"either way, and not to be insulting, this might be included in that category. the evolutionary answer involves basically everything from proto-chordates, to boneless fishes, to osteicthys, to tiktaalik and early amphibians, to reptiles, to archosauria, to dinosaurs, to theropoda, into aves. way, way too much to go over at one time, in a single sitting -- way to much even for a single thread.
developmentally, i can't answer that question very well. someone else will have to take it. "
This is what I cannot understand. If you do not know how a bone forms from birth, something which scientists can actually observe, why would you even start to think you know how it developed from nothing?
And the reason I post this thread, is that if science does not even know the complexities involved in the developmental process, than it seems ridiculous for science to question its ultimate origin. Why not actually do the scientific stuff first. Spend more time observing and testing, and less guessing about the past. Of course, this whole thought is based on the fact that I have not found answers from science. That of course does not mean that one does not exist. That is where you all come in.