Re: Two of a kind.
- From: "mel turner" <mturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:09:12 -0400
"Lee Jay" <ljfinger@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147700216.274050.293470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NashtOn wrote:
I wasn't aware that these species were mammals.
Must be some new phylogenic classification.
So, no mammals reproduce asextually so evolution can't be true.
I know of at least one mammal species that regularly reproduces
asexually. But strangely enough the example doesn't involve
any parthenogenesis:
Reportedly, nine-banded armadillos _Dasypus novemcinctus_ [not sure
about other armadillo species] consistently produces litters that are
identical quadruplets all derived from a single fertilized egg. Each
sexually produced zygote divides asexually to produce the multiple
embryos. This is clearly a form of regular "asexual reproduction" by
a mammal, but it doesn't extend across generations -- it doesn't
involve any adult organism producing its offspring asexually.
You'll be shocked to know that not a single species of mammal converts
CO2 and sunlight to sugar through the use of chlorophyll so plants must
not exist either.
And not one mammal has feathers, so birds don't exist.
[snip]
cheers
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Two of a kind.
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Two of a kind.
- References:
- Two of a kind.
- From: NashtOn
- Re: Two of a kind.
- From: Tom
- Re: Two of a kind.
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Two of a kind.
- From: NashtOn
- Re: Two of a kind.
- From: Lee Jay
- Two of a kind.
- Prev by Date: Re: DeadRat's justification for encouraging Robert Kolker
- Next by Date: Re: Two of a kind.
- Previous by thread: Re: Two of a kind.
- Next by thread: Re: Two of a kind.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|