I took your statement to mean why did some fish evolve into land animals, while others stayed in the water. The fish that stayed in the water did not stop evolving, but they took other directions.
Sorry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here are better pictures: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Lol, Anti-flag :spank:Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I honestly don't know, OIM. One suggestion is something like this (alright, no more pic after this one): Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Me neither but your guess is as good as anyones since scientists just make everything up anyway. Chimpanzees evolved from Dimetrodon? Give me a break. You've got to be kidding.
OIM: You appear to be mixing up an old idea, called Larmarkian evolution, with the modern Darwinian version. Inheritance of acquired characteristics does not happen. For example, if you practice basketball every day, that will have no effect at all on the basketball skills of any children you have later on. You observe that 60% of our DNA is shared with a particular fish. What do you conclude? The ancestor that possessed the same subset of genes shared by humans and fish. Obviously. You are not a fish. You did, however, have gill slits in the early stages of your development in the womb. We've already been through this. Some fish were under evolutionary pressures that promoted their evolution into new species. Others were not. No, but sea lions and human beings share a common ancestor.
Exactly. I haven't observed such a fish. What fish are you referring to? So it's possible humans have been under no evolutionary pressure since the Garden of Eden? What ancestor would that be?
In case you missed it, inheritance of acquired characteristics is the discredited theory of Lamarckian evolution, not the modern theory of evolution. I think this example is beyond you. Probably this is indicative of your general failure to understand the scientific method. No. The fossil record shows convincingly that humans have evolved. Also, the Garden of Eden is a religious myth, not science. The animal that had all the DNA that is common to humans and sea lions. Obviously.
What fish are you talking about? The make believe plate tectonics fish? The mythical subduction fish? What fish? I'm not convinced at all; that would require evidence. But I thought you said some animals didn't evolve. How do you know what animals evolve and what animals don't? What animal would that be? The mythical subduction fish?
Actually yes, or something like it. Dimetrodon was a proto-mammal, and all mammals are descended from the same basic branch of the tree that spawned dimetrodon. Where do you think mammals came from, spawned by your spurious nuclear fusion in the core Earth? Or are you now arguing that the scientists are all wrong, but the Bible...nailed it.
Dimetrodon went extinct in the Permian which means chimpanzees and human beings can't possibly have evolved from it.
The original mammal evolved from a relative of dimetrodon, all mammals evolved from this mammal, including the ancestors of the earliest primates, which branched out into lemurs, and later monkeys, apes and hominids.
What original mammal and what relative of Dimetrodon? Dimetrodon went extinct in the Permian. It's therefore an evolutionary dead end. Nothing can possibly have evolved from it.
wait. extinct-all of them died, right? Where are the homo erectus, then? There should be some if they being alive is required for our evolving from them.
