Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: RightOnTheBorder
Are we to believe that evolution is selective as to which species are evolved,

Yes. Species evolve in response to selective pressures. Some crocodiles may have evolved smaller teeth along the way, but they died out because they were less able to compete.

BTW, the idea that crocodiles and mites haven't evolved is a bit silly, although I do agree that there are certain morphological features that tend to stay the same due to their selective advantage.

Just as one example of crocodilian evolution, try looking out for one of these the next time you're in the Everglades.

43 posted on 08/28/2012 1:20:29 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Alter Kaker
That’s not an example of evolution. That’s an example of an extinct species. Merely because a human scientist calls Pissarrachampsa sera “crocodilian” (a wholly-terrestrial saurian?) does not make it so.

Prime example of pseudoscientific bravo sierra from the CBS (CBS, mind you) article linked:
“We are dealing with an exceptionally divergent lineage of extinct crocodile diversity,“ Montefeltro said. “There are many fossils that still need to be found to link this crocodile to those who came before and after.”
More attempts at making the physical finds fit the claim rather than the other way around (the former is unscientific; the latter is scientific method). They find one fossil and build a mythology around it, in hopes of finding “many fossils” that will fit their eschatology. “Exceptionally divergent” is a bravo-sierraism for “It actually is nothing like a crocodile or any crocodilian, but we are going to say it is just to get headlines and, of course, more government funding”.
62 posted on 08/28/2012 2:25:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

Like I said, evolution may explain why traits that are variable within the same species (like tooth size) change gradually over time.

It does not however explain the quantum leaps of difference between supposed iterations of what evolutionists would have us believe is the same species. There are no fossils yet found with traits common to both homo sapiens and any another genus. If we are to believe that changing from one genus into another is a gradual process brought about by selective environmental pressures, would we not expect to find a being with traits of more than one genus?

Your dinosaur “crocodile” kind of proves my point. It contains no bone that is the same shape, proportion, or function as a modern crocodile. If it did the researchers would be crying it from the rooftops as final proof of evolution. As it stands, the creature has features that look similar to a crocodile so people who already believe evolution claim it to be an ancestor


68 posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:53 PM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker
BTW, the idea that crocodiles and mites haven't evolved is a bit silly, although I do agree that there are certain morphological features that tend to stay the same due to their selective advantage.

Pics or it didn't happen: your statement is halfway between circular reasoning and the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Cheers!

77 posted on 08/28/2012 4:18:13 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson