Evolution is not a scientific theory

[annielaurie]

Mammals started evolving during the time of the great dinosaurs, and they started out very tiny, the size of mice or smaller. They scampered around underfoot of T Rex, and hid in holes in the ground.

During that time the climate was very hot, tropical all over the world, and the continents were more jammed together than they are now. Since then the continental plates have drifted apart somewhat, to the configurations we see today.

When the giant asteroid hit the Yucatan Penninsula about 65,000,000 years ago, it kicked up megatons of debris that caused a cloud cover all over the planet, and the earth started to cool down everywhere.

The giant dinos died out but many of the smaller ones survived, and the populations of species kept mutating little by little: the species continued to adapt and change over millions of years.

But reptilian species and mammilian species never changed so much that they changed into each other. Evolution is very slow and affects whole populations, not individuals. You will never get a baby monkey from a bird's egg, for example.

Anyway, many of the mammal species got larger as the world got cooler and the glaciers advanced at the poles, and tree-dwelling primates appeared. These were the forerunners of modern monkeys and apes.

The primate branches of the evolutionary tree were never directly related to flying creatures, such as winged dinos. Those gradually evolved into modern birds.

That's a simple explanation, in my own words.

[Rorschach]

Darwin's right.
Annie's right.

Apparently they have just found another line on hominid that is "unrelated" to the apes. Does this mean we might not be that related to them after all? Does this mean that even though species "evolve" that the Theory of Evolution involving our species may not be as once postulated?

I read an article in the press a couple of weeks ago on this very discovery.
It could be a line that didn't lead to us or it could be a line that does and therefore explains why that missing link is still missing.

Apparently Aussie just isn't up to date.

[mantra]

But reptilian species and mammilian species never changed so much that they changed into each other. Evolution is very slow and affects whole populations, not individuals. You will never get a baby monkey from a bird's egg, for example.

What about Synapsids? No-one knows for certain whether they died out or evolved into something else?

Many synapsids had features considered characteristic of mammals, not reptiles, such as the presence of two occipital condyles (bony knobs forming a joint between the head and neck) and well-differentiated teeth.² But the these animals have traditionally been classified as reptiles, apparently, for theoretical reasons since standard accounts of the history of life say

that mammals evolved from the synapsids;
and
that mammals evolved from reptiles.³

If both of these assertions are assumed to be true, then synapsids have to be classified as reptiles.

There has been intensive debate regarding the morphological and temporal boundary between reptiles and the first mammals. Recent fossil studies have revealed some specimens that do not clearly fall into either group and have challenged the significance of the direct articulation of the lower jaw and skull as the key indicator of mammalian origin.

http://www.macroevolution.net/synapsids ... CnU66NbvO8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[annielaurie]

Very interesting, Mantra. I would have to study up on this more. Thanks for the article.

[Neferti]

It could be a line that didn't lead to us or it could be a line that does and therefore explains why that missing link is still missing.

Ah, yes. The Missing Link. List of transitional fossils here (with pictures):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... _evolution

Then we have the protozoa .... I am sure some of their relatives post here.

[Rorschach]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8609192.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not the same article I read but might be about the same find.

[Neferti]

No, I hadn't seen that. Thanks, Rorschach. Interesting stuff. I am actually more interested in where we came from than where we may be going.

[freediver]

FD is 1 considered a Scientific Theory by you?

Sure, but within the limits of what is scientific as I already explained.

Why is common decent (5) not considered scientific by you?

You can't do an experiment on it. It is not a theory about the nature of the universe. It is a question of history.

Why is common decent (5) not considered scientific by you?

Perhaps instead of assuming you are right and copying copious amounts of irrelevant info, you should attempt to put together a rational argument that you are right.

FD, evidence of this everywhere is further evidence.

SN, we are discussing whether it is scientific, not whether there is evidence for it.

There is no careful and prolonged selective breeding program. Are you suggesting God has been running one?

You should read the intro to the article. You seem to be missing the point, and misinterpretting what it says.

The fossil record doesn't tend to show species emerging spontaneously. It shows there are gaps in the record.

Actually it does. The record tends to show stability followed by periods of rapid change - hence the stubborn persistence of the gaps despite the accumulation of the fossil record. If it was gradual, you would expect the fossils to be randomly distributed along a line of gradual change, rather than lumped as they are. They call this punctuated equilibria.

No, I want science to explain it how it is based on our best evidence.

You are creating a false dichotomy.

Wrong, Evolution, as we have agreed does not deal with the origins of life

What exactly have we agreed? You have some funny ideas about what an agreement is. If evolution does not deal with the origins of life, what is common descent all about?

I rule this point out of scope and pointless.

LOL. You introduced it.

To a simple layperson DNA is quite interesting. It works in mysterious ways. Although generally it applies to people who are related - it sometimes appears to work in animals and non related people. If unrelated species of animals and humans live together they can actually become alike and surely over many thousands, millions, billions of years their DNA could be passed on to eventually change that animal or human into another species. I've observed animals all my life and seen generations of birds in particular change in size and appearance - which could be natural selection, but of course they will never be genetically tested. We can see adopted children from birth eventually end up looking like their non-biological parents regardless of their race - although we are the same species. On the other hand dogs, cats, pigs, birds etc can behave almost identically if raised in the same environment. They can also take on human traits. These can be passed on through their DNA to the next generation. Eventually they would have to physically change as their original natural instincts become extinct.

A farmer once showed my father a boar with a penis that looked exactly like a human penis. Is that what you mean?

Man in modern history has always strived to fly - as he has strived to explore the oceans. We also dream of being able to fly. Could these desires be the last remnants of a prehistoric instinct? We have to also look at ancient murals were man has been represented as an animal - usualy a mammal or a reptile. Have these ancient murals ever represented man as an ape? How do we know the very old extinct civilisations didn't know as much as us - if not more?

People are often portrayed as pigs, and we have a lot in common with them biologically.

Mammals started evolving during the time of the great dinosaurs, and they started out very tiny, the size of mice or smaller. They scampered around underfoot of T Rex, and hid in holes in the ground.

How do you know this isn;t creationist propaganda?

But reptilian species and mammilian species never changed so much that they changed into each other. Evolution is very slow and affects whole populations, not individuals.

All significant change starts with a mutation in an individual.

[Super Nova]

Where do ||we came from....?

Apes and Man came from a common ancestor who came from a common ancestor of other linages that are now extininct.

Explained in Common Ascent a theory that is one strand of the Theory Evolution.

[freediver]

Where do ||we came from....?

Apes and Man came from a common ancestor who came from a common ancestor of other linages that are now extininct.

Explained in Common Ascent a theory that is one strand of the Theory Evolution.

More creationist propaganda.