Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You seem to be stuck with this one-direction idea. Birds evolved flight and then some birds lost flight when it was useful to do so (ie when flight was no longer economically viable - like on small islands with no large predators). Some fish lost their eyesight when they adapted to cave life. Most parasites evolved from non-parasitic ancestors and lost the ability to digest food and most sensory adaptations. Stop thinking of evolution as uni-directional.Uphill Battle said:Wait a minute, isn't bird evolutions supposed to be the other way around?
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:No. Listen. I will seh zis ernly wernce.
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. The early birds could fly. Some of them started to prefer swimming on the sea and did it so much they eventually lost the power of flight. Others, after the dinosaurs had gone, spent most of their time on land, became larger, to attack larger prey, or maintain heat, or eat different food, or whatever, and lost the power of flight
Yes. And it doesn't matter.
LOL!Linux98 said:What? Man, I'm so gullible sometimes.
Split Rock said:You seem to be stuck with this one-direction idea. Birds evolved flight and then some birds lost flight when it was useful to do so (ie when flight was no longer economically viable - like on small islands with no large predators). Some fish lost their eyesight when they adapted to cave life. Most parasites evolved from non-parasitic ancestors and lost the ability to digest food and most sensory adaptations. Stop thinking of evolution as uni-directional.
Uphill Battle said:So, birds evolved from dinosaurs, learned to fly, and then some of them went back. Wow. sound theory.
Uphill Battle said:alright then. So ToE can explain anything by saying that.
Yes, you're catching on.Uphill Battle said:how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make? Is an ostrich logical? or any flightless bird for that matter? is a human logical? other than brain size, we are inferior PHYSICAL specimens, wouldn't you say?
Uphill Battle said:so lets see. The picture I see there is made from an uncomplete skeleton, using "reasonable assumptions" as to behavior, and appearance, an d anassumption on it's location because it's "suited" for it. hmm.
The TOE does do a great job of explaining what we see. There are lots of cases that would cause trouble for it if they were discovered.Uphill Battle said:alright then. So ToE can explain anything by saying that.
Are you arguing biblical creationism or "scientific" intelligent design?Uphill Battle said:No, I don't assume that he didn't. It says in Genesis that he made it in a day.
Late_Cretaceous said:Gills are a very inefficient way for an warm blodded animal to obtain oxygen. In fact, a warm blodded animal could not get enough oxygen from water. The oxygen content in water is only 10mg/liter where as in air it is 21 % - a huge difference. The most primitive fish had lungs as well as gills (the air bladder in modern fish is a modified lung actually). SO we would NOT expect to see warm blodded animals develop gills - just lungs that work really well.
nvxplorer said:Are you arguing biblical creationism or "scientific" intelligent design?
Uphill Battle said:Biblical, as in God made it all. I thought that was kind of obvious with the Genesis reference.
Uphill Battle(to nvxplorer) said:how is it logical or illogical to assume what the creator will or will not make?
Uphill Battle(to random guy) said:No, I don't assume that he didn't. It says in Genesis that he made it in a day.
Uphill Battle (to Karl) said:So, birds evolved from dinosaurs, learned to fly, and then some of them went back. Wow. sound theory.
So, birds evolved from dinosaurs, learned to fly, and then some of them went back. Wow. sound theory.
Late_Cretaceous said:that would explain the flightless bat of New Zealand. Is there a creationist arguement forthe existance small flightless birds and bats in areas devoid of land mammals?
Uphill Battle said:what does the existance or non existance of land mammals have to do with it?
No predators to fly away from.
Uphill Battle said:Anyone care to explain the evolution of the whale? Just out of curiosity, I want to know what the theory of how a mammal became a waterbound creature.
The cladogram depicting whale evolution is from the book Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer. The artwork is a slight modification of the illustration by Carl Buell in At the Water's Edge by Zimmer. The book is a companion to the PBS series of the Evolution Project, a coproduction of the WGNH/NOVA Science Unit and Clear Blue Sky Productions.Uphill Battle said:
Did a land creature decide to return to the sea?
Or did a fish creature evolve into a mammal?
what theories are there for this?
Stephen Gould said:If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?