Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,469 Views) | |
| CyborgIguana | Oct 31 2013, 05:49 PM Post #466 |
![]() ![]()
|
Evolution is real. It's as simple as that. |
![]() |
|
| Similis | Nov 1 2013, 04:15 AM Post #467 |
![]() ![]()
|
While I'd love to point towards all the evidence for evolution humanity has accumulated, I doubt I'd be able to nail it in one, two or even ten posts possible to read. While you adress your claim in a simple manner, Aardvark727, I'm afraid you also adress it wrong. We've pointed you, multiple times, to the sources, yet you still ask, so I suspect the real demand is "show me something so spectacular and sparkly that it will blow away all my faith in one second". There aren't such things. Evolution is not a fairytale with magic and miracles.It's a natural process, just like organism growth or reproduction. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution In general I advice you to read a little bit on rational wiki. It can shock you as highly supernatural-skeptical place, but the info contained there is presented in a manner more plausible and faster to read than I'd give you if I linked you to ~50 other sites. People there are not preachers - they won't force their belief on you to gain profit - they can't have any profit from informing anyone about the facts. Thus, you can eagerly browse the site and go to the links to check out more info about the subject, without being forced to believe something. Because, all in all, evolution is not a belief. It's a process. Whether we believe natural processes occur doesn't make them any less true, if half the humanity refused to accept that women poop, it wouldn't make them capable of surviving without sustenance.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 1 2013, 03:21 PM Post #468 |
![]() ![]()
|
I forget where I read it, but something about how Nyctosaurus's membrane would be much farther from its center of mass than a Tupandactylus's. It's like how a tall glass is more likely to tip over than a short glass that is the same diameter.
|
![]() |
|
| TyrantTR | Nov 1 2013, 03:24 PM Post #469 |
![]() ![]()
|
Aardvark if you are not sure where to start on your search for information allow me to correct one of your first misunderstandings, this in regards to how we date fossils. A quick google search found an informative and descriptive explanation of our dating method and how it works. And for your benefit, it even cites christian sources. Even the religious can agree we are dealing with an old earth. Now I will say that this is above and beyond evolution. Creationists have a dirty habit of lumping every theory they do not agree with into evolution. I would hope we can explain this one bit at a time, because if I where to explain evolution as a Creationist sees it, it would take all day. So despite the fact that the fossil record is one of the proofs for evolution, I don't need it to prove it as a concept occurs and neither do you. Evolution is, as Darwin had put it, the origin of species. It is not the origin of life, nor the origin of the universe, nor the age of the earth. And we can absolutely get to those later. Evolution as a theory only explains the diversity of life through the process of speciation. Now why is it a fact? Because it occurs before our very eyes in both plants and animals. And is even testable and predictable. We know why this diversification occurs for the most part as well. By observing how natural selection trims the weaker individuals, sexual selection upholds the stronger ones, and genetic mutation introduces new traits and attributes into the gene pool. Evolution as a process is as substantiated and understood as gravity. And though it does not rely on the fossil record for evidence, it fully explains what we find in the fossil record year after year. If you are honest Aardvark, and you want to learn I suggest you look at the articles I have linked, look up the terms I have used, and see for yourself. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
If you could find and cite a source I would be happy to read it. Nothing I have seen has suggested this to be the case. Edited by TyrantTR, Nov 1 2013, 03:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Furka | Nov 1 2013, 04:14 PM Post #470 |
![]() ![]()
|
wasn't Tupandactylus more land-based than Nycto ? if so, the crest would have been a lot less annoying (at least in my thoughts) |
![]() |
|
| Jules | Nov 1 2013, 05:49 PM Post #471 |
![]()
Mihi est imperare orbi universo
![]()
|
Well, Nyctosaurus had no fingers whatsoever, and it was so magnificently adapted to airborne life that I can hardly imagine any Pterosaur being less land-based than this one. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 1 2013, 07:17 PM Post #472 |
![]()
|
You are ignoring the facts. 1. A better analogy would be imagine more than trillions of sets of care parts (I'm talking about the universe) are randomly put together different ways. Chances are that one of these ways is going to work (I'm talking about Earth). 2. There are may scientific & geological ways of dating rocks. Unfortunately I'm not qualified to discuss this as I know almost nothing about geology. However I do know of carbon dating, just to give one example. 3. Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory is something backed up by all the evidence. Gravity is a theory. Should we stop taking Heliocentric theory seriously because that is just a theory? |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 1 2013, 07:20 PM Post #473 |
![]() ![]()
|
When certain aspects of dinosaur biology and behaviour completely consume our ideas about them. If you don't understand what I mean, then here's an example. Any sauropod drawn within 3 metres of a body of water is automatically a "retro" sauropod and is scorned for being inaccurate. There is no reason not to think that sauropods may have bathed in water on occasion to get rid of dirt and parasites like elephants do. Remember that these are animals, not automatons. Their behaviour would be just as varied as that of creatures alive today, and they almost certainly did more than we humans give them credit for. That's what I love about the recently released book "All Your Yesterdays", it contains paleo-art that depicts dinosaurs in much more unusual and realistic ways than the mainstream media has led us to believe. Sometimes I think we forget just how little we know about these animals.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Nov 1 2013, 07:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ignacio | Nov 1 2013, 07:21 PM Post #474 |
![]()
Ex Corrupt Staff
![]()
|
No to be anoying but Gravity is a law actually. The problem is that most people doesn't understand the real meaning of the concept theory in science. Like i said in the forum for "News&Info" i posted an article about that. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 1 2013, 07:25 PM Post #475 |
![]()
|
My point is still valid as I also pointed out heliocentric theory. Thank you for correcting me though. Some might find that annoying, but it is helpful as we learn when our mistakes are pointed out. |
![]() |
|
| Ignacio | Nov 1 2013, 07:36 PM Post #476 |
![]()
Ex Corrupt Staff
![]()
|
Yes like i did when Iben corrected me about the C-14 for fossiles dating I think the same as you. Is nice to learn from our mistakes
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Nov 1 2013, 07:44 PM Post #477 |
![]() ![]()
|
When people think that T. rex could only see its prey if it moved, a misconception probably stemming from JP. Even a few paleo-fans mistake this to be true. As far as we can tell, T. rex had excellent binocular vision. The only reason the JP T. rex's vision was based on movement was due to all the dinosaurs being hybridized with frog DNA. |
![]() |
|
| extremos | Nov 1 2013, 09:18 PM Post #478 |
![]()
Where's Mr Pig?
![]()
|
And in the second book Crichton actually corrected that mistake, and one of Dodgson's colleagues actually got eaten by a T-Rex because he didn't run from it, and one of the characters (Probably Levine) said that the T-Rex from the first novel just didn't eat Grant because he was probably not hungry. |
![]() |
|
| Ignacio | Nov 1 2013, 09:59 PM Post #479 |
![]()
Ex Corrupt Staff
![]()
|
Yes! I recently read the second book so i remember that scene. It was so funny
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Nov 1 2013, 10:06 PM Post #480 |
|
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.
![]()
|
Yes humans being idiotic, if I saw a Rex running down main street, I will be hijacking a car (likely a truck) and drive off or just take a few hits at the Rex's ankles, then that sucker is done. That or I use my shotgun and aim for the vulnerable parts like the heart or the eyes then that sucker is dead for sure. Also if my girlfriend or her cousins are standing still I will pick them up and run, and I know I can out run most things that chase me most of them being deadly female warriors (Do not ask).... |
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups


















I think the same as you. Is nice to learn from our mistakes

