And I suspect that pepper would prefer to do more of the kind of Yesi It Is /No It Isn't, dialogues but you can find out more from www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/fossil-evidence.html "The proof, scientists say, lies in Pakicetus's ears, which were intermediate between those of terrestrial and fully aquatic mammals, and in its triangular, whale-like teeth. Pakicetus and its relatives were possibl...more

And I suspect that pepper would prefer to do more of the kind of Yesi It Is /No It Isn't, dialogues but you can find out more from www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/fossil-evidence.html
"The proof, scientists say, lies in Pakicetus's ears, which were intermediate between those of terrestrial and fully aquatic mammals, and in its triangular, whale-like teeth. Pakicetus and its relatives were possibly fish-eating scavengers that ventured into the water to find live prey. Although the later Ambulocetus had tiny hoofs on its hind legs and could probably walk, its toes were webbed like those of modern mammals adapted for swimming. Its fossilized bones suggest that Ambulocetus undulated its spine vertically in the water like the still later Basilosaurus (as well as modern otters and whales) and not side-to-side like fish. Although Basilosaurus had tiny, weak hind "legs" left over from its evolutionary past, the animal was probably fully aquatic. Its sturdy front flippers were particularly adapted for the water, though they still had an arm-like bone structure as in those of modern cetaceans. "less

And of course DNA has done a lot to help scientists understand transition. " Few topics spark as much controversy among paleontologists as the transition from reptiles to birds. Experts don't know what Archaeopteryx's closest dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven't yet been found—but they think it might have looked somewhat like Velociraptor (hence our showing it here, despite its much...more

And of course DNA has done a lot to help scientists understand transition.
"
Few topics spark as much controversy among paleontologists as the transition from reptiles to birds. Experts don't know what Archaeopteryx's closest dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven't yet been found—but they think it might have looked somewhat like Velociraptor (hence our showing it here, despite its much later age). Archaeopteryx, the first known bird, did share a common ancestor with Velociraptor as well as traits this ancestor would have had: sharp claws for grasping prey and long hind legs and a stabilizing tail for running, for example. Yet Archaeopteryx also had feathers indicative of early flight, although the orientation of its shoulder joint and its lack of a bony breastbone imply the animal was more of a glider than many modern birds—it couldn't lift its wings above its back or flap them for extended flight. Archaeopteryx's later bird relative, Yanornis, had a bone structure more conducive to bird flight as we know it today. It could flap its wings and, like many modern birds, it had a short, aerodynamic tail. Like Archaeopteryx, however, Yanornis did retain some dinosaurian features, including teeth."less

And pepper hates it when you put out modern stuff that wasn't in the anti-evolution book upon which a lot of creationism still relies. " Despite its distinctly lizard-like appearance, Dimetrodon possessed a suite of traits more common to later mammals than to its close relatives, the true reptiles. Most notably, the sail protruding from Dimetrodon's back allowed the animal to partially regulate ...more

And pepper hates it when you put out modern stuff that wasn't in the anti-evolution book upon which a lot of creationism still relies.
" Despite its distinctly lizard-like appearance, Dimetrodon possessed a suite of traits more common to later mammals than to its close relatives, the true reptiles. Most notably, the sail protruding from Dimetrodon's back allowed the animal to partially regulate its body temperature, marking what could have been a major point in the transition to warm-bloodedness. The later Thrinaxodon didn't have a sail but was probably covered in fur and might have been warm-blooded like the early mammal Morganucodon. Another documented shift toward mammals took place in the mouth: Dimetrodon had differentiated teeth and a strong bite, although it gulped its prey whole like true reptiles do even today. Thrinaxodon developed a stronger lower jaw and could chew, but it was Morganucodon that sported both sharp teeth and grinding molars like we have today. "less

I know pepper hates it when we refute her with the actual words of scientists, but here goes. " In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-...more

I know pepper hates it when we refute her with the actual words of scientists, but here goes.
" In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. Below, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action."—Rima Chaddha
"Eusthenopteron looked and behaved a lot like modern fish, but hidden within its fins were the precursors of the arm and leg bones of four-limbed land animals. The later Tiktaalik took a further step toward terrestrial life with early wrist and finger bones that allowed the animal to prop itself up and poke its head from the water of the shallow swamps it favored. Tiktaalik's skeleton indicates that it probably breathed both through gills, like Eusthenopteron, and through a lung-like structure, like the later Ichthyostega and modern amphibians. Ichthyostega's even stronger limbs probably developed so that it could maneuver around thick vegetation in its marshy habitat and even haul itself along muddy banks when necessary."less

But why does God hate Lobster? Why is a shrimp a sin?

Your own?

Same dumb assertion that has been thrown by courts. Since most child molester are adult males molesting females, you would have to ban straight marriage if your silly assertion was remotely real.

under3(really?) The issue of God is not debatable by legislatures. The rights of citizens cannot be denied by bigots trying to appeal to fundamentalist votes.

He knows nothing about relationships because he himself states he does not date. In previous posts he has revealed his inner conflict that compels him to attack gays among others.

pep, I think you have to send this post to the site manager. Since you have reposted it multiple times I think we can conclude that your inability to enter into a real discussion is not going to get me thrown off. But thanks for letting me know I still irritate you. It is one of life's little pleasures. BTW, that hasn't been my "Latest Comments" for weeks and weeks.

Well RevShnorrRocks, this is one of lpepperw's ways of responding when she cannot deal with scientific information. She will repost something she believes is evidence of her superior wit. Sad.

Speaking of relevant, what does your quote have to do with the topic of evolution vs. creationism?

I was speaking of the mind set that sees science as an affront to God and Religion. You get the clueless award.

joannebb, I apologize for lpepperw, she is apparently feeling left out as I provided sources in response to your question. Don't you find it curious that a person who chooses to post on a site involving science is upset when actual scientists are cited is to show the current scientific understanding. One might almost think that was because all the oppositions arguments were warn out and left over ...more

joannebb, I apologize for lpepperw, she is apparently feeling left out as I provided sources in response to your question. Don't you find it curious that a person who chooses to post on a site involving science is upset when actual scientists are cited is to show the current scientific understanding. One might almost think that was because all the oppositions arguments were warn out and left over from books written decades agoless

You have a lot more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than with modern science. "As recently as 1966, sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik: "The Holy Koran, the Prophet's teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit... and that the e...more

You have a lot more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than with modern science. "As recently as 1966, sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik:

"The Holy Koran, the Prophet's teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit... and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind.... Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet."less

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole. "This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a mult...more

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

"This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true.--Dobzhanskyless

lpepperw Apparently you have insufficient ability to follow the argument. I get that. I also get that you would prefer me to present something watered down rather than the words of the scientists. But these are the guys you accuse of being false so why don't you show them up since it is you who say they are wrong.

joannebb "Not only is the DNA-RNA genetic code universal, but so is the method of translation of the sequences of the "letters" in DNA-RNA into sequences of amino acids in proteins. The same 20 amino acids compose countless different proteins in all, or at least in most, organisms. Different amino acids are coded by one to six nucleotide triplets in DNA and RNA. And the biochemical universals exte...more

joannebb "Not only is the DNA-RNA genetic code universal, but so is the method of translation of the sequences of the "letters" in DNA-RNA into sequences of amino acids in proteins. The same 20 amino acids compose countless different proteins in all, or at least in most, organisms. Different amino acids are coded by one to six nucleotide triplets in DNA and RNA. And the biochemical universals extend beyond the genetic code and its translation into proteins: striking uniformities prevail in the cellular metabolism of the most diverse living beings. Adenosine triphosphate, biotin, riboflavin, hemes, pyridoxin, vitamins K and B12, and folic acid implement metabolic processes everywhere.

What do these biochemical or biologic universals mean? They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter now diverse, in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth.) But what if there was no evolution and every one of the millions of species were created by separate fiat? However offensive the notion may be to religious feeling and to reason, the anti-evolutionists must again accuse the Creator of cheating. They must insist that He deliberately arranged things exactly as if his method of creation was evolution, intentionally to mislead sincere seekers of truth."--Dobzhanskyless

Sorry lpepperw, when someone wants a scientific explanation I cite scientists not what I received from God during my prayer time. If you cannot deal with such discussion, maybe you should stay in your comfort zone.

"Anti-evolutionists fail to understand how natural selection operates. They fancy that all existing species were generated by supernatural fiat a few thousand years ago, pretty much as we find them today. But what is the sense of having as many as 2 or 3 million species living on earth? If natural selection is the main factor that brings evolution about, any number of species is understandable: na...more

"Anti-evolutionists fail to understand how natural selection operates. They fancy that all existing species were generated by supernatural fiat a few thousand years ago, pretty much as we find them today. But what is the sense of having as many as 2 or 3 million species living on earth? If natural selection is the main factor that brings evolution about, any number of species is understandable: natural selection does not work according to a foreordained plan, and species are produced not because they are needed for some purpose but simply because there is an environmental opportunity and genetic wherewithal to make them possible. Was the Creator in a jocular mood when he made Psilopa petrolei for California oil fields and species of Drosophila to live exclusively on some body-parts of certain land crabs on only certain islands in the Caribbean? The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."--Dobzhanskyless