|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So are reptiles and mammals in the same kind or not? Please answer this question. Also, what rules do you follow to determine which speciesis are in the same kind? Are they arbitrary rules that change on a whim, or are their stringent guidlines that you are following?
quote: Then why isn't aren't all of these species in the same strata? Why are species that were living at the same time sorted into different geologic layers according to body morphology? Why does this order fit perfectly into an evolutionary model that is also reflected in mammalian fetal development?
quote: The platypus is a perfect example. It shares both reptillian characteristics (egg laying) and mammalian characteristics (fur and mammary glands). Thank you for mentioning more evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles. Also, isn't creationism a human interpretation of the Bible?
quote: Look at the title of the thread. What are creationists asking for with such a statement? Could you please explain that to me please.
quote: Which is why science is tentative and why science does not search for absolute proof. However, science is able to prove something false, which it has done with special creation 6,000 years ago.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Robert,
Your argument is that no matter how many transitionals we find it is not evidence that evolution occured. Is this correct or not?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: What is common speciation?
quote: I don't see a Bible, I see a bunch of letters strewn on a page. Come on Rob. Look at reptiles now and what do you see? One middle ear bone, three lower jaw bones. Look at mammals today, what do you see? Three middle ear bones, one lower jaw bone. Look at mammal fetal development today and what do you see? Two bones in the lower jaw move up into the middle ear joining the single middle ear bone. What do we see in the fossil record? Over time, two lower jawbones moving up into the middle ear along with the development of numerous other mammalian charateristics. If I were a defense attorney I would want you in the jury box.
quote: Why should the fossil record contain every species that ever lived? For example, passenger pigeons numbered in the billions before man caused their extinction. We have yet to find a passenger pigeon fossil. Also, creationists claim that the preservation of complete fossils are indicative of rapid burial by a world wide flood? So the question to you is where are these millions of complete fossils buried at? Why do we keep finding one or two fossils for each species, and incomplete ones at that? Why don't we find millions upon millions of fossils due to this supposed rapid burial?
quote: The other problem is that we never know if a lineage is complete. Also, intermediate species may not differ in the make up of their skeleton. That is, we can't tell if two fossil species interbred or not. What we can see in the fossil record (such as the reptile to mammal transition) is general trends of morphology that happen over time.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: And they do:
Along with the time scale:
Again, cladistics and stratigraphy match up very well (as usual). This is a complete, smooth transitional series that are ordered in the fossil record. Go here for the full story.
quote: So what should an intermediate between a land mammal and an aquatic mammal look like? If our interpretation is incorrect, then what should the actuall intermediate look like?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Of course it is interpretation, what else are you going to do with data. Data has to be interpretated in order for it to say anything. Evolution is an interpretation that is CONSISTENT with the data while creationism is not. This is what science does, interpret data so that ALL of the data fits into a coherent picture through testable theories. Second, speciation is exactly what evolution is. Change over time and genetic isolation (ie speciation). So you are saying that you interpret this as being evolutionary change just as I do. There is nothing stopping this sort of change creating greater diversity over greater spans of time resulting in the biodiversity we see today.
quote: Will you please point me to the evidence that led you to this conclusion. This is quite a claim, going from a land mammal to a fully adapted aquatic mammal in just a few (5-10?) generations.
quote: So we go from otter to blue whale in how long? 5-10 generations? And how long would they stay in that niche? One generation, or about 5 years? This isn't even enough time for an otter like environment to develop after a catastrophic world wide flood. Next, you have an otter giving birth to an aquatic mammal that weighs upwards of 300 pounds at birth. Care to explain how that happens? Don't you realize how wild and unsupported your claims are? Especially in the face of known transitional fossils for aquatic mammals that show a step by step process that never anything as drastic as what you are claiming.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-03-2004 02:46 PM This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-07-2004 11:27 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Not one human can hold their breath as long as either a dolphin or whale. Nor can humans withstand the same depths for prolonged periods as whales can. Also, humans need freshwater while whales can drink saltwater. Sorry, but the amount of adaptation needed to adjust to a TOTALLY aquatic lifestyle requires mutation and natural selection. There is no other way around it. Also, do you see anything that resembles a whale that lives in a savanna? Of course not. It is a much larger change in physiology and morphology than you think.
quote: But the fossils are here now as is the DNA of living organisms. Both of these point to the slow evolution of land mammals to aquatic mammals.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yep. And in only a couple hundred years. Added in edit: From Rob in mssg 225:
About the whale and land relative. Speciation must of been a thing of only a few generations. Most completed within a few decades or centuries of the flood. There would be no intermediates in actuality. However there would be probably something in between the land and sea like a coastal creature like the sea otter. They filled all niches immediately and so inbetweens would be there but not as part of the speciation. Rob So he is doing away with the land mammal to whale transitionals by saying that they shouldn't exist since whales evolved in only a few generations. He is claiming that the fossils are not transitionals but rather species with no links to either whale or land mammal. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-21-2004 02:18 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: AHH, finally, we get to the bottom of what makes Rob tick. No amount of evidence is going to make Rob go against the sheep herder's manual. Oh well, I had hoped that he would be open minded. I guess not.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Where did anyone argue that a break in the Royal Line does not refute the claim?
quote: The formation of new species has been observed.Observed Instances of Speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024