Posted on 07/02/2004 7:55:48 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
ha ha!! I like it!
Coelacanth is supposed to be the evidence that amphibians came from fish.
No, not actually. The lobe fins are generally thought to be a sister group to the first amphibians, not necessarily in the direct line of descent. A whole series of intermediates that are MUCH closer to that line have been found, and it is essentially arbitrary where you draw the line between "fish" and "amphibian".
After all, the fins were attached to the body by thick, fleshy lobes, allowing freer rotation and possibly "feet" with which to walk, and evolutionists speculated that they were shallow water fish.
No "speculation" involved. The deposits in which ancient lobe-fins have been found clearly attest to their residence in shallow water. There is nothing inconsistent in the fact that, while most lobe-fins were shallow water species, the one isolated species that happened to survive lives only in deep water.
Indeed if the living Coelacanth were a shallow water species one could argue that this would be more problematic. Then you would have to explain why lobe-fins, which were once a very common fish represented by multiple families and many genera and species, had been reduced in their preferred environment to only one or two species, but had nevertheless persisted at that precarious level of diversity for many eons. The survival of the order in a very different environment (and one poorly represented in the fossil record) is less puzzling.
All this went uncontested until one was caught in the Indian Ocean, and it was found out that they rarely come within 500 feet of the surface.
Again, it is still uncontested that most (nearly all, I believe) fossil lobe-fins are shallow water species.
Science created the machine?
it was Alien in nature.
They've resorted to lifting from one another - see #16...
Those in the know understand that bats are bugs.
Scene: Classroom
Ms. Wormwood: All right, class, who would like to give his report first?
Calvin: I WOULD! I WOULD!
Ms. Wormwood: Why, Calvin, what a surprise to see you volunteer! You must have done a good job. Go to the front of the class!
Calvin: Oh boy!
Ms. Wormwood: Now let's all pay attention, Go ahead, Calvin.
Calvin: Thank you. Before I begin, I'd like everyone to notice that my report is in a professional, clear plastic binder.
Ms. Wormwood: That's very nice, Go ahead.
Calvin: When a report looks this good, you know it'll get an "A." That's a tip, kids, write it down.
Scene: Classroom, Calvin giving report
Calvin: My report is on bats. Ahem... "Dusk! With a creepy, tingly sensation, you hear the fluttering of leathery wings! Bats! With glowing red eyes and glistening fangs, these unspeakably giant bugs drop onto..."
If humans evolved from apes ... why didn't the apes evolve ?
This is a joke, right? You're not really so ignorant as to ask this stupid question, are you
Yes, as a matter of fact I guess I am that stupid ...enlighten me O Learned One ...
Yes, but this one drew so many creationists (as opposed to Hobbit fans) that I thought it sufficiently amusing to warrant a ping to the gang. I'm very inconsistent in the use of the ping list. (That's part of my charm.)
Those of us in science know that we NEVER have all the answers. We also tend to avoid coming right out and saying something without adding qualifiers. For instance, I might say "The resultant increase in reporter activity COULD result from reason X; an ALTERNATIVE explanation is that..."
My first published paper contradicted the results of a fairly prominent scientist in my field. In fact, scientists contradict each other all the time.
Faith isn't a topic that comes up a lot in scientific circles. Unless, of course, it is the scientist praying, "Please, God, let this experiment work."
And of course the naysayers count all the "maybe" and "could have" qualifiers and try to infer that science knows nothing. We are then expected to believe that since science knows nothing, it can't rule out even the most patent nonsense.
Well thats real good ...for you
I think your "theory" is empty
"What, exactly, has falsified evolution theory here?"
Humans NEVER evolved from animals. To suggest they never walked on two feet is contradictory but hey, believe whatever you wish.
There is nothing true about evolution and never will be.
LOL!
Too bad the premise of an evolutionist is that God doesn't exist and if He does He is too stupid to create humans and all we see.
Someday when you're feeling more rational, a revelation may come to you too! Evolutionists insist on using their finite yardstick of questionable "knowledge" to explain through theories how humans "evolved". Never mind that these "theories" are evolving all the time and contradict eachother. That doesn't phase you at all. It amuses me since my blinders are off and evolution is not my "religion" and I have no "faith" in it as you do.
It takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation since when evidence is objectively examined it supports creation.
Believe whatever you wish. Believe pigs fly too! It's clear to me that you don't know what you are talking about.
Forget evidence, objectively evaluated that contradicts your beliefs. Live in a godless imaginary world.
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.