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 have a secret you wish I didn't. I know what these people were talking about when lying creationists lifted their quotes for you to wave about to fool the credulous and reason-challenged.
WRT Colin Patterson: A Tale of Two 'Cites'.
Grasse, in 1977, was probably unaware of ring species and the only-just-emerging data from molecular biology. He seems to be giving short shrift to embrylogy and the other 29+ Evidences for Evolution. His unaccountable and outdated (1977) shortsightness doesn't change the current state of the evidence at all.
Darwin's question is rhetorical, exactly in the fashion of his more frequently abused quote on the eye. He wrote a whole chapter on why then every stratum is not full of finely shading intermediate links. He very clearly concludes that we have about the fossil record we would expect given our understanding of geology and of evolution. The only thing that indeed troubled him was the lack of any Precambrian fossils at all in his day. Confident that Precambrian life must have existed, he predicted its fossils would turn up. He lived to see that borne out. Within a few years of his first edition, the first such find, dubbed Eozoon, was announced. Although we now know it was a badly misinterpreted stromatolite, it was Precambrian life, the first of many to follow.
You're not looking really good here. You could claim that you didn't know how bad the scholarship of these quotes was, how dishonest, but of course you do.
Sorry to disappoint, but Gould's on my shelf. I'm guilty of the crime of not agreeing with all he said, even if you repeat it in boldface.
Gould and you twist yourselves into pretzels insisting that punk-eek is really what Darwin meant and his followers for the hundred years after just misunderstood him. The fact that Darwin envisioned intermittence in the process he theorized doesn't alter the fact that he proposed a gradualism that the fossil record as it later developed just doesn't support. It's amazing to me that in this field of science, unique to the best of my knowledge, there is a stubborn insistence that we got it all right in 1859, period. Peruse The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see how much change and advancement have characterized science. Those who insist we know it all and can go from a draft to a final print usually have ended up decades later with egg on their face. We are just beginning to understand how the genome works and what structures and mechanisms may cause it to change. To claim at this time that there is no explanation for change in organisms other than random genetic mutation is folly. Despite his strenuous denials, Gould's theory strongly implies purpose. Now whether the mechanism, the change agent, is purely biological or something else, I don't know. I'm willing to go where the evidence that scientists come up with in the future leads me.
Thanks for reminding me again why I occasionally lurk on these threads but mainly refrain from posting. Goodbye. I've got to go back to my playpen, read some creationist tracts and suck some eggs.
Didn't like that huh.. (making a note that you know thats its true too)
A "feather" evolving from a "scale", really.. As complex as a feather is, a feather would be nothing unless the bones evolved at the same time.. not to speak of the makeup of the very BLOOD that those bones make.. and if they didn't happen, why feathers.?.. Which are very complex stuctures to even be called feathers.. A million(pick a number) iterations before it could be called a feather would be useless.. until it finally became a "feather"..
Occams Razor precludes evolution (as its been displayed to me) but then the same Razor precludes the Genesis Chapter One account too.. What happened, happened, true, but I think theres some OTHER explanation than evolution or the bible.. or maybe a mix of both systems even..
I mock both dogmatons equally occasionally.. and am not embarassed.. Lieing to themselves is what dogmatons do.. A Dogmatons bark is worse that its bite.. for they are guarding dogma.. thats what they do.. no surpise there.. For fear of evolving into a higher intellectual life form maybe.. i.e. they are protecting something..
What are you proctecting.?...
I am proctecting nothing leaving myself open to be bitten by dogmatons.. both kinds.. Didn't really want to be a victim but somebodys got to do it I guess. Why not me.?.
By the way, good morning, and God Bless you.. d;-)~ Pssst..
Did you actually have an argument against anything that Ichneumon said, or are you just spewing out non-sequiturs because you want to look like you have a response even though any position you might have had was just demolished?
My problem with this is that it is stated in such a way as to imply that this individual, now fossilized, was somehow throught the sentinent desire to change, in the process of altering its diet and morphology to become a member of a new species.
WHile changes may be able to occur through natural selection in a population causing an overall change in the genetic character of the surviving breeding population, INDIVIDUAL organisms do not evolve.
The writer's statements invite attack for the ridiculous oversimplification of a complex set of interrealtionships and responses to environmental and other stimuli, which, while it may or may not exist as fact is certainly more plausible than the paleontological equivalent of stating that Pamela Andersons' daughters would have large chests because she got a boob job.
I notice that in your ignorant little tiraed, you still haven't bothered to provide any evidence for your claim that fossil fakes were all exposed by "non-evo" scientists. Not surprising, since you were lying when you made it.
Nice work...
Amazing to me how evolution dogmatons can hold so tightly things not really proved or in some cases or even most cases wildly conjectured.. I don't have the gravitas to disprove most anything they say.. There is a lot of evidence there are WERE many "creatures" from long ago.. Ok. Dinos were real.. and some views on Biblical timelines might be quite silly or just as silly as some Evo's timelines..
Hard to get one to say, gee I don't know, I may never know.. Kind of like talking to one of those Fire Baptised christians that baptise with blow torches, not always but usually.. Dogmations I calls them.. Arrrgh.. LoL..
Free Republic unique in that "we" savage our own worse than we do the trolls.. For a concept to make it through this site unchalleged or barely challenged by someone lends crebibilty to that concept.. LoL.. FR is unique to any other place on the internet I know of.. Bull Sperm is quantified, sorted, graded and creativly mocked here.. and not disallowed..
On FR very smart people can become unmasked as quite dumb with one post.. You can fool some Freepers sometimes but you can't fool all of the freepers all the time.. and for someone to get Freeped is an honor I think.. Many threads and posts die a slow or fast death by indifference.. Rightfully so..
That's because you're going in the wrong direction....
Matchett-PI did that.. "all exposed by non-evos", I didn't say or imply that, ever.. You wouldn't accept any expose' unless an Evo clergyman did it anyway.. admit it..
He has been photographed in the wild and his remains identified, but the creature canNOT survive in captivity.
Silly?
Maybe...
...but still true.
How do you understand what I am typing then?
My language is surely a bit different than yours.
So your answer is: NONE.
Neat trick.
How does they know what ADAM's was to begin with?
Dang!
I get this same effect from some folks when I post Scripture!
Sorry -
Only ONE member of the tag team is allowed in the ring at once.
Liar BUMP
shameless at that!
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.