Evolution Logic

so you have no problem with the fact that whales are even-toed ungulates? in the same "kind" with hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope? ok. let's talk about tiktaalik, the fish with legs. i suppose he was "just created that way?"

---

That statement shows a major misunderstanding of evolution. It is not directional, towards adding something. Rather evolution is a history, it is looking backwards at what did happen. It could be gaining legs or losing them, or as happened several times, gaining wings, losing them and gaining them yet again.It is change. And it is the history of what critters survived long enough to reproduce. It is not some issue of more or better, simply what worked.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you missed something very important. REPTILES DO NOT HAVE HAIR FOLLICLES! Reptile Skin Basics Thus, they cannot have hair! But you cannot prove this. "Almost certainly" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it? But not exactly proven? "Somewhat certain" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it? Can you show me fossil forms leading to and from this creature, showing the slow progression of these changes?

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

I think you missed something very important - reptiles do have follicles - scale follicles. I mean, did you miss this? It's from the very article you link to:

quote:

---

Epidermis: characterized by complete covering of keratin (the same stuff that makes up mammalian hair and mammalian, avian, and reptilian nails/claws also makes up the plates we call "scales").

---

That would seem to undercut almost every conclusion in your post. Almost certain isn't good enough for you to come to a conclusion? Even about stuff that happened so long ago?Why the high standards? Why so high only for evolution stuff? I'm fairly certain that you don't apply this same standard to anything else, do you?

I never said that the whale was the same "kind" as hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope. You said that, not me, I do not believe in that. Ahem! Did you actually do research on Tiktaalik? Well, I did. And guess what, I wasn't satisfied. Tiktaalik is NOT a fish with legs, you are overstating the truth, read some science articles about it. Did you look at the actual find? I did, and those "stubs" don't make a leg in any way. I call them stubs, that's what they are. They do not in any way resemble a full leg. And did you think of the possibility that those stubs could be flexible flippers, like those of seals? Hmmm...? Maybe that's what they are, not fin-legs. And, they didn't find the rear end of Tiktaalik. I bet that when and if they do, they would put down Tiktaalik and forget about the whole matter, they would probably blush and hide the evidence. Because the rear end would contain much valuable information about how Tiktaalik really was. Like if the pelvis was connected to the rest of the body, to allow legs that would actually do something. If it had back legs, probably not. And other things.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

But, that case would not help evolution. If it were losing legs, then that's not showing evolution, where one cell supposedly evolved into a man with legs and arms and a body and a head, etc. This would not help evolution, it would only make it worse. Evolution needs great increases to make a single cell evolve into a human! But decreases don't help at all!

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

tell that to those crazy flying reptiles with hair. internal organs are notoriously bad at fossilizing.what we can do is compare the bones we have in the rock with the bones of living animals. a dinosaur like velociraptor has the rib structure similar to a crocodile, a hip similar to a bird's in position, and the hollow bones of a bird. what do you suppose his innards looked like? evidently, he'd have a crocodilian lung -- as birds still do. but because of the hollow bones, he'd have air sacs like a bird.hard anatomy is a good hint at soft anatomy. you wouldn't seem a diaphragm and human lung inside a dinosaur skeleton. but you would see something related to both a crocodile and a bird.

---

Evolution has no direction or destination.Implying that evolution requires gaining legs is simply wrong? It shows a profound lack of understanding of the subject.Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : I know it's old, but I decided to make it less personal and offensive.

But not HAIR FOLLICLES! We all know reptiles have scales! But someone claimed some of them have hair. Yet reptiles do NOT have HAIR follicles, thus hair would NOT grow! No, I read that. And it does not harm my conclusion. Just because God decided to use the same substance to make hair and scales, does not mean one evolved into the other one! It's just more effective! God knows what He's doing! Well, hello! I mean, I could say to an evolutionist, "I am almost certain evolution is immpossible due to genetics and other things." He wouldn't take that! Or would he?But here, I'll say this, and we'll see the results.I AM CERTAIN EVOLUTION (MACROEVOLUTION) HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL HAPPEN! I CAN BET ON IT!

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

you said that losing limbs was acceptable. and that must mean that a creature like pakicetus (the whale with legs) is still "just a whale." nevermind that he is an even-toed ungulate. i see at least one leg bone (maybe two), some rudimentary digits, and something like a lobed fin on the end. what's it look like to you? did you? seal flippers are limbs, with fully formed digits. above is one hindlimb of a seal. or, maybe they're more like the "limbs" of the coelacanth:which is more or less the same, with less distinct digits. its skull makes it a fish, if that's what you're trying to say. the neck connection, however, is more amphibian. however, he doesn't have enough of a leg to be a land creature. we was clearly something that lived in the shallows, and used his rudimentary limbs to scoot around ponds (and maybe from pond to pond as lungfish and even catfish today do) to greater advantage that just the lobe-finned fish.

---

Where?!? I don't see any, I can't speak to something I can't see! Show me through your binoculars where you spotted them. I would understand why. So we cannot be completely sure of this matter, right? What if the bones were hollow, but it didn't have air sacks? How would we know for sure? Guess we can't. See, dinosaurs had big and heavy bones to support all that weight. How could a dinosaur turn into a bird with light bones?

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Yes, I know evolution is unguided.But how would a fish turn into an amphibian without gaining legs or parts of them or starting to evolve them from those fins?

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

again, tell that to this reptile that has hair: no, not the same SUBSTANCE. the same GENE. one gene produces both. by default, it produces feathers. with modifaction (addition of one gene) they become scutes in certain places. without the gene, they are feathers.

---

Yup, pretty clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about.That's not a problem, we have all been in exactly that position.When life started here, oh 3 or 4 billion years ago, it was single celled. At that stage there was no way to go except towards more complex. But over the years, things happened, and at times it was the less complex critters that were the winners in the survival game.Remember, that humans are not a goal. We are just one of many of the critters, and it's way to early to tell if we are a successful one or not. It's absolutely certain that we are not going to be among the most successful designs, turtles and cockroaches got us beat hands down there.Evolution is what works. If a creature that lost it's legs as it moved into a water environment had an advantage over the one with legs, and the legless wonder reproduced better than the legged one, eventually the population would be legless.Evolution is just a history of what worked, what didn't.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i pictured one above for you. his name is sordes pilosus, and he is a dimorphodon. which is a subdivision of pterosaurs, which alongside dinosaurs are archosaurs, which are sauropsids ("reptiles"). and it has hair, or at least something very, very similar to it. we can be nearly certain. an outside possibility, since one of the two features had to have developed first. no, see, that's the part i just went over. not all dinosaurs did, and the smaller theropods certainly did not. for instance, all deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs [velociraptor], troodons, archaeopteryx, and all modern birds) have hollow bones.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---