Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 46 of 302 (318509)
06-06-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Great example
That does not show macroevolution. And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs.
so you have no problem with the fact that whales are even-toed ungulates? in the same "kind" with hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope?
While evolution requires GAINING them. This would only prove the point that creatures can't gain new body parts that are not of their kind.
ok. let's talk about tiktaalik, the fish with legs. i suppose he was "just created that way?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 47 of 302 (318515)
06-06-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:36 PM


Yet another mistake
And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs. While evolution requires GAINING them.
That statement shows a major misunderstanding of evolution. It is not directional, towards adding something. Rather evolution is a history, it is looking backwards at what did happen. It could be gaining legs or losing them, or as happened several times, gaining wings, losing them and gaining them yet again.
It is change. And it is the history of what critters survived long enough to reproduce. It is not some issue of more or better, simply what worked.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:15 AM jar has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 48 of 302 (318521)
06-07-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by arachnophilia
06-06-2006 11:34 PM


no. not at all. for starters, not all reptiles have scales in the manner that you are probably thinking. quite a lot are rather smooth skinned. and, we have a number reptiles, and things descended from sauropsids, that have hair. while early mammals/thecodonts are not the best example, pterosaurs are much more closely related. they are also archosaurs, reptiles, and many have hair.
feathers are hair-like structures, and simplest feathers (like down) are nearly analogous to hair in almost every way. first one strand per follicle, then many (down) and then twisting together into harder spines (the sorts of feathers chicken feet grow). as the spines continue to twist, you start seeing strands extend from them. from there it's just barbules to aid in rigidity, and assymetry to aid in flight. we have examples of many of these types of feathers.
I think you missed something very important. REPTILES DO NOT HAVE HAIR FOLLICLES! Reptile Skin Basics Thus, they cannot have hair!
so the fact that a dinosaur like velociraptor has hollow bones means it almost certainly had air sacs as well.
But you cannot prove this. "Almost certainly" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
but one thing is actually somewhat certain
But not exactly proven? "Somewhat certain" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
the system as a whole appears to have gone from a normal reptilian lung (lacking diaphragm), to a single-cycle air sac system,
Can you show me fossil forms leading to and from this creature, showing the slow progression of these changes?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 12:09 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:17 AM Someone who cares has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1584 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 302 (318527)
06-07-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:01 AM


I think you missed something very important.
I think you missed something very important - reptiles do have follicles - scale follicles. I mean, did you miss this? It's from the very article you link to:
quote:
Epidermis: characterized by complete covering of keratin (the same stuff that makes up mammalian hair and mammalian, avian, and reptilian nails/claws also makes up the plates we call "scales").
That would seem to undercut almost every conclusion in your post.
But you cannot prove this. "Almost certainly" doesn't cut it.
Almost certain isn't good enough for you to come to a conclusion? Even about stuff that happened so long ago?
Why the high standards? Why so high only for evolution stuff? I'm fairly certain that you don't apply this same standard to anything else, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:01 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:23 AM crashfrog has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 50 of 302 (318529)
06-07-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by arachnophilia
06-06-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Great example
so you have no problem with the fact that whales are even-toed ungulates? in the same "kind" with hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope?
I never said that the whale was the same "kind" as hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope. You said that, not me, I do not believe in that.
ok. let's talk about tiktaalik, the fish with legs. i suppose he was "just created that way?"
Ahem! Did you actually do research on Tiktaalik? Well, I did. And guess what, I wasn't satisfied. Tiktaalik is NOT a fish with legs, you are overstating the truth, read some science articles about it. Did you look at the actual find? I did, and those "stubs" don't make a leg in any way. I call them stubs, that's what they are. They do not in any way resemble a full leg. And did you think of the possibility that those stubs could be flexible flippers, like those of seals? Hmmm...? Maybe that's what they are, not fin-legs. And, they didn't find the rear end of Tiktaalik. I bet that when and if they do, they would put down Tiktaalik and forget about the whole matter, they would probably blush and hide the evidence. Because the rear end would contain much valuable information about how Tiktaalik really was. Like if the pelvis was connected to the rest of the body, to allow legs that would actually do something. If it had back legs, probably not. And other things.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:31 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 51 of 302 (318532)
06-07-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
06-06-2006 11:47 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
That statement shows a major misunderstanding of evolution. It is not directional, towards adding something. Rather evolution is a history, it is looking backwards at what did happen. It could be gaining legs or losing them, or as happened several times, gaining wings, losing them and gaining them yet again.
It is change. And it is the history of what critters survived long enough to reproduce. It is not some issue of more or better, simply what worked.
But, that case would not help evolution. If it were losing legs, then that's not showing evolution, where one cell supposedly evolved into a man with legs and arms and a body and a head, etc. This would not help evolution, it would only make it worse. Evolution needs great increases to make a single cell evolve into a human! But decreases don't help at all!

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 06-06-2006 11:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 06-07-2006 12:37 AM Someone who cares has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 302 (318533)
06-07-2006 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:01 AM


I think you missed something very important. REPTILES DO NOT HAVE HAIR FOLLICLES! Reptile Skin Basics Thus, they cannot have hair!
tell that to those crazy flying reptiles with hair.
But you cannot prove this. "Almost certainly" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
But not exactly proven? "Somewhat certain" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
Can you show me fossil forms leading to and from this creature, showing the slow progression of these changes?
internal organs are notoriously bad at fossilizing.
what we can do is compare the bones we have in the rock with the bones of living animals. a dinosaur like velociraptor has the rib structure similar to a crocodile, a hip similar to a bird's in position, and the hollow bones of a bird. what do you suppose his innards looked like? evidently, he'd have a crocodilian lung -- as birds still do. but because of the hollow bones, he'd have air sacs like a bird.
hard anatomy is a good hint at soft anatomy. you wouldn't seem a diaphragm and human lung inside a dinosaur skeleton. but you would see something related to both a crocodile and a bird.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:01 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5951 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 53 of 302 (318535)
06-07-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Great example
That does not show macroevolution. And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs. While evolution requires GAINING them. This would only prove the point that creatures can't gain new body parts that are not of their kind.
Evolution has no direction or destination.
Implying that evolution requires gaining legs is simply wrong? It shows a profound lack of understanding of the subject.
Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : I know it's old, but I decided to make it less personal and offensive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:34 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 54 of 302 (318537)
06-07-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
06-07-2006 12:09 AM


I think you missed something very important - reptiles do have follicles - scale follicles. I mean, did you miss this? It's from the very article you link to:
But not HAIR FOLLICLES! We all know reptiles have scales! But someone claimed some of them have hair. Yet reptiles do NOT have HAIR follicles, thus hair would NOT grow!
That would seem to undercut almost every conclusion in your post.
No, I read that. And it does not harm my conclusion. Just because God decided to use the same substance to make hair and scales, does not mean one evolved into the other one! It's just more effective! God knows what He's doing!
Almost certain isn't good enough for you to come to a conclusion? Even about stuff that happened so long ago?
Why the high standards? Why so high only for evolution stuff? I'm fairly certain that you don't apply this same standard to anything else, do you?
Well, hello! I mean, I could say to an evolutionist, "I am almost certain evolution is immpossible due to genetics and other things." He wouldn't take that! Or would he?
But here, I'll say this, and we'll see the results.
I AM CERTAIN EVOLUTION (MACROEVOLUTION) HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL HAPPEN! I CAN BET ON IT!

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 12:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:36 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Someone who cares has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 302 (318539)
06-07-2006 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:11 AM


Re: Great example
I never said that the whale was the same "kind" as hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope. You said that, not me, I do not believe in that.
you said that losing limbs was acceptable. and that must mean that a creature like pakicetus (the whale with legs) is still "just a whale." nevermind that he is an even-toed ungulate.
Ahem! Did you actually do research on Tiktaalik? Well, I did. And guess what, I wasn't satisfied. Tiktaalik is NOT a fish with legs, you are overstating the truth, read some science articles about it. Did you look at the actual find? I did, and those "stubs" don't make a leg in any way.
i see at least one leg bone (maybe two), some rudimentary digits, and something like a lobed fin on the end. what's it look like to you?
And did you think of the possibility that those stubs could be flexible flippers, like those of seals?
did you? seal flippers are limbs, with fully formed digits. above is one hindlimb of a seal.
Hmmm...? Maybe that's what they are, not fin-legs.
or, maybe they're more like the "limbs" of the coelacanth:
which is more or less the same, with less distinct digits.
And, they didn't find the rear end of Tiktaalik. I bet that when and if they do, they would put down Tiktaalik and forget about the whole matter, they would probably blush and hide the evidence. Because the rear end would contain much valuable information about how Tiktaalik really was. Like if the pelvis was connected to the rest of the body, to allow legs that would actually do something. If it had back legs, probably not. And other things.
its skull makes it a fish, if that's what you're trying to say. the neck connection, however, is more amphibian. however, he doesn't have enough of a leg to be a land creature. we was clearly something that lived in the shallows, and used his rudimentary limbs to scoot around ponds (and maybe from pond to pond as lungfish and even catfish today do) to greater advantage that just the lobe-finned fish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:11 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:02 AM arachnophilia has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 56 of 302 (318540)
06-07-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 12:17 AM


tell that to those crazy flying reptiles with hair.
Where?!? I don't see any, I can't speak to something I can't see! Show me through your binoculars where you spotted them.
internal organs are notoriously bad at fossilizing.
I would understand why. So we cannot be completely sure of this matter, right? What if the bones were hollow, but it didn't have air sacks? How would we know for sure? Guess we can't. See, dinosaurs had big and heavy bones to support all that weight. How could a dinosaur turn into a bird with light bones?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 12:42 AM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 57 of 302 (318542)
06-07-2006 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-07-2006 12:18 AM


Re: Great example
You don't understand evolution even in the slightest. Evolution has no direction or destination.
Do you have any idea how wrong you are to imply that evolution requires gaining legs? It shows a profound lack of understanding of the subject.
Yes, I know evolution is unguided.
But how would a fish turn into an amphibian without gaining legs or parts of them or starting to evolve them from those fins?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-07-2006 12:18 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 302 (318543)
06-07-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:23 AM


But not HAIR FOLLICLES! We all know reptiles have scales! But someone claimed some of them have hair. Yet reptiles do NOT have HAIR follicles, thus hair would NOT grow!
again, tell that to this reptile that has hair:
Just because God decided to use the same substance to make hair and scales, does not mean one evolved into the other one! It's just more effective! God knows what He's doing!
no, not the same SUBSTANCE. the same GENE. one gene produces both. by default, it produces feathers. with modifaction (addition of one gene) they become scutes in certain places. without the gene, they are feathers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:23 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 59 of 302 (318544)
06-07-2006 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:15 AM


Re: Yet another mistake
But, that case would not help evolution. If it were losing legs, then that's not showing evolution, where one cell supposedly evolved into a man with legs and arms and a body and a head, etc. This would not help evolution, it would only make it worse. Evolution needs great increases to make a single cell evolve into a human! But decreases don't help at all!
Yup, pretty clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
That's not a problem, we have all been in exactly that position.
When life started here, oh 3 or 4 billion years ago, it was single celled. At that stage there was no way to go except towards more complex. But over the years, things happened, and at times it was the less complex critters that were the winners in the survival game.
Remember, that humans are not a goal. We are just one of many of the critters, and it's way to early to tell if we are a successful one or not. It's absolutely certain that we are not going to be among the most successful designs, turtles and cockroaches got us beat hands down there.
Evolution is what works. If a creature that lost it's legs as it moved into a water environment had an advantage over the one with legs, and the legless wonder reproduced better than the legged one, eventually the population would be legless.
Evolution is just a history of what worked, what didn't.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:15 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:12 AM jar has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 302 (318547)
06-07-2006 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:32 AM


tell that to those crazy flying reptiles with hair.
Where?!? I don't see any, I can't speak to something I can't see! Show me through your binoculars where you spotted them.
i pictured one above for you. his name is sordes pilosus, and he is a dimorphodon. which is a subdivision of pterosaurs, which alongside dinosaurs are archosaurs, which are sauropsids ("reptiles"). and it has hair, or at least something very, very similar to it.
I would understand why. So we cannot be completely sure of this matter, right?
we can be nearly certain.
What if the bones were hollow, but it didn't have air sacks?
an outside possibility, since one of the two features had to have developed first.
See, dinosaurs had big and heavy bones to support all that weight. How could a dinosaur turn into a bird with light bones?
no, see, that's the part i just went over. not all dinosaurs did, and the smaller theropods certainly did not. for instance, all deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs [velociraptor], troodons, archaeopteryx, and all modern birds) have hollow bones.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:32 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:21 AM arachnophilia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024