Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


There is huge difference between a 1 celled organism somehow rewriting it's DNA to develop both male and female sexual organs at the same time (to what advantage?), verses a genetic shift of people that slowly gain in height or have darker skin over time, so that they are born with those physical traits. One is adaption to environmental factors which is factual and observed. The other is a scientific fantasy.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

There is huge difference between a 1 celled organism somehow rewriting it's DNA to develop both male and female sexual organs at the same time (to what advantage?), verses a genetic shift of people that slowly gain in height or have darker skin over time, so that they are born with those physical traits. One is adaption to environmental factors which is factual and observed. The other is a scientific fantasy.

To what advantage?
1. Creation of variation among siblings, which will then be subjected to the environmental factors you've admitted exist. (link)
2. More efficient removal of harmful mutation from the population. (link)
3. The evolution of sex may actually be speeding up the rate of evolution overall... evolution evolves? (link)

So there are three of the potential advantages to the evolution of sex. There are more, those are just the three for which I could easily find citations. With respect to you calling it "scientific fantasy", I'd just like some clarification as to why you're defining it in that way. Sex exists, obviously, so are you saying that the evolution of sex is a "scientific fantasy"? If so, is that based on evidence or just your common sense telling you that it couldn't have? And how does that falsify evolution as a whole?

I believe mutations and adaption to be real, but the idea of evolution where one species just bams turns into another entirely new species to be false. I just don't see it happening.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

There is huge difference between a 1 celled organism somehow rewriting it's DNA to develop both male and female sexual organs at the same time

Single-celled organisms don't have sex. Since they have only one cell, they can't even have organs--sexual or otherwise.

If this is the level of your biological knowledge, it's not surprising you don't believe in evolution. But who cares what you believe? Such imperfect knowledge disqualifies you to hold any opinion about evolution in the first place.

One is adaption to environmental factors which is factual and observed. The other is a scientific fantasy.

You are in no position to judge what is scientific and what is not. It takes someone versed in science to do that.

Originally posted by ItsTheONE1111
[...] the idea of evolution where one species just bams turns into another entirely new species [to be] false. I just don't see it happening.

"One species turning into another" is called "speciation"...and we have observed it several times.

Source

You personally might not have seen it, but we have those events documented

reply to post by Astyanax

Single-celled organisms don't have sex. Since they have only one cell, they can't even have organs--sexual or otherwise.

Like I didn't learn that in middle school decades ago....
your trying to vilify my knowledge, it's not going to work, I am not some teen that has just started to learn about this.
The point is evolution theorizes that one celled organisms somehow eventually over millions years kept changing & rewriting their own DNA/RNA thousands of times into eyes, sex organs, hearts, nervous systems and other complex systems that never existed in any way shape or form previously.

You guys don't want to discuss this in a proper dignified manner, so I will leave this thread. But In the near future I will create a new thread that outlines the biological impossibilities of evolution as I define it in the OP, it will include Abiogenesis because it is inextricably linked to the evolution theory process, cutting it out makes it way too easy on the 21st century modern atheist to defend their no God belief, I have wised up to that tactic now.
See you in the new thread.

Somehow a double post

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Way to run away from a discussion after people posted links explaining where you are wrong.

And no, evolution and abiogenesis don't go together. Evolution is a proper theory, for abiogenesis we have a few hypotheses, but nothing as concrete as for evolution. That doesn't suddenly evolution is wrong as yo claim.

But looking forward to your thread

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
But In the near future I will create a new thread that outlines the biological impossibilities of evolution as I define it in the OP, it will include Abiogenesis because it is inextricably linked to the evolution theory process, . . .

Yea, I hear you. great idea. I tried that, arguing with guys who knew all about computers; they thought they were so smart. So I redefined CPU as Container for Poopy Underwear, and that showed 'em. Now they can't prove me wrong, because every time they do, I redefine their terms.

(The above is sarcasm.)

If you want to debate abiogenesis in a new thread, great. I'll be interested.
But I hope you will have the intellectual honesty to call it abiogenesis.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Like I didn't learn that in middle school decades ago...

If you knew it, why did you post that stupid statement about unicellular organisms having sex organs?

Did you forget?

The point is evolution theorizes that one celled organisms somehow eventually over millions years kept changing & rewriting their own DNA/RNA thousands of times into eyes, sex organs, hearts, nervous systems and other complex systems that never existed in any way shape or form previously.

Yes, they must have done it on purpose, the bad naughty things.

One single-celled organism didn't suddenly become a two-celled organism and then, progressively, a multicellular organism. Not that there's anything improbable about that happening; you grew that way in your mother's womb and so did I in mine. But if you cast your mind back to those distant, halcyon middle-school days, you may also recall having been taught that bacteria tend to live in colonies. What most likely happened is that these colonies, whose members tend to act in concert anyway, became more cohesive, evolving into things like sponges and slime moulds. Further evolution saw the increasing specialization of some of the colonies' cells--ones near the surface of the colony might become stomata, for example--and, concurrently, increasing organization and coordination within the colony itself. At some point in this process, the colony organism becomes a multicelluar plant or animal.

You guys don't want to discuss this in a proper dignified manner, so I will leave this thread.

Ta-ta! (Waves hanky)

Abiogenesis... is inextricably linked to the evolution theory process.

How? Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis, it just explains diversity of descent from a common ancestor.

Good luck with your thread. It will crash and burn humiliatingly, like every other attempt to debunk evolution has and always will. You seem to think there is some debate about evolution. There is none. There is no debating the truth, because it remains true no matter how many arguments you may bring against it. And it is not determined by public opinion or trial by jury.

for trying, though. You are a true Quixote.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The point is evolution theorizes that one celled organisms somehow eventually over millions years kept changing & rewriting their own DNA/RNA thousands of times into eyes, sex organs, hearts, nervous systems and other complex systems that never existed in any way shape or form previously.

But those systems you're describing didn't just appear, suddenly and fully-formed, from something that has no resemblance to what came before it. You're right - some single-celled organism didn't just rewrite it's own genetic code and, voila, one day an eye appeared. We're talking about multicellular organisms, which have been around for not millions but billions of years, that had a cluster of photosensitive cells. A recessed area then formed around those cells formed, giving better sensitivity to which direction the light was coming from. That recessed area became more and more enclosed, becoming what amounts to a pinhole camera. And from there, it developed protective barriers, ways to regulate the amount of light entering, etc.

You guys don't want to discuss this in a proper dignified manner, so I will leave this thread. But In the near future I will create a new thread that outlines the biological impossibilities of evolution as I define it in the OP, it will include Abiogenesis because it is inextricably linked to the evolution theory process, cutting it out makes it way too easy on the 21st century modern atheist to defend their no God belief, I have wised up to that tactic now.

I think I've been respectful in my responses and questions, which you've conveniently ignored. Further, I'm sure it will be easier for you to try and poke holes in something self-defined, regardless of whether that definition is complete or accurate. But that's hardly an intellectually honest way to prove your point, is it? Abiogenesis and evolution are adjacent, but they're not the same field of study. If you want to conflate the two for the purposes of falsifying evolution, that's fine but, again, it's not really an intellectually honest refutation of evolution, is it? And this really isn't about an atheistic worldview vs. a theistic one; there are plenty of non-atheists that believe in evolution. Even the Catholic church, one of the most slow-to-change and ass-backwards bunch of dogmatics that ever lived, acknowledges that evolution is a fact and consistant with a creator.

Seeing atheism brought up, yet again, in a thread to discuss evolution on its own merits is making me start to believe that morality is really at the crux of the backlash against evolution. It's almost like some strange variant of Godwin's Law - instead of Hitler having a greater chance of being invoked as time goes it, it's the amorality of people who believe in evolution. I keep seeing the arguments against evolution devolve (no pun intended) from a discussion of the merits of it on a scientific basis to "saying we evolved from animals is just an excuse to act like animals" or "all morality comes from God and evolution is anti-God, so evolutionists must be amoral". Arguments like that really amount to little more than glorified name calling.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Aside from the fact that you'r entirely mis-characterizing the origin of sexual distinction (quick hint: Sexual reproduction existed prior to the differentiation between 'male' and 'female' genders, we still have it today in the form of simpler organisms that participate in the mating ritual known as 'penis fencing'...not my term), it's the same thing.

And you're calling something a fantasy simply because you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of it. Gender distinction didn't arise over night, it didn't just spontaneously happen from a single celled organism.

Of course things will seem like a fantasy when you haven't done the necessary research into them.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by edmc^2

 

"So you mean that abiogenesis never occured?"

Why do you keep harping on abiogenesis in a thread about evolution? Is it because you know you can't falsify evolution?

You see, like what I said before, a building with a weak foundation can't stand for a long time but a building without a foundation can't stand at all. Evolution has either a weak foundation or no foundation at all. So evolutionist came up with one to prop it up. Guess what they came up with:

abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis

So proving evolution apart from abiogenesis is like explaining a floating building. No matter how elegant or how clever you explain how it "evolved" err - developed, it is still an illusion, a delusion, a fantasy, a falsity.

So as I see it abiogenesis is part of the evolution, can't be separated.

Since abiogenesis is still a theory, thus evolution has no foundation.

"That according to evolution theory - man did not evolved from the "great apes"?"

That is correct. Man did not 'evolved' from the great apes. They and we evolved from a common ancestor. Didn't you just use that word in a post? Don't you understand the concept it denotes?

just amazing, ur fella evolutionist like to use"great apes". Ok lets stick with common ancestors then.

"There's no punctauted equilibrium?"

Not necessarily. Punctuated equilibrium was the invention of a certain famous and quite unnecessarily embarrassed palaeontologist. It is not a axial tenet of evolutionary theory; more of an insignificant detail.

ahh, but your fella evolutionist still proudly hail it as part of evolution. Unless you think they are all wrong and your correct.

"So what gives?"

What gives is that you know you can't falsify evolution, so you're trolling.

trolling what? how can you falsify something that is false?

is this the 'straw man' response?

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by edmc^2
All of these in one form of explenation or another are blindly accepted as facts from which you want us to falsify. So how do you falsify something that is false?

Um...by demonstrating that it's false.

Actually, reptiles became mammals, and we have plenty of transitional fossils to show this.

wow long list -- so can you show /explain/prove/falsify how

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian)

evolved from a reptile to a mammal with transitional evidence?

thanks,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


creationism and abiogenisis are the ones competeing against eachother. Evolution could discirbe the current day organism variation for either begining.

And saying that life formed out of molecules produced somehow somewhere is far less outlandish than an invisible unproveable undefinable extradementional entity choosing to make man and then $%&^ with every contient indivivualy with separate creation stories.....and then not mention in their religious texts.... being eaten daily by giant reptiles.

Originally posted by edmc^2
You see, like what I said before, a building with a weak foundation can't stand for a long time but a building without a foundation can't stand at all. Evolution has either a weak foundation or no foundation at all. So evolutionist came up with one to prop it up. Guess what they came up with:

abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis

So proving evolution apart from abiogenesis is like explaining a floating building. No matter how elegant or how clever you explain how it "evolved" err - developed, it is still an illusion, a delusion, a fantasy, a falsity.

The only reason you insist on constantly tethering the two together is because there's far less evidence for abiogenesis, hence its status as a hypothesis, than there is for evolution. Because you can't falsify evolution, you conflate it with abiogenesis and try to falsify that, as if that would somehow falsify evolution. Saying that there's not enough evidence, even though there's more evidence for abiogenesis than for your magical giant pink unicorn that farted out the universe one day, isn't falsification.

So as I see it abiogenesis is part of the evolution, can't be separated.

Perfect example of a magicalpinkunicornist altering accepted definitions to fit the needs of their argument.

Since abiogenesis is still a theory, thus evolution has no foundation.

Intentional misuse of the word theory by a magicalpinkunicornist, what a surprise. Abiogenesis is not a theory, it's a hypothesis. There isn't enough evidence to call it a theory yet. Saying that evolution must be wrong because there's no theory of abiogenesis is like saying that umbrellas must not work without a theory of meteorology.

just amazing, ur fella evolutionist like to use"great apes". Ok lets stick with common ancestors then.

Who?

ahh, but your fella evolutionist still proudly hail it as part of evolution. Unless you think they are all wrong and your correct.

Who?

trolling what? how can you falsify something that is false?

By showing falsifying it, which you have yet to do. Falsification means demonstration that something is false via a scientific observation or physical experiment. A classic example of a falsification of evolution is the "fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian" of Haldane.

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by edmc^2
You see, like what I said before, a building with a weak foundation can't stand for a long time but a building without a foundation can't stand at all. Evolution has either a weak foundation or no foundation at all. So evolutionist came up with one to prop it up. Guess what they came up with:

abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis

No, scientific theories aren't buildings.

We're here to discuss evolution. If it's built upon any foundation it would be genetics, just look in my sig for a definition of evolution:

"In fact evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes Biology 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers p.974

Evolution says absolutely nothing about where life came from and exists independently of where life came from. If the first life forms were farted onto this Earth by a sombrero-wearing giant kangaroo we would still have evolution.

So proving evolution apart from abiogenesis is like explaining a floating building. No matter how elegant or how clever you explain how it "evolved" err - developed, it is still an illusion, a delusion, a fantasy, a falsity.

Nope, not what we're here to discuss. Evolution holds no matter where life came from

And calling biological concepts names isn't going to make them go away.

Now, if you really wanted to rip the foundation out from under evolution, you'd have to disprove genetics and reproduction. Those are really the two 'foundations' of the theory.

So as I see it abiogenesis is part of the evolution, can't be separated.

Well, you see things incorrectly.

How would evolution not be true if a sombrero-wearing giant kangaroo farted life onto this Earth?

Since abiogenesis is still a theory, thus evolution has no foundation.

*facepalm]/b]* We've gone over this. Evolution is a theory, circuits are a theory, germs are a theory, relativity is a theory.

Now, you have Einstein as your avatar, are you really going to demean the position of the amply proven theories of general and special relativity?

"That according to evolution theory - man did not evolved from the "great apes"?"

That is correct. Man did not 'evolved' from the great apes. They and we evolved from a common ancestor. Didn't you just use that word in a post? Don't you understand the concept it denotes?

just amazing, ur fella evolutionist like to use"great apes". Ok lets stick with common ancestors then.

No, we don't like to use 'great apes'. The great apes are Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans, and (arguably) Humans.

I'll let Richard Dawkins explain the evolutionary connection

ahh, but your fella evolutionist still proudly hail it as part of evolution. Unless you think they are all wrong and your correct.

Punctuated equilibrium is one of those things where we're trying to work out the rates at which evolution progresses. Some people, the first being Stephen J. Gould, thought that evolution might occur more rapidly in instances where there was massive environmental change. This is still being debated a bit in the scientific community.

"So what gives?"

What gives is that you know you can't falsify evolution, so you're trolling.

trolling what? how can you falsify something that is false?

...I already told you that. You demonstrate that it is false.

Falsifying something that is false is quite possibly the easiest thing you could possibly do.

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by edmc^2
wow long list -- so can you show /explain/prove/falsify how

...you falsify by demonstrating exactly what about the theory is false.

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian)

evolved from a reptile to a mammal with transitional evidence?

This shows that you clearly didn't read my post. That wall of text that you took the first line from? That's a detailing of the transitional evidence between reptile and mammal. I'll repost it here for your convenience. Read it, it's half of the transition, with the rest being in the source.

So without further adieu, here's the transitional evidence between reptiles and mammals in its massive wall of text glory.

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- An early captorhinomorph reptile, with no temporal fenestrae at all.
Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian) -- The earliest known synapsid reptile. Little temporal fenestra, with all surrounding bones intact. Fragmentary. Had amphibian-type vertebrae with tiny neural processes. (reptiles had only just separated from the amphibians)
Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian) -- The second earliest known synapsid. These early, very primitive synapsids are a primitive group of pelycosaurs collectively called "ophiacodonts".
Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian) -- A slightly later ophiacodont. Small temporal fenestra, now with some reduced bones (supratemporal). Braincase still just loosely attached to skull. Slight hint of different tooth types. Still has some extremely primitive, amphibian/captorhinid features in the jaw, foot, and skull. Limbs, posture, etc. typically reptilian, though the ilium (major hip bone) was slightly enlarged.
Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, showing the initiation of sphenacodont features while retaining many primitive features of the ophiacodonts. Occiput still more strongly attached to the braincase. Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall. Stronger jaw muscles. Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian. Neural spines on vertebrae longer. Hip strengthened by fusing to three sacral vertebrae instead of just two. Limbs very well developed.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, 270 Ma) -- More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor, but as it is known from very complete fossils, it's a good model for sphenacodont anatomy. Medium-sized fenestra. Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum, but there was no eardrum yet, so these reptiles could only hear ground-borne vibrations (they did have a reptilian middle ear). Vertebrae had still longer neural spines (spectacularly so in Dimetrodon, which had a sail), and longer transverse spines for stronger locomotion muscles.
Biarmosuchia (late Permian) -- A therocephalian -- one of the earliest, most primitive therapsids. Several primitive, sphenacodontid features retained: jaw muscles inside the skull, platelike occiput, palatal teeth. New features: Temporal fenestra further enlarged, occupying virtually all of the cheek, with the supratemporal bone completely gone. Occipital plate slanted slightly backwards rather than forwards as in pelycosaurs, and attached still more strongly to the braincase. Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Still no secondary palate, but the vomer bones of the palate developed a backward extension below the palatine bones. This is the first step toward a secondary palate, and with exactly the same pattern seen in cynodonts. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle). The amphibian-like hinged upper jaw finally became immovable. Vertebrae still sphenacodontid-like. Radical alteration in the method of locomotion, with a much more mobile forelimb, more upright hindlimb, & more mammalian femur & pelvis. Primitive sphenacodontid humerus. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian. The neck & tail vertebrae became distinctly different from trunk vertebrae. Probably had an eardrum in the lower jaw, by the jaw hinge.
Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -- The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Probably arose from the therocephalians, judging from the distinctive secondary palate and numerous other skull characters. Enormous temporal fossae for very strong jaw muscles, formed by just one of the reptilian jaw muscles, which has now become the mammalian masseter. The large fossae is now bounded only by the thin zygomatic arch (cheekbone to you & me). Secondary palate now composed mainly of palatine bones (mammalian), rather than vomers and maxilla as in older forms; it's still only a partial bony palate (completed in life with soft tissue). Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Dentary now is 3/4 of lower jaw; the other bones are now a small complex near the jaw hinge. Jaw hinge still reptilian. Vertebral column starts to look mammalian: first two vertebrae modified for head movements, and lumbar vertebrae start to lose ribs, the first sign of functional division into thoracic and lumbar regions. Scapula beginning to change shape. Further enlargement of the ilium and reduction of the pubis in the hip. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian) -- Another early cynodont. First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The temporal fenestra increased still further. Various changes in the floor of the braincase; enlarged brain. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge. Single occipital condyle splitting into two surfaces. The postcranial skeleton of Dvinia is virtually unknown and it is not therefore certain whether the typical features found at the next level had already evolved by this one. Metabolic rate was probably increased, at least approaching homeothermy.
Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.
Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.
Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.

I actually only posted a portion of it before. Here's the rest.

Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- These are tritylodontids, an advanced cynodont group. Face more mammalian, with changes around eyesocket and cheekbone. Full bony secondary palate. Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion (which some earlier cynodonts already had). Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. More flexible neck, with mammalian atlas & axis and double occipital condyle. Tail vertebrae simpler, like mammals. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones and hind limb muscles; this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. Probably cousin fossils (?), with Oligokyphus being more primitive than Kayentatherium. Thought to have diverged from the trithelodontids during that gap in the late Triassic. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals (presumably during the late Triassic gap) or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma) -- These are trithelodontids, a slightly different advanced cynodont group. New discoveries (Shubin et al., 1991) show that these animals are very close to the ancestry of mammals. Inflation of nasal cavity, establishment of Eustachian tubes between ear and pharynx, loss of postorbital bar. Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel, and mammalian tooth occlusion. Double jaw joint, with the second joint now a dentary-squamosal (instead of surangular), fully mammalian. Incipient dentary condyle. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing; postdentary bones further reduced to tiny rod of bones in jaw near middle ear; probably could hear high frequencies now. More mammalian neck vertebrae for a flexible neck. Hip more mammalian, with a very mammalian iliac blade & femur. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. Probably had coupled locomotion & breathing. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral (the true ancestor is thought to have occurred during that late Triassic gap). Pachygenelus is pretty close, though.
Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas) -- A recently discovered fossil proto-mammal from right in the middle of that late Triassic gap! Currently the oldest known "mammal." Only the skull was found. "Some cranial features of Adelobasileus, such as the incipient promontorium housing the cochlea, represent an intermediate stage of the character transformation from non-mammalian cynodonts to Liassic mammals" (Lucas & Luo, 1993). This fossil was found from a band of strata in the western U.S. that had not previously been studied for early mammals. Also note that this fossil dates from slightly before the known tritylodonts and trithelodonts, though it has long been suspected that tritilodonts and trithelodonts were already around by then. Adelobasileus is thought to have split off from either a trityl. or a trithel., and is either identical to or closely related to the common ancestor of all mammals.
Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Eyesocket fully mammalian now (closed medial wall). Hindbrain expanded. Permanent cheekteeth, like mammals, but the other teeth were still replaced several times. Mammalian jaw joint stronger, with large dentary condyle fitting into a distinct fossa on the squamosal. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma) -- A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma) -- A group of early proto-mammals called "morganucodonts". The restructuring of the secondary palate and the floor of the braincase had continued, and was now very mammalian. Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Triangular- cusped molars. Reversal of the previous trend toward reduced incisors, with lower incisors increasing to four. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Once thought to be ancestral to monotremes only, but now thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma) -- A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials. Triconodont molar has with more defined cusps. This fossil is known only from teeth, but judging from closely related eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) it had finally lost the reptilian jaw joint, attaing a fully mammalian three-boned middle ear with excellent high-frequency hearing. Has only 8 cheek teeth, less than other eupantotheres and close to the 7 of the first placental mammals. Also has a large talonid on its "tribosphenic" molars, almost as large as that of the first placentals -- the first development of grinding capability.
Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma) -- An advanced eupantothere. Fully tribosphenic molars with a well- developed talonid. Known only from one specimen. From Asia; recent fossil finds in Asia suggest that the tribosphenic molar evolved there.
Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous) -- More advanced eupantotheres known only from teeth. Kielantherium is from Asia and is known from slightly older strata than the European Aegialodon. Both have the talonid on the lower molars. The wear on it indicates that a major new cusp, the protocone, had evolved on the upper molars. By the Middle Cretaceous, animals with the new tribosphenic molar had spread into North America too (North America was still connected to Europe.)
Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous) -- The first known definite monotreme, discovered in 1985.
Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma) -- A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits, known from some nice skulls. Placental-type braincase and coiled cochlea. Its intracranial arteries & veins ran in a composite monotreme/placental pattern derived from homologous extracranial vessels in the cynodonts. (Rougier et al., 1992)
Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma) -- The first definite marsupial. Known only from teeth.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia) -- Small, slender animals; eyesocket open behind; simple ring to support eardrum; primitive placental-type brain with large olfactory bulbs; basic primitive tribosphenic tooth pattern. Canine now double rooted. Still just a trace of a non-dentary bone, the coronoid, on the otherwise all-dentary jaw. "Could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals." says Carroll (1988).
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (very late Cretaceous) -- Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

And here is the source again

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
. . . the first life forms were farted onto this Earth by a sombrero-wearing giant kangaroo . . .

Darn, you've been reading my mind.

That was going to be the topic of my new handbook for "Darwinists" about understanding creationists:
"Darwin's (the Aussie town,) Origin of the Specious Argument."

Now, you have Einstein as your avatar, are you really going to demean the position of the amply proven theories of general and special relativity?

The avatar is the saddest part of those posts.

Saying evolution can't be right unless abiogenesis is proven is total hogwash and shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge. And what's more, attacking evolution while believing in a creator (for which we have NO proof) is beyond laughable...