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

Science News Online ^ | June 26 2006 | Eric Jbaffe

[Texas Eagle]

How long did the T. Rex roam the earth before extinction banged its gong?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"T Rex did breed too slowly for random mutations to account for the changes in said beast. That's my opinion."

And this is based on? Nothing.

"Alligators do breed slowly, once per year, yet are prolific (20 to 50 young at a time) and virtually unchanged over millions of years."

Except for all the speciation and higher level branching.

"Remaining unchanged over vast amounts of time is contradictory to vast amounts of random mutations."

No it isn't. You are yet again forgetting about selection.

"Of course, you have a problem with every word above. You have to. You have to be argumentative, as your belief-structure is threatened by such easily laid out points."

LOL Not even you believe what you just wrote.

Keep flailing. I have stopped expecting you to back anything you said up, or for you to be big enough to admit you screwed up. That would take a level of integrity (minuscule) you lack.

[balrog666]

BTW, you DO know that the article you quoted from is satire, right? :)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[Southack]

Remaining unchanged over vast amounts of time is contradictory to vast amounts of random mutations.

"No it isn't. You are yet again forgetting about selection."

Incorrect. Selection isn't in question. It isn't forgotten; it simply isn't controversial.

Instead, you are unaware of the mathematical probabilities of "randomness."

Remaining unchanged over vast amounts of time is contradictory to vast amounts of random mutations.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Incorrect. Selection isn't in question. It isn't forgotten; it simply isn't controversial."

But it has everything to do with why alligators have kept a similar shape over time. The mutation rate isn't that important (not that you have a clue as to what that rate is, though you claimed to know).

" Instead, you are unaware of the mathematical probabilities of "randomness."

Remaining unchanged over vast amounts of time is contradictory to vast amounts of random mutations."

Again you forget about the affects of selection, which is definitely NOT random.

Keep flailing, it's fun to watch.

[tomzz]

How long did the T. Rex roam the earth before extinction banged its gong?

Probably a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years. Last summer, scientists had to break a trex leg bone in half to get it on a small helicopter, and this is what they found inside the thing:

MSNBC/Reuters version of the story.

Anybody who figures that stuff is 70 million years old is basically deluded.

[balrog666]

Again you forget about the affects of selection, which is definitely NOT random. Keep flailing, it's fun to watch.

What an absolute dolt!

[js1138]

Of course, you have a problem with every word above. You have to. You have to be argumentative, as your belief-structure is threatened by such easily laid out points.

You have a problem in that you have been arguing all day with unsupported claims you simply made up.

You have no idea what the reproductive rate of dinosaurs was, and you have no idea what the mutation rate of crocodiles is. You simply made this stuff up.

Not bad for someone who travels among those who accuse evolutionists of having just so stories.

The just so story that fits all available evidence is that evolution. like dog breeding can produce rapid changes in body conformation under some conditions. Among those conditions is a relative lack of competition and predation. Such as after a mass extinction.

Between extinction events, body types change slowly. Alligators and crocodiles survived the last extinction event, and their body plan has not changed a whole lot.

Crocks and alligators have changed, however. They are not the came as they were 150 million years ago, despite you babbling about mutation rates.

[Texas Eagle]

Hmmmm....those are rather large bones. Even if they only roamed the earth for a few thousand years, how many of them would have inhabited the earth.

And after you say, "All of them", please give me a numerical guesstimate. Would it have been in the millions do you suppose?

[demkicker]

It's rather sad that you cannot or will not be more specific. Freedom of religion allows you to believe in whatever you desire, regardless of your family's beliefs.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Last summer, scientists had to break a trex leg bone in half to get it on a small helicopter, and this is what they found inside the thing:"

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.

[OmahaFields]

Anybody who figures that stuff is 70 million years old is basically deluded.

Why?

[Southack]

"Again you forget about the affects of selection, which is definitely NOT random."

Lets make a clear point: "selection" isn't in question. Not "selection's" randomness or lack thereof; not "selection's" existence or lack thereof.

In short, any reference to "selection" is off topic at best, specious at worst, and more likely a simple-minded attempt at thread digression.

Is this single point clear? Probably not. You probably "feel" the need to argue about it in one way or another.

Nonetheless, ramblings about "selection" won't save your failed debate.

Now, if you want to talk about random mutations, that's a more worthy topic of debate.

Random (or not) "selection" is unworthy, however. It's non-controversial.

Carry on.

[Al Simmons]

I believe the latest discoveries have pushed it back to about 70MYA (70MYA-65MYA = 5MY)....Immediately before then you have Daspletosaurus and Gorgosaurus, basically smaller relatives...

[Southack]

"What an absolute dolt!"

More name-calling from you, I see.

I doubt that you are capable of anything more intelligent, though.

[Texas Eagle]

Okay. Let's say the T. Rex roamed the earth for 5 million years. How many do you suppose would have ever existed in that amount of time? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions? Tens of millions?

[OmahaFields]

MSNBC/Reuters version of the story.

According to the official ID mantra, MSNBC is a liberal rag not to be trusted. I read the linked article and I agree.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

The random mutation rate over vast amounts of time must roughly correspond to the changes seen in any given species (for Evolutionary Theory to have a snowball's chance of being correct, anyway).

What?!? That is not even close to evolutionary theory. Selection pressure has a much greater influence on rate of change; mutation rate has very little impact. A species with very few mutations but in an environment that places serious survival pressures on that species will see a greater evolutionary rate of change than a species with a high rate of mutation but very little pressure from its environment to change. Sharks have evolved more "slowly" than other species of fish, not because we can say anything about the "rate of mutation" in sharks versus those fish (which wouldn't be constant in either, anyway... hence the term random), but because any mutation would be unlikely to make a shark better adapted to its environment (it already fits its role in its environment very well).

Your entire argument is based on a premise about what evolutionary theory postulates that is completely wrong. If you're going to argue against something, at least understand what you are arguing against first! Jeez...

[OmahaFields]

You have provided no evidence that T-rex's bred slowly.

What's harder than getting a pregnat T-rex aboard the Arc?

[Southack]

"Between extinction events, body types change slowly. Alligators and crocodiles survived the last extinction event, and their body plan has not changed a whole lot."

Extinction events are rare. For all practical intents and purposes you could just say that body types change slowly, period.

You could also say that changes in body types appear suddenly (e.g. in the fossil record), though rarely. Same thing.

Whether such evidence supports an evolutionary process or an external bias is another thing entirely, however.