Origin of the Mammals – Definition of...

Origin of the Mammals – Definition of Evolution

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#1 Dec 11, 2013
Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, one of the 20th century’s most eminent authorities on evolution and one of the founders of neo-Darwinist theory, makes an astonishing confession from the evolutionist point of view:

The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.

In addition, the mammals that suddenly appeared are very different from one another. The bat, horse, mouse and whale all emerged in the same geological period. It is impossible, even with the most powerful imagination, to construct an evolutionary relationship between these mammals.

The evolutionist zoologist Eric Lombard writes in the journal Evolution: Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.

All this goes to show that living things emerged on Earth suddenly and perfectly formed, as the result of no evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence that they were created. Evolutionists, however, seek to interpret the fact that living species appeared in a particular order as an indication that they evolved.

http://en.harunyahya.net/origin-of-the-mammal...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, one of the 20th century’s most eminent authorities on evolution and one of the founders of neo-Darwinist theory, makes an astonishing confession from the evolutionist point of view:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
In addition, the mammals that suddenly appeared are very different from one another. The bat, horse, mouse and whale all emerged in the same geological period. It is impossible, even with the most powerful imagination, to construct an evolutionary relationship between these mammals.
The evolutionist zoologist Eric Lombard writes in the journal Evolution: Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All this goes to show that living things emerged on Earth suddenly and perfectly formed, as the result of no evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence that they were created. Evolutionists, however, seek to interpret the fact that living species appeared in a particular order as an indication that they evolved.
http://en.harunyahya.net/origin-of-the-mammal...
You used a quote mining Muslim site.

You lose.

If you want to make a serious claim find a source that does not lie by quote mining.

Second we know why the dinosaurs passed away. Their numbers were already in a bit of a decline due to changing climate when the Earth was smacked by a huge comet or asteroid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80...

Smaller land animals were what survived. That means an end to the large dinosaurs. There always was a population of small mammals. Once the worst of the effects were over they found huge new niches to evolve into.

No evidence of creation exists at all.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#3 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
http://en.harunyahya.net/origi n-of-the-mammals-definition-of -evolution/
You seem to be attracted to Frauds.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#4 Dec 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You used a quote mining Muslim site.
You lose.
If you want to make a serious claim find a source that does not lie by quote mining.
Second we know why the dinosaurs passed away. Their numbers were already in a bit of a decline due to changing climate when the Earth was smacked by a huge comet or asteroid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80...
Smaller land animals were what survived. That means an end to the large dinosaurs. There always was a population of small mammals. Once the worst of the effects were over they found huge new niches to evolve into.
No evidence of creation exists at all.
Examples on the evolutionary tree laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing that can't be used to fly and only gets in the way is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#5 Dec 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You used a quote mining Muslim site.
You lose.
If you want to make a serious claim find a source that does not lie by quote mining.
Second we know why the dinosaurs passed away. Their numbers were already in a bit of a decline due to changing climate when the Earth was smacked by a huge comet or asteroid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80...
Smaller land animals were what survived. That means an end to the large dinosaurs. There always was a population of small mammals. Once the worst of the effects were over they found huge new niches to evolve into.
No evidence of creation exists at all.
This bonehead is dredging the underbelly of the internet to find the most egregious creationist fraud to post here. He doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground.

I suppose next he will find the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#6 Dec 11, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be attracted to Frauds.
Name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species from a prior species by the accumulation of mutations.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#7 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, one of the 20th century’s most eminent authorities on evolution and one of the founders of neo-Darwinist theory, makes an astonishing confession from the evolutionist point of view:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
In addition, the mammals that suddenly appeared are very different from one another. The bat, horse, mouse and whale all emerged in the same geological period. It is impossible, even with the most powerful imagination, to construct an evolutionary relationship between these mammals.
The evolutionist zoologist Eric Lombard writes in the journal Evolution: Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All this goes to show that living things emerged on Earth suddenly and perfectly formed, as the result of no evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence that they were created. Evolutionists, however, seek to interpret the fact that living species appeared in a particular order as an indication that they evolved.
http://en.harunyahya.net/origin-of-the-mammal...
Check out this site. http://harunyakeaster.net/you_are_a_dumb_ass

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#8 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, one of the 20th century’s most eminent authorities on evolution and one of the founders of neo-Darwinist theory, makes an astonishing confession from the evolutionist point of view:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
In addition, the mammals that suddenly appeared are very different from one another. The bat, horse, mouse and whale all emerged in the same geological period. It is impossible, even with the most powerful imagination, to construct an evolutionary relationship between these mammals.
Prof. Simpson died (1984) at about the time that evidence was found to associate an asteroid with the K-Pg Extinction. Had he lived and worked a little longer, he would not have been puzzled.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#9 Dec 11, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be attracted to Frauds.
No matter what it is, where it comes from you evotards are going to say it is a bad site. The scientists, biologists, geologists, etc that do the work and show their findings you evotards will just say the are not worthy.

That is the two favorite answers you evotards give. That is a bad link and/or those people are stupid. Think of new things to say for those two are getting rather old.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#10 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples on the evolutionary tree laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing that can't be used to fly and only gets in the way is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless?
Hey, nimrod. Why would the wing have to evolve from scratch in an animal that already had forelimbs? A bird wouldn't evolve a wing that was useless. If it was a bird, it would have the wings already. Duh.

Why does an ostrich have a wing too small to fly? Why do penguins have wings. Hint: They are birds stupid.

The first step would have been the evolution of feathers. I know it is hard for you to think, but give it a try.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#11 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species from a prior species by the accumulation of mutations.
Everyone of them. Geez your dumb.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#12 Dec 11, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Prof. Simpson died (1984) at about the time that evidence was found to associate an asteroid with the K-Pg Extinction. Had he lived and worked a little longer, he would not have been puzzled.
Unfortunately, he still would be quote mined.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#13 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species from a prior species by the accumulation of mutations.
Weren't you championing evolution as the designer and now you implying that it doesn't happen. You are all over the place.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#14 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
Examples on the evolutionary tree laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing that can't be used to fly and only gets in the way is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless?
Being able to produce a small amount of lift might be useful in helping a small creature escape or catch food.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#15 Dec 11, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what it is, where it comes from you evotards are going to say it is a bad site. The scientists, biologists, geologists, etc that do the work and show their findings you evotards will just say the are not worthy.
That is the two favorite answers you evotards give. That is a bad link and/or those people are stupid. Think of new things to say for those two are getting rather old.
No matter what facts and science you are provided with the one sure thing about you and the rest of your ilk is anger, name calling, a denial of the facts in lieu of belief and a disregard for honest response.

You NEED to learn science. You don't know anything about it. You NEED to learn to think critically. You don't. You NEED to learn about history, religion and a whole number of other subjects. You don't know much at all.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#16 Dec 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="DarkBlue"No matter what it is, where it comes from you evotards are going to say it is a bad site. The scientists, biologists, geologists, etc that do the work and show their findings you evotards will just say the are not worthy.
That is the two favorite answers you evotards give. That is a bad link and/or those people are stupid. Think of new things to say for those two are getting rather old.[/QUOTE]
My favorite: Harun Yahya and the Caddis Fly.

http://forbiddenmusic.wordpress.com/2008/01/0...

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#17 Dec 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Weren't you championing evolution as the designer and now you implying that it doesn't happen. You are all over the place.
Can't fix Stupid.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#18 Dec 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, nimrod. Why would the wing have to evolve from scratch in an animal that already had forelimbs? A bird wouldn't evolve a wing that was useless. If it was a bird, it would have the wings already. Duh.
Why does an ostrich have a wing too small to fly? Why do penguins have wings. Hint: They are birds stupid.
The first step would have been the evolution of feathers. I know it is hard for you to think, but give it a try.
Very poor answer. One I knew evotards could not answer.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#19 Dec 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone of them. Geez your dumb.
Again very poor answer. There are living fossils that haven't changed in millions upon millions of years.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#20 Dec 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Weren't you championing evolution as the designer and now you implying that it doesn't happen. You are all over the place.
Not in the sense you think it did/does.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min messianic114 164,249
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Aura Mytha 19,058
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Tue Gillette 84
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Tue DanFromSmithville 141,352
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 25 UncommonSense2015 178,616
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? May 24 UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
More from around the web