Missing Link

Crashfrog, I don't think he even knows what the word allele means, based on all of his misconceptions of evolution.Allele: alternate forms of genes.

quote:

---

mind telling me how going from a dinosaur to a bird is a good thing?

---

You really need to read some books before making your assertions.From geological evidence as well as comparasons between the oxygen levels of current atmosphere to 65 million years ago, we know that the oxygen levels were much much higher back then. How can we compare? They've found some ambers with air pockets from those time eras.Although we are not sure whether changing from dino to birds was actually the case, the theory is sound in that bigger wasn't necessarily better anymore. Some scientists think that dinosaurs literally suffocated to death.

The rat came about when some errors occurred probably through mitosis or meiosis in a normal rat's sex organ.by your own admission, this new specie was a fluke. An accident. Not a specie slowly adapting to its environment. That rat doesnt prove evolution at all. It is an accident, not proof.

lol.thanks for the corrections ppl.and by going from dinosaurs to birds they went from the cominant race to.......... birds.

yeah, i've heard that too, about the suffocating. And its been proven that in general, species tend to grow larger with a higher amount of qxygen present. But i dont see how this helps your point. in fact, this hurts you. If creatures adapt to the point where they grow limbs, and change their entire physical makeup, wouldnt they be able to adapt to the SLOW loss of oxygen?[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-01-2004][This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-01-2004]

typos. you will have to excuse me. sry.

if dinosaurs suffocated to death, and if dinosaurs r now birds, put 2 and 2 together ppl. they probably just got smaller, just like we did, i know this because scientist found human footprints right next to dinosaur footprints, but the humans was MUCH bigger than ours r now. explain that.

About the rat thing being a new species I'm sure you are right about it being a new species, that is if it's true that they found it. In fact we're still finding new species in the depths of the oceans today. The problem with finding a "new" species is that it is...a "new" species. Now if you found a rat with say, a bat wing attached (just an example) THEN you'd have something. Or some "feature" that's giving this rat an advantage in it's environment. But you see, all you have is a big rat that looks like the little rats. See what I'm saying?Dinosaurs and birds look radically different and while I agree that evolution doesn't claim to make these huge leaps and jumps of change occurring there has to be "something" giving this rat an added feature that, as evolution continues, makes it look a little different. Not just size, speed, hair color etc.

not that our footprints r bigger but that there were human footprints next dino footprints.

you are so right. not once have ANY of these people really answered my original question anyways. All they use is circular reasoning and insults.[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-01-2004]

quote:

---

The rat came about when some errors occurred probably through mitosis or meiosis in a normal rat's sex organ.
by your own admission, this new specie was a fluke. An accident. Not a specie slowly adapting to its environment. That rat doesnt prove evolution at all. It is an accident, not proof.

---

This is getting quite amusing. Nobody is saying that evolution has to occur because of environmental pressure. Again, you really need to read some books about this before making this assertion.What is it about random mutation that you don't understand????????In other words, if you put a population of fruit flies in a freezer, you are not going to automatically find them "evolve" to withstand the cold temperature. Either there is some kind of "fluke" mutation in some individuals to allow them to withstand the cold, or they will all die.Just tell me what part of random mutation don't you understand?????

they would all die anyways, because they wouldnt have time to adapt, even if they could. It would be too sudden. and i would call dropping from room temperature to below freezing an environmental pressure.[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-01-2004]

Welcome to EvC teen,You might want to read more than Baugh and Hovind on the Paluxy River tracks.Maybe AIG's "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

The Paluxy footprints? Oy. Even most creationists don't cling to this doozy.

quote:

---

About the rat thing being a new species I'm sure you are right about it being a new species, that is if it's true that they found it. In fact we're still finding new species in the depths of the oceans today. The problem with finding a "new" species is that it is...a "new" species. Now if you found a rat with say, a bat wing attached (just an example) THEN you'd have something. Or some "feature" that's giving this rat an advantage in it's environment. But you see, all you have is a big rat that looks like the little rats. See what I'm saying?
Dinosaurs and birds look radically different and while I agree that evolution doesn't claim to make these huge leaps and jumps of change occurring there has to be "something" giving this rat an added feature that, as evolution continues, makes it look a little different. Not just size, speed, hair color etc.

---

I hate to break this "new" information to you, but scientists don't classify a species by their looks, like you bible thumpers do.Genetic testings have been done on this new rat. WE KNOW that the tetraploidy rat came from the normal native rat from these genetic testings. Based on the population calculations and other factors, WE KNOW that they have only been here for a few decades at best.