the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.

How did placental mammals manage to evolve from an egg-laying reptile? In order for this to happen, a line of reptiles would have had to have evolved a complete placental reproductive system while still being egg-layers.

My fragile, egg-shell mind has a lot of trouble understanding this idea. Help needed.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

How did a line of reptiles evolve the system of milk production and mammary glands of mammals?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Slowly and over long periods of time. Lots of animals secrete juices from their skin including many reptiles. The mammary system is simply a continuation of that.

---

Sorry, "Slowly over long periods of time" doesn't explain anything. This is the Darwinist's equivalent of the Creationists' "God did it." Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck. This is akin to believing a mammary system could evolve in a human male. Fantasy and rank speculation masquerading as science.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How silly can you get Dredge? No luck involved; instead there are changes that get filtered by natural selection.

---

Really. How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage?

How would the production of milk evolve?

In other words, you have no idea how the production of milk evolved.

"jar" writes: Would secreting something that could be suckled as nutrition help?

What secretions other than milk are nutritious? Blood can be "secreted" in manner of speaking, but not without huge risk of infection ... and a bloody wound is a universe away from a mammary system.

In other words, you have no idea how milk production evolved.

"ringo" writes: It's a pretty simple principle really

Yeah, of course it is ... for someone with a very vivid imagination.

A couple of mutations here and there can make a big difference.

Darwinists have to dumb-down very complex processes in order to make them seem plausible. Without this vital concession, junk science has no chance at all of surviving.

And a chunk of a reptile's jaw somehow evolved into the bones of a mammal's inner ear. Pure fiction.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The trouble with many evolutionary "explanations" is that they are untestable hypotheses relating to events that cannot be verified as factual - so in effect, they
are stories within stories. Story-telling isn't science.

jar writes: There is evidence. It comes in the form of fossils and genetics and geology and in fact every single line of scientific inquiry. And every new process or procedure or technology simply confirms that the reality is that evolution is a fact, that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the variety of life seen now and in the past

Stop talking nonsense. You sound like a damned fool.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This is a very poor analogy. There are thousands of eye-witness accounts of Napoleon's existence. How many eye-witnesses accounts are there that describe mammals evolving from a reptile?

It's usually pointless comparing religious faith to science, but ToE is like religion in that it relies heavily on faith.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

JonF writes: Name a dozen untestable evolutionary explanations.

The theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms is untestable.

The theory that the three cellular kingdoms (eukaryotes, eubacteria, archaebacteria) share a common ancestor cannot be tested. Any theory of how the three cellular kingdoms evolved from a common ancestor is untestable.

The theory that a mammal's four-chambered heart evolved from a reptile's two-chambered heart is untestable. Any theory of how a four-chambered heart evolved from a two-chambered heart is untestable.

The theory that milk production evolved in some reptilian "ancestor" of mammals is untestable. Any theory of how milk production evolved is untestable.

The theory that human descended from a monkey-man cannot be tested. Any theory of how a human evolved from a monkey-man cannot be tested.

I could go on. Suffice it to say that there would be literally thousands of Darwinist explanations that are untestable ... and I would venture to say that the vast majority of Darwinist explanations are untestable. Hence, ToE is heavily dependant on speculation, assumptions and faith - so it's just glorified story-telling, not science.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

dwise1 writes: Merle was the first of extremely few honest creationists that I have encountered in the more than three decades I've been studying and discussing "creation science." On CompuServe around 1990, he was doing things that no other creationist would do: he would actually try to engage in a discussion, would actually respond to questions, would actually try to support his claims and statements, and when he said he'd go read something he would actually follow through and actually read what he said he would. He was an honest creationist, so after about a year he came to realize how false creationist claims are so he switched to arguing for evolution.

Oh, I get it ... an honest creationist is one who gets converted to evolution and the creationists who don't are all dishonest. I'm glad we got that straightened out.

--------------------

Poor, stupid, gullible Merle. He fell victim to the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.

Merle: "Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense."

These medical students thought evolution could advance medical science? LOL! What deluded, brainwashed fools.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.