Evolution Logic

It's an analogy, dorkfrommarn. If the weather gradually kept getting colder and colder at Istanbul, do you think perhaps a family of foxes there might walk a little to the east - enough so that they denned up in slightly less severe winters every year? Over 500 generations, might they not be to Baghdad?

Hi, SWC! What are you trying to say here? Scales and feathers don't reproduce, and don't do like X-men and morph into something new with titanium claws.Animals with scales and feathers, like chickens with scales on their legs, do reproduce, and the chicks don't exactly copy every feature of the parents. Some fancy breeds of chickens even have feathers down to their feet - where their ancestors had scales. Is this what you're driving at?

As in the example I gave you, where the main selection pressure for the evolutionary event happened to be human desire for goofy-looking chickens. Leg scales ----> feathers. QED.No, I don't know you - I'm a lazy, slow typist and abbreviate things sometimes.

In that case you need to look into the large selection of bird-like dinosaur and dinosaur-like bird fossils that they just keep on finding in China, Madagascar, and Argentina. I'll have to dig out my file on them to give you names to Google - there are examples of a variety of not-quite-feathers on dinosaurs all the way to flight-like feathers on "birds" with teeth and long bony tails.That would make a mighty nice thread, btw, if some of you palaeo freaks would help out.....

Interstellar gas clouds are intelligent now? They receive and "use" data from stars and other gas clouds, y'know.

Untrue. You can see the initial 1983 paper yourself, pdf over there.

Before he did whales? Like trilobites were created and then died out utterly before the first modern ray-finned fish was created? That doesn't sound like "six days."

I would say something similar, I think. To use a well-worn analogy, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 really does equal fourteen. Those little changes add up. That's why humans don't look so much like colugos: our ancestors have been undergoing tiny changes down through the several million generations since we shared a mama. And neither of us look like her, either.

Hmmm. Try Philip D. Gingerich and go to
Gingerich, P. D., N. A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S. M. I. Shah.? 1983.? Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan.? Science, 220: 403-406. PDF down in the references.

The same thing that makes me sure that conodonts didn't live with diatoms, or eurypterids with crabs, or mososaurs with whales, or placoderms with pleisiosaurs: there's never been fossils of the first of each pair found in the same rock with one of the last of each pair. The firsts were all extinct before the seconds evolved.Fusilinids and rudists.
Dicynodonts and crocodiles.
Dinosaurs with grass. Rugose with scleratinian corals.
A paleontologist could go on all night. This is how the Christian parson/geologists of the early 1800's figured out that the Earth is very old and that Noah's Flood wasn't. They looked at the rocks.

I referred you to chickens with feathers on their legs, where their ancestors had scales/scutes/? in that position. There ya go.

Yup. I try to always check. Must be one o' them "different 'puter" things.

Yes, I have, as did those geologists. Not just the fossils, but the nature of the rocks themselves, are incompatible with Fluds and short timespans.We can take this to the Geology and the Great Flood forum if you want to learn more.

You couldn't open the pdf of the 1983 paper, IIRC, but it said:
"Anatomically, Pakicetus is the best known genus, being represented by the posterior portion of an exceptionally well preserved cranium, two dentaries, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth."More than "two skull fragments." And it was compared with another species in the same genus.

Whatever that pesky "kind" is. Most of us here will sign up immediately if "kind" encompasses "life on Earth." That's called evolution.