Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Touche'
;>)
Like the Archaeopteryx, it's ambiguous data. Is it a transitional creature or a fully formed and functional creature? The problem with the fossil record is that it typically shows species entering into and disappearing from the fossil record without change. Stasis is the norm. In fact, scientists are hard pressed to find one convincing transitional fossil, when the fossil record should exhibit nothing but transitional fossils.
Does the monniker "Putz Head" (Senator Schumer) fit?
Interesting post on Meyer. Thanks.
Fit whom?
It takes a creationist to set up a dichotomy between "transitional" and "fully formed and functional" and try to sneak it by. How do you know you're "fully formed and functional" by the standards of some later life form?
When I walk, am I not fully formed and functional or just not fully located?
I hope I am not too oblique.
The only thing ambiguous about Archy is whether he goes in the bird bin or the dinosaur bin. You could flip a coin, he's THAT transitional.
As long as you've been around, this kind of ignorance does not look good. How many previous posts have "corrected" your ICR/whatever talking points?
You obviously are confused. A transitional creature is a fully formed and functional creature. Otherwise it would'nt live to reproduce.
The key point is that a transitional creature has an ancestor and a descendant that show a progression of evolutionary changes. Like much of the fossil record. Saying all fossils are transitional creatures is an overstatement. Some of them died out, the rest ARE transitional.
Damn obliquity - your original picture.
Sigh. Not only does my keyboard grow old and more mistake prone, but my sense of continuity also has sprung leaks. I have to remember that what's obvious to me doesn't necessarily translate to others.
If anybody calls you too oblique, you just sent him over to me.
This is pure, baseless speculation. Again, the fossil record typically (always?) shows creatures entering and leaving the fossil record, over great periods of time, with the same morphology.
Kind of like the platypus, which is a transitional form between ducks, muskrats and kangaroos. It's THAT transitional.
And like all other species found in the fossil record, the seven examples of the Archaeopteryx look exactly the same.
Do you have a reference for that? I haven't been able to find it yet.
I think the surprise was that this dinosaur was an omnivore, while other, later, members of this species or genus were strictly herbivores. Also, these fossils were found in an area where fossils of this particular animal have not been seen.
False.
Look up the progress of fossilized proto-horses. Loads of demonstrably transitional forms in a well studied line with lots of fossilized remains. The simple fact is that a 8 hand proto-horse is a transitional between a 6 hand proto-horse and a 10 hand proto-horse.
The fossil record shows creatures morphology changing over time. The only creatures whos morphology does'nt change are "optimized" for environments that don't change (e.g. sharks, 'crocs).
It is not baseless speculation, it is based on the fossil record and the well established theory of evolution.
Your namesake did'nt like dishonesty. Willfull ignorence is dishonesty.
Not nearly enough.
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.