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]
> > > >
> > > > "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.
>
> Me and my cousin are related -- we have a common ancestor, my grandfather,
> but we aren't ancestral. When you use words this way, whether
intentionally
> or not, you create a deceptive message.
>

but your grandfather is not a different species of human. the point is, the
neanderthal was thought to be a "grandfather", to the modern human, now it
is not.


>
>
>