New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[YoursTrue]

I am not here to teach you the basic education of evolution, because you have a religious agenda that upfront rejects evolution, and the above indicates you lack the education to understand the basic chemistry, biology and genetics, and you are not willing to get the education.

In this thread I am citing current scientific research and discoveries that add to knowledge of the sciences that support evolution. This is not about the basic textbooks concerning evolution. If you want to go there get an education.

Here's how I interpret your answer. You can't give a rational response interpreting remains.

 

[YoursTrue]

No it is not at 'certain points' it is over a long period of time branches develop in response to changes in the environment over long periods of time.

I am not saying that the difference between between cats and lions did not develop over periods of time. On the other hand, and I defer to you as the knowledgeable one, is there anything to show that mammals evolved from reptiles, other than opinion and imagination?

 

[YoursTrue]

No it is not at 'certain points' it is over a long period of time branches develop in response to changes in the environment over long periods of time.

So lions remain lions, and alligators remain alligators.

 

[shunyadragon]

So lions remain lions, and alligators remain alligators.

No, only temporally, over hundreds of thousands of years lions do not remain lions, nor alligators remain alligators. There ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago were not the same as the lions and alligators of today

 

[shunyadragon]

Here's how I interpret your answer. You can't give a rational response interpreting remains.

Huh?!?!?!!?

My answer simple reflects the tens of thousands of peer reviewed research and discoveries of over a hundred and fifty years of the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists. My answer need not be interpreted.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not saying that the difference between between cats and lions did not develop over periods of time. On the other hand, and I defer to you as the knowledgeable one, is there anything to show that mammals evolved from reptiles, other than opinion and imagination?

Opinion and imagination is your problem based on a religious agenda and not science. I simply in this thread present the recent discoveries and research based simply on science, which you choose ot ignore like the tens of thousands of volumes of research and discoveries..

I am not the knowledgeable one, just one scientist of hundreds of thousands, nor is any one other scientist. The knowledge of science is based on the work of hundreds of thousands of scientist over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not saying that the difference between between cats and lions did not develop over periods of time. On the other hand, and I defer to you as the knowledgeable one, is there anything to show that mammals evolved from reptiles, other than opinion and imagination?

As far as the mammals evolving with a common ancestor with reptiles it is by the evidence that mammals of the present with reptiles and earlier epochs have common ancestors, and there is wealth of fossil and genetic evidence to support this.

There are volumes of scientific literature, fossil discoveries by the thousands and published research papers by the thousands that support this, but alas you choose to ignore it all and not get educated yourself, nor do your own research. I simply post the most research concerning the recent discoveries and research, which you choose to ignore.

I do not spoon feed the intentionally ignorant.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, only temporally, over hundreds of thousands of years lions do not remain lions, nor alligators remain alligators. There ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago were not the same as the lions and alligators of today

Since you say lions do not remain lions, do you think that some lions remain lions over hundreds of thousands of years?

 

[YoursTrue]

As far as the mammals evolving with a common ancestor with reptiles it is by the evidence that mammals of the present with reptiles and earlier epochs have common ancestors, and there is wealth of fossil and genetic evidence to support this.

There are volumes of scientific literature, fossil discoveries by the thousands and published research papers by the thousands that support this, but alas you choose to ignore it all and not get educated yourself, nor do your own research. I simply post the most research concerning the recent discoveries and research, which you choose to ignore.

I do not spoon feed the intentionally ignorant.

lol! Aside from the fact that things change (findings or thoughts can change or move -- question -- the theory), there are mounds of literature out there, and you're the expert. It would take a lifetime literally to plow through all the writings, books and articles about even one subject, despite their changes and new research or conclusions.

 

[YoursTrue]

As far as the mammals evolving with a common ancestor with reptiles it is by the evidence that mammals of the present with reptiles and earlier epochs have common ancestors, and there is wealth of fossil and genetic evidence to support this.

There are volumes of scientific literature, fossil discoveries by the thousands and published research papers by the thousands that support this, but alas you choose to ignore it all and not get educated yourself, nor do your own research. I simply post the most research concerning the recent discoveries and research, which you choose to ignore.

I do not spoon feed the intentionally ignorant.

I'm asking you questions because I want to. And I really do like hearing your replies.

 

[YoursTrue]

Opinion and imagination is your problem based on a religious agenda and not science. I simply in this thread present the recent discoveries and research based simply on science, which you choose ot ignore like the tens of thousands of volumes of research and discoveries..

I am not the knowledgeable one, just one scientist of hundreds of thousands, nor is any one other scientist. The knowledge of science is based on the work of hundreds of thousands of scientist over time.

It wouldn't matter about my religious beliefs right now, since scientists themselves cannot and do not agree on some rather important subjects. Einstein (the prototype for brilliant minds) wasn't even sure he agreed with himself, so why should I be any better? (Or you?)

 

[YoursTrue]

As far as the mammals evolving with a common ancestor with reptiles it is by the evidence that mammals of the present with reptiles and earlier epochs have common ancestors, and there is wealth of fossil and genetic evidence to support this.

There are volumes of scientific literature, fossil discoveries by the thousands and published research papers by the thousands that support this, but alas you choose to ignore it all and not get educated yourself, nor do your own research. I simply post the most research concerning the recent discoveries and research, which you choose to ignore.

I do not spoon feed the intentionally ignorant.

In other words, no real evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

In other words, no real evidence.

That is the fundamental problem with your ancient archaic view based on a religious agenda, and your failure to respond to the science,

 

[shunyadragon]

It wouldn't matter about my religious beliefs right now,

It does matter because you already acknowledged the priority of your religious agenda over science,

. . . since scientists themselves cannot and do not agree on some rather important subjects. Einstein (the prototype for brilliant minds) wasn't even sure he agreed with himself, so why should I be any better? (Or you?)

95%++++ of all scientists agree on basic concept of evolution, no problem. Again, it is not me, one scientist. It is the hundreds of thousands of biologist, geologists, geneticists, and others that have devoted their lives over the past 150 years, and support and agree on evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm asking you questions because I want to. And I really do like hearing your replies.

I do not spoon feed those who as a matter of fact reject the science based on a religious agenda and refuse to read and study the science themselves. We have answered your questions when specific and relevant, and you have ignored the answers and scientific articles I have cited, which do answer your questions.

 

[shunyadragon]

lol! Aside from the fact that things change (findings or thoughts can change or move -- question -- the theory), there are mounds of literature out there, and you're the expert. It would take a lifetime literally to plow through all the writings, books and articles about even one subject, despite their changes and new research or conclusions.

The basics of the science of evolution are covered in a few basic references written on the high school level.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Was it from one 'branch' that this transition came?

Amniota

Terrestrial Vertebrates

Synapsida

 

[SkepticThinker]

In other words, no real evidence.

Are you kidding??

That poster literally just said this to you, and that's your response??

"As far as the mammals evolving with a common ancestor with reptiles it is by the evidence that mammals of the present with reptiles and earlier epochs have common ancestors, and there is wealth of fossil and genetic evidence to support this.

There are volumes of scientific literature, fossil discoveries by the thousands and published research papers by the thousands that support this, but alas you choose to ignore it all and not get educated yourself, nor do your own research. I simply post the most research concerning the recent discoveries and research, which you choose to ignore."

 

[Polymath257]

In other words, no real evidence.

Fossils *are* real evidence. The dates of the fossils *is* real evidence. Genetics *is* real evidence.

So, you were told about real evidence. And you chose to label it 'not real evidence'.

Could you please explain why you did that?

 

[YoursTrue]

The basics of the science of evolution are covered in a few basic references written on the high school level.

As I have said, those "basics" as taught have changed over time, and Carl Sagan understood and agreed with that. Even though he was a die-hard evolutionist. He knew some prime basics were mistaught, sometimes willfully, (and still are -- Haeckel is a prime example) or simply and sadly for the sake of teaching and learning, mistaken.