|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Creation/Evolution dividing line | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am asking about the leap from no structure from which an offspring can obtain milk to an offspring which must have milk to survive. Who advanced such a leap? Aren't you overlooking the obvious middle step - an offpsring that can obtain milk but doesn't need it to survive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5837 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Rob,
The new names you brought up I consider to be elephants or rather to be from the proto elephant OK, you know what I'm going to ask next don't you? Let's go back a step. Do you think that Arsinoitherium is from the same animal stock that produced the probiscidea (ie is it a proto-elephant)? If not why not?
Unlike many creationists I believe the whale probably was first on the land and came off the ark. This is from another of your posts (to Gary), but I want to highlight it because it's quite an interesting position to take. Especially as, if you accept Embrithopoda as being derived from 'proto-elephant' stock (and it looks pretty elephanty to me!), then the next splits are for the extinct Desmostylia, and the not so extinct Sirenia (manatees and sea cows) - both of which are equatic. Would you find this land-to-sea transition acceptable?
Mutation must be very restrictive to keep a animal living. Bones and teeth seems minor enough. Again, another interesting statement. In a seminar I recently went to the speaker, as an introduction, started talking about the evolution of skulls and jaws. The take-home message from this was that although there is great variation in skull shapes, all of the examples he showed us (from fish to hippos) are built on the same basic plan, with the same basic parts. The variation was provided by slight changes in size and shape of the different skull parts. It's this kind of change that is suggested by the ToE, and what I hope to try and convey by doing this exercise is that 'micro' and 'macro' changes are one and the same thing, just separated by the timescale involved. Thanks Ooook!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The take-home message from this was that although there is great variation in skull shapes, all of the examples he showed us (from fish to hippos) are built on the same basic plan, with the same basic parts. The variation was provided by slight changes in size and shape of the different skull parts. It's this kind of change that is suggested by the ToE, and what I hope to try and convey by doing this exercise is that 'micro' and 'macro' changes are one and the same thing, just separated by the timescale involved.
This is exceptionally well-shown by Jennifer Clack's book Gaining Ground, which shows a huge bunch of fossil skulls from the Devonian - fishy critters to less-fishy critters that had pelvises, legs, and feet. Very tough reading, because it's so technical (logidemic, maybe?), but very interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5837 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Thanks,
Darwin's Terrior (I think) suggested this book ages ago, but I never got around to buying it (maybe my avatar should be a three-toed sloth). I'll try and get my arse into gear this time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4390 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Yes as long as it looks like a elephant I accept it could be the same kind.
About the land to sea change. If I follow you I don't see any connection between elephants and whales by any line of reasoning. You bring up about the skull of creatures being very similiar in all. well this is the creationist point about a common blueprint from the master. However the different kinds of creatures is more then bone structure.Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ever compare an elephant to a manatee?
i'll see if i can find you some pictures. they have prehensile noses, and little nails on their flippers that look ALOT like elephants. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 10-13-2004 04:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5837 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Yes as long as it looks like a elephant I accept it could be the same kind Does that mean you accept the example in the link I gave you is from 'proto-elephant' stock?
About the land to sea change. If I follow you I don't see any connection between elephants and whales by any line of reasoning. I don't think you did follow me, again probably caused by my switching between examples. I noticed that you've accepted that whales came from land mammals in another post and this was especially topical because the next examples after Arsinoitherium-type creatures were equatic as well (manatees being the next living example). We've got quite a way to go before I start bringing whales into the reckoning as they are related to hippos, not elephants (check out the link from the original post). As I keep on trying to say: let's try and keep this going back a step at a time.
You bring up about the skull of creatures being very similiar in all. well this is the creationist point about a common blueprint from the master. However the different kinds of creatures is more then bone structure. But lots of small changes accumulating over time is exactly what ToE describes, and what I am trying to get across to you here. You haven't come across any huge changes in shape in our path back from elephants yet have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4390 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I,m a little lazy here but I think i am saying yes I accept the next link back.
I understand where your heading however my only responce will ever be if it looks like a elephant related critter then I accept its connection. When a fossil is brought up that doesn't then the opposite. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4390 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Just because of similiar body parts does not mean ancestry is common.
Prehensile noses I believe were more common in the past in unrelated animals. Also Toe itself often needs Convergent Evolution to explain common body structures. Especially in dealing with marsupials. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
bumpety bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5837 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
I,m a little lazy here but I think i am saying yes I accept the next link back. Time to stop being lazy then . Where is the dividing line? Can you do the same with other mammals? When you get to the point where you can't accept small changes were responsible, (and this, I think is the most important thing)...why do you think that? Be specific about the features you have a problem with.
I understand where your heading however my only responce will ever be if it looks like a elephant related critter then I accept its connection. When a fossil is brought up that doesn't then the opposite. But that's exactly my point, when you get so far back, you're not looking at elephant-like, or mannatee-like, you're looking at 'starting-to-look-elephant-like', and 'starting-to-look-manatee like'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5417 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
The meaning of "...can obtain milk but does not need it..." is not clear. I will assume for this post that you mean that the mother produces milk but the offspring does not require it to survive.
That would make the mother a mammal (a scientific definition) and the offspring a reptile (based on your associated post). I thought tToE proposed the opposite. A related aside; your post on yeast and superoxygen was quite clear. Possibly, you can provide a similar-quality description of the many steps required to transform from a reptile to mammal - again, just the nursing part. Please stay scientific which requires that the description not promote the idea of a reptile which produces milk or a mammal which does not require milk. Unless, of course, you can provide scientific examples of either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The meaning of "...can obtain milk but does not need it..." is not clear. ??? How can it not be clear? It's a simple statement in plain English.
That would make the mother a mammal (a scientific definition) and the offspring a reptile (based on your associated post). Not if the offspring, too, can generate milk at its eventual maturity, which would be the case for the organism in question, having inherited the milk gene from its parent.
Possibly, you can provide a similar-quality description of the many steps required to transform from a reptile to mammal - again, just the nursing part. I did that, already.
Please stay scientific which requires that the description not promote the idea of a reptile which produces milk or a mammal which does not require milk. The definition of mammal is not "requires milk to survive." The definition is "produces milk for its offspring." What you don't seem to understand is that it is entirely possible for an organism to provide milk for offspring that do not, in fact, require it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5417 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
Please show me an infant mammal which does not require milk which is offspring of a female mammal which produces milk. Then I will understand.
I believe that you believe that your one-liner is a detailed response. And on similar one-liners is all of tToE built. "And then a miracle happens." In fact, not you nor anyone else can give a detailed response to my request because actually going through all the steps would show the fallacy of evolution and reduce tToE to the non-science it is. Describing each of the required "thousands of changes over millions of years" would take at least a large chapter if not several volumes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Please show me an infant mammal which does not require milk which is offspring of a female mammal which produces milk. Then I will understand. Existing now? Who proposed that such an animal exists now? Again, you don't seem to comprehend what we're talking about. You need to show me why the ability to digest milk requires that an organism be able to digest only milk. Your objections so far have been completely irrelevant to this task.
In fact, not you nor anyone else can give a detailed response to my request because actually going through all the steps would show the fallacy of evolution and reduce tToE to the non-science it is. No, the reason that in all likelyhood I'm going to have a hard time showing you the transitional sequence surrounding the development of milk production is because mammilaries are glands, and therefore do not fossilize. Particularly the kind of microscopic, modified sweat glands we're referring to. But even within the mammal group you can see a transitional series from simple to developed milk production; in the monotremes, milk is secreted from the skin surface rather than from any developed teat. In the marsupials, the teat is protected within the pouch. The placental mammals have the well-defined teats we're all familiar with.
Describing each of the required "thousands of changes over millions of years" would take at least a large chapter if not several volumes. Indeed it does take many, many volumes to describe the history of life on Earth in anything but the briefest level of detail. I'm not sure why you think that constitutes any sort of refutation, however. Describing how computers work in depth, for instance, requires many volumes as well, but that's hardly evidence that computers don't exist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024