Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do we only find fossils?
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 136 (258263)
11-09-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
11-09-2005 7:11 PM


Where to?
Biological evolution or geology?
I'll promote it as soon as you remove that horrid avatar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 7:11 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 7:50 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 136 (258281)
11-09-2005 8:10 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
It would be a misuse of power to force you to change the avatar. That was just my editorial comment on the dammed thing. Others have already expressed their appreciation for it (what that says I don't want to delve into).
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-09-2005 08:15 PM

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 18 of 136 (258301)
11-09-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
11-09-2005 8:24 PM


Not on topic.
Pakicetus is not on topic here. However, RM's point is that early on (when we had only a skull) pakicetus was drawn with more aquatic features.
He, of course, misses the point of that and it isn't really worth explaining it to him is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 11-09-2005 8:24 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024