Tyrannosaurus Rex Was a Vegetarian

Secularism: - secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. (Random House Dictionary) - the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. (Random House Dictionary) - religious skepticism or indifference. (American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language) - The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. (American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language) Yes... hmm... It appears to be the case that some sources are a tad more reliable than Wikipedia. Plus, Con is fully aware which definition of "secularism" I am implying in this context -- however, he is simply trying to be finical. || Con asked for proof: "(non-selfish-gene)" "Dawkins explicitly abandons the Darwinian concept of individuals as the units of selection: ‘I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity,' Thus, we should not talk about kin selection and apparent altruism. Bodies are not the appropriate units. Genes merely try to recognize copies of themselves wherever they occur. They act only to preserve copies and make more of them. They couldn't care less which body happens to be their temporary home. […] Still, I find a fatal flaw in Dawkins' attack from below. No matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing he cannot give them — discrete visibility to natural selection. Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly. It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies. It favors some bodies because they are stronger, better insulated, earlier in their sexual maturation, fiercer in combat, or more beautiful to behold."2 - Stephen Jay Gould Yes, Dawkin's gene-centred view of evolution has always been, and will continue to be, challenged. || Con said: "Obviously not or else the accusation would not have been made that these eggs consist of it's main diet. It would make no sense at all for it to protect another creature's eggs. Your argument falls apart." But wait!!! ... "Recently, however, in Mongolia, paleontologists found some eggs containing fossilized embryos that were identified as embryonic Oviraptors (1). These eggs were very similar to those eggs found in 1924 that originally implicated the Oviraptor as a thief. If would seem that the Oviraptor fossil in 1924 was probably a parent of the eggs in the nest, and not an egg stealer but a nurturer." [EnchantedLearning] Hmm... So, *whose* argument did you say fell apart? || Con: "Some facts may be interpretable, but some conclusions are more likely than others." It has never occurred to you, then, that the conclusions appear "more likely than others" to you due to your secular world-view? More importantly, my opponent has again failed to show how the T-rex's teeth would not be suited for a vegetarian diet, while I have clearly marked few instances in which such sharp, serrated teeth can in fact be beneficial to the herbivorous creature. Having instigated this debate, Con has done nothing in his arguments but appeal to secular authority. He has chosen not to present any of the "scientific" evidence to which he ardently refer, and the logical fallacy he committed has been made extremely clear in his contention. ---------- 1. Osborn, H.F. "Three new Theropoda, Protoceratops zone, central Mongolia." American Museum Novitates, 144: 12 pp., 8 figs.; (American Museum of Natural History) New York. (11.7.1924). 2. Gould, Stephen Jay. "Caring Groups and Selfish Genes," The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 89-90.