That's exactly the reasons I got this new swimsuit!
Posted on 01/24/2006 5:42:09 PM PST by Tyche
The legendary "Sphinx" eventually found its counterpart version in archeological fossil. Chinese and American paleontologists found two distinct kinds of bone characteristics in the fossil of a sharp-mouthed mammal excavated in China's Liaoning province. The mammal's upper part makes people believe it was viviparous while its lower part looks like oviparous, reports Wen Hui Daily.
The latest issue of the British magazine Nature reports the unprecedented discovery. The magazine editor as well as paleontologists marveled at the discovery and believed it might change the traditional theory on mammals evolution.
Li Gang, one of the coauthors of the paper, said the existing mammals are classified into two groups - the viviparous therian which have fully evolved bones such as kangaroos and elephants, and the oviparous monotreme which have comparatively primitive bones. The newly discovered fossil possesses the characteristics of both bones, a fact which won it the title "world No.1".
Analysis of the fossil revealed that the mammal was 12 centimeters long and weighed about 15 to 20 grams. It lived about 120 million years ago in early Cretaceous period.
Further examination also found many evolutionary discrepancies. For example, it had the teeth of therians but also retained the lumbar ribs found only in primitive mammals.
So what is the explanation for this peculiar phenomenon of "lion body and human head"? Li Gang reasoned that the mammal finished synchronized evolution for both its upper part and lower part a long time ago. However, for some special survival need it had to let its evolved lower part to "retrogress" into a more primitive state.
Just waiting for the article in the NYTimess....
No. Sphincter..
"Grain of salt" ping.
"Further examination also found many evolutionary discrepancies. For example, it had the teeth of therians but also retained the lumbar ribs found only in primitive mammals. "
Evolution! LOL!!!
Nothing like outcome based fossils:
"So what is the explanation for this peculiar phenomenon of "lion body and human head"? Li Gang reasoned that the mammal finished synchronized evolution for both its upper part and lower part a long time ago. However, for some special survival need it had to let its evolved lower part to "retrogress" into a more primitive state."
Oh, so now "evolution" goes backwards and forwards when it suits the eyes and "reasoning" of an "evolutionist". LOL!!! This defies their own hypothesis! Truly this is comic book humor.
I ain't gonna ping the list for this one.
They are also unique (or were until Hillary came along) for being the only venemous mammals.
If evolution is the natural way of things, why aren't modern apes evolving into humans. In fact, why are there any apes left at all?
Good question to which you will never receive an answer.
ha
> If evolution is the natural way of things, why aren't modern apes evolving into humans. In fact, why are there any apes left at all?
When you were born, did your uncle and cousins die out?
> Oh, so now "evolution" goes backwards and forwards when it suits the eyes and "reasoning" of an "evolutionist". LOL!!! This defies their own hypothesis!
No, it doesn't.
It isn't "survival of the fittest," or at least it shouldn't be; it's "survival of the fitted." As long as environments exist to which modern apes are fitted, they will survive.
No, they were the same species. But shouldn't we be observing the apes evolving into something human--or at least more humanlike--before our eyes
That's a good answer, but why was our ape-line more fitted to evolve into humans than the apes living under the same conditions? I'd buy into a random mutation better than evolution of the fitted, because that means physical changes due to better adaptation to the environment. Instead we have a different set of genes.
There's a lot to be said for evolution but most arguments for it can't quite make me get over the hump of scepticism.
Actually, I think the universe was started by my Uncle Roy, the clockmaker, in a previous billion year-old incarnaion. Beyond that I'm not prepared to go.
> shouldn't we be observing the apes evolving into something human--or at least more humanlike--before our eyes
Why should they? The niche for "human" is already filled.
> but why was our ape-line more fitted to evolve into humans than the apes living under the same conditions?
What an odd question. It's like asking when when your ancestors moved from Scotland (or wherever) to the US, why didn't the other Scots become Americans as well?
Just as people drift apart and do/become differnt things, so do species.
That's exactly the reasons I got this new swimsuit!
Hah. Is that one of the Spinks brothers or a young larry holmes?
I thought species were broader classifications than that. I'm not a biology guru, but for example, you have different breeds of horses, but aren't they the same species?
I don't see how the comparison works about humans, moving from one area to the world to another, become different species.
My original question was about whether in Darwin's theory parallel species shouldn't evolve/adapt to survive in much the same manner when they face the same environment/events?
And since we know that the genes are actually different through DNA, how could the difference be explained by the two species simply making different physical adaptations to external circumstances?
Isn't it more likely that the genes were inherently different from the beginning? I mean no one thinks we evolved from the line that produced elephants.
Or that a mutation of some sort occurred that became widespread enough to make the two species viable and distinguisable?
How about this? If evolution is not to the "fittest" --meaning a natural progression toward a "better" product-- but to the 'fitted'--meaning adapted to the external conditions--then couldn't apes be evolved from humans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.