Origin of Dinosaurs- #1 Achillees Heel of Evolution - Where Did Dinosaurs Come From? - Science and Technology -Research, computers, social science, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, mathematics, AI - Page 3 - City-Data Forum

Stubblejumper · 07-20-2013, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATTC

Despite your own vacuous rant this was your only attempt at an explanation for the origin of dinosaurs.

The predictably "authoritative" wikipedia entry that refers to archosaurs which is merely a set of species that INCLUDES dinosaurs. Notice the original post where this is referenced. I have looked much more into this topic than you have or will honestly even be willing to do.

This is a pretty good example of the problem you're having. You found what you thought was a hole in the theory and ran back here to exploit it without actually attempting to understand what you'd read.

All dinosaurs are considered archosaurs, but not all archosaurs are dinosaurs. What the Wikipedia article was attempting to explain (and did so in relatively simple terms in the second section) was that there are a large number of archosaurs that predate the rise of dinosaurs, but exhibit some features associated with dinosaurs.

Spondylosoma spp. for example, have been dated to about 230 million years ago (the very beginning of the "dinosaur age". There is debate as to whether to they ought to be included as true dinosaurs or grouped with early archosaurs such as Rauisuchia. If you're still searching for your "transitional" species (a quest that has adequately been addressed by several other posters), this would be it - a species that is neither definitively dinosaur nor pre-dinosaur archosaur, but a species that does not fit neatly into either clade.

Speaking of Rausuchia, it's pretty easy to see the link between Ticinosuchus (a genus of pre-dinosaur archosaurs) and a dinosaur such as an anklyosaur.

A word of advice as well (and don't take this as an insult or as me being snide, it isn't meant as such) - don't claim to have looked "much more into this topic" than any of us without having made it to paragraph #2 of the wikipedia entry you were provided with.

rifleman · 07-21-2013, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATTC

Despite your own vacuous rant this was your only attempt at an explanation for the origin of dinosaurs.

The predictably "authoritative" wikipedia entry that refers to archosaurs which is merely a set of species that INCLUDES dinosaurs. Notice the original post where this is referenced. I have looked much more into this topic than you have or will honestly even be willing to do.

Quote:

wow! As usual, you seem to have ignored my several post-grad degrees in genetics and evolution. Unless you have similar bona-fide and peer-reviewed qualifications, I'd suggest that you go pound sand. Likewise, just how many scientific publications have YOU had successfully peer-reviewed and then published based on their technical merits? Hmmm?.

As has become so typical and predictable with your arguments, we'll all wait for your answers, which also predictably will never be forthcoming. And why would that be, one constantly wonders?

Because its you who is notably vacuous, specious and always wildly technically lacking.

So.. I'll ask you: why don't you go ahead and write up to the rigorous technical and scientific requirements of any respectable scientific publication, (this does not, sadly for your special circumstance standards, include The Christian Science Monitor or The WatchTower... yawn..) your supposedly infallible dismissal of the mounds and mountains and inarguable research results that absolutely qualify Evolution as a FACT. Your selective and ill-educated dismissals (in error, I'll also note..) are hardly credible grounds for the wholesale dismissal of the entire well-researched and fully documented process.

But we'll let you mire yourself in what is obvious to all of us: you have nothing to argue with, ATTC. This is therefore your cue to launch into the typical defeated Christian's retort du jour: "Oh yeah? Well nyah nyah, I and all MY friends simply don't believe you or the rest of your biased scientific friends, so THERE! Double Nyah Nyah!"

Oh and btw, the tiresome condemnations of Wikis efforts is also quite predictable. When a well-written article in Wiki does not suit the anti-science, anti-knawl-luhdj anti-logic crowd of =drive-by theists, it's aways because Wiki is not a recognized authority. What is also notably ignored are the usual full and credible bibliographic citations which are always there at the end of a Wiki article, placed there precisely for you guys to break your hearts and minds on by, you know, reading such stuff.

The sources you have used expose a lot more about your predispositions towards evolutions which is the main problem with most who try to defend evolution. They have not given the sources they have used any scrutiny whatsoever and have blindly accepted them as authoritative without critically examining them. The very thing ironically they accuse of those who follow organized religions. Then again what should I expect from what is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific philosophy that is defended with religious fervor

Yup: My predispositions towards evolutions (sic). You got it, my special scientifically adept and knowledgeable friend! You[ll have to gather u ll around some time and essplayn what exactly is wrong with the established and logic-based Scientific Method. I can hardly wait!

harry chickpea · 07-21-2013, 08:48 AM

HEY!!!!

See the sticky up at the top of the forum? This is NOT the religion forum. The thread needs to be locked or moved to religion - and spell your gods right. It is Achilles, not achillees.

As for where dinosaurs came from? Kansas.

Tek_Freek · 07-21-2013, 02:31 PM

Didn't they create an All idiots Post Here forum? This goes there.