Search results

Tetrapods started a distinctly different limb system. Well-defined joints and digits (chiridium) were never seen before that time. The problem with Acanthostega is that it was unable to support itself on its limbs, much less attempt to be ambulatory on them.

What is more disturbing, Sauron, is the fact that "walking limbs" developed before their use on land or the neccessity to use them on land. As evidence, I present Acanthostega, an aquatic tetrapod. http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanthostega&contgroup=Terrestrial_Vertebrates Now, why would...

I must take issue with the constant assertion that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive ideas. Those on both sides are wrong in excluding the other. Just because a being changes over time does not preclude the idea that it may have been created or that the changes could be directed in...

Just my conspiracy theory mind and tilted opinion, but I do not think humans will survive to evolve....

The "mud-skipper" hypothesis was abandoned about 10 years ago. The following link and some of its links will explain what I am trying to say a bit better. Acanthostega (sp?) was an aquatic tetrapod which could not have lived on land. Maybe a backward dead-end, but who knows...

As promised: http://www.palantir.fsnet.co.uk/acanthostega.htm I agree it is only a hypothesis, but to the uninitiated, it looks like fantastic made up stories to support a belief.....now where have I seen that accusation before??

Your hypothesis is certainly possible, but not as complete an answer as I hope will be put forth some day. There is evidence (I will dig it up and post) that shoulders and hips were developing in open-ocean, lobe-finned fish before the "need" was obvious. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks...

Agree with your post. I think Theyre Here (nice Poltergeist reference BTW) is on the right track. The "First Cause" is nothing beyond the theoretical in any realm at this point. I would say that evolution does have its problems in explaining the "why" part of species change. One specific...

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive ideas. Those that believe they are mutually exclusive, on both sides, are close-minded. From my experience, that precludes any further rational discussion with such people.

My understanding of Genesis 1-11 is a re-telling of an oral tradition. See my earlier post (#2) for an analogy of what it must be like for God to explain how he created the world to stone age man. The Bible contains all types of literature including literal history, figurative allegory...

I usually do not like to get into word games with people, but this is a clear case of reading what you want to into the text. The passage reads: took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl. of - used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the...

Are you sure you have all the facts correct? Are you sure you understand what you are reading correctly? Genesis 7:2 You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female. Genesis...

Sweat southern style tea I know you meant SWEET, or maybe that was just your accent, in which case "taaaayyyeee" would have to be longer. ;) I can say that since I am from Tanasayee. There is no other way to drink it. uuhuhuhuhuh sweet tea mmmmmmmmm :yum:

I really did not want my first post to appear controversial, but I have a question about rule #2. How would you define 'infallible' for the infallible word of God? No muss, no fuss, just curious.