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

"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]
> > <snip>
> > > 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...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Let us look at your denigration of extrapolating from fossil evidence.
> > Consider a single bone. A thigh-bone several feet in length, or a tooth
> > several inches in length. Are you claiming we can not make any
> > determinations about the organism from these single bones?
>
> of course not..  what I am saying that to claim that said bone could be
> ancestral to another lifeform based on its similiarity is a leap of faith.

Biologists don't make "leaps of faith", they study the evidence and draw
conclusions. Ancestry is not determined by similarity, but by homology.


> it could be a totally different unrelated creature all together. Your
> example of the neanderthal, it was once concieved that it was part of
modern
> man ancestor, now science claim, it is totally unrelated human species

The phrase "totally unrelated" is deceptive and flatly false. Neanderthals
are very closely related to modern humans, though probably not ancestral.
Nevertheless, after having found enough specimens, scientists can determine
if a tooth is human or neanderthal -- your claim to the contrary not
withstanding.


> parallel to modern man but not ascended from. this based on better and
> careful study. And by anthropologist willing to accept that previous
> conclusion were wrong.
>
>
>
>
>