Newfound Dinosaur a Transitional Creature

Las Vegas Sun (AP) ^ | May 04, 2005 | Malcolm Ritter

[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.

[frgoff]

I suggest you bookmark that Wikipedia website.

Please don't Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Anyone can write anything they want at any time. Someone else can correct it with anything else they want at any time, and so forth ad infinitum. The assumption is that eventually accurate information will appear. The problem is, no one knows when "eventually" has happened.

You're better served getting a subscription to the Encyclopedia Britannica online.

[Dimensio]

I know that you're too dishonest and arrogant to accept this, but I'll satisfy your demands.

Matchett-PI posted a "quote" allegedly from Wayne Carley stating that "...teaching evolution is .... a religious doctrine".

This was not something that Wayne Carley said. Typically when we see a creationist post like this we notice the ellipses and wonder what lay between them, as usually there's a lot of important words between them and cutting them out changes the meaning. But it's not even that honest. As dread78645 pointed out, the first part, the "teaching evolution is", was not even said by Wayne Carley!. Wayne Carley's actual quote is that " “Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,”

Not only did Matchett-PI take only a segment of Carley's original statement, he also added words to it that were not there in the first place. That is shameless, outright dishonesty. There is no way to justify that act.

But I eagerly anticipate your attempt to spin this into some situation where Matchett-PI did no wrong by lying about the words of another.

[hosepipe]

[ What astonishes me is the ongoing psychosis that leads people to think they can massage a quote to make Darwin sound like he doesn't believe in evolution, or the equivalent with a modern scientist. ]

Good point...
Darwin was very confused.. as Matchetts quotes from a reader of him supply..
Actually he(Matchett) quoted somebody else that quoted him..
And you are quoting a post by Matchett quoting somebody else that quoted Darwin who didn't quote but actually said something.. Alright everybody clear here..
(removing my glasses) resting my case.. d;-`

[Dimensio]

Darwin was very confused.. as Matchetts quotes from a reader of him supply..

You don't make yourself look any better by trying to defend out-of-context quoting.

[frgoff]

To give an idea of how advanced the science is --- you can often tell the race of a human (same species) from bones by little things like sinus cavtity space, femur head relative thickness compared to the knee joint, and lots of pretty obscure details.

That's a bit misleading. We have a huge baseline of humans for comparative analysis. When you start dealing with fossils of extinct animals, you have to start making assumptions. You start saying things like: OK, this tooth is similar to a pig, therefore X. OK, this femur is similar to an ostrich, therefore Y.

It becomes a great deal of educated guesswork and is not as precise as the popular press would have you believe.

[VadeRetro]

That, and don't lose the link.

[frgoff]

Go try to eat some grass with your nice sharp front teeth. NO HANDS, mind you.

Not a problem. Incisors are scissor teeth. Cows pull grass. Humans would clip it, then chew.

[hosepipe]

[ But I eagerly anticipate your attempt to spin this into some situation where Matchett-PI did no wrong by lying about the words of another. ]

Why should I do that.?.. Matchett can defend himself fully..
Can only hope to read the chicken plucking your gonna git..
This is fun...

Oh! I suspect the clucking and plucking and down right ducking from cogent analysis will be classic free republic drama.. Found no where else on the internet I might add.. this good..

I'm a just water boy in Matchetts-PI's corner..

[Dimensio]

Why should I do that.?.. Matchett can defend himself fully..

And he did so quite eloquently, by reiterating a claim that had already been proven false. Which means that there could be no doubt with an assumption that Matchett-PI might have been mistaken. No, with his arrogant response, he proved to all that he was just lying.

Can only hope to read the chicken plucking your gonna git..

And why am I going to be 'gitting' a 'chicken plucking'? Because I expose someone's blatant lies?

I'm a just water boy in Matchetts-PI's corner..

Yes, you're one lying creationist defending another. Hardly surprising. It's so rare for one creationist to ever admonish another for outright lying, no matter how obvious it is, and since you're as much of a liar as Matchett-PI, there's no chance that you'd risk accusations of hypocracy in addition to dishonesty.

[frgoff]

Cows are settled herbivores.

They shouldn't be. They should be the common ancestor of some critter on down the road.

That brings up a question. Are there any common ancestors that aren't extinct? I mean, sharks have been around for something like 200 million years. Certainly they should be the common ancestor to something.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Humans would clip it, then chew."

LOL. Go look at some Buffalo grass.

But to satisfy you, we'll race. You against any non-nursing calf on the ranch (so there's no too much a size disadvantage).

[Dimensio]

They shouldn't be. They should be the common ancestor of some critter on down the road.

Why?

[MeanWestTexan]

"Are there any common ancestors that aren't extinct?"

Yeah, there are, for several branches of creatures.

Some goofy-looking proto-horse comes to mind as the common ancestor of donkey, zebras, and horses.

There are also a lot of diverse insects and crabs with living common ancestors.

In the plant family, there's the common ancestor of broccli, asparagus, and caulflower --- but that doesn't really count as those three species are are the result of artifically-induced evolution by man.

[DennisR]

Bingo. Just another proevolutionary misinterpretation of "evidence."

[hosepipe]

[ You don't make yourself look any better by trying to defend out-of-context quoting. ]

Out of context according to who.?.. YOU...
A quote (being a quote) is ALWAYS out of context..
else it would not merely be a quote.. Whats your point.?.

If you mean the "greater" meaning is enclosed in far more verbage.. then you're saying all quoteing is out of context.. Unless the quote supports you're own thesis.. then its accurate..

DuuuH...

[Gumlegs]

They shouldn't be. They should be the common ancestor of some critter on down the road.

Why?

Well, they're pretty common now, and even cows like doing what will eventually make them ancestors.

[MeanWestTexan]

A domestic cow --- barring continued support by humans --- - probably won't be an ancestor of anything.

They have been so in-bred and selectively bred that they are: (1) unhealthy; (2) subject to disease; and (3) most importantly, require a whole buch o' feed to live.

Wild cattle looked a lot more like those lean, big-horned, creatures one sees in India.

Bit of an evolutionary dead end --- overspecialization of being a food source for man --- who does care for them and breed them --- but no man, no domestic cattle.

Can say the same thing for my stupid sheep.

[Dimensio]

Out of context according to who.?.. YOU... A quote (being a quote) is ALWAYS out of context.. else it would not merely be a quote.. Whats your point.?.

Okay. I will now present a completely "honest" quote from you, hosepipe.

"I ... am ... a ... bi-sexual ... sissy fag ... and ... I ... have ... committed ... child ... abuse."

Hosepipe said that. I can provide complete citation for all of that. According to hosepipe's own logic, there is nothing wrong with that quote. It is accurate and representative. And, because I didn't make up anything at all in there, it's even more honest than Matchett-PI's quoting of Wayne Carley.

[Gumlegs]

Please don't read too much into what was intended as a joke.

But if human support continues and enough time passes, even the poor, benighted cow of today has a shot at becoming an ancestor. Not much of a shot, I admit, but tomorrow's cows have to descend from something.

[hosepipe]

[ And he did so quite eloquently, by reiterating a claim that had already been proven false. ]

Ah! PROOF.. thats what this is all about.. ain't it..
Proving the unprovable.. If you have an agenda then proof becomes dogma...
I gag down the ceationist side somewhat but thats really unprovable also.. I would gag down a bit of Darminism too but the only problem to me is the Darwinists themselves.. A feather evolved from a scale.. really.. Adam and Eve is at least a good metaphor.. and very good way to answer childrens fears that they are just "MEAT" on the hoof.. for some predator.. Evolution on the other hand is fairy tale for adults, actually a nightmare.. as much as I can determine.. The good guys MUST win else I'm not playin..

And they are winning.. Betcha more Evos abort their children than Creationists do..