Show one complete lineage in evolution

a tantalizing hint. but thanks

Or too many facts that you just can't figure a dance step around. You didn't answer why the therapsids had to be the most common. Sigh. The tap dance ... tip toe around the facts and then say there is no relation between them. The denial of facts does not make them go away, or have any effect on the continued evolution of life, it just makes you willfully ignorant (you have the information but you choose to ignore it). Either you did not read or did not understand the article, big surprise. You also have not "answered the therapsid progression thing" You just denied it. So you are now claiming that this is "micro"evolution if I follow your "thinking" ... and we now have the difference between "micro" and "macro" has moved up to the level of CLASS ... two more levels to go and "macro" evolution is gone and all you have left is "micro"evolution (or just plain vanilla evolution, as has been said before). Congratulations.ps -- I also see no further comments on the genetic issue, either here or on the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread:
http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? -->EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?As noted in the post you replied to, this means you have no answer for this issue, which means you "concede that there is no difference in the levels of evolution at the genetic level" -- thanks.Enjoy.

Thank you for confirming that you now regard CLASS distinction of mammals and reptiles to be evolution within kind or microevolution. This means that macroevolution can only apply to KINGDOM and PHYLUM. When kind = KINGDOM, what is left?Of course the natural world is totally indifferent to your, or anyone else’s, human interpretation as it will continue to act in the manner of the natural world regardless. And each person’s beliefs are only human interpretation — it is just that some of it is based on reproducible, testable, and verifiable or falsifiable observations, theories and experiments, and some is based on wishful thinking. Why? because you don't understand the process? I have asked you several times to expand this argument with detail and example, but so far all it is has been groundless assertion.EXPLAIN IT.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-27-2004 04:50 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thanks for confirming thatnow, again: Why? because you don't understand the process? I have asked you several times to expand this argument with detail and example, but so far all it is has been groundless assertion.PLEASE EXPLAIN IT.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Robert has basically said that "speciation within a kind" ("micro"evolution) now applies at the CLASS level:http://EvC Forum: Show one complete lineage in evolution yeah, I don't get where he comes up with "great numbersand kinds of great intermediaries" either, other than badly misunderstanding reality.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Let's cut to the chase and put the cards on the table here. Let's suppose that we can show a living example of every single critter ever alive on the planet.Then that we can show that each "species" as classified by science can mate\interbreed with each adjoining "species" thus showing each and every differentiation between species to be "just speciation events" or "micro"evolution in the normal creationist parlance.This would mean that every single thing living is all of the original "kind" and "micro"evolution is all there is.When we compare this to what evolution says, it is remarkable similar. The differentiation into species and other classifications is really arbitrary, but useful for discussing the differences.When we compare this to what creationists normally say, it is fraught with problems, yet this is where Robert is going. The only myopia is thinking that because all animals are dividable into different groups in the present means they can be so divided in the past. The therapsids showed this to be false.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

set background on that gif to white for better visibilitythe start code is "blockcolor=white" in'sthe end code is "/blockcolor" in'sput the whole thing inside a "qs" to "/qs" box so the blockcolor applies to the boxNice picture

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Remember too that all animals that grow within an egg type process are immersed in liquid during that phase. Ability of newborns to learn to swim also is known, and would be a survival advantage.What is NOT seen here is that the lenght of time that human free-divers can stay down has increased significantly beyond the ability of the japanes pearl divers (who have\had been doing this for years and have not transformed into "marinized" humans). Or that the time the japanese divers can stay down is significantly greater than the newer free-divers that train for the competitions. If they were able to adapt, these pearl divers that have culturally been doing this for thousands of years should be developing fins on hands and feet to fit Roberts scenario. It ain't so.See Oceans Online: Situs Belajar Cara Membuat Website & Wordpress for some interesting information, particularly about how long free-diving has been around.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}