Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 100 (8389)
04-09-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
04-09-2002 8:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Therein lies a major problem of Creation "science"...
There is no framework in place for anything close to meaningful peer review. There is a far too-broad standard of what is considered evidence. They will accept into their "camp", and subsequently take as an authority, almost anyone, regardless of how dubious their academic credentials, or if they speak as an expert in Biology when their degree was in hydrolics, a la Morris.
This all comes back to the fact that, to Creation scientists, it isn't the evidence found in nature that is the basis for their work. A widely-interpreted religious book is the final arbiter of their work, which goes against the basic tennets of the scientific method.
Creation "science" is religion, nothing more.

I don't think it's true that Creation scientists don't care about what kind of evidence they let in. This is from Answers in Genesis.
"Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter."
(Hehe, I'm sure you'll disagree with AiG's opinion here that Kent Hovind is a talented creationist speaker, but I'm sure you get the point.)
Here we have a large Creationist organization gently dismissing Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, and Wyatt. Quicksink often posts a site in which a creationist organization critiques Russel Humphrey's Cosmological Theory.
Also Creation scientists operate (I believe two) magazines that are peer-reviewed. Although you may not believe that creation scientists are the best peer-reviewers, I don't think you are correct in saying that Creation scientists will accept any evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 04-09-2002 8:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 04-09-2002 4:41 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 19 by nator, posted 04-10-2002 9:58 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 17 of 100 (8390)
04-09-2002 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
04-09-2002 4:06 PM


[QUOTE][b]Also Creation scientists operate (I believe two) magazines that are peer-reviewed.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
However to join the Creation Research Society, the group that publishes CRSQ, you have to sign a Statement of Belief that endorses YEC views. Also, it has blatantly stated that all papers that support and Old Earth are rejected.
quote:
International Creationism Conference Call for Papers (CRS)
Papers dealing with the age of the earth/universe must be either from a young-earth perspective or offer a positive/constructive criticism of that perspective. Papers from an old-earth/old-universe perspective will not be considered.

[QUOTE]Cobra Snake: [b]I don't think you are correct in saying that Creation scientists will accept any evidence[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Creationists reject any evidence that contradicts Creationism. In fact, AiG considers the automatic rejection of any Old Earth evidence so important they mention that it is necessary in their statement of faith:
[QUOTE][b]By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
AiG is the perfect example of a Creationist organization that is not interested in evidence, but only wants to promote YEC views regardless of what the truth might be. According to that quote, if God Himself descended from Heaven and told the AiG crew they were wrong, they would be obligated to ignore Him and continue their work. That is what a SoF is. No evidence of any kind will ever convince AiG because they aren't interested in evidence, and so Creationism is itself a religion and AiG is hawking a new subgroup of Christianity, in which the Bible itself is elevated to near Godhood.
As for Hovind, if they rebuked the fellow, what does that say about him?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-09-2002 4:06 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by gene90, posted 04-09-2002 4:53 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 45 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 9:45 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 18 of 100 (8391)
04-09-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by gene90
04-09-2002 4:41 PM


Techristian,
You must have overlooked my questions. How many toes do they have, and how many dinosaur skeletons with spearpoints in them have been found?
Before we move on to other topics, we need to wear this out first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 04-09-2002 4:41 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by techristian, posted 04-10-2002 8:47 PM gene90 has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 100 (8410)
04-10-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
04-09-2002 4:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't think it's true that Creation scientists don't care about what kind of evidence they let in. This is from Answers in Genesis.
"Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent Hovind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter."
(Hehe, I'm sure you'll disagree with AiG's opinion here that Kent Hovind is a talented creationist speaker, but I'm sure you get the point.)
Here we have a large Creationist organization gently dismissing Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, and Wyatt. Quicksink often posts a site in which a creationist organization critiques Russel Humphrey's Cosmological Theory.
Also Creation scientists operate (I believe two) magazines that are peer-reviewed. Although you may not believe that creation scientists are the best peer-reviewers, I don't think you are correct in saying that Creation scientists will accept any evidence.

While I am encouraged that these folks are being seen as the nutcases they are, what about the grandfather of the modern Creation "science" movement, Henry Morris? He expounds on all sorts of topics, such as Biology, Geology, and Astrophysics, as if he was an expert, yet his degree is in Hydrolics.
Creationist peer-review is not scientific peer-review. If they want to be considered real, professional scientists, then they should be able to get their work published in real, professional scientific journals.
Of course, their work is based on a a particular interpretation religious book, and not emperical evidence found in nature, so it cannot, by definition, be considered scientific.
At best, Creationist peer-review is philosophical or Theological in nature, not scientific.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-09-2002 4:06 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-14-2002 10:12 PM nator has not replied

  
techristian
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 20 of 100 (8427)
04-10-2002 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by gene90
04-09-2002 4:53 PM


I'm not sure how many toes were there, but I only SAW 4 toes. (but there was possibly another one next to the big toe) The size of foot and length of stride was consistent with an ERECT modern man just over 6 feet tall.
As to a spear in a dinosaur , try to catch one, on foot, running 30-70 miles per hour.
Now I have a few questions for you. Where are your transitional species ? Why are there still certain life forms unchanged when compared to fossils "millions of years old" ? When a new SPECIES is supposedly evolved, it must only mate within the species. WHO DOES THE FIRST ONE OF A SPECIES MATE WITH ? Once again where are your transitional species?
Dan
http://musicinit.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by gene90, posted 04-09-2002 4:53 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-10-2002 9:26 PM techristian has not replied
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 04-10-2002 9:44 PM techristian has replied
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 04-11-2002 8:20 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 25 by edge, posted 04-11-2002 11:33 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 04-11-2002 9:28 PM techristian has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 21 of 100 (8428)
04-10-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by techristian
04-10-2002 8:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
As to a spear in a dinosaur , try to catch one, on foot, running 30-70 miles per hour.
You think brontosaurus or ultrasaurus ran 30-70 miles an hour!? Now that would have been something to see!
[b] [QUOTE]Now I have a few questions for you. Where are your transitional species ?[/b][/QUOTE]
I did a quick search for Lerista lizards - beautiful Australian reptiles with a wide range of limb reduction - and I came across this paper which is fascinating.
http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/Shinelab/rickspages/reprints/188.pdf
These lizards rock!
http://www.kingsnake.com/oz/lizards/skinks/lxanthura.htm
http://www.kingsnake.com/oz/lizards/skinks/ldeserto.htm
http://www.kingsnake.com/oz/lizards/skinks/lfragilis.html
[b] [QUOTE]Why are there still certain life forms unchanged when compared to fossils "millions of years old" ?[/b][/QUOTE]
Why not? If they are well adapted to an environment which is still more or less as it was, there would be little or no selective pressure.[b] [QUOTE]When a new SPECIES is supposedly evolved, it must only mate within the species. WHO DOES THE FIRST ONE OF A SPECIES MATE WITH ?[/b][/QUOTE]
I tried this one out on my Biology teacher - I guess as a teenager I was obsessed with mating!
Anyway, as I am pressed for time, here's a quick answer for one form of speciation, allopatric:
A species develops gradually because it is isolated from other populations. The changes in each generation will not be enough to prevent successful mating, but the cumulative effect of the changes is eventually such that they cannot mate with the ancestor species or other species which may have evolved from it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by techristian, posted 04-10-2002 8:47 PM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 04-10-2002 10:04 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 100 (8429)
04-10-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by techristian
04-10-2002 8:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
I'm not sure how many toes were there, but I only SAW 4 toes. (but there was possibly another one next to the big toe) The size of foot and length of stride was consistent with an ERECT modern man just over 6 feet tall.
As to a spear in a dinosaur , try to catch one, on foot, running 30-70 miles per hour.

Are you sure something as large as Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatasaurus can run 30 mph? Let alone 70 mph.
quote:
Originally posted by techristian:

Now I have a few questions for you. Where are your transitional species ? Why are there still certain life forms unchanged when compared to fossils "millions of years old" ? When a new SPECIES is supposedly evolved, it must only mate within the species. WHO DOES THE FIRST ONE OF A SPECIES MATE WITH ? Once again where are your transitional species?
Dan
http://musicinit.com

1/ Stasis is not precluded in evolutionary theory. See Punctuated EQUILIBRIUM.
2/ Transitional species.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html
There are several ring species, but the most famous example is the herring gull. In Britain, these are white. They breed with the herring gulls of eastern America, which are also white. American herring gulls breed with those of Alaska, and Alaskan ones breed with those of Siberia. But as you go to Alaska and Siberia, you find that herring gulls are getting smaller, and picking up some black markings. And when you get all the way back to Britain, they have become Lesser Black-Backed Gulls.
So, the situation is that there is a big circle around the world. As you travel this circle, you find a series of gull populations, each of which interbreeds with the populations to each side. But in Britain, the two ends of the circle are two different species of bird. The two ends do not interbreed: they think that they are two different species.
http://www.tulane.edu/~guill/rassenkreis_module.html
Ring species (Rassenkreis, a group of races) are individual species which have a number of subspecies or races occurring in a circular or ring-shaped pattern. The subspecies at the ends of the ring act like good species and are morphologically quite distinct from one another. The subspecies in between the two extremes form an almost continuous set of intermediate forms. You can imagine that this phenomenon must give taxonomists fits--and especially anyone with a typological mind (tee hee!). How does one designate different species in the face of such a situation?
An example of such a species is the plethodontid salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii of western North America. There are seven subspecies in the species. The blotched and unblotched forms at the southern end of the ring in southern California behave like separate species, but there are not any species borders between populations to the north. Wake and Yanev (1986, Evolution: 40: 702-715) studied allozyme variation within and among the subspecies of this ring species in an attempt to gain an understanding of the genetic differentiation in the species. They found considerable allozymic differentiation among populations; genetic distances (Nei's index of genetic distance, D) were greater than those between some other sympatric species of pletodontid salamanders in the region.
So, as you can see, species origins are not like a car production line, where one make stops & another begins. When species evolve they do so as a POPULATION, with all (actually, most) members of that population able to interbreed with every other member of the opposite sex, the whole population moves adaptively as a body, so there is NO first member of a species as such. The longer they are separated from a parent population, the less likely they will be able to produce fertile offspring, even though they may still be able to mate with an intermediary population that is fertile to both.
3/ The question no creationist ever answers. What would you accept as a transitional?
Mark
[edited to fix link]
[edited to add 3/]
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-10-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by techristian, posted 04-10-2002 8:47 PM techristian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by techristian, posted 04-13-2002 12:16 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 100 (8430)
04-10-2002 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mister Pamboli
04-10-2002 9:26 PM


Mister Pamboli,
Great minds think alike
You must've got yours in seconds before mine, sorry for the repetition.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-10-2002 9:26 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 100 (8440)
04-11-2002 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by techristian
04-10-2002 8:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:

As to a spear in a dinosaur , try to catch one, on foot, running 30-70 miles per hour.

Prehistoric hunters don't seem to have had much difficulty devising
ways of catching all manner of fast and/or large animals.
You don't need to spear a dinosaur of the run to spear/kill it.
Dig a pit, fill the bottom with spikes, cover with light branches,
place food in middle.
End result :: a large animal punctured in ways that could be
resognised post-mortem.
Human remains, along with the remains of what they eat, have been
found ... why are there no dinosaur remians amongst these ?
quote:
Originally posted by techristian:

Now I have a few questions for you. Where are your transitional species ?

Covered I feel.
quote:
Originally posted by techristian:

Why are there still certain life forms unchanged when compared to fossils "millions of years old" ?

Covered.
quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
When a new SPECIES is supposedly evolved, it must only mate within the species. WHO DOES THE FIRST ONE OF A SPECIES MATE WITH ?

Covered ... but I'd like to add emphasis to evolution being
about populations NOT individuals.
Look at galapogus finches ... like a certain Charles Darwin did
Oh, sorry, I forgot ... speciation is OK it's transitions that
are the problem
quote:
Originally posted by techristian:

Once again where are your transitional species?

By this do you mean 'missing links' ? I don't think you'll find
these ... the whole concept is a mis-conception of what evolution
is saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by techristian, posted 04-10-2002 8:47 PM techristian has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 100 (8446)
04-11-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by techristian
04-10-2002 8:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
I'm not sure how many toes were there, but I only SAW 4 toes. (but there was possibly another one next to the big toe) The size of foot and length of stride was consistent with an ERECT modern man just over 6 feet tall.
As far as I know, you are one of the very few who actually believe in these tracks. Try this link:
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/nbc.htm
"Not only are Baugh and Patton's claims usupported by the evidence and rejected by mainstream scientists, but both are widely considered to be disreputable even by many creationists. In a Web page response to questions about Baugh, Answers in Genesis, a sister group of the Creation Science Foundation, listed numerous unsubstantiated claims by Baugh, and stated at their web site, "All creationist scientists that we have spoken to regard Dr. [sic] Baugh's teaching as a serious embarassment."[13]"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by techristian, posted 04-10-2002 8:47 PM techristian has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 26 of 100 (8458)
04-11-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by techristian
04-10-2002 8:47 PM


[QUOTE][b]I'm not sure how many toes were there, but I only SAW 4 toes. (but there was possibly another one next to the big toe)[/QUOTE]
[/b]
If it was a human, there should be five toes.
Can you link to the image? The ones I've seen aren't too impressive. This one, for example, was made by a rather odd "human", as it has two toes and heart-shaped foot.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor+3-dry.jpg
The proportions of this one are wrong, and the largest toe should be on the same side as the inward curve of the foot. Conclusion: this "human" had a mirror-reversed foot.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor+3-wet.jpg
This person thought it would be convincing if they put their foot in an eroded dinosaur print and snapped a picture. "Whoever" made that print must hav do, because for you to claim these things you must have visited the site. When did you go?
[QUOTE][b]As to a spear in a dinosaur , try to catch one, on foot, running 30-70 miles per hour.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Why should I catch it on foot when I can set a trap, run it off a cliff, or circle it with the rest of the tribe? Or I might just find an injured one (free food). Do you think that natives hunted buffalo by running them down and strangling them? I'm afraid that if humans had to run for their food we wouldn't have survived even this long in geologic time.
The speed of the animal is much of a problem to someone with opposable thumbs and some creativity. Pronghorns can reach a velocity of 70 mph, the record is 84. What was a pronghorn to the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North America? Dinner1. Also on the menu are bison1 (35 MPH)2, elk1 (45 MPH)3, and bear (30 MPH, if you want to catch one)3.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/nediv/sebpubl.htm (1)
http://www.creamerybrookbison.com/facts.htm (2)
(3)http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004737.html(3)
[QUOTE][b]Why are there still certain life forms unchanged when compared to fossils "millions of years old" ?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Name one "unchanged" compared to fossils.
Now answer my question: why aren't there human bones found inside dinosaur ribcages?
[QUOTE][b]When a new SPECIES is supposedly evolved, it must only mate within the species. WHO DOES THE FIRST ONE OF A SPECIES MATE WITH ? [/QUOTE]
[/b]
A new species does not appear in one generation, and since a population evolves rather than individuals, there is never only one member of a species. Since it is a gradual process there is never an organism that different from its parents or from potential mates nearby. This is a basic concept in evolution, the question clearly shows that you should do more background research.
[QUOTE][b]Once again where are your transitional species?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Technically every species is a transitional but I think others have already answered your question, it would be nice if you could answer mine in such detail as they have provided you.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by techristian, posted 04-10-2002 8:47 PM techristian has not replied

  
techristian
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 27 of 100 (8488)
04-13-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mark24
04-10-2002 9:44 PM


But the bigger question is HOW DID YOUR GULLS GET WINGS or how did any bird get wings in the first place? If you believe in micro-evolution then the wings would have started out as CUMBERSOME stubs and then next move to LARGER USELESS wings before any bird could take flight. These cumbersome limbs would have made the creatures EASY PREY and hardly the "fittest" evolutionary creatures of the Darwinian model. If you believe in macro-evolution then the wings would appear all of a sudden COMPLETELY FUNCTIONAL. (getting close to creation here!)
Dan
http://musicinit.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 04-10-2002 9:44 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 04-13-2002 12:42 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 04-13-2002 4:54 AM techristian has not replied
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 04-13-2002 10:59 AM techristian has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 28 of 100 (8489)
04-13-2002 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by techristian
04-13-2002 12:16 AM



techristian writes:
But the bigger question is HOW DID YOUR GULLS GET WINGS or how did any bird get wings in the first place? If you believe in micro-evolution then the wings would have started out as CUMBERSOME stubs and then next move to LARGER USELESS wings before any bird could take flight.
We may never uncover a complete enough fossil progression to answer this question and may forever be left with speculation, but no informed speculation proposes anything like what you describe here. Birds evolved from four limbed predecessors, and their evolution would never have required anything like a long series of generations where stubs gradually became wings. No, in some way that we may never fully know, the proto-birds acquired feathers and eventually aerodynamic characteristics on their forelimbs, as well as lighter hollow bones.

If you believe in macro-evolution then the wings would appear all of a sudden COMPLETELY FUNCTIONAL. (getting close to creation here!)
Macroevolution is the accumulation over long time periods of many small microevolutionary steps. It is not a sudden large jump in a single generation. Consider that if such were possible, the new creature would have no one to mate with except under the most unlikely of situations where two such creatures were produced not only in the same generation but in the same geographic location. Evolution proposes nothing so unlikely.
Macroevolution produced chimps and humans from a common ancestor over millions of generation. Microevolution produced the racial differences we see among people today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by techristian, posted 04-13-2002 12:16 AM techristian has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 29 of 100 (8492)
04-13-2002 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by techristian
04-13-2002 12:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
But the bigger question is HOW DID YOUR GULLS GET WINGS or how did any bird get wings in the first place? If you believe in micro-evolution then the wings would have started out as CUMBERSOME stubs and then next move to LARGER USELESS wings before any bird could take flight. These cumbersome limbs would have made the creatures EASY PREY and hardly the "fittest" evolutionary creatures of the Darwinian model. If you believe in macro-evolution then the wings would appear all of a sudden COMPLETELY FUNCTIONAL. (getting close to creation here!)
Dan
http://musicinit.com

Where in the hell did the Gull come from?
What about completely functional forelimbs that lent themselves to a few seconds gliding. This being selected for, ending up in flight?
Since you ask "Where are your transitional species ?, I repeat, what would you accept as a transitional?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by techristian, posted 04-13-2002 12:16 AM techristian has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 30 of 100 (8494)
04-13-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by techristian
04-13-2002 12:16 AM


Dave,
I'm not a big fan of the ADD method of debate. Let's pick a topic and stick with it. I want to know where all the dino products are at archealogical sites.
As others have pointed out wings too weak for flying still can be used for gliding. You will note that several extant species glide between trees to escape predation therefore even partially functional wings or other unpowered aerodynamic structures have an advantage as an adaptation. Enough on that point, back to my questions. Where are the dinosaur fossils in human trashpits? Where are the dinosaur fossils with human remains in their ribcages, and with spearpoints lodged in their bones?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by techristian, posted 04-13-2002 12:16 AM techristian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by techristian, posted 04-14-2002 6:21 PM gene90 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024