Ahhhh, answered my own question. It is so hard to take "scientists" seriously these days. So let me get this straight -- in post #21, you snottily sneer at the scientists for what you saw as being too much confidence in the dinosaur/meteor scenario, and then after you bothered to read the article you found that they had in fact described it in more qualified terms, then you used *that* as an excuse (in post #24) to snottily declare that it's hard to take them seriously these days, and you even derisively put "scientists" in "scare quotes".
Given that you "found" reason to attack them *both* ways (i.e. for supposedly being certain, then for *not* being certain), which makes it clear that nothing they can say will keep you from saying obnoxious tbings about them, why don't you just come out and admit that you just despise scientists in general no matter what they might say or not say, and leave it at that?
The people who are truly "hard to take seriously" are the folks who inevitably feel a need to pop onto all the science threads to express their knee-jerk feelings about science and the people who work in it. It gets a little old after the 800th time.
First the author says definitively that a meteor killed the dinosaurs and then, if you bother to read further into the flawed article, he takes it back. Yes, the snotty comments are mine, but they wouldn't be there if the article didn't present an unproven theory as fact.
I love science and am an avid reader of Popular Mechanics. I've worked in the scientific field for 7 years now. Hell, I've even worked on some of the spectroscopic equipment used to identify materials from core samples that theoretically didn't originate on earth. In fact, I tend to post scientific articles here on FR from time to time. Scientists, to me, let the data speak where the data speaks and keep silent where the data is silent.
The mere fact that they just discovered that another meteor theoretically hit the planet is enough to relegate the whole "dinosaurs were killed by a meteor" theory back to the "theory" category where it belongs.
Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.
Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
|
|
Comparisons
M. Eyes = ?
Nose = ?
Teeth incisors = ?
K. Eyes = ?
Nose = pointy
Teeth incisors = smaller fangs
J. Eyes = Medium
Nose = stubby
Teeth incisors = BIGGER fangs
I. Eyes = Medium
Nose = more pointy
Teeth incisors = big fangs
H. Eyes = Bigger
Nose = more blunt
Teeth incisors = Even more
G. Eyes = real SMALL
Nose = Real pointy
Teeth incisors = More
F. Eyes = Smaller
Nose = Blunt
Teeth incisors = Thin, less
E. Eyes = HUGE!
Nose = pointy, again
Teeth incisors = Smaller
D. Eyes = Smaller
Nose = Holes bigger
Teeth incisors = Bigger
C. Eyes = Huge, again!
Nose = broader
Teeth incisors = very small
B. Eyes = less huge
Nose = narrower
Teeth incisors = ??
A. Eyes = big
Nose = rounded
Teeth incisors = small
|
Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .
Are you convinced yet?
Oscillating eye sizes,
head shapes that shift back and forth,
teeth that are large, then small, then large again.
Yeah; I believe this stuff!
(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here. )
There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!" After seeing these pix; do you?
