Skip to comments.
The Origin and Extinction of Species
The American Chronicle ^
| July 25, 2008
| Darrell Williams
Posted on 07/25/2008 2:26:42 PM PDT by Soliton
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 last
To: count-your-change
A transition? If so then with all these transitions extinct they must have been unsuitable for life whereas what they were transitioning from was more suitable and with us today. In short these supposed transitions would be a dead end with all those human characteristics not an improvement but a disadvantage to survival. Jungles, trees and savannas, chimps, orangs, apes, humans, etc. all here today but not one transition.
I see your problem!
You have an incorrect view of "transitional." As an analogy, you can look at your great, great grandparents as transitionals. They were not dead ends, nor failures, just farther back in the line leading to you.
Same with Lucy and the other transitionals in our hominid ancestry. Those species were well adapted to their conditions, but as conditions changed so did they. The new species were also well adapted to their new conditions. Neither was a dead end nor a failure; each was well adapted to the conditions in which they lived.
Hope this helps.
61
posted on
07/28/2008 12:48:53 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
To use your example my grandparents had parents and children so, yes, they could be called “transitional” to me.
But my cousin is not transitional to me and “Lucy”, whose parents and children we know nothing of, cannot even be demonstrated to be a relative let alone a cousin. It's all fine and well to draw lines of descent and connection between apes, transitions, and humans and it looks good on paper but that's all it is.
62
posted on
07/28/2008 2:12:49 PM PDT
by
count-your-change
(you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change
It's all fine and well to draw lines of descent and connection between apes, transitions, and humans and it looks good on paper but that's all it is. Correct; its a theory. And it looks good on paper only in relation to the evidence supporting it.
But hominid evolution is well supported by the evidence.
63
posted on
07/28/2008 2:18:57 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
Well, you are free to assert what you wish and I’ll not endlessly go back and forth with you. I don’t see the point in that unless one is trying to “win” somehow and I don’t think either of us is interested in such silliness.
But I’ll be back when I think it warranted. And I did enjoy our discussion.
64
posted on
07/28/2008 2:35:59 PM PDT
by
count-your-change
(you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson