Criticisms of Darwinism: all welcome to comment.

Evidence suggest that many dinosaurs were indeed warm-blooded.
And feathered.

Anyway.
It is absolutely pointless to try to talk to you anyway. You have nothing but sarcastic rhetoric. Why don't you go away? You're not even interesting.

What ever happened to the interesting crackpots around here? All we have nowadays are numbwits.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please, to say that disgraces the beautiful art of sarcasm.

I know what you mean.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Monkeys [supposedly] evolved from the same ancestor as we did, but they have evolved as well since then to become what they are now. All mammals evolved from the same proto-mammal. But, these evolutionary steps could have occured in seperate similar areas before converging, though this is a less-likely possibility. Of course there are several schools about it, because people have different interpretations of the evidence found and the research done. We can't all be right, and none of us are completely right.

I'll comment on this below with your comment on reptiles.

For (at least) two major reasons.

One, because the most efficiently powerful entities for that local environment survive and create sufficient surviving progeny--but the organism can reach a peak in advancement where the mutations and recombinations of its genes aren't any better than the ones already selected for. This is why sharks and cochroaches haven't evolved in millions of years--because they are already extremely efficient and successful organisms for their environment. And also because their environment hasn't changed drastically.

Two, because evolutionary change can take longer depending on the environment and the organism.

They can, given enough time and the right environment(s) that will select for the right changes.

I believe that it was amphibians that morphed into reptiles, and amphibians that morphed into dinosaurs. The reptiles evolved into other reptiles and a branch of the dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Yes, this is true. Thankfully, most scientists have advanced the Theory of Evolution far beyond "darwinian theory".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't forget all the environmental catastrophies that caused extinctions. Then the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago.

Cyanobacteria > Multicellular > Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Mammals

Reptiles > Dinosaurs > Birds

Debate is still out if Dinosaurs were cold or warm-blooded. What's the evidence for warm-blooded?

 

Yes and no.

First of all, while we like to think of evolution as having a purpose, it really doesn't. There is no backwards or forwards. Evolution is a mechanism of change, nothing more.

But.....dolphins would probably fit the bill for what you're asking. Fish gave rise to amphibians which gave rise to reptiles which gave rise to mammals. Then dolphins (which are mammals) went back into the sea! Their limbs evolved back into fins. But they still breath air and must surface frequently.

 

The preserved bone fragment from a T-Rex that had marrow still in it. Or remnants of marrow, maybe some blood cells, I'm not quite sure. Anyways. The bone was from the leg of a female 'rex. It had a coating on the bone which was very similar to that of female birds when they become pregnant. Because the female requires so much calcium to make eggs, her body puts a special coating on the bones to keep them stronger so they won't break. This is what the pregnant T-rex seemed to show.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. ... Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

 

And they say that dino tissue is about 65 mllion years old, why did that organinic material not decompose over the supposed millions of years?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

 

Do you have a better theory?

 

No, he doesn't.

 

"Originally Posted by IceAgeCivilizations
Darwinian theory is muddled at best, most people know this."

"Most people" are who, exactly? Theists?

"Muddled" is an appropriate word when theists attempt to understand reality.

 

Darwin's theory is probably very close to the truth, but incomplete in some way, there's somethings missing...some other factor involved....ofcourse modern evolution isn't "Darwinism"....

 

It is the signature of cells. The cells themselves have decomposed, but they left behind traces that haven't completely mineralized for some rare reason.

Thank you.