"Any museum that displays sinosauroptyrex with feathers is misrepresenting the truth to the public (and most museums do...as it is considered to be one of the most definitive fossils in the dinosaur to bird evolutionary "theory")."
There is a debate over whether they were feathers with Sinosauropteryx. There certainly WERE feathered dinosaurs though.
"Any museum that talks about a single cell evolving out of a primordial ooze some million/billion years ago is labeling an assumption as science (misrepresenting what the evidence states)."
And they wouldn't be talking about evolution, they would be talking about abiogenesis.
"Any museum that shows a clean, straight, line of monkey to ape to human evolution is misrepresenting what is scientifically theorized (common ancestor...no clean lines)."
There is ample evidence that we DID evolve from ancestral primates. Fossil, morphological, and DNA evidence. Any museum that equivocated on this would be lying to the public about what we know.
posted on 12/05/2005 3:23:33 PM PST
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
, without good study or actual evidence, is their definitive dino-bird.
I know...abiogenesis is not the same as evolution (However, a link provided on this thread to Scientific American's website calls abiogenesis chemical evolution...so don't we just go from one kind of evolution that allegedly explains the origin of life and another that allegedly explains speciation on a grand scale...Are not biological and chemical evolution linked?)
The point was that museums pass of abiogenesis speculation as scientific theory relating to the origin of all life.
I understand the evidence provided for human evolution from a common primate ancestor...Do we have actual evidence that it is the clean line of the monkey walking into an ape walking into a human that is displayed? (no.)
posted on 12/05/2005 3:42:43 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson