Replies

Is that a statement of fact or theory? If a statement of fact, what is the creature and when was it found?

There are an awful lot of transitionals to choose from; maybe the best to illustrate here is Hadrocodium.

This is when people claiming science is on there side fall down.

Still standing.

I'm not anti-science

Of course you're not...

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. If you have a theory that there is one, let's just call it that. Still standing? I think not.

Don't be so condescending please. It makes you sound like quite an ass and does nothing to convince anyone that you are right or to further the conversation. You have only demonstrated that a creature existed that is theorized to be the first mammal (in fact, you suggest several may, which really demonstrates that you don't know and can't demonstrate that there is a single ancestor). 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. If science isn't about questioning the theory and asking for evidence, what is it?

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. I asked a question about the conflicts in your method as stated and as practiced, and you failed to give a reasonable answer, relying on another theory as proof of the first one. Once again, another reason to stay away from threads on this topic, where there is never any light, only heat.

Thanks for you link. I have a serious question that's raised in response to claimed transitionals. How is parentage proved?

I.e., that a species exists with certain characteristics common to two others doesn't prove it is in the line of both - only that three species existed. We may as easily be drawing a picture based on preconceptions rather than fact.

Scientists acknowledge this often. For example, the statement from your link:

"A team of fossil-finders, led by researchers at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Natural History, suggest the answer may include one of your relatives - a distant cousin of modern mammals."

Whether they are related or not is not proven. The facts on the ground would be the same either way. I don't know how parentage could be proven - perhaps more strongly if parent and mutated child were found together.

So, I think it is a problem with many, if not all, claimed transitional species. Your response?