30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe reptiles into which birds evolve...
The reptiles into which birds evolve did have hollow bones, yes. Early birds didn't so much fly as glide. If you feel that you can get a horse to glide I'd love to see it.
Isn't that the other way around? 😉
If you feel that you can get a horse to glide I'd love to see it.
Get back to me in, say, 10 million years? 🙂
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Isn;t it the other way around"
[b]The reptiles into which birds evolve...
Isn't that the other way around? 😉
If you feel that you can get a horse to glide I'd love to see it.
Get back to me in, say, 10 million years? 🙂[/b]
LMAO - yeah, 3 O'clock princesses, my mate calls em! We've all woken up next to one, haven't we??
I don;t think that getting horse to fly is terribly plausible. Not that it's impossible to get something that big airborne (i.e. pterydactyls managed it), it just wouldn't be energetically feasible without huge, fundamental changes to the physiology of a horse which, currently, I doubt are possible (never say never).
L
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightWell, I'm going to go with Chordates, since that's the group in which vertibrates are a grouping. Chordates are characterised by the notochord - a cartilidgenous pole that is found in all members of this group. The column down through which the spinal chord goes is a vestige of the primal notochord. We have one as an embryo, but it gets the proverbial chop as we develop.
Six legged vertebrates wouldn't be from around here, probably.
Chordates have 4 limbs typically, although some (such as lancets, or hagfish) never developed them, and some (such as snakes) later lost them.
So in answer to your question - no. No 6 limbed vertebrates.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightYes, it can be measured, but you don't stop with the measurement
I give up.
Believe what you want.
Continental drift can be measured. If you can't or won't see the difference it's no concern of mine.
now do you? You make it mean something, so that lookng at those
numbers, your opinion is the numbers mean...
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have a point be sides making fun of someone who disagrees
Coletti the Clown: Most scientist don't even address it, they just assume the fairy tail and carry on. It has no practical impact on anything.
LMFAO! Tell that to someone studying diseases caused by viruses. Tell that to people developing pesticides.
with your opinion? So what, people work on diseases caused by
viruses! So what that people are developing pesticides, telling them
that you cannot go from a simple life form as a single cell into a
whale in a couple of billion/million years halts what in the process
they are working on? Fairy tales, can be rejected and work can be
done without taking that 'belief' of cell to whale, they can still do the
work they are doing.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzWho is denying drift movement? I'm saying no one knows what the
Continential drift isn't just a 'it looks that way so therefore...' . It used to be, but they've don considerable work looking at rock strata on different continuents that were once contiguous. Likewise, with satellite data nowadays, it's entirely possible to watch and measure continental drift....
they looked like several thousand years ago, all that is opinion,
which you again base on a rate found today, not thousands of years
ago, or millions ago, or billions or years ago. In your opinion, have
they always moved the same way in the same direction at the same
speed, and you know the answer to those questions, how?
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI can predict that there will be creatures found alive that people
Well Kelly,
Archaeopteryx was predicted to exist before it was discovered. That makes it a testable hypothesis. There are lots of other testable hypotheses out there which have not, and may never, be proven. Archaeopteryx was a half bird - half reptile that fell in between strata which contained archaeopteryx like reptiles with no feathers, ...[text shortened]... ist.
It does kinda follow that the prediction made by evolutionary theory was proven correct.
thought were extinct because of the way the fossil record dates them
since this is a young earth. I can predict a broken analog clock will
be right twice a day! Getting a prediction right once in a blue moon
makes psychics seem real to those that get into that type of
phenomenon too. Getting something right doesn’t mean it is always,
going to be right about anything else either, as my broken clock
proves 23 hours and 59 minutes of the day when it is wrong.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJaywe know where the splits and the rates of movement are. We can between this and rock profiles extrapolate back to Pangea (up until 180 MYA) but as far as I'm aware no further back (rock profiles suggest the continents were seperate before that). The faults represent inherent weaknesses in the crust which probably always existed - I'd say it's probably fair to say these were always there and have always been where movements have been. But I'm no geologist so can't really give too much more than that....
Who is denying drift movement? I'm saying no one knows what the
they looked like several thousand years ago, all that is opinion,
which you again base on a rate found today, not thousands of years
ago, or millions ago, or billions or years ago. In your opinion, have
they always moved the same way in the same direction at the same
speed, and you know the answer to those questions, how?
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat is the point isn't it, when is something a 'real' rule, and when
Name one of the universe's rules that has changed and that has been acknowledged by scientists.
It was never the case that sailing too far in one direction would result in falling off of the earth. The fact that we understand that now does not indicate that the universe's rules have changed, or that at the time of our previous understanding, it a ...[text shortened]... e rules don't change. I'm saying the actual rules don't change. You are saying they do.
is it an opinion? Falls into the ID type of description now doesn't it?
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzCreation breaks that law how?
Already covered this. I'm going to say it again however.
ABIOGENESIS FROM SIMPLE COMPONENTS (i.e. ground state elements CO2, N2, K+, PO4) WITHOUT A SOURCE OF EXTERNAL ENERGY.
Abiogenesis happens in evolution from complex precursors, and with an abundant source of energy.
Abiogenesis without an external source of energy would go against the 2 ...[text shortened]... , in the way that creationism does. There is no way it could happen in an evolutionary system.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYeah, the difference is that we find things all the time that provide positive evidence for evolution. Hardly 'once in a blue moon'!!!
I can predict that there will be creatures found alive that people
thought were extinct because of the way the fossil record dates them
since this is a young earth. I can predict a broken analog clock will
be right twice a day! Getting a prediction right once in a blue moon
makes psychics seem real to those that get into that type of
phenomenon too. Ge ...[text shortened]... e either, as my broken clock
proves 23 hours and 59 minutes of the day when it is wrong.
Kelly
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt cannot be proven false because it takes billions/millions of years
Why do you keep banging on that evolution could not be proven to be false? Just because it never has (and probably never will), doesn't mean it couldn't be, were it, in fact, wrong.
I've given you several examples of things that would prove evolution to be wrong. And they don't exist! Go figure!
to record it. You want to start that stop watch now and monitor the
next visable change? In the here and now, we start with one type
of creature we monitor it, we end of with the same type of creature.
Evolution can proven wrong, how? Unless you have a time machine,
the clock moves and we hear about the great changes, but we are
not witnesses to any? We can see dogs being bread to be larger or
smaller, but you start with dogs, you end with dogs.
Kelly