Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

"Dr. DuFonet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >  Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The
>  very
> > name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary
>  glands
> > that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky
> > suggested that these milk glands "may be modified sweat glands." But
> > reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off
> > waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young
>  have
> > both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.
> >
> >  Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles.
> > Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and
> > development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm
>  in
> > reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the
> > abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in
>  reptilian
> > ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings.
> > Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.
> >
> > Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
> > Where did the two "extras" come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to
> > explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw,
> > whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was
> > supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile's lower jaw moved
> > to the mammal's middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the
> > process, left only one for the mammal's lower jaw. However, the problem
>  with
> > this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to
> > support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.
> >
> >  Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side
>  of
> > the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals
>  the
> > legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this
> > difference, Dobzhansky commented: "This change, minor though it may seem,
> > has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the
> >  musculature." He then acknowledged another major difference between
> > reptiles and mammals: "Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth.
>  Instead
> > of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of
> > mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting,
>  pounding,
> > or grinding food."
> >
> >  One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the
> > wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But
> > when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back
>  to
> > the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went
> > backward-something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.
> >
> Where is the evidince that the reptiles eveolved into mammals? The dinosuars
> may not have been reptiles, and mammals were in existence during the time of
> dinosualrs. Reptiles, including some snakes which have residual internal
> legs,  have legs extending  sideways and mammals' and dinosaurs as well as
> birds' legs go straight down.

theraspids anyone?