Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

reptiliomorphs

janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 8:46:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And in an unrelated question, if all modern American cars are descended from the Oldsmobile and the cars of the 1920's and 1930's were transitional to the cars of today, why aren't these transitional Austins, Lancias and Bugattis being bought and used for commuting in 2015? Answer me that car enthusiasts!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 1:29:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?

Your original question quite specifically asked why they'd died out. So are you changing your question not to be "why aren't there fossils of the species in between?" If so, there are fossils in between, so it doesn't really make sense as a question if you've done even a bit of googling, hence me wondering what, specifically, you're asking.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 1:36:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:29:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?

Your original question quite specifically asked why they'd died out. So are you changing your question not to be "why aren't there fossils of the species in between?" If so, there are fossils in between, so it doesn't really make sense as a question if you've done even a bit of googling, hence me wondering what, specifically, you're asking.

I know there are fossils in between. I am wondering why only the transitional animals died out. All of them. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

There seems to me that there should be some still living examples. I am wondering about the selectiveness of nature of what goes extinct.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 1:59:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:36:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:29:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?

Your original question quite specifically asked why they'd died out. So are you changing your question not to be "why aren't there fossils of the species in between?" If so, there are fossils in between, so it doesn't really make sense as a question if you've done even a bit of googling, hence me wondering what, specifically, you're asking.

I know there are fossils in between. I am wondering why only the transitional animals died out. All of them. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

There seems to me that there should be some still living examples. I am wondering about the selectiveness of nature of what goes extinct.

If what we see now as "transitional" had survived into the present day at the expense of one of the categories we have now, you'd be asking the same question.

Do remember that the labels are all man-made. It's not as though nature said "Well, I like reptiles".

The species which did better, survived. It's also not super surprising that species became more specialized as time went on. Over millions of years, species rose and fell and branched out. Most species that have ever existed are extinct, either because they completely died out or because they changed so much.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 2:07:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:59:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:36:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:29:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?

Your original question quite specifically asked why they'd died out. So are you changing your question not to be "why aren't there fossils of the species in between?" If so, there are fossils in between, so it doesn't really make sense as a question if you've done even a bit of googling, hence me wondering what, specifically, you're asking.

I know there are fossils in between. I am wondering why only the transitional animals died out. All of them. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

There seems to me that there should be some still living examples. I am wondering about the selectiveness of nature of what goes extinct.

If what we see now as "transitional" had survived into the present day at the expense of one of the categories we have now, you'd be asking the same question.

Do remember that the labels are all man-made. It's not as though nature said "Well, I like reptiles".

The species which did better, survived. It's also not super surprising that species became more specialized as time went on. Over millions of years, species rose and fell and branched out. Most species that have ever existed are extinct, either because they completely died out or because they changed so much.

Maybe nature does like reptiles. Nature keeps coming again an again to specific animals. It's called convergence,and has no explanation in evolution.Maybe there are ideals in nature.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 2:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 2:07:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:59:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:36:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:29:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?

Your original question quite specifically asked why they'd died out. So are you changing your question not to be "why aren't there fossils of the species in between?" If so, there are fossils in between, so it doesn't really make sense as a question if you've done even a bit of googling, hence me wondering what, specifically, you're asking.

I know there are fossils in between. I am wondering why only the transitional animals died out. All of them. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

There seems to me that there should be some still living examples. I am wondering about the selectiveness of nature of what goes extinct.

If what we see now as "transitional" had survived into the present day at the expense of one of the categories we have now, you'd be asking the same question.

Do remember that the labels are all man-made. It's not as though nature said "Well, I like reptiles".

The species which did better, survived. It's also not super surprising that species became more specialized as time went on. Over millions of years, species rose and fell and branched out. Most species that have ever existed are extinct, either because they completely died out or because they changed so much.

Maybe nature does like reptiles. Nature keeps coming again an again to specific animals. It's called convergence,and has no explanation in evolution.Maybe there are ideals in nature.

Convergence is the independent development of similar traits. You may as well look for some special reason most cultures have developed the hammer. It's a flat hard surface attached to a handle for leverage...there's only so many ways that's gonna develop. When you say it "has no explanation", that's because you're demanding that there BE an explanation more than simply " it happened". Until there's some reason to suspect more to it than that, it's just a thing that happened.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 2:23:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 2:20:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:07:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:59:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:36:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:29:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?

Your original question quite specifically asked why they'd died out. So are you changing your question not to be "why aren't there fossils of the species in between?" If so, there are fossils in between, so it doesn't really make sense as a question if you've done even a bit of googling, hence me wondering what, specifically, you're asking.

I know there are fossils in between. I am wondering why only the transitional animals died out. All of them. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.

There seems to me that there should be some still living examples. I am wondering about the selectiveness of nature of what goes extinct.

If what we see now as "transitional" had survived into the present day at the expense of one of the categories we have now, you'd be asking the same question.

Do remember that the labels are all man-made. It's not as though nature said "Well, I like reptiles".

The species which did better, survived. It's also not super surprising that species became more specialized as time went on. Over millions of years, species rose and fell and branched out. Most species that have ever existed are extinct, either because they completely died out or because they changed so much.

Maybe nature does like reptiles. Nature keeps coming again an again to specific animals. It's called convergence,and has no explanation in evolution.Maybe there are ideals in nature.

Convergence is the independent development of similar traits. You may as well look for some special reason most cultures have developed the hammer. It's a flat hard surface attached to a handle for leverage...there's only so many ways that's gonna develop. When you say it "has no explanation", that's because you're demanding that there BE an explanation more than simply " it happened". Until there's some reason to suspect more to it than that, it's just a thing that happened.

I do suspect it's more than that. Nature has a purpose and design. It's obvious. Scientists constantly use design terminology. Because it appears designed. I don't think it's just an appearance.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 2:25:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Or it's just part of the normal process of evolution. Things die out when they have served their purpose. I think of evolution as the development of the life of the universe, leading to a definite end point. Like a developing embreo.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 3:53:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 2:25:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Or it's just part of the normal process of evolution. Things die out when they have served their purpose. I think of evolution as the development of the life of the universe, leading to a definite end point. Like a developing embreo.

I agree with this. And ya know we humans had a lot of luck to get here. it wasnt all just because we evolved with bigger brains and were smarter and could outwit our competition. If that asteroid had not wiped out the Dinos 65 million years ago theres an excellent chance we wouldnt have been able to surpass reptiles. when that meteor hit we were not yet even primates. we were more like tree voles. the size of squirrels!
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 4:15:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out?

Jane, you can find a list of likely transitional creatures between amphibian and reptile at: [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. Transitional reptile-to-mammals are further down on the same page.

I'm not a biologist, but I think the reason we have big differences between the major clades is that they represent distinct strategies for occupying disparate ecological niches. Those strategies generally incorporate everything related to species survival: feeding, defense, reproduction, colouration, senses, sociation, preferred habitat, and so on.

A transitional species, by definition then, would be a species departing from a previously successful strategy and exploring new strategies. This exploration need not be thought of as conscious, but as a response to shifting environmental pressures and adaptive opportunities.

But certain strategies are synergistic. For example, everything a reptile does -- its hunting, feeding, reproduction, hibernation, sociation, the defensive scales on its body -- represents a synergistic strategy for efficient, low-energy land and water-based foraging and predation. So it would make sense that a species with a synergistic strategy would displace a species without a synergistic strategy occupying the same niche. A frog or axolotl will hardly make as good a low-energy land-hunter as an iguana or rattlesnake.

By contrast, mammals use much more energy to forage and hunt. They're more active over a bigger range of habitats, but need to eat more often, often range much further to do so, and spend a lot more energy to mate and raise young. So they represent a synergistic strategy for high-energy activity, and that's evident in the extraordinary range of mammalian senses, the mammalian approach to heat management, the diversity of mammalian approaches to hunting and foraging, and generally superior mammalian speed and reflexes.

I hope that may be useful.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 4:57:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 4:15:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out?

Jane, you can find a list of likely transitional creatures between amphibian and reptile at: [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. Transitional reptile-to-mammals are further down on the same page.

I'm not a biologist, but I think the reason we have big differences between the major clades is that they represent distinct strategies for occupying disparate ecological niches. Those strategies generally incorporate everything related to species survival: feeding, defense, reproduction, colouration, senses, sociation, preferred habitat, and so on.

A transitional species, by definition then, would be a species departing from a previously successful strategy and exploring new strategies. This exploration need not be thought of as conscious, but as a response to shifting environmental pressures and adaptive opportunities.

But certain strategies are synergistic. For example, everything a reptile does -- its hunting, feeding, reproduction, hibernation, sociation, the defensive scales on its body -- represents a synergistic strategy for efficient, low-energy land and water-based foraging and predation. So it would make sense that a species with a synergistic strategy would displace a species without a synergistic strategy occupying the same niche. A frog or axolotl will hardly make as good a low-energy land-hunter as an iguana or rattlesnake.

By contrast, mammals use much more energy to forage and hunt. They're more active over a bigger range of habitats, but need to eat more often, often range much further to do so, and spend a lot more energy to mate and raise young. So they represent a synergistic strategy for high-energy activity, and that's evident in the extraordinary range of mammalian senses, the mammalian approach to heat management, the diversity of mammalian approaches to hunting and foraging, and generally superior mammalian speed and reflexes.

I hope that may be useful.

I know there are transitional fossils. I'm wondering why nature has selected them to become extinct.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 5:05:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 4:57:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:15:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out?

Jane, you can find a list of likely transitional creatures between amphibian and reptile at: [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. Transitional reptile-to-mammals are further down on the same page.

I'm not a biologist, but I think the reason we have big differences between the major clades is that they represent distinct strategies for occupying disparate ecological niches. Those strategies generally incorporate everything related to species survival: feeding, defense, reproduction, colouration, senses, sociation, preferred habitat, and so on.

A transitional species, by definition then, would be a species departing from a previously successful strategy and exploring new strategies. This exploration need not be thought of as conscious, but as a response to shifting environmental pressures and adaptive opportunities.

But certain strategies are synergistic. For example, everything a reptile does -- its hunting, feeding, reproduction, hibernation, sociation, the defensive scales on its body -- represents a synergistic strategy for efficient, low-energy land and water-based foraging and predation. So it would make sense that a species with a synergistic strategy would displace a species without a synergistic strategy occupying the same niche. A frog or axolotl will hardly make as good a low-energy land-hunter as an iguana or rattlesnake.

By contrast, mammals use much more energy to forage and hunt. They're more active over a bigger range of habitats, but need to eat more often, often range much further to do so, and spend a lot more energy to mate and raise young. So they represent a synergistic strategy for high-energy activity, and that's evident in the extraordinary range of mammalian senses, the mammalian approach to heat management, the diversity of mammalian approaches to hunting and foraging, and generally superior mammalian speed and reflexes.

I hope that may be useful.

I know there are transitional fossils. I'm wondering why nature has selected them to become extinct.

All those paragraphs after the first one was my attempt to answer that, Jane. I commend them to your attention.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:09:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 4:15:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out?

Jane, you can find a list of likely transitional creatures between amphibian and reptile at: [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. Transitional reptile-to-mammals are further down on the same page.

I'm not a biologist, but I think the reason we have big differences between the major clades is that they represent distinct strategies for occupying disparate ecological niches. Those strategies generally incorporate everything related to species survival: feeding, defense, reproduction, colouration, senses, sociation, preferred habitat, and so on.

A transitional species, by definition then, would be a species departing from a previously successful strategy and exploring new strategies. This exploration need not be thought of as conscious, but as a response to shifting environmental pressures and adaptive opportunities.

But certain strategies are synergistic. For example, everything a reptile does -- its hunting, feeding, reproduction, hibernation, sociation, the defensive scales on its body -- represents a synergistic strategy for efficient, low-energy land and water-based foraging and predation. So it would make sense that a species with a synergistic strategy would displace a species without a synergistic strategy occupying the same niche. A frog or axolotl will hardly make as good a low-energy land-hunter as an iguana or rattlesnake.

By contrast, mammals use much more energy to forage and hunt. They're more active over a bigger range of habitats, but need to eat more often, often range much further to do so, and spend a lot more energy to mate and raise young. So they represent a synergistic strategy for high-energy activity, and that's evident in the extraordinary range of mammalian senses, the mammalian approach to heat management, the diversity of mammalian approaches to hunting and foraging, and generally superior mammalian speed and reflexes.

I hope that may be useful.

Mr. RD...do you agree with me when I said in my early post that if the asteroid didnt wpe out the Dinos 65 MYA that we very well would not have had our chance to become homo erectus, then Habilis, and then sapien? Since we were basically only voles at the time? That today reptiles could have gained intelligence and been the dominent species? And do you agree that Luck was just as important to us as our evolved brains? Sounds like you are quite astute in this stuff so I am curious about your opinion. when you get a chance, sir.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:10:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 8:46:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
And in an unrelated question, if all modern American cars are descended from the Oldsmobile and the cars of the 1920's and 1930's were transitional to the cars of today, why aren't these transitional Austins, Lancias and Bugattis being bought and used for commuting in 2015? Answer me that car enthusiasts!

because today's cars are cheaper, more plentiful, and more economical and efficient and require less maintenance?
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:10:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

Right here v

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:12:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 1:24:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 9:54:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:48:24 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Because we don't generally call transitional species that haven't died out transitional. We just call them species.

No, no, no, no. If a species is transitioning from one habitat or internal biology to another, every single transitional form must hang around for Jane to personally inspect. Fossils aren't evidence. Jane must see living species, otherwise it simply didn't happen. Never mind that 99% of all species have gone extinct. That's a minor detail. Lol.

Where did I say anything like that?

I'm talking about FOSSIL remains of mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like amphibians. Where did I deny thier existance?Why do we still have amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, but NOTHING in between? Surely some examples should have survived. Why didn't they?

I could have sworn I gave you a link to a Wiki with about 10 pages of Transitional Fossils on it? And each of those fossils had their own links. Did you not read it?
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:28:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:10:37 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 8:46:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
And in an unrelated question, if all modern American cars are descended from the Oldsmobile and the cars of the 1920's and 1930's were transitional to the cars of today, why aren't these transitional Austins, Lancias and Bugattis being bought and used for commuting in 2015? Answer me that car enthusiasts!

because today's cars are cheaper, more plentiful, and more economical and efficient and require less maintenance?

(Ignoring the bolded part which is a tautology).

Hmmm. I wonder how that might relate to the OP?

The cars from the 1920's and 30's are no longer in production. All we have are fossils. The contemporary cars are better adapted to their environment (cheaper, cleaner, more economical and reliable). The transitional cars couldn't compete and died out. Sound familiar?
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:30:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Why is this faith-based assertion in the Science forum?
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:35:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:53:30 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:25:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Or it's just part of the normal process of evolution. Things die out when they have served their purpose. I think of evolution as the development of the life of the universe, leading to a definite end point. Like a developing embreo.

I agree with this. And ya know we humans had a lot of luck to get here. it wasnt all just because we evolved with bigger brains and were smarter and could outwit our competition. If that asteroid had not wiped out the Dinos 65 million years ago theres an excellent chance we wouldnt have been able to surpass reptiles. when that meteor hit we were not yet even primates. we were more like tree voles. the size of squirrels!

I agree with the luck, but how is that compatible with "leading to a definite end point"?
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:30:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Why is this faith-based assertion in the Science forum?

Uhh, because I put it there? Dont come at me like a mod. I dont care for the tone, sir.

But Ill answer your question, sir. Because even though I am a Christian I believe in the process of Evolution. I also believe in a 4.6 BYO Earth. Where I break from Atheists--which I used to be--is that I think God began the process. Kick started it. Those genetic changes that are adapted and then if theyre advantagous help the host thrive? You call them random mutations? I disagree. respectfully. I think that is where God comes into play. I find this more logical than random chance. Like the beginning of they human eye? a light sensing patch of skin, right? Ha! But why in the exact spot above our face? If random, why not on our foot? Or back?
Because God guided it. It takes more faith I think to believe the initial gene changes were random that they were Planned by a Creator.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:49:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:37:06 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:30:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Why is this faith-based assertion in the Science forum?

Uhh, because I put it there? Dont come at me like a mod. I dont care for the tone, sir.

I don't care that you don't care for the tone. Lol.

But Ill answer your question, sir. Because even though I am a Christian I believe in the process of Evolution. I also believe in a 4.6 BYO Earth. Where I break from Atheists--which I used to be--is that I think God began the process. Kick started it. Those genetic changes that are adapted and then if theyre advantagous help the host thrive? You call them random mutations? I disagree. respectfully. I think that is where God comes into play. I find this more logical than random chance. Like the beginning of they human eye? a light sensing patch of skin, right? Ha! But why in the exact spot above our face? If random, why not on our foot? Or back?
Because God guided it. It takes more faith I think to believe the initial gene changes were random that they were Planned by a Creator.

So you answer the criticism by posting more faith-based assertions in the Science forum? Lol.

Please take them over to the Religion forum where they belong. If you really want to discuss science you might try asking a respectful question such as:

What evolutionary reason might there be for eyes to have evolved in a pair and placed immediately above an olfactory organ and a food intake orifice?

You might find you get a less antagonistic response and a more information rich discourse than just taking "argument from personal incredulity" potshots at evolution like Janesix and BOHICA. Just a thought. :-)
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:57:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:49:16 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:37:06 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:30:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Why is this faith-based assertion in the Science forum?

Uhh, because I put it there? Dont come at me like a mod. I dont care for the tone, sir.

I don't care that you don't care for the tone. Lol.

But Ill answer your question, sir. Because even though I am a Christian I believe in the process of Evolution. I also believe in a 4.6 BYO Earth. Where I break from Atheists--which I used to be--is that I think God began the process. Kick started it. Those genetic changes that are adapted and then if theyre advantagous help the host thrive? You call them random mutations? I disagree. respectfully. I think that is where God comes into play. I find this more logical than random chance. Like the beginning of they human eye? a light sensing patch of skin, right? Ha! But why in the exact spot above our face? If random, why not on our foot? Or back?
Because God guided it. It takes more faith I think to believe the initial gene changes were random that they were Planned by a Creator.

So you answer the criticism by posting more faith-based assertions in the Science forum? Lol.

Please take them over to the Religion forum where they belong. If you really want to discuss science you might try asking a respectful question such as:

What evolutionary reason might there be for eyes to have evolved in a pair and placed immediately above an olfactory organ and a food intake orifice?

You might find you get a less antagonistic response and a more information rich discourse than just taking "argument from personal incredulity" potshots at evolution like Janesix and BOHICA. Just a thought. :-)

youre word fencing with me, sir. My opinion on a Creator-driven form of Evolution posed the very same question to Atheists as the suggested question form you offered i use. So since I am not here saying "Evolution is Fake--God did it all, and in 6000 years" (which I have seen here on the Sci forum anyway, I think I will continue here as I please. Until if and when AirMax or Blade ask me to move it to religion. Just a thought.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 8:02:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:49:16 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:37:06 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:30:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Why is this faith-based assertion in the Science forum?

Uhh, because I put it there? Dont come at me like a mod. I dont care for the tone, sir.

I don't care that you don't care for the tone. Lol.

But Ill answer your question, sir. Because even though I am a Christian I believe in the process of Evolution. I also believe in a 4.6 BYO Earth. Where I break from Atheists--which I used to be--is that I think God began the process. Kick started it. Those genetic changes that are adapted and then if theyre advantagous help the host thrive? You call them random mutations? I disagree. respectfully. I think that is where God comes into play. I find this more logical than random chance. Like the beginning of they human eye? a light sensing patch of skin, right? Ha! But why in the exact spot above our face? If random, why not on our foot? Or back?
Because God guided it. It takes more faith I think to believe the initial gene changes were random that they were Planned by a Creator.

So you answer the criticism by posting more faith-based assertions in the Science forum? Lol.

Please take them over to the Religion forum where they belong. If you really want to discuss science you might try asking a respectful question such as:

What evolutionary reason might there be for eyes to have evolved in a pair and placed immediately above an olfactory organ and a food intake orifice?

You might find you get a less antagonistic response and a more information rich discourse than just taking "argument from personal incredulity" potshots at evolution like Janesix and BOHICA. Just a thought. :-)

And there is this exerpt from a Wiki article on Theistic Evolution>>>>>>>>>>>

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science " they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.[1
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 11:20:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:57:13 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:49:16 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:37:06 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:30:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Why is this faith-based assertion in the Science forum?

Uhh, because I put it there? Dont come at me like a mod. I dont care for the tone, sir.

I don't care that you don't care for the tone. Lol.

But Ill answer your question, sir. Because even though I am a Christian I believe in the process of Evolution. I also believe in a 4.6 BYO Earth. Where I break from Atheists--which I used to be--is that I think God began the process. Kick started it. Those genetic changes that are adapted and then if theyre advantagous help the host thrive? You call them random mutations? I disagree. respectfully. I think that is where God comes into play. I find this more logical than random chance. Like the beginning of they human eye? a light sensing patch of skin, right? Ha! But why in the exact spot above our face? If random, why not on our foot? Or back?
Because God guided it. It takes more faith I think to believe the initial gene changes were random that they were Planned by a Creator.

So you answer the criticism by posting more faith-based assertions in the Science forum? Lol.

Please take them over to the Religion forum where they belong. If you really want to discuss science you might try asking a respectful question such as:

What evolutionary reason might there be for eyes to have evolved in a pair and placed immediately above an olfactory organ and a food intake orifice?

You might find you get a less antagonistic response and a more information rich discourse than just taking "argument from personal incredulity" potshots at evolution like Janesix and BOHICA. Just a thought. :-)

youre word fencing with me, sir. My opinion on a Creator-driven form of Evolution posed the very same question to Atheists as the suggested question form you offered i use.

Not really. You expressed incredulity at a natural explanation and then immediately jumped to "Goddidit". The question you asked was purely rhetorical, a platform to launch into your creation-driven and guided beliefs.

So since I am not here saying "Evolution is Fake--God did it all, and in 6000 years" (which I have seen here on the Sci forum anyway, I think I will continue here as I please.

But that's exactly what you are doing, just pushing God back a little into the picture. How is that a scientific discussion?

Until if and when AirMax or Blade ask me to move it to religion. Just a thought.

Your choice. However, when people start to ignore you as being a religious troll, don't be surprised. Just a thought.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 11:25:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 8:02:47 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:49:16 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:37:06 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 7:30:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/25/2015 2:20:27 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/25/2015 1:50:02 AM, janesix wrote:
Why have all the transitional species between amphibians and reptiles and between reptiles and mammals all died out? I find it a bit strange that only the transitional species died out, leaving only the amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

99% of ALL the species who have ever lived in Earth are now extinct. We are indeed lucky. Its the way God planned it.

Why is this faith-based assertion in the Science forum?

Uhh, because I put it there? Dont come at me like a mod. I dont care for the tone, sir.

I don't care that you don't care for the tone. Lol.

But Ill answer your question, sir. Because even though I am a Christian I believe in the process of Evolution. I also believe in a 4.6 BYO Earth. Where I break from Atheists--which I used to be--is that I think God began the process. Kick started it. Those genetic changes that are adapted and then if theyre advantagous help the host thrive? You call them random mutations? I disagree. respectfully. I think that is where God comes into play. I find this more logical than random chance. Like the beginning of they human eye? a light sensing patch of skin, right? Ha! But why in the exact spot above our face? If random, why not on our foot? Or back?
Because God guided it. It takes more faith I think to believe the initial gene changes were random that they were Planned by a Creator.

So you answer the criticism by posting more faith-based assertions in the Science forum? Lol.

Please take them over to the Religion forum where they belong. If you really want to discuss science you might try asking a respectful question such as:

What evolutionary reason might there be for eyes to have evolved in a pair and placed immediately above an olfactory organ and a food intake orifice?

You might find you get a less antagonistic response and a more information rich discourse than just taking "argument from personal incredulity" potshots at evolution like Janesix and BOHICA. Just a thought. :-)

And there is this exerpt from a Wiki article on Theistic Evolution>>>>>>>>>>>

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science " they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.[1

I've underlined the relevant part for you. This is not your position anyway. You are claiming that evolution is guided by your sky fairy, and that is not biological evolution, putting you at odds with science.