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

"Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > "Budikka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message
> > > > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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)
> > > > >
> > > > > Almost 20 years ago.  Do you actually have anything recent or is
> your
> > > > > entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > yup.. but nothing has changed... doesnt evolution takes a loooooong
> time
> > > eh?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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!
> > > > >
> > > > > It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix.  A transitional form.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > nope it was a bird... it is called a bird,
> > > >
> > > > and there is evidence that birds existed way before
> > > >
> > > > http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
> > > > CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the
> oldest
> > > > animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor
> of
> > > > birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into
> > serious
> > > > question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs
> and
> > > > birds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. As usual, the true story is more complicated than it seems. We
can
> > > easily find intermediate forms in the fossil record, but exact
> > > lines-of-descent can be difficult to determine. Modern genetics should
> > soon
> > > provide many answers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > well, that is my point... Budikka and many other's however ignore this.
> > truth is we can call anything a trasitional.... it a gap or hole, that
> needs
> > to be explored. but to teach this as concrete fact is moraly wrong.
>
> I already posted that you discovery has been refuted. But even if birds
> evolved from a different branch of the reptilian tree than the therapods,
> how would that change the fact that they evolved?
>

Evolution as the origin of man is the main thread, but  still what we see
here is layer upon layer of geological animal that existed, which are
similar, you must admit, that science might call them related, based on
their similiarity. the connecting dots to each is what goes missing.

We can use the term evolution to about everything, per today scientific
definition. Does this mean that one day Humans will not be humans anymore?

look at the problem of the whale evolution... it was speculated that they
came out of the water and return. then came along certain Mesonychids, and
one fossil in particular found in pakistan, because of this one fossil ear
contruction...
Voila!!!! the ancetor of big blue it is..

just like that! it is a big leap of faith here. in fact all evolution is s
faith oan the paleontology bible called fossils... no different than nutty
creationist intepretation of the 6 day quickie of genesis...