Replies

"My point exactly."

Actually, your pint was that because evolution is a theory it was junk science.

"If we evolved from fish-laying eggs, to egg-laying mammals, why couldn't we be mammals that laid eggs while swinging from trees.?"

Because primates don't lay eggs. There is no evidence at all that there were ever egg laying primates.

"Birds lay eggs in trees. Seems a natural progression that primates, along their evolutionary path, would lay eggs in trees, unless they'd already learned about the live-birth thing."

No, this is ridiculous. There is nothing about living in trees that would push a population to adopt egg laying. What's more, even if there was, adaptations don't evolve just because it may be useful (I see no way it would have been useful in a tree to lay eggs). Evolution works with what's already there. The entire reproductive system of primates was already placental; this places contingencies on any further evolution of the reproductive system.

"If so, and we are so smart, why did we adapt to the more cumbersome and demanding live birth instead of egg laying."

Much better protection of the young. Also, it provides a great start for the mammal's immune system.

This is all a smokescreen of course; 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.

(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.