evolutionary chain

Reptile to MammalReptile to BirdAmphibian to ReptileThat one says that there is no unambiguous chain of fossils between Amphibian and Reptile Fish to Amphibian

Well, one thing you'd have to ask is; if not where did they come from.Of course, it is not possible to say that any one individual is a direct descendant of any other.I'm British by birth. If we found a skeleton in a 500 year old tomb in southern England could I say for sure he was a relative (all the records are long gone)? Can I say with reasonable certainty that I had a relative living around there at that time?Why, exactly, isn't this what you were looking for? Exactly what are you looking for?Given the real world why would you expect to find whatever it is you are looking for?

You're more detailed steps might be useful. However, I find it surprising that you aren't happy with the Homonidae chain.Over 6 million years one can expect a lot of complexity in the evolution of a lineage. Don't let the details of the twigs of the trees bother you. Look at the overall picture.There is strong trend marked out by those fossils. Follow it from one side to the other. That, set in the context of other evidence should be somewhat meaningful.You were given links to a number of other series. What didn't you like about them?

I think you've been given half a dozen chains in this thread. What problem do you have with those you've been given?

I thought I understood what those diagrams meant. If I had been asked the details there is a good chance I would have gotten it wrong.That was very helpful.

Could you now tell us what those percentages are supposed to mean?I think that there is some rather strange reading of them going on. You might note that the family level is the lowest given and that it is a % of currently living groups. Consider that when you tell us how you interpret this result.Also, why would you post this when it isn't relevent once you've been given several "chains"?

No, not completely. If the entire ark story was somehow proven we would have a problem with the dating of things. We would still have a series of forms of life that changed over time. The time frame would be that of the hyper evolutionists as in AIG and ICR. We would still have evolution. The problem would then be to come up with a mechanism that can allow for such hugely rapid change of such a large nature in such a short period of time. The change is still there.RM thinks that "holes" in the fossil record are "flaws" in the theory. The distinction has already been explained to him. You are not going to get him to understand a thing. He is far to blinded for that. (That appears to be the most likely explanation and the most generous one).

It isn't easy; care is needed if you want as precise a date as possible. You do realize that Marsh was active over a century ago?However, that is all beside the point. We are not discussing details of dating in this thread. If you don't want to get into a complete jumble I suggest you try to stick to one thing at a time.Of course, everything is related to everything else but if you follow every single interesting point that comes up you will make zero progress on all of them.For now, work with relative dates (which is all Marsh had). You are looking for a "chain" -- how much time that represents can, perhaps, be left to one side for now. Do you think?If you really want to dig into dating there is a lot of material in the dateing forum. (However, I haven't found a date for Saturday night there )

Why? They are found in lower layers as you go from right to left. Why do the precise dates matter? Any dating should be taken to the dating threads. It seems you (among others) don't accept dates but have no interest in attempting to answer the points made in the "correlations" thread in dating. Why is that? Why? I am sure they are not at the same scale. This is to show the transformation of form not size. Why does that matter?These fossils exist. That is not a fairy tale.These fossils occur in the order given. That is not a fairy tale.These fossils are one of many evolutionary chains asked for. That is not a fairy tale.Now you need to get into the details. Since you take things on faith alone with no reference to the actual data why do you care the tiniest bit about this material. It is of ZERO concern to you.It would only be of concern to those who, unlike you, want to interfer with the education of students based on the available facts; those who, unike you, want to allow unsupported statements of anyones belief into the classroom; those who, unlike you, have faith that is so weak it they desparately need the support of the much miligned science.Since you are not in those groups why did you bother to post in a thread that is concerned with objective facts? You are the one who uses a system of understanding that is willing to accept non-objective beliefs -- that is, what many understand to be fairy tales.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2005 08:06 PM