New Study Shows Tyrannosaurus Rex Evolved Advanced Bird-Like Binocular Vision

Science News Online ^ | June 26 2006 | Eric Jbaffe

[OmahaFields]

One of these days you'll re-read your ridiculous statements and want to crawl in a hole. Maybe today?

No. But your total ignorance is showing more an more each time make another self-righteous post. Now do you fell like crawling into a hole?

WEBSTERS: fr. OE u-tor, compar.] of u-t out obs 1: to offer for sale

utter \'*t-*-r*-b*l\ \'*t-*r-*r\ vt [ME uttren, fr. utter outside, adv.,

fr. OE u-tor, compar.] of u-t out obs 1: to offer for sale 2a: to send forth as a sound 2b: to give utterance to : PRONOUNCE, SPEAK 2c: to give public expression to : express in words 3: to put (as currency) into circulation 4: to put forth or out : DISCHARGE - ut.ter.able aj

[OmahaFields]

One of these days you'll re-read your ridiculous statements and want to crawl in a hole. Maybe today?

The correct word would be "into" not "in". A common mistake by the illiterate.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Placemarker

[OmahaFields]

Psssst: It really is pathetic when one feels he has to bash another's religion in order to feel superior.

Since you consider "evolution" a religion, bashing evolution would seem to qualify you as pathetic, at least according to your definition.

[OmahaFields]

Imagine. DK wanted me to offer my faith up for sale.

[OmahaFields]

"pathetic" placemarker.

[demkicker]

You need to quit since you're already far behind.

[RobRoy]

>>Yes, they found a 3 mm in diameter hard piece of bone that had to be treated with acids to get it *softened*. There were no blood cells, nor DNA found. It was as much *meat* as a pet rock is alive.<<

Where did you read this? I have been following this story since it broke and have been using google to identify new stories. I have yet to find any more details since February, and none of them made the assertions you are posting here. There was really no relevant information beyond the basic premises of the original stories.

[js1138]

I noticed you didn't mention how many times people have pushed the abuse button ON YOU.

I have been on this forum for eight years without being suspended, banned or warned by a moderator.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Where did you read this?"

From the researcher's report. From the original photograph of the specimen that had a scale on it ( a scale that is missing in the MSNBC picture). Here's some more:

http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/tyrannosaur_morsels/
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/DinoBlood.cfm

[RobRoy]

Yes, this is the standard explanation for the heavy flyers - that they were gliders. It does not hold water when critically evaluated. The logical hoops through which one must jump to support these kinds of theories are actually downright comical.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/trex1_h.jpg

[RobRoy]

Thank you.

[Al Simmons]

"Yes, this is the standard explanation for the heavy flyers - that they were gliders. It does not hold water when critically evaluated. The logical hoops through which one must jump to support these kinds of theories are actually downright comical."

Surprisingly, we are in (partial) agreement here.

All recent evidence and analysis points to the fact that Pterosaurs, in fact, were not "gliders" but could take off on their own power (of course, all birds 'glide' when aloft to conserve energy, but I suspect that is not what you meant...

oh, and I don't think anyone who thought about it a little would describe a Pterosaur with a 40-foot wingspan, weighing 200 pounds a 'heavy flyer'.....

By the way, scientists also used to think that, based on their analysis, there was just NO WAY that a bee could manage to fly.....

[RobRoy]

I read the articles. The first seems pretty level headed and admits that we really don't know a lot yet, and then he makes an interesting prediction, due to the fact that cells have a strong "self destruct" mechanism. I liked it's frankness.

The second is just an op-ed piece making fun of professional Creationists - a pretty easy thing to do. ;)

[SaveUS]

Psst: When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. Troll.

[RobRoy]

I consider anything over 25 lbs to be a "heavy" flyer.

>>By the way, scientists also used to think that, based on their analysis, there was just NO WAY that a bee could manage to fly.....<<

Yep! I suspect as we continue to unravel history, we may resolve this issue about "heavy flyers". One guy went as far as to suggest the earths gravitational field was far weaker in the past. It would explain a lot of stuff, like a Brontosaurus being able to actually lift his head off the ground. :)

[js1138]

...scientists also used to think that, based on their analysis, there was just NO WAY that a bee could manage to fly...

You have a citation for that? An actual published journal article or something? Or do you just like the sound of wind whistling through your head?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You have a citation for that? An actual published journal article or something? Or do you just like the sound of wind whistling through your head?"

He was quoting Al Simmons; I believe Al meant to say bumble bees, not bees in general. I know there was a lot of speculation as to how the bumble bee could take off. It wasn't resolved until slow motion films showed that the bee was twisting its wings a little, thereby giving it enough lift.

[demkicker]

Glad to know I hit a nerve. Oh, and you're the troll, newbie.