Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Damn you are thick. Mammals do not lay eggs, reptiles do. A platypus is a mammal with the reproduction system of a reptile. It is in between a reptile and mammal, a remnant crossover species connecting the two. No matter how much you stamp your feet and deny the facts, it is still a crossover species.No, that is all YOURS! I gave you an example of a MAMMAL that still had remnants of its evolutionary history. According to you a mammal is a mammal and has nothing reptilian about it. It is a crossover species, mostly mammal part reptile.
A mammal is not a reptile, nor do mammals change into reptiles. A mammal may have a common attribute of a reptile, but it is still not a reptile. You are CLAIMING these are remnants from it's evolution, but you haven't proven that. You can't. Nor can you duplicate it in a lab, therefore, it is not falsifiable evidence.
And you can't have religion without cuckoo. · ·because you can't have chocolate without coco..Probably the same reason we keep having to talk about religion.Why are we talking about science in a thread about spiritual existance?
your first statement :You are the one who proclaimed chocolate can't exist without cocoa. I'm the one who proved that statement incorrect." -bossthey already know that...imitation chocolate is not chocolate....you can believe it is ..Really? Tell that to all the people who make cheap Easter candy!
You are the one who proclaimed chocolate can't exist without cocoa. I'm the one who proved that statement incorrect.
Nope, you didn't answer the question, you proclaimed that one can't exist without the other, which is already understood.
also humans have a reptilian component in our brain.No, that is all YOURS! I gave you an example of a MAMMAL that still had remnants of its evolutionary history. According to you a mammal is a mammal and has nothing reptilian about it. It is a crossover species, mostly mammal part reptile.
Oh there are TONS of examples of different species sharing attributes with other types of animals. How does this prove cross-genus speciation? You've not explained it. We see a pattern here with you, something is simply PROCLAIMED by you as FACT, and that's all we need, we're supposed to accept it on FAITH!
...And you don't even wear a funny hat or speak Latin!
No, it is MOSTLY mammal. It does not have a mammal's reproductive system. It has a reptile's reproductive system. It is a crossover species between reptile and mammal.Damn you are thick. Mammals do not lay eggs, reptiles do. A platypus is a mammal with the reproduction system of a reptile. It is in between a reptile and mammal, a remnant crossover species connecting the two. No matter how much you stamp your feet and deny the facts, it is still a crossover species.A mammal is not a reptile, nor do mammals change into reptiles. A mammal may have a common attribute of a reptile, but it is still not a reptile. You are CLAIMING these are remnants from it's evolution, but you haven't proven that. You can't. Nor can you duplicate it in a lab, therefore, it is not falsifiable evidence.
I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.
oPunctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]No, it is MOSTLY mammal. It does not have a mammal's reproductive system. It has a reptile's reproductive system. It is a crossover species between reptile and mammal.Damn you are thick. Mammals do not lay eggs, reptiles do. A platypus is a mammal with the reproduction system of a reptile. It is in between a reptile and mammal, a remnant crossover species connecting the two. No matter how much you stamp your feet and deny the facts, it is still a crossover species.
I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.
Again it was pointed out to you that the change from one species to another was a very slow process over MANY generations. It doesn't happen all in one shot as you insist it must to be a crossover according to YOUR redefinition of a crossover species. The Platypus is one remnant of a long chain of crossover species between reptile and mammal that has managed to survive extinction.
Wild speculation with nothing resembling evidence or proof. This is a faith-based theory with less evidence than the existence of God.oPunctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]No, it is MOSTLY mammal. It does not have a mammal's reproductive system. It has a reptile's reproductive system. It is a crossover species between reptile and mammal.I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.
Again it was pointed out to you that the change from one species to another was a very slow process over MANY generations. It doesn't happen all in one shot as you insist it must to be a crossover according to YOUR redefinition of a crossover species. The Platypus is one remnant of a long chain of crossover species between reptile and mammal that has managed to survive extinction.
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
do you have viable alternate evidence proving some other mean produced those attributes?
No, that is all YOURS! I gave you an example of a MAMMAL that still had remnants of its evolutionary history. According to you a mammal is a mammal and has nothing reptilian about it. It is a crossover species, mostly mammal part reptile.If anyone thinks a platypus is a combination of a reptile and a duck, they are mindless, uneducated gibbering idiots.
.
Hey, that was YOUR buddy, not mine! Talk to him! I was merely ridiculing an absurd example presented of supposed cross-genus speciation. I couldn't agree with you more.
yes I did ....Right, but you didn't answer my question.
No, you didn't.
Did darkness create light, or did light create darkness?
No, it is MOSTLY mammal. It does not have a mammal's reproductive system. It has a reptile's reproductive system. It is a crossover species between reptile and mammal.Damn you are thick. Mammals do not lay eggs, reptiles do. A platypus is a mammal with the reproduction system of a reptile. It is in between a reptile and mammal, a remnant crossover species connecting the two. No matter how much you stamp your feet and deny the facts, it is still a crossover species.
I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.
Again it was pointed out to you that the change from one species to another was a very slow process over MANY generations. It doesn't happen all in one shot as you insist it must to be a crossover according to YOUR redefinition of a crossover species. The Platypus is one remnant of a long chain of crossover species between reptile and mammal that has managed to survive extinction.
Damn you are thick. Mammals do not lay eggs, reptiles do. A platypus is a mammal with the reproduction system of a reptile. It is in between a reptile and mammal, a remnant crossover species connecting the two. No matter how much you stamp your feet and deny the facts, it is still a crossover species.A mammal is not a reptile, nor do mammals change into reptiles. A mammal may have a common attribute of a reptile, but it is still not a reptile. You are CLAIMING these are remnants from it's evolution, but you haven't proven that. You can't. Nor can you duplicate it in a lab, therefore, it is not falsifiable evidence.
I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.
Damn you are thick. Mammals do not lay eggs, reptiles do. A platypus is a mammal with the reproduction system of a reptile. It is in between a reptile and mammal, a remnant crossover species connecting the two. No matter how much you stamp your feet and deny the facts, it is still a crossover species.
I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.
You revealed their ignorance once again I wonder if they will turn to google now ?
Thank you, Daws, I was about to write something similar. You have saved me the trouble.Synapsids
Temporal range: MississippianPresent, 3200Ma
Synapsids (Greek, 'fused arch'), synonymous with theropsids (Greek, 'beast-face'), are a group of animals that includes mammals and every animal more closely related to mammals than to other living amniotes.[1] They are easily separated from other amniotes by having a temporal fenestra, an opening low in the skull roof behind each eye, leaving a bony arch beneath each; this accounts for their name.[2] Primitive synapsids are usually called pelycosaurs; more advanced mammal-like ones, therapsids. The non-mammalian members are described as mammal-like reptiles in classical systematics;[3][4] they can also be called "stem mammals". Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of the later amniotes; the other is the sauropsids, a group that includes modern reptiles and birds. The distinctive temporal fenestra developed in the ancestral synapsid about 324 million years ago (mya), during the Late Carboniferous period.
Synapsids were the largest terrestrial vertebrates in the Permian period, 299 to 251 million years ago. As with almost all groups then extant, their numbers and variety were severely reduced by the Permian-Triassic extinction. Though some species survived into the Triassic period, archosaurs became the largest and most numerous land vertebrates in the course of this period. Few of the nonmammalian synapsids outlasted the Triassic, although survivors persisted into the Cretaceous. However, as a phylogenetic unit, they included the mammals as descendants, and in this sense synapsids are still very much a living group of vertebrates. After the CretaceousPaleogene extinction event, the synapsids (in the form of mammals) again became the largest land animals.
The only extant synapsids today are mammals; all others are believed to be extinct.
I'm not stamping my feet. A platypus is a mammal, not a reptile. It's not "in between" anything, it is NOT a reptile, and it IS a mammal. It may have characteristics similar to a reptile, but that does not prove it used to be a reptile and changed into a mammal, and you've presented NO EVIDENCE to show that.
You revealed their ignorance once again I wonder if they will turn to google now ?
Probably not, they are practicing a FAITH-BASED belief, so they will likely begin "speaking in tongues" soon.... that's where they start inundating us with latin words and science phrases, which they believe makes them smart. It's the source of their 'divine' power.
These fanatics stopped practicing science a long time ago. I've been arguing with them for 15 years on the Internet, and it never changes. They are devoutly religious believers in their nonsense.
Once again you make erroneous assumptions.No, YOUR math doesn't add up, buddy. Billions of life forms, billions more who are no longer with us... no signs of any kind of cross-genus speciation happening today, or in recent history. No real evidence to show it ever happened. We can't even duplicate your theory in a lab... (so much for falsifiable evidence.) You explain that it takes "many generations" for even the slightest changes, but we don't have that much time to work with, unless you think the Earth is like 100 trillion years old, or something. Even if that is the case, you've not explained what happened, why we no longer see this miraculous cross-genus speciation happening? Did nature get bored?
You see, if what you theorize (with no basis) were true, I would expect to see a new species to emerge from an existing species on a regular basis, or at least within the past 200-300 years, since we've been scientifically observing animals. But nadda! No trace, does not happen in nature, can't make it happen in a controlled lab environment, it doesn't work.
Doesn't matter about the DNA of a platypus, they aren't a reptile that turned into a duck, and they never will be.
More of your profound ignorance on display? Evolution is the means by which species ADAPT to changing environments. So in order to witness evolution you need to look at environments that changed during that period. One example were moths during the early industrial revolution. Everything became covered with soot from coal burning plants which meant that light colored moths were now easily visible to their prey against the dark background. These moths died out while darker colored moths survived. If there was an environmental change that made moth wings a liability they would adapt to no longer have them. Then if another change meant that it was advantageous for them to be able to swim and breathe underwater those that adapted would survive while the originals died out. Eventually you would have small swimming insects that you would consider to be a completely different species to the original moths. It is doubtful that you will accept any of these established facts because you have proven that you lack the necessary fundamental comprehension abilities. Have a nice day.
My ignorance? I beg to differ. Here, you apparently think that moths changing colors is an example of cross-genus speciation!
Let's be clear, you have presented an example of ONE genus, adapting and changing, but remaining ONE genus. Then, you make up some unsupportable nonsense about their wings and ability to swim, and claim this makes them a different species, but they still belong to the same genus, even IF you're correct. And how does ONE genus, changing and adapting, but remaining the same genus, give us billions of new unique genuses?
I don't accept what you are saying as "established fact" until you've proven it, and you certainly haven't done that. Animals do adapt and change over time, but they do not change genuses. New species may emerge within a genus, but this does not demonstrate or prove what you need to prove.
ok show me some evidence other wise..Wild speculation with nothing resembling evidence or proof. This is a faith-based theory with less evidence than the existence of God.oPunctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]No, it is MOSTLY mammal. It does not have a mammal's reproductive system. It has a reptile's reproductive system. It is a crossover species between reptile and mammal.
Again it was pointed out to you that the change from one species to another was a very slow process over MANY generations. It doesn't happen all in one shot as you insist it must to be a crossover according to YOUR redefinition of a crossover species. The Platypus is one remnant of a long chain of crossover species between reptile and mammal that has managed to survive extinction.
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I smell a dodge..do you have viable alternate evidence proving some other mean produced those attributes?
Hold on a second, is this now what passes for "scientific evaluation" these days? I don't need evidence to refute your wild-ass speculations. We don't just say, well, it must be because of this impossible thing happening that we can't replicate and see no evidence of, because we can't find another answer. That is practicing a faith, not science. Now there is nothing wrong with faith, but when we are debating science, our faith needs to be checked at the door, so that we can remain objective.
You keep showing us evidence that things change over time, and I get that. I understand that species change and adapt, but they do not spawn entirely new genera! That simply does not happen in nature, and there is no evidence it ever happened, and we can't make it happen in a lab environment. You can throw out all kinds of examples of a species evolving into a more advanced form, but it remains the same genus. This simply does not explain the billions and billions of various genera which have populated the planet. To get from the single cell organism to billions and billions of various multi-cell organisms, you need to show me some evidence of how this happened, because so far, you haven't.
You made the claim, you provide the proof.ok show me some evidence other wise..Wild speculation with nothing resembling evidence or proof. This is a faith-based theory with less evidence than the existence of God.oPunctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
