Unchanged Sharks- Flightless Birds- A response to seanmPWH -=PART I=-

I describe why sharks appear unchanged, and many animals appear similarly throughout the fossil record. I use specific fossils, as well as pictures of those fossils to illustrate the point I am making.

Flightless birds are discussed as well, and there is an enormous amount of literature on it. Sean, if you want to prepare yourself for next week, look up newzealand's history, as well as the energetics of flight.

I intended this to be civil, but after watching the end of your video, it appears you are of another sort. As a consequence, for next week, I suggest you read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Also, for next week, you may wish to pick up a nice soothing ointment to place on the new orifice you shall find yourself with- complements of myself. (the orifice, not the ointment. Pay for the ointment with your own financial means.

Regards,
-=DonExodus=-

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• why
• dont
• animals
• evolve
• unchanged
• sharks
• crocodiles
• evolution
• flightless
• birds
• moa
• ostrich
• creationism
• creationist
• intelligent
• design
• darwin
• to
• the
• face

[TheBanile]

@realhomosapiens You are slightly wrong; if you are referring to lampreys and hagfish, whilst they do bare many similarities to their ancestors, they are not 'unchanged'. And evolution doesn't state everything has to change, only if it has the environmental pressure to. As for a link, the two groups I mentioned lead to the of Ostracoderms, jawless fish of which there were quite a few groups, the development of the head seen in Pikaia and Branchiostoma in the Cambria also.

[realhomosapiens]

@TheBanile

The interpretation of those similarities are ludicrous...humans and chimpz are supposedly 98% similar at DNA level, but chimpz and bonobos which are more close related should be more than 98% similar but they are less than 97%, there you have serious problem...now, humans and sheeps are 85% similar but in the outside we are quite different, aren´t we? how about humans and bananas, we share 60% plus similarities in DNA but, have you ever compared to a banana? think about it

[realhomosapiens]

@TheBanile

I can see your sincerity but also your error...

There were plenty of creatures in the cambrian era, actually some of them still alive today, unchanged by the way...and there were plenty of creatures in the next layer, the ordovician era, according to your myth, give just ONE creature from the cambrian era that is related to any creature in the ordivician era, just ONE and I´ll worship Charly, zas? expression for deal...saludos, estas haciendo buen trabajo, gracias

[TheBanile]

@TheBanile I mean, all life uses the same nucleic acid sequences for DNA, the fossil record provides anatomical convergences and lineages of so many forms of life, which the recent explosion in genetic technology has supported. the further back we go, the hard it is due to poor fossilising conditions or simply destruction of fossils, but even then we have a good idea; Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys provide the earliest examples of the emergence of true vertebrates, for example.

[TheBanile]

@realhomosapiens And again, these genetics links can and have been traces way back, supported by the overwhelming evidence in the fossil and geological record. Small genetic changes can make a huge amount of difference. I mean, humans and chimpanzee DNA is amazingly similar, but it makes a big different in the large scale. Again, this is undisputed in the scientific community because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Your disbelief is neither proof nor fact.

[TheBanile]

@realhomosapiens The gap has been bridged; we can see most of it through the fossil record and the geological technology that helps put it into context. We can trace more 'recent' ancestors through our genes; changes in genes can be traced as they leave genetic markers; for example, most hominids have 24 chromosomes whereas we only have 23 pairs, however, with analyse of chromosome 2 we saw the that it was a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

[realhomosapiens]

@TheBanile

How do mutation bridge the genes number from one specie to another...some species just have a few chromosomes and some have hundreds of them...it´s not that simple....

Once again, new species have and will arise of the same creature...

Have you ever heard of a frog turning into a prince, well with the except of a few changes the story is the same one...evolution (weird worm cambrian creatures to humans) is a fairy tale, a scientific one, nevertheless a fairy tale.

[realhomosapiens]

@TheBanile

It´s just because a Cessna 182 can fly non-stop from LAX to SFO we can assume that given 600 my such an aircraft would reach the outer most part of our galaxy, it will never happen, just because we see speciation it does not mean that humans descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creature, leeeeet alone all the creatures along the road.- Why you can not see the unsurmountable gap that needs to be bridged?

[TheBanile]

@realhomosapiens We have observational data of these changes in genes happening, but if you're expecting finches to suddenly produce rabbits then you are not only being unscientific but also unreasonable; you'd have to wait a good million or two years to see any real major differences. But the, like I say, the genetic markers and the fossil record provide good evidence of small fish-like animals adapting into land-bound creatures or certain dinosaur lines that started the birds.