Newfound Dinosaur a Transitional Creature

Las Vegas Sun (AP) ^ | May 04, 2005 | Malcolm Ritter

[MeanWestTexan]

Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.

It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.

[MacDorcha]

And to clarify, I realize that the panda is an Ursa, but it is not of the same family as black, brown, sloth, or even polar bears.

[general_re]

Go collect your prize.

Kent really needs to save his nickels, actually. The IRS has a lien against him for unpaid taxes, to the tune of $540,957.24 - anyone claiming his bogus "prize" is going to have to get in line with the rest of the unsecured creditors.

[AndrewC]

Just curious, was the article properly peer-reviewed before appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific journal?

I would guess that is what peer-reviewed is all about. But decide for yourself.

Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'

However, National Center for Biotechnology Information staff scientist Richard Sternberg told The Scientist the three peer reviewers of Meyer's paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."

All found the paper "meritorious, warranting publication," he said.

Moreover, Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have falsely been labeled creationists by the scientific community, noting: "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."

Note: This is from the "World Net Daily", not "The Scientist"(to preclude the inevitable red herring attack)

Here are links to the Defense of Richard Sternberg

http://www.rsternberg.net/
http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm

There have been a number of strange rumors and allegations concerning the procedures for the publication of the Meyer paper. As these allegations come to my attention I will add to this page additional information regarding the truth of the matter.

	The Meyer paper was not rushed through the process. It was submitted in March 2004 and published in August 2004, a normal time from submission to publication.
	I did not act unilaterally or surreptitiously in my handling of the Meyer paper. Within the Society, I raised and discussed the paper and its potentially controversial nature with a scientist on the staff of the Museum of Natural History and a fellow member of the Council of the BSW soon after its submission and before deciding to send it out for peer review, and then again after receiving the peer reviews and before sending notification to Dr. Meyer of acceptance. I discussed the paper with this scientist on at least three occasions. Each time this person encouraged me to proceed, stating that the controversy would be beneficial since it was good occasionally to shake up people's established views on important issues.
	I followed the standard peer review process, sending the paper to four qualified scientists, three of whom agreed to review it. The reviewers' comments were provided to Dr. Meyer who made changes in the paper accordingly.
	Dr. Meyer became a paid member of the BSW after the paper was accepted and before it was published, the standard practice for first-time authors or authors whose previous membership has lapsed. He also paid all the appropriate "page charges" for his article, a bill amounting to approximately $1600.

[jwalsh07]

Herbivores are primary consumers. No herbivores, the carnivores need a g-tube. Survival would be enhanced by having choppers and grinders. What advantage is gained by losing the choppers in favor of grinders?

[hosepipe]

[ Do you have a citation, or do you just want to admit up-front that you're making this all up? ]

I make everything I say up.. I rarely quote from somebodys dogma..
Are you reading from a script or are you makeing up your dialog too.?.

[FormerLib]

Yet again, someone from the creato side of the argument drags a homosexuality non sequitur into crevo debates.

Just noting the factual commonality, LOL!

[MacDorcha]

So, it isn't possible for a cat to have a similar nasal cavity of a fox?

[MeanWestTexan]

You know, I think it is a problem with smart people.

While raised Jewish, I felt very called to Christianity from a very early age.

But it seemed every Bible-believing Christian I met was a dour, generally closed-minded, legalistic, unfunny, twit. Often hypocrits, too. Christians like the guy posted above who makes the false offer about evolution --- by falsely twisting what evolution is. The kind of people who got mad at Laura Bush's comedy bit.

I call them Christian pharasees, who think man was made for the Law, not the other way around.

It was not until the Army that I found smart, Bible-believing guys that pointed out that Jesus drank wine and educated me on the fact that so much of the "twittedness" of Christiandom is man-added rules.

It made all the difference.

This is an obscure part of the Bible. It is open to interpretation.

And God speaks unclearly --- on purpose, I suppose, so it only becomes clear when we need to know what He meant. For example, at the end of John (on the shore, right after Jesus reinstated Pete), there is a statement by Jesus that is most easily read as "John will live forever."

Well, it didn't mean that. And John made clear that Jesus did not mean that. But people still interpreted it that way.

I think that difficult-to-read statement was a reminder to keep one's mind open when reading the scriptures to what is going on around you. To again use the example of the 2,000 years ago Pharasee --- they were so confident in their interpretation of the scriptures that they missed what was going on right in front of them.

That is a dangerous mistake. And the close-minded anger at the mere topic of evolution by so many Creationist is very similar.

[jennyp]

Odd coincidence!

Nineteen.

[MeanWestTexan]

"What advantage is gained by losing the choppers in favor of grinders?"

Don't know, but having lived on a ranch, I would suppose it would be to eat grass or grain or something similarly reedy --- cows, et al, initially "pull" the grass up with their front "grinders" --- a hard and painful feat to do with sharp front teeth --- as anyone who has (like me) stupidly stripped insulation off of copper wire with their teeth can attest to.

[lepton]

remind me of medieval theologians imagining how many angels could sit on the head of pin

You do realize that medieval theologans didn't argue that point...but rather that reference was a straw-man made to mock them, right?

[lepton]

The fake nature of Hovind's challenge is outlined in numerous places on a marvellous tool for finding information known as the internet.

What's that "internet" thing?

[FormerLib]

"It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory."

Ain't that the truth! LOL! Heck, that happened to me already today in this thread.

[jwalsh07]

OK, lets try this one. What advantage is gained by moving on the food chain from predator to prey, your cows not withstanding. :-}

[MeanWestTexan]

"So, it isn't possible for a cat to have a similar nasal cavity of a fox?"

I have no idea. But that is not the issue.

You would never look at just one isolated point like just sinus cavities, but a whole bunch of key points put together (plus shape of gross structures like hips, joints, front "paws," eye location (font side, distance from each other, distance from nose, depth of socket, etc.) to make a conclusion like that.

[MeanWestTexan]

"What advantage is gained by moving on the food chain from predator to prey?"

Too many of that type of predator hunting too few prey animals.

This was not a giant dinasaur. They probably ate something the size of rabbits.

Too few rabbits. Lots of grass (or whatever).

[Junior]

Stalin was into Lysenkoism, which repudiated Darwin. Indeed, Darwinian biologists often found themselves purged.

[jwalsh07]

So adaptation rids them of their choppers in favor of all grinders? You buying that? I'm not. The omnivore is much better suited to survival than the herbivore or the carnivore. Sounds like they were selected out.

[js1138]

Cut him some slack. Maybe he's just ignorant.....

You can plead ignorance the first 500 times.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Sounds like they were selected out."

Since they are dead, I would have to agree with you.

But specialization, while dangerous if conditions changes (take the poor Cheetah, for example) has its advantages.