Creationist often wonder how it can be that mammals can evolved from a non-mammal and what that non-mammal would be. The answer involves the synapsids.
However once that question has been answer the curious creationist want to know how synapsids stopped lay eggs and other intricate details about mammalian physiology before they can accept a mammal really is a synapsid. In short they want to know how these synapsid changed from one kind (synapsid) into another kind (mammal).
This puzzles me. It is like these curious, but very critical thinking, creationist believe their is some kind of miracle which needs to be explain here, such as how a whale can turn into a squirrel. But that is not how things work in nature. Things stay the way they always been. Mammals never changed into synapsids or stopped being synapsids.
Just like a Golden retriever never stopped being a dog. Mammals are still synapsids, have always been and will always be synapsids. Mammalian synapsids is just a synapsids way to make more synapsidis just like a Golden Retriever puppies is a Golden retriever's way to make more dogs. Other dogs makes more dogs of other kinds, but never Golden Retriever puppies - that is exclusive for Golden Retrievers!
Most reasonable people will accept A golden Retriever is dog despite the fact it only makes more Golden Retriever. They will also accept that a Golden Retriever is mammal despite the fact it only make more golden puppies. Reasonable people will also accept that so diverse mammals such as a squirrels and a whales both are mammals without start asking question about when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, crawled onto land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in a trees and start crack nuts and turned into a squirrel. So why is it so hard to accept that mammals are synapsids without asking malformed question about when mammals stopped laying egg (which they never did, e.g. platypus) ?
"The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) also known as the duck-billed platypus is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal"
-- wikipedia
Somehow it seems like creationist believe if I cant tell when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, got up on land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in the trees and start crack nuts then they have refuted that a whale is a mammal.
But for all I know it is possible that those synapsids that evolved into mammals stopped lay eggs after they where specialized to mammals - but I don't know so I don't say anything. And to be frank, I don't think it matter when it happen if one now can say such things about laying egg for mammals - remember the platypus!
However once that question has been answer the curious creationist want to know how synapsids stopped lay eggs and other intricate details about mammalian physiology before they can accept a mammal really is a synapsid. In short they want to know how these synapsid changed from one kind (synapsid) into another kind (mammal).
This puzzles me. It is like these curious, but very critical thinking, creationist believe their is some kind of miracle which needs to be explain here, such as how a whale can turn into a squirrel. But that is not how things work in nature. Things stay the way they always been. Mammals never changed into synapsids or stopped being synapsids.
Just like a Golden retriever never stopped being a dog. Mammals are still synapsids, have always been and will always be synapsids. Mammalian synapsids is just a synapsids way to make more synapsidis just like a Golden Retriever puppies is a Golden retriever's way to make more dogs. Other dogs makes more dogs of other kinds, but never Golden Retriever puppies - that is exclusive for Golden Retrievers!
Most reasonable people will accept A golden Retriever is dog despite the fact it only makes more Golden Retriever. They will also accept that a Golden Retriever is mammal despite the fact it only make more golden puppies. Reasonable people will also accept that so diverse mammals such as a squirrels and a whales both are mammals without start asking question about when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, crawled onto land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in a trees and start crack nuts and turned into a squirrel. So why is it so hard to accept that mammals are synapsids without asking malformed question about when mammals stopped laying egg (which they never did, e.g. platypus) ?
"The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) also known as the duck-billed platypus is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal"
-- wikipedia
Somehow it seems like creationist believe if I cant tell when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, got up on land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in the trees and start crack nuts then they have refuted that a whale is a mammal.
But for all I know it is possible that those synapsids that evolved into mammals stopped lay eggs after they where specialized to mammals - but I don't know so I don't say anything. And to be frank, I don't think it matter when it happen if one now can say such things about laying egg for mammals - remember the platypus!
