Yet somehow I find myself strangely not compelled to give "fluffy" a hug.
Evolutionists: consistent with basic ToE, but a 'course-correction' revision in order, perhaps?
Creationists: perhaps we can have revised illustrations in some of the comics, so that terrified cavemen are depicted fleeing from feathered dinosaurs? Artistic licence is permitted for colour of the plummage, that won't conflict with current scientific evidence. :-)
Cordially
Not earth-shattering, but interesting IMHO
Yet somehow I find myself strangely not compelled to give "fluffy" a hug.
What part of evolution would give them feathers in a warm, humid jungle-like climate?
It's important to note that the actual "theory of evolution" has to do with *how* things evolve and speciate (i.e., the actual biological processes), whereas the sorts of "course-corrections" described in this article don't affect the *theory*, it just adjusts the *history* of which evolutionary changes occurred when.
It's similar to how your mechanic's initial estimate of why your car has stopped running may be found to be wrong once he opens up the engine and looks inside, but that still doesn't count as a change in the science by which internal combustion engine operates, or the theories in physics (thermodynamics, gas laws, etc.) which are involved.
Likewise, many people mistake revisions to life's "history book" as being changes to the "theory of evolution" itself, when in most cases it isn't at all, nor do such discoveries (like feathered dinosaurs) require any change to the theory whatsoever.
At the risk of oversimplification, evolutionary theory deals with "how and why", whereas evolutionary histories deal with "where and when".
Rosie O'Donnell
marker
I think it is interesting that in the minds of the people in this article, there can be no middle ground. All dinosaurs are now warm-blooded and feathered. Not some. Not most. Not just the ones located in the volcano. All. And when the advocates for this position get to a reporter, this is not stated as a theory. It is stated as a fact, which of course, in scientific method, it is not.
I wonder if that means that the fossilized skin/scale prints we were shown for all those years are hoaxes.
Believe what you will, but this is a poor example of scientific method in action.
Learned this in my high school geology class, circa 1977.
Oh good grief. Next they'll tell us the planet was once covered in feathers and mutated to have rocks instead. Seems they need to clear the rocks from their heads..
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
I beleive that's been done, re: Quetzalcoatl:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/YaxchilanDivineSerpent.jpg
Another point made in the program is that T-Rex's arms are so small and don't lend themselves to grabbing and holding a meal. Again, the arms of the T-Rex were compared to that of the Velociraptor. The Paleontologist in the program believes that the worse thing that could happen to a T-Rex would be to fall, because he has no real arms to support his body or help get him back up. He believes that a T-Rex could be seriously hurt from a fall. I'm only half-way through the program, but his concept is something to think about.
I'm also reading "Tyrannosaur Canyon" by Douglas Preston ( Preston & Lincoln Child...Relic, Riptide, Cabinet of Curiosities, etc.). The theory that dinosaurs were feathered critters is used in the book. It's the first book of Preston's that I've read and I must say it's pretty good. I've read many of the books he's done with Child. They're two of my favorite writers.
And what knowledge was advanced?
LMAO
Well, this settles one thing for me.
People have often speculated about what it would be like to eat a "brontosaur" as Fred Flintstone did.
Now we know. -- It tastes like chicken.