Well, there's the snakes that deliver live young. Anyone else want to tangle the others?
9/15/2005 3:39:50 AM
Giant-mammaried mosquitos don't make sense. I mean, how is a mosquito with 44DDD funbags going to fly?
And who in their right mind would want a lap dance from a mosquito?
9/15/2005 8:38:28 AM
Is that seriously a criteria for believing in evolution? If everything made absolutely no sense, then evolution would be right? You realize if it was any other way you idiots would still say it was designed that way by god.
9/15/2005 12:35:31 PM
Why do creationists keep demanding proof of thigs that evolution doesn't even predict?
9/15/2005 1:43:32 PM
Darth, I think it has to do with the fundies getting desparate to entrench their beliefs and finially DEFEAT DARWIN.
Conservative apologetics can churn this stuff out because it distracts people from the real problems like hubris, hipocrisy and rationalizing what you don't like as \"sinful\" even if it isn't.
\"Focus on the ideologies, people! If we can defeat Darwin, it's one less reason to reject the Bible and we'll be on our way to a golden age!\"
Problem is, I don't see myself rejecting God as much as his self-proclaimed sales representative who's obfuscating the truth more than they're trying to help me see it.
9/16/2005 9:00:53 PM
9/17/2005 9:54:35 AM
I love the fact that if these animals existed the new questione would be \"Where are the large breasted feathered fish snakes which give birth live.
9/20/2005 12:54:20 AM
Evolution dosn't work like that.
12/17/2006 12:18:42 AM
Well, if we were to pretend that evolution was judged by how many oddments that a species that would generally be seen on a creature of a completely different class...
12/17/2006 12:46:29 AM
Exactly. They're all branched off of the phylas' ancestors. Fish branched off from early fish. Birds came from birds. And all of them came from single-celled organisms.
3/18/2007 10:47:53 PM
This guy doesn't even have his terminology right -- there's way more than five phyla of animals. Five kingdoms of living things, maybe, depending on how you count them (what, animals, plants, fungi, protists, and archaea? Is that the accepted list?) but... yeah. No.
So tell me. I'm pretty sure there are live-bearing snakes, but where's the evolutionary pressure to create a feathered fish or a mosquito that nurses its young? Answer that question, you will be all set.
3/19/2007 1:50:12 AM
Uh, finding a feathered fish would DISprove evolution. Evolution is firmly supported by the fact that there are distinct groupings of living things that all share common features with each other, but not with other groupings, leading to suggest that all those in a certain group are related. If animals were just a random mishmash of parts with no way to categorize them, it would be difficult to claim they all had traceable lineages.
3/19/2007 3:29:19 AM
WTF are you talking about! Make fucking sense! Oh yeah, fundies can't make sense, they are too stupid.
3/19/2007 3:35:49 AM
Not necessarily. It could easily be an example of convergent evolution -- you'd have to look at the fine structures of the feathers. I'd say fish feathers wouldn't look much like bird feathers up close...
3/19/2007 3:37:54 AM
Anacondas deliver live young.
3/19/2007 3:49:45 AM
The Bad Wolf
I think that was on an episode of Avatar or something...
That show sucks.
3/19/2007 4:06:30 AM
Well, I am gonna tackle the opposite of your live birthing snakes by offering up the first example that comes to mind: The Platypus. Platypi are mammals (specifically, one of five specieis of monotremes) that lay eggs! Not only do they lay eggs, but they are also venomous! Hows that for an evolutionary crossover foolish fundie!
3/19/2007 4:16:38 AM
Why can't we move further up the classification strata, and have animals mate with minerals or plants? Who wouldn't pay good money for some horse-iron? How 'bout some monkey-spruce?
3/19/2007 5:05:56 AM
giant mammaried mosquitoes? i think this guy has a very confused sexuality
3/19/2007 5:59:00 AM
Let me guess--you failed 7th grade science, didn't you?
6/21/2007 4:18:44 PM
What the hell have YOU been smoking?
6/22/2007 12:51:39 PM
I thought furries were bad when it came to putting tits on things, but I never thought I'd see someone request breasts on a bloodsucking mosquito.
What's next, jellyfish with bosoms?
2/19/2008 10:13:40 AM
TempusFurthermore, we dont even see crossovers between the 5 Phylla (classes of animals) anywhere, at any time.
Try different kingdoms.
They're called sponges:
They are animals. They have little in the way of tissues and no true organs. They have lots of specialized cells which act like, and bear a strong resemblance to, a choanoflagellate:
and an amoeba:
..among other cell types, which also look a lot like free-living protozoans.
In fact, they can live on their own, but they'll eventually grow a whole new sponge.
They straddle the place where Kingdom Protozoa and Kingdom Animalia kiss.
Where are the giant mammaried mosquitos?
They never needed them. Their system of reproduction does a dandy job without tits.
Where are the snakes which deliver live young?
Ovoviviparity. Let me show you it.
I havent seen too many feathered fish around lately!
Why would they need feathers? They've got scales and they don't need the insulation. Besides, feathers would add drag and make it hard for most of them to swim.
But, if you want something that vaguely looks like feathers...there's this one. They're not exactly feathers, per se. But this species of fish has colorful poison quills.
In fact, most of his cousins have quills, spines and poison needles.
This one walks.
So does this one.
The climbing perch (below) hunts on land. It and all of its relatives have no problem breathing air. The climbing perch is routinely kept in wheelbarrows at the market and squirted occasionally with water to keep its gills moist. Sometimes, it even climbs small trees or shrubbery.
This one flies. But it doesn't need feathers to do it.
So there you have it. Several fish that walk, some that fly, some that have venemous quills that manage to look a lot like feathers, some animals that blend traits from two broad groups of living organisms, and snakes (among others I didn't bother to list) that give birth to live young. I'll have to take a mulligan on your Dolly Parton mosquitos, and there aren't fish with true feathers, but hey. I can keep finding marginal cases like these.
But none of this matters, because you're simply constructing a strawman version of evolution that doesn't exist in the real world. So it really doesn't matter what I show.
Have fun beating on your strawman.
2/19/2008 10:43:30 AM
Where are the snakes which deliver live young?
Collubrids have live young because the mother keeps the eggs in her body until they hatch, rather than laying them in a clutch. The most common of that group in the US would be the garter snake.
Your church is probably filled with crossovers- human bodies (chordates)with the intelligence of the average jellyfish, a coelenterate.
2/19/2008 7:02:18 PM
Tempus, for the win.
12/2/2008 12:42:38 PM