But Buddha....SNG was only trying to help you with your point, illustrating that even though Gorillas have some sharp teeth, they still need those big molars to eat grass (or salad in the case.), like the creationist supposedly say the T-Rex was...
Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?
LOL buddha, that image of the t rex with the cow teeth cracked me up hardcore man. it's nice once and a while to give creationists a run for their money. usually we spend all our time rebutting their feeble attempts to discredit evolution, and rarely bother to say:
"hey! take a look at the rafter in your own eye, jesus freak!"
and, regarding SNG and his intentions, perhaps you should take a look through his topic history. you might see a few called "evidence for evolution". ;)
thanks for posting....
I recall one of those "Watching the World" columns claiming that scientists had found an alligator-like fossil that apparently ate vegetation.
So of course, the Society latched onto that, but conveniently neglect to mention the mountains of other fossil finds which clearly demonstrate evolution.
Tetrapod!! Has Simba gone vegetarian too!!??
Maybe seethsky and SNG read the same Awake! article. ---There was an article in 1982 entitled, "When All Nature Will Be In Harmony" claiming that the gorilla was an example of a creature with sharp teeth that ate vegetation, ostensibly proving that sharp teeth were not a clear indicator of what creatures ate.
It was sheer ignorance. In determining diet by dental formula, it's the molars and premolars (Or the lack thereof) that matter, not the canines. As SNG showed, the Gorilla's dental formula is virtually identical to our own, right down to the cusp patterns of the molars.
With the gorilla, the elongated cannines are an example of sexual dimorphism. They occur in the male only and the female subsists on the same diet with canines that are greatly reduced in length. A similar phenomenon occurs with baboons and sea lions, where the canines of the male are about 3 sizes larger than those of the female
Missing Links Disprove a Theory???
What About THIS One, Creationists!!!
Creationists, aka the not-so-intelligent "Intelligent Design" advocates, claim that before the "fall of Adam" there was *no death and killing. Therefore, the T-Rex must have had cud-chewing flat cow-like teeth at the time, suitable for eating vegetables, rather than massive fangs, with are totally useless for eating grass and vegetables. That being the case, WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS WHICH SHOW THIS??? Where are the fossil T-Rex's with the flat grinding cud-chewing molars? If their theory is correct, there should be maybe 1,000 herbivore T-Rex remains to every carnivore, seeing how the T-Rex's wouldn't have become meat eaters until fairly recently, at "fall of Adam" about 6,000 years ago. That means there should be millions and millions of years prior to that where all the T-Rex's ate vegetables, and only a few years where they ate meat. So where are the remains, and in the proper ratio, that Creationism demands? Ohhh, they are MISSING, are they? Totally, completely, and utterly MISSING from the fossil record, are they? And you arrogantly MOCK evolution, claiming that ANY "gaps in the theory for which there is no evidence" disprove it? If that's so, then the lack of cow-like T-Rex's throws the ball right back into your court, you friggin' hypocrites. YOU made the assertion, now WHERE'S the evidence??? Thousands upon thousands of fossils have been dug up in the last 200 years, and not ONCE has a carnivore (T-Rex, Lion, Shark etc) been found with the kind of teeth your "Intelligent Design" theory demands. The FACTS show one thing, your FAITH demands another.
* From the #1 Creationist organization in the world: Answers in Genesis} People and animals alike were given plants to eat in the beginning (Genesis 1:29–30). There was no meat-eating before the Fall, whether by man or by animal. The carnivorous part of the present ‘food chain’ did not exist. And God appropriately described His creation as ‘ very good ’ (Genesis 1:31).
Dear Tetrapod Sapien
Many Buddhas shall be visiting here, hopefully, not just myself. Log-in names and passwords are a wonderful Xmas gift for sharing with the dozens of ones online friends. Hopefully, many will accept the invitation.
The god of the bible merely had to wave his magic wand and PRESTO-CHANGEO all of the dead and living tyranosaurus rex now possess fangs. If god did it with the living T Rex he did it with the dead T Rex too! Plus all other formerly cud-chewing animals that became carnivores! See how simple it all is when you factor godmagic into the equation?
I am wondering though: Since ALL animals prior to the fall of man were vegetarians, why were only SOME animals changed into carnivores? Why not ALL? What was the deciding factor?
Perhaps someone pissed on a wall and engendered the wrath of god?
This entire thread assumes that all creationists believe that before the Fall there where not any carnivores. That is a false assumption. Many creationists / believers in God, such as myself, believe that before and during Adams time there where animals that ate meat. The early names of these animals give credence to this statement, as they were often descriptive of the animals activities, and appropriately applied to meat eaters their qualities. I also fail to see why a Creationist, and/or Intelligent Designer, can not come to believe in the use of Evolution as a mechanism for creation, unless of course, you are discussing only those strange people that believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days.... Creationism does not supply a mechanism, only a maker.