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

Science News Online ^ | June 26 2006 | Eric Jbaffe

[OmahaFields]

Really?! In what specific, different way is an alligator that is alive today from that of its direct ancestral grandmother 20 million years ago?

Hello!

[Southack]

"And you are just blowing smoke, because the selection process is much more important than the rate of mutations."

Once again, you are incorrect.

Here's why:

You have a population of a specific animal.

In this population, under one scenario you have zero mutations but large amounts of Selection pressure.

Will you get speciation? No. At most, different pre-existing examples will survive, thrive, or go extinct...but no new genetic changes will be introduced into the DNA itself.

Under the second scenario, you have the same population but with no selection pressures (e.g. a lab or zoo) and massive mutations (e.g. from radiation, viri, etc.).

In this case, speciation *can* occur (e.g. Man-made pigs that produce human growth hormone).

So is "selection" more important to speciation than mutation? Absolutely not, per above.

[tomzz]

"The initial press releases were before the hard-core evo-losers had time to get to the researchers. "

So these mythical *hard-core evo-losers* pressured the scientists into changing their stories, because of... what?

Because of what? Because of whatever causes them to pressure judges, school boards, and every manner of elected official to have their own ideological doctrine taught as a "fact" in public schools at public expense and to forbid the mention of any and all competing theories in those same schools, I guess. Most people would say "because of ideology."

[OmahaFields]

The initial press releases were before the hard-core evo-losers had time to get to the researchers. I view them as more accurate than whatever came later.

I suspect that the Bible may have defects along this line ....

[Southack]

"Hello!"

Incorrect. The alligators alive today would be seen by a time-traveler (e.g. modern paleontologist) 20 million years ago.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Uhhh, YOU made the assertion that mutation rate must = evolutionary rate. You are wrong (that is not part of evolutionary theory).

Without mutations, you can't have speciation.

Who said anything about "without mutations"? (Straw Man Fallacy). I made a statement about comparative mutation rates, one that poked a hole in your original assertion. A low mutation rate can lead to a high rate of change, and a high mutation rate can lead to very little change, depending upon the environmental pressures on a species. Not only does this destroy your original statement, it destroys your whole point on this thread. The breeding frequency of the T. Rex has far less importance than the environmental pressure they were under, and likewise that for modern alligators. To assert otherwise is to be (willfully, it appears... which would be a sin. Or do you believe that falsehood in the service of "good" is not sin?) ignorant of the actual theory of evolution.

To sum up. You stated that mutation rates must be proportional to evolutionary rates of change for the theory to be viable. This is flat wrong. Mutation rates are only one (minor) variable in the picture. Low mutation (not no, just low, just in case you have trouble separating the two) populations can show a greater rate of change than higher mutation populations due to other more important variables.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So is "selection" more important to speciation than mutation? Absolutely not, per above."

But your *example* is nonsense. It is never either or. Selection doesn't stop in nature or in captivity. You have ignore completely selection affects.

And you have no idea what the mutation rates are anyway.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Because of what?"

I meant why would the researchers be pressured to change their story? (Not that they really did; their own report read a lot differently than the press release).

Again, you have nothing but you desires for there to be *meat* , but no evidence at all there was any found. Not in the MSNBC article, not in anything the researchers released. It's all your invention.

[OmahaFields]

20 million years ago.

Glad to see that you are one of those YEC'rs.

[Southack]

"This is flat wrong. Mutation rates are only one (minor) variable in the picture. Low mutation (not no, just low, just in case you have trouble separating the two) populations can show a greater rate of change than higher mutation populations due to other more important variables."

Naturally that's wrong, per probability math, but nice try.

You've now changed your argument to "low" changes/rates of mutation rather than "no" rates of mutation. This is because you've self-identified the importance of mutations compared to selection.

Which is to say, you recognized that you were wrong, even though you won't admit it.

Selection alone *can't* lead to speciation, but Mutation alone *can* lead to speciation.

That means that mutation is more important to speciation (not necessarily to survival) than "selection."

[tomzz]

Again, you have nothing but you desires for there to be *meat* , but no evidence at all there was any found.

Again, you are seriously deluded.

That's meat, pure and simple.

[Southack]

"But your *example* is nonsense."

That's incorrect, though you have managed to grasp that your own counter-argument hinges on my example being in error.

Too bad.

What my example does is point out the two most extreme situations:

#1 is selection pressures with no mutations, and
#2 is mutations with no selection pressures.

There is no "nonsense" about such extremes. They can easily exist in a lab or zoo, for example.

And they illustrate which is more important: selection or mutation.

Keep thinking about that point and eventually you'll catch on.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's meat, pure and simple."

Meat is muscle tissue. There was nothing even close to that found. The picture you keep posting is GREATLY enlarged. The discoloration (redness) is NOT from *meat*. That isn't even the area that was chemically softened.

There is no evidence from anywhere that it was meat. You are imagining it.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

But your *example* is nonsense. It is never either or.

Notice how many of his arguments are based on the either-or logical fallacy? Either you have lots of mutations or none. Either you have completely random mutation causing speciation or the theory of evolution is false. So far most of his points have been set up to be binary, with no recognition of third options. It will be interesting to see if this is the only intellectual format he can generate...

[OmahaFields]

The alligators alive today would be seen by a time-traveler (e.g. modern paleontologist) 20 million years ago.

Link?

[Southack]

see post #151

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's incorrect, though you have managed to grasp that your own counter-argument hinges on my example being in error."

My argument is perfectly sound. You are flailing around like a Clinton, unable to admit your enormous mistake.

"There is no "nonsense" about such extremes. They can easily exist in a lab or zoo, for example."

No, they can't. Selection is ALWAYS present. You cannot get rid of it, no matter how much you try. Selection doesn't have to select for change.

" And they illustrate which is more important: selection or mutation.

Keep thinking about that point and eventually you'll catch on."

The answer is clearly selection, and it isn't even close.

You are still amusing though.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Post 151 in no way cites mutation rates. He's making it all up.

[Southack]

"Notice how many of his arguments are based on the either-or logical fallacy?"

On the contrary, it's **NOT** a logical fallacy when it actually occurs (e.g. in the lab).

Selection pressures don't have to exist (e.g. in a zoo). There's no fallacy there.

Mutations can happen without selection pressures (e.g. in a lab that is creating pigs to produce human growth hormone).

Which is to say, my examples can't be logical fallacies. Fallacies don't happen. My examples do.

[orionblamblam]

> The species alive today have remained virtually unchanged for scores of millions of years...

Wrong again. Repetition of a factually incorrect statement does not make the statement correct. Crocodilians have been evolving and changing drastically since before they were crocodilians.