Quote Originally Posted by GrifTheGreat View Post
Ill give it a look. I'm not completely closed on the idea. I've always wandered if there we're more to what they claim. Like you said about the holly wood bull. I wasn't referring to that ****. I usually watch documentories on dinosaurs and other such prehistoric creatures and I have yet to see one that said that their were large Raptors covered entirely with feathers. Just the headress and yes some on their arms, but not the whole body. The closest to this that I know of is the Archeoptorix or however you spell its name, but it was small. Chicken sized right?
Sadly, many of those documentaries are every bit as bad as Hollywood. Multiple times, the two paleontologists in our department have ranted at great length throughout lunch about wild inaccuracies presented as fact even on "respectable" TV documentary channels like Discovery. I even know of one person who threatened to sue them after they edited his words to make it sound like he was saying the exact opposite of the actual data (the channel backed down).

Ok this makes more sence now. Thanks for the link Skeletal. This is different from the Evolution I'm used to. It actually states that ist a change in the gene pool rather than just apearing out of nowhere. It basically states that there already has to bemore than just one of a creature to cause an evolutionary event to take place within that group of creatures braught on by some sort of event. Like with the moths landing on the soot covered Berch trees and thus not being eaten by birds because of camoflage and yet the bright colored ones are eaten so more dark colored moth were allowed to breed. Natural selection being a main part of that evolutionary event. Also with the ones with tails that are bright, but mimic a poisonous moth and the dark without tails being able to hide and yet they are from the same type of moth. It isn't that dry of a read. I've read worse believe me.
Glad to help! Let me know if you have any questions!