What needs clarified? Every fossil of T-Rex remains the same from the youngest to the oldest found. Not a single solitary fossil shows evidence of evolution. Each one is distinct and remains that way for every one you can find.
When is a T-rex not a T-rex? When it's
Tyrannosaurus bataar.
Tyrannosaurus is the
type genus of the superfamily
Tyrannosauroidea, the
family Tyrannosauridae, and the subfamily Tyrannosaurinae; in other words it is the standard by which paleontologists decide whether to include other species in the same group. Other members of the tyrannosaurine subfamily include the North American
Daspletosaurus and the
Asian Tarbosaurus,
[66][67] both of which have occasionally been synonymized with
Tyrannosaurus.
[29][
page needed] Tyrannosaurids were once commonly thought to be descendants of earlier large theropods such as
megalosaurs and
carnosaurs, although more recently they were reclassified with the generally smaller
coelurosaurs.
[28]
Diagram showing the differences between a generalized
Tarbosaurus (A) and
Tyrannosaurus (B) skull
In 1955, Soviet
paleontologist Evgeny Maleev named a new species,
Tyrannosaurus bataar, from
Mongolia.
[68] By 1965, this species had been renamed
Tarbosaurus bataar.
[69] Despite the renaming, many
phylogenetic analyses have found
Tarbosaurus bataar to be the
sister taxon of
Tyrannosaurus rex,
[67] and it has often been considered an Asian species of
Tyrannosaurus.
[28][70][71] A recent redescription of the skull of
Tarbosaurus bataar has shown that it was much narrower than that of
Tyrannosaurus rex and that during a bite, the distribution of stress in the skull would have been very different, closer to that of
Alioramus, another Asian tyrannosaur.
[72] A related
cladistic analysis found that
Alioramus, not
Tyrannosaurus, was the sister taxon of
Tarbosaurus, which, if true, would suggest that
Tarbosaurus and
Tyrannosaurus should remain separate.
[66] The discovery and description of
Qianzhousaurus would later disprove this and revealed that
Alioramus belonged to the clade
Alioramini.
[73][74] The discovery of the tyrannosaurid
Lythronax further indicates that
Tarbosaurus and
Tyrannosaurus are closely related, forming a clade with fellow Asian tyrannosaurid
Zhuchengtyrannus, with
Lythronax being their sister taxon.
[75][76] A further study from 2016 by Steve Brusatte, Thomas Carr et al., also indicates
Tyrannosaurus may have been an immigrant from Asia, as well as a possible descendent of
Tarbosaurus. The study further indicates the possibility that
Tyrannosaurus may have driven other tyrannosaurids that were native to North America extinct through competition.
[77] Other finds in 2006 indicate giant tyrannosaurs may have been present in North America as early as 75 million years ago. Whether or not this specimen belongs to
Tyrannosaurus rex, a new species of
Tyrannosaurus, or a new genus entirely is still unknown.
[78]
LOL.
There were tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers saying the Milky-Way was the entire universe too.
Good to see that scientists aren't dogmatic in what they accept.
There were peer reviewed papers about the coelacanth too, until we actually found a living one and tested its DNA tho. Funny how we don’t hear anything about the transitional colecanth anymore.
What specifically is wrong with the papers written about coelacanth's?
Already have, it’s called reality, you know, Husky A and Mastiff B make Chinook C. Or Asian A and African B make Afro-Asian C. Ahh but what’s a little empirical evidence have to do with evolution. My bad.
No one disputes that an "african and asian make afro-asian". What is disputed is where you think african and asian came from in the first place.
You mean it’s sudden appearance fully formed with no predecessors? Maybe you should ask your theory that same question......
If I meant that I would have typed it.
Why do you think it doesn't have predecessors? Surely they would have been lobe finned fish, anatomically they're very similar aren't they?
I actually wondered how would you account for the fact that theory of evolution predicted that it would be found in a specific geographical region within a specific geological time frame? Was it coincidence? luck?
Would prefer to believe that they were specially created during the Devonian period, at a very specific time just before the emergence of land based tetrapods?
You mean the same biologists and paleontologist that see animals mate right in front of their eyes, ignore their own scientific definitions and call them separate species? And you wonder why you can’t follow them either......
LOL, I'm starting to think that you use the fact that you don't like the taxonomic classifaction system as an exuse to ignore anything you don't agree with.
200 years of scientific enquiry dissmissed!
Same Kind. Are you claiming they are separate species? Why not, no more differences in finches.
It's been explained and explained why not... see my previous post to you. Please desist from dishonestly feigning ignorance.
Why wouldn’t there be differences as the races interbred?
Because you seem to be claiming that the races began at the end points (geographically - africa and asia in this example) and met in the middle. I'm saying that if evolution is a fact they would have a start point and radiate outwards with a gradual change in appearance from Africa to Asia.
What part of Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian escaped you?
Please don't say this to me again. I have a mixed race daughter, I know how it works.
Right, like they inferred with those ceratopsia? Starting with Triceratops and Torosaurus? But then we’ve already seen how well they did there in getting things all messed up.... and that’s with babies and adults of the same exact species, let alone different breeds or subspecies within the species..... yah, I am sure they’d get it all wrong just as they have with ceratopsia.
I don't know, it's your hypothetical. The classification of dogs doesn't seem to confuse anyone apart from you.
