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 ...
Nah. Dataman only instigates.
Wow, two whole lines! A new record on your count.
Show me three evo-threads that you have posted on that WEREN'T either a) rips on other people, or b) shorter than this post.
.gifs don't count.
And as for learning something:
In Chinese (Standard) where is the emphasis in the oralization of a (mid-day, to an equal) greeting?
What emphasis does Tae-Kwon-Do have physically, that Karate does not touch as much?
What is the primary difference between typical European middle-aged sword usage/purpose and Japanese katana usage/purpose?
Who is playing Baron Papanoida in Star Wars Episode3? (Why would someone care about such a character?)
Why/How is "science" a philosophy?
I learn new things every day. Get over yourself.
If that's the case, shame on him.
I don't approve of people who only instigate.
I recall having discussions with him where we discussed things (not just snide remarks)
But if that is the impression he leaves on you, perhaps he should learn some etiquette.
(You will note I don't disagree that he should be more polite.)
It's tough to take the coin toss seriously when all sides are heads General.
That leg definitely doesn't look like it has any gum in it.
looks rather phallic to me (must be that time of the month, but then it usually is).
I didn't lie.. I misunderstood what you meant.. by "made up"..
As far as I know "the fakes" that I've read about were "fakes"..
A purely anecdotal interest precluded me checking it out further..
True, The earth is older than six thousand(or so) years.. but
making the jump of faith to accept some version of evolution as hard fact is beyond my faithfulness.. There could be some things in evolutionary "science" that seem true but is not and some things seems not true but is true.. Could come from my belief that it is too easy for humans to make hip shot connections when so little is known "for sure".. Evolution is NOT physics.. or mathematics.. those things can be proved.. at least some of them can..
I am equally suspious about religion as I am about evolution.. don't truck much with religion.. for the same reasons as evolution.. no faith in it.. probably comes from from me having no faith in the clergy of both paradigms..
Really I'm looking on both systems from outside.. but they both seem to same to me, and act the same.. I believe in some kind of God and also that dinos were real and not within the 6 thousand years caps, some put on earth..
A CYNIC.?... yeah.. but I'm cynical of most evolutionary models I've studied too.. Is the world FLAT.?.. sure looks like it don't it.. Why not.?. I have better things to do than worry about it..
This being a mainly political forum is one of them.. I usually wade through, evolution, creationist, roman catholic and other religion threads.. but amuse myself sometimes.. This being one of them.. Creationist and Evo threads showcase both poles to a magnet that will NEVER agree on those things.. if they do, somebody is confused.. I think..
The pure arrogance and snobby ingratitude of the Evos is interesting though.. they protest too much.. The creationists sometimes stow the arrogance somewhat.. So goading the Evos is much more fun.. posting to them is like saying JELLO,, to a table full of Polaners All Fruit Users..<<- TV comercial.. When they "faint" its SOoo funny..
I think this is a bit backwards. Lysenko was into Stalinism and totally ignored the state of genetic knowledge at the time to gain political power. He drove out the few decent geneticists in Stalinist Russia, for his own power. Stalin didn't give a rat's ass about genetics of any kind. His paranoia was so well known, that those geneticists must be bad and might as well as hit the road to Siberia along with every other piece of trash that looked askance at him. (BTW, there is an old Nova series piece on Lysenko - it is really chilling and worth seeing if you can find it - say about mid to late 70's).
I actually have Lysenko's book on my bookshelf. It's included in the "Enemy Corner" along with das Kapital and Mein Kampf and assorted other things. It really is an "evil" read. I used to wonder how the old USSR could have lasted so long until I realized that Western Europe propped them up for years, primarily out of fear, but also out of yearning for the "perfect socialistic state".
We aren't the ones who think the diversity of life on Earth is the result of a week of things being supernaturally poofed out of nothing.
Exactly backwards. Nurture over Nature.
Can't write a paragraph without some kind of screwup anymore. :(
Thee: What competition?
I meant Stalin's opinion of himself.
Anything longer than it is round is phallic.
"Your cattle have hooves like these??????"
Thank God, no.
Hence, this is a "transitional species."
Cows are settled herbivores.
"Can't write a paragraph without some kind of screwup anymore. :("
I know what you mean. My computer's getting long in the tooth, and I swear that the keyboard has developed a bad case of rheumatoid arthritis. It makes a lot more mistakes as I get older.
(I was trying to figure out what you were saying, the correction has made the old rocker arm assembly run more smoothly - thanks)
BTW, I don't buy that "Soviet Man" thing any more than I buy Hitler's "German Superiority". they were just political constructs designed to get the idiots to sign on to slavery. Neither Stalin nor Hitler really cared about these things.
"Anything longer than it is round is phallic."
I think I should be laughing. I would like to be laughing, but instead I'm scratching??!
With a name like furball4paws, what else would you do?
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 ;)
"Lysenkoism had/has a certain intellectual appeal to the Stalinists and the Left in general"
This seems to implies that Lysenko came to his "theory" without reference to Stalinist Russia and the Soviet System and that the Soviet System snatched it. Lysenko was quite "cold". He purposely devised a system that was "anti-West" (and also "anti-Science") to get the lever he needed to get control of the "crop science" part of the Soviet agricultural system (and all systems in the USSR were political, by definition). After reading his book, I don't think he believed it himself, it was just the right tool at the right time for his own aggrandizement.
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.