Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

[PistolPaknMama]

I didn't bring up sharks. You did. You will have to explain how it came to be that there were sharks wandering around with the marsupials.

Oh good gawd. Go back to your post 426 which was a response to my post 424. I didn't mention either sharks or marsupials in my post. You brought up sharks and I had no idea why you did. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else. I don't have to explain why sharks were wandering around with marsupials. You said "Early placental mammals were driven from Australia by marsupials due to their reproductive superiority." I have no idea why you brought this up. I have no idea about sharks or marsupials except that it seems they would not compete for the same resources.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My preface was that according to the evolutionist tadpole-to-human theorists, like yourself, anything is possible."

I remember, I already called you on this piece of silliness. Your statement,

"According to the evolutionist anything is possible. Not only did we lay eggs once, we laid them while swinging from trees."

means that some evolutionist says this happened. Except, the only person who has said this is you.

"I also said in several posts that I don't know why there is no link between egg laying mammals and those who lay eggs in trees, such as birds. Scientists can't provide that link."

There is zero evidence there ever was an egg laying primate. Your insistence that there should be one is nutty. Your insistence that this mythical egg laying primate should then revert back to placental live-birth reproduction, with absolutely no traces that this happened, is equally nutty.

"I'm not having a discussion with you yahoos who don't want to engage in discussion."

For your own sake I recommend knitting as an alternative.

" I believe you all think you have hidden gills somewhere that evolved into testicles."

?? Are you sober?

"The best YOU and your kind can provide is that I am dumb and contradict myself."

We didn't have to do anything.

"None of you have provided anyting that explained how we got from fish to man EXCEPT some theory."

Sure we have, you just ignored it.

"Yet when some other theory or question is interjected into your frail little scenario, you start bullying instead of discussing."

No, we pointed out your errors, which were many.

"So go talk amongst your own holier than thou selves. Post all your charts, pictures and scientific evidence (with links) as definitive proof for all us dummies."

OK.

" Thanks much!"

Thanks for... something.

[jec41]

You whizzed right past that title: "Origin of Species". That's the point of the piece. Everything else nestles within.

We simply cannot revise what Darwin understood as "evolution" to mere change.

Again

Darwin said this almost 150 years ago.

This is from Origin of Species (6th ed.), Chapter 2 - Variation Under Nature:

The many slight differences which appear in the offspring from the same parents, or which it may be presumed have thus arisen, from being observed in the individuals of the same species inhabiting the same confined locality, may be called individual differences. No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the same actual mould. These individual differences are of the highest importance for us, for they are often inherited, as must be familiar to every one; and they thus afford materials for natural selection to act on and accumulate, in the same manner as man accumulates in any given direction individual differences in his domesticated productions.

[muawiyah]

Oh, I see ~ I was responding to the claims of "live birth" ~ simply noting that sharks give live birth ~ just like mammals.

There are also snakes that give live birth.

Leaving your eggs lying about is risky.

However, the second statement about Australia, South America and Antarctica was separate and distinct from anything having to do with sharks.

Your response to that suggested that you thought it to be a long swim from Australia (with its marsupials) to anywhere else (with marsupials).

[ml1954]

Great Debate among evolutionists, creationists and intelligent designers.

The only place this debate is Great is in the minds of the creationists and intelligent designers. There is no debate among 99+% of scientists. And there is no debate between creationists/intelligent designers and that 99+% of scientists. The creationists/intelligent designers are just trying to create the illusion there's a debate, in the minds of an uninformed public, for political purposes, to advance their religious beliefs. And that is the Dove PA case in a nutshell.

[Oztrich Boy]

Two more missing transitional fossils!!

"But it's still a fis... er, creeping th... - whatever it is, it's still one of those - no evolution there."

[muawiyah]

You know Darwin lived in a time where they believed dogs were a different species from wolves.

They also had strange views about sheep.

[jec41]

Can we do it in vitro?

I don't know. Its not a subject I have considerd or have other than general knowledge.

[PistolPaknMama]

Thanks for proving my earlier point and not wasting any more of my time. Evolution does not equal intelligent life form. Now I understand, thanks!

[PistolPaknMama]

Your response to that suggested that you thought it to be a long swim from Australia (with its marsupials) to anywhere else (with marsupials).

I didn't respond to anything about marsupials except how the marsupials would compete with sharks and run them into the sea. I think you just responded to the wrong posts. :-)

[Oztrich Boy]

I ain't no monkey's uncle.

No you're a monkey's n^th cousin

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Thanks for proving my earlier point and not wasting any more of my time."

Your silly statements still stand. No evolutionists say that there ever were egg laying primates. Nor is there any reason at all to think there should have been egg laying primates.

You didn't explain your *gills to testicle* theory. Does that require a few more pints?

"Evolution does not equal intelligent life form. Now I understand, thanks!"

In that case you may have evolved after all.

You are correct about one thing; these debates are over your head. Here is a link for something a little easier for you:

http://knitting.about.com/

[muawiyah]

There's currently a debate between "scientific true believers" and "noncommital scientists".

J. Craig Venter has proposed creating an artificial lifeform into which we would insert genes found in viruses in the oceans (by the tens, if not hundreds, of millions, to see what they do).

Now that's "noncommital".

There are many people outside the three realms who'd just like to see how the whole machine works ~ and forget about this common origin stuff ~ it's gumming everything up and blinding us to the possibilities of real research.

[grey_whiskers]

If they want to challenge the tree of life, let them produce something like a pegasus fossil, or any other evidence that is inconsistent, incompatible, and irreconcilable with the theory of evolution.

Possibly a poor choice of words, there, PH. If you meant "produce" as in "to present" or "to display", yes.

But I shudder to think of some of the more zealous adherents of ID attempting to concoct such a fossil and pass it off as legitimate, using the justification "well, look at the platypus, it doesn't make sense either."

Full Disclosure: Harpies don't count. We already have mentions of Helen Thomas photos in the first few replies...

Cheers!

[jec41]

Have a good night.

[grey_whiskers]

I think you meant that these

were separated at birth!

Cheers!

[jec41]

You know Darwin lived in a time where they believed dogs were a different species from wolves. They also had strange views about sheep.

Whatever his time, he observed a fact not noticed by others thousands of years before. 400 religious views today are different and some have strange views of sheep.

[grey_whiskers]

This guy wanted even more than that. And he got it!

Cheers!

[muawiyah]

He didn't notice a fact ~ he came up with an idea for a model.

Big difference.

Folks had been watching "facts" for hundreds of years when they flew kites. The Wright Brothers, however, came up with an idea, and proved it with a working model.

[grey_whiskers]

mu: Or, by, for example, recombinant DNA technology.

Di: Evidence exists for viral insertion of genetic information. What evidence do you have for "recombinant DNA technology" as a mechanism for the aquisition of genetic information? Be sure to specify the mechanisms of the technology itself.

Just to stir the pot, check out this site.

Full Disclosure: H5N1. Tag, you're it.

Cheers!