Skip to comments.
Newfound Dinosaur a Transitional Creature
Las Vegas Sun (AP) ^
| May 04, 2005
| Malcolm Ritter
Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 741-755 next last
To: Gumlegs
281
posted on
05/04/2005 7:28:41 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: furball4paws
282
posted on
05/04/2005 7:31:35 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: furball4paws
For sure, it was what they liked to hear. I saw the same PBS special but don't remember too much of the biographical details.
283
posted on
05/04/2005 7:32:44 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: MeanWestTexan
Devil must have put transitional fossils in the ground again to confuse everyone. 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.
284
posted on
05/04/2005 7:35:56 PM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Gumlegs
Does the monniker "Putz Head" (Senator Schumer) fit?
285
posted on
05/04/2005 7:36:27 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: AndrewC
Interesting post on Meyer. Thanks.
286
posted on
05/04/2005 7:36:32 PM PDT
by
scripter
(Tens of thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
To: furball4paws
287
posted on
05/04/2005 7:38:47 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Aquinasfan
Is it a transitional creature or a fully formed and functional creature? 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?
288
posted on
05/04/2005 7:38:52 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: furball4paws; Gumlegs
I hope I am not too oblique.
289
posted on
05/04/2005 7:39:03 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: Aquinasfan
Like the Archaeopteryx, it's ambiguous data. 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?
290
posted on
05/04/2005 7:40:52 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: Aquinasfan
Is it a transitional creature or a fully formed and functional creature? 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.
To: Gumlegs
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.
292
posted on
05/04/2005 7:43:19 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: furball4paws
If anybody calls you too oblique, you just sent him over to me.
293
posted on
05/04/2005 7:43:41 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Dinsdale
The key point is that a transitional creature has an ancestor and a descendant that show a progression of evolutionary changes. 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.
294
posted on
05/04/2005 7:45:04 PM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: VadeRetro
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. 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.
295
posted on
05/04/2005 7:51:58 PM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Dimensio
Do you have a reference for that? I haven't been able to find it yet.
To: mlc9852
Humans and other animals eat plants and meat so I'm not sure what the big story is here.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.
297
posted on
05/04/2005 8:07:59 PM PDT
by
exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
To: Aquinasfan
Again, the fossil record typically (always?) shows creatures entering and leaving the fossil record, over great periods of time, with the same morphology. 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.
To: hosepipe
I didn't lie.. I misunderstood what you meant.. by "made up"..
My question was not ambiguous. I asked you to cite the source of your claim that the "fakes" were all exposed by scientists who do not accept evolution.
As far as I know "the fakes" that I've read about were "fakes"..
And you claim that "non-evo" scientists exposed them, yet you cannot demonstrate that this claim is true.
299
posted on
05/04/2005 8:38:36 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: PatrickHenry
Do you know how many insults I receive in the course of a single day around here? Not nearly enough.
300
posted on
05/04/2005 8:41:16 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 741-755 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson