I read the Emu article and those scientists were merely comparing the gait of emus to the gait of dinosaurs. Nowhere did I read anything in that article that said emus evolved from dinosaurs! I think all the Evolutionists should read THIS article!
DNA: THE TINY CODE THAT'S TOPPLING EVOLUTION
"Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.
"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).
Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).
Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction"
2007-11-04 04:02:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by o7mistique 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well first you have to realize that most scientist do NOT use the term reptile. Reptile is a term of exclusion meaning you cant really define the characteristics that make a reptile. (its only a descriptive term) ill give an example using dinosaurs: ask someone to name all the reptiles they know and the list will look something like this -turtles -Dinosaurs -lizards/snakes -crocs But the fossil record tells us that Dinosaurs are closer to birds( birds are actually dinos!) than they are to turtles. So by using the term reptile you are making a paraphyletic mistake. Basically you are removing a group(birds) from their ancestral lineage. So the term reptile completely ignores the evolutionary history of organisms and is therefore not used in Paleontology. ( this same reasoning applies to the term fish as well) Now to prove why a Dinosaur is not related to a kangaroo. Tetrapods(land animals) can be divided into the three following categories: Anapsids(no cranial holes, Turtles) Diapsids (2 temporal fenestra, lizards crocs and dinos(including birds) and synapsids, only 1 temporal fenestra, mammals) now some animals that belong to these groups can gain or even lose fenestra, for example Dinosaurs gain 2 more holes a antorbital and mandibular fenestra, but their ancestors only had two so they are still considered diapsids. So now to answer the question, kangaroos belong to synapsid group while dinos belong to the diapsid group. These groups split sometime(im not for sure on the exact time) in the last part of the Paleozoic era (at least 251million years ago). Both animals are part of a different evolutionary clade or branch and can therefore have no relations to each other. Body shapes do not determine the evolutionary history of an organism the reason you might maybe think they look similar is because they are both bipedal (walk on two legs) hopefully I helped
2016-04-02 02:58:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No kangaroos did not evolve from anything, God created them kangaroos from the beginning.
Mind you birds from dinosaurs!! Yes I could almost believe that, if I was a worm I would think that a blackbird was a dinosaur!!
2007-11-03 10:56:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Robin.S 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Fossils of T-Rex generally found in North America.
And in Australia?
2007-11-03 10:55:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
No way man. Did you know the word "Raptor" means, Bird of Prey. Dude, watch Jurassic Park.
2007-11-03 11:04:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by oldschoolelf 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Do me a favour. Read "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. IT's easy to understand and will prevent you from making a complete fool of yourself by asking questions that most children could answer.
2007-11-03 10:45:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Nope.
2007-11-03 10:45:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by xfilesfan 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Well, since eagles and hawks evolved from the raptors I guess anything is possible.
2007-11-03 10:43:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
no, but both happened to breakdance on their habitat which made them stand on their 2 feet and gave them girly arms in their evolution.
2007-11-03 10:45:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Ever thought of getting back in school? It wouldn't hurt.
2007-11-03 10:44:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Saint Nearly 5
·
3⤊
1⤋