Reptile to mammal evolution....?

Question

I've asked a similar question on Answers before, but it is still bothering me. Apparently we humans have a reptilian brain at the core, overlaid with a mammalian brain, on top of which is the neo cortex which is concerned with higher levels of thinking and consciousness. Assuming that we have these diverse elements in our brain as a result of evolution, how can a reptile evolve into a mammal? The reptile method of reproducing is by laying eggs which hatch outside the parent's body. Obviously as mammals we give birth to live young which we suckle. How can we evolve from one method of reproduction to the other by small incremental steps as the theory of evolution claims? Anything in between would not be viable as a way of creating the next generation, which would not survive and hence not breed. It offends my sense of logic, could someone please explain?

Answer 1

It's not possible. Clear and simple we could not have come from " pond goo" organisms. Nothing came from this "pond goo" as scientists call it. For me there had to be something more magnificent in design itself that created the world and that would be God. I'm not bringing religion in here. I'm saying this is how the world was created.

Answer 2

Kudos to gribblin for his excellent answer (and to others like savs, lbaker, and Maria Goode).

I really wish the creationists would actually *read* these answers (or, God forbid, read *anything* besides the anti-evolution materials written by non-scientists) instead of simply concluding that a theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the world "is not logical".

In other words, if you want to dispute the evidence, then go ahead.

But to say that it is not *LOGICAL* is an entirely different level of attack. There is no point in even *mentioning* evidence if you really think that scientists have accepted something that is logically impossible. You are flat-out accusing the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists of being *STUPID*. That's tens of thousands of people, most of them not total idiots, for over 150 years.

This is what is so divisive about creationism ... that it leads people to a fundamental *contempt*, bordering on outright *hatred*, for scientists as people, and as a community.

I am not saying you should believe something just because the scientists do. But I am saying that when the scientists pretty much universally agree on something ... you might want to look into it a little deeper than reading Kent Hovind or answersingenesis.com on the Internet before you conclude that the scientists have all accepted a theory that is completely illogical or "has no evidence" ... trust me, the scientific community as a whole, and scientists as individuals, are really NOT total idiots!

{P.S.}

I am not complaining about the question. It is a valid question ... in fact, a very good question. (Again, see griblin's answer.) My complaint is with the people who "answer" this question by ridiculing the logical ability of the scientific community, or simply concluding that scientists "have no answer" without lifting a finger (like reading other posts on this very page) to see if scientists actually DO have an answer. It's just pathetic.

Answer 3

I guess it would be through a process of eggs that slowly became weaker and less important. eggs that hatched more and more quickly, until a point where the hatching happened almost instantaneously, and eventually there was no egg.

Shane - it all depends on the environment. It's hard to believe that Ice and steam both started out as water, but the environment has a great effect. Add a few million years and a few million environmental changes, and anything can happen.

Look at short term evolutionary effects; The population of rich countries are getting taller and taller, the number of blond haired people is decreasing, people are learning to speak at younger ages, allergies are developing left right and centre.

Evolution is happening right before your very eyes, in your own lifetime - How can you even begin to imagine the effect of millions of years of natural selection??

Answer 4

To add to the other excellent non-creationist answers, I would point out that several species of snakes give birth to live young. They do this by simply keeping the egg inside their body until it hatches - an excellent possibility for the transitional stage between reptilian and mammalian methods of reproduction.

Answer 5

The brain analogy is incomplete, the way you understand it.
The 3 functional parts of the brain are:
- the Brain Stem or Rhombencephalon (the "reptile brain") merges into our spinal column, and is responsible for most of the "unconscious" but vital regulatory functions of the brain, like keeping our heart beating, and keeping us breathing.
- the midbrain or Mesencephalon (the "mammalian brain" in your terminology).
- the Prosencephalon or forebrain, which is most highly developed in humans, and is where our "thoughts" sit.

All vertebrates have all three bits, it is just that the "reptile brain" is larger in reptiles, while the forebrain is larger in humans.

And for the evolution of egg-laying to placental mammals, you only have to look at "primitive", non-placental mammals: the monotremes and the marsupials.
Monotremes (like the platypus) are warm-blooded, but they lay eggs. Once their young hatch, they suckle on milk secreted through the mother's chest-skin (they have no fully-developed mammary glands).
The young of marsupials (kangaroos, etc.) actually have vestigial shells around them at early stages of development. However, instead of implanting in a uterus, they gestate for a while, "feeding" on a yolk-sac, and are then born when tiny and still undeveloped. They are then transferred to the mother's pouch, where they attach to her nipple, and feed on her milk, until they grow large and independent enough to survive by themselves.

So, if such a marsupial yolk-sac were to attach to the inside of it's mothers genital tract, and if some nutrients were to leach through into the sac, the young would spend longer inside the mother before being born. These are the likely evolutionary developments that would take us from marsupial to placental mammal.

Answer 6

gazing the situation of the bones in question it form of feels like they do no longer rather 'migrate' plenty as they alter function (first ref below). I did locate some thrilling references for a number of your questions. From my reading of it reptiles have been greater comfortable to floor vibrations, and did no longer pay attention the better frequencies that mammals do. and that they talk in those articles a pair of transition fossil (additionally below). there is likewise a Wiki point out of the genes to blame for the formation of those bones (see below). they're homeobox genes, issues to blame for physique development formation. as long because of the fact the mutations that allowed those ameliorations to ensue nevertheless allowed for ingesting and listening to, then there is somewhat little selective tension that would desire to suppress them. And there could be income from this enhance in concept of better frequencies that would desire to be a component for helpful determination. Why we don't see the transitions of each and every thing is basically many times a function of the actuality that all of it got here approximately an prolonged time in the past, that the fossils are buried and incomplete and stuff like that.

Answer 7

In the first place, we didn't evolve from reptiles.Reptiles and mammals are tow different branches of amniotes; each has evolutionary novelties the other lacks. But we did evolve from egg-laying animals. The mammalian embryo still forms a yolk sac, even though mammalian eggs have no yolk. That makes no sense unless you accpet that our ancestors laid eggs.

Answer 8

Not all reptiles lay eggs. Some give birth to live young. Dont forget things like the platypus thats a mammal but lays eggs!

Answer 9

If it wasn't so pathetic, I would laugh at greylady's response.

"I'm not bringing religion in here, but god did it".

Can we ever hope to overcome this kind of thinking (if you can call it thinking)?

Answer 10

The theory of evolution is not logical; it requires enormous leaps of faith especially as there are no intermediary forms of any sort in the fossil record. There is NO evidence to suggest that reptiles evolved into mammals; or indeed, that evolution has taken place at all. The human brain is just that... human. It is not a conglomeration of other types of brain but is perfectly created for its purpose.

Answer 11

How is it that every single different form of life on Earth can have evolved from one single-celled organism? Mammals, reptiles, fish, insects, etc, etc, etc. Offends my sense of logic as well.