Babyhood to adulthood

[Alceste]

I didn't deny what is known,such as fossils and that human came at a point which shows that life have been evolved and progressed gradually, but my point that there is someone behind it, i think it is stupid to think otherwise, just my opinion.

Then it is atheism you think is stupid, not evolution.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Regardless of how evolution worked and how mammals splitted from the first reptiles still the fact remains that mammals as we know it today can never raised without parental care and of course the first mammal should have gone the same procedure to reach adulthood and which is through parental care, so how the first mammal being raised without parental care regardless of how it splitted or how evolution worked.

You are correct! Regardless of how evolution worked and how mammals split from reptiles, mammals cannot be raised without parents.

Your mistake is calling the intermediate organisms 'mammal' or 'reptile.' Scientists call the early ones 'mammal-like reptiles,' later ones proto-mammals.

they had traits shared by reptiles, which modern mammals do not have. And they had traits similar to mammals, which reptiles never had. The very early ones could were true reptiles with traits that distinguished them as a group. later ones these traits became the early traits of mammals, as some of the reptile traits were lost. They could not be placed in the 'box' of 'true-reptile' any longer. Nor could they be placed in the 'box' of true-mammal yet. As time passed the forms became what we could call true-mammals.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You can't see any problem with it.

Anyway thats how you see it even though that you don't know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to split to mammals and how gradually it happened through millions of years, but for you things are very clear and obvious,nothing weird about it.

You say he doesn't know. You obviously don't know. And I will not pretend to know exactly all the millions of gradual steps that took place. Science will never know every single tiny gradual step.

But science does know literally millions of these steps. They are catalogued in 100s of books relating to the subject of the evolution of mammals from reptiles.

Do you really wish to understand why scientists believe in evolution? Agree or not? Or do you not really wish to understand their position and just argue about it on a layperson level?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

For some others they know what had happened and how easily the first mammal was formed, blind evolutionists i may say.

Really? Who do you refer to?

 

[Alceste]

You can't see any problem with it.

Anyway thats how you see it even though that you don't know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to split to mammals and how gradually it happened through millions of years, but for you things are very clear and obvious,nothing weird about it.

We do know how it happened gradually over millions of years. You may not, but all you need to do is pick up a biology textbook if you would like to learn, and have it be as obvious to you as it is to those of us who understand the theory.

 

[Alceste]

Mammals as we know them need parental guidance, without parental guidance no mammals can survive or even exist.

Evolution doesn't have the answer but it is just a blind faith as religion is.

Yes, evolution has the answer. Since the very first colony of cellular blobs developed the ability to swap DNA hundreds of millions of years ago, every living thing on earth has had parents. It's religion that claims otherwise, not evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then it is atheism you think is stupid, not evolution.

So it would seem. Which is fair enough, I suppose.

 

[FearGod]

Every offspring had a parent. You are still not understanding that there was no first mammal. mammal is a type, a word, a human concept. Life is an unbroken chain. At no time ever was there a parent and offspring that were more than a few crossovers different from each other.

Your mistake, as I've said above, is you are failing to conceptualize outside of the artificial language of species, type, mammal, etc. These things do not exist other than to facilitate language. In reality there is an unbroken lineage of humans back to protocells. For facilitation of communication, we construct a language and jargon that categorizes different aspects of this chain to distinguish the subject of current conversation.

No it isn't just words but it is facts that expressed by words.

We can't say that humans and mosquitoes are only distinguished by words, it is 2 different things by reality and words.

Mammals are different than reptiles, then we have to know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to gradually and steadily evolved to mammals through millions of years and how the species the in between looked like.

 

[Alceste]

No it isn't just words but it is facts that expressed by words.

We can't say that humans and mosquitoes are only distinguished by words, it is 2 different things by reality and words.

Mammals are different than reptiles, then we have to know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to gradually and steadily evolved to mammals through millions of years and how the species the in between looked like.

What happened? Changes in allele frequencies caused by imperfect gene copying, working against environmental and reproductive challenges in a large number of geographically isolated populations. Or, to put it more briefly, evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Mammals are different than reptiles, then we have to know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to gradually and steadily evolved to mammals through millions of years and how the species the in between looked like.

We pretty much do know already, as much as it is reasonable to want to know what happened so long ago.

Synapsid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am honestly not certain what you mean here.

 

[McBell]

But we know for a fact that adult animals raise their offspring, so what is left to show?

Yes, but the real question is can an off spring survive without the adult "raising" it?

 

[McBell]

Not even to the expectations of any sane sincere man that got the ability to think.

No, i understand what all had said, but sorry to say most of the answers were silly except the one by George-ananda who agrees with me on how weird it is.

For being sincere.

Do you have any intention on learning anything about evolution?

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure why you insist on denying what is known, but it saddens me that you do.

Some people choose their world view over truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, but the real question is can an off spring survive without the adult "raising" it?

That is something of a vague question. Various animals have varied degrees of capability for offspring to survive unassisted, and in fact the degree of assistance for offspring varies a lot as well. Close to one extreme, fish pretty much rely on numbers and just lay as many eggs as they can. On another, mammals have very few offspring and developed a lot of protective behaviors towards them.

 

[McBell]

Mammals as we know them need parental guidance, without parental guidance no mammals can survive or even exist.

You have not demonstrated this to be true.

You have only declared it.

Evolution doesn't have the answer but it is just a blind faith as religion is.

Your inability, or more likely unwillingness, to learn and understand it, does not make it faith.


Or are you so attached to your own world view that you have to drag everything else down to its level?

 

[McBell]

That is something of a vague question. Various animals have varied degrees of capability for offspring to survive unassisted, and in fact the degree of assistance for offspring varies a lot as well. Close to one extreme, fish pretty much rely on numbers and just lay as many eggs as they can. On another, mammals have very few offspring and developed a lot of protective behaviors towards them.

Agreed.

However, the OP relies on the claim that mammals, specifically human offspring, REQUIRE adults to "raise" (not really sure what this words means in this context) it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I didn't deny what is known,such as fossils and that human came at a point which shows that life have been evolved and progressed gradually, but my point that there is someone behind it, i think it is stupid to think otherwise, just my opinion.

Em. I thought you were trying to be rational. You are not qualified, by any means, to make such a statement. There is an abundunce of evidence available for review. You have not reviewed it. Your position is one of persistant ignorance, with a refusal to learn. To say that those who have examined the evidence must be stupid to follow where where it leads them, without examining the evidence that lead them there, would seem to be, what I will term, "Blind Ignorance," a refusal to examine the available information.

This would seem to be the 'stupid' position to me. Which is why I'm surprised by your emotional reaction to what so far has at least been presented as a rational attempt to understand and/or dispute.

My thoughts can not penetrate a brick wall.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No it isn't just words but it is facts that expressed by words.

We can't say that humans and mosquitoes are only distinguished by words, it is 2 different things by reality and words.

Mammals are different than reptiles, then we have to know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to gradually and steadily evolved to mammals through millions of years and how the species the in between looked like.

No, it is not fact, it is concept. Concept that is boxed with the symbol 'mammal' Which many things can be placed into the box, somethings come near the box, somethings are no where near the box.

A human is a mammal; a fact.
Mammals are the group of organisms that share the traits of hari, mammary glands, etc.; a category.

 

[FearGod]

No, it is not fact, it is concept. Concept that is boxed with the symbol 'mammal' Which many things can be placed into the box, somethings come near the box, somethings are no where near the box.

A human is a mammal; a fact.
Mammals are the group of organisms that share the traits of hari, mammary glands, etc.; a category.

So it isn't a fact that human is a mammal, but it is a concept.
It isn't fact that earth is a planet, but it just a concept.

Do you have more nonsense to bring here.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

A human is a mammal; a fact.

Mammals are the group of organisms that share the traits of hari, mammary glands, etc.; a category.

So it isn't a fact that human is a mammal, but it is a concept.
It isn't fact that earth is a planet, but it just a concept.

Do you have more nonsense to bring here.

You should learn to read carefully before you post, and sling insults.