This was posted in other threads.
If these aren't "missing links" then what are they? (Actually they can't be "missing links" because... Well, I guess they aren't really missing, are they?)
Posted on 09/17/2005 3:35:39 AM PDT by SeaLion
Yep.
IIRC, felines have limited color vision and excellent BW vision.
I don't know about the vision of arboreal snakes.
Bear in mind that camouflage is as important for hunters as it is for prey. perhaps more so.
Bear in mind also that I am addressing the earliest advantages of the earliest adaptation of scales into fringed (slightly feather-like) scales, that I am NOT addressing the varied uses of much later adaptation of fully-developed avian feathers into flights, plumage, and sexual display exaggerations.
Yes, I know. It was just an interesting unrelated thought.
Since I wondered, I googled and found a site "preservation station" which stated felines are color-sighted. Another stated small cats aren't, specifically the Lynx and Bob Cat.
OK, SOME are theorized to do this or that.
Again, there has never been found any fossil evidence to support this theory, and there never will be, because dinosaurs were always dinosaurs which died off and became extinct. Birds were always birds and still are birds. Apes were always apes and still are apes, and man was and is still man.
This is all supported by fossil evidence, while evolution is not.
Think carefully now, How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? And what evidence is there of this? (none!)
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Single-celled animals evolve?
* Fish change to amphibians?
* Amphibians change to reptiles?
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
* How did the intermediate forms live?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
various genetic mutations are directly responsible for the far better than usual night vision I possess, as well as for the somewhat greater than usual elasticity of my connective tissues.
both features have advantages and disadvantages.
in other words, these varieties of extant features could be either maladaptive or beneficial, depending on the conditions of my environment.
I doubt you will see that I have answered your question concerning mutation, but I have.
for the rest, for your quibbles of detail, I again turn you over to Ichneumon.
Dinosaurs didn't need to "change into birds". They were birds.
The problem arises in differentiating between two colors of similar frequency, accounting for intensity, etc.
How about a 2500 pound baby chick?
Hmmm. Some people are sociopaths. 'splain that!
What were birds then?
Why do you keep wanting to divide this group in two?
We even have skeletons of small birds of the time that have no breastbone. Otherwise, they are identical to the other birds that have breastbones.
The big birds, also known as dinosaurs, have no breastbones.
Makes them all birds ~ just with different names depending on whether or not they have a breastbone.
This was posted in other threads.
If these aren't "missing links" then what are they? (Actually they can't be "missing links" because... Well, I guess they aren't really missing, are they?)
I guess your kids will be blind and develop sonar huh? LoL!!!
Hey pal, I can see pretty good in the dark too, because I have grey-blue eyes and fair skin and hair. IT'S NOT A GENETIC MUTATION HOWEVER.
Some people are born Albino's and have been born albino's for hundreds of years, but have yet to mutate, and their kids usually turn out normal. Unless of course they inherit the recessive gene.
No sonar enhanced blind bat kids have evolved, ever.
Charles Darwin expressed confidence that natural selection could explain the development of the eye; but how does this confidence stand up in the light of reason?
It would take a miraculous number of design changes to transform a light sensitive patch into an eyeball. Furthermore, each change would have to be coded onto the DNA of the "new" creature in order for the change to pass to the next generation. It has never been explained how this could have happened.
Each new feature would need to be independently useful or natural selection would not have allowed the new creature to live.
* An eyeball with no retina would be a tumor, not an improvement to be passed on to the next generation.
* An eyeball without a focusing lens would be worthless except as a light detector.
* An eyeball without a functioning optic nerve to carry the signal to the brain would be worthless.
* An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode.
* An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless.
So you see, an eyeball couldn't have evolved, nor will it, nor has there EVER been any proof that it has.
It is beyond credibility that chance mutations could produce any of these changes, let alone all of them at once. In Darwin's time the complex design of the eyeball was forceful evidence in favor of creation. Our more advanced knowledge of the intricate design of the eyes provide even stronger evidence for creation.
For instance, as we travel down the "evolutionary ladder" to examine those creatures which were supposedly among the earliest life forms on the planet, would it not be logical to expect their eyes to be less complex?
Contrary to this expectation, among the lowest rock layers are found multi-cellular creatures called trilobites which have an extremely sophisticated optical system. Some trilobites had a compound eye placed in such a way as to allow 360o vision.
Compound eyes are ideally suited for detecting minute motions and some trilobites eyes were specially designed to correct for spherical aberration allowing a clear image from each facet.
Even more impressive, each lens allowed for undistorted underwater imaging depth perception. Thus, one of the "earliest" in vertebrate creatures had clear underwater vision through eyes which could detect both depth and imperceptibility small motions in all directions simultaneously.
Yet this creature was not at the end of the supposed evolutionary line but near the beginning! Yet no direct ancestor to this incredible complex creature (or its eye) has been found.
The complexity of eyes still argue for the reality of instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations explain how it could possible happen.
With these facts in mind, why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education.
I guess you haven't heard the news of the FRAUD involved with those models. it was discovered that some creative liberty was taken by these 'evolutionists' but mixing the jaws of apes with skulls of man and other creative manipulations.
Are you referring to Piltdown? Look close. He's not in there. That was figured out years ago.
Try again?
Wait a minute! You just said dinosaurs were birds!
Anyways, were are the intermediates? where is the fossil record? There is NO fossil record to prove this, nor can you explain why dinosaurs didn't have gizzards and a had a completely different digestive system. Where are the birds with razor sharp teeth? What dinosaur was an owl? What dinsaur was a penguin? Why is the DNA completely different? Birds were NOT dinosaurs, they were little birds exactly like they are now.
Also color communications giving rise to focusing on mates to create subspecies, new species.
I fail to see where that proves any "evolution". You have a collection on monkey skulls, and skulls from different variety's of man. In fact, I can go to the local bar and show you a guy that has a skull shaped like any one of those. it proves nothing at all.
We look at ancient dinosaurs and observe that some of them had large fibrous structures on their faces that look like whistles, but could readily be beaks if you tweeked the genes just so.
All same thing GI and you can't make them different~!
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.
