Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

thanks for your help.
And to answer your question, I lost the book a long time ago, so I only remember the key points. Nothing else.

"Sorry if I missed your earlier answer, the structures are clearly toes, they even have separate bones. Why would anything need to hold the leg in place? We don't have anything to stop our shins from "drifting off"."
--Do these two adjacent bones to the 'middle toe bone' have a scientific name or classification of some sort? It would help significantly so I could attain mor information on this vestige.------------------

TC,They are analogous to your own 2nd & 4th toes.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Sorry if I missed your earlier answer, the structures are clearly toes, they even have separate bones. Why would anything need to hold the leg in place? We don't have anything to stop our shins from "drifting off"."
--Do these two adjacent bones to the 'middle toe bone' have a scientific name or classification of some sort? It would help significantly so I could attain mor information on this vestige.

---

Hi TC,Have a look at my message #40 in this thread.I have a Bachelor's in Equestrian Studies so I have a lot of very good source material in my home library, and I can help you with anatomy and whatnot.The common name for the vestigial tarsal bones are "splint" bones. The common name for the large tarsal bone which they flank is called the "cannon" bone.

Thanx for the names, I could readily find more information on these bones. AiG's explination is as follows:

quote:

---

In particular, the horse’s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs. They also provide attachment points for important muscles. And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse’s weight as it walks.

---

--Though I was rather confused when reading this: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/horses/facts/89-093.htm

quote:

---

"Splints" are the direct result of an injury to the periostium (tissue covering the bone) or an injury to the interosseous ligament (tissue tying the splint bone to the cannon bone). These injuries to the horse may be the result of direct trauma, such as a kick or a concussion type trauma resulting from jumping, running or working. As the horse matures, the interosseous ligament slowly calcifies, fusing the splint bones to the cannon bone, allowing it to better withstand the concussion type trauma of working and the horse is therefore less likely to develop "splints". Most often, the forelimbs are affected; rarely do "splints" occur in the hindlimbs.

---

------------------

TC,This doesn't explain the side toes in some ADULT horses, let alone ALL emryos. It isn't the splints I'm saying are vestigial atavisms, it is the side toes. They are not extant in all horses, so serve no function, they are truly vestigial.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-14-2002]

I found nothing of any real substance in your post so I feel it best to simply reply in this manner and agree to disagree. Shalom Jet

Sorry I didn't get to this way back in March, TC. I guess I just passed it by! Here goes.

quote:

---

Thanx for the names, I could readily find more information on these bones. AiG's explination is as follows:

​

quote:
In particular, the horse?s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs.

---

No. they really don't strengthen the leg and foot bones.Fist of all, the splint bones are nowhere near the foot bones and have no effect on them whatsoever. I have to say that this is a really bad mistake and displays either a severe lack of knowledge of equine anatomy, or they decided to throw "foot bones" in there to make their argument sound more impressive while banking on the fact that almost nobody is going to know better.Second, they articulate with the knee joint but are attached to the rest of the cannon bone only by some connective tissue. They bear no weight.

quote:

---

They also provide attachment points for important muscles.

---

But why would this extra, troublesome (see below) bone be put there when it would be much simpler to just attach the tendon to the much-stronger cannon bone?

quote:

---

And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse?s weight as it walks.

---

Huh? No, the splints don't form any such groove according to the Equine anatomy books I have! The splint bones are on medial and lateral sides of the cannon bone and the suspensory ligament runs between them, it's true, but the suspensory ligament, combined with the digital flexor tendon, is a rounded cord that runs down the back of the leg; it would have to be flatter and kind of wrap around the back of the cannon to come into contact with the splint bones. That's just reaching.

quote:

---

--Though I was rather confused when reading this:

​

http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/horses/facts/89-093.htm

​

quote:
"Splints" are the direct result of an injury to the periostium (tissue covering the bone) or an injury to the interosseous ligament (tissue tying the splint bone to the cannon bone). These injuries to the horse may be the result of direct trauma, such as a kick or a concussion type trauma resulting from jumping, running or working. As the horse matures, the interosseous ligament slowly calcifies, fusing the splint bones to the cannon bone, allowing it to better withstand the concussion type trauma of working and the horse is therefore less likely to develop "splints". Most often, the forelimbs are affected; rarely do "splints" occur in the hindlimbs.

---

"Splint" is a word tht means both the injury, as described above, and the bones themselves.Splints (the injury) are quite common in young horses and are very painful until they calcify.Oh, as for the splints being important structures, I have known at least two horses who have had such severe, jagged calcification on their splint bones that it began to irritate surrounding tendons, so the splint bones were removed. They are not "important" structures.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
I found nothing of any real substance in your post so I feel it best to simply reply in this manner and agree to disagree.

​

Shalom

​

Jet

---

I guess you don't think that lungfish, which exist, are possible.OK, I'll just be moving my chair a little farther away now...

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-10-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:I guess you don't think that lungfish, which exist, are possible.OK, I'll just be moving my chair a little farther away now...***Really schraf, that was silly. What I don't accept is that lungfish are in some state of evolution. I would not accept that anymore than I would accept that a whale, dolphin, or any other sea mammal is in an evolutionary journey from the sea to the land, or visa versa. That an abundance of wonderfully marvelous creatures exist on this planet is simply more proof of the existance of our most wonderful Creator, whom you have chosen to abandon because of the Catholic church. I can understand your abandonment of the Catholic church, and I applaud it. What I cannot understand is your abandonment of your Creator. It was not your Creator who instructed the Catholics to adopt the pagan practices of Babylon. Abandon the Catholics, by all means. But you should really try to get to know your Creator now that you are free from the quagmire that is Catholicism. Only when you have come to know your Creator apart from some spurious, if not pagan religious dogma will you be able to fully appreciate the magnificance of the wonders of your Creator and His creation. I wish you much success.*** Shalom Jet------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy

Jet writes:

---

Really schraf, that was silly. What I don't accept is that lungfish are in some state of evolution. I would not accept that anymore than I would accept that a whale, dolphin, or any other sea mammal is in an evolutionary journey from the sea to the land, or visa versa. That an abundance of wonderfully marvelous creatures exist on this planet is simply more proof of the existance of our most wonderful Creator, whom you have chosen to abandon...

---

We all grieve daily that Schraf has abandoned the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, but you've abandoned the original point, which though it had nothing to do with salvation at least had the saving grace of being on topic. In Message 53 Punisher says:

---

I do have a question. If a fish dwelling creature somehow developed a set of lungs over a long period of time; wouldn't he drown at some stage between a lack of gills and the prescence of lungs?

---

You quoted this in your reply in Message 63, and Schraf then responded to you in Message 67:

---

No, because the fish would have both gills and lungs at the same time. One or the other would be selected for by the environment if the environment dictated that one or the other was a reproductive advantage. If having both is advantageous, and a niche was filled, the pressure of the environment isn't there to "pick" one over the other.

​

Ever heard of lungfish?

---

This response from Schraf is not an opportunity to sermonize, but to point out in what ways lungfish are not an example of a transitional form. You can state your belief that God simply created things this way, but statements of belief are not rebuttal, and the fact that the evidence is completely consistent with evolutionary theory yet remains for you to explain.--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:I guess you don't think that lungfish, which exist, are possible.OK, I'll just be moving my chair a little farther away now...***Really schraf, that was silly. What I don't accept is that
I would not accept that anymore than I would accept that a whale, dolphin, or any other sea mammal is in an evolutionary journey from the sea to the land, or visa versa. [/b][/QUOTE]Any rationale behind this assertion ? Isn't the lungfish 'transitionally' between two echo-systems, two modes of locomotion and two methods of respiration ? You don't have to buy the ToE from this example. Just say if it fits the description of a transitional.All I might ask is...why ISN'T the lung fish a hypothetical example of a transitional type ? [b] [QUOTE] That an abundance of wonderfully marvelous creatures exist on this planet is simply more proof of the existance of our most wonderful Creator...[/b][/QUOTE]Is this conclusion based on evidence ?
Please provide the rationale ( or evidence ) for this assertion.
Please also explain how descent with modification denies anyone's god from existing or creating. You said yourself we just disagree. In this case, we disagree as the methods and mechanisms used in 'creating'.What prevents a creator from utilizing evolution to diversify His creation ?
*THAT* ...is what we are discussing. It's easy to throw out claims, but there SHOULD be some tangible evidence backing up the claim. [b] [QUOTE] ...whom you have chosen to abandon because of the Catholic church. I can understand your abandonment of the Catholic church, and I applaud it. What I cannot understand is your abandonment of your Creator. It was not your Creator who instructed the Catholics to adopt the pagan practices of Babylon. Abandon the Catholics, by all means. But you should really try to get to know your Creator now that you are free from the quagmire that is Catholicism. Only when you have come to know your Creator apart from some spurious, if not pagan religious dogma will you be able to fully appreciate the magnificance of the wonders of your Creator and His creation. I wish you much success.*** Shalom Jet
[/b][/QUOTE]What does this have to do with a lung fish ?
Zat all ya got ?
Shall we discuss Salsa recipes too ?Sermons are misplaced and less than convincing here. Stick to the facts, please.jeff------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

​

[This message has been edited by Jeff, 06-11-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:The fact that the evidence is completely consistent with evolutionary theory yet remains for you to explain.--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]***The fact is that the evidence is not "completely consistent with evolutionary theory" but is rather 100% consistant with creation by an Intelligent Creator. If what you claim was true, this club would not exist. The fact that it does exist is proof that the TOE is not a satisfactory explanation for life on this planet.*** Shalom Jet

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:

What does this have to do with a lung fish ?
Zat all ya got ?
Shall we discuss Salsa recipes too ?

​

Sermons are misplaced and less than convincing here. Stick to the facts, please.

​

jeff

​

***I guess the truth hurts some people. Sorry if I struck a nerve.***

​

Shalom

​

Jet

​

---

------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

Originally posted by Jeff:

​

What does this have to do with a lung fish ?
Zat all ya got ?
Shall we discuss Salsa recipes too ?
***I guess the truth hurts some people. Sorry if I struck a nerve.***

​

Shalom

​

Jet

---

You'll be fine. Take some aspirin and rest. If the pain persists, try a cold compress on the raw nerve.Did you plan to answer what your ineffectual sermon had to do with whether a lung fish is transitional ? or is that too painful too ?Give it a try. We have more aspirin.jeff