EVOLUTIONARY ASSETS: Even the tiniest tyrannosaurs are helping researchers piece together the 100-million-year-long lineage that led to the killer T. rex.
Image: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/SCOTT ROBERT ANSEIMO
More In This Article
-
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will”...
Read More »
The fearsome Tyrannosaurus rex was first described by scientists more than a century ago. After that, however, additional tyrannosaur relatives were slow to surface, leaving important details about the group unknown.
But in the past year half a dozen new tyrannosaur species have been described, and during the past decade the known diversity of tyrannosaurs has more than doubled. These finds have fleshed out details about the emergence of their kind over evolutionary time, including the quintessential carnivore.
Researchers studying tyrannosaurs have had a leg up over those working on other dinosaurs—and even some extant animals—given T. rex's wide popularity. "Its star power has allowed a research focus into questions not normally undertaken with fossils, questions like bone growth, biomechanics and neurology," paleontologist Mark Norell, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City and a co-author of a new paper examining developments in the tyrannosaur field, said in a prepared statement.
"We know more about tyrannosaurs than any other group of dinosaurs—even more than some groups of living organisms," Stephen Brusatte, a graduate researcher with the museum and co-author of the new paper, said in a prepared statement. And the multitude of new discoveries and advanced analysis tools has allowed researchers to "understand the family tree of tyrannosaurs in unprecedented detail."
The new review article, published online September 16 in Science, assembles data about the 20 known tyrannosaur genera—some of which are about one hundredth of the size of T. rex and others which lived 100 million years before it—to paint a clearer picture of tyrannosaur evolution and biology.
"T. rex is really just the tip of the iceberg of tyrannosaur diversity," Brusatte noted.
View a slide show of some lesser-known tyrannosaurs that have helped researchers piece together new clues about T. rex
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add Commenthotblack - Then there's our amazing human civilization that's conquered the planet and all it's species in a mere 5,000 years. How much longer can we live on the spoils?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps someday the geologists of some other lifeform will discover a thin layer of steel and carbon and attribute it to the meteorite that suddenly ended the age of mammals.
Oops. I did mean to triple post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not intend to triple post - too late at night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish Creationists would leave science web sites like these alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecent discoveries in Evolutionary Theory have shown that new species can arise out of older species rather suddenly, without any transitional species.
Evolution is not a religion, anyone who claims so is grossly misguided; it is a theory of Science. And because it is a theory, it does not mean its proponents are misguided.
Evolution was devised long before the discovery of DNA, and when the genetic code of DNA was discovered, it has provided a solid foundation for evolution; random changes in the genetic code can lead to new species. Even "jumps" into new species can occur, as well as gradual changes. Gradual changes in a population are not always evident by the emergence of transitional species.
One example is the evolution of the human brain; since medicine began recording the average weight of human brains over 100 years ago, the average weight has been increasing, clear evidence that the laws of evolution apply to human beings. Whilst on average our brains are growing, we still look the same as our human ancestors with lighter brains from thousands of years ago.
During Medieval times, the Black Death wiped out two-thirds of the European population; one third survived because they had a better evolved immune system.
Of course random genetic mutations can work against an individual, as those unfortunate people of all ages who die from cancer attest to.
Evolution is a valid theory, one of its ideas is that those organisms better suited to survive in a particular environment will flourish and continue to evolve.
Genetics scientists have pointed out that the genetic code of all organisms alive today, contain compromises due to the random mutations that DNA has gone through for billions of years.These compromises may suggest that there is no intelligent design behind the genetic code.
As to the findings of soft dinosaur tissue, some people always omit the power of coincidence or other supporting evidence. The survival of dinosaur soft tissue over 165 or more million years may be the result of natural mummification. I have read reports in which Egyptian mummies thousands of years old can still have their DNA code read out today. Mummies found in the Atacama desert (the driest on earth) are well preserved after 20,000 years. So little is known about the length of time a dessicated biological sample can survive, that it would be unreasonable to claim soft tissue in fossils means the earth is only tens or hundreds of thousands of years old.
Evolution is very much a religion. By using the starting point of creation the holes in evolutionary theory make sense. Mutations bring about loss of information not more information. Again no transition species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod created each creature by its kind. Dogs have always been dogs and humans have always been human.
Creationists are just as much scientists as evolutionists. We just have a better road map. Please read and study Genesis.
It sets a stage for everything that has happened and will happen.
God wrote the Book. He has been here from the beginning.
I have read Genesis - many times. It is filled with conflicts and contradictions, which tells me it is not the Word of God, but the words of men - many of them over a long period of time. If you really want to know the history of your religion, I suggest you stop reading the Bible and read the books of Karen Armstrong. Then your religion will make sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to know the history of the planet - including dinosaurs, take a course in geology!
oh I love it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh I love T. rex
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no contradicition in God's Holy Word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do you mean?
Where are the mistakes in the Bible?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The rocks cry out."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA young earth.
At the risk of feeding the trolls, there are many mistakes and contradictions in the bible. As an example - in one passage the beasts are created before man (Gen 1:25, 26) and then later created after man (Gen 2:18,19).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContradictions and corrections are embraced by science as a whole, a theory must survive the strictest and cruelest scrutiny to remain valid, it must survive it on a constant basis to be accepted as truth.
A belief or metaphysical based system actively discourages questions, discourages the close scrutiny of its most basic tenants.
This article highlights that there is still much to learn, more data to assemble, and more ideas to question to arrive to a common acceptance about the T-Rex and its cousins.
Please, 'Citizen', ask questions directly relating to the information, question the consistency of the data, question the idea of interconnecting these various species because of this reason or that reason...
But question specifically. Otherwise you open your statements to off-topic scrutiny which may be difficult to defend without offending the hearts of the belief systems that many rely on for their inner strengths.
The question of 'how' is very separate from the question of 'why'.
They are best kept separate.
Citizen, which god are you referring to? Why is the tribal sky god of the backwards Israelites of that era more plausible than Zeus or Odin or Amun-Ra?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCitizen, God is lore. Get over yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Citizen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it odd that people who claim to be "creationists" deny evolution (macro, micro, whatever) based on the Bible. I also find it odd that "evolutionists" often feel it necessary to deny God, based on the randomness of natural selection.
If God (or some original creator) exists and created this earth and all things on it, then what you and neilrued are arguing about (assuming we all believe in God) is more how than if. So you suggest God poofed in the existing animals and us humans, and neilrued believes it was all done over a much greater period of time, and that, essentially all species originate from a singular species or combination of elements. As it stands, evidence suggests that neilrued's argument is much more valid. I don't even think the time is as important and the order of events, though it all appears to have gone down over eons. If God does exist, then, really, who are we to say that he did or did not do it one way or the other. Or should we assume that all-powerful God cannot create in the way He wishes? All we can do is observe, which many scientists appear do be trying to do. I think we can assume He used, however it was done, natural laws to complete the process.
The Bible is not at all explicit in "how" God created the earth.All we really get is an order of events. You supposedly base you belief in the lack of evolution on the Bible, when, in reality, that belief most likely stems from traditions in Christianity as opposed to the actual writings of the Bible. Modern religious traditions often come from the Nicaean creed, the reformation, etc. but may or may not reflect what the writers of the Bible actually had in mind, inspired or not. The Bible also does not talk about relativity, but that doesn't make it any less relevant.
Does God exist? That is a matter of faith. If he exists, I find it apparent that he wants us to move by faith, else he would show himself to us. If he does not and nothing awaits us at our demise, this discussion is irrelevant and will pass with the wind. Further, there would be no right or wrong, just or unjust, and whether we speak of enlightened scientists or ignorant sheep herders, in the end we are all the same.
So, does God exist? I believe He does, and that all things are proof. Can randomness create a Bentley? According to neilrued, with enough time it can. The seeming randomness of genetic diversity shows the pull towards a beautiful order. Perhaps little better than a sheep herder, I see all thing suggesting a God.
Evolution is an elegant theory.
Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?? Gen 1 has Adam and Eve created on the 6th day. Gen 2 has Adam created on the first day and Eve on the Sixth day (making HER a subordinate to Adam).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience works BETTER!!
PeterT
To paraphrase: Lalalalalala i'mnotlistening i'mnotlistening you'rewrong you'rewrong thebibleisright lalalalalalala.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you have a rational discussion with someone who is absolutely convinced that the Easter bunny exists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trouble with the Creationist/Intelligent Design philosophy, is that it force fits evidence to support the idea of a Great Maker/Creator/God, and to attempt to provide evidence to validate Biblical text.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe true spirit of Science and the Scientific Method, is to modify a theory to fit the observations/experimentally obtained data. And if new facts are discovered that do not fit the theory, then the theory is questioned and modified, or discarded to devise a better theory. This is how science has advanced over the past 500 years or so, and has resulted in far greater improvements to the Human condition than any theology.
I have placed my trust in the true Scientific Method, and thanks to the advances in medicine it has brought into existence in the form of CT and Ultrasound scanners, blood tests and modern pharmaceuticals, I am still alive today to annoy the Creationists. Had the Creationists had their way, the Renaissance would never have happened and I'd probably have died 10+ years ago.
The greatest danger of Creationists is that they threaten to plunge the world into a new Dark Age. When the first Dark Age started in the ancient city of Alexandria, it was good honest folks who believed in the truth of the Bible, and killed the scientists and librarians who worked at the Library of Alexandria, and then burnt all the "heretic" books they could find. I still recall reading somewhere that Hypathia a very intelligent woman who was one of these scientists and the last chief librarian; was forcibly dragged from the chariot by the mob of good honest religious folks who believed in the Bible, and flayed the skin and flesh from her bones with abalone shells; the leader of the mob was canonised as a saint.
Religious folks who believed blindly in the Bible were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, and throughout Medieval history have been responsible for atrocities where heretics were burned at the stake, simply for questioning the word of the Bible.
During the Age of Reason, no scientist has ever set up a tribunal to burn people at the stake or flay the skin or flesh from their bones, just because people questioned a scientific theory, or the validity of a mathematical proof.
I know we have gone off topic about the discoveries of the previously unknown T-Rex species. But Creationists and their ilk always ruin reasonable scientific discussions with their attacks on evolution. Evolution is not a religion, it is simply a scientific theory that best fits the observed facts; get over it.
The Tarbosaurus skeleton is remarkably well preserved; though I cannot see its lower jaw? Could it have been ripped out in a fight with another predator?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat purpose do the angled bones just beneath its belly serve? Or was it the rib cage or a tail of its last meal?
If the long and powerful legs may not have been used to attain fast speeds, could they have been used to help tear away at the skin of their prey? Maybe they used their tails to balance themselves with one leg, and use the other leg's foot talons to tear open its prey? Or perhaps they may have used their hind legs as Kangaroos do to disembowel some prey animals? Or even used their tails and legs to hoist themselves on top of a large herbivore and delivered a killer bite to the back of the neck?
Citizen - If you have to comment, please do so rationally. If you have nothing to offer but dogma, why bother? No one is interested.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCitizen - how can you trust the word of man roughly 2000 years ago, who's sole intention was to gain power of the masses, men who thought the world was flat, men who thought the sun revolved around the earth, that weremen have more ribs than women (that is if you beleive that eve came from adam's rib). How can you believe a text that has been translated atleast 3 times (Aramaic to Greek to English), one that has been edited and revised numerous times, and that has been rewritten i'm sure countless times, and you think all could be done without error or interpretation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe seriously rational here. You believe in something you've never seen, heard, touched or smelled but somehow is real. And don't tell me through your priest, minister or one alike, since their sole occupation is to spread the word. If you truly believe that God is real then I ask one question. What created your perfect and divine God? or did he just poof into existence too? All i have to say is c'mon..
All canonical statments originate from the bible. Where in the bible does it say that the bible is inerrant? Biblical inerrancy is false doctrine
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love its smile! I wonder if it's before or after dinner? LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdinosaurs are fascinating bits of history, with TRex being the badest of the bunch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe static model of globe demonstrates total changes which happened on Earth from the moment of appearance of it on the orbit of a Sun ; A dynamic model of globe is a site of www.mammoths.50megs.com grounded chronology of events in times of finding of Earth on the orbit of a Sun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this( ~ 700 thousand years ) - but alas “ science about the pas of planet “ even 50 years back did not allow scientific to ground DM and accordingly real events in the past, ( for example Ludwig Zeidler tried to drill the enormous area of continent locally - this scientist was very near practically, to ground DM, but ( ~ 50 years back ) it was known that Earth appeared in the planetary system, homo sapiens happened from primatov, in a center a planet there was a temperature more ( 20 million degrees ), amount of theories as there was life on planet in general it is impossible to count up ; for the last half centuries appeared sciences as “submarine archaeology “ “ submarine topography “ and which allowed to ground the row of other sciences processes of the III natural phenomenon - exactly this fact was not taken into account previous civilizations in practical activity as a result all of previous civilizations in technical development was cast aside on millenniums back ; present civilization - moves that fatal a way this civilization to know wishes nothing except for the Static model of globe ; A dynamic model grounded why perished not only Tyrannosaurs but also all of representatives of megafauna and megaflory ; it is necessary to notice that Bible establishes some changes on a planet in the past ( in a giperbolizirovannom kind )
@Citizen, you are mistaking your personal ignorance of science for the scientific community's lack of knowledge. You need to seriously step back and consider for a moment that the reason you don't agree with the most studied scientific theory there is, is because you do not know the facts, you do not understand the scientific process, you do not understand logic, and you are completely biased in that you have an answer which, for you, must be correct, therefore all evidence must be perverted to that cause or discarded. You are not bringing anything new here. We have heard all these idiotic statments before. Answers to your questions are easily accessible which again shows that you are not interested in knowing the facts and that you are only hear to preach. To me that speaks to your low moral character. If you only want to spread ignorance and lies, save it for church where that kind of thing is welcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCitizen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour glossing over 150 years of lively debate as if it never happened. Your arguments were made in Darwin's day and lost out then. Evidence has only gotten stronger since then.
For the record, you are grossly misrepresenting the soft tissue finds you cited. For starters the soft tissue recovered from the T-rex fossil was what was left of some proteins. No DNA was left (neaderthal DNA from bones over 30K years old has been recovered, but DNA is a remarkably fragile molecule and it's a bit much to expect it to survive for 65 million years). While it is certainly remarkable that some soft tissue was found it in no way violates any existing laws proposed by science.
If you are going to cite scientific discoveries as evidence against science at least have the good grace to cite them in full from their original source rather than presenting them piecemeal and out of context to support an argument that was lost 150 years ago. That's dishonest and only highlights how very little of the science you understand.
Also while I'm replying to you science is not a religious belief. It's not a belief system at all. It's a tool kit. There are plenty of practicing, christians, muslims, budhists, and jews who are also scientists. Every time you drive a car or use a computer you are putting faith in the scientific tool kit... It's interesting to note creationists don't object to science unless it threatens their faith. Faith characterized by unquestioning acceptance of something as true in spite of lack of evidence or even in the face of evidence to the contrary (Look it up that's the dictionary definition of faith...).
It's also worth noting that no less than the pope himself acknowledged the evidence of evolution as being overwhelming and funny thing he didn't get all threatened by it. He still believes in God, he still ministers to the faithful... The reason he does so is because evolution doesn't have anything to say about whether God exists or not.
I'll bet you don't even know the history of your own religion. Did you know, for example, that at one point in time in it's early history there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 different flavors of christianity? Some of them even had more than one God. That information, by the way, comes from well respected theologians. I'm guessing you cherry pic your information about your faith too though.
If you have solid evidence discrediting evolution publish... But you do have to meet stringent requirements(Claims require evidence). Darwin did it, can you?
Sigh... I worry about the fate of liberal democracy at times, and then I remember observations about the wisdom of the masses (As opposed to mob mentality). Oddly enough it was Galton (yeah eugenics guy) who noticed this effect after his retirement. He was at an agricultural fair where a contest was held to guess the weight of a prize bull (the winner got the slaughtered and dressed bull as a prize and tickets were sold at six pence to discourage practical jokes). Curious he requested the ticket stubs after the contest and subjected them to statistical analysis. He was floored by the result. The average of the crowd guesses of the bull's weight were within one pound of it's actual weight. This from a man who didn't think the ignorant masses (arguably more ignorant than folks are today) were capable of making important decisions in government. To his credit he noted this in his memoirs even though it went against his pet theories on the matter. More interestingly the effect is quite robust and has been duplicated many times. It requires participants be relatively autonomous (IE not a mob but reasonably separate with the ability to supply input without it being common knowledge to all involved), invested (such as the six pence fee mentioned in the story to keep the less than serious from bothering), and as diverse as possible. Accuracy improves with diversity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I remember this all the scary stuff (Citizen) ceases bothering me as much.
I'd just like to add a very basic counter to a horribly false statement made by Citizen. Science is clearly not a religion. Religion is defined as belief in revealed truth. Science is not based on belief, but on observation. In fact, not only is belief completely unnecessary to practice science, it is considered something to be actively rooted out, because beliefs (thoughts held without basis in observation) constitute bias. Furthermore, science is not based on revealed truth, but empirical observation. Finally, science does not concern itself with truth in the ultimate sense, as all science is tentative...nothing is absolute. The only type of truth science concerns itself with is honesty, and in that regard science could rightly be considered the discipline with the best track record in developing and applying rigorous methods to ensure that honesty (mostly) prevails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope Citizen reads this comment, and notes that it is a thorough response to one of his many mis-statements. Perhaps after reading a factual and thorough response to one small aspect of his mis-informed and mis-guided attempt to provide a scientific argument against science itself, he might begin to realize the intellectually shallow, dishonest, and absurd nature of his posts. If not, well, no harm has ever been done stating facts, which should never be feared.
Well said Dling. Frankly, I'm suspicious of anyone who voluntarily dispenses with critical thought in favor of comfort. I hope that Citizen realizes that the reaction to his posts have more to do with their ignorance than any particular anti-religious bent. While I personally have no use for religious faith I do firmly believe that Citizen has every right to believe whatever he or she sees fit. That right does not extend religious belief any special status in matters of policy, nor does the characterization of a belief as religious in nature in any way suspend it from being examined critically particularly if one is going to use religious convictions as a justification for any given position in public discourse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe Daniel Dennet has a point when he suggests that religions entirely apart from whether there is any objective truth to their precepts, have cores of cultural wisdom to them that should be examined and learned from. The key word there is "Examined". He certainly doesn't view religion as an entirely good thing, he's just not convinced it's an entirely bad one either.
Scientists aren't as many of us have said engaging in philosophy or religion when they practice science. Those things DO unavoidably influence interpretations of data, but that's why practices like peer review exist. Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers, it doesn't even pretend the ones it thinks it has are necessarily the final word. It stands ready to revise ideas on the basis of new evidence at any time. Which is very much a non-religious approach. Nope not perfect, but good enough to give us working airplanes, modern medicine, the computers we are posting here with and any number of other wonderful things. Many of these things that work so well for us are based on theories that are not as successful or well understood as evolution (in the sense of standing the test of time for so long evolution is arguably the most successful scientific theory ever. It's gone through some modifications, but none have refuted it's basic form).
One comment Citizen made in particular bothered me as they seemed to be suggesting genetic improvements were impossible as mutations could only destroy information and not create it. I wonder if they are aware that natural selection can be observed in real time with organisms with fast generation times like bacteria. Variation is the driving force in adaptive change.
I welcome creationists misrepresenting science. It's an opportunity to educate and makes their arguments easy to pick apart.
Oh no, another creationist who thinks he knows something about science, while simultaneously neglecting enormous chunks of facts and evidence. If you actually think a wizard/your imaginary friend created the Earth thousands of years ago, please go check into your nearest mental hospital.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not want to detract from what you say, but, there are a few things you should be aware of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, some proteins are extremely stable The proteins found in Dinosaur fossils are mostly filamentary, which if isolated from bacteria can endure for enormous time. I could easily believe they might last for 2 or 3 hundred million years.
Second, the reported DNA finds are not complete strings, but are very short chains. Short chains are simple connection of amino acids. Such things can exist in space for times that make the time frames palaeontologists propose seem short.
It is true that the longer they remain, the more likely that the DNA chain will be broken. That is exactly what has been found.
One problem with your explanation for the fossils is that they are found in clearly defined layers. The layers give the appearance of having been deposited at separate times. That might mean that there would have had to have been many floods. I have not seem any so called Creationist explanation. You need to address that to get more consideration here or elsewhere.
Personally, I have no issue between Genesis and Darwin. I do have issues with Darwin, but they have nothing to do with Genesis. Darwin didn't either. He remained a loyal church member until later in life.
The issue for him was a study of parasites, and trying to reconcile the reality of parasites with the doctrine of an infinitely loving god.
I don't reject evolution, but what Darwin proposed was not correct. It needs to be updated. As an assumed Christian, you actually believe in evolution too. Evolution just means that things change. They do. From the description of Noah and the Ark, the boat was not big enough to hold all the species we see today. For that to be true, we as Christians need evolution in some form.
Citizen it is my hope that you read the entire Bible before making any more comments about it.If you had you would have read in the New Testament,that in a response to a question about time Jesus said one of Gods days is as if a thousand of our years.His point being that you can't use the Bible to tell how old the Earth is,because time is relative to the observer.As for the infallibility of the book,it is written by men and thus it is just as imperfect as the shoes that God told Moses to take off,and if you can't make the connection between those two things.Then you will never understand anything else the book has to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jack.123, good points! But one has to wonder, if god was aware that he experienced time differently than us, and I am assuming he did because supposedly he created us, then why did he not make the unit conversion when dictating genesis? You think he might have considered that, "putting down seven days might confuse the poor folk, I mean it was seven days to me but we are actually talking about millions of human years and, after all, that's really my target audience with this book..." Obfuscation is the process of making information difficult to understand. It seems to me that the bible needs to do the opposite. Not sure god's wording achieves that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue made on dinosaur has ever been solved.I think the complex situation on it is just the essential part of the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a scientific forum, the clue is in the name. Science demands repeatable results, Religion is the absolute opposite and demands unthinking faith in what somebody has told you, or you will be killed. They are not compatable on any level. Science has many martyrs, and has had apologies from infallible Popes, who now admit they got it wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not see the selective pressure on humans however, we breed randomly and without any enhanced breeding reward for high IQ,in fact higher IQ generally results in less progeny, brain size increase is more likely to be a result of all round better nutrition. Read Cicero, we have not changed one iota.
I like the dinosaurs cause they go "grrrrrrrrrr" really loudly...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're an idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who belive that the Earth is only 8,000 years old underestimate the age of God. Yah Weh, Geechee Manitou, Allah, etc. is a timeless being who never ages, so He does not need to complete his projects within one to a hundred (or even 1,000) human life times. He is quite capable of starting a universe and establishing natural laws, then stepping back and waiting a billion years (or more) for an intelligent species to evolve somewhere that is capable of realizing His existence. Don' underestimate God and try to restrict him to human limitations! Emmet S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's suppose for the sake of argument that evolutionary theory is a religion. Now, you're clearly a Christian and I'm an evolutionist. I don't come to your church or place of worship of go off on a speil about evolution and how Christianity is mistaken. So don't you do that here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, evolution is not a religion. A religious is a whole system of beliefs coupled with rituals and a belief in a diety. Evolution is a set of propositions about nature that has been verified, not only by the fossil record but by the advent of molecular genetics. There is a very clear demarkation between science and religion, and if you haven't grasped it yet then I fear that is little hope for you. Because you haven't grasped this demarkation it only makes sense that you would consider creationism to be a science; but alas, it is not. A science is defined by its use of empirical principles and the statistical and mathematical analysis of data to arrive at conclusions.
I suggest that you keep your beliefs to yourself. I would certainly never make a user account with a creationist website and log on to spout off about my opposing beliefs. You shouldn't either.
Finally, to address the problem of transitional forms that seems to be a recurring issue, all I have to say is this. There absolutely are transitional forms in the fossil record for many species; other species do not require transitional forms. This is because there are many ways for speciation to occur, and one such way is gene mutation. At the level of genetic material, mishaps occur now and then during gene recombination. When this happens, offspring are born radically different from their parents. This can be seen in children born with defects. But some mutations are advantageous rather than adverse. When a mutation produces a feature that is advantageous that organism survives and thrives, and it's kind persists. Many species occur this way and as such, there are no "transitional forms" for them in the fossil record.
My advice: because you criticize something, master it. Go to your local library or go back to school and take some classes in biology. You must learn thoroughly before you dismiss something or criticize it.
G'day.
You don't. These things are frustrating for us because we are schooled and see how these people have allowed themselves to be fooled. But I think we need to resist the urge to go off on them. Having an intelligent conversation with them is basically impossible. Its best to just ignore I think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this