Yes, that's the correct link.
Your search, however, was a bit over-simplified. After all, the math that is given in that thread holds true for all species, T Rex included.
Posted on 07/03/2006 12:32:51 PM PDT by Al Simmons
In the 1993 movie Jurassic Park, one human character tells another that a Tyrannosaurus rex can't see them if they don't move, even though the beast is right in front of them. Now, a scientist reports that T. rex had some of the best vision in animal history. This sensory prowess strengthens arguments for T. rex's role as predator instead of scavenger.
Scientists had some evidence from measurements of T. rex skulls that the animal could see well. Recently, Kent A. Stevens of the University of Oregon in Eugene went further.
He used facial models of seven types of dinosaurs to reconstruct their binocular range, the area viewed simultaneously by both eyes. The wider an animal's binocular range, the better its depth perception and capacity to distinguish objectseven those that are motionless or camouflaged.
T. rex had a binocular range of 55, which is wider than that of modern hawks, Stevens reports in the summer Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Moreover, over the millennia, T. rex evolved features that improved its vision: Its snout grew lower and narrower, cheek grooves cleared its sight lines, and its eyeballs enlarged. ...
Stevens also considered visual acuity and limiting far pointthe greatest distance at which objects remain distinct. For these vision tests, he took the known optics of reptiles and birds, ranging from the poor-sighted crocodile to the exceptional eagle, and adjusted them to see how they would perform inside an eye as large as that of T. rex. "With the size of its eyeballs, it couldn't help but have excellent vision," Stevens says.
He found that T. rex might have had visual acuity as much as 13 times that of people. By comparison, an eagle's acuity is 3.6 times that of a person.
b
T. rex might also have had a limiting far point of 6 kilometers, compared with the human far point of 1.6 km. These are best-case estimates, Stevens says, but even toward the cautious end of the scale, T. rex still displays better vision than what's needed for scavenging.
The vision argument takes the scavenger-versus-predator debate in a new direction. The debate had focused on whether T. rex's legs and teeth made it better suited for either lifestyle.
Stevens notes that visual ranges in hunting birds and snapping turtles typically are 20 wider than those in grain-eating birds and herbivorous turtles.
In modern animals, predators have better binocular vision than scavengers do, agrees Thomas R. Holtz Jr. of the University of Maryland at College Park. Binocular vision "almost certainly was a predatory adaptation," he says.
But a scavenging T. rex could have inherited its vision from predatory ancestors, says Jack Horner, curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Mont. "It isn't a characteristic that was likely to hinder the scavenging abilities of T. rex and therefore wasn't selected out of the population," Horner says.
Stevens says the unconvincing scene in Jurassic Park inspired him to examine T. rex's vision because, with its "very sophisticated visual apparatus," the dinosaur couldn't possibly miss people so close by. Sight aside, says Stevens, "if you're sweating in fear 1 inch from the nostrils of the T. rex, it would figure out you were there anyway."
Stevens, K.A. 2006. Binocular vision in theropod dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(June):321-330.
Requested Math That Proves T Rex Birth Rate Too Low For Evolutionary Explanation.
Concerning that thread you entitled 'Requested Math That Proves T Rex Birth Rate Too Low For Evolutionary Explanation' ....was this the right link? I searched and couldn't find any reference to 'T Rex' or 'Rex' in either the article linked or the entire thread? And you never answered my question.....what species has someone claimed T Rex evolved into that you are disputing ?
Google? Are you joking? Just give me a source.
Here is a very long, but detailed article about this t-rex and soft tissue...
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php
Yes, that's the correct link.
Your search, however, was a bit over-simplified. After all, the math that is given in that thread holds true for all species, T Rex included.
Your question wasn't rhetorical?!
Goodness... the very headline for this thread implies that T Rex was one thing and then another.
Perhaps you have an issue with the author.
Yes, that's the correct link.
Sorry. My mistake. I thought maybe you were serious.;
The math is valid whether I'm serious or light-hearted. Likewise, it's valid even if it's over your head...or more alarming, that you can comprehend that it deals all flavors of Darwinism a fateful blow.
And as I said when I gave you the link, there would be no way for you to be persuaded by math. Evolutionists reject mathematical information theory proofs right and left...they have no other choice, after all.
What you are doing is simply confirming that which I stated above...that no amount of scientific (e.g. math) proof can persuade Darwinists.
So you really aren't serious. You are amusing though.
But your example of math conveys absolutely nothing. It models nothing, ant is and example of nothing. It is completely irrelevant because it isn't in any way related to the way evolution works.
You have yet to tell us where you got your information about the breeding habits of T-Rex.
You must be misunderstanding the relevance, then.
Information Theory Math is entirely valid for the probabilities of randomly sequencing data...in fact it's one of those rare areas of biology that we can actually calculate.
Hence the link to the relevant math.
Your example isn't relevant because it doesn't model the process.
That's incorrect. The math in the link that I posted models data sequencing.
All viable DNA contain properly sequenced genetic data. Calculating the probabilities of that sequencing occurring randomly is entirely relevant.
That's what is modeled in the link that I gave. That's what is calculated.
Evolution accumulates sequences. You haven't modeled that.
Incorrect.
Evolution claims random data sequence mutations and natural selection form the gene coding sequences that we see today.
The math link that I gave above models random data sequence mutations/iterations.
And we already know that the data sequence must first *exist* in order for Selection to have a whack at it, too.
Evolution accumulates sequences, keeping what works. Your math does not model the actual process.
A sequence can be created randomly, or a sequence can be created due to an external bias.
Evolution claims random sequencing. That's what is modeled in the link.
In contrast, Intelligent Design posits that genetic sequencing is due to an external bias (e.g. God, among other possibilities).
Selection, by the way, is valid for Evolution and Intelligent Design. Selection judges the fitness of the final product...not caring if the design was deliberate or random.
If you are claiming that genetic sequencing is *not* random, then you are supporting Intelligent Design.
If you are claiming that genetic sequencing is random, then the math in the link given above is valid...as it is modeling the random sequencing of data.
Which are you claiming, random or biased?
There have been very recent experiments in heat resistant bacteria in which every possible point mutation in the relevant genes was observed. Therefore there are at least some instances in which the source of variation -- random or not -- is irrelevant.
Selection is biased. bad throws of the dice are discarded
Selection applies equally to random (e.g. Evolution) and biased (e.g. Intelligent Design) sequencing, so Selection is **NOT** a factor.
You seem a bit tongue-tied, though...as if you don't want to be pinned down to answering my "random or biased" sequencing question of you.
Your hesitation to give a firm answer should clue you in that deep down you already know that your argument has lost.
The source of variation does not matter. In the example I gave, based on observation of living things rather than a computer model, every possible variation occurred, and the ones that improved viability were selected.
I'm afraid that you'll have to show a reputable link for that sort of wild-eyed claim to be taken seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.