14 Apr 08
Originally posted by timebombtedThe bird Archaeopteryx might be a link, but just cause it shows similarities between a bird and a reptile doesnt mean it actually happened. it COULD, but how can you be sure? and is that all the links? cause if evolution were true, there would be MILLIONS.
OK - Try http://tolweb.org/tree/ I believe this is some of the most accurate information we have on phylogenies.
There are examples of the transitional species I think you are talking about, for example "Archaeopteryx".
However, the transition is not simply Species 1 = Reptile, 2 = Archaeopteryx, 3 = Bird.
It is more likely Speicies 1 = Reptil ...[text shortened]... next.
Definitely check out the link its a great site with a wealth of current information.
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks for the link.
Are you looking for the names of every species that ever existed? Are you looking for a particular species that was intermediate between one particular species in the past and one species currently alive today?
What information do you want? The currently accepted species name? An actual fossil?
1. Obviously I cannot present a living animal that fits y ...[text shortened]... you start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid
You will almost certainly find a few.
1. I am looking for the remains, not a living animal today.
3. Are there any fossils that are half reptilian or half mammal? are there just a few or are there lots? and just because an animal has some similarities to another doesnt mean it evolved from it.
14 Apr 08
I suggest all of you going to this link. It has good info on evolution. Please read through a lot of it. Dont close it after realizing it is against evolution. It presents some good arguments. I have looked at a lot of the sites you guys post, so please look at mine. thanks
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
14 Apr 08
A few more things. Something organic cannot be created by something innorganic. It is imposible. And order cannot come about by disorder. But order can turn to disorder. If everythign occured by random chance, then it occured by disorder. The life we are in now is ordered, and it is impossible that it came about by disorder.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoI provided one link which gave you excellent information on phylogenies, which is what I believed you were requesting, so you can search through the millions of species yourself to find the intermediate species. There will be many more than you think.
The bird Archaeopteryx might be a link, but just cause it shows similarities between a bird and a reptile doesnt mean it actually happened. it COULD, but how can you be sure? and is that all the links? cause if evolution were true, there would be MILLIONS.
Yes Archaeopteryx was just one example, the link I provided will provide many more if you actually decide to use the website.
The evidence for evolution is much more than just looking at species and deciding where they sit in a phylogeny based on visible characteristics alone.
Use google scholar to find current peer reviewed articles, there will be thousands detailing evidence for evolution. From your previous posts to others, I believe you will be surprised how much evidence is available, and also the type of work people are doing to continually test and verify evolution.
I will not list all the species phylogenies for you, niether will I list every piece of evidence in favour of evolution. This is readily available for you to find yourself. Although its beginning to look like you are just a religious fundamentalist, who has no real interest in science. If you are going to continue spouting the same old arguements, then our conservation ends here and you should really take it to the spirituality forum........ where someone might care (Kellyjay with probably love some company).
If you honestly want to continue looking at the evidence for evolution and have some valid questions, then I'm sure there are many of us that would like to help you in your understanding.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoAre you still talking about evolution, or have you moved onto abiogenesis? Please lets not confuse the two.
A few more things. Something organic cannot be created by something innorganic. It is imposible. And order cannot come about by disorder. But order can turn to disorder. If everythign occured by random chance, then it occured by disorder. The life we are in now is ordered, and it is impossible that it came about by disorder.
No order from disorder? Really?
What about planet formation?
Crystal formation?
Iron rich molten rock cooling past the currie temp, thus creating directional order (palaeomagnetism)?
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoJust curious how this thread got hijacked into a discussion about evolution? It's clear there is no evidence to convince you, we could come up with a half rabbit half snake living or dead and you would just claim it to be the work of the devil, so why do you keep at it?
I suggest all of you going to this link. It has good info on evolution. Please read through a lot of it. Dont close it after realizing it is against evolution. It presents some good arguments. I have looked at a lot of the sites you guys post, so please look at mine. thanks
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
This thread is supposed to be about the ORIGIN of life not the subsequent development of it.
You have no scientific agenda, only a religious one so why do you pursue everyone here with your predujiced and extremely outdated notions? What kind of biblical nonsense would you come up with when we find life on Mars or Titan or some other place in the solar system?
What would that tell you about your idea of being in a special place here on earth? Of course you could come up with something like, that will never happen, but open up your mind, if that is possible, to the idea that life exists everywhere there is water and energy and some kind of nutrients to support it, which I think is what we are going to find within the next 20 or 30 years. What does you bible tell you about that? And what would that tell you personally about the origins of life?
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoYou claimed in a previous post to Nemesio how you understood evolution. I therefore suggest you spend the time reading the website you actually posted. Question everything the author is claiming, if your knowledge is truely adequate regarding evolution you will clearly see all the inaccuracies and half truths.
I suggest all of you going to this link. It has good info on evolution. Please read through a lot of it. Dont close it after realizing it is against evolution. It presents some good arguments. I have looked at a lot of the sites you guys post, so please look at mine. thanks
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
I couldn't even see a reference to any recent peer reviewed literature? If I have missed this please bring it to my attention. Otherwise I will not spend time on this website, the content of which has been addressed many times in previous posts in the evolution threads within spirituality.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoYes there are lots of fossils of creatures that we would classify - based on what we can tell from the fossils - as half reptilian and half mammal.
Thanks for the link.
1. I am looking for the remains, not a living animal today.
3. Are there any fossils that are half reptilian or half mammal? are there just a few or are there lots?
and just because an animal has some similarities to another doesn't mean it evolved from it.
That is true. But if you make a map of the ages of the fossils, the differences in body structure and the locations that they were found, you will see that there is a definite and detailed tree structure. That particular ones evolved from particular other ones is the best explanation, if not the only reasonable explanation.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by thorvoI have looked at it. It does not present one single good argument. You clearly disagree. So why don't you present one of the arguments and we can show you where the flaws are - or if it is really a good argument as you claim, you can convince us that it is so.
I suggest all of you going to this link. It has good info on evolution. Please read through a lot of it. Dont close it after realizing it is against evolution. It presents some good arguments. I have looked at a lot of the sites you guys post, so please look at mine. thanks
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
I must point out that from the very beginning the writer starts off with an obvious strawman which he then admits is a strawman -rather odd behavior don't you think? He also makes a number of clearly false statement - that I am sure even you know to be false. So can you explain to me why he feels the need to lie and deceive to get his point across?
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseHe's opened-minded. Just ask him. I tried to get him to define closed-minded, but he snarked at me.
Just curious how this thread got hijacked into a discussion about evolution? It's clear there is no evidence to convince you, we could come up with a half rabbit half snake living or dead and you would just claim it to be the work of the devil, so why do you keep at it?
*shrug*
16 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by thorvoThis question betrays how you have misunderstood evolution. Reptilia* and Mammalia are just
3. Are there any fossils that are half reptilian or half mammal? are there just a few or are there lots? and just because an animal has some similarities to another doesnt mean it evolved from it.
artificial definitions that we have made to describe what we see based on certain physiological
characteristics. Since mammals didn't evolve from reptiles, you'll never see something that's
half one and half the other; the two of them evolved taking different paths from a common
ancestor, called Amniotes. Some amniotes were lizard-like, some were mammal-like (because
neither had evolved yet, it's kind of anachronistic to describe them this way).
Here's an example of an animal that has a combination of traits we associate with both
reptiles and mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynognathus
Nemesio
*No criticisms wanted from taxonomists who want to chide me for using Reptilia for not being a
clade itself.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioLets classify the characteristics.
Since mammals didn't evolve from reptiles, you'll never see something that's half one and half the other; the two of them evolved taking different paths from a common ancestor, called Amniotes. Some amniotes were lizard-like, some were mammal-like (because neither had evolved yet, it's kind of anachronistic to describe them this way).
A: Characteristics unique to all currently living reptiles.
B: Characteristics unique to all currently living mammals.
C: Characteristics common to all currently living mammals and reptiles.
The common ancestor of reptiles and mammals would have had most if not all of C. It may also have had some of A and some of B.
I believe (though I may be wrong) that it had more A than B ie it was closer to the current reptiles than the current mammals though it was neither reptile nor mammal.
As the mammalian line evolved it would have gone through a stage where it had some characteristics that we now think of as exclusively reptilian and some that we think of as exclusively mammalian.
Interestingly, though birds are probably a branch of the reptilian line they share some characteristics with mammals that reptiles do not have eg they are warm blooded. So we could say that they are part mammal part reptile - but to call them a link species between the two groups would be totally wrong.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by NemesioWas it ammonites? Its been years since I studied it so I honestly cannot remember, I thought there was an ancestor between the Ammonites and the reptile/mammal split? I know its something of an arbitrary and artificial split anyway but..... oh and sorry for side tracking you caught my curiosity though.
This question betrays how you have misunderstood evolution. Reptilia* and Mammalia are just
artificial definitions that we have made to describe what we see based on certain physiological
characteristics. Since mammals didn't evolve from reptiles, you'll never see something that's
half one and half the other; the two of them evolved takin ...[text shortened]... m taxonomists who want to chide me for using Reptilia for not being a
clade itself.
16 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadosome believe that rna and dna need the spark of life, so to speak, in order to move and have intelligence. who created that spark?
please, don't come up with theological theories.
All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved.
But imagining earth back then, I would say many different kinds of complex molecules aggregations could form. Why did only nucleic acid based ones survive?
If we ...[text shortened]... ilding blocks wouldn't be C,N,O,H based.
Or CNOH based, but using very different mechanisms.