Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Creation/Evolution dividing line
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 65 (148967)
10-10-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 7:28 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 7:28 PM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-16-2004 4:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 47 of 65 (149503)
10-12-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Robert Byers
10-08-2004 4:01 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 4:01 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 10-12-2004 8:44 PM Ooook! has replied
 Message 50 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 4:13 PM Ooook! has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 48 of 65 (149511)
10-12-2004 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Ooook!
10-12-2004 7:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Ooook!, posted 10-12-2004 7:41 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Ooook!, posted 10-13-2004 3:39 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 49 of 65 (149589)
10-13-2004 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coragyps
10-12-2004 8:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 10-12-2004 8:44 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 50 of 65 (149710)
10-13-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Ooook!
10-12-2004 7:41 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Ooook!, posted 10-12-2004 7:41 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2004 5:24 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 52 by Ooook!, posted 10-13-2004 7:26 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 65 (149728)
10-13-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 4:13 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 4:13 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 3:26 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 52 of 65 (149753)
10-13-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Robert Byers
10-13-2004 4:13 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 4:13 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 3:24 PM Ooook! has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 53 of 65 (149947)
10-14-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Ooook!
10-13-2004 7:26 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Ooook!, posted 10-13-2004 7:26 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Ooook!, posted 10-14-2004 6:12 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 54 of 65 (149948)
10-14-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
10-13-2004 5:24 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2004 5:24 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 65 (149962)
10-14-2004 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
10-10-2004 11:04 AM


bump
bumpety bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 10-10-2004 11:04 AM nator has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 56 of 65 (149978)
10-14-2004 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Robert Byers
10-14-2004 3:24 PM


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'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Robert Byers, posted 10-14-2004 3:24 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 57 of 65 (150324)
10-16-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
10-10-2004 7:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2004 7:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2004 5:10 PM BobAliceEve has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 65 (150326)
10-16-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by BobAliceEve
10-16-2004 4:30 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-16-2004 4:30 PM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-16-2004 8:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 59 of 65 (150362)
10-16-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
10-16-2004 5:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2004 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2004 9:15 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 65 (150367)
10-16-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by BobAliceEve
10-16-2004 8:49 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-16-2004 8:49 PM BobAliceEve 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