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

Science News Online ^ | June 26 2006 | Eric Jbaffe

[js1138]

Mutations may or may not be random. Selection is what shapes populations, and selection is not random.

[drhogan]

even if they HAD been there, they would have all been EATEN!!!

[Valpal1]

Selection is not random in breedstock either, yet man has never created a new species in thousands of years of selective breeding and intentional exploitation of random mutations.

So unintentional nature can acheive what intentional man can not?

[drhogan]

well, if you're ever hunted by a t-rex, you now know that you should leave, rather than standing still so it can't see you.
this knowledge will save many people's lives!

[drhogan]

the cars have all rusted by now, but the excellent vision of the t-rex probably evolved because it was needed for driving.
(the dinsaurs with bad vision were unable to get drivers licenses, so they couldn't get dates, didn't reproduce, and they all died out.)

[drhogan]

yeah--dinosaurs developed good vision so they could watch movies!
i think i got it now!

[js1138]

Thousands of years is an eyeblink, and the varieties produced by selective breeding are as distinctive as those that separate most wild species.

[drhogan]

also, they started playing "chicken", and many died in car accidents.
the high rate of drug and alcohol use also led to many accidents and needless deaths.
also, the claws on their front legs were not good for holding onto the steering wheel, and many lost control of their cars and ran off steep mountain passes.
finally, the foolish t-rex's bought poorly made foreign cars, which folded up like accordions when they crashed into apatosauruses.
the meteor got all the rest, except for a few that mutated into birds.

[Southack]

"Now, why is it that the fast-breeding alligator is so devoid of **random** mutations?" They aren't."

That's incorrect. The alligator is little-changed in 200 million years.

[Southack]

Now, why is it that the fast-breeding alligator is so devoid of **random** mutations?

"I think it's because alligators are perfectly suited to the environment to which they are intended. Same with mosquitoes, flys, etc. Sorry for interrupting. Go ahead"

And yet, your fellow Darwinist claims that alligators have lots of mutations. Go figure. Each Darwinist spins a different way, contradicting each other. Who woulda thunk it?!

[js1138]

Change in a population is the result of selection, not mutation rate.

[Southack]

"Thousands of years is an eyeblink, and the varieties produced by selective breeding are as distinctive as those that separate most wild species."

That would be like claiming that dogs/wolves are as genetically distinct as goats/elk.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's incorrect. The alligator is little-changed in 200 million years."

That doesn't make them devoid of mutations. You said they were, which is wildly incorrect.

BTW, the species of alligator alive today are not the same species alive 200 million years ago.

Don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have completely turned around your story once it was pointed out to you that alligators DO indeed breed fairly quickly (you said they didn't). Nor that it is gone forgotten that you make completely unfounded claims about T-rex breeding rates. Your attempt to evade those points has failed.

[saleman]

What makes you think I'm a Darwinist? BTW, I'm not.

[Southack]

"Mutations may or may not be random. Selection is what shapes populations, and selection is not random."

Selection merely culls a population. Selection is not in dispute. Whether a mutation is random (e.g. Evolutionary) or due to some level of outside bias (e.g. Intelligent Design), the resultant species/hybrid still is subject to Selection.

There is no controversy regarding Selection.

The controversy surrounds the mutations (random or biased).

[Southack]

That's incorrect. The alligator is little-changed in 200 million years.

"That doesn't make them devoid of [random] mutations. You said they were, which is wildly incorrect."

On the contrary, a little-changed species represents an insignificant number of random mutations over 200 million years.

[Southack]

"Change in a population is the result of selection, not mutation rate."

That's a misleading claim. Sure, a population can thrive or decline without ever having a mutation...but...for evolutionary theory to even be a potential explanation of a specific origin of a species, the species must have some random mutations as well as remain subject to Selection (e.g. not protected in a lab).

[Southack]

"What makes you think I'm a Darwinist? BTW, I'm not."

Based upon your posts, whatever you claim to be is a distinction without a difference to Darwinism, though no doubt you **feel** differently.

Label yourself, then. I'm disinterested.

[js1138]

That would be like claiming that dogs/wolves are as genetically distinct as goats/elk.

Not at all. You have consistently ignored everything I have posted regarding the difference between genetic variation and morphology. Classifications of fossils are based on morphology, but it is obvious from dog breeds that larges variations in size and shape do not indicate large genetic differences. Classification of fossils will always present problems.

I have been pointing out that the assertion that breeding or artificial selection has produced changes in animals great enough to be considered division as separate species if we did not know their history and could not analyze their DNA. The people claiming we have not produced new species have no basis for this claim. They are comparing apples and oranges -- creatures for whom we have a few fossilized bone specimens vs creatures for whom we have detailed pedigrees.

The fact is that artificial selection can produce rapid morphological change in populations.

[Question_Assumptions]

Part of the reason why the T Rex's vision worked that way in Jurassic Park, which gets glossed over in the movie, is that the T Rex DNA was fragmentary and they filled it in with frog DNA. That is how vision works for a frog. But it's also important to point out that being able to see something isn't the same as being able to notice something and almost all creatures notice moving things better than unmoving things, which is why a lot of animals (especially young animals) stay still, rather than automatically running, when they spot a predator.