Replies

Right, no problem with what you've written but the author bases his claim of a transitional on his claim that the creatures morphology is evidence that it was once a carnivore and assumes the grinders as evidence of transition to herbivore.

Well, this particular creature was probably not a pure carnivore, based on the teeth not being of the sort that carnivores have usually employed. However, there is a group of otherwise similar dinosaurs which are pure carnivores, so the inference, based on the theory of evolution, is that this creature is related somehow by common descent.

Now, if you don't accept that theory, the inference probably won't carry much weight with you either, but then again, this isn't really being put forth as proof of evolution by the scientists involved, nor are other scientists looking to is as proof of evolution - as far as they're all concerned, the theory is already well proven, and so the question is, how does this new specimen fit within the framework provided by the theory. If some other scientific theory comes along tomorrow that can better account for this specimen, and all the other specimens out there, then the theory of evolution will go the way of phlogiston, vitalism, and aether. Until then, this is what we have to work with ;)

I have no problem with evolution as a theory. "Common descent", if by common you mean from one prokaryote to the current zoo, I am dubious about. I do have a problem with two headed coins and using the hammer to knock the square peg into the round hole.

Color me skeptical on this one General.