I'm glad you're not stressed.
In light of the tree thing, what would you say about the line of reptiles from which mammals emerged, versus the one from which birds emerged?
Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
tallhappy said "mammal ear bones from lizard jaws" was junk science and I corrected him for misusing "lizard." But the "-saur" in "dinosaur" means "lizard."
Mammals came from a line of reptiles.
Birds came from a line of reptiles.
I'm not imagining anything. The facts stand for themselves. This is not a "game" to me. I don't think FreeRepublic was envisioned as a glorified nintendo. I was not trying to help you either, I was pointing out a misrepresentation which still remains. Whether you like my style or not will not keep me awake at nights. Truth remains.
All statements were factual. I could have been doing you.
But it was just in a game.
The concept is clear. I haven't studied the evidence, which is all-important in supporting such a concept. I understand there is some controversy, but I'm really not qualified to leap into that one. The end result is consistent with declaring that mammals and birds are both creations of God, each different in their own way from the reptiles, and all partaking in the glory of creation. See, Vade, this evolution stuff isn't stressing me anywhere near as much as you thought it would.
The misrepresentation I am talking about is the wholesale removal of important qualifiers, that is not factual.
I'm glad you're not stressed.
In light of the tree thing, what would you say about the line of reptiles from which mammals emerged, versus the one from which birds emerged?
You must have missed the oscars on TV.
No, you guys are pros (as I said practiced), always going for the big time. Gotta be wholesale.
That deserves at least a drum hit. Maybe even a gold statue.
I imagine the evolutionist would declare that at some unsubstantiated point, not demonstrated in the fossil record, the sturdy reptile branch of the tree somehow (randomly?) developed a clearly-defined fork, from which two smaller branches -- birds and mammals -- each managed to blunder along and develop in its own unique and unguided direction. Each of these two mini-branches were somehow possessed of the necessary genetic material to accomplish this fork in the tree. Is that the evolutionist's model?
Trees fork, yes. But not all branches arise from the same spot on the trunk.
Everything so far fits on a tree.
This trend can be expected to continue.
Trees have branches.
Animals with mammary glands came from reptiles.
Other animals without mammary glands came from reptiles.
Do evos think dinosaurs gave rise to anything? Where do the dinosaurs fit in?
Thank you! Thank you! I accept this honor on behalf of all crevo posters everywhere who have ever been! I'm merely standing on their shoulders.
Please clean your shoes next time and don't linger up there, OK?
Continuing in the evolutionist's mode, I suppose the model states that there was yet an earlier branching, again one which may be unsupported in the fossil record, at which point the dinos, suddenly and conveniently equipped with the necessary dino genes, forked away from something earlier, and so on, working back all the way to the un-Godly ooze from which the theory claims we all arose. So in the evolution model, it's "fork, fork, fork, all the way down." Rather like turtles, no?
The reverse, I should think. But such classification trivia are uninteresting to me. I think I understand the overall concepts.
Is there an reason so far to think mammary glands arose more than once in the history of life?
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.