|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Oct 31, 2010 21:03:28 GMT
Too many T.rexes, if you ask me.  ;D Good heavens, Fox, that's a whole new image of you emerging right there. ;D I might need to have another word with Father Christmas now (if you remember what on earth I'm talking about ;D)... |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 31, 2010 21:10:31 GMT
I think any remaining tyrannosaurs should be lumped into one picture, performing in a chorus line with frilly skirts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Oct 31, 2010 21:11:22 GMT
I think any remaining tyrannosaurs should be lumped into one picture, performing in a chorus line with frilly skirts. What a splendid idea. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by thelordsgym on Nov 1, 2010 1:19:47 GMT
There is an idea going around now that Quetzalcoatlus may have been flightless. That's bizarre...why does it have wings then? Lol  |
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Nov 1, 2010 1:45:39 GMT
Why do we have an appendix?
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 1, 2010 1:57:51 GMT
Why do we have an appendix?  It's a vestigal structure which originally functioned to help us digest foliage when were primates. |
|
|
|
Post by thelordsgym on Nov 1, 2010 2:29:33 GMT
Why do we have an appendix? It's a vestigal structure which originally functioned to help us digest foliage when were primates. Totally disagree..... |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Nov 1, 2010 2:47:43 GMT
There is an idea going around now that Quetzalcoatlus may have been flightless. That's bizarre...why does it have wings then? Lol Same reasons ostriches have wings I suppose. If you look at the most up to date depictions of the Quetz or another Azhdarchid you will notice that the wings proportionally are very short. The only way that animal would be able to get off the ground would be if it were around 100 pounds. The thing is the size of a giraffe so really? Maybe it used the wings for display or balance or perhaps it could glide a little. I really don't know the details I will ask the person I heard the theory from if he has a source to back it up. It sounds pretty realistic to me though. It makes sense physiology wise AND it makes sense since by that time, the sky seems to have already taken over by birds perhaps forcing the last remaining pterosaurs to become large and go to the land. Again this just a theory i heard from the scientist I go to for my dino inquiries. I don't want an onslaught of people arguing against me because honestly I'm still on the fence about it. I want to see more literature on it first. |
|
|
|
Post by thelordsgym on Nov 1, 2010 3:05:50 GMT
That's bizarre...why does it have wings then? Lol Same reasons ostriches have wings I suppose. If you look at the most up to date depictions of the Quetz or another Azhdarchid you will notice that the wings proportionally are very short. The only way that animal would be able to get off the ground would be if it were around 100 pounds. The thing is the size of a giraffe so really? Maybe it used the wings for display or balance or perhaps it could glide a little. I really don't know the details I will ask the person I heard the theory from if he has a source to back it up. It sounds pretty realistic to me though. It makes sense physiology wise AND it makes sense since by that time, the sky seems to have already taken over by birds perhaps forcing the last remaining pterosaurs to become large and go to the land. Again this just a theory i heard from the scientist I go to for my dino inquiries. I don't want an onslaught of people arguing against me because honestly I'm still on the fence about it. I want to see more literature on it first. I understand, but most things taught on here are theory and nothing more.....there are new theories coming out all the time but I skeptical of most of them and don't believe most of what is taught on here just because the majority does... I am just here to collect and trade toys friend....  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 1, 2010 4:34:49 GMT
It's a vestigal structure which originally functioned to help us digest foliage when were primates. Totally disagree..... Of course, we're still primates--just moved beyond a leafy diet. But it makes sense--the exact same organ, except enormous, is present in many living herbivorous mammals. When it gets that big, it's called a caecum (or, I suppose, when the caecum goes vestigial, it's called an appendix--toma-toe, tomah-toe). |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Nov 1, 2010 4:58:44 GMT
Same reasons ostriches have wings I suppose. If you look at the most up to date depictions of the Quetz or another Azhdarchid you will notice that the wings proportionally are very short. The only way that animal would be able to get off the ground would be if it were around 100 pounds. The thing is the size of a giraffe so really? Maybe it used the wings for display or balance or perhaps it could glide a little. I really don't know the details I will ask the person I heard the theory from if he has a source to back it up. It sounds pretty realistic to me though. It makes sense physiology wise AND it makes sense since by that time, the sky seems to have already taken over by birds perhaps forcing the last remaining pterosaurs to become large and go to the land. Again this just a theory i heard from the scientist I go to for my dino inquiries. I don't want an onslaught of people arguing against me because honestly I'm still on the fence about it. I want to see more literature on it first. I understand, but most things taught on here are theory and nothing more.....there are new theories coming out all the time but I skeptical of most of them and don't believe most of what is taught on here just because the majority does... I am just here to collect and trade toys friend.... I understand that. I just didn't want any trouble from the people who are here to collect toys in addition to other things. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Nov 1, 2010 8:37:06 GMT
It's a vestigal structure which originally functioned to help us digest foliage when were primates. Totally disagree..... Just for curiosity, why do you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Nov 1, 2010 8:45:20 GMT
the exact same organ, except enormous, is present in many living herbivorous mammals. When it gets that big, it's called a caecum (or, I suppose, when the caecum goes vestigial, it's called an appendix--toma-toe, tomah-toe). The caecum is present in the prosimians and the New World Monkeys. In the (more closely related to humans) Old World monkeys, the caecum is absent and some species have an appendix or a similar structure. Hominoids (humans and apes) have the appendix. So, the caecum seems to be the ancestral character for the Primates. Along our line the caecum got reduced and became the appendix, while other Primate linneages lost it. |
|
|
|
Post by thelordsgym on Nov 1, 2010 12:32:19 GMT
Just for curiosity, why do you disagree? Good question. I disagree first of all because I don't believe we ever evolved from anything. I believe we were created for a reason and that all life has adaptive traits. That includes to the environment, as well as any of the stimuli and things we put into our bodies. As far as there being vestigual organs, I don't buy that either. I have talked with people personnally who have had their appendix out and they get sick much more often than they used to among other things. The appendix as far as I can observe is a helper to our immune system, and people who have them removed...for obvious reasons....are more prone to catching things they might not have in the past. Sorry Stoneage, I don't buy anything that evolution teaches. Small changes happen, but just because the majority believes in that stuff like macro-evolution because it it taught doesn't mean that I do. I have a bachelors degree in college as well and have also done a plethora of research, and have concluded that there is a ton of brainwashing going on. People just can't seem to think for themselves. They believe it just because the majority does.There is always another side of the story that is not being taught, and I am not talking about religion either..... Although I am also not an athiest, obviously. I don't think these theories would hold up in a court of law and therefore there is no real proof that can be validated beyond a reasonable doubt. By the way, sorry if I offended anyone. I am just here to collect toys and models, it just hurts me to hear all of this being taught all the time, and no one gets to hear the other side. It should be known that not all of us believe that way. |
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Nov 1, 2010 13:23:55 GMT
Incorrect.
Because It's not scientists' job.
Scientists' job is to teach one side of the story (the scientific side).
Reasonable doubt is allright.
But you seem to have no doubt about it at all, about evolution not being true. That's not having a reasonable doubt.
I personally don't feel offended at all because you are sharing what you believe. Wich is absolutely allright. And interesting to know, since you are a part of this community.
But my friend, you are part of a community who mostly believes in evolution and likes to chat about it to understand it better.
I'm sure you are already aware that nobody does it to hurt you in any way. The evolution chatting existed in this site since the very birth of it, I risk to say.
It's known.
The last thing I would like to tell you is, as long as you claim "evolution" is a lie, it will be very hard for me to be open to listen to your "side of the story". You know. If you treat what I believe with respect, I am totally open to treat your beliefs with the very exact respect, my friend.
Two sides of a story can be true at the same time. I see the truth on my "version", and you see the truth on your "version"... And meanwhile I don't see the truth on your "version", I am totally sure that you believe on it for a powerful reason and that therefore there are things to be learned from the way you understand existence of life.
So, same way, I'd like to ask you to not judging me as a person who believes in evolution simply because the majority does. That would make a dumb out of me. I have also very powerful reasons to believe in evolution. If you think of me as an intelligent person, I honestly tell you that I will think of you as an intelligent person too. (Wich I already think you are.)
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 1, 2010 13:28:10 GMT
Just for curiosity, why do you disagree? Good question. I disagree first of all because I don't believe we ever evolved from anything. I believe we were created for a reason and that all life has adaptive traits. That includes to the environment, as well as any of the stimuli and things we put into our bodies. As far as there being vestigual organs, I don't buy that either. I have talked with people personnally who have had their appendix out and they get sick much more often than they used to among other things. The appendix as far as I can observe is a helper to our immune system, and people who have them removed...for obvious reasons....are more prone to catching things they might not have in the past. Sorry Stoneage, I don't buy anything that evolution teaches. Small changes happen, but just because the majority believes in that stuff like macro-evolution because it it taught doesn't mean that I do. I have a bachelors degree in college as well and have also done a plethora of research, and have concluded that there is a ton of brainwashing going on. People just can't seem to think for themselves. They believe it just because the majority does.There is always another side of the story that is not being taught, and I am not talking about religion either..... Although I am also not an athiest, obviously. I don't think these theories would hold up in a court of law and therefore there is no real proof that can be validated beyond a reasonable doubt. By the way, sorry if I offended anyone. I am just here to collect toys and models, it just hurts me to hear all of this being taught all the time, and no one gets to hear the other side. It should be known that not all of us believe that way. Two small asides--I have my appendix out, and only occasionally get sick; certainly no more than my wife, who has hers (same goes for tonsils). Second, Evolution by Natural Selection (with modifications to account for what has been learned regarding genetics) has stood up in courts of law before as a reasonable, testable theory put forward to explain phenomena in a non-supernatural form. If a testable theory comes forward that is better able to explain the diversity of life, it will find an audience over time. And not to be confrontational--but you did bring up that you don't believe it; until then, no one was discussing anything to do with evolution, just discussing what the seemingly un-needed structures might be for. I don't think anyone really wants to get into it, especially in this thread, where it doesn't belong anyway--this is the what dinosaur are you thread, after all! |
|
|
|
Post by thelordsgym on Nov 1, 2010 13:49:11 GMT
Incorrect Well, where is the other side being taught? Because It's not scientists' job. Scientists' job is to teach one side of the story (the scientific side). That is not science as far as I am concerned. Reasonable doubt is allright. But you seem to have no doubt about it at all, about evolution not being true. That's not having a reasonable doubt. Sorry, I do believe in micro evolution, but certainly not macro or cosmic. I personally don't feel offended at all because you are sharing what you believe. Wich is absolutely allright. And interesting to know, since you are a part of this community. But my friend, you are part of a community who mostly believes in evolution and likes to chat about it to understand it better. I'm sure you are already aware that nobody does it to hurt you in any way. The evolution chatting existed in this site since the very birth of it, I risk to say. It's known. The last thing I would like to tell you is, as long as you claim "evolution" is a lie, it will be very hard for me to be open to listen to your "side of the story". You know. If you treat what I believe with respect, I am totally open to treat your beliefs with the very exact respect, my friend. Very sorry friend, and well spoken as well. Forgive me please. Two sides of a story can be true at the same time. I see the truth on my "version", and you see the truth on your "version"... And meanwhile I don't see the truth on your "version", I am totally sure that you believe on it for a powerful reason and that therefore there are things to be learned from the way you understand existence of life. So, same way, I'd like to ask you to not judging me as a person who believes in evolution simply because the majority does. That would make a dumb out of me. I have also very powerful reasons to believe in evolution. If you think of me as an intelligent person, I honestly tell you that I will think of you as an intelligent person too. (Wich I already think you are.) Thanks friend, again, well spoken....I will make the proper adjustments to my tone and attitude.... |
|
|
|
Post by thelordsgym on Nov 1, 2010 13:52:38 GMT
Good question. I disagree first of all because I don't believe we ever evolved from anything. I believe we were created for a reason and that all life has adaptive traits. That includes to the environment, as well as any of the stimuli and things we put into our bodies. As far as there being vestigual organs, I don't buy that either. I have talked with people personnally who have had their appendix out and they get sick much more often than they used to among other things. The appendix as far as I can observe is a helper to our immune system, and people who have them removed...for obvious reasons....are more prone to catching things they might not have in the past. Sorry Stoneage, I don't buy anything that evolution teaches. Small changes happen, but just because the majority believes in that stuff like macro-evolution because it it taught doesn't mean that I do. I have a bachelors degree in college as well and have also done a plethora of research, and have concluded that there is a ton of brainwashing going on. People just can't seem to think for themselves. They believe it just because the majority does.There is always another side of the story that is not being taught, and I am not talking about religion either..... Although I am also not an athiest, obviously. I don't think these theories would hold up in a court of law and therefore there is no real proof that can be validated beyond a reasonable doubt. By the way, sorry if I offended anyone. I am just here to collect toys and models, it just hurts me to hear all of this being taught all the time, and no one gets to hear the other side. It should be known that not all of us believe that way. Two small asides--I have my appendix out, and only occasionally get sick; certainly no more than my wife, who has hers (same goes for tonsils). Second, Evolution by Natural Selection (with modifications to account for what has been learned regarding genetics) has stood up in courts of law before as a reasonable, testable theory put forward to explain phenomena in a non-supernatural form. If a testable theory comes forward that is better able to explain the diversity of life, it will find an audience over time. And not to be confrontational--but you did bring up that you don't believe it; until then, no one was discussing anything to do with evolution, just discussing what the seemingly un-needed structures might be for. quote Not quite Sean, Check out Stoneages idea of what kind of a creature we were before....he stated when we were primates. That does imply evolution, wouldn't you agree? Again, sorry for opening this can friend. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Nov 1, 2010 14:24:46 GMT
Good question. I disagree first of all because I don't believe we ever evolved from anything. I believe we were created for a reason Oh. It's the religion. I see. Common creationist mistake. Vestigial organ or structure doesn't mean organ without any function. They can have some of the initial function or even develop new functions. The appendix coud have an immunological function today, being also a vestigial caecus. In the USA, (as well as in some islamic countries), the majority doesn't accept macro-evolution. I say "accept" and not "believe" because science is not a matter of belief: You believe (or not) in a Creator. You accept (or not), the scientific knowledge of evolution. You believe (or not) in fairies. You accept (or not), the scientific knowledge of the Solar System. You believe (or not) in ghosts. You accept (or not), the scientific knowledge of the atoms. Etcetera. |
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Nov 1, 2010 15:01:52 GMT
I'd also like to add I don't see any point on fighting. I always saw a fighting on this as useless, because we can perfectly believe in the same things or not, also accept the same things or not. And still be brothers.
And as brothers, we can listen to each other, even if we don't accept the other's beliefs. It's all a matter of understanding in what we are different, in order to also never forget in what we are identical.
We cannot (and I'm totally not willing to) make you accept evolution.
But we can explain to you why we believe it is right.
Just for you to understand us.
From there, you will continue as free as always to think for yourself.
We are all different for a reason. And that is as it must be.
|
|
;D
It's a vestigal structure which originally functioned to help us digest foliage when were primates.
