On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

Have you ever taken a biology course? There is a lot of study of species that no longer exist. How else can one see the relationship of a saber toothed cat to a modern species of the genus Panthera?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Well they said genes were the same on important points about sonar for bats and whales etc.
this still is a great point for like mechanism equals like genetic score and so its a later adaptation and its from innate triggers in the body and not wild mutation chances.

The point is that humans show how creatures did these things instantly at some point in the past.
its just obvious. bats simply being instictive creatures took more easily into their body systems what humans only flirt with.
I'm sure the mechanism for bat/whale adaptation , instant, to sonar will be demonstrated one day.
no need for unlikely time to pass by.
Sonar is no big deal.
I think all creatures and man can develop the same ability as bats etc.

Your wrong.
Darwin INSISTED that without the presumptions of geology a reader was wasting his time reading his books on evolution.
Time is essential for the claims of evolution turing a ant into a armidillo.if the fossil record did not show time sequences and so claimed biological sequences evolutionism would hardly have anything to talk about regarding evidence.
Read any school book on the evidences and they emphasive the fossil record as proof.
lets say its bout 55% of the "evidence' for evolution.
The genetic claims are very recent and morphology claims always included the claims of progression from fossils.
I think i'm right here.

The operative word is ONCE. if not alive and stripped down to mere bone/cast of bone one has no biology anymore.
biology is about the glorious biological systems of living life. its not about mere remains from simple bone creations. The creatures are dead because of the ending of biological systems and their complete decay.
You are not doing biology in studying fossils.
You are simply drawing conclusions about former biological systems located in individual creatures.comparing anatomy, by way of fossils, is just comparing a special case of bone material remains. its not biology or zoology .
Why do you think it is?biology demand tools and opportunity to examine actual biological life.
evolution has never done this relative to its great claims.
Casts of skeletons of former life in rock strata claims of progressive time intervals can not invoke the prestige of biologists who deal with life systems before our eyes.
This is a logical flaw of evolution in any claim of using biological evidence.

Quote, please. Apart from biogeography, genetics, morphology, embryology, behavioral ecology ...Remember that when Darwin wrote there was no known case of an intermediate form in the fossil record. Yet he managed to figure it out. Sometimes self-confidence is not an admirable trait.

It is possible that biologists have a better grasp of what biology is than you do.Clearly evidence concerning past species is information about biology. Is it not a statement about biology to say that (for example) stegosaurs once lived and roamed the earth? To say what they ate and what preyed on them? How they walked? How they cared for their eggs? These are essentially biological questions.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Where "they" are journalists who wouldn't recognize a gene if it bit them in the butt. So would you accept all the massive differences in the sonar mechanisms as being evidence against ... er ... whatever it is you're talking about?

Yes, it does. The articulation of bones tells us the range of motion for each joint. Rough spots on the bones tell us where muscles were anchored, and the size of the anchoring point tells us the size of the muscle. Bumps and ridges in the cranium tell us about the size of specific parts of the brain which directly relates to how the animal functioned. Features in the vertebrae of some dinosaurs tell us that they probably had an air sac type lung system like modern birds. There is a MASSIVE amount of data that one can draw from fossils, and all of it relates to how the animal worked and lived. That is a flat out lie, Robert. Perhaps you should actually attend a biology class at a university some time instead of telling scientists what their job is. Dinosaurs were not biological life? If you dissect a dead frog does that mean you are not doing biology because the frog is dead?

What fantasy world do you live in? Do you think skydivers start to grow wings or something? Wake up Robert, and join the rest of us in reality.

And once again you have to distort science to support your arguments. Darwin insisted that without the CONCLUSIONS of geology that it was a waste of time. Not presumptions. CONCLUSIONS. If you want to challenge those conclusions do so in another thread. It does show a time sequence. All of the data supports it. If you want to argue the point then deal with the data. Tell us why we can not find an Australopithecine in strata that dates 100 million years old.

You are wrong in everything you say here.And yes, I am a bone expert. From bones I can tell a great deal about the individuals and how they lived. Age, sex, height, build, pathological conditions, injuries, diet, and sometimes even probable cause of death can all be told from bones. Using DNA we can tell a great deal about lineages and relationships. Specialists can tell a whole lot more than just the basics I've mentioned above.And that information, in turn, can be used to study anthropology, paleodemography, migration patterns, and a host of other specialized fields--including aspects of biology and zoology.(You are trying to substitute fervent religious belief for real-world knowledge. It isn't working. See tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi, Robert. Good grief, Robert: armadillos did not evolve from ants.
Evolution does not make any claims about ants turning into armadillos.
Stop picking your examples based on what letter of the alphabet they start with!But, if you absolutely have to pick specific "simple" and "complex" animals for future examples, please bear in mind the fact that insects are considered one of the most complex types of animals.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

"anteater" would have been a much better choice. at least anteaters (and sloths) and armadillos are in the same superorder of mammals.

---

אָרַח

Yet its not biology. Its just questions about some critter.
Biology is about a serious investigation into actual fantastic living organisms.
It only has the prestige of biological investigation if it actually investigates biological process and results.
Anything to do with fossils is about conclusions of a biological nature without biological investigation.
Its gotta have life tissue/organs/being on it. it can't be about casts of minor bone details.
Biology isn't being done where geology and casts therein are the only things to be studied.
This has been a great flaw of evolution to usurp a actual science's name when all it is but just a historical subject.