So you have proof that all mammals evolved from this creature. This is a proven fact. Is that your position? I said "fall down." I should have said "failed to be consistent with their own standards of proof." That is all I am asking for. If you have proof of an original mammal from which all others descended, lets see the proof....[gratutitous abuse deleted]...
You have proven nothing except that you have another theory. If you can't do better than provide a second theory as your proof, you have proven my point.Clearly, you are going to need to enlighten me about what you accept as 'proof,' and what you regard the measure science (which I remain cheered to know that you are not 'against') uses as 'proof.' E.g. if I drop a stone and, matching the prediction of the theory of gravity, it falls to the earth, have I:
1. Demonstrated gravity, or
2. Given evidence of gravity, or
3. Proved gravity?
I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who thinks this is an insult game, so grow up or find someone else to play your games with.
Please indicate where on earth I offered you any insult??? If you perceived an insult in my post, then you are correct in believing one of us is exhibting some arrested development here.
Okay, you identified a mammal that lived a long time ago. That does not demonstrate, provide evidence of, or prove it is the first mammal, the parent of all mammals as you stated. I will give you that it is consistent with the theory. In fact, it is required by that theory. But it does not demonstrate that it was the first mammal, or indicate how that "firstness" was determined. Therefore it is not proof and does not validate your original theory. It is not proof. It is at best a corollary. That is my issue.
If you didn't mean your "of course you're not" comment in a condescending fashion, I apologize for my reaction. But since you said that "one of us is exhibiting arrested development here," I assume you mean me, and I assume you intended your comments to be as I had first assumed. I don't deserve that for simply asking a question of the data and its interpretation. Yet that seems to be the general tone of these threads. I don't understand why that is necessary.
All I am asking is to meet the standard of proof that you require of others. I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying that if you are going to require proof from others, you need to require proof of your own point of view on this item, and you haven't.