Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Checkmate, Creationists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ViaCrucis" data-source="post: 67987126" data-attributes="member: 293637"><p>No evolutionist believes a fish becomes a rodent, and/or that a rodent becomes a man.</p><p></p><p>What "evolutionists" do understand is that rodents and human beings share a common mammalian ancestor; and that "fish" is not a monophyletic group but describes an extensively diverse array of animal groups, some extant and some extinct. Mammals, as amniotic tetrapods, are thus descended from an amniotic tetrapod ancestor, and it descended from a non-amniotic tetrapod which evolved from a type of "fish". Specifically a fish whose air bladder had already evolved into a primitive lung (similar to modern lung fishes), and very likely already had powerful fins/limbs to cross muddy banks. It, and all other polyphyletic fish groups did evolve from a common chordate ancestor, ancestral to all organisms in chordata--things with a backbone. </p><p></p><p>But no, it is only Creationists who insist that evolution teaches and evolutionists believe that cats can give birth to dogs, or that rodents become human. Evolution doesn't say that, evolutionists don't believe that. That is peculiar to Creationist anti-science propaganda, intended to confuse the gullible and naive into unquestioning and blind acceptance of Creationist dogma.</p><p></p><p>-CryptoLutheran</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ViaCrucis, post: 67987126, member: 293637"] No evolutionist believes a fish becomes a rodent, and/or that a rodent becomes a man. What "evolutionists" do understand is that rodents and human beings share a common mammalian ancestor; and that "fish" is not a monophyletic group but describes an extensively diverse array of animal groups, some extant and some extinct. Mammals, as amniotic tetrapods, are thus descended from an amniotic tetrapod ancestor, and it descended from a non-amniotic tetrapod which evolved from a type of "fish". Specifically a fish whose air bladder had already evolved into a primitive lung (similar to modern lung fishes), and very likely already had powerful fins/limbs to cross muddy banks. It, and all other polyphyletic fish groups did evolve from a common chordate ancestor, ancestral to all organisms in chordata--things with a backbone. But no, it is only Creationists who insist that evolution teaches and evolutionists believe that cats can give birth to dogs, or that rodents become human. Evolution doesn't say that, evolutionists don't believe that. That is peculiar to Creationist anti-science propaganda, intended to confuse the gullible and naive into unquestioning and blind acceptance of Creationist dogma. -CryptoLutheran [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Checkmate, Creationists
Top
Bottom