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]
> > > <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.
>


the drawing of a conclusion by biologist are speculation based on the
evidence sometime they error. it is faith per defintion.

>
> > 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.


I used the term unrelated, meaning not ancestral.

>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>