NationStates Jolt Archive

Predatory dinosaurs had pulmonary systems less like reptiles and more like modern birds.

www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-46518.html

Predatory dinosaurs had pulmonary systems less like reptiles and more like modern birds.

www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-46518.html



That's nice, perhaps these findings aren't fraudulent like the Archaeopteryx.

That's nice, perhaps these findings aren't fraudulent like the Archaeopteryx. :rolleyes:

That's nice, perhaps these findings aren't fraudulent like the Archaeopteryx.
The Archaeopteryx isn't fraudulent. You're thinking of creationism. Now there's a fraudulent load of bullshit. I guess keeping people stupid is an important step in spreading blind faith in religion.

The Archaeopteryx isn't fraudulent. You're thinking of creationism. Now there's a fraudulent load of bullshit. I guess keeping people stupid is an important step in spreading blind faith in religion.

*hands you a shitload of cookies*

The Archaeopteryx isn't fraudulent. You're thinking of creationism. Now there's a fraudulent load of bullshit. I guess keeping people stupid is an important step in spreading blind faith in religion.




Adding feathers because they think they would belong there is fraudulent. I'll elaborate as soon as I get back from getting my car's oil changed.

*hands you a shitload of cookies*
*shares them with the next three posters regardless of religious beleif*

This is quite good news, considering more evidence of evolution's been found in modern elephants. It seems they've developed genes that stop the growth of their ivory tusks, so poachers won't kill them.

Neat, huh?

*shares them with the next three posters regardless of religious beleif*

Woot free cookie. Interesting article.

*Waits for the next Jurassic Park to feature giant carnivorus Emus.*

oOo, cookies, must post quickly.

i understand if people wont beleive teh scientific explanations for the origin of life, it has major gaps and us scientists accept that, but evolution is a good a scientific concept as any in biology. if someone could briefly explain their evidence/reason not to believe in evo i'd appreciate it.

Adding feathers because they think they would belong there is fraudulent. I'll elaborate as soon as I get back from getting my car's oil changed.
Adding feathers? The feathers were there to begin with. See this site.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html.

Adding feathers? The feathers were there to begin with. See this site.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.htm.

Fuck, it decides to work after I make my post. Thanks a lot, internet.

*shakes fist*

That's nice, perhaps these findings aren't fraudulent like the Archaeopteryx.

And the wishbones, were they handcrafted by conspiratorial gnomes?

Fuck, it decides to work after I make my post. Thanks a lot, internet.

*shakes fist*
Sorry, that was me. I went back and fixted it.

This is quite good news, considering more evidence of evolution's been found in modern elephants. It seems they've developed genes that stop the growth of their ivory tusks, so poachers won't kill them.

Neat, huh?

Then how will I get a decent piano! :(







:p

This is quite good news, considering more evidence of evolution's been found in modern elephants. It seems they've developed genes that stop the growth of their ivory tusks, so poachers won't kill them.

Neat, huh?

The gene wasn't 'developed' due to the ivory trade. The mutation was there for some time and about 10% of the males carried it (something like that).

Now that big-tusk males are being hunted, the small-tusk or no-tusk males are more likely to live on and spread their genes, creating more offspring just like then.

Survival of the fittest, natural selection and adaptation. Call it what you will. It is an observable mechanism of evolution.

*cries* It wasn't the oil that needed fixing.....it was the transmission!!! Now, as a girl I don't know much about cars, nor do I care much.....but.....I do know that the transmission is super expensive to fix :(

*cries* It wasn't the oil that needed fixing.....it was the transmission!!! Now, as a girl I don't know much about cars, nor do I care much.....but.....I do know that the transmission is super expensive to fix :(
That sucks. What kind of car is it?

Adding feathers because they think they would belong there is fraudulent.

what, on all seven specimens found over the course of one hundred years? that's one impressive bit of fraud.

Aparently, the original fossil of the Archaeopteryx was a fake, it was two fossils glued together, so the scientific world dismised the existence of bird dinos,
but then they remembered, how did the chilean peseant or whoever it was who found it,
get the two halves of fossil (one containing feathers) the Archaeopteryx isnt real but a dinosaur similar to it (with wings) did exist.

That sucks. What kind of car is it?


A Geo Tracker. The guy said that their transmissions wear out quickly anyway, maybe next time mom won't get a car just because it's "cute" :mad:

Aparently, the original fossil of the Archaeopteryx was a fake, it was two fossils glued together, so the scientific world dismised the existence of bird dinos,
but then they remembered, how did the chilean peseant or whoever it was who found it,
get the two halves of fossil (one containing feathers) the Archaeopteryx isnt real but a dinosaur similar to it (with wings) did exist.

i believe you've confused archy with the vastly more recent thing kicked off by national geographic publishing an article before the fossil went through peer-review. and it was china, not chile.

i believe you've confused archy with the vastly more recent thing kicked off by national geographic publishing an article before the fossil went through peer-review. and it was china, not chile.



Not really, if I can find that confounded book that talks about it, I'll describe it.

Aparently, the original fossil of the Archaeopteryx was a fake, it was two fossils glued together, so the scientific world dismised the existence of bird dinos,
but then they remembered, how did the chilean peseant or whoever it was who found it,
get the two halves of fossil (one containing feathers) the Archaeopteryx isnt real but a dinosaur similar to it (with wings) did exist.


Are you sure you aren't misremembering this composite fossil - half Archaeoraptor half something even more interesting?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/dinofool.shtml

i believe you've confused archy with the vastly more recent thing kicked off by national geographic publishing an article before the fossil went through peer-review. and it was china, not chile.
Wasn't it that some Chinese scientist had the 2nd half imprint of that mismatched triple fossile, consisting of about 3 specimens that were pieced together and mirrored? I've seen a documentary about it. But that happened way later and doesn't have anything to do with Archeopterix. They were just looking for more missing links.

Anyway, interesting post DCD (way better than the let's nuke Mecca thread).

Here's more on that: http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/59.html For all the unbelievers :D:D:D

Not really, if I can find that confounded book that talks about it, I'll describe it.

not you. you are talking about the idea rather thoroughly debunked over yonder (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html).

not you. you are talking about the idea rather thoroughly debunked over yonder (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html).
Nice debunkin' there.

not you. you are talking about the idea rather thoroughly debunked over yonder (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html).

Watch out! That's full of science and facts. Thusly, don't expect a reply from her.

Watch out! That's full of science and facts. Thusly, don't expect a reply from her.
Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. -Homer Simpson

Watch out! That's full of science and facts. Thusly, don't expect a reply from her.



Fass, don't you have better things to do than insult and demean me for my beliefs? You obviously aren't in it for the betterment of my soul, you just get a sick pleasure from seeing others in chagrin.

Watch out! That's full of science and facts. Thusly, don't expect a reply from her.*taps shoulder* Uh, Fass? Flamebaiting is against the rules, I think.... at least, that's what I read.... I could be wrong you know....

*taps shoulder* Uh, Fass? Flamebaiting is against the rules, I think.... at least, that's what I read.... I could be wrong you know....

It wasn't meant as a flame or a bait. I really don't think of Neo-Rogolia that much to do something like that. I just happen to be right in this instance. There still is no reply to that post, despite having claimed to be able to put some substance to her own claims. I've noticed that's what she does - she claims stuff, and when people come with a forceful and factual rebuttal, her reply just never comes. I didn't mean to bait or flame in pointing out this behaviour, and if it can be seen as that, I apologise.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html#Kemp1982

that's a link from the debunking page to Kemp, 1982. he's my tutor :) . its quite cool when things like that pop up in places you don't expect them to :D .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html#Kemp1982

that's a link from the debunking page to Kemp, 1982. he's my tutor :) . its quite cool when things like that pop up in places you don't expect them to :D .
Not to be too offensive, but from neo regolia reminding me of some one on another forum and her and some extremely knowledgable person having a "discussion," I can say no matter how much proof and debunking you provide, she will continue, or some one will continue to, argue that you are wrong

It wasn't meant as a flame or a bait. I really don't think of Neo-Rogolia that much to do something like that. I just happen to be right in this instance. There still is no reply to that post, despite having claimed to be able to put some substance to her own claims. I've noticed that's what she does - she claims stuff, and when people come with a forceful and factual rebuttal, her reply just never comes. I didn't mean to bait or flame in pointing out this behaviour, and if it can be seen as that, I apologise.No, I just wanted to point out that saying that she won't respond because it's true is generally not approved of by the mods.

But yes...I do have to admit that people here are usually silent when you disprove their argument...except me, who can never resist making a sardonic comment. ;)

Ihatevacations']Not to be too offensive, but from neo regolia reminding me of some one on another forum and her and some extremely knowledgable person having a "discussion," I can say no matter how much proof and debunking you provide, she will continue, or some one will continue to, argue that you are wrong



Not really. Honestly, I'm undecided on the whole evolution issue, so how about I form my opinions instead of you putting words in my mouth?

Grrrr, I want Cyberfruit Merchant back! :mad:

Grrrr, I want Cyberfruit Merchant back! :mad:Are you sure? It's not all that Christian, you know... :p

And in my opinion, the titles just get worse after "Gaming Master".


((No, just kidding. If you still want it when you get to 20,000 posts, you can change it back, lol.))

What an interesting thread. There was an article in <i>Bird Talk</i> magazine a few years ago about how birds evolved from dinosaurs. The cartoons -- which included my favorite, the Budgiesaurus Rex -- were just hilarious.

From Iexela - whose nation state is home of the Iexelian Parakeet. :)

Not another evolution vs creation thread....

Lookie, we will never be able to determine whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, because experiments cannot be done in the present (why? cuz all dinos are dead, obviously.). And frankly, it doesn't matter.

Are you sure? It's not all that Christian, you know... :p

And in my opinion, the titles just get worse after "Gaming Master".
((No, just kidding. If you still want it when you get to 20,000 posts, you can change it back, lol.))

Yes, you're a Spam Queen. :confused:

If I'm correct, you would be a Spam King not a Queen.