Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 100,763
- 81,063
- 3,645
So incredibly well studied and well evidenced.Here's one I find interesting: The ancestors of modern whales ---
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.
So incredibly well studied and well evidenced.Here's one I find interesting: The ancestors of modern whales ---
If Canids no longer lived and all we had were fossils, then we would think it was a canid!Not so. We are very good at physiology. The differences in the marsupial skeleton would be noticed. It would be obvious that it was not like other canids.
Very well show me one example of morphologically similar fossils where the animals no longer live and it is claimed they represent examples of convergent evolution.This is how we have discovered other instances of convergent evolution in the fossil record among exitinct species.
Sarcasm? I'm pretty sure that's well established. I could be wrong though. I learned about it on a whale watching expedition near Cape Cod. The kicker is that the ancestor was quite small. Two feet in length. Basically a rodent.So incredibly well studied and well evidenced.
No. We would also have marsupial fossils.If Canids no longer lived and all we had were fossils, then we would think it was a canid!
Why should I do that? Are you going to retract your false, ad hoc claims? Are you going to then rethink all of the incorrect things you have said about evolution, and then write a nice thank you letter to me for my effort?Very well show me one example of morphologically similar fossils where the animals no longer live and it is claimed they represent examples of convergent evolution.
My job is to make your life hell, atheist's lives hell.You seem to think your job is to make up lies and sit there and grin, and my job is to do the work to debunk them.
Well I would think about going to night school, because you're not great at it.My job is to make your life hell, atheist's lives hell.
when you say common ancestor do you mean it gave birth to two different types of animals,, one a mammal and the other a reptile??
This is a question a small child might ask, when first learning about evolution.when you say common ancestor do you mean it gave birth to two different types of animals,, one a mammal and the other a reptile??
that doesnt answer my question,,Both Mammals and Reptiles are Amniotes ... for a swore believer in evolution, you shore don't know much about it ... but heathen gotta heathen, right? ...
So, did you look up the instances of convergent evolution, when it comes to the crab body model?My job is to make your life hell, atheist's lives hell.
This is a question a small child might ask, when first learning about evolution.
Because i have answered it for you before, troll.how about you answer the question instead of begging for attention??
yep,, still begging for attention,,Because i have answered it for you before, troll.
If Canids no longer lived and all we had were fossils, then we would think it was a canid!
Very well show me one example of morphologically similar fossils where the animals no longer live and it is claimed they represent examples of convergent evolution.
My first inference is that since they’re pointing in opposite directions, they each saw something attention grabbingFor example, what might their nearest common ancestor look like? might their DNA be similar? if we found these only as fossils, what might we infer?
View attachment 1002279
that doesnt answer my question,,
if they share an ancestor what did that ancestor mate with and how did it give birth to two different kinds of animals??
the claim is they share an ancestor,, that is based on births,,I'm not sure I understand your question ... are you including recombinate DNA processes? ... sexual females always produce different individuals ... bacteria and algae clone themselves ... so here the evolutionary changes occur one base pair at a time ...
Do you not believe in inherited traits? ...
We are more closely related to the coyote than the thylacine is.Whoa ... wait ... those hips will not pass for canine ... plus we have all the microscopic differences in the skull ... and this is what Fort Fun is referencing ...
A better example is water lily lotus ... traditionally considered very closely related in the same genus ... except DNA sequencing shows they're not even in the same taxonomic order !!! ... virtually identical morphology, but as far apart evolutionarily as ... well ... coyotes and opossums ...
the claim is they share an ancestor,, that is based on births,,
I and a distant cousin can trace our ancestry back decades if not centuries to see who gave birth to who that proves we share a common ancestor,,
so if these two share a common ancestor when and how did that ancestor give birth to two different kinds of animals and what did it mate with to do that??
having the same or similar chemical make up doesnt prove anything other than they are made from the same box of parts,,
that claim of DNA hasnt been proven nor does it mean one type of animal gave birth to a completely different kind of animal,,Hundreds of billions of generations ... 300,000,000 years ... each and every small transition is fully documented in the DNA ...
Do you believe in inherited traits? ... blue-eyed parents produce blue-eyed children, or there's divorce attorneys involved ... right? ... any of the science done over the past 200 years make sense to you? ...
I'm beginning to think you don't trust in Sir Charles Darwin ... don't you believe in evolution? ...