Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Successively, the relative proportion of the lower jaw comprised of the dentary bone (teeth-bearing bone) gradually increased until the entire lower jaw consisted of the dentary (Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In Pennsylvanian and Lower and basal Upper Permian synapsids, the postero-dorsal edge of the lower jaw rose broadly but only slightly above the level of the tooth row (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Ivakhnenko, et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In succeeding forms, the posterior part of the dentary expanded dorsally and posteriorly as a blade-like process, and progressively became larger (Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Sigogneau, 1970; Brink, 1963; Kemp, 1979; Hopson, 1987, 1994), forming the coronoid process (Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Hopson, 1987, 1994) to which the mammalian-type jaw musculature is attached (Barghusen, 1968; Bramble, 1978; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Concomitantly, the post-dentary bones progressively reduced in size (Allin, 1975; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994).Where are the "maybe"s?Beginning with the Upper Pennsylvanian sphenacodonts, a notch developed in the angular bone that offsets a projection, the reflected lamina (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The reflected lamina first became a large blade-like flange (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Ivakhnenko, et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Broom, 1932; Sigogneau, 1970; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971), and then was progressively reduced to a delicate horseshoe-shaped bone (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Brink, 1963; Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Kemp, 1979, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Simultaneously, the quadrate progressively decreased in size (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The articular did not decrease in size much, being small initially, but developed a downward-pointing prong (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). In the synapsids, the lower jaw was hinged to the skull by the articular and quadrate bones (Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Thus they are classified as reptiles (Simpson, 1959; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). As the quadrate and articular became smaller, they were relieved of their solid suture to the dentary and skull (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). A projection of the dentary extended posteriorly and made contact with the squamosal. Morganucodon possessed the mammalian dentary-squamosal jaw joint adjacent to the reptilian articular-quadrate jaw joint (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Carroll, 1988). It is classified as the first mammal, but it is a perfect intermediate. Now that a new jaw joint was established, the quadrate and articular were subsequently relieved of that function (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Ultimately, in Middle and Upper Jurassic mammals, the tiny quadrate, articular, and ring-like angular migrated as a unit to the middle ear where they joined the stapes and became the incus, malleus, and tympanic bones (Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988).
Here a gap, there a gap;
Everywhere a gap, gap!
Fossil record's full a gaps!
Eeee-I-eeee-I-ohhhhh!
I thought for a moment you were going to say "Chianti sauce".... like in "Silence of the Lambs."
On a roll, are we, evolution boy? We'll always have Romania.
"We'll always have Paris."
[Boggart to Bergman in Casablanca]]
The homology argument he makes is that 1) homology isn't perfectly related to inheritance in simplistically predictable ways (duh!), and 2) design cannot be excluded. There could be more. I gave it the super-speed scan because I'm going out to eat.
But anyway, design has nothing to tell us about anything.
Yes, those glass-like formations that occur when lightning strikes sandy ground.
Given the sandstone structure of which the Grand Canyon is a part, if medved's "Cosmic electrical discharge" theory for the formation of the the Canyon were correct, one would expect to find HUGE fulgurites in the area, but I've never heard of any being reported. How odd......
Did you ever get a response from "medved" to this question?
And I'll never have my gall bladder back.
Ba-a-a-a-a-a-ad inference!
A lie. I posted to you what macro-evolution is. I posted the reasons and the distinctions. I posted the sharp dividing lines. You and your friends ignore and continue to lie without even trying to refute my statement on what macro-evolution is. And yes, speciation is not changing the mating call. That is totally absurd and you guys should be totally ashamed to state that and to defend it.
However, so that you cannot repeat the above lie again, I hereby post again the clear and distinct differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution. No one disagrees with micro-evolution - the small changes that species make to adapt to their environment. However, the meat of the theory of evolution is not small changes. Indeed, they should not even be called changes at all, they should be called transformations. The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.
Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.
So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus.
Oh, I see, you are not a liar, you were just indulging in semantic sophistry. You were just trying to make people think you had proof when you had none. I guess that's what you call honest discussion.
So therefore my statement that you have no proof of dinosaurs having mammary glands is correct. My statement that paleontology does not know from beans is correct also. My statement that fossil do not prove evolution is also correct.
Look for it yourself and then post it here with a link to where it was said. You seem to be the expert on everything I said (but of course never back it up, just as you never back up your statements when asked to).
Look for it yourself and then post it here with a link to where it was said. You seem to be the expert on everything I said (but of course never back it up, just as you never back up your statements when asked to).
Design has plenty to tell us and is in fact used in many areas of science – but for whatever reason not biology.
I could say ‘evolution has nothing to offer science’ because nothing has been proven. Man made = ID – Not man made = nature (including man and the universe) This is extremely limiting when we look at the big picture. It is extremely egotistical to assume when we see something so complex and delicate that is not made by man is automatically ‘nature’. It all comes down to choice – God or nature, chance or purpose, and even debating with a mind of random natural occurrence or a mind Designed by Intelligence. (I chose the latter)
I do say ID has much to offer science as a whole.
I have stated that reasoning from an evolutionary framework says that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands. If you're curious, all you have to do is give up. If you can reproduce the evolutionary reasoning, all you have to do is do so. I promise not to say, "That's not it" if you get it right. We both know that ID has nothing to say on the subject one way or the other.
Why do you pretend not to see questions? You freqently seek to impose conclusions upon evolutionary theory that it does not make for itself. Why not show that your arguments are well-founded because you understand what you are rejecting?
All you have to do to end this is 1) give up or 2) provide the evolutionary reasoning why there were no teats on a dinosaur, ever. I've certainly asked you enough times to do one or the other.
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.