I just had a dream in which i saw a sequential growth species variant of mammals of prehistoric history. The sequence is that first mammalian species as on earth bio was first seen in puddles swamp where water habitats existed. So as per my dream the first species seen were .... Crocodiles which showed to huge long thick ones crawling reptilian mammals just as the evolutionary classification size as long as 30 meter in length 25 feet in height. Then forms of alligators. Then came whale like fish creatures. Then came small height 3foot 11 inches ape like humans legs were small seemed like back bent seemed amphibian. Then came huge sized sperm whales. Then came small sperm whales with short fins flaps which could walk slide on land and breathe air survive. Then came colorful small whales too. Then the water inhabitant ape like humans size went to 5 feet 7inches. Then came small dinausaurs size of just 5 feet. Last came the dolphins and some birds.... So as seen in the dream the prehistoric species mammalians lived in a damp climate. The evolution of prehistoric man is somewhat as guessed by biologists as in the pictures. But in my dream it had no hair growth. But was dark black skinned with many nodules growth over its body skin. Like had watery skin so survived in water swamp. Most parts of the world was under oceans like water and swamp lands. I think the prehistoric humans never had bent backs. So monkeys, lemurs, birds, dogs, cats, lions, hippos, turtles, chickens, giraffes....etc were never born yet. If my dream is true then there is no co-relation as to what beings appeared in the first evolution, neither humans came from lemurs, nor dinosaurs came from alligators....i think they just existed, came out from nowhere like evolution is magic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If dinasaurs came late of age of biological species, then should had survived till date, as their earlier mammals are still found exact without any changes even after so many years. The fossils remains discovered showed that the dinosaurs were still alive, otherwise their fossils, remnants would had been decomposed under lands and changing climates over the centuries. Perhaps the civilizations of the past might had made the dinosaurs species to extinction.
If you look at the material configurations of a cell, the cell accumulates reduced materials which define energy. Life builds energy value as it grows. As the tree grows we get more energy from the tree. The cell also defines configurational order, right down to proteins forming specific and exact folding arrangements. This implies structural entropy gets lower within the cell. Going from reptile to mammal follows this same basic pattern, but brings it to the next level. The warm blooded mammal defines more structural energy within itself since all the chemicals are warmer. While bearing the young live instead of using eggs, lowers the structural entropy (live birth keeps the unborn integrated to mom). Eggs define higher entropy in terms of mom-child. The transition followed a logic inherent within life. Humans tend to stay with their children longer than many other species as a reflection of even more lowering of mom-child entropy. The increasing energy build up for humans is less reflected in biology, but as the attraction of resources; ownership.
Unlike written in books my dream contradicts that infact mammals had arrived first than reptilians. Reptilians were infact the growth variants of sub-species of the mammals which had evolved. So dinosaurs eggs were found at many places at later phases of their evolution. The present world itself sees many bio-diversified reptilians and crustaceons itself.
No. The first reptiles were much closer to the lizards than to the crocodilians. Absolutely not. The cetaceans (Odontoceti, the toothed whales, which includes the dolphins, porpoises and orcas in addition to the sperm whale; and Mysticeti, the baleen whales) evolved quite recently. They descended from primitive hippopotamus-like creatures, less than 50MYA (million years ago). They have been assigned to a clade with the artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates such as cattle, sheep, deer, camels and giraffes). No. Humans are an extremely recent arrival on this planet. Our species is less than 200,000 years old. The first ape that split off from the chimpanzee line to establish the human line (Ardipithecus) lived only 7MYA. Absolutely not. There are not, and never have been, cetaceans who can live on land. Their development went the other way: from terrestrial creatures to aquatic creatures. And by the way, all cetaceans are mammals, which means that they all breathe air. The hippos they evolved from were already air breathers, as were the reptiles that the hippos evolved from. All mammals breathe air. Huh??? The first ape that branched off from the chimpanzee line to establish the human line (Ardipithecus) appeared a mere 7MYA. You’re not making the least bit of sense. The first dinosaurs were small; the large ones came later. Finally you got something right for a change. Wrong again. Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs a very long time ago, around 150MYA. Obviously your dream is not true. We have mountains of evidence explaining the sequence in which various types of organisms (plants, fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea also, not just animals) evolved from one another. This includes evidence from two different unrelated sciences: paleontology and genetics. To doubt it is to be a clown.
Longer than any other species. Baby whales mature in only two years; baby elephants in five. This is largely due to the fact that the human brain at birth is much smaller in relation to the adult brain than any other mammal. This makes them utterly helpless for a long time, and they still require nurturing until mid-adolescence. A newborn giraffe can run, albeit clumsily; a newborn human cannot stand upright. This makes childrearing a tremendous responsibility for adults. Correlated with this is the phenomenon that humans are one of very few species in which adults who can no longer procreate continue to live healthy productive lives. Our children don't just need their parents; raising them is so much work, and lasts so long, that they even need grandparents! The reason that we're born with such small brains is our bipedal walking. The human pelvis is relatively narrow, making the birth canal also very narrow. A large brain simply wouldn't fit. The reason the pelvis is so narrow is that if it were much wider, the constant shifting of our weight from one leg to the other would make walking slow and uncomfortable.
Your dream is entertaining, but it is not science. You should have posted this in our Science Fiction subforum. The biology subforum is for real science.
This is not a theory. This is not a hypothesis. This is not conjecture. This is not even an idle thought. This is a dream and as such has as much to do with reality as a dream about flapping your arms to fly to the surface of the sun for a quick tanning session. Why is this still in the science section?
Even modern day biologists scientists have no clue as to from where mammals to reptilians came from? There is no co-relation nor any origin of beings, diversified variants of animals coming into existence...their own theories are itself mixed up hypothesis. But their reason out and classification are correct, like first humans water skin mammals prehistoric humans had muscles, from studying fossils they never could guess...then leaner skin men evolved...
A. It is reptiles who are the ancestors of mammals, not the other way round. You continue to mix up the lineages in the Animal Kingdom at random, turning a well-organized chart into utter chaos. And you do this simply because of a childish dream you had??? That's about as sensible as basing your investment strategy on something you read in a fortune cookie! B. Modern-day scientists have so many "clues" (in science we use the term "evidence") about this transition, that there is not the slightest wisp of doubt or disagreement about it. YES THERE IS!!! That's what I've been trying to tell you! The organizational chart of the Animal Kingdom has been largely stabilized for half a century! And since then, the new science of genetics has allowed us to make several adjustments that make it even more accurate, such as discovering that seals are actually more closely related to bears and weasels than to whales and dolphins. Now you're just sputtering gibberish. That sentence doesn't even make sense! Again, you're spouting nearly-incomprehensible gobbledygook. What the hell is the phrase "first humans water skin mammals" supposed to mean? What are "leaner skin men"??? I get the impression that English is not your first language. You should try writing much shorter sentences. They will be easier for us to read and understand. But more importantly, you should take a couple of science courses. Your ignorance is both astounding and embarrassing.
If your forefathers who wrote it for you to understand, if you can't, then its not my problem. http://youtu.be/90T7iLuzFgg
That's incorrect. You need to take zoology. No, the theory of evolution begins by explaining the adaptive radiation of Darwin's finches at Galapagos. It did not proceed as per your dream. Nor does the in vitro evolution of bacteria towards developing antomicrobial resistance. Or the evolutionary development of any other taxa. There is nothing particularly unusual about the evolution of mammals (presumably you mean the origin of mammals from reptiles). All of evolution follows the same basic principles, enunciated by Darwin in Origin of the Species (you should read it before demanding that it's fallacious). Those principles have been slightly amended with evidence not available to Darwin, but the basics have not been overturned. Those principles speak to the origins of species. Your concern is larger scale phylogeny which is not the same as evolution, nor is that process differentiated from speciation. It's simply that, at some point the emergent species becomes the ancestor of a new phyletic taxon or clade. Are you on medication? That statement makes absolutely no sense. If you want to know more about the evolution of mammals, simply seach on "evolution of mammals". There are many sites with excellent material. If you need help, just ask. You're simply behind the curve. And for some reason, you have a cynical view of experts in this highly technical subject. You obviously haven't taken the requisite classes, so you're letting your imagination fill in the blanks for what you lack in academics. That's tantamount to superstition. When you get through looking at organisms as zoo animals, go back to review the origin of the prokaryotes, eukaryotes, colonial forms, metazoans, plants, insects, bivalves, crustaceans, sponges, jellies, flatworms, and and the many other forms that led to the development of the notochord, and then the vertebrates (zoo animals) you only concern yourself with. As a challenge, try telling us what the fossils known as cynodonts were.
Yes, take for example chickens' egg, the building up of the embryo when the hen incubates it. So the biologists would certainly study the details of the embryo stages and its micro processing till it forms a reptilian chick n' hatches. First chickens appeared rearing in the sky and then they fell on earth as mammalian flying birds. (vertebrates as long as ten feet wriggling in the sky falling?) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When the time came of they felt their species extinction they started to evolve from vertebrates to invertebrates and to for their survival started laying eggs. Which stored the genome in other words fossilified under time conditions, forming of egg shell to withstand centuries....its the theory behind movie - jurasic park... Why pressume charles darwin's theories, he might had written it backwards....
Embryonic development is essentially the same in all vertegrates. It's a process involving the interaction of stem cells (cell specialization and signaling as I introduced above) in the presence of hormones. No, the hen will not give birth to a lizard. What a ridiculously absurd statement. But maggot will morph into a fly, by the influence of stem cells under stimulation of hormones. But so what? So you never made it past the 5th grade? You aren't aware that fish who could perambulate with their fins evolved into amphibians, and species adapted for survival on dry land (reptiles) followed, and thereafter there were forms with altricial young (it means helpless) --birds and synapsids -- the latter of which have some of the traits of reptiles, and some of mammals? Are trying to get banned for nonsense posting? :bugeye: What's the point? So you can thump your Bible in the science forums? Even a child knows that fish precede amphibians and reptiles in the fossil record. You aren't aware that fish lay eggs? And the amphibians kept a similar egg casing as the fish, hence they must return to the water to spawn. Reptiles adapted to dry land, in part, by evolving a hard shell casing which can incubate oitside of the water. Birds inherited this from reptiles. Mammals, marsupials and ovoviparous forms adapted this. In mammals and marsupials the embryo gestates inside the mother's body. This adaptation is preferable for raising altricial (helpless) young, which began in birds and mammals. But so what? :shrug: So we went from your random ideas about science to sci-fi . . . But this is a science thread, not a fantasy thread, so why are posting fantasy stuff here? That's not only a presumption, but a backwards one. Darwin was right (with a few amendments) about the origin of species on Galapagos. Do you think they were created as per Genesis? Not possible--the islands rose out of volcanic cones long after the first organisms appeared on Earth, and shortly after the parent species appeared in S. America. Then these species evolvde, adapted to conditions on the islands. (Such as iguanas who dive for seaweed). But I guess you would need to know some of the basic facts surrounding Darwin's work before presuming what he said and did. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Charles darwin is none of your business, your english is full of faults seems like of seventh grader who studied biology basic facts. Charles darwin clauses are- Theory of evolution Theory of natural selection Theory of artificial selection Theory of genetic combination Theory of adaptation In other words charles darwin was writing the same things again and again trying to classify species. He seems himself confused in flora and couldn't differentiate between vertebrates n' invertebrates... Classification of dinosaurs sub-species variants like big dinosaurs based on big fossils is also seems bogus. The fossils might be of large cats, crocodiles or elephants... Or perhaps charles darwin used coded complex language so his future readers could never understand it at all....! And many people take it for granted as thinking of it as simplified version by giving lousy examples. So i think people should forget charles darwin. What if in future as the modern day world disregards bio-diversity, so some species got extinct like some sub-variant species of elephants and tigers. Would they then in the next phases of future adapt to lay eggs changing from mammalian to reptillian. As you say they were reptillian once... Or would the tigers and elephants move towards the water to die out....Imagine a big egg in 2780 and a baby elephant came out. Who was that old man professor i forgot his name who was studying bio-diversity and rain forrests in australia and sri lanka in 1999 ? He studied many rains in sri lanka in which frogs and tortoises fell from the sky? Where in the sky their embryos might have bred?
Welcome to B and G. "Theory of genetic combination" sounds more like Mendel's synthesis; that's not Darwin. Species classification, further, is Linnaeus' balliwick, not Darwin's. Darwin certainly could differentiate between vertebrates and invertebrates. What part about dinosaur species variants seems bogus to you? Objections to that, at least, might well be valid. ...but no, the fossils are not of "large cats, crocodiles or elephants". Instead of forgetting Charles Darwin, I'm going to post a few links for you to peruse before returning to the thread. Objections to system or circumstance are one thing, but as portrayed above there is really no room to discuss neoDarwinian evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c_pre_2011/evolution/theoryevolutionrev2.shtml Please read before returning to the thread. Or, better yet, perhaps you could describe your personal situation so that other remedies might be suggested.
What the?! Ermm.. Have you opened a biology book in your life? Hell, scratch that. Have you ever seen or looked at a chicken? While reptiles are known to lay eggs, no, a chicken egg will not hatch out a reptilian chick. Two different species. Sure, if you're into that kind of tentacle porn... And if that drawing is meant to be a representation of a reptilian chicken, then ermm... yeah... I am speechless. I don't think you and I watched the same Jurassic Park for one thing and secondly, what the hell are you talking about? Finally, no, Darwin did not right it backwards. Although it seems as though you read it backwards..
