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]
> > >
> > > "Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  <snip>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Nested-hierarchy.
> >
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Perhaps. Or we may just go extinct.
> >
> >
> > > 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..
> >
> > You are showing your ignorance. There are intermediate forms. Indeed, even
> > if we didn't have intermediates for whales, we do for most other forms.
> 
> 
> actually it has been determined that they might be intermediate form based
> on observations in the fossil records ... with the whale I will explain
> why..
> 
> >Fact
> > is, and it is very clear, that new organisms appear in the fossil record
>  as
> > modifications of existing forms.
> 
> bingo modification is a good term to use.. would you say that such
> modifcation are enviroment based?
> can I modify an existing test fixtures in order to adjust to changing my
> goals at whim?

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that there is some design
imperative preventing you from using components of another model in
another?

What in the world would that be?

Are you claiming that there is some aesthetic limiting God from using
anything but modified, earlier models? Rather blows out of the water
the creationist "Look at that! Isn't it obvious?" argument. It's not
obvious to me why a creator wouldn't mix and match designed
components.

> 
>  >You don't get fish until you get chordates.
> > You don't get amphibians until you get fish. You don't get reptiles until
> > you get amphibians. You don't get mammals until you get reptiles. You
>  don't
> > get hominids until you get the first mammals.
> 
> on another thread with in sci.bio.paleontology newsgroup, there exist
> certain disagreement here. more so on the ancestor of mamals and reptiles.
> 

<shrug> And theolgians argue about fine points in the scriptures. Does
that mean there is serious doubt about their truth in the Christian
seminaries?

> >
> > The broad overview is clear. The rest is details. In accordance with
>  theory,
> > the more we look, the more intermediate forms we find.
> >
> >
> > > 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...
> >
> > No. Evolution is observed in the fossil record and in the genetics of
>  living
> > organisms.
> 
> 
> all living organsim are basicly the same for the las few millenias, witout
> much change within themselves.
> the fossil record is based on stone impressions of what might have been.
> combing the two, is like saying that we
> can gain insight in combining astronomy with astrology.

We could if astrology produced any measurable and consistant results,
compatible with astronomy. Astrology doesn't. But astronomy, genetics,
geology, radiochemistry, comparative anatomy, history, medicine,
animal behavior, ecology, anthropology, and paeontology all procude
large bodies of evidence (with reproducible observations) that are
consistent with each other. They paint a picture which looks the same
from whichever source of scientific information one uses.

Literal interpretaion of the various mythologies of the world are not
only inconsistent with science but also with each other. Yet all of
the sciences - which study the world around us, rather than purely
human stories - fit together.

--- Kermit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >