Hmm. I don't suppose you could show us a placenta that demonstrates the transition from "non-deciduate" to "deciduate" qualities, could you?
No, but I can't say that I'm familiar with every type of mammal placenta, either. There may be some, there may not be.
Hmm -- I don't suppose you could explain why there allegedly would *have* to be a transitional placenta of that type?
Hint: The difference is a straightforward enough one that it could reasonably have happened in a single mutation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any transitional forms.
For example, the loss of the two tissue layers in the extra-embryonic portion of the deciduate placenta (versus the non-deciduate) alone may have allowed the chorion layer to interdigitate with the uterine wall; and losing a feature is *very* easy to do with single-point mutations.
And then, could you please explain the mechanism that drove this change?
You'll have to clarify your question first.
Hmmm. Looks like a giant "leap of faith" to me, and a leap backwards from common sense at that.
First, beware of "common sense", it's often neither.
"Common sense" would tell you that the Earth is flat, and the Sun revolves around it. The real world is often more complex than it would first appear.
Second, you're missing the point (or trying to distract attention from it, I don't care which).
I've made no specific claims about how the placenta "must" have evolved. Heck, I've not even really declared that it necessarily evolved, period.
What I have done is point out that gore3000's original claims were hogwash. He claimed that the placenta *couldn't* have arisen by "gradual change" from an egg-laying ancestor. I demonstrated that his arguments were fallacious -- it *could* have been implemented by "gradual change" without "breaking" the system.
That's not the same as a proof that it *did*, just that it logically *could*, proving gore3000's specific claims to be wrong.
He was very specific in his claims, and I was very specific in my rebuttal. Running the conversation off in another direction only distracts attention from the topic being debated, before it has been settled.
I count it a red herring when either creationists or evolutionists demand proofs of each other. Evolutionists demand proof of God. Creationists demand an explanation for the order that so permeates the universe if it all happened without some higher being involved.
Strange, how, placed as we are in the universe, few of us are truly able to deliver absolute proofs of anything.
When either side launches into this discussion they place themsleves outside of the strict definition of science. For example, even if one were able to supply an example of a transitional form from a non-deciduate to deciduate placenta, one would be unable to predict via scientific method what is the next step and give demonstration of the same.
And yet evolution cannot be so easily dismissed by common sense. It is no mystery at all to me how one could conjure up all kinds of apparent relationships to explain away a Higher Being to Whom the highest of creatures might be accountable.
But common sense has been woefully lacking for at least a century and a half. Sheez. In the last decade "common sense" in our land elected Klinton for two terms.
Please understand, however, that a great deal of common sense preceded us in history, and that a great majority of people in the world are fully convinced that what we have on our hands is not a random combination of gases and amino acids that somehow developed into our own eyeballs and brains.
Can you blame them for thinking something bigger might be behind all this? Are we taking the right path in cutting ourselves loose from millennia of generations who proclaimed very clearly that Higher Being is involved with the universe?
You've probably got a few years to think about it, so take your time. As for me, real science has yet to disprove any word in the Bible. It's only confirmed what I've known since childhood.