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 ...
I was commenting more on the fact that you didn't attribute your source other than to say it came from a newspaper.
review later
I think we almost agree. Except I still don't see evidence of total common ancestry of all Life.
So all texts are on equal footing as far as you are concerned? You only believe those things for which there is massive confirming evidence?
Use your noodle.
"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."
CORRECT!
Johnny, my point was that the cockroach has had very little evolutionary pressure to change (much). Hence, it has not.
The cockroach example was to answer creationist who think that because a species is in the fossil record for a long time (like cockroaches --- been around pre-dinosaurs), that their continued existence somehow conflicts with evolution.
That idea is wrong --- evolution does not happen unless there is some kind of pressure that reinforces some trait (such as a cave environment).
And, of course, the cave is but the first step in a marathon.
But, to answer your point regarding a fundamental change into "something else."
Would gross changes say from a lean, mean, meat eater to a big, lumbering, vegitarian, work for you?
If so, the dinosaur at issue in this article is a mid-point between two such species.
Indeed, these weird dinos are yet more proof of one species changing into something completely different.
LOL This phrase cracks me up. How can one 'catch' something in the act of evolution if evolution is about small changes at the DNA level over long periods of time?
He moveth his tail like a cedar
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
It says "like" a cedar, not the "size" of a cedar.
Hippos have hair bristles on on their noses, ears and tails. And the shape of the bristles on their tails can have the appearance of the limbs on a lebanese cedar tree.
All the rest of the description in Job exactly fits a hippo, yet because of this one unclear part of one verse, you think this is a dinosaur. How come Job doesn't say it's dead, if it's talking about dinos?
By the way, I believe it's now thought that many large dinos, like the brontosaurus, spent their time on land, not water. The description in Job is a river animal.
It's a hippo.
The DNA evidence establishes the fact that evolution is real.
Whether evolution goes all the way back to a single pool of water, I don't know.
Bottom line, the evidence points that it does. And I see no reason not to think that it does.
Genesis says that God created this creature and that creature, etc. etc. But Genesis does not say that God started from scratch on every one. It just says that He created all those creatures. Evolution fits in Genesis just fine.
Ring species are currently in the act of evolution.
"This phrase cracks me up. How can one 'catch' something in the act of evolution if evolution is about small changes at the DNA level over long periods of time?"
By having fossils of things "like-but-not" before (carnivoirs in this case) and things like-but-not-in-different-way (proper committed herbivoires) after.
But yes, it was sloppy writing and feeds the repeated ignorant demand for a fossil of a creature that is, itself, caught turning from Dr. Jeckel to Mr. Hyde so to speak, as if it happens overnight or something.
But I really think most of those demands are by people who know better, but are intentionally blind.
Where's the transitional form for an insect?
How do we get from a tree shrew to a primate.
You see 'evidence'?
So you can actually 'catch them in the act' of evolving? Gee, I'd like to see that. Grow a new appendage right before your very eyes!
Stupidity and ignornance do not honor your beliefs.
If you're actually trying to convince me of something, then give it up.
It's as if you want me to physically transport you in space and time to demonstrate the entire history of life, or you won't believe that the obvious, evolution, happened.
The OJ Jury had the same "I see nothing" concept.
The principle of evolution is quite firmly established. You guys have not even a wild guess as to why evolution should stop at some point, so the obvious conclusion is that it didn't.
You've interpreted those few words in Genesis wrong. Deal with it.
It has a shape like a cedar tree.
How would you describe a hippo tail in 7 words?
I can't find the evidence on the net, but I believe I've seen video of mad hippos stick their tail straight up and wave them around.
Looks like a cedar tree to me.
And you're still ignoring the rest of the chapter that obviously describes a hippo.
"For the second group, I remind them of the Jews who were looking for a military conquering messiah 2,000 years ago. They had pretty good scriptural arguments for that concept. They also had collective agreement.
And they were collectively damn wrong."
Actually you singularly wrong. The military battle took place exactly as foretold (that's a historical fact even if you don't believe the Bible) in 70 A.D.
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.