senerhu Posted May 28, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 28, 2004 I would have hoped it had been your first guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 28, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 28, 2004 Sorry, there I go disappointing people again. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kitkat Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 I would have hoped it had been your first guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 28, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 28, 2004 In the first paragraph you say it's 'fairly unchanged' and in the next you say 'hense the large scale differences in appearances'. Artsylady, Let me explain my post, because I don't think you've understood it. Those two paragraphs were comparing different things, which is why they came to different conclusions. The first paragraph was comparing the modern day creatures to their antecendants in the fossil record 180 million years ago. They were fairly similar, hence this creature is a fossil animal - it hasn't changed much over the course of the last 180 million years. However, the second paragraph was comparing this creature to trilobytes, which died out hundreds of millions of years before 180 million years ago. Now here there are large scale differences, the certainly arn't identical. The relationship with trilobytes is inferred firstly from some morphological similarity but also from embryological similarity to crabs, which is turn are similar to trilobytes. You may want to read the article on that webpage, and you'll see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arkon Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 As much difference as we see in people... Size, shape, color, ...etc We would see in animals...such as..trilobytes, dogs, cats.. size, shape, color,..etc.... Have fun with it. I have always held this view. Its called adaptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 31, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2004 Yeah, it doesn't look like they've changed much at all does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khristeeanos Posted May 31, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 109 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,278 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 29 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/07/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2004 I find this quite amusing. They haven't changed in 500 million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 31, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 31, 2004 They haven't changed in 500 million years. This statement is simply inaccurate - rather the figure 180 million years would have been more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts