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 ...
The Washington Times has its good points, but it is owned by the Rev Moon, who gave us "Icons of Evolution" and whose mission is to remove science from American classrooms.
I guess that would be good the Korean economy, not that I am suggesting a conspiracy or anything. But it is good tactics to use your competitor's strength agains him.
"and diametrically opposed to Darwin's prediction."
Wrong.
Change does not happen for the sake of change. There has to be some pressure that reinforces/rewards some trait.
Take the cockroach. The basic idea hasn't changed since the dinosaurs --- except where something weird happens.
They are in the fossil record unchanged to date.
You have to have a pressure to change a species.
For example, to stick with cockroaches, there are deep-cave cockroaches. In that environment, REALLY long antenna are rewarded by finding more food and thus having more babies. Eyes are effectively useless. Hence, there are lots of blind cave cockroaches (a defect that would be fatal in a world with light) and lots of cockroaches with 4-5 inch long antenna --- something that would be worthless in a lighted world where you can see.
So, no, your understanding of the theory is flawed.
"These are very nice pictures in celluloid, and there are a lot of them. But just which exactly of these frames is supposed to show the motion?"
The information in the link is evidence of DNA "fossils", that can only be explained by common ancestor evolution.
The only possible creationist style explanation is that God placed viral DNA junk in certain places within the DNA chain in order to fool us into thinking that evolution occurred. Some kind of faith test or something.
I don't believe God is that kind of prankster. I believe God created evolution and this DNA is merely evidence of how incredible His creation of life is.
I think "creationists" have taken a few words in the Bible, like when Adam was created out of the dust of the earth, and naively believe that that was all there was to it.
But Genesis leaves open the possibility that there was some time and effort between the "dust" and the "man", and I believe that evolution over millions of years fits between the words of that verse in the Bible.
There were posts yesterday of the Behemoth story in Job. Quite obviously a hippopotamus. But it says that it's bones were brass and iron, obviously not literally true. The Bible, particularly in Genesis, must be read from between the lines.
The DNA in the post is physical evidence, found in Gods own creation, of HOW He did his work.
I simply don't see what the problem here is, except that a lot of people have misinterpreted Genesis.
So you are of the opinion that every transitional fossil found just makes the situation worse, because it means there are new missing links on either side?
How do you explain the discovery of transitionals, when they are found?
One last question, before I put on my London Fog and leave the room: What do you suppose the ratio is between the total number of fossils that have been found, and the total number of individuals that have ever lived? One in a hundred; one in a thousand; one in a million; one in a billion; one in a trillion; greater?
The WashTimes and the creationist Discovery Institute are both associated with the moonies. It doesn't surprise me they'd say this.
The WashTimes is a powerful conservative voice. But this creationism gig is it's Achilles heel, because there does exist hard core proof that evolution is real. I guarantee you well see loads of it in the media over the next few years.
If conservatives persist in this, we're now seeing the apex of the conservative moment.
And we haven't even gotten a supreme court nominee yet.
I just can't believe these people are that stupid to think that pushing creationism is so much more important than fighting abortion and terrorism and such.
Oh, please. You're smarter than that. Or are you just playing around?
The article in this thread mentions hundreds of fossils of the same creature. Are you confused as to how that might be?
Do you think that "transitional creatures" are just a singular individual? I mean, you do understand that these creatures might live for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, and still be "transitional".
You're really not that dense, are you? I'm serious. You really can't not understand this.
How do you know whether a fossil is a "transitional"? You're assuming your conclusion.
One last question, before I put on my London Fog and leave the room: What do you suppose the ratio is between the total number of fossils that have been found, and the total number of individuals that have ever lived? One in a hundred; one in a thousand; one in a million; one in a billion; one in a trillion; greater?
I don't know. I'll pick one in a trillion.
If this is true, how does this explain the fact that we find multiple fossils of the same creature dating from various eras?
Too bad you don't see the humor in this.
It's all speculation, of course. But the newer theory makes more sense to me. You can draw your own conclusions.
Possibly because conditions at one particular moment in time favored preservation. Why do we find preserved bodies in peat bogs and in Florida sinkholes that have high concentrations of tannic acid? Since we can see differences in the preservation of remains in our current sintation, it is reasonable to assume that not every time and place preserves remains.
Fossils are labeled transitional because of their intermediate features. One theory of the past predicts finding fossils with intermediate features and another theory makes no predictions.
I really don't get your point. Yes, I should have said the "species" lives for a long period of time, not "creatures", since that might imply that the same individual lived that long.
But I really don't understand your confusion over this issue.
Your a smart guy. But just smart in a wierd way, I guess.
Not true...
I'm making a statement... thats its so...
Not argueing.. I could care less if you accept or not..
I'm defending nothing, as you seem to be..
Are the images of a fully formed creature, or of a transitional?
Energy input into a system is insufficient to explain organizing higher levels of complexity. In fact, more energy is likely to degrade systems. The Darwinite 2nd Law argument is a fraud.
Nowadays, politically correct science like dogmatic darwin and global warming is opinion...like most liberal thought.
I don't automatically disregard ideas because of who they come from. I guess you do limit your thinking that way.
What is it about the newer theory that makes more sense to you?
You spent a fair amount of time and energy finding the article and asserting it is important. I would like to know how you go about deciding which of two competing scientific theories is better.
I'm kind of curious about Piltdown Man also. How do you, personally, know it is a hoax? No one ever confessed.
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.