**Polycarp[/]
Yes, or perhaps an extremist Maronite circus performer.
I still think a bat is a bird-like mammal.
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
- Boris Badenov
Andros, a crutch is simply a tool. Some need this tool, others don’t. It would be foolish to refuse a crutch if one truly needs it.
Knowledge is a tool. As far as explaining how life got here, evolution makes more sense to me than creationism or even God-directed evolution. Because look at all the other things God did, according to the Old Testament: Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) Defies belief that there was only ONE family worth saving out of two cities. And were babies equally deserving of annihilation? And Lot’s daughters were supposed to be good people, but look at what they did to their father afterwards. And they didn’t seem to miss their mother very much. And this is just one example. I could re-read the Old Testament and find others, if you like. Which town was it that Joshua was ordered to destroy down to the last man, woman, child and infant and animal? What about II Corinthians, the verses that tell women to keep quiet in church? I wouldn’t let anyone talk to my mother that way, thank you very much.
What do I mean by all this? If God created me and all other life, whether in six days or 3.5B years, then I was created by a sadistic bully who likes to throw his weight around. That sounds like someone I should defy, not follow. And if I go to hell for it, I go with a clear conscience.
So, yeah, I’d rather believe in God-less evolution. It lets me sleep at night.
You were probably being facetious, but you DID ask.
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
I’d like to add: If evolution is my crutch, then call me “Festus!”
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
jab1 wrote:
Um … that’s not “reversed”. That’s precisely what I said.
jab1 wrote:
All off them. See Joshua 10:30-40.
So its obvious. The raptors were giant flightless proto-birds, descended as a sister clade to true birds from Archy-like ancestors. Think emus…
(disclaimer: I don’t know if anyone has seriously proposed this. I don’t really care. But, if anyone comes up with a series of bird-like fossils that show them growing larger, losing flight and growing big nasty claws on their feet, I want credit for proposing this first. If no such series emerges, or if the cladistics show that it couldn’t happen, just ignore this. Thank you.)
Dr. Fidelius is attempting to duplicate l’affaire Utahraptor. For those who don’t know, the makers of the Jurassic Park movie liked the idea of Velociraptors as the primary antagonistic beast for the movie. However, at the time they made the movie, your typical dromaeosaur (raptor-style critter) was about the size of a large bipedal dog and none of approximately human size were known. Such an animal, while it would be deadly in real life, was not particularly visually terrifying. They went ahead and, with help from a professional paleontologist, scaled them up to the raptors of the movie. As post-production was going on, Jim Jensen, the real-life paleontologist they had used and after whom the male lead was characterized, discovered a new dromaeosaur which he named Utahraptor, which matched the scaled-up creature almost to a tee.
tracer caught me. I DID get them reversed. Sometimes I think I’m dyslexic.
Anyway, I’m not sure if anyone said the flying Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of the flight-less raptors. It’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to analyze the DNA of fossil bones, so we may never know for sure.
I don’t want to give the impression I’m jumping to conclusions here, I’m just asking: Is it possible that ALL theropods had feathers and that some could fly and some couldn’t? Theropod fossils have been found in the Arctic and feathers are good insulation.
Could sauropods have had feathers? The only dinosaur-with-feathers fossils found have been theropods.
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Well, I finally got a look-see at that new issue of National Geographic. Pictures reproduce a lot better on paper than they do on line. The impressions of feathers in the rock of the fossils took my breath away. The photo of Sinornithosaurus on pg. 104 is especially noteworthy. (I think I’m in love!) Sino was a dromaeosaur, about the size of a modern eagle and lived about 120,000,000 years ago. It probably could not fly.
Anyway, there are several passages I’d like to quote:
-
PAGE 105: “The fossil (of Sinornithosaurus) also supports the concept that early feathers evolved for insulation or display rather than flight…”
-
PAGE 102: “…we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammmals.”
-
PAGE 103: “At seven feet long, Beipiaosaurus is the largest dinosaur yet found with feathers.”
-
PAGE 107: “T.rex hatchlings needed a way to stay warm. What would be more logical than insulating feathers?”
The article states that T. rex would lose those feathers as it aged, though it may have retained a few for display purposes. The hatchlings would’ve been covered in down. No fossil T. rex eggs have been found as yet, but if they are, could this down be visible in an X-ray or a CT scan?
One other thing mentioned: The fossil of another dinosaur was found in a gem and mineral show in Utah. Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas, directors of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, bought it and contacted the authorities. Since it was illegally exported from China, they promised to return it to China after studying it and showing it to N.G. writer and editor Christopher P. Sloan.
Imagine if the only known fossil of Archaeoraptor liaoningensis had ended up as a door-stop in someone’s home because they didn’t know how important it was…
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
A little late: Dermaptera are the insect order commonly known as earwigs. This name is not particularly apt, since not all of them are wingless (aptera), and their bodies don’t look no more skin covered than any number of other insects. Nevertheless, Dermaptera = Earwigs.
C. corax
(who TA’d undergraduate insect taxonomy at Michigan State)
“don’t look no more”! ACK!
C. corax
(who TA’d undergraduate insect taxonomy at Michigan State, but who hasn’t learned to proofread)
Which is why I said Dermoptera, not Dermaptera. A subtle distinction, but I was talking of the furry comb-toothed critters and not the vermin.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
We apologise for the fault in the sig files. Those responsible have been sacked.
Oh, and it’s no wonder that baby T. rex in The Lost World was so unhappy: It was naked! “Where’s my downy insulation? I’m cold!”
D’ you think they’ll give dinosaurs feathers in any subsequent dinosaur movie? Wouldn’t that be a kick to see?
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
note to lurkers evolution is being RIPPED up by an absolute geniug in the flat earth tread!!!
Not to insult any geniugs out there, but I hardly think that several weeks of semantic “ground laying” quite qualifies as “ripping up” anything.
I have not seen any actual evidence presented against Natural Selection and, so far, I have not seen any substantive challenges to the underlying logic employed by those scientists who have speculated regarding the mechanisms of evolution.
Tom~
The differences between Natural Selection and Artificial Selection:
One of them has an intelligence behind it.
The other one takes millions of years.
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
I agree with everyone on the side of science - religion has its place, but this is most definately not one of its places.
As everyone probably knows, religion was invented to quell people’s fears of death etc… and to serve as a basis for a civillised system of laws. It was NOT based on any scientific fact as there was none at the time and as such falls flat on its face when it gets beyond the realms of belief in a supreme deity which is supposed to be the divine ruler of the world. I stress the ‘supposed’ section in my last sentence.
This will probably not make me any friends with the religious people out there, but hey, who cares. If half of them are right they only have to hate me for a couple of months then we’re all going to die anyway!
“I think, therefore I am” - prove it!
You’re right CJD when you say that you’re not going to make any friends… in fact I suspect that there are going to be more than a few VERY UNHAPPY PEOPLE out there after they read your little ‘contribution’.
What exactly are you trying to say, that science is the one true religion??? If that’s the case, then who is God? Einstein, Hawking, Newton???
How do you explain the fact that many religions are actually based on historical fact, and that as time goes by historical events which are scientific fact form part of that religions system of ‘good’ and ‘bad’? Although it’s pretty obvious that religion can’t ALL be taken as fact, there are parts which are based on fact.
That’s basically a very long winded way of saying…
What do YOU believe then???
“Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver” - Edmund Blackadder
CJD: Interesting typo there. You said ‘As everyone probably knows’ and I think you meant to type ‘Some people think’.
SpoonsJTD: No, I think I meant that everyone should know, but I was restating the fact for those who aren’t enlightened enough to see the truth (I think that’s what I meant anyway…)
“I think, therefore I am” - prove it!