quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, see, even you know "as fact" that animals are not descended from plants.

---

quote:

---

Unless you wish to argue that common descent is incorrect (with which your non-interfering deity would disagree), then you'll have to agree that amniotic animals (like man) couldn't be the descendants of creatures which didn't yet exist when the first amniotes did. Especially when the groups which were to become the Amniota and Amphibia had already significantly diverged from their forebears (and each other) by 320 mya.

---

quote:

---

Either the programming can be "compromised" or it can't. Which is it? Again, make up your mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeeMack So you have a reference, a single reference, written by "higher beings". You refuse to name it, and you even hold at least parts of it in fairly low regard. You qualify that reference by claiming a couple of fiction authors derived ideas from it. You provide no more than hearsay supporting evidence for any of your outlandish claims. You attempt finding fault with bits and pieces of the commonly accepted theory of evolution and/or what others here are saying, but so far are achieving no success at that because you're just guessing, fabricating, drawing upon your delusion, or using your obviously poorly supported single reference. I'm with moakley, you're either trolling or you're just plain full of shit, or maybe both. There is more than a little supporting evidence of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by markie...

GeeMack, I can assure you that I am sincere. I sincerely believe that life was intelligently planted here, and I don't believe any evidence contradicts that. You can call me "full of shit" or "deluded" but I prefer simply "mistaken".

I don't like the animosity I appear to be generating here, so I think I shall take a break. Thanks for listening.

---

de·lu·sion n. A false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary and in spite of the fact that other members of the culture do not share the belief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by markie

??? I should have just said 'algae' I suppose. Algae can assume pond scum or seaweed form, and is more plantlike than anything. So yes, I believe that animals came from these original 'plants'.

---

quote:

---

The validity of your reasoning rests on at least two assumptions:

1)frogs did not exist prior to the earliest fossils we have found of them;

---

quote:

---

2)the (apparently first) amniotes successfully evolved into man.

---

quote:

---

Personally I find those assumptions questionable.

---

quote:

---

I've never said that the programming can't be compromised.

---

quote:

---

It's not an all or nothing thing. The genome can take alot of abuse and still funtion adequately, although not optimally.

---

quote:

---

Filthy, I've seen studies which suggest different things. One is that frogs and salamanders don't have a common amphibian ancestor, but rather came from different fish. Regarding the morphology of salamanders being more suggestive of reptiles, that may be so, but I think it is still far from conclusive, especially seeing that morphology does not always correspond well to phylogenetics. Genetically, are some frogs closer to certain reptiles/mammals than are the closest salamanders? I suspect so but I can't find any studies bearing this out one way or the other.

---

quote:

---

Looking at the above pic, we readily see that Kermit has no ribs. Further, while it doesn't show up well here, his spine has no vertebrae as such. Rather, it is a sort of a plate hinmged at the neck and hips.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by markie
GeeMack, I can assure you that I am sincere. I sincerely believe that life was intelligently planted here, and I don't believe any evidence contradicts that. You can call me "full of shit" or "deluded" but I prefer simply "mistaken".

I don't like the animosity I appear to be generating here, so I think I shall take a break. Thanks for listening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by markie
HH and moakley, the source is a book authored about sixty years ago, purportedly by a variety of higher beings. But it is mostly religious in nature and I really don't want to bring it up in this venue. I just wanted to let you guys know I am not making this stuff up out of thin air (although I do take liberties on occassion. ;)) Hey, Gene Rodenbury (Star Trek) and Herbert (of Dune fame) derived ideas from it. The book has inspired and helped me immensely, although I find problems with parts of it.

---

quote:

---

Mark, if you don't like what GeeMack and Moakley calls you, just ignore them.

Show that you can be more constructive than them, and address my post about the phylogenic tree of cytochrome-c instead.
And give Dave_W some extra consideration: his ability to strip arguments to the core is uncanny, and his logic can give Mr. Spock a good run for his money.

---

quote:

---

Evolution of Australian Frogs
Amphibia are thought to have evolved from bony fish of the Class Osteichthyes which was widespread during the period that Amphibia emerged. There is however, substantial debate over what type of bony fish was the amphibian pre-cursor. Some suggest the lung-fish which has modern representatives in only 3 countries, including Queensland in Australia. Other suggestions are that the Actinopterygii were the forerunners to modern amphibia. There will always be contention over this matter and we will probably never know otherwise.
But amphibians made their first appearance at the end of the Devonian period about 345 million years ago. Primitive amphibians were creatures called Labyrinthodonts (many specimens have been dug up in Sydney) and were long bodied, short limbed animals resembling crocodiles with fins on their tail. They were up to 4 m in length. The earliest known frog-like fossil is Triadobatrachus, from Madagascar. The skull is frog-like being broad with large eye sockets, but the fossil has a number of other features differing to modern amphibia. These include a different ilium, a longer body with more vertebrae, the lack of a urostyle and vertebrae in its tail. It is now viewed as pre-anuran, and the transitional stock from which modern frogs evolved.

---

quote:

---

Chinese scientists announced that they have discovered the earliest frog fossils in Asia, whichthey believe would solve the riddles in life evolution.

¡¡¡¡"Hundreds of Cretaceous amphibian fossils have been unearthed from a famous dinosaur fossil beds at Sihetun in western part of Liaoning province since 2000," said Wang Yuan, expert from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), "among them there is a rare fossilized frog dating back to 125 million years ago."

¡¡¡¡The well-preserved specimen was then named "Sanyanlichan", documenting the earliest and sole definite discoglossid fossil in Asia, and the second fully articulated specimen of Mesozoic age known for the group, according to Wang.

¡¡¡¡Wang, associate research fellow in the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in CAS, said that the specimen's most prominent character is the nine presacral vertebrates, one more than any extant frogs, indicating the early devolvement of frogs.

---

quote:

---

Filthy, nice frog skeleton. That is a modern frog of course. There are the so-called tailed frogs and another group (which I forget) which are more primitive and have more vertebrae as well as having ribs. Interestingly the "tail" of these frogs is used more like a penis, fertilizing the eggs within the female, instead of the more 'modern' frog method. Anyways, the point is that the first frogs may have displayed far less of the unique features characterizing most modern frogs, and hence a possible contender for an early branching to a kind of reptilian.

---

quote:

---

In 2000, the Tailed Frog was split into two species. The coastal species is Ascaphus truei, and is called the Coastal Tailed Frog. The Kootenay species is now called Ascaphus montanus, the Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog.

At a Glance

The Tailed Frog is a remarkable little frog, unique to B.C. in Canada. It is a small frog, 2.5 to 3 centimetres from nose to rump. Adults are usually tan or brown in colour although some may be shaded green or red, or even entirely black. The skin has a rather grainy appearance. Tailed Frogs have vertical pupils, no external tympanum (the round "ear" visible on other frogs), and are voiceless. The toes on the hind feet are flat and wide, especially the outer toes, and these can be used to distinguish Tailed Frogs from other frogs and toads.

The most remarkable feature of Tailed Frogs is the "tail" which gives the species its common name. The "tail," which only males have, is actually a copulatory organ used to fertilize the eggs of the female internally. While newly metamorphosed frogs of other species may have a remnant tail for a few days, it is a different colour from the body, while the "tail" of the Tailed Frog is the same colour and texture as the frog's back.

Unlike most frog species, the tadpoles of Tailed Frogs are easily identifiable, having a very large sucker-like mouth. Hatchlings are almost transparent, while older tadpoles are dark mottled brown or black, often with a white spot on the tip of the tail. Tailed Frog tadpoles are found clinging to stones in streambeds.

---

quote:

---

Reproduction: It is assumed fertilised eggs or embryonic tadpoles are swallowed by the female, the tadpoles completing their development in her stomach. The fully formed metamorphs are later regurgitated from the female's mouth. Females give birth in January to February (Winter and McDonald 1986). In the only documented case, 22 metamorphs were brooded by one female (McDonald and Tyler 1984). The morphological and physiological changes which female R. vitellinus undergo differ from the only other gastric brooding frog, R. silus (Leong et al. 1988).

---