Discontinuity between the different kinds

Originally posted by humy
[quote] Suppose the human new born's skull is left off not fully covered by bones in order to allow its flexibility to help in the baby's passage through the narrow outlet , are there any skeletal remains of human or humanoid or ape babies having fully closed skulls at the time of birth ? These types would have died at birth along probably with their mothers so ...[text shortened]... disadvantage of having an inflexible skull would mean any of that type would have died out.

My question is regarding availability of fossils which will prove that the varieties which had closed skulls had indeed died out. Any fossil of humans, humanoids, apes will do.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
My question is regarding availability of fossils which will prove that the varieties which had closed skulls had indeed died out. Any fossil of humans, humanoids, apes will do.

Since such anomalies would typically die at birth (assuming it is normally fatal, which I don't actually know), any genes that cause this would not last long. It would be unlikely for such rare cases to be found in the fossil record. Generally only a very tiny number of bones ever become fossilized. But if you are looking for unusual characteristics that cause death before reproduction age you don't need the fossil record, you can simply go and look in the hospital records or death records and you will find plenty of examples.

Originally posted by RJHinds
By they, do you mean the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit as the one true God? Please provide a funny response. I haven't had a good laugh today.

So the father, son and holy ghost walks into a bar. God ducked.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So the father, son and holy ghost walks into a bar. God ducked.

The father, the son, and the holy goat...

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
The father, the son, and the holy goat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-eMuIVGgU

Ah, Mr Bean strikes again!

Originally posted by sonhouse
So the father, son and holy ghost walks into a bar. God ducked.

You can do better than that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ah, Mr Bean strikes again!

The British do have soemwhat of a dry humor, but I like it.

The following is a good example from a young American.

YouTube

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
My question is regarding availability of fossils which will prove that the varieties which had closed skulls had indeed died out. Any fossil of humans, humanoids, apes will do.

My question is regarding availability of fossils which will prove that the varieties which had closed skulls had indeed died out.

as twhitehead basically just said, they would have died out generally before reproduction age so obviously we would not expect any fossils of them.
No such “ varieties which had closed skulls” would have evolved to die out in the first place because any such mutations would have quickly died out well before they could lead to such new “varieties”.
For this reason, to ask why there are no fossils which will prove that the varieties which had closed skulls had indeed died out is a bit like asking why there are no fossils which will prove that the varieties which had no heads had indeed died out -although, admittedly, the former question is not quite as ridiculously extreme as this latter one but I hope you still see the point I am making here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mere unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as truth!

hehehe. i knew i would get the dorkus response. i'll just chalk this up as another lost argument for robbie.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I am not sure about the symmetry of organs other than to note that nature invariably produces mirror image symmetry in most organisms (although there are numerous anomaly's to this) and this may be reinforced by natural selection for the reasons you mentioned. As for the newborn unformed skull I thought that was to aid birthing allowing the head some flexib ...[text shortened]... guessing here but I am sure someone on the forum can furnish you with the correct explanation.

Then why not two hearts or two livers or two stomachs in us humans?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
hehehe. i knew i would get the dorkus response. i'll just chalk this up as another lost argument for robbie.

Ha..Robbie lost nothing and a fantasictic posting that explains clearly what no evolutionist can touch. But your'e all welcome to keep trying...

So for me the "clueless one" could someone explain, or give me a link to explain without those famous words "We think it could have happened this way" how a land mammal would have evolved into an ocean mammal?
Just the basics will do......

And I don't need the same old responce " you just need to read more". I just want it explained by someone that can actually do it and not blow me off. If it's a fact, lets see it.

Originally posted by galveston75
Ha..Robbie lost nothing and a fantasictic posting that explains clearly what no evolutionist can touch. But your'e all welcome to keep trying...

he has no argument that can stand to reason. the geological record is against creationism. they have not been able to explain that away despite their best efforts.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
he has no argument that can stand to reason. the geological record is against creationism. they have not been able to explain that away despite their best efforts.

No it doesn't at all. How do you come to that conclusion?

Originally posted by galveston75
So for me the "clueless one" could someone explain, or give me a link to explain without those famous words "We think it could have happened this way" how a land mammal would have evolved into an ocean mammal?
Just the basics will do......

And I don't need the same old responce " you just need to read more". I just want it explained by someone that can actually do it and not blow me off. If it's a fact, lets see it.

And I don't need the same old responce " you just need to read more". I just want it explained by someone that can actually do it and not blow me off.

I think that shouldn't be " you just need to read more" which is rather vague ( read what? Weather reports? ) but “you just need to look it up yourself". I could be wrong but I think you just might be making the error of assuming that we are all experts or at least there would be one expert here on the evolutionary paths that evolution of life took just because we accept scientific facts as facts.
But we are not experts ( at least I assume there are no experts here on this ) because none of us are the ones that have done the actual scientific research and discovery nor spent years studying it ( we cannot all be an expert on everything! ) so the only way we can give you a link as you request is simply google the subject and find relevant links and then give them to you -but then that would beg the question why cannot you do just a good a job of finding the relevant links yourself and now I hear the “you just need to look it up yourself" coming.

If it's a fact, lets see it.

Yes, it is a fact.
I am not an expert on this but I happen to know that one bit of evidence ( there is many bits of evidence ) is the existence of vestige hind mammal legs inside the anatomy of whales.
Also, note that marine mammals such as seals that have not evolved to totally loose the dependence on land ( they need to go to land to breed ) show the kind of missing link that must have once existed between the strictly land-bound ancestor of modern whales and modern whales although, obviously, I am not suggesting modern seals literally ARE that missing link because that is not the way evolution generally works.

Also note that scientists may not yet know the exact evolutionary path taken by marine animals nor of most other animals but that does not in any any way diminish what they DO know and, of course, the fact remains it is a proven fact that life evolved.