the Pacific Ocean 135 million years ago.

The head of the expedition that found the specimen has dubbed it "Godzilla."

The fossil was discovered in 1996 in the Patagonia region of Argentina and researchers spent years uncovering the skull and analyzing their find. They published their work Thursday in the journal Science.

Zulma Gasparini, paleozoology professor at Argentina's Universidad Nacional de La Plata, said the fierce-looking animal probably terrorized creatures in the Pacific Ocean in the late Jurassic era, just as the film monster Godzilla frightened the people of Tokyo in the movies.

"We are calling him the 'chico malo' -- 'bad boy'" of the ocean, she said.

Report co-author Diego Pol of Ohio State University said "Godzilla," whose scientific name is Dakosaurus andiniensis, had a short, high snout and large, jagged teeth for biting and cutting prey.

He said this was surprising, because other marine crocodiles have long, thin snouts and many smaller teeth.

But Pol said "Godzilla" was a top ocean predator and preyed much like the dinosaurs of its era.

He said it was probably about 12 feet long and had four paddle-like limbs instead of the legs of today's crocodiles.

The National Geographic Society and Argentina's National Council of Scientific and Technical Research funded the research.





Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Nov 11, 2005
Compare these details with what we 'know':

a) Pacific Ocean (saltwater) vs. Scottish loch (freshwater)
135 million years ago vs. 1933 - present day
c) 12 feet long vs. 3 feet - 50 feet
d) Marine crocodile vs. plesiosaur

Yes, I agree - sort of a coincidence!
on Nov 11, 2005
The point is they arn't *exactly* sure... They've had sightings of it all over, from quebec, baja cali, etc... to loch lommond,etc... so...
on Nov 11, 2005
They've had sightings of it all over

Who exactly, and what clear evidence has arisen from these sightings? (Hints: 1. Those who believe in it, and 2. None.)

As I suggested by the length aspect of my previous comment, what people claim to 'know' tends to vary widely - regardless of whether it concerns the Loch Ness monster, the yeti, abducting aliens, fairies at the bottom of the garden etc.

The bottom line is that, after almost 70 years of staggeringly dedicated watching / photographing / filming / scanning etc., Loch Ness is probably one of the most analysed stretches of water in the world. And still no one has found a scrap of clear evidence that any kind of 'monster' lives in it - or ever did. Suggestions to the contrary may be driven by one of many motives - enthusiasm, supporting the tourist trade, paranoia at government 'cover-ups', obsession, who knows? - but there is no science in them whatsoever.
on Nov 11, 2005
They've had sightings of it all over, from quebec, baja cali, etc... to loch lommond,etc... so...


Yeah, but it's like comparing apples and oranges. Loch Ness, Loch Lomond and both freshwater bodies, and 'Nessie' is reported to be a LOT bigger than this thing they just found a fossil of.

Besides, there have been fossils of dinosaurs around for a long time, including those of sea creatures. It's not like this is the first thing they've found evidence of that lived underwater....and of all the fossils that have been found there are plenty more than could be more likely to be 'Nessie' than this latest discovery.
on Nov 11, 2005
What about Chessie? She is salt water!
on Nov 11, 2005
What about Chessie? She is salt water!


And there ya go...

The bottom line is that, after almost 70 years of staggeringly dedicated watching / photographing / filming / scanning etc., Loch Ness is probably one of the most analysed stretches of water in the world. And still no one has found a scrap of clear evidence that any kind of 'monster' lives in it - or ever did. Suggestions to the contrary may be driven by one of many motives - enthusiasm, supporting the tourist trade, paranoia at government 'cover-ups', obsession, who knows? - but there is no science in them whatsoever.


I don't rememeber where i read it, but it was discovered that a few million years back (not sure the exact time) Loch lommon was connected to the atlantic...


--Lucas

on Nov 11, 2005
What about Chessie? She is salt water!


And there ya go...


Like I said:
not like this is the first thing they've found evidence of that lived underwater....and of all the fossils that have been found there are plenty more than could be more likely to be 'Nessie' than this latest discovery.
on Nov 11, 2005
I don't rememeber where i read it, but it was discovered that a few million years back (not sure the exact time) Loch lommon was connected to the atlantic...

Lucas, my point was that the intense scrutiny of Loch Ness over the last 70 years means that it is more likely to be monster-free than almost any other stretch of water on the planet. You respond by saying that Loch Lomond (sp.) may once have been connected to the North Atlantic ocean. Well, fine - but so what?

(Incidentally, Loch Ness is much closer to the North Sea than to the North Atlantic, and it is separated from Loch Lomond by the not-insignificant Grampian mountains.)

So, I don't mean to be rude, Lucas, but your response has no bearing at all - either on my particular point, or on your initial post.
on Nov 11, 2005
Never mind...
on Nov 11, 2005
A couple of memorable quotes from Carl Sagan may be appropriate here:

'For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.'

'I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.'
on Nov 11, 2005
'For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.


But what "really is" the universe? I mean, years ago, the "elite" (Scientists) said the world was flat, that the other planets revolved around the earth... How sure are we that we are sure...?

(Perhaps it is just me, as i am un-deniably a thinker...i think (at times) in "what ifs?"... I challenge things at times...so... (Its a ad habit...)

--Lucas
on Nov 11, 2005
'But what "really is" the universe? I mean, years ago, the "elite" (Scientists) said the world was flat, that the other planets revolved around the earth... How sure are we that we are sure...?'


The 'elite' of whom you speak were not scientists! The 'flat earth' view of the world was propogated by religious leaders, whose opinions were dictated by their beliefs. It was the scientists - Galileo, Copernicus et al - who eventually put them right.

Still, you make a fair point. The degree to which we are sure of how the universe 'really is' can never be total, as science always allows for new evidence to come along that cannot be explained by current thinking. This is not a weakness of science, however - it is one of its key strengths, in that we are prevented, in the long run, from perpetuating our delusions when the evidence does not support them.

e.g. Isaac Newton's model of the physical world served perfectly well for over 200 years. It was only when scientists began to consider the extremes of the model - how physics works on the very small and the very large scales - that it was found to be wanting; hence the progress of science into the areas of relativity and quantum mechanics. (Incidentally, this is a typical example of scientific progress, in that what went before needs less often to be dismissed in its entirety than to be refined or augmented.)

To my mind though, the big difference between science and what Sagan refers to as 'delusion' is this: science demands that any and all hypotheses are accepted / rejected on the basis of experimental evidence. Personal preference has no place in scientific method. Scientists are obliged to accept the results of rigorous scientific method, even if these sometimes make them deeply unhappy on a personal level - e.g. Einstein's 'I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world' or Schrodinger's 'I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it', both comments about the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, depite the misgivings of individuals, findings such as these remain within the body of our scientific understanding, unless and until further evidence comes along to contradict them.

And THAT is what makes the scientific method more objective - more based in what 'really is', as you put it - than any other means of understanding. So, to get back to the subject of this blog, for the Loch Ness monster to exist, and for it to be an instance of this 'marine crocodile', there must be some tangible scientific evidence. That there is not means that there is no scientific case to support this - no matter how much any of us might WANT it to be true. i.e. Wishful thinking just doesn't cut it.
on Nov 11, 2005
Never mind...


why? becuase your argument doesn't hold water now that Furry and I have poked holes in it?

As for being a thinker...yes, you think. But, so do I. And Furry. And a lot of other people. It's not THAT you think, it's WHAT you think about that matters.
on Nov 11, 2005
Reply By: Furry Canary


Hey, I made a fair point? (Kodak moment)

why? becuase your argument doesn't hold water now that Furry and I have poked holes in it?


How'd ya know? Ehh, I can't think of a good rebuttal at the moment...

As for being a thinker...yes, you think. But, so do I. And Furry. And a lot of other people. It's not THAT you think, it's WHAT you think about that matters.


I was explaining why i think "illogically" at times (or what others may call illogical)


--Lucas
on Nov 11, 2005
'I was explaining why i think "illogically" at times (or what others may call illogical)'


You didn't mention being illogical at all before, Lucas. You simply said that you 'challenge things at times' which is an entirely different thing - and to be encouraged, as long as you do so by logical or rational means.

Incidentally, what others think is quite irrelevant; logic as a way of thinking is objective and well-defined. Either your thinking IS logical or it isn't. If it isn't, and you KNOW it isn't, then - surely - you shouldn't try to explain WHY so much as take steps to make amends.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last