Replies

If it still exists in the "parent" stock, I suppose the same (or perhaps similar) mutation could pop up again, in a new branch (thus my platypus comment). As you say, this seems to happen with eyes.

If something exists in your parents, you may well just inherit it. It doesn't have to pop up again, it never went away.

Here's where gore and some others confuse people by trying to say that the platypus doesn't fit the tree. It does. It's a mammal. It comes away from our branch even before the invention of the marsupial pouch, but it's a mammal.

It inherited the mammary glands from the common ancestor of modern mammals.

But why didn't T. rex inherit mammary glands from anybody?

It comes away from our branch even before the invention of the marsupial pouch, but it's a mammal.

One might say it's closer to being the mammal "trunk" than our branch. IOW, it's a "primitive" mammal, a clue to our origins. (But it's been evolving as long as we have.)

If something exists in your parents, you may well just inherit it. It doesn't have to pop up again, it never went away.

I know that. I was making a different point about the persistence in the parent stock of the genetic raw material which was amenable to the mutation.

But why didn't T. rex inherit mammary glands from anybody?

I assume this rather silly question is one which stumped g3k and the other creationists. In the evolution model, I suppose it's because the mutation for such a feature hadn't yet appeared. In the "simultaneous creation of all species" model (to which I don't subscribe) such a mutation would most definitely have appeared at the same time as everything else, yet it would have been present only in those creatures upon whom it had been bestowed, and thus it would be "locked in" to them, as it were. In a "gradual creation of all species" model (my favorite) you get pretty much the same thinking. Mammary glands exist where they've been created. To the evolutionist, take the last sentence and substitute "when" for "where." Same result.

Here's where gore and some others confuse people by trying to say that the platypus doesn't fit the tree. It does. It's a mammal.

Oh my, it has its own branch in the tree! How wonderful! He must be proof of evolution since hey, how can he have a branch otherwise? I mean, who would be caddish enough to say that some evolutionist trying to prove his theory just drew another branch on a tree! We all know they would not do that! These are real scientists!

You keep repeating the same garbage but give no proof of it Vade. Time to show the proof or will I have to wait a year for it like I have been waiting for the proof of macro-evolution?