Originally posted by Faisca
Originally posted by NetStorm
But that would still leave the age old question...if we evolved from reptiles..why are there still reptiles
Like someone said before, do some research, have some common sense, and it's not really a big question. Though I guess it could be valid, but still
the answer is easy to see.
I don't think I said WE DIDN'T evolve from reptiles...I asked --why did they stop--
My "research" so far has found this
All living organisms share the same family tree. This fact is backed by evidence such as:
Archaeopteryx, a missing link between reptiles and birds
mammalian hearing structure, which evolved from reptilian jawbones
the animals of the Galapagos, isolated from the rest of the world
DNA profiles of life forms, present and past
"Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas
and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. "
Some of the places I can find that say we "evolved" from reptiles, really can show no scientific basis to their claims, just more of the "Serpent
"As long as humanity has kept records of its existence, legends of a serpent race have persisted. These myths tell of a mysterious race of superhuman
reptilian beings who descended from the heavens to participate in creating humankind and to teach the sciences, impart forbidden knowledge, impose
social order, breed with us, and watch over our development."
though the Harvard Gazzette does have some interesting stuff
"Found in China, the tiny skull shows evidence that the first mammals evolved from reptiles 45 million years earlier than widely believed. "
That evidence shows that many small species evolved toward the mammal state some 300 million years ago, but most of them died out. "It appears that
only one group successfully crossed the reptile-mammal divide,"
that still doesn'y explain why they evolved and why they have not continued to evolve.
In many respect[s], the tritylodont skull was very mammalian in its features. Certainly, because of the advanced nature of the zygomatic arches, the
secondary palate and the specialized teeth, these animals had feeding habits that were close to those of some mammals . . . . Yet, in spite of these
advances, the tritylodonts still retained the reptilian joint between the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the lower jaw. It is
true that these bones were very much reduced, so that the squamosal bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw (the two bones involved in
the mammalian jaw articulation) were on the point of touching each other"
If you want to look at it from another point of view..then humans could be de-evolving...my SO who is a neonatal nurse, has told me about 3 ---not 1
---but 3 "mermaid babies" that they have had in their hospital that look just like little fish...except with human heads (yes I know it is a
syndrome called Harlequin Babies)
...or how bout the little baby that by her description would be considered an alien gray (except this one just had fuild for a brain. Slit eyes, holes
for ears andno mouth. Is that a human attempting to evolve and just didn;t make it?
You guys don't have to jump down a persons throat and say "Use common sense, do some research"
I asked a simple question..WHAT stoped the other repitiles from evolving and why have they not continued to evolve,
"Yet we never stop to recognize the almost absurd biases coded into this universal mode and which we need to and have come to change in the last
couple of years. No scene ever shows another invertebrate after fishes evolved but invertebrates did not go away or stop evolving! After terrestrial
reptiles emerge, no subsequent scene ever shows a fish (later oceanic tableaux depict only such returning reptiles as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs).
But fishes did not stop evolving after one small lineage managed to invade the land. In fact, the major event in the evolution of fishes, the origin
and rise to dominance of the teleosts, or modern bony fishes, occurred during the time of the dinosaurs and is therefore never shown at all in any of
these sequences - even though teleosts include more than half of all species of vertebrates. Why should humans appear at the end of all sequences? Our
order of primates is ancient among mammals, and many other successful lineages arose later than we did"
"Remember, it is not the amount of mutation or variation that makes a new species. The essential thing is that the new population no longer mates
with the ancestral population. On occasion that can happen with a single mutation, but more often it takes the accumulation of many
changes--especially changes in habitat and diet--before mutual separation results in a new species. When comparing a living species with a possible
fossil ancestor, we actually don't know sometimes whether they could have or would have mated or not"
Theres several diferrent ways to look at this...sorry if my need to understand insulted your inteligence
[Edited on 27-4-2004 by NetStorm]