There are at least 12 known intermediates between the two which incrementally become larger with fewer toes and teeth.
I want to know where the UFOs are when they are not being visibly seen by humans..
Maybe the UFO version of the Batcave?
Maybe the UFO version of the Batcave?
That would mean the fossils found are incremental in terms of timeline and location. Are they?
The "horse" is the example used by Gould in chapter 5. For a few different reasons - "popularity" perhaps the most significant.
"Incremental" is the wrong perspective (if you favor Gould's view at all). His point is that from the wee "eohippus," a variety of species evolved, then contracted until the present times, with only a few varieties remaining. The horse is not a particularly successful mammal in an evolutionary context.
Rats, bats, and antelopes... Those are the successful mammals.
"Incremental" is the wrong perspective (if you favor Gould's view at all). His point is that from the wee "eohippus," a variety of species evolved, then contracted until the present times, with only a few varieties remaining. The horse is not a particularly successful mammal in an evolutionary context.
Rats, bats, and antelopes... Those are the successful mammals.
There's an awful lot of "believing" going on in the texts of the research on this stuff. "It is 'believed' " appears to be the requisite prologue to most statements of so called fact. Actual facts are simply stated, they don't include qualifiers.
This passage from page 68 may make things more clear:
"Mesohippus does not evolve to Miohippus by insensible degrees of gradual transition. Rather, Miohippus arises by branching from a Mesohippus stock that continues to survive long afterward. The two genera overlap in time by at least 4 million years."
"Mesohippus does not evolve to Miohippus by insensible degrees of gradual transition. Rather, Miohippus arises by branching from a Mesohippus stock that continues to survive long afterward. The two genera overlap in time by at least 4 million years."
One has to wonder exactly what it is we're supposed to believe, in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence, and why.
I believe that many here argue that the entire UFO phenomenon is just delusions of feverish minds .....
So, I add you to the survey ...
Let´s go back to UFOS and (missing) proof of their existence.
Seeing they can´t win, trolls try to kick the ball out of the playing field instead.
I am not talking "belief", about which Oxford Dictionary has a special example 😉
Seeing they can´t win, trolls try to kick the ball out of the playing field instead.
I am not talking "belief", about which Oxford Dictionary has a special example 😉
I have no problem conceding the photo's authenticity. I really have no evidence for support one way or the other.
I find some percentage of the UFO phenomenon is the result of "delusions of feverish minds," but definitely not all. There is evidence of that.
It is simple, YES or NO, is what I asked, if the vote is affirmative, that means that you have no answer about the artifact or where it comes from.
By contrast, it is admitted that UFOs are real, they are not fantasy.
Another question is to develop long theories that do not lead to anything, typical reasoning of omnipotence of people who want to excel without having solid foundations, neither scientific nor religious. Nothing at all. There are plenty of samples here ...........
If you or anyone see a flying object that can't be identified, that is an unidentified flying object (UFO) to you or other observers. If some authority can't identify it, that is an unidentified flying object (UFO) to that authority. If it becomes identified in the future, it's no longer UFO. Perhaps it should be changed to IFO then. Unless you think every flying object ever been observed by humans has been identified, the unidentifiable ones are there in the archives.
That’s funny. Earlier in the thread I was pillorized as “dancing around” and “obfuscating” for having similar objections to this line of questioning
- Status
- Not open for further replies.