Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-05-02T19:25:57Z

Evoguy:

{{debate-science}}

Post Your Thoughts

For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Also, did you know that many studies have shown non-religious people to be smarter than those who are religious?

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' Lateral gene transfer between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#*****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' inert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
#*****'''Counter:''' On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area.
#******'''Counter:''' Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --[[User:KarmicNoose|KarmicNoose]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST)
#*******But natural selection does not select features that increase diversity in a population; it selects features that increase the odds of reproduction in an individual—and preference by an agricultural species greatly increases an individual's odds of reproducing.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Counter:''' Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.--

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.
#*'''Counter:''' Mendel's findings were incomplete, and were ignorant of certain structures such as chromosomes, or processes such as mutation. The latter presents a perfectly viable way for an organism to receive genetic code not present in its parents.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
#**'''Counter:'''Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
#**'''Counter:'''If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong.

If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.

I find a surprisingly good argument supporting macroevolution is that of languages. For example, all modern Western languages are essentially derived from Latin. This is repeatedly indicated in the similarities of words between languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. You could say that all languages are descended from Latin. Populations broke away from the "main" latin base, corrupting the original until, centuries later, we have dozens of unique languages that readily can be proven to have descended from Latin. The same basic principle applies to macroevolution. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:This is a poor argument, since German and English did not descend from Latin.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German)
[[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Hippopotamus

2007-05-02T19:22:04Z

Evoguy:

'''Hippopotamuses''' (from the [[Greek]] for '[[River]] [[Horse]]') are large [[herbivore|herbivorous]] semi-[[aquatic]] [[African]] [[mammals]], and the only four-toed [[ungulate]]s. Once living in northern Africa, the hippopotamus is now only found south of the [[Sahara]]. The hippopotamus may have been the [[behemoth]] mentioned in [[Job]] 40:15-24. The hippopotamus and pygmy hippopotamus are the only living [[species]], a small number of [[extinct]] species are also known from [[fossils]].

[[Image:hippo.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A pygmy hippo.]]

==Description==

Hippopotamuses may weigh up to 7000 pounds and reach 5 feet in height. They live in schools and submerge themselves in rivers to protect themselves from the sun, coming up for air every 5 minutes or so.

===Diet===

A hippopotamus is an [[herbivore]], eating up to 150 pounds of grass in a night. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion. Hippos have been known to attack [[crocodile]]s and [[human]]s. More people die from hippo attacks than from [[lion]]s.{{fact}}

===Reproduction===

Hippos are born underwater and have to swim to the surface to breath. While young hippopotamuses can float, when they get older they sink and must bounce along the bottom of the river.{{fact}}

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Hoofed mammals]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Kangaroo

2007-05-02T19:20:33Z

Evoguy:

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They are now native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[family]] -- the Western Grey Kangaroo, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo -- or at least sixty-nine [[species]] according to evolutionary views<ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include wallabies and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)...</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], by Rebecca Driver, ''Creation'' vol. 20 No.3.</ref> </blockquote>

However, it must be remembered that very few animals are ever fossilized.

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]

Kangaroo

2007-05-02T19:18:16Z

Evoguy:

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They are now native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[family]] -- the Western Grey Kangaroo, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo -- or at least sixty-nine [[species]] according to evolutionary views<ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include wallabies and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)...</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], by Rebecca Driver, ''Creation'' vol. 20 No.3.</ref> </blockquote>

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>, or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="cab17"/>
The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]

Otter

2007-04-20T21:59:23Z

Evoguy:

[[Image:Otter.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
An '''otter''' is a small water-dwelling rodent which inhabits the banks of the rivers and lakes of [[Ireland]], [[Sweden]], [[Hungary]] and the [[UK]], but not [[France]]. The creature can hold its breath for up to twenty minutes underwater. They eat snakes (except in Ireland) and small birds, as well as [[fish]].

[[Category:Mammals]]

Triassic

2007-04-20T21:55:55Z

Evoguy:

{{epoch|{{PAGENAME}}}} dated from 248 million years ago to 203 million years ago. After the [[Permian]] and before the [[Jurassic]] period. The super continent [[Pangea]] started to break up during this period.

This period saw the emergence of [[pterosaurs]], [[mammals]], [[turtles]], and [[frogs]].

[[Category:Geological time periods]]

Beetle

2007-04-20T21:53:51Z

Evoguy:

A beetle is an [[insect]] in the order ''Coleoptera'' (the largest order in the animal kingdom). This order is characterized by forewings that are modified into hardened covers over a second pair of functional wings.

Beetles can be found in nearly all environments except conditions of extreme cold such as [[Antarctica]] and at great heights. There are fewer beetle species in temperate zones than in the tropics. Beetle sizes range from less than 0.04 inches (1 mm) long to over 8 inches (20 cm).

Beetles can be helpful or destructive to man. Without dung beetles, some parts of the world would be buried in animal excrement. Beetles help to break down decayed matter. Some beetles are predators of insect pests. Some are destructive of crops and timber. Predators of beetles include other insects, bats, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

Over half of all described species are insects. Of these, approximately 300,000 are beetles. This led biologist J. B. S. Haldane to remark that God has "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

[[Category:Insects]]

Triassic

2007-04-20T21:51:54Z

Evoguy:

{{epoch|{{PAGENAME}}}} dated from 248 million years ago to 203 million years ago. After the [[Permian]] and before the [[Jurassic]] period. The super continent [[Pangea]] supposedly started to break up during this period.

This period saw the emergence of [[pterosaurs]], [[mammals]], [[turtles]], and [[frogs]].

[[Category:Geological time periods]]

Triassic

2007-04-20T21:51:35Z

Evoguy:

{{epoch|{{PAGENAME}}}} dated from 251 million years ago to 199 million years ago. After the [[Permian]] and before the [[Jurassic]] period. The super continent [[Pangea]] supposedly started to break up during this period.

This period saw the emergence of [[pterosaurs]], [[mammals]], [[turtles]], and [[frogs]].

[[Category:Geological time periods]]

Jurassic

2007-04-20T21:50:49Z

Evoguy:

{{stub}} According to geologists, the '''Jurassic''' epoch (period of time) dated from 203 million years ago to 146 million years ago. It came after the [[Triassic]] and before the [[Cretaceous]] Period.

[[Sauropods]] such as [[Diplodocus]] were supposedly common during this period.

[[Category:Geological time periods]]

Cretaceous

2007-04-20T21:49:52Z

Evoguy:

{{epoch|{{PAGENAME}}}} came after the [[Jurassic]] period and before the [[Paleocene]] period in Earth's geological history, dating from 146 million years ago until 65 million years ago.

[[Category:geological time periods]]

Tyrannosaurus

2007-04-20T21:48:57Z

Evoguy:

[[Image:Tyrannosaurus rex.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Joe Tucciarone's illustration of a Tyrannosaurus rex (rights reserved, reprinted here with consent).]]
The '''Tyrannosaurus rex''', or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, approximately 65 million years ago, and that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs related to T-rex. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]</ref><ref>[http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]</ref>

== Fossils ==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has discovered unfossilised soft tissue in T-rex skeletons. This was unexpected as tissue was not expected to last anything like 65 million years. Evolutionists saw this as evidence that tissue can last that long, whilst creationists saw it as evidence that the fossils were not that old.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], by Carl Wieland.</ref>

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. [[Vision|Binocular vision]] is usually present in carnivores, as it helps them see their prey from far off, therefore it is known that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore.

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, the T-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Wolf

2007-04-20T01:20:00Z

Evoguy:

[[Image:480px-Canis lupus laying.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
Wolves are dog-like animals. They usually hunt in packs. As a sign of submissiveness, a wolf will expose his neck to another wolf, who (instead of taking advantage of this vulnerability) will assume a dominant role toward him.

Attempts were made in the 1930s and thereafter to eliminate these animals as pests, in the United States, particularly in [[Yellowstone National Park]].

The last wolf in England was shot on the fringes of Hounslow Heath, Middlesex, in 1756.

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is the ancestor of the domestic dog.

==External links==

*[[Never Cry Wolf]] - drama about a scientist who proved that wolves can live on rodents

[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Polar Bear

2007-04-20T01:18:26Z

Evoguy:

The '''Polar Bear''' (Ursus Maritimus) is a large species of [[bear]] found in the Arctic. They are capable of surviving extreme cold, as well as sea ice, snow and frozen land.

They have thick blubber to keep warm and white fur for camouflage. Polar bears [[hibernation|hibernate]] through much of the winter, usually in an excavated snow den. Their normal diet consists mainly of [[seal]]s, though in Canada they have been observed to take prey as small as [[lemming]]s.

They are one of the only natural predators of humans. For this reason they are greatly feared by arctic travelers.

Changes in the Earth's climate {{fact}} are threatening the polar bears habitat and the survival of the species:The current world population is estimated at around 20-25,000

Polar bears also starred in a series of [[Coca-cola]] advertisements that ran during the 1990s. These were not actual polar bears, but were compeuterized.

<references/>

[[Category:Bears]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-04-08T21:49:01Z

Evoguy:

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.

Debate:Why the Bible

2007-04-08T21:35:41Z

Evoguy:

==Nothing==
There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations.
-Helios

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

Dinosaur

2007-04-08T21:28:46Z

Evoguy:

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] word δεινόςσαύρα, meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast genus that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth.

Christians are often caricatured as believing that God planted the fossils to test their faith, and it's true that some Christians believe that dinosaurs never existed.
However, no informed creationists believes this.
All viewpoints accept that dinosaurs existed.
Young-Earth creationists, however, reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===

[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

They also use [[archeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]] and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationist twits point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar". It may have been a giraffe, with the long neck downwards to drink, and mistaken as a tail from a long distance.

==== Extinction ====

There are many theories as to why non-avian dinosaurs became extinct 65 mya. They range from the absurd, such as dying of boredom or drowning in dung, to more sensible ones such as volcanic activity. The most famous theory is that a comet threw dust into the air, blocking the sun and killing first the plants, then plant-eaters, then meat-eaters. This is supported by large amounts of iridium at the time, rare on earth but common on asteroids and comets. There is also a large crater off the coast of The Yucatan Penninsula, dated to be 65 mya.

==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

Non-avian dinosaurs are extinct. However, birds evolved from dinosaurs, and are now considered to be dinosaurs. While creationist freaks claim that there are no transitional forms, they obviously have never heard of Archaeopteryx.

===Evolutionary Perspective===

The view of evolutionists and others who accept the logical timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago.
In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> The crater is also visible.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref>

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-04-08T18:42:23Z

Evoguy:

{{debate}}

Post Your Thoughts

Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' Lateral gene transfer between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#*****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' inert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
#*****'''Counter:''' On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area.
#******'''Counter:''' Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --[[User:KarmicNoose|KarmicNoose]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.--

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
#**'''Counter:'''Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
#**'''Counter:'''If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong.

If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-04-08T18:42:07Z

Evoguy:

{{debate}}

Post Your Thoughts

Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' Lateral gene transfer between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#*****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' inert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
#*****'''Counter:''' On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area.
#******'''Counter:''' Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --[[User:KarmicNoose|KarmicNoose]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.--

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
#**'''Counter:'''Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
#**'''Counter:'''If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong.

If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.

Hyena

2007-04-07T22:31:29Z

Evoguy:

The '''Spotted Hyena''' is an [[African]] [[mammal]] with long legs that eats meat. It hunts in packs with other Hyenae,and it is very social because it is laughing all the time. For this reason, it is often called The Laughing Hyena.

Hyenae are predatory scavengers, meaning that they will sometimes feed on [[carrion]] left from a previous meal, instead of killing their own food. They have spots, and are not common outside of zoos.

[[Hilaire Belloc]] wrote a poem called ''The Hyaena'' (spelled with an "A" because he was [[British]]).

[[Category:Mammals]]

Polar Bear

2007-04-07T22:23:20Z

Evoguy:

The '''Polar Bear''' (Ursus Maritimus) is a large species of [[bear]] found in the Arctic. They are capable of surviving extreme cold, as well as sea ice, snow and frozen land.

They have thick blubber to keep warm and white fur for camouflage. Polar bears [[hibernation|hibernate]] through much of the winter, usually in an excavated snow den. Their normal diet consists mainly of [[seal]]s, though in Canada they have been observed to take prey as small as [[lemming]]s.

They are the only natural predator of mankind. For this reason they are greatly feared by arctic travelers.

Changes in the Earth's climate {{fact}} are threatening the polar bears habitat and the survival of the species:The current world population is estimated at around 20-25,000 <ref>http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/</ref>, and shrinking.

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Chimpanzee

2007-04-07T22:22:01Z

Evoguy:

Chimpanzee, often shortened to chimp, is the common name for the two extant species in the genus Pan. The better known chimpanzee is Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, living primarily in West, and Central Africa. Its cousin, the [[Bonobo]] or "Pygmy Chimpanzee" as it is known archaically, Pan paniscus, is found in the forests of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. The Congo River forms the boundary between the two species.

Most adherents to the theory of evolution hold the view that chimpanzees and humans share a close common ancestor, due to their similar natures and physiology.

==Measurements==
A full grown adult male chimpanzee can weigh from 35-70 kilograms (75-155 pounds) and stand 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4 feet) tall, while females usually weigh 26-50 kg (57-110 pounds) and stand 0.66-1 meters (2.0-3.5 feet) tall.

==Lifespan==
Chimpanzees rarely live past the age of 40 in the wild, but have been known to reach the age of 60 in captivity, and ''Tarzan'' star Cheeta is still alive [[as of 2006]] AD at the age of 74.

==Chimpanzee differences==
Anatomical differences between Common and Pygmy Chimpanzees are slight, but in [[sex|sexual]] and social behavior there are marked differences. Common Chimpanzees have an [[omnivore|omnivorous]] [[diet (nutrition)|diet]], a troop [[predation|hunting]] culture based on beta males led by an [[alpha male]], and highly complex social relationships; Bonobos, on the other hand, have a mostly [[herbivorous]] diet and an [[egalitarian]], [[matriarchal]], sexually receptive behavior. The exposed skin of the face, hands and feet varies from pink to very dark in both species, but is generally lighter in younger individuals, darkening as maturity is reached. Bonobos have longer arms and tend to walk upright more often than the Common Chimpanzee.{{fact}}

==Taxonomic relationships==
The genus ''Pan'' is now considered to be part of the subfamily [[Homininae]] to which [[human]]s also belong. [[Biology|Biologists]] believe that the two species of chimpanzees are the closest living [[evolution|evolutionary]] relatives to [[human]]s. It is thought that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas as recently as [[Pliocene|four]] to [[Miocene|seven million years ago]]. Groundbreaking research by [[Mary-Claire King]] in 1973 AD found 99% identical [[DNA]] between human beings and chimpanzees,<ref>Mary-Claire King, ''Protein polymorphisms in chimpanzee and ''human evolution''. It has even been proposed that ''troglodytes'' and ''paniscus'' belong with ''sapiens'' in the genus ''[[Homo (genus)|Homo]]'', rather than in ''Pan''. One argument for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees. Indeed cladistic taxonomy, based on both genetic difference and date of likely divergence, is very clear in placing both extant species of ''Pan'' in the genus ''Homo'', mainly because the genus ''Homo'' takes precedence on account of being coined first. It is very important, however, to consider where the differences in the genome appear. {{fact}}

A study published by Clark and Nielsen of [[Cornell University]] in the December 2003 AD issue of the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' highlights differences related to one of humankind's defining qualities — the ability to understand [[language]] and to communicate through speech. These macro-phenotypic differences, however, may owe less to physiology than might be assumed given that ''Homo sapiens'' developed modern cultural features long after the modern physiological features were in place and indeed competed averagely against other species of ''Homo'' with regard to tools, etc for many millennia. Differences also exist in the genes for smell, in genes that regulate the metabolism of amino acids and in genes that may affect the ability to digest various proteins.
===Fossils===
Many [[Human evolution|human fossils]] have been found, but chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005 AD. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from [[Kenya]]. This would indicate that both humans and members of the ''Pan'' [[clade]] were present in the East African [[Rift Valley]] during the Middle [[Pleistocene]].<ref name=firstfossil>{{cite journal | title = First fossil chimpanzee | last = McBrearty | first = S. | coauthors = N. G. Jablonski | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | date = 2005-09-01 | volume = 437 | pages = 105-108 | id = {{Entrez Pubmed|16136135}}}}</ref>

[[Category:Mammals]]

Homo sapiens

2007-04-07T22:19:52Z

Evoguy:

== The Origins of Man==

A large number of [[Christian|Christians]] and [[Creationism|creationist]] scientists believe that Homo Sapiens were created in [[God|God's]] image on day 6 of [[creation]].
:''And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'' ([[Genesis]] 1:26-27)

:''And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'' (Genesis 2:7)

The first man was Adam.
:''And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.'' (Genesis 2:15)
The first woman, Eve, was made from one of his ribs.
:''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.'' (Genesis 2:22)

Humans, or human beings, are classified by biologists as [[primates]] belonging to the mammalian species, [[Homo]] sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes). Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans now inhabit every continent including [[Antarctica]], with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

==The Origins of Man according to Evolution==

Humans have possibly been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>. They evolved from Homo ergaster or erectus. Humans' closest living relative is the chimpanzee.
== The Origins of Man in Mythology ==
Among Hindus, humans were created from a part of the cut up body of Purusha.

==See Also==

[[Misanthropy]]

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Anthropology]]

Primate

2007-04-07T22:17:24Z

Evoguy:

Primates are a group of mainly tropical mammals. Several hundred species belong to the order, including humans.

They are often put into 3 large groups: Prosimians, including lemurs, tarsiers, and lorises. Monkeys are actually split into smaller groups: New World Monkeys, like
spider and howler monkeys, and Old World monkeys like languars and baboons. Apes are somewhat similar to monkeys, but have no tail. They include gorillas, gibbons, chimps, and humans.

[[Category:Mammals]]

Bird

2007-04-07T22:00:33Z

Evoguy:

Birds are normally feathered and flying animals. Ostriches, penguins, and emus are birds that don't fly. Robins, sparrows, and the Bald Eagle are more typical flying birds. Birds lay [[egg]]s.

== Creationists' Perspective ==

Creationists also contend that birds being descendants of dinosaurs is unreasonable and is also not scientifically supported with any evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>

In addition, creationists cite the current online World Book Encyclopedia which states:

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." <ref>http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes</ref><ref>http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/dinosaurs/creatures_birds</ref>

Creationist scientist Dr. [[Jonathon Safarti]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html</ref>

Creationists also cite the March 2003 issue of Scientific American which stated:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers'''...." <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp</ref><ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp</ref>

==Science==
Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over 100 million years ago. There are many well known transitional fossils to prove this. The best known (and one argued as fake by creationists despite there being 10 different fossils found at different times) is Archaeopteryx lithographica which is from the late Jurassic (about 150 million years ago) of Germany. However, Archaeopteryx fossils have been proven to be real as a result of studies. There are many other transitional fossils <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird</ref> and more are being found.

There are many publishings in the well respected peer reviewed science journals such as ''Nature'' and ''Science'' that also agree with birds evolving from dinosaurs. Here is a publishing in Nature:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Several features, including a carinate sternum and reduced fibula, suggest that ''Mononychus olecranus'' is more closely related to modern birds than is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica''. The two skeletons are among the best preserved fossils known of a primitive bird, and emphasize the complexity of the morphological transformation from nonavialian theropods to modern birds. The occurrence of such a primitive bird in the Late Cretaceous reflects the paucity of Mesozoic bird fossils and suggests that the early radiation of avialians is only beginning to be sampled
<ref>Nature 362, 623 - 626 (15 April 1993)</ref>
</blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: biology]]
[[Category:Birds]]

North America

2007-04-07T21:56:21Z

Evoguy:

'''North America''' is the land mass consisting of [[The USA]], [[Mexico]], and [[Canada]], as well as some Caribbean islands and (in some [[atlas]]es) the small nations of [[Central America]]. (See [[banana republic]].) It is partly in the earth's [[northern hemisphere]], and mostly in the [[western hemisphere]]. To the north it borders the [[Arctic Ocean]], to the east it borders the [[Atlantic Ocean]], to the southeast the [[Caribbean Sea]], and to the south and west is the [[Pacific Ocean]]. [[South America]] is connected northeast of North America by the [[Isthmus of Panama]]. Some scientists include [[Greenland]] in North America, but as Greenland is actually a territory of [[Denmark]], it is technically part of [[Europe]].

North America's area is 24,490,000 km2 (9,450,000 sq mi) and covers more than 4.8% of the earths surface. It is the third largest continent by area (First is [[Asia]], then [[Africa]]) and, of October 2006 it's population was over 514,600,000. North America is also the fourth continent by population (First is [[Asia]], then [[Africa]] and [[Europe]])

Like South America, North America was named after [[Amerigo Vespucci]].

[[Category:Continents]]