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

"JaBrIoL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Budikka) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> > > so once again, we can say, that defintion of what not or might be is
> > > dependant on the science discpline at hand.
> > > sound like a budikka colossal mhole to me.
> >
> > Once again your demonstration of just how colossal the holes are in
> > your education and competence is staggering.
>
> sure.. sure..
> > 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..
>
> next question?
>
> >>
> > Transitional species are to be expected and have been found in
> > abundance despite the limits of the fossil record.  Genetic links
> > between species have been found.
>
> 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. 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. There
> is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks
> two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any
> fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any
> fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish
> fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking
> for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a
> fruitless quest.

 How do you explain (away) the postulated Whale family tree, then? I.e.,
what about whales?

>
>  New Scientist noted that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil
> record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change
> continuously over long periods of time." But it admitted:
> "Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for
> individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by
> known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear
> not to evolve even over millions of years." And geneticist Stebbins
> writes: "No transitional forms are known between any of the major
> phyla of animals or plants." He speaks of "the large gaps which exist
> between many major categories of organisms." "In fact," The New
> Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, "the fossil record does not
> convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
> Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.".
>

*astoundingly long periods of time." The astoundingly long period of time
that fully  formed species existed, compared with the relatively  much
shorter period of time that transitional forms existed may account for the
fact that transitional forms are rare or not existant in the fossil record.
theoretically a new transitional species could form, which quickly through
natural selection within that same new species, optimized the phenotype in
such a short geological time span that the fossils of the transitional
ancestors within the species might be so rare it would be like looking for a
needle in a haystack.

>  This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society
> of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor
> of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: "Some 120
> scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work
> of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals
> divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of
> plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from
> all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear
> suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates,
> elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first
> appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor,
> much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor." Moore
> added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record
> very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at
> all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions
> between plant kinds have never occurred."

If this pasted quote postulates descent of mammals from reptiles, it must be
rather old.

>
>  Thus, what was true in Darwin's day is just as true today. The
> evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D'Arcy Thompson
> said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: "Darwinian
> evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals
> from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from
> the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the
> gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever."
>

Fish would not show transitional limbs, since at first, they would be
wiggling on fins through the mud.  However, finns have the prototypical
structure to be able to evolve into feet, if evolution is a valid theory,
whioch i sat that it is. Once again, birds and mammals must not have evolved
from reptiles but from another group of creatures, perhaps therapsids as a
previous writer mentioned. The idea that reptiles were our ancestors came
about at a time when the fossil records were known  collectively in much
less detail than now.

> Snipped the usual non-informational rant................
>
> of course we now await on your critique on "new scientist", they just
> wrote an article, of how the assumption of the evolution of plants
> is......wrong...
> another one to throw into your "hole" basket..