Really? so change in populations via inherited traits, mutations and natural selections isnt what Evolution is about? Wow! Evolution Theory is constantly evolving.
You say the words and don't understand what they mean.
Reptiles into mammals and then humans?
- Thread starter Sugarhitman
- Start date
You say the words and don't understand what they mean.
To the contrary. This is only a variation of the existence of God debate. It's like weight lifting for the debating crowd. Debunking crowd? DeBakey crowd?
Anyway, it's fun. Cut loose with a few twisted associations and join in.
I know! How about this: The fossils of Tyrannosaurus Rex are faked because he had a mouth full of steak knives and there are no records of him ever having dined at a 5-Star Restaurant.
Okay, your turn.
Who says they aren't? Have you checked every single reptile? I'm going to have to hold you to the same standards that creationists do when evolutionists talk about evidence in the fossil record.
Last edited:
If I can't see something right in front of me right now, that took 70 million years to happen, then that science is false.
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The evolution of mammals within the synapsid lineage (sometimes called "mammal-like reptiles") was a gradual process that took approximately 70 million years, beginning in the mid-Permian.
The brain of a science denier who pretends to know science, it doesn't get much more entertaining.
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The evolution of mammals within the synapsid lineage (sometimes called "mammal-like reptiles") was a gradual process that took approximately 70 million years, beginning in the mid-Permian.
The brain of a science denier who pretends to know science, it doesn't get much more entertaining.
That's a new one! Humans evolving from reptiles. Birds evolved from reptiles, not people.
Your sarcastic T-Rex argument is actually better than others I've heard on this forum. One of our favorite posters actually says T-Rex loved vegetation.
At least a 5 star restaurant could potentially provide T-Rex with the type of food (meat) it actually ate.
If you had any understanding of evolution you would never ask such a ridiculous question.
Sugarhitman
Christian Zionist
- Thread starter
- #30
EVOs often resort to the "Youre stupid" argument when challenged by simple arguments...which is all that is needed to refute their myths. Thank about it folks, mammals are said to have evolved from reptiles, but how could mammals inherit hair and fur, traits not found in reptiles? Even today, there has never been a case where a reptile produced offspring with hair or fur...not once. So if these traits existed in the reptile populations then wheres the evidence?
EVOs also love pointing to bacteria acquiring the ability to resist certain antibiotics to prove Evolution...but guess what? It's remains bacteria just as a human remains a human when he develops an immunity or tolerance for something. Show me a complex creature producing mutated offspring transitioning into something else...of course Nature has already spoken. *smile*
EVOs also love pointing to bacteria acquiring the ability to resist certain antibiotics to prove Evolution...but guess what? It's remains bacteria just as a human remains a human when he develops an immunity or tolerance for something. Show me a complex creature producing mutated offspring transitioning into something else...of course Nature has already spoken. *smile*
I see...
If you cannot understand something, then it doesn't exist, is that it? Was that of sound thunder the result of rapidly heated air or just the angels bowling. Or maybe it's just the mere act of having to accept one thing in opposition to another that is held too dear.
It's okay. You can accept mechanisms recognized by the scientist you cited and still hold onto your faith. No need to burn witches. The very act of giving birth shows the undeniable evidence of evolution. If anybody in your family ever said of a child that he has his father's eyes or uncle Chet's chin, you are witnessing evolution.
That's how it works.
As a proof of evolution, you are asking that things happen that can only happen if a divine Creator steps in and poofs them into happening. If reptiles grew hair of if mammals were cold blooded of a sudden in one generation, the evidence of a Creator is set. If the changes occur due to the mechanisms based on 20 amino acids and 4 bases, that's evolution.
Your own argument proves the opposing point. The things that you seek as proof of evolution are in truth proof of a Creator intervening against natural law. Lacking those proofs, the proof of the Theory of Evolution stands unchallenged.
If you are looking for links between species, then look in the places they can be found: DNA is a good one and the basic skeletal structure is another.
Merely closing your eyes and stamping your feet is not an argument, it's a tantrum.
Last edited:
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
The Theory of Evolution doesn't claim that Reptiles evolved into Mammals.
Why does something tell me your understanding of evolution goes something like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ983dbDrng&feature=related]Evolution (South Park edition) - YouTube[/ame]
Perhaps you should actually learn the theory before you doubt it.
I think the lack of solid evidence from a million years and more ago is the culprit in the voids existing in this. As an aside, I am quietly amazed that we find spines, rib cages, scapulas and clavicles across the animal kingdom. Each adapted to a particular form and use.
It seems more likely to me that as the species diverged, those species came from common roots, but advance to local or global dominance at different rates of speed. We know that fossils of small mammals were present concurrently in the fossil record with Dinos, but that the Dinos were dominant.
Small rodents at that time shared many of the same skeletal features that we see in rodents and higher animals today and also with the giant and with the flying dinosaurs around them.
It seems logical that all may have evolved from lower kinds of life and that the result of mammal or reptile or bird or fur or feathers was just the divergence from the same source or group of sources and not a change from one into the other.
When I was a child, the conventional wisdom in the evolution of Man was that one type like Neanderthal evolved into Homo Sapiens and now the conventional wisdom is that they are different and were in probability concurrently roaming around Europe.
It's pretty much an accepted fact that many humanoids competed on the same turf and we won the selection process.
Evidence in my posts to the contrary, turns out we were the smarter ones.
Last edited:
Iridescence
Rookie
- Banned
- #35
Hmmm There are many interesting points to consider with Evolution, however, none of them ever seem to be what makes the discussion within the threads about Evolution. 
I don't even wonder why anymore.
I don't even wonder why anymore.Sugarhitman
Christian Zionist
- Thread starter
- #36
Thanks, but Evolution does teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles...and before that...fish.
Some Dinosaurs share certain reptile like characteristics as lizards, but Dinosaurs are not lizards..
Some dinosaurs are even closely related to birds. Having a son who is into dinosaurs I have learned the term dinosaur is a term used for upright reptiles, the lizard is not upright. I also learned that there is not a dinosaur called a pterodactyl...For one pterosaurs and pterodactylus are not even considered dinosaurs........because they are not upright.
So, pretty much what they taught us in grade school was a like.
Watch Dino Dan and Dinosaur Train, great info there.
You do realize there were pre historic mammals right? Please show us were evolutionist say mammals evolved from reptiles.
Thanks, but Evolution does teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles...and before that...fish.
Thanks, but Evolution does teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles...and before that...fish.
It teaches that small changes can add up to very large differences. A pass book savings account demonstrates the same as does a 401 K and the application of good irrigation and fertilization to a lawn or garden.
Evolution is change. If you can demonstrate that there is no change within andy species, you can demonstrate that evolution does not occur.
Have you ever stood next to a suit of armor from the middle ages?
Have you wondered why they are only made in boys and not in mens sizes?
Refusing to see something that is obviously there does not make it invisible.
Does you logic preclude the possibility that amphibians rose from fish or that both fish and amphibians started out from a common ancestor? Both are cold blooded. Where did the lungs come from? They sure seem more like fish than they seem like mammals, but that whole lung thing is confusing.
Birds and mammals are both warm blooded. Bats, too. Wings, beaks, teeth, arms, legs. If there are 100 generations in a century, 10 centuries in a thousand years, a thousand thousand in a million and a thousand million in a billion, That's a whole bunch of little changes that can add up to big differences.
Obviously, that's 1 Billion generations to change a little bit from one thing, like a timber wolf to another, like a cockerspanial. That transformation took only about 10,000 years.
The average human body has about 50 trillion cells in it. Each cell has a DNA strand.
Each DNA strand has the whole genetic code for the whole body.
This seems like a whole bunch of redundancy if there is only one planner involved.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Hope You're Not Drinking Ice Water When You Look At This- Started by OhPleaseJustQuit
- Replies: 2
-
