Missing-link fossil wasn't a fish -- it has a pelvis

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Thursday, July 4, 2002 | David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

[Phil V.]

A fossil previously mistaken for the remains of an extinct fish turns out to hold the earliest known creature to have emerged from the Earth's waters and walk on land some 350 million years ago.

This ancestor of every four-limbed, backboned animal living today -- the first creature clearly designed to walk on land, with forward-facing feet -- fills a major gap in the evidence for the evolution of vertebrates from sea to land, scientists say.

[gore3000]

More blather, more insults. Where is the refutation of my postings? I made the challenge very easy for you. I said: " One would think that if my statements had been refuted as you say that at least one of you would have had the perspicacity to cut and paste the 'decisive' refutation from the thread? ".

An easy challenge to meet if your screed is true. Instead you continue the blather.

BTW - how do you change a program by random mutation? What was the answer to that question?????????

[gore3000]

Of course other posters attribute this to "environmental niches" with the environment directing the process. I'm still having a problem with that one because it seems to me that the environment itself would be fluid, i.e. subject to whatever else was going on at the time. Or to put it another way, an environment might arise or fall away from the emergence of a new phylum, e.g. a food source.

It also seems to me that if evolution is powered by natural selection and the struggle for life and survival of the fittest, that the more species and the more organisms around the struggle would be keener. Therefore, there should be more evolution as the number of species and organisms increase rather than less. Seems that the evolutionists in order to discredit the miracle of the Cambrian are contradicting the basis of their own theory.

[scripter]

As you said, way back in post #213 you asked:

From what specific species did the following traits descend:

1. the mammary glands.
2. the egg laying.
3. 3 earbones.
4. the poison spur.
5. the duck like bill.
6. the webbed feet.
7. the toothless mouth.
8. the electro-sensor in the bill.
9. the fur.
10. the cloaca.
11. the ability to vocalize and make different sounds.

I'm glad you got back to this point. After checking the replies to your #213 I noticed the thread moved quickly onto other issues and away from the platypus. I'm also very interested to know from what species the above traits came from.

[Junior]

Aldrin may have been a Christian, but that does not mean he was a creationist. Either way, though, he did not design and build the ship which took him to the Moon -- he simply drove it, so his credentials as an evolutionist or creationist have no bearing upon your argument.

[Junior]

The first step was "feathers." Some dinosaurs had them -- for insulation purposes. This is a good indication that the line of dinosaurs leading to birds was warm-blooded. As for the second part -- the wings -- the rest of the post showed how they could have come about from simple modifications of the arms. It wouldn't have developed flight right off, but then again it didn't need to. It simply needed to climb trees a bit faster than whatever was chasing it. Sometimes your inability to see the forest for the trees gets a little wearisome.

[Junior]

It makes LBB feel special to believe he's outwitted the greatest minds in the biological sciences. It's akin to the mindset which drives the more fanatical conspiracy theorists.

[PatrickHenry]

Blue-skipping placemarker.
[Newest] You [PatrickHenry] have been suspended several times placemarker.
[Next to Newest] The-Earth-is-old-and-Henry-Morris-is-right placemarker.
There are no creationists placemarker.
Wildly elliptical placemarker.
1^720 placemarker.
Nobel Prize for biology placemarker.
All discoveries disprove evolution placemarker.
DNA disproves evolution placemarker.
The fossil record disproves evolution placemarker.
Nobel Prize for creationism placemarker.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution placemarker.
Parable of the Ant and the Elephant placemarker.

[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]

[general_re]

After checking the replies to your #213 I noticed the thread moved quickly onto other issues and away from the platypus. I'm also very interested to know from what species the above traits came from.

Are you really? Okay, here's an answer, and you two can try to prove me wrong:

From what specific species did the following traits descend:

1. the mammary glands - obdurodon insignis
2. the egg laying - obdurodon insignis
3. 3 earbones - obdurodon insignis
4. the poison spur - obdurodon insignis
5. the duck like bill - obdurodon insignis
6. the webbed feet - obdurodon insignis
7. the toothless mouth - obdurodon insignis
8. the electro-sensor in the bill - obdurodon insignis
9. the fur - obdurodon insignis
10. the cloaca - obdurodon insignis
11. the ability to vocalize and make different sounds - obdurodon insignis

Now I suppose I'll sit back and wait for the inevitable blue-flood to be posted, and wait for the spitting and insisting that what was asked for was not actually what was wanted...

[medved]

Aside from the basic impossibility of evolving flight feathers and the necessary mechanism to turn them, there is the question of time, which you guys are still ignoring.

Beyond some point, make the amount of time you;re talking about short enough, and you're clearly no longer talking about evolution at all; you're talking about re-engineering and design changes such as we see from Detroit every year.

An examination of recent evidence involving dinosaurs indicates that the millions of years and tens of millions of years we've been reading about all our lives which supposedly separate our own age from the age of dinosaurs is a bunch of BS.

Readers may do their own google search on "Ica Stones" or check out this link. As I see it, despite the fact of locals producing the things once they discovered that gringos would pay for them, there's basically no possibility that the originals were all fakes.

The article about dinosaurs and American Indian petroglyphs which you find on Bearfabrique is another such case, only much stronger..

There is no possibility that the state park systems of Utah and Ontario are both perpetrating the same fraud on the public without even realizing they are doing so. The basic reality is that Indian ancestors dealt with dinosaurs on a regular basis a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years ago, and not 70 million years ago. Vine DeLoria in particular has no use for Christianity or any other form of western religion, making this line of evidence pretty much immune from being written off as Christian propaganda. Indian legends and oral traditions describe the stegosaur as having red fur and the characteristic saw-blade back and "great spiked tail" which it used as a weapon. The petroglyphs we find around lakes and rivers are warnings, meaning "One of these lives here, be careful"

In fact, aside from the one or two accurate depictions of Mishipishu such as at Agawa Rock, there are other more symbolic pictographs, and yet they all show the dorsal spines of the stegosaur:

---

Once you realize that the time span separating Ancient Greece, say, from the age of dinosaurs is no more than a couple of times that separating us from Plato and Socrates, then you have to ask yourself a question. Evolution amounts to a claim that all changes in our biosphere occur via processes which we can observe at work in the world today. Given that all of these changes have occurred within the last few thousand or the last couple of tens of thousands of years, then why has nothing resembling macroevolution ever been observed in recorded history? What is it which used to cause such changes which has simply been shut down and turned off in our own age of the world?

[general_re]

I have discovered an important fact regarding the origins of the universe. In my brief search about platypi this morning, I have discovered that the "Big Bang" theory must be false. And, to my surprise, it was a creationist who discovered the key fact that so many scientists have overlooked. Specifically, I refer to the following passage:

THE LAW OF "CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM." Big, long words! This law says that if a spinning object explodes, the pieces that fly off will be spinning in the same direction. In other words, if an object is spinning clockwise and it explodes, all the pieces that fly off will all be spinning clockwise. This is a LAW. It always happens. It never "doesn't happen"! This is bad news for the "Big Bang" theory!

Source.

Clearly, this is a discovery of great importance - I have preserved the author's punctuation, which indicates that he is also aware of the importance of this discovery. I expect to see this startling consequence of the conservation of angular momentum receive the wide publicity it richly deserves very soon now. That is, unless the global science cabal buries this important discovery in order to preserve its atheistic, materialistic plot to pervert the hearts of good Christians everywhere...

[Junior]

Aside from the basic impossibility of evolving flight feathers and the necessary mechanism to turn them, there is the question of time, which you guys are still ignoring.

Why would it be impossible to evolve flight feathers? The feathers were already there, and flight feathers are a simply modification of them. As for time, archaeopteryx, who already had feathers lived 150 million years ago. There is more time between archaeopteryx and the demise of the dinosaurs (85 million years) than between the demise of the dinosaurs and us (65 million years). Look at all the changes life has undergone in the last 65 million years -- there is plenty of time for feathers, flight feathers and flight to have developed.

[Junior]

Once you realize that the time span separating Ancient Greece, say, from the age of dinosaurs is no more than a couple of times that separating us from Plato and Socrates, then you have to ask yourself a question.

You base your claim on there not being enough time for evolution on your (out of thin air) claim that all of history and prehistory is only a few thousand years old, which is based upon the twisting of a few ancient myths and a couple of petroglyphs of uncertain pedigree? You have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your claim and the physical evidence there is completely contradicts it. How wonderful it must be to hold onto one's delusions in the face of reality.

[cinFLA]

Absolute desperation! Okay, how did man descend from bacteria without new mutations, without new genetic information? Are you making the ridiculous statement that all the genetic information needed to make a man was to be found in the first single celled animal????????

Once again you prove incapable of reading. You completely ignored my last post concerning mutations of bacteria and you have completely ignored the widely accepted definition of evolution. 99.99% of life and earth scientists believe in evolution, most retards do not. Case closed. Bye.

[Junior]

This site has a bit more information on the evolution of monotremes.  Do you think LBB would read it?

[Junior]

Except the universe didn't "explode" -- it inflated like a balloon. Do I get my Nobel Prize now?

[general_re]

Do you think LBB would read it?

Possibly. Now ask me if I think that particular person would understand it ;)

[gore3000]

Aldrin may have been a Christian, but that does not mean he was a creationist.

Of course he was a creationist. If he was a Christian he believed in a Creator. What your post shows is that you judge everyone by the silly standards of your silly little world - whether someone is an evolutionist or not.

Also, Aldrin was not a monkey in a cage, all the astronauts then were highly trained in many areas of science. Your deprecation of the courage and accomplishments of him and his fellow astronauts is totally despicable.

[gore3000]

Really? Can you give us a picture of this obduron insignis? Can you show us the traits he had? Of course not, because it is only a lower jaw. Of course there is the two teeth from South America proving the descent of this toothless animal also! I am asking for a species we know had the traits, not a couple of bones. There are a million species around from all classes of vertebrates, none of which have even a small portion of the traits of the platypus. As usual you folk are using the phony 'science' of paleontology to make up stories for your phony theory.

[general_re]

There is that. Mostly, I posted it because I was sick of the same tired arguments about the laws of thermodynamics, and this one is at least different. As I recall, conservation of angular momentum says that if you explode a rotating object, the total angular momentum of the system of new objects will be the same as the total angular momentum of the original object, not that the rotational direction of the new objects will be the same as the original. Conservation of rotational direction is not a law I'm familiar with ;)

[general_re]

Really? Can you give us a picture of this obduron insignis? Can you show us the traits he had? Of course not, because it is only a lower jaw.

As tempting as it is to chalk up your post to you being a liar, as you're so quick to do to everyone else, I'll be charitable and assume that you're just ignorant. From the link that Junior posted above:

During the 1970s, the first Tertiary monotreme fossils were uncovered in southern Australia. Over several years, a jaw, a pelvis, and teeth of the Miocene platypus Obdurodon insignis were discovered. More recently, a skull with a nearly full complement of teeth has been found in New South Wales (Archer et al. 1992). This new species, O. dicksoni, demonstrates that unlike the modern platypus, Obdurodon kept its teeth at maturity. Like the platypus, however, Obdurodon had an elongated snout, though straighter than in its modern relative.

So, prove me wrong...