Utopia Talk / Politics / Evolution FAILS Again!

Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 09:36:53 Once again, the Theory of Evolution(TOE) has hit a snag. Evidence has surfaced, confirming that four legged creatures existed and were walking around as long ago as 390 million years ago. That is nearly 40 million years(!) earlier than expected. As older fossils are found, the "bridge" between land animals and sea animals gets pushed further and further back, shaking the confidence of many that Evolution can account for the variety of life forms found on the earth. Once again, the Theory of Evolution has been called into question. "Four-legged creatures were mucking around a muddy basin in what is now Poland about 397 million years ago. And they left behind distinctive footprints, which have turned back the clock on the evolution of these landlubbers. Scientists discovered the fossilized prints, which included various trackways and isolated prints, in the Holy Cross Mountains in southeastern Poland. Analyses suggest most if not all of them came from different tetrapod species - which are four-legged animals that had backbones, such as amphibians - with some possibly belonging to juveniles and adults of the same species. The land creatures likely had bodies shaped somewhat like crocodiles, with fin-like tails and stumpy legs. And some of them were pretty big, reaching up to about 10 feet (3 meters) in length, the researchers said. The discovery helps to refine the timing of the transition from our fishy ancestors to land creatures, which until now was thought to have occurred about 380 million years ago or so. The new discoveries show the four-leggers were stomping around millions of years earlier than had been estimated based on fossils. Until now, the earliest complete evidence for a four-limbed animal with digits came from Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, which date back to between 374 million and 359 million years ago.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 09:38:28 http://new...ootprintsforceevolutionrethink
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 09:39:10 rofl
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 09:39:44 Youre a whole friggin' century behind civilisation alex...
Hadji Member	Thu Jan 07 09:40:24 As it is written, for Allah, Blessed be He, has breathed all things into the world, which pleased Him. And no life was made which did not come from Allah! For He it is who makes and He it is who Destroys!
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 09:41:22 Dont you read your own articles??? "The discovery helps to refine the timing of the transition from our fishy ancestors to land creatures,"
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 09:44:59 Which basically means: "We were wrong before, even though many jackasses entered arguments using our faulty information as recently as last year. Furthermore, it is highly likely - with this new groundbreaking discovery- that current generation jackasses in the year 2010 will argue as if they know anything, only to be disproven (yet again) by evidence uncovered in 2011." -Professor Egghead Progressive Liberal University of Atheismhood
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 09:49:52 ^ A century behind civilisation...
HOLY SHITBALLS Member	Thu Jan 07 09:54:18 I get what alex is saying. Clearly science will continuously be revised over and over again until- at the last- it finally agrees with the bible.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 09:54:47 Pretty much. Or somewhere close to it.
xyz1 Member	Thu Jan 07 09:54:59 Most laypersons advancing the argument that an evolutionary transition from sea-based creatures to land-based creatures don't specify a time frame as to when this happened, because our current science can only narrow it down to a range of a couple hundred million years. Discoveries like these actually strengthen the evolutionary argument by helping to narrow down the time period in which the transition actually began to happen in various areas of the world.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 09:57:14 If the "transition" occurred on the basis of it being a more "survivable" arrangement for the creature, then why do we see certain creatures evolve onto land and then DEvolve back into the water? How is one habitat more suitable, then less suitable and then more suitable once again? http://new.../12/071219-whales-evolved.html This just proves they are making it up as they go along.
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Thu Jan 07 10:00:44 Poor JB. His inability to deal with the fact that he came from the same chemical soup billions of years ago as a yak is sad.
xyz1 Member	Thu Jan 07 10:04:29 "How is one habitat more suitable, then less suitable and then more suitable once again?" Catastrophic events and gradual changes in the environment can make once suitable habitats uninhabitable, and previously unsuitable habitats habitable. 66 million years ago, for example, the modern-day Yucatan Peninsula was probably an awesome place to live if you were a dinosaur. 65 million years ago...not so much.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 07 10:10:24 Alex: Eh? How do you work that one out? Evolution doesn't tell you WHEN something happened. Having found new fossil evidence earlier than previous fossil evidence doesn't contradict evolution. What does seem suspicious however is the inability of ID'ers o find fossil bunny rabits in the pre-cambian... they ought to have been inteligently designed at the same time according to most leading ID theories... "How is one habitat more suitable, then less suitable and then more suitable once again?" Because the environment changes including but not limited to: existing prey species, potential prey species, predator species, and other genetic changes that may have occured subsequently that allow further adaptation.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 07 10:12:56 The only thing disproven by ths finding is the statement: "The earliest evidence we have of tetrapods on land is from x million years ago, therefore we assume that this marks the latest possible date for the emergence of land animals".
Seb Member	Thu Jan 07 10:25:22 BTW, alex, you are confusion the historical details of life on earth provided by the fossil record with Evolution. The two are not the same. There is an abundance of very convincing evidence for evolution that does not rely on the fossil record. Indeed, Darwin didn't mention fossils at all IIRC. So a revision of the historical record of life on earth from the fossil record does not mean evolution *must* be revised. On the other hand that not need be the case: you COULD have a historical fossil record that contradicts evolution (fossil bunny rabits in the precambian) and that would blow a pretty big hole in the theory... that would be something where evolution fails. On the other hand, this revision poses no problems for evolution at all. To borrow from Dawkins, consider this is a crime investigation. We know Mr Smith was murdered at 2-3pm, we find evidence that our prime suspect was present at the scene at 1:30pm and his earliset available alabi is 3:30pm. However, in court, the defence produces new evidence: a foot print was found on the scene at 12:30pm, a full hour before the time cited by the prosecution. Does this prove the suspects innocence? Does it in any way dammage the case against the suspect? Now, if instead he could show that he LEFT the scene before 2pm and returned later, that would dammage the case. Similarly, if the fossil record were to show a gross chronological disorder in the evolutionary record, that would be a serious issue (complex vertibrates with the pentadactyl limb system existing before notochords evolved, in the case of fossil bunnies in the pre-cambrian period) then that would be a fossil record near impossible to reconcile with evolution without invoking time travel.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:42:48 Well that's a pretty useful and helpful analogy, Seb, but the problem here is that the entire case has gone to trial- if you will- prematurely, since the defense continuously brings new evidence to the table, while the working theory continuously gets revised, each time overturning the prevailing paradigm. It is quite possible we will find your veritable fossil bunny, and flip the whole thing on its head.
Goreth Member	Thu Jan 07 10:44:44 LOL! The sheer stupidity of JBs arguments or rather what he tries to pass of as such is just funny! So scientists have made an estimate based on fossils, which turned out to be inaccurate when another fossil was found. But the fact that this changes zero about the theory of evolution or the quite literal mountains of evidence for it doesn't deter him from trying to use it as an argument against evolution. Seriously, scientists know they can't tell exactly when something happened in evolution so they make prediction they well know might be wrong based on what evidence they have. And I really don't understand why you have such great difficulty with the concept of one species evolving onto land and some (!) of their descendents evolving into water again. At one point the land was pretty empty meaning a lack of competition which made being among the first able to live there quite an Advantage for survival. Over time, the land got pretty crowded too, eliminating the advantage, so a few land animals that had cut out a coastal niche evolved more and more into sea creatures, because of more competition on land, more food in the ocean, or whatever the reason was. In any case they did not "DEvolve". It's not like they turned back into fish, did they? Also Evolution does not have a direction, so "Devolution" cannot happen by definition.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:44:47 After all, we've found other "fossil bunnies", and the prevailing egg heads have ignored it. The reason, they cite, is "this creature had no reason to evolve". I submit as examples the Platypus, the horseshoe crab, etc.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:46:33 ^^Platypus and horshoe crabs are essentially unchanged over millions of years- the "fossil bunny" that Seb refers to. It makes no difference.
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 10:46:40 So how badly does Alex's 8,000 years fail in this context? Or is this articles claim false Alex the Dimwit?
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:49:55 8,000 years? You refer to what, exactly? Platypus are unchanged for tens of MILLIONS of years, not thousands.
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 10:50:57 "Seriously, scientists know they can't tell exactly when something happened in evolution so they make prediction they well know might be wrong based on what evidence they have. " They cant tell whether a creature was born on tuesday or saturday 345billion BC - thats how little indication JB needs to confirm his frightened bunny world of The Worlds Best Daddy In The Sky. In fact, he needs nothing to confirm it, because he couldnt bare living without his pretend almighty guardian best friend and hence needs no evidence at all - much like PF and his milk and honey stuff.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:51:02 And horseshoe crab fossils have been found dating back 500 million years- literally. There's your "bunny". But it won't matter to you, will it? You'll explain it away to keep your religion in tact.
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 10:51:37 "8,000 years? You refer to what, exactly?" I think you know very, very, very well, so I dont need to waste time answering answers you know.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:53:09 Seb said: Similarly, if the fossil record were to show a gross chronological disorder in the evolutionary record, that would be a serious issue (complex vertibrates with the pentadactyl limb system existing before notochords evolved, in the case of fossil bunnies in the pre-cambrian period) then that would be a fossil record near impossible to reconcile with evolution without invoking time travel. OR... they would just do what we've seen done in this article... they'd just push all the dates back another 30 or 40 million years.
Goreth Member	Thu Jan 07 10:53:30 "Well that's a pretty useful and helpful analogy, Seb, but the problem here is that the entire case has gone to trial- if you will- prematurely, since the defense continuously brings new evidence to the table, while the working theory continuously gets revised, each time overturning the prevailing paradigm." The paradigm hasn't changed since Evolution was widely accepted by the scientific community. Revising or adding details like when tetrapods evolved changes nothing about the paradigm. "It is quite possible we will find your veritable fossil bunny, and flip the whole thing on its head." Would you religious dumbasses do us the favor of shutting the fuck up until you do? If you can find evidence against evolution, it's dead. That's how science works. But so far you have desperately tried to find evidence and failed miserably.
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 10:53:47 "But it won't matter to you, will it? You'll explain it away to keep your religion in tact. " No, thats you. We dont believe in santa clasu shit like you. This is because we are adults in the 21st century, not ragi desert dwellers 4,000 years ago living like rats in the sand.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:55:17 The evidence HAS been found. And each time, dates get pushed back further and further. Entire species are essentially ignored just as you ignore the Platypus and the Horseshoe crab and the evolutionary anomalies associated with the whale and other creatures.
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 10:56:13 "The evidence HAS been found." youre a ridiculous liar rofl
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 10:56:39 Oh, and by the way, please stop dismissing the significance of this article- as hoER has done, by pretending that this discovery was a minor "calibration" of some sort. Moving a date back 40 million years is not a minor calibration. It should shake the entire Evolutionist cult to its core.
Goreth Member	Thu Jan 07 11:14:55 "Entire species are essentially ignored just as you ignore the Platypus and the Horseshoe crab" You failed to point out the problem. A species not changing for many million years does not trouble evolution. It just means that the species is so well adapted to its habitat that eventual beneficial mutations are too insignificant to spread to the whole population. "and the evolutionary anomalies associated with the whale and other creatures." There are no evolutionary anomalies concerning whales. In evolution evolving onto land and (much later) back into water is as much an anomaly as the some white americans moving to Europe where their ancestors came from centuries ago: Not at all. (Note: Religious tards liked to point out the complete lack of transitional whale fossils as evidence against evolution... until they were finally found) "Moving a date back 40 million years is not a minor calibration. It should shake the entire Evolutionist cult to its core." That depends on how long it's been. If a date from the last 100 million years was moved back 40 million it would indeed shake up the field. But the longer something is ago, the harder it is to get when what happened right. The previous Date was just an estimate...
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 11:18:11 "Oh, and by the way, please stop dismissing the significance of this article- as hoER has done" Repeat: "youre a ridiculous liar rofl "
Goreth Member	Thu Jan 07 11:35:21 Actually JB is just having a serious case of confirmation bias. He wants to disprove evolution so badly he sees evidence against it whereever he looks. Just like KreeL and whatever conspiracy bogus he happens to have on his mind. That he completely fails to understand ToE, because he never bothered to learn about it, makes this even easier.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 07 11:38:07 Alex: "It is quite possible we will find your veritable fossil bunny, and flip the whole thing on its head." Yes, of course it is. However, until you do, the case stands. Meanwhile, you keep bringing to the table irrelevancies and shouting "evolution fails" when there is no such logical inference possible from those irrelevancies. Evolution explains the fossil record, not the other way around. Living fossils are not fossil bunnies in the pre-cambrian. You have misunderstood what is meant by fossil bunnies in the pre-cambrian. The precambrian period has very few fossils, skeletal systems had not yet evolved. Meanwhile, bunnies have a particular type of skeleton (there were other types of skeletal system by the way, it just happens that almost all vertebrates seen today appear to be decendents of one particular type). From the fossil record we know that first notochords developed, then vertebrates, amoung them vertibrates with the pentadactyl limb system, and eventually from then bunnies. If you found fossil bunny rabbits before notochords developed, it could not be the case that the rabbits evolved from the notochords. Moreover, it could not be a case of convergent evolution, as the pentadactyl limb system is only one of many possible skeletal systems that evolved... the only way evolution could explain that is if you allowed for time travel. There has been NO case of fossil bunny rabbits in the precambrian.
Nekran Member	Thu Jan 07 13:08:25 Lol... just... lol.
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 13:10:38 I like how Seb takes a general analogy, and makes it increasingly impossible to meet the criteria for it precisely after I demonstrate that examples of his original, general analogy actual exist.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Jan 07 13:16:53 ............................................________ ....................................,.-'"...................``~., .............................,.-"..................................."-., .........................,/...............................................":, .....................,?......................................................\, .................../...........................................................,} ................./......................................................,:`^`..} .............../...................................................,:"........./ ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ .........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} ...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ ...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" ............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\ .............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__ ,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-, .....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\ ...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\ ................................`:,,...........................`\..............__ .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\ ...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`
redblooded Member	Thu Jan 07 13:19:31 Hey Alex, did you convert to judaism yet, or did even they found you lacking and rejected you?
Alex Member	Thu Jan 07 13:21:18 Nice artwork, Nim. Is that from Fred's new hand bag?
Nimatzo Member	Thu Jan 07 13:23:11 Seb, you wouldn't happen to be Thunderf00t on youtube would you? British, Phd in physics, great understanding of the TOE. You wouldn't happen to have a passion for remote controlled airplanes would you? Anyways he really out did himself by getting an interview just weeks ago with Richard Dawkins discussing evolution, even though it was amateurish. http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t?blend=1&ob=4 He is the main champion for creationist stupidity on youtube.
Nekran Member	Thu Jan 07 13:27:38 "after I demonstrate that examples of his original, general analogy actual exist." Species staying largely unchanged for a long time is nothing even close to bunny fossils in the precambrian. One is perfectly natural, the other is incompatible with the ToE.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Jan 07 13:27:57 Dear JB, I grew tired long ago of trying debate evolution with you. I think it was when I noticed you were full of shit and really ignorant about the subject. It is like having a book club with chimps, yes sure you can probably half half teach them to read and sound the words, but they will never get it, because they can't. You know why? It's not that they are stupid, no, it is much simpler than that, they are monkeys.
Nimatzo Member	Thu Jan 07 13:31:17 >>Species staying largely unchanged for a long time is nothing even close to bunny fossils in the precambrian. One is perfectly natural, the other is incompatible with the ToE.<< Interestingly almost all the "living fossils" live in water, you know, where life started and thus has had more evolutionary air time.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 07 14:34:45 Alex: The analogy was just that, an analogy. Picking holes in the analogy does not neccesarily destroy the thing it is analogising. In any case, I don't see how my analogy has any bearing to duck billed platypus. The reason that the proof that the criminal arrived earlier has no impact for the trial as the only important thing for the case is that the criminal was present at the time of the murder. The reason that cambrian bunny rabbit fossils disproves evolution is that it is no way that the rabbit could then have evolved from notochords, as evolution says it must have done. Also, we can not explain it in terms of convergent evolution (rabbits evolved, and then it just so happens that later, notochords emerged, from them sprang vertebrates with the same pentadactyl limb system as rabbits also had, and all other mamals are descended from them, but not rabbits) as that is hideously unlikely ,compard to, say, the eye, which has indeed evolved differently several times through different paths, because eyes are useful and there are only so many ways an eye can work even though there are minor differences in how they can be configured, whereas there are many ways you could put together a limb system that was functionally the same as the pentadactyl limb system, but significantly different in structure. To make the connection with the analogy, the corpse is the fossil, the act of murder is the evolution of bunnies and notochords the suspect. If the suspect arrives after the murder happend, then he can not be responsible for the murder. The reason that duck billed platypuss and caelocanths etc. do not dipsrove evolution is that there is no reason they needed to have evolved subsequently, in this case, strictly cleaving to the analogy where the corpse is the species and the suspect is whatever it evolved from, the fact the playpus is still around just means the corpse is still present at the scene of the crime. The chronology is still intact. Evolution tell us which order the fossil record must be in, but not exactly which time species evolved and when they will next evolve. It does not matter when the murder happens, so long as the suspect arrives at the scene before the murder, not after it. Can you please explain why you think evolution can not explain duck billed platypus'? Nim: No, but now I have to look that guy up :)
saiko Member	Thu Jan 07 16:52:39 And given this new information, the most likely theory is... still evolution God loses.
hoER Member	Thu Jan 07 16:55:07 The board united in laughter at JB again...rofl
Nimatzo Member	Thu Jan 07 17:36:08 >>He is the main champion for creationist stupidity on youtube.<< LUL, I meant AGAINST creationist stupidity =)
Alex Member	Fri Jan 08 10:27:38 Can you please explain why you think evolution can not explain duck billed platypus'? The Platypus appears millions of years ago, with fully functional mammary glands but with fully functional reptilian reproductive system. There is no transitional form. It- like all other species- always appear fully functional.
Nekran Member	Fri Jan 08 10:35:31 Any animal that manages to pass on its genes is fully functional. You have to understand that lining off species is only something you can do at a point in time. In the evolutionary line of survival, no individual is so different from its parents that it couldn't breed with its mother or father. A reptile didn't give birth to a bird. There's a whole line of reptiles going to birds in a way that you'd never see significant differences between a parent and a kid. It's like taking a picture of a kid every day from age 0 until age 25. No two pictures will have significant differences. It's a very slow and gradual process.
saiko Member	Fri Jan 08 10:59:42 "The Platypus appears millions of years ago, with fully functional mammary glands but with fully functional reptilian reproductive system." Well, yes, otherwise it wouldn't be a platypus. It would be some other species, or dead.
Alex Member	Fri Jan 08 11:05:20 Think about that for a second, Saiko. A creature that lays eggs AND has the capacity for nursing. The Platypus is the Achilles heel of evolution. It's sort of God's way of saying "gotcha".
hoER Member	Fri Jan 08 11:21:55 You are Gods way of saying gotcha. or rather, gods way of saying pwnd.
Nekran Member	Fri Jan 08 11:26:52 Why would evolution have a problem with laying eggs and nursing? Why do you insist on making these crazy statements about a theory you don't comprehend in the slightest?
saiko Member	Fri Jan 08 11:28:44 "A creature that lays eggs AND has the capacity for nursing." All mammals have eggs. They're just nursed inside the body, in an organ called the placenta.
licker Sports Mod	Fri Jan 08 11:33:56 Quick, no one mention marsupials!
Seb Member	Fri Jan 08 11:36:06 Alex: Every non living animal is a transitional form at all times. If you believe in evolution, for a second, put every animal next to it's mother and so on and so on, you will end up with a long line of animals. Each animal will look closer to it's mother than to contemporary animals of the same species. You would have a long line of animals that move all the way along until you get to one that is the common ancestor of two different species, and then move forward along the different branch. Place all side by side and you will have a continuous, un-interrupted morph from say, bunnies to humans. Say you took just the hominids, leaving aside speciation you would not be able to point at a single fossil and say "this is the point where x species turned into y species". You can point to where two species branch, with the last common ancestor, but that would not necessarily normally be apparent from fossil records. "The Platypus appears millions of years ago, with fully functional mammary glands but with fully functional reptilian reproductive system." The platypus did not appear. It is thought (based on fossil and genetic evidence) to be the last survivor of a group (along with the echidnas), some 20m years ago, one of the the other lines went on to differentiate into placentals and marsupials. Their mammarys lack teats, the milk seeps through pores in the skin and pools under the belly where the young lap it up. All this demonstrates is that mammary glands evolved prior to placental and marsupial animals, and also makes it (in your terms), potentially a transitional form (assuming their arrangement is similar to that of the common ancestor of them and modern mammals) in the development of mammary glands between that of the common ancestor those seen in modern mammals. "There is no transitional form. It- like all other species- always appear fully functional." Yes, if they were not fully functional by any realistic definition of functional (has some use to the animal) then it would run against the theory of evolution. Quite why you think nursing is incompatible with egg laying is beyond me. Many reptiles nurse their young. Some snakes even give birth to live young (the egg hatching inside the snake). It seems to me quite obvious that animals that nurse their young would be likely to evolve something like mammaries if the genetic opportunity to do so presented itself. On the other hand, developing fully formed mammaries *before* the species you began to nurse your young would be tricky to explain with evolution. Once again, you seem to radically misunderstand evolution.
saiko Member	Fri Jan 08 11:46:11 "Quick, no one mention marsupials!" Marsupials have some weird equivalent to the placenta for the first couple of weeks of pregnancy. Can't remember the name now, but it's basically an egg.
licker Sports Mod	Fri Jan 08 11:46:21 damn you seb, you mentioned the marsupials :p
licker Sports Mod	Fri Jan 08 11:46:38 and saiko did too :p
saiko Member	Fri Jan 08 11:46:51 And not the same kind of egg as the ovum. Just a lot of yolk.
hoER Member	Fri Jan 08 11:50:53 its not that he doesnt understand, its that his brain refuses to accept it. Its too frightening for him to live without The Best Daddy In The World protecting him and giving him 72 virgins or an equally ridiculous fantastic eternal reward in The Worlds Best Disney Land for ever and ever and ever. So no matter what you guys say, he will refuse it. No matter what.
saiko Member	Fri Jan 08 11:51:17 Just reading up on it. Turns out kangaroo eggs in the womb actually have shells, too.
saiko Member	Fri Jan 08 11:51:50 Fascinating, this science thing.
hoER Member	Fri Jan 08 11:52:25 "Turns out kangaroo eggs in the womb actually have shells, too." == evolution so pwnd
Alex Member	Fri Jan 08 11:55:00 Let's review for the dimwits: A placenta doesn't nourish the young. In mammals, the young are nursed directly by the mother's blood supply through the umbilical cord. In reptiles, the yolk in the egg nurses the young while it develops inside the egg. In marsupials, the young emerge very early from the placenta- which does contain a type of yolk which provides for early nourishment- after which the tiny embryonic animal crawls on the body of the mother to find the mammary glands and feed until it is a juvenile. Are you saying that Marsupials are a link between mammals and reptiles? Anyway, the fact is that all species on earth suddenly appear on the fossil record, without transitional form. The most commonly upheld "transitional" creature is the archaeopteryx, which has both reptilian and avian features. The archaeopteryx can not be held up as a transitional creature, though, because of the fact that it is now universally accepted as a bird... fully... not a transitional animal. Most significantly is its brain- 3 times larger than that of a dinosaur, and fully avian. It
hoER Member	Fri Jan 08 11:56:23 "Let's review for the dimwits" Its funny when dimwits say stuff like that to intelligent educated people
Alex Member	Fri Jan 08 11:58:05 It serves as nothing more than to show that God uses animals as "mosaics". The Arcaeopteryx is nothing more than an Avial version of the platypus, appearing fully formed, with often contradictory features that might otherwise have been considered independent systems without need for each other.
licker Sports Mod	Fri Jan 08 11:59:17 Damn it, i told you guys not to talk about marsupials...
Nekran Member	Fri Jan 08 11:59:32 "Are you saying that Marsupials are a link between mammals and reptiles?" Marsupials are mammals. "Anyway, the fact is that all species on earth suddenly appear on the fossil record, without transitional form." Every living thing ever, be it alive or dead, is a transitional form!
Nekran Member	Fri Jan 08 12:01:27 "Every living thing ever, be it alive or dead" OK that sounds retarded... but I hope you all get what I meant :p
licker Sports Mod	Fri Jan 08 12:02:24 you mean that you are retarded. of course we get that ;)
saiko Member	Fri Jan 08 12:03:25 "Are you saying that Marsupials are a link between mammals and reptiles?" No, the point is that there are only so many ways of carrying young. You want as proof for evolution something that is predicted by the theory not to exist: some creature that lived millions of years ago and is a hybrid of current forms and not a result of earlier forms. You want it to go *backward*. It doesn't.
Seb Member	Fri Jan 08 12:36:36 Alex: "Are you saying that Marsupials are a link between mammals and reptiles?" No, self evidently they are not, they are all branches, so one does not "lead" to the other. Lets assume the ancient ancestor of platypii, marsupials and placental mamals had some kind of proto mammary (as we see that in all three), but gave birth via an egg. At some point, a line split from this line, with the egg is first retained in the body. Meanwhile, the platypi remain giving birth to live eggs with their proto mammaries. At some point, this line again splits. In one branch, the egg is retained in body splits, with some species the egg now never properly develops, hatches internally, and the young migrate to the pouch where more developed forms of the proto-mammary are found. In the other branch, the placenta forms, the egg is dispensed with entirely. "Anyway, the fact is that all species on earth suddenly appear on the fossil record, without transitional form." EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM. In the evolutionary line up, with each animal placed next to it's mother on both branches all the way back to the common ancestor, which one do *you* think would be the transitional form. Now we select two or three animals from each branch at random... they look different from each other... but it is not that they stay static and the there is some rapid transitional form. Trying to classify fossilised animals into species is a nonsense, because species are a slice through the tree of life at a given time, where as the fossil record is a atrack through time. If you find the last common ancestor of both a bird and a reptile species, it will look very much like a reptile, and would be classified as one by features. As you move forward in time, you will not be able to find a particular creature from which you can say "this is a bird, but it's mother was a repitle".
ehcks Member	Fri Jan 08 12:36:42 I think the important part here is that 4-legged land animals existed even farther before 6000 years ago.
Seb Member	Fri Jan 08 12:47:14 BTW, Another reason why there are no transitional forms by your definition is that, by definition, they can not exist. Every animal is classified into one group or another. We don't make up a new group between birds and reptiles. If we did, we would have to make up two new groups, birdy-reptiles: one between reptiles and birdy-reptiles (reptily-birdy-reptiles) and and another between bird-reptiles and birds (birdy-birdy-reptiles). Very quickly, you see this disintigrates into a continuum as described above. So yes, Archeopteryx is either classified as a bird, or a reptile, but never as a "birdy-reptile". The fact that someone has quasi-arbitrarily drawn a line between birds and reptiles, with archeopteryx on one side rather than the other does not in fact make it NOT part of a continuum of transition between birds and reptiles.
Nimatzo Member	Sat Jan 09 07:24:57 Why is it so hard to understand evolution? I mean just getting the basics of how it works? NEVERMIND that you disagree with it, by all means disagree! But why the fuck can't you get it right? I don't agree with creationism, but at least I fucking get it right!
Camaban Moderator	Sat Jan 09 08:10:43 +1 The basics ain't difficult.
Nekran Member	Sat Jan 09 11:53:48 Ironically enough it is people like JB who sometimes have me doubting the ToE for a moment... is it really possible these tards descended from billions of generations of organisms that managed to survive long enough to procreate? It really does seem unbelievable at times.
charper Member	Sat Jan 09 12:01:24 No, it confirms ToE even more. Every generation randomly throws out mutations of its parents in a never ending journey of failed and successful adaptions. JB is one of the failed mutations.
Nekran Member	Sat Jan 09 12:02:27 I know it does... it just feels wrong that billions of years of evolution still hasn't been able to permanently weed out blatant stupidity of this magnitude. It's a feeling vs rationality thing. I know it only confirms it, but it feels so wrong.
charper Member	Sat Jan 09 12:14:03 See it as a good thing. Each time one of these failed mutations is tried and falls to the side, we get better and better. Thats one stupid adaption less.
mrbeer Member	Sat Jan 09 16:29:36 I think we can all agree it's clear Alex was not intelligently designed.
hoER Member	Sat Jan 09 18:05:31 t
Jeddediah Wilklns Member	Sun Jan 10 10:28:13 Why do all JBs threads end with him running away and then claiming he pwnd everyone in another thread?
saiko Member	Sun Jan 10 11:30:49 It got to be that way over time.
saiko Member	Sun Jan 10 13:15:03 http://www...e/three_eminent_biologists_and
hoER Member	Sun Jan 10 17:00:49 Hey JB, where did you go?
Nimatzo Member	Mon Jan 11 08:11:47 Come back and play!
Nimatzo Member	Mon Jan 11 09:16:29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs&feature=popular LOL this is so accurate and so hilarious.
Nekran Member	Mon Jan 11 09:40:43 I'll agree with the accurate part.
Cloud Strife Member	Mon Jan 11 23:14:48 At least the lego man didn't cut off the bald glasses guy nearly as much.
hoER Member	Tue Jan 12 19:35:44 Tum Tiddley Tum
Dr. Max Weber Member	Sat Jan 16 09:48:47 *Chuckle*
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: