Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gore3000
Well there is a very good reason why we do not. Paleontology is not a science, it a self-fullfilling prophecy. If it has 3 earbones then they call it a mammal - even though they do not have the slightest idea whether it had mammary glands or not.

And they do that despite all the modern non-mammalian species running and flying around that gore3000 can name with hammer-anvil-stirrup earbones. Show those evos no mercy, gore! Start naming them!

659 posted on 03/19/2002 6:25:37 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
And they do that despite all the modern non-mammalian species running and flying around that gore3000 can name with hammer-anvil-stirrup earbones.

Let me show you the following description of mammals:

Mammals are a group of vertebrates (animals that have a backbone). Certain characteristics separate them from all other animals: mammals breathe air through lungs, give birth to live young, produce milk for their young, are warm-blooded, and have hair or fur. They also have relatively large brains and a variety of tooth sizes and shapes. From: Mammals- Characteristics

As you are no doubt aware, that description is wrong. We both know one mammal that does not fit it - the platypus.

Thanks to that species, the part about live young was taken out of the official definitions. The paleontologists were proven wrong - but only because we had found a live species. If all we had had were the bones of the platypus, then we would though it bore live young and we would have been wrong, very wrong. We would have learned nothing and we would have just re-established the self-fullfilling prophecy of phony paleontology. Further, the part about live young is certainly much more related to the mammary glands than the shape of the ear. There is absolutely no necessary connection between the ear and the other features and if you really believe that species did evolve you would have to admit that sometime during the development of mammals not all of these features were present. That is - unless you wish to posit the ridiculous notion that through super-evo selection all the different characteristics of mammals appeared suddenly at once. ( O wait, is not that what creationists say?).

756 posted on 03/19/2002 5:55:56 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson