Ping!
This is a conclusive as stating that both a horse and a cow have a tail.
Currently, on Earth, there are bare-skinned animals, feathered animals, fur covered animals, scale covered animals.
Why would anyone think that millenia ago there was not the same variety?
[. . . most important, evolution has already been falsified, so Darwin has nothing to say about this fossil. The Cambrian Explosion renders all Darwinian explanations for the origin of animal body plans superfluous. That applies to birds and dinosaurs as well. And since soft tissue and blood vessels have been recovered from dinosaur bone, the dating of specimens labeled Jurassic and Cretaceous has been falsified, too. ]
It used to be argued by creationists that the known transitional fossils were too few to support evolution theory, particularly in the area of dinosaurs to birds. Now that there are so many dinosaur to bird fossils known, are the critics actually using this abundance as another argument against evolution?
In any case, the critics defaulting to the above quote is impossible to argue against rationality as it goes against any kind of scientific reasoning accepted not just in basic biology but in basic physics, chemistry, geology and other areas.
Right on cue just the needed fossils appear. Surprise, surprise!
INTREP
What came first the feather or the bird.
It is so cornfusing?
Flying feathered dinosaurs. Sure why not. Anythings possible with evolution.
I would think some mid-evil film makers will get a little upset that they will have to make feathered flying dragons in future mid evil dragon slaying movies, instead of the traditional leathery winged lizard skinned variety.
Just out of curiosity, how old is the earth and human beings according to the latest Creationist theory?
parsy, who is curious
That's why it's wonderful that science progresses, and scientific understanding adapts to the evidence and reality. "Darwin's Dilemma" was 150 years ago. Isn't it great that we have learned a lot since then and can realize that it doesn't mean evolution is wrong?
I am a HS Science teacher and consider myself about as CONSERVATIVE on political, social, economic, foreign affairs, etc.; as one could get. I am a consumate reader and like to think that my opinion is informed.
It is distressing to see some of my fellow conservatives become so vocal and adamately opposed to evolution. Evolution is the core, unifying, theme on which the science of biology is based. Without it, biologists would have to wander aimlessly. With it, biology makes sense.
Chemistry has Rutherford’s atom, math has Euclid’s geometry and Newton’s calculus, physics has Newton’s laws and Einstein’s relativity. Biology has Darwin’s evolution. Without them we’d all take a giant step backwards for our way of life. Modern, informed, biology is on the cutting edge of medicine, nutrition, vaccines, reproduction, animal and plant husbandry...you name it.
Conservatives do themselves and their OTHER causes no favors when the seek to discredit evolution. In fact, they embarrass me.
Inform yourself. The local public library probably has copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. They are good reads. The man was very thorough.
Yes another transitional fossil that Creationist claim don't exists is found!!! Don't you always hate being proved wrong.
But why would any God make this/these dino/bird mix if he/she/it already had made "full" birds and "full" dinos
Evolution wise they make sense, the dino/birds were transitioning into a (then) new unoccupied niche.
Creation wise it's silly to believe God would create these mixed creatures along side modern ones which would easily out compete them and quickly drive them to extinction.
Your propaganda vanities are getting rather annoying. Take it to church.
Just updating the tag line... there must be an easier way!