Another 'Missing Link' found.



 Religions > Atheism > Another 'Missing Link' found.

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "johac"
Date: 17 Nov 2005 08:00:20 AM
Object: Another 'Missing Link' found.
Named Dallasaurus for where it was found, part of a line of land
dwelling lizards that became aquatic. The line eventually evolved into
the mosasaurs.
I'm waiting for some wiseguy/gal to make some comment about a now
extinct TV show.
---
SMU and Dallas Museum of Natural History
Announce Missing Fossil Link Dallasaurus
(DALLAS) When amateur fossil finder Van Turner discovered a small
vertebra at a construction site near Dallas 16 years ago, he knew the
creature was unlike anything in the fossil record. Scientists now know
the significance of Turners fossil as the origin of an extinct line of
lizards with an evolutionary twist: a land-dwelling species that became
fully aquatic.
Turner took the remains to paleontologists at the Dallas Museum of
Natural History, but it took several years before scientists dubbed the
find Dallasaurus turneri. Word of Dallasaurus is now reaching the
scientific community with a special issue of the Netherlands Journal of
Geosciences, featuring an article by Southern Methodist University
paleontologist Michael Polcyn and Gordon Bell Jr. of Guadalupe National
Park in Texas.
They describe Dallasaurus, a three-foot long lizard who lived 92 million
years ago in the shallow seas and shores of what was then a stretch of
Texas mostly under water, and also used the fossil to better understand
the mosasaur family tree. Polcyn and Bell painstakingly pieced together
an understanding of the anatomy and natural history of Dallasaurus from
the bones Turner discovered and from some matching skeletal remains at
the Texas Memorial Museum at the University of Texas in Austin.
Dallasaurus represents a missing link in the evolution of a group of
creatures called mosasaurs, prehistoric animals that started out on
land, but evolved in the seas and dominated the oceans at the same time
dinosaurs ruled the land. One aspect of Polcyn and Bells research is the
revelation that Dallasaurus retained complete limbs, hands and feet
suitable for walking on land, whereas later mosasaurs evolved their
limbs into flippers.
This is pretty close to the beginning of the mosasaur family tree, says
Dallas Museum of Natural History Earth Sciences Curator and SMU Adjunct
Professor of Paleontology Anthony R. Fiorillo, Ph.D. It is the most
complete mosasaur retaining all of its limbs found in North America.
Mosasaurs, every bit as prolific, fascinating and nearly as big as some
dinosaurs, are becoming more popular for paleontologists to study.
Mosasaurs lived and became extinct alongside dinosaurs, but few
paleontologists specialize in them. Later mosasaurs grew as large as
their dinosaur brethren, reaching up to 45 feet in length. Until the
discovery of Dallasaurus, however, only five primitive forms with
land-capable limbs were known, all of them found in the Middle East and
the eastern Adriatic.
Lizards had nearly 150 million-year-long history on land; then in the
Late Cretaceous, the final stage of the age of dinosaurs, one group
moved into the sea and rose to the very top of the food chain, explains
Polcyn, director of SMUs Visualization Laboratory, part of the
universitys geological sciences department. Starting out as small
animals like Dallasaurus, they mastered their new marine environment and
rose to become the top predator in their ecosystem, the T. Rex of the
ocean.
The Late Cretaceous period was a time of hot house temperatures and
rising sea levels.
As the earth warmed and the seas rose, small land-dwelling lizards took
to the oceans and developed increasing levels of seagoing capabilities,
and over 30 million years, eventually evolving into the top predator of
their domain before becoming extinct some 65 million years ago says
Polcyn.
The advanced fin-bearing mosasaurs have been grouped into three major
lineages. Although a small number of primitive mosasaur have been known
to retain land-capable limbs, they were thought to be an ancestral group
separate from the later fin-bearing forms. Dallasaurus represents a
clear link to one lineage of the later forms and the first time
researchers can clearly show mosasaurs evolved fins from limbs within
the different lineages of mosasaurs.
With the aid of computer science and SMUs visualization laboratory,
Polcyn has been able to simulate what Dallasaurus looked like, and how,
based on his skeletal remains, he would swim and move from land to sea.
An artist has taken Polcyns visualization work even one step further by
creating a life-sized model of Dallasaurus, a work that is soon to be on
display at the Museum along with the computer simulation.
When funds become available for reconstructing a suitable exhibit, the
bones of Dallasaurus will be displayed at the Dallas Museum of Natural
History. The work, however, will take several more years of additional
efforts and substantial funding. A nearly 30-foot long mosasaur, some 75
million years old, already is on display at the Dallas Museum.
Major dinosaur finds are frequently the result of creatures dying in
groups through flooding or drought, situations that lend themselves
fairly well to more complete preservation and conservation of their
bones, and much slower deterioration. Mosasaur fossils, in contrast, are
rarely found in large groupings, and are only found in areas once
covered by seas. Remains were quick to deteriorate under ocean currents;
their bodies often fell victim to the ravages of other sea life, such as
sharks, who would pick away at carcasses for food. Because of their
mostly shallow sea and seaside habitats, the remains of early mosasaurs
are even more rare and much harder to find.
But in the last two decades, many new discoveries and significant
advances have been made in the understanding of mosasaur evolution and
how they lived. Dallasaurus significantly advances that understanding by
filling in a long missing piece of mosasaur evolution, specifically a
time at which they transition from land to sea.
The importance of Turners discovery isnt lost on the researchers putting
together the pieces of the mosasaur puzzle. In fact, they predict the
legacy of Turners discovery will live on. His contribution was honored
by naming the species, turneri, after his last name. Not all major
discoveries are made by highly trained paleontologists, notes Dallas
Natural History Museum Curator Fiorillo. The observant individual, even
kids, can still make an important find, he says. Once this goes
mainstream, and people begin to recognize what mosasaurs are, well be
finding more and more.
---
http://www.smu.edu/smunews/dallasaurus/news-release.asp
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.

User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 11:27:40 AM
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:00:20 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:

Named Dallasaurus for where it was found, part of a line of land
dwelling lizards that became aquatic. The line eventually evolved into
the mosasaurs.

I'm waiting for some wiseguy/gal to make some comment about a now
extinct TV show.


---
SMU and Dallas Museum of Natural History
Announce Missing Fossil Link Dallasaurus

(DALLAS) When amateur fossil finder Van Turner discovered a small
vertebra at a construction site near Dallas 16 years ago, he knew the
creature was unlike anything in the fossil record. Scientists now know
the significance of Turners fossil as the origin of an extinct line of
lizards with an evolutionary twist: a land-dwelling species that became
fully aquatic.

:
Surely not?
They must have fallen off the Ark, due to overcrowding?
.
User: "johac"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 19 Nov 2005 07:04:26 AM
In article <76qon19i2dh85onf1c37i2skoopvfeemhb@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:00:20 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:

Named Dallasaurus for where it was found, part of a line of land
dwelling lizards that became aquatic. The line eventually evolved into
the mosasaurs.

I'm waiting for some wiseguy/gal to make some comment about a now
extinct TV show.


---
SMU and Dallas Museum of Natural History
Announce Missing Fossil Link Dallasaurus

(DALLAS) When amateur fossil finder Van Turner discovered a small
vertebra at a construction site near Dallas 16 years ago, he knew the
creature was unlike anything in the fossil record. Scientists now know
the significance of Turners fossil as the origin of an extinct line of
lizards with an evolutionary twist: a land-dwelling species that became
fully aquatic.

:
Surely not?
They must have fallen off the Ark, due to overcrowding?

Maybe they didn't have enough life jackets so the lizard just had to
evolve fast.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.


User: "towelie"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 08:19:46 AM
TV's johac wrote:

Named Dallasaurus for where it was found, part of a line of land
dwelling lizards that became aquatic. The line eventually evolved into
the mosasaurs.

I'm waiting for some wiseguy/gal to make some comment about a now
extinct TV show.

Dallasaurus shot JR!
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
User: "Harry F. Leopold"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 09:29:17 AM
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:19:46 -0600, towelie wrote
(in article <-86dnRJQopm1oOHenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@centurytel.net>):

TV's johac wrote:

Named Dallasaurus for where it was found, part of a line of land
dwelling lizards that became aquatic. The line eventually evolved into
the mosasaurs.

I'm waiting for some wiseguy/gal to make some comment about a now
extinct TV show.


Dallasaurus shot JR!

JR barbecued Dallasaurus!
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Damn! I never expected to see this place be armpit-deep in wombats. Kinda
cute as long as you don't move or breath. ;-)³
.
User: "Brian E. Clark"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 04:59:08 PM
In article <0001HW.BFA1A98D002A9FBBF0284550
@news.central.cox.net>, Harry F. Leopold said...

Dallasaurus shot JR!


JR barbecued Dallasaurus!

Victoria Principal rendered Dallasaurus into face cream!
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
User: "johac"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 19 Nov 2005 07:35:18 AM
In article <MPG.1de680e213328f498995a@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

In article <0001HW.BFA1A98D002A9FBBF0284550
@news.central.cox.net>, Harry F. Leopold said...

Dallasaurus shot JR!


JR barbecued Dallasaurus!


Victoria Principal rendered Dallasaurus into face cream!

And the skin into a new pair of boots, a belt and, and a handbag.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.

User: "stoney"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 19 Nov 2005 06:48:42 PM
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:59:08 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

In article <0001HW.BFA1A98D002A9FBBF0284550
@news.central.cox.net>, Harry F. Leopold said...

Dallasaurus shot JR!


JR barbecued Dallasaurus!


Victoria Principal rendered Dallasaurus into face cream!

http://www.leninimports.com/victoria_principal_gallery.html
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.




User: "The Last Conformist"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 11:19:49 AM
johac wrote:

Named Dallasaurus for where it was found, part of a line of land
dwelling lizards that became aquatic. The line eventually evolved into
the mosasaurs.

I'm waiting for some wiseguy/gal to make some comment about a now
extinct TV show.


---
SMU and Dallas Museum of Natural History
Announce Missing Fossil Link Dallasaurus

(DALLAS) When amateur fossil finder Van Turner discovered a small
vertebra at a construction site near Dallas 16 years ago, he knew the
creature was unlike anything in the fossil record. Scientists now know
the significance of Turners fossil as the origin of an extinct line of
lizards with an evolutionary twist: a land-dwelling species that became
fully aquatic.

Turner took the remains to paleontologists at the Dallas Museum of
Natural History, but it took several years before scientists dubbed the
find Dallasaurus turneri. Word of Dallasaurus is now reaching the
scientific community with a special issue of the Netherlands Journal of
Geosciences, featuring an article by Southern Methodist University
paleontologist Michael Polcyn and Gordon Bell Jr. of Guadalupe National
Park in Texas.

They describe Dallasaurus, a three-foot long lizard who lived 92 million
years ago in the shallow seas and shores of what was then a stretch of
Texas mostly under water, and also used the fossil to better understand
the mosasaur family tree. Polcyn and Bell painstakingly pieced together
an understanding of the anatomy and natural history of Dallasaurus from
the bones Turner discovered and from some matching skeletal remains at
the Texas Memorial Museum at the University of Texas in Austin.

Dallasaurus represents a missing link in the evolution of a group of
creatures called mosasaurs, prehistoric animals that started out on
land, but evolved in the seas and dominated the oceans at the same time
dinosaurs ruled the land. One aspect of Polcyn and Bells research is the
revelation that Dallasaurus retained complete limbs, hands and feet
suitable for walking on land, whereas later mosasaurs evolved their
limbs into flippers.

This is pretty close to the beginning of the mosasaur family tree, says
Dallas Museum of Natural History Earth Sciences Curator and SMU Adjunct
Professor of Paleontology Anthony R. Fiorillo, Ph.D. It is the most
complete mosasaur retaining all of its limbs found in North America.

Mosasaurs, every bit as prolific, fascinating and nearly as big as some
dinosaurs, are becoming more popular for paleontologists to study.
Mosasaurs lived and became extinct alongside dinosaurs, but few
paleontologists specialize in them. Later mosasaurs grew as large as
their dinosaur brethren, reaching up to 45 feet in length. Until the
discovery of Dallasaurus, however, only five primitive forms with
land-capable limbs were known, all of them found in the Middle East and
the eastern Adriatic.

Lizards had nearly 150 million-year-long history on land; then in the
Late Cretaceous, the final stage of the age of dinosaurs, one group
moved into the sea and rose to the very top of the food chain, explains
Polcyn, director of SMUs Visualization Laboratory, part of the
universitys geological sciences department. Starting out as small
animals like Dallasaurus, they mastered their new marine environment and
rose to become the top predator in their ecosystem, the T. Rex of the
ocean.

The Late Cretaceous period was a time of hot house temperatures and
rising sea levels.

As the earth warmed and the seas rose, small land-dwelling lizards took
to the oceans and developed increasing levels of seagoing capabilities,
and over 30 million years, eventually evolving into the top predator of
their domain before becoming extinct some 65 million years ago says
Polcyn.

The advanced fin-bearing mosasaurs have been grouped into three major
lineages. Although a small number of primitive mosasaur have been known
to retain land-capable limbs, they were thought to be an ancestral group
separate from the later fin-bearing forms. Dallasaurus represents a
clear link to one lineage of the later forms and the first time
researchers can clearly show mosasaurs evolved fins from limbs within
the different lineages of mosasaurs.

With the aid of computer science and SMUs visualization laboratory,
Polcyn has been able to simulate what Dallasaurus looked like, and how,
based on his skeletal remains, he would swim and move from land to sea.
An artist has taken Polcyns visualization work even one step further by
creating a life-sized model of Dallasaurus, a work that is soon to be on
display at the Museum along with the computer simulation.

When funds become available for reconstructing a suitable exhibit, the
bones of Dallasaurus will be displayed at the Dallas Museum of Natural
History. The work, however, will take several more years of additional
efforts and substantial funding. A nearly 30-foot long mosasaur, some 75
million years old, already is on display at the Dallas Museum.

Major dinosaur finds are frequently the result of creatures dying in
groups through flooding or drought, situations that lend themselves
fairly well to more complete preservation and conservation of their
bones, and much slower deterioration. Mosasaur fossils, in contrast, are
rarely found in large groupings, and are only found in areas once
covered by seas. Remains were quick to deteriorate under ocean currents;
their bodies often fell victim to the ravages of other sea life, such as
sharks, who would pick away at carcasses for food. Because of their
mostly shallow sea and seaside habitats, the remains of early mosasaurs
are even more rare and much harder to find.

But in the last two decades, many new discoveries and significant
advances have been made in the understanding of mosasaur evolution and
how they lived. Dallasaurus significantly advances that understanding by
filling in a long missing piece of mosasaur evolution, specifically a
time at which they transition from land to sea.

The importance of Turners discovery isnt lost on the researchers putting
together the pieces of the mosasaur puzzle. In fact, they predict the
legacy of Turners discovery will live on. His contribution was honored
by naming the species, turneri, after his last name. Not all major
discoveries are made by highly trained paleontologists, notes Dallas
Natural History Museum Curator Fiorillo. The observant individual, even
kids, can still make an important find, he says. Once this goes
mainstream, and people begin to recognize what mosasaurs are, well be
finding more and more.

Neat.
Now, how aquatic can a mosasaur be and still get onboard Noah's ark?
.
User: "Richard Dawkins"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 02:11:31 PM
Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other. However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.
What makes that good science?
How do you know that T-Rex was not just simply a larger version of the
Allasaurus and that over time the predominant traits for a smaller version
of the creature didn't simply take over?
Answer, you don't. If one reads about the "evolution" of dinosaurs, one sees
that evolutionists make this assumption quite often. Without evidence of
course except "Because I say so" and the desire for someone to have a new
species named after them so they try really hard to prove it is a new
species.
Circular argument for missing link is what sciece presents.
.
User: "Navillus"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 18 Nov 2005 12:51:59 AM
"Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists
say
that one "evolved" from the other. However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.
What makes that good science?"
------------------------------------------------------
Chimpazees and Humans are two different species from the "start", good
sir Richard. That means nothing. Since you like berating people for not
presenting any backing to their statements, and then providing none of
your own, allow me to introduce some evidence into the discussion:
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/tyrdeintree.pdf page 5
The charts suggest that some Allosaurus began evolving a larger frame.
Allosaurus didn't, he stayed in his niche, but his offshoots did.
Several species broke off on their own paths. Tyrannosaurus being one
of them, but not directly from Allosaurus. In any of the 3 scenarios
presented, there were several intermediate steps between the two.
In any event, you're beating around the bush. You're arguing that we
don't know exactly how dinosaur evolution occured. You're right, sort
of. We make the best arguments we can based on the limited data. None
of the assumptions we make contradict evolutionary theory, they're all
possibilities that we gradually eliminate as more fossils turn up, and
as more analysis of bone structure becomes available. You can scream
the God of the Gaps argument until you're blue in the face, but it's
not helping your cause.
I'm at least proud of you for comming up with an evolutionary scheme of
your own that didn't involve God. It's wrong, but now we've got you
thinking on the right track!
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 20 Nov 2005 02:20:51 PM
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.

No, "they" don't. Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are on very different
branches of the theropod family tree. The closest relative of
Tyrannosaurus at the time of Allosaurus is Stokesosaurus, and even that
species is probably not a direct ancestor.

However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.

Nor are such relationships ever *assumed*, they are arrived at by
evaluation of the evidence - by, in effect, *deduction*.

What makes that good science?
How do you know that T-Rex was not just simply a larger version of the
Allasaurus and that over time the predominant traits for a smaller version
of the creature didn't simply take over?

Because there are hundreds of differences beyond mere size - differences
in skull structure, tooth form, anatomy of the arms, number of fingers,
bodily proportions, foot structure, and more.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "johac"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 19 Nov 2005 07:30:34 AM
In article <hc0ff.3$g75.465@news.uswest.net>,
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other. However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.
What makes that good science?
How do you know that T-Rex was not just simply a larger version of the
Allasaurus and that over time the predominant traits for a smaller version
of the creature didn't simply take over?

For one thing, T. Rex could not evolve into Allosaurus since Allosaurus
lived in the Jurassic period and Rex did not appear until well into the
Cretaceous..


Answer, you don't. If one reads about the "evolution" of dinosaurs, one sees
that evolutionists make this assumption quite often. Without evidence of
course except "Because I say so"

And Creationists say because my 2000 year old book says so.

and the desire for someone to have a new
species named after them so they try really hard to prove it is a new
species.
Circular argument for missing link is what sciece presents.

Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method and how
paleontologists piece together evidence from the fossil record to show
how different species are related by evolution.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 03:35:28 PM
Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say

Sommasaurus + Restasaurus = Allasaurus
Chris
snip
.
User: "Katt"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 18 Nov 2005 06:12:21 PM
<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241728.026778.172830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say


Sommasaurus + Restasaurus = Allasaurus

Rockasaurus, Papersaurus, Scissorosaurus...?
Katt.
.
User: "magilla"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 20 Nov 2005 10:19:45 PM
Katt wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241728.026778.172830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say


Sommasaurus + Restasaurus = Allasaurus


Rockasaurus, Papersaurus, Scissorosaurus...?

Katt.

Rockasaur, coldasaur, footasaur?
Chris
.
User: "johac"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 21 Nov 2005 12:08:50 AM
In article <1132525185.532465.177390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:

Katt wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241728.026778.172830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say


Sommasaurus + Restasaurus = Allasaurus


Rockasaurus, Papersaurus, Scissorosaurus...?

Katt.


Rockasaur, coldasaur, footasaur?

Jigsaur, buzzsaur, chainsaur?


Chris

--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
User: "Nightshade"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 23 Nov 2005 12:19:02 AM
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:08:50 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.remove.com>
wrote:

In article <1132525185.532465.177390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:

Katt wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241728.026778.172830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say


Sommasaurus + Restasaurus = Allasaurus


Rockasaurus, Papersaurus, Scissorosaurus...?

Katt.


Rockasaur, coldasaur, footasaur?


Jigsaur, buzzsaur, chainsaur?


And my worried little friend with the valium, Fretsaur
.




User: "Bear"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 03:42:00 PM
Hey Duke, you have been found!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.


User: "The Last Conformist"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 05:37:34 PM
Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.

Looking at people, the Christians say they were created by the Aesir.
.

User: "Iain"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 03:24:12 PM
Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.

Nobody believes that. Did you read it on a novelty website?

However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.
What makes that good science?
How do you know that T-Rex was not just simply a larger version of the
Allasaurus and that over time the predominant traits for a smaller version
of the creature didn't simply take over?

Well hold on there. If that _had_ happened(one is not actually ancestor
of the other), that would be _all_ we mean by evolution. Think now
about what sort of thing might lead the development in that direction.
However, allosaurus and tyrannosaurus bad examples on your part because
they are of very different families and simply share common lines of
fossilised ancestors -- nobody supposes one evolved from the other.
The family of which tyrannosaurus is a member all has only two
prominent foreclaws and tiny forearms. The fossils before tyrannosaurus
lead roughly to a common ancestor.

Answer, you don't. If one reads about the "evolution" of dinosaurs,

If you had done that, you wouldn't have supposed that tyrannosaurus
evolved from allosaurus.

one sees
that evolutionists make this assumption quite often. Without evidence of
course except "Because I say so" and the desire for someone to have a new
species named after them so they try really hard to prove it is a new
species.

No. We examine the fossils in between, look at the migration patterns
they suggest and examine their place in the geological time scale.
~Iain
.
User: "Katt"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 18 Nov 2005 06:15:40 PM
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241052.690400.117620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. Did you read it on a novelty website?

Well, you've heard the old fundie argument, haven't you? "If Allosaurus
evolved from T.Rex, then why are there still... oh, hang on...".
Katt.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 19 Nov 2005 12:49:01 AM
Katt wrote:

"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241052.690400.117620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. Did you read it on a novelty website?


Well, you've heard the old fundie argument, haven't you? "If Allosaurus
evolved from T.Rex, then why are there still... oh, hang on...".

Nominated for C.W. - it has to include Richard Dawkins, but it's worth
it ;-)
.
User: "Walter Bushell"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 10 Dec 2005 07:37:01 AM
In article <1132361341.554526.255940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:

Katt wrote:

"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241052.690400.117620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. Did you read it on a novelty website?


Well, you've heard the old fundie argument, haven't you? "If Allosaurus
evolved from T.Rex, then why are there still... oh, hang on...".


Nominated for C.W. - it has to include Richard Dawkins, but it's worth
it ;-)

If Allosaurus evolved from T.Rex, then why are there still creationists?
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
.
User: "Michael Gray"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 10 Dec 2005 07:53:48 AM
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:37:01 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
wrote:

In article <1132361341.554526.255940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:

Katt wrote:

"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241052.690400.117620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. Did you read it on a novelty website?


Well, you've heard the old fundie argument, haven't you? "If Allosaurus
evolved from T.Rex, then why are there still... oh, hang on...".


Nominated for C.W. - it has to include Richard Dawkins, but it's worth
it ;-)


If Allosaurus evolved from T.Rex, then why are there still creationists?

There are plenty of examples of very primitive unevolved life-forms
still clinging on after aeons.
Cretinsts are one example.
.





User: "Iain"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 03:36:58 PM
Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.

Nobody believes that. They are of two different families.
Did you read that on a scatterbrained website?

However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.
What makes that good science?
How do you know that T-Rex was not just simply a larger version of the
Allasaurus and that over time the predominant traits for a smaller version
of the creature didn't simply take over?

Leaving aside that's a bad example(one has only two real claws and
there are a plethora of structural differences that not ancestral to
eachother, but "cousinly" in fossiled developments)...
....If that _had_ happened, tyrannosaurus getting gradually larger over
time, that is _all_ we mean by evolution.
Ask yourself, what would lead to a net gain in genetic size? There are
answers.

Answer, you don't.
If one reads about the "evolution" of dinosaurs,

....you would have learned quite quickly that tyrannosaurus is not
supposed to be ancestral to allosaurus.

one sees
that evolutionists make this assumption quite often. Without evidence of
course except "Because I say so" and the desire for someone to have a new
species named after them so they try really hard to prove it is a new
species.

No, we study the fossils in between, migration patterns and their place
in geological time.
Sometimes we have much evidence, sometimes hardly any. It depends on
the example you choose.
~Iain
.
User: "Richard Dawkins"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 05:43:26 PM
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241818.870577.205260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. They are of two different families.

Evolutionists say that.

Did you read that on a scatterbrained website?

Beg the question

However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.
What makes that good science?
How do you know that T-Rex was not just simply a larger version of the
Allasaurus and that over time the predominant traits for a smaller
version
of the creature didn't simply take over?


Leaving aside that's a bad example(one has only two real claws and
there are a plethora of structural differences that not ancestral to
eachother, but "cousinly" in fossiled developments)...

lainy,
Once again claims are not proof.
Your interpretation of the real facts is not truth.
Now get an edumacation there fella.
The other holler monkeys are counting on you.

...If that _had_ happened, tyrannosaurus getting gradually larger over
time, that is _all_ we mean by evolution.

Your theory is flawed and all guesswork.'When do I get some facts?

Ask yourself, what would lead to a net gain in genetic size? There are
answers.

Give me an unequivocal operational value for a net gain in size outside of
kinds or species.
Just one.
I've asked you this at least 10 times and you've never answered.

Answer, you don't.

And answer you won't

If one reads about the "evolution" of dinosaurs,


...you would have learned quite quickly that tyrannosaurus is not
supposed to be ancestral to allosaurus.

I've already presented the flawed reasons behind your assumptions and yet
you still won't address your conundrum with anything other than,"Because we
say so responses."

one sees
that evolutionists make this assumption quite often. Without evidence of
course except "Because I say so" and the desire for someone to have a new
species named after them so they try really hard to prove it is a new
species.


No, we study the fossils in between, migration patterns and their place
in geological time.

And once again, are these fossils such a best kept secret that children of
all ages from all over the world are kept from viewing them?
Where are your hidden museums with all of this awesome proof?

Sometimes we have much evidence, sometimes hardly any. It depends on
the example you choose.

~Iain

Or the flawed interprtation of the evidence that you choose I guess huh
lainy?
.
User: "Stanley Friesen"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 20 Nov 2005 02:37:37 PM
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:


"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241818.870577.205260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. They are of two different families.


Evolutionists say that.

Then I have never met one. Allosaurus is a *distant* *cousin* to
Tyrannosaurus. I have *never* read any serious statement by any
biologist that considered one a descendant of the other. Even when both
were considered carnosaurs, they were not considered an
ancestor-descendent pair.


Leaving aside that's a bad example(one has only two real claws and
there are a plethora of structural differences that not ancestral to
eachother, but "cousinly" in fossiled developments)...



lainy,
Once again claims are not proof.
Your interpretation of the real facts is not truth.
Now get an edumacation there fella.

Actually, he knows more about the anatomy of tyrannosaurs and allosaurs
than you do. You do not even know how to *spell* Allosaurus.

The other holler monkeys are counting on you.

...If that _had_ happened, tyrannosaurus getting gradually larger over
time, that is _all_ we mean by evolution.


Your theory is flawed and all guesswork.'When do I get some facts?

Ask yourself, what would lead to a net gain in genetic size? There are
answers.


Give me an unequivocal operational value for a net gain in size outside of
kinds or species.

Well, there is being large enough to eat the larger prey species. There
is a sort of arms race between predator and prey, with prey getting
larger to escape predation, and predators getting larger to keep up.


...you would have learned quite quickly that tyrannosaurus is not
supposed to be ancestral to allosaurus.


I've already presented the flawed reasons behind your assumptions and yet
you still won't address your conundrum with anything other than,"Because we
say so responses."

You have pointed out flaws in a poor man's straw-man version of
evolution.


No, we study the fossils in between, migration patterns and their place
in geological time.


And once again, are these fossils such a best kept secret that children of
all ages from all over the world are kept from viewing them?
Where are your hidden museums with all of this awesome proof?

Try actually reading scientific sources. The intermediates leading to
T. rex include such forms as Stokesosaurus, Dryptosaurus, Eotyrannus,
Alectrosaurus, and Alioramus. Forms more or less related to Allosaurus
include Monolophosaurus, Sinraptor, and Lourinhanosaurus. And
Xuanhanosaurus is a close relative of the common ancestor of the two.
The fossils of all of these are available for study, and many are
mounted in museums.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "Jericho"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 10:07:19 PM

Your theory is flawed and all guesswork.'When do I get some facts?

Well, now this confuses me. If I understand correctly, you believe an
all powerful uber-being created the earth, universe, man, woman,
animals, bugs, plants, chemicals, atoms, energy, et al out of thin air,
and you're looking for some facts?
Any chance of playing fact for fact. I'm sure that most people here
would love to give you 10 "provable through experimentation or hard
evidence" facts to your "provable through experimentation or hard
evidence" fact. Are you game or are you going to either ignore or
belittle the idea.
Jericho
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 06:06:46 PM
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:43:26 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:


"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241818.870577.205260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. They are of two different families.


Evolutionists say that.

Two lies in three words.
Once again, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". You give
yourself away when you use the creationist pretence of an -ism that
you apply to everybody else.
And the only peole who say that are lying creationists putting words
into everybody else's mouths.
Do you have a shred of decency or honesty?
.

User: "Richard Forrest"

Title: Re: Another 'Missing Link' found. 17 Nov 2005 06:15:52 PM
Richard Dawkins wrote:

"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132241818.870577.205260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Richard Dawkins wrote:

Looking at creatures such as Allasaurus and T-Rex , the evolutionists say
that one "evolved" from the other.


Nobody believes that. They are of two different families.


Evolutionists say that.

FALSEHOOD #1
No they don't
..
Provide a link to *any* "evolutionist" who says, that, or you wil be
exposed once again as an ignoramus or a liar.
Your choice.


Did you read that on a scatterbrained website?


Beg the question

POOR USE OF LANGUAGE #1
This is not "begging the question



However the flaw is in the the
assumption. They are two different species from the start.
What makes that good science?
How do you know that T-Rex was not just simply a larger version of the
Allasaurus and that over time the predominant traits for a smaller
version
of the creature didn't simply take over?


Leaving aside that's a bad example(one has only two real claws and
there are a plethora of structural differences that not ancestral to
eachother, but "cousinly" in fossiled developments)...



lainy,
Once again claims are not proof.

MISREPRESENTATION #1
He didn't claim that they were. Seems you're unable to read either.

Your interpretation of the real facts is not truth.

MISREPRESENTATION #2
He didn't claim that it was.

Now get an edumacation there fella.

UTTER BOLLOCKS #1
Ha.
Ha Ha.
Ha Ha Ha.
Please don't make me laugh.

The other holler monkeys are counting on you.

AD HOMINEM #1


...If that _had_ happened, tyrannosaurus getting gradually larger over
time, that is _all_ we mean by evolution.


Your theory is flawed and all guesswork.

UNFOUNDED ASSERTION #1

'When do I get some facts?

FALSEHOOD #2
You have been provided with facts.



Ask yourself, what would lead to a net gain in genetic size? There are
answers.


Give me an unequivocal operational value for a net gain in size outside of
kinds or species.

MEANINGLESS QUESTION #1
Provide a biologically meaningful definition of 'kind'

Just one.
I've asked you this at least 10 times and you've never answered.

FALSE LOGIC #1
So what? Just because you repeat a question 10 times does not make it
meaningful


Answer, you don't.


And answer you won't


If one reads about the "evolution" of dinosaurs,


...you would have learned quite quickly that tyrannosaurus is not
supposed to be ancestral to allosaurus.


I've already presented the flawed reasons behind your assumptions

FALSEHOOD #3
You haven't

and yet
you still won't address your conundrum with anything other than,"Because we
say so responses."

FALSEHOOD #4
He has provided answers which you have rejected out of hand without
addressing the evidence


one sees
that evolutionists make this assumption quite often. Without evidence of
course except "Because I say so" and the desire for someone to have a new
species named after them so they try really hard to prove it is a new
species.


No, we study the fossils in between, migration patterns and their place
in geological time.


And once again, are these fossils such a best kept secret that children of
all ages from all over the world are kept from viewing them?

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE #1
Denying the existence of these fossils won't make them go away

Where are your hidden museums with all of this awesome proof?

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE #2
Denying the existence of these musuems won't make them go away




Sometimes we have much evidence, sometimes hardly any. It depends on
the example you choose.

~Iain

Or the flawed interprtation of the evidence that you choose I guess huh
lainy?

UNFOUNDED ASSERTION #2.
You have not demonstrated any flaws in the interpretation.
RF
.






  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER