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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Budikka) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> > > Once again, let me ask you a question that you have in the past
> > > avoided.  When the World Trade Center towers were knocked down two
> > > years ago, there was disagreement about the precise mechanism that
> > > actually brought the main towers down.  Does this mean they never fell
> > > down?  Answer the question.
> > 
> > actually no. more so the process can be duplicated.
> 
> Evolution has been demonstrated in the lab and observed in the wild. 
> QED.  You lose.  Deal with it loser.
> 
> > Not true, assumption that they might be transsitional is another
> > remade Disney story, the fact is that nowhere in the fossil record are
> > found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the
> > beginning of a new feature.
> 
> I assume you don't mean that literally.  If you do, you're a bigger
> moron than I already know you to be.
> 
> Yes there are transitionals, and the literature is replete with them. 
> Read the talk origins archives for once - actually read them instead
> of blindly trashing them.  If you don't trust t.o., then buy a book. 
> There is a staggering number of them.  Try "At the Water's Edge" by
> Carl Zimmer, (The Free Press, 1998) for a thorough examination of the
> transition of organisms from aquatic to terrestrial environments and
> back again via whale evolution.
> 
> > For instance, there are fossils of various
> > types of flying creatures?birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According
> > to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional
> > ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found.
> 
> Archaeopteryx - an example that I have given to you repeatedly and
> that you have run from like a scared chicken.  It has pretty much
> fifty-fifty dino and bird features.  What is that if not an example of
> a transitional form?

Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not question
its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158) and called "The
avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R. A.
Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!
>From careful morphological analysis of birds, dinosaurs, reptiles and
Archaeopteryx he concludes that Archaeopteryx is no more closely
related to birds than several types of theropod dinosaurs including
tyrannosaurids and ornithomimids. He argues that Archaeopteryx is not
an ancestral bird and transfers it to the dinosaur suborder Theropoda.
He believes that there may not, in fact, be any 'missing link' between
dinosaurs and birds to be discovered in the fossil record but that
birds may have arisen by means of a 'saltative' change between the two
groups. By this he means a sudden and abrupt evolutionary change
rather than the gradual and progressive kind advocated by Darwin.







> 
> Why do we have almost identical DNA to chimpanzees if we are not both
> related to a common ancestor?  Why is mouse DNA so close to ours if we
> are not connected?


75% of our DNA is shared with a banana.. that makes you a fruit?



snip with the rest of asinine assumption in genetics...
so we all have the same build material.

so does a porcelain vase, with floor tiles...