The Platypus.

In simpler terms... us?

I don't know that I'm any more eloquent but... What we're talking about is called "convergent evolution". Thoughout history we see the same basic templates coming to light. Wings for flight. Armor for defense. Eyes to see. Legs to walk. We see chameleons and cuttlefish that both can change the color of their skin and both in completely different ways. Bats and birds can both fly, one with skin and one with feathers. The octopus and the human can both see and both see in color yet the octopus has a much better eye. Ankylosaurus and the turtle both have almost full body armor. The Berkely evolution site says this very well: Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters—characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature—so the presence of four limbs is a homology. Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences. Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters. Bird and bat wings are analogous—that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution. Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.

No, I don't agree with that Sunshine. We know the halflives of these isotopes exactly. So when bits of these substances are trapped within rock we can very accurately measure the amounts of the isotopes that are present and how much of the remainder is present. We don't have to wait 100 years. Or won't nuclear power work for another 100 years? It's all the same process in one form or another.

I wanted to speak directly to this point. There is lots of fighting about the ToE in the scientific community. There is no fighting about whether or not evolution has occurred. There is massive fighting about HOW it occurred. Fast, slow, fast and slow, what pressures are involved, when what took place... Thing is, in the scientific community you can make your name in one of two ways. You can either discover something or you can find out someone else was wrong. Finding out that Darwin was wrong would win someone a Nobel prize and worldwide fame and fortune. It's just that evolution is something so obvious, so true, that no one even tries to disprove it anymore. It would be like trying to prove that objects don't fall. Life evolves. We evolved. Peek's claims that we don't have proof are simply false. But here's what I'd like to do. Let's pick one animal. One organism and I'll try to find the proof that it has evolved and provide it. Then Peek can show me how that evidence is faulty. One modern animal, a bird? Whale? Horse? Human? What'll it be?

There are all sorts of ways that microscopic bugs transfer DNA. And it's not reproduction. We, on the other hand, pass along our genes in one way and one way only... reproduction. As do all mammals. Reproduction. It just didn't seem germane to introduce all these other things when trying to make a point. I have maybe a paragraph before someone gets bored, not a couple of weeks. So please excuse my trying to be brief and give the cliffs notes version of things. Evolution is a big messy web. Not a linear progression. Some of the branches die out. Others continue to form new lines. It's all part of evolution. There's no doubt it has happened, is happening and will happen as long as there are living things. No doubt.

Don't be too jealous. It's followed by winter which usually goes on too long.

I had to drop a class before the deadline in order to remove myself from nonsense once... But I'd be highly curious. What words could they possibly have needed to include in a textbook and in what context? I simply can't imagine a reason to use profanity in any teaching setting other than creative writing.

No. Remember the dice? All those throws? You're assuming that once the chain of life begins then the throws of the dice are going to be the same. That's not true. If there had been two different sets of life on the planet each starting from an original ancestor then the throws of the dice would have been different too. Each would have taken widely divergent paths and we'd have two completely different types of life on the planet. We don't. Your hypothesis has been falsified. Especially if you're trying to say that we have one branch of humans descended from one type of ancestor and one from another. That's simply not possible nor has it been evidenced in any of the studies done of worldwide DNA. We all come from the same basic melting pot of genes. Humanity is very homogeneous. It seems we all came from one common ancestor, one basic melting pot of life someplace back in the mists of time. And that basic DNA went on to replicate and become all the life we find on earth today. And no, it didn't just *poof* into existence. This isn't an evolution conversation any longer btw... it's now abiogenesis which is completely other. If you'd like to discuss it I'll certainly try but we should branch it off.

How? How does lining up fossils and your insistence that they might not line up that way change the fact that life evolved? If one of those fossils is out of place... how does that repudiate the theory? Peek, can you tell me what the Theory of Evolution states? Can you tell me why the word, "theory" does not mean "guess"? We do know. What you're saying is that you want to believe that mankind did not evolve, is that correct? Like men? Is that what you're getting at here? We do have that now. As has been stated the only way that genes can be transferred from one creature to another is by reproduction. We share 95-98% of them with chimpanzees. How do you explain this? How do you explain ERVs? How do you explain cladistics? How do you explain the fossil record leading up to human beings that fits in perfectly with common descent? How do YOU explain these things if not by evolution?

You're welcome. I can't imagine what you're going through although members of my family went through various cancers when I was much younger. I guess I just can't imagine what it's like to have it happen to myself. I do, however, completely relate to that "can't get off the couch" feeling. I've been there... two things. One, break things up into manageable chunks. Figure out things you can do in 15-minute intervals. Then get up for just 15 mins... do something and let yourself sit back down. For as long as you need to. Second, for priorities, just do the next thing. Don't worry about all the details and all the things that are starting to pile up, just do the next thing. Let that be your mantra... Do the Next Thing. If you can keep at it, slowly but surely you'll dig yourself out. And then, by the time you're feeling better you'll have managed to keep your head above water. And I just have a feeling you will be feeling better. :001_smile:

Peek, both may be true. An organism may evolve from part of a population while another part of that population still exists. Your want a standard of proof that can never be provided. If you can see all the mechanisms of evolution shown to you. If you can see fossil evidence of the progression of organisms... if you can see that the organisms represented by the fossils are no longer with us... then Peek... Where did they go if they didn't evolve into something else?

Peek, if we were to follow your line of reasoning we'd have to stare at the moon for a month without blinking to determine that it truly orbited the earth. We can see that it goes around the earth by taking in that it starts at one point and ends up back there after a month. We don't need to stare at it to know it doesn't go whipping off around the solar system randomly. The same is true of the fossil record. We don't need every organism that's ever been alive to know that they started at one point and ended at another. Common descent implies a pattern of gradual change and diversification throughout time. The hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been discovered are consistent with this pattern. More to the point, they are inconsistent with any other pattern. They are certainly inconsistent with a pattern of all life having been created at one point and staying as it was created forever. Those of you who have claimed to have found creationism because of the "evidence" let me ask this... is there any one of you who found creationism before you found the Bible?

Radiometric dating of various radioactive isotopes is conducted upon elements such as uranium-lead, potassium-argon, clorine-36 and others. You can learn more about it here if you wish.