(I see no way it would have been useful in a tree to lay eggs).Tell that to all the birds we know.
If we evolved from fish that laid eggs into primates that swung from trees, then why not primates that laid eggs in trees. Seems we could check in on the eggs once in a while during our swinging without having to carry around the extra burden of a baby in our belly.
YOU said that evolutionary biologists DID say that our ancestors laid eggs in trees while swinging from trees (as our primate ancestors). You have failed to substantiate this absurd claim by citing ANY biologist who as ever said this. You made the claim; put up or shut up.
Certainly I said no such thing. You can either re-read the posts, shut your ownself up or apologize. I made suggestions and theories and "what if" questions, which is what we are discussing anyway, right? YOU can't provide a post where i said that "evolutionary biologists DID say that our ancestors laid eggs in trees while swinging from trees " because I never said it. I posed a question. Either a question is allowed in your Darwinian world or not. Laying eggs in trees to me seems to be the "missing link" which scientists have yet to provide. It would be the most efficient and expedient birth process if one is doomed to swinging from trees. Birds have adapted it as the most, not completely, pedatory free. It makes perfect sense that we would have evolved from there (as tree swingers) to hunter-gatherers, live birth, land locked animals. Yet nobody has yet to provide a homo specimen that laid eggs or a live-birth mammal that evolved into a primate, tree swinging human. Either from a fish to a crocodile to a monkey to a human or a fish to a shark to a monkey to a human....nothing.
"Tell that to all the birds we know."
I don't know any understand English. The fact remains that egg laying in trees a very dangerous activity. Birds do it not because it is a great adaptation to living in trees but because their ancestors laid eggs and there was either not enough selective pressure to change or the needed variation never happened.
" If we evolved from fish that laid eggs into primates that swung from trees, then why not primates that laid eggs in trees."
Because you're missing a number of important steps in between. Placental reproductive systems just can't change to any other one at a whim. There has to be strong selective pressure to change AND the correct variation available. Evolution works on what is available, not some infinite set of variation that might be nice. There are contingencies.
" Certainly I said no such thing."
Certainly you DID say exactly that. You said,
" According to the evolutionist anything is possible. Not only did we lay eggs once, we laid them while swinging from trees. There's nothing to validate this as anything but someone's over-active imagination."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1609687/posts?page=399#399
" You can either re-read the posts, shut your ownself up or apologize."
Except I have nothing to apologize for. You do.
"YOU can't provide a post where i said that "evolutionary biologists DID say that our ancestors laid eggs in trees while swinging from trees " because I never said it."
Already provided it.
"I posed a question."
It was not in any way a question. You made a declarative statement.
"Laying eggs in trees to me seems to be the "missing link" which scientists have yet to provide. It would be the most efficient and expedient birth process if one is doomed to swinging from trees."
This is nuts. There are no egg laying primates, we don't lay eggs, yet you claim that there has to be an egg-laying primate in our ancestry for evolution to be true. Not only would this egg-laying capability have to have evolved from a placental reproductive system, but it would then have to have changed back to a placental system with no signs of ever having been briefly egg-laying.
You are either woefully ignorant or are trying your hardest to make creationists look dumb.