to find the pheasant that has you for dinner. Story here.
5 comments:
Leonard Jones
said...
I do not believe the crap about dinosaurs being big birds. Just because they share a Cloaca and a similar bone structure, does not mean they were ever feathered.
From the few bone fragments that exist with any species, there is a lot of speculation as to their overall appearance, but there is an old saying, If it looks like lizard, walks like a lizard and barks like a lizard, it's a lizard!
Reminded me of the James Bond flick where a character is fed to sharks to nibble on, and then a sign is put on him saying, "He was eaten by something that disagreed with him."
LJ - I thought they'd found a dinosaur fossil with the feather outlines intact in the imprint?
That would be Licence To Kill starring Timothy Dalton, a very good Bond BTW. I have them all, including the original Casino Royale starring Barry Nelson and Peter Lorre. No Remmington Steele homo Bonds in my collection!
Steamboat, I need you to go back to Vilmars Blog and check out a video I posted for you about a supposed electric bike with a 4kw motor, and a claimed 60MPH top speed. I need your opinion on this one. It is in the NASA story you just commented on.
Sorry, I forgot to answer the question at the end of your post. These things are almost 95 percent open to interpretation. Direct evidence for any of this, does not exist. I have a hard time believing that a creature that weighed 17 tons and was 72 feet long, and who's skeleton looked like a giant lizard could in any way be related to a bird, or even belong in the same family.
The way I see it, the Terrible Lizards needed hollow bone structures because of their immense weight, while birds needed hollow bones to be light enough to fly. As far as similar reproductive organs go, no Alligator is in any way related to a Robin because of these two similarities.
It is just like the argument about Darwinism. I recently came up with an out of the box idea on the subject of evolution. I have made a false assumption hundreds of times that caused me to blow a mechanical diagnosis. This got me to thinking about the classic evolutionary tree that shows man evolving directly from apes.
If I am an archaeologist, and I make a false assumption of the age of modern man and I am looking for some "Transitional species," I may end up looking too far in the past to find it. What if Cro Magnon is the transitional species? Every attempt to claim that a 2 million year old monkey skull is the missing link would take us farther and farther from the truth.
The scientific term for a false assumption leading to blown mechanical diagnosis, is confirmation bias. Even if Cro Magnon is not the missing link, what if man came from the same tree, but not from the same branch? This same kind of thinking may explain why reptiles and birds share two physical traits.
We share some genetic code with pigs. Does this mean we are related? Darwin got many answers right and many of his assumptions are still unproven theory. What if the answer lies in the middle?
5 comments:
I do not believe the crap about dinosaurs being big birds. Just because
they share a Cloaca and a similar bone structure, does not mean they
were ever feathered.
From the few bone fragments that exist with any species, there is a lot
of speculation as to their overall appearance, but there is an old
saying, If it looks like lizard, walks like a lizard and barks like
a lizard, it's a lizard!
Reminded me of the James Bond flick where a character is fed to sharks to nibble on, and then a sign is put on him saying, "He was eaten by something that disagreed with him."
LJ - I thought they'd found a dinosaur fossil with the feather outlines intact in the imprint?
That would be Licence To Kill starring Timothy Dalton, a very
good Bond BTW. I have them all, including the original Casino
Royale starring Barry Nelson and Peter Lorre. No Remmington
Steele homo Bonds in my collection!
Steamboat, I need you to go back to Vilmars Blog and check out a
video I posted for you about a supposed electric bike with a
4kw motor, and a claimed 60MPH top speed. I need your opinion
on this one. It is in the NASA story you just commented on.
Sorry, I forgot to answer the question at the end of your post.
These things are almost 95 percent open to interpretation. Direct
evidence for any of this, does not exist. I have a hard time
believing that a creature that weighed 17 tons and was 72 feet
long, and who's skeleton looked like a giant lizard could in
any way be related to a bird, or even belong in the same family.
The way I see it, the Terrible Lizards needed hollow bone
structures because of their immense weight, while birds
needed hollow bones to be light enough to fly. As far
as similar reproductive organs go, no Alligator is in any
way related to a Robin because of these two similarities.
It is just like the argument about Darwinism. I recently came
up with an out of the box idea on the subject of evolution. I
have made a false assumption hundreds of times that caused me to
blow a mechanical diagnosis. This got me to thinking about
the classic evolutionary tree that shows man evolving directly
from apes.
If I am an archaeologist, and I make a false assumption of the
age of modern man and I am looking for some "Transitional species,"
I may end up looking too far in the past to find it. What if
Cro Magnon is the transitional species? Every attempt to claim
that a 2 million year old monkey skull is the missing link
would take us farther and farther from the truth.
The scientific term for a false assumption leading to blown
mechanical diagnosis, is confirmation bias. Even if Cro Magnon
is not the missing link, what if man came from the same tree,
but not from the same branch? This same kind of thinking may
explain why reptiles and birds share two physical traits.
We share some genetic code with pigs. Does this mean we are
related? Darwin got many answers right and many of his assumptions
are still unproven theory. What if the answer lies in the middle?
Oh shit, too many beers and too many Indiana Jones movies. I
typed archaeologist instead of paleontologist.
Post a Comment