|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Having a like body plan between creatures is not evidence of heritage. Yes it is, since it's what that hypothesis would predict.
Its a reality that few creatures have anatomical remnants of previous body realities ... Well, no it isn't. But as I have pointed out, it is our expectation that comparatively few of these should be vestigial.
Saying all our bones are repackaged previous body realities is just speculation. Its not proving anything to someone already denying the presumptions. But saying that this ought to be the case if the ToE is true debunks your argument. As I said, the fact that you are descended from monkeys and monkeys have legs does not mean that you should have vestigial legs. You should just have legs. The ToE does not predict that every remnant should be vestigial. Most of them should be fully functional, since you can't build a working animal entirely out of vestigial features.
Where are the vestigial bits from such evolution? In the places where the theory of evolution actually predicts that we should find them.
Why are marine mammals being used to demonstrate evolution when they demonstrate the poverty of it regarding remnants.? But they don't. Obviously the fact that marine mammals have vestigial features does not in any way imply that (for example) platypuses don't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Uh, Robert, I presented some evidence and made some arguments in my post that addressed these very same arguments that you just repeated yet again. Rather than having me repeat my arguments again, please just go back to Message 159 and respond to what I said (indeed, you should do this for everybody), particularly where I explain why there is less vestigiality than you think there should be.
We understand your position, you don't need to repeat it over and over again. We want to see how you think your way through the evidence and arguments for evolution that we're presenting to you. Watching you simply ignore them lacks interest and drama. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Having a like body plan between creatures is not evidence of heritage. It is the PATTERN of shared body plans that evidences common ancestry. That PATTERN is a NESTED HIERARCHY. Each and every time I bring this up you ignore it. It is time to start facing the facts.
Its a reality that few creatures have anatomical remnants of previous body realities despite the claim of evolution that everything changed a million times until today etc. We have shown you these anatomical remnants and yet you still reject the theory.
Its not reasonable for you to dismiss the billions of changes in creatures since day one as likely leaving no remnant of such great changes in practical leftovers of anatomy. We have shown you those remnants. You ignore them.
Creatures that change do leave leftovers. We know the short list. Yet its short because such change in bodies is rare. And yet the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a remnant of the developmental pathway established in fish that we inherited from them. You ignore it. It is present in all tetrapods.
I've making two points here. Where are the vestigial bits from such evolution? Why are marine mammals being used to demonstrate evolution when they demonstrate the poverty of it regarding remnants.? So your argument is that there should be vestigial parts if evolution is true. Since there are vestigial parts we can then conclude that evolution is false. Is that your argument? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
All you said here was that everything we are is from former types of bodies. Thats speculation.
So you ask for examples of these features that have been passed on from our common ancestry with other species, and when presented with these examples you reject them as speculation. Can you be more dishonest?
Thats not the same thing as leftovers clearly showing previous anatomical realities. Last I checked, the theory of evolution states that the majority of features should be adapted to work in the new environment. That's how evolution works, by modifying features to increase the fitness of the species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Having a like body plan between creatures is not evidence of heritage. Yes it is, since it's what that hypothesis would predict.
Its a reality that few creatures have anatomical remnants of previous body realities ... Well, no it isn't. But as I have pointed out, it is our expectation that comparatively few of these should be vestigial.
Saying all our bones are repackaged previous body realities is just speculation. Its not proving anything to someone already denying the presumptions. But saying that this ought to be the case if the ToE is true debunks your argument. As I said, the fact that you are descended from monkeys and monkeys have legs does not mean that you should have vestigial legs. You should just have legs. The ToE does not predict that every remnant should be vestigial. Most of them should be fully functional, since you can't build a working animal entirely out of vestigial features.
Where are the vestigial bits from such evolution? In the places where the theory of evolution actually predicts that we should find them.
Why are marine mammals being used to demonstrate evolution when they demonstrate the poverty of it regarding remnants.? But they don't. Obviously the fact that marine mammals have vestigial features does not in any way imply that (for example) platypuses don't. Well you keep coming back that present features of bodies are the vestigial remains of the previous type of body .Again thats just repeating your presumption of evolution. You say evolution predicts this. Well since the idea of evolution is from an idea of all bodies evolving from previous bodies then it would be a LINE of REASONING that evolution predicts it . Thats not what this discussion evolved into. Its about leftovers and lack of them.i understand its not about prediction of extra monkey legs. Yet marine mammals having vestigial remnants IS used by evolutionists to demonstrate evolution as real.They never add BUT its one of the few cases of identifiable leftovers showing a actual different body type. Then i add that its unreasonable, unlikely, impossible that in all the evolution claimed to have taken place there is almost no remnants of previous bodies in living/fossil creatures. The case of the few demands the likelyness of great heaps of bits and pieces tucked in here or there in all the anatomy of life. Tucked in but not used. like marine mammals or snakes. To explain away all leftovers as having been used or gotten rid of is surely unlikely. Most pregnant by the few here and used to prove evolution. Its the simple and biblical answer that marine critters did change and the others didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Percy writes: Uh, Robert, I presented some evidence and made some arguments in my post that addressed these very same arguments that you just repeated yet again. Rather than having me repeat my arguments again, please just go back to Message 159 and respond to what I said (indeed, you should do this for everybody), particularly where I explain why there is less vestigiality than you think there should be. We understand your position, you don't need to repeat it over and over again. We want to see how you think your way through the evidence and arguments for evolution that we're presenting to you. Watching you simply ignore them lacks interest and drama. --Percy I thunk fine through this.Your saying evolution is happy with none to few vestigial unused bits being absent save in a few happy cases of marine mammals. I say its impossible to say marine mammals have remnants, and use it as example of evolution as a truth, and the rest have none. Not in a corner of a rib or the shadow of a thigh. Nothing. Where am i wrong with my thinking here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Taq writes: Having a like body plan between creatures is not evidence of heritage. It is the PATTERN of shared body plans that evidences common ancestry. That PATTERN is a NESTED HIERARCHY. Each and every time I bring this up you ignore it. It is time to start facing the facts.
Its a reality that few creatures have anatomical remnants of previous body realities despite the claim of evolution that everything changed a million times until today etc. We have shown you these anatomical remnants and yet you still reject the theory.
Its not reasonable for you to dismiss the billions of changes in creatures since day one as likely leaving no remnant of such great changes in practical leftovers of anatomy. We have shown you those remnants. You ignore them.
Creatures that change do leave leftovers. We know the short list. Yet its short because such change in bodies is rare. And yet the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a remnant of the developmental pathway established in fish that we inherited from them. You ignore it. It is present in all tetrapods.
I've making two points here. Where are the vestigial bits from such evolution? Why are marine mammals being used to demonstrate evolution when they demonstrate the poverty of it regarding remnants.? So your argument is that there should be vestigial parts if evolution is true. Since there are vestigial parts we can then conclude that evolution is false. Is that your argument? Its about the score of what there should be as opposed to what there is.If evolution was true then there should be millions of remnants leftover in the anatomy of creatures without practical use. There are a few creatures. Yet ones clearly that did change. They are used as examples yet in fact they show the failure of evolution claims. Patterns origins fit creationism fine. We expect a common blueprint.A pattern of legs and arms does not suggest evolution from common origin. Thats just a line of reason or imagination. Remnants?! The only remnant that is a remnant is something in the body from a previous actual use but now not used. its just a line of reasoning to see all our parts as reworked pieces.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well you keep coming back that present features of bodies are the vestigial remains of the previous type of body . No, I keep pointing out that most of them aren't vestigial and explaining why this is what the theory predicts.
Then i add that its unreasonable, unlikely, impossible that in all the evolution claimed to have taken place there is almost no remnants of previous bodies in living/fossil creatures. And we point out that you are ludicrously wrong both about what the theory predicts and about what is observed. And then you repeat yourself some more. You don't seem to have an argument so much as an ide fixe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Robert Byers writes: Where am i wrong with my thinking here? Well, now that you've revealed your thinking, it's quite clear where you're wrong:
I say its impossible to say marine mammals have remnants, and use it as example of evolution as a truth, and the rest have none. No one here, except you, said only marine mammals have vestigial structures. Vestigial legs in whales isn't even the most famous example of vestigiality, the human appendix is. I think we've already presented evidence to you of how vestigiality is present everywhere throughout all life, but if you need it presented again or if you'd like additional evidence then just say so. What's most important is that you understand that marine mammals are not some exception case in their possession of vestigial structures. Nothing could be further from the truth. Because the copying of the genetic blueprint for reproduction is imperfect, change over time is inevitable, especially when the environment is inconstant. One would expect that some structures would change their form and function gradually, possibly even acquiring new purposes. One would also expect that some structures would fail to change in useful ways and arrive at the dead end that we call vestigiality. We find both adaptation and vestigiality in life, just what one would expect. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Robert - Thank you for revealing more of your thinking again. It makes it much easier when we know where you've gone wrong, as here:
Robert Byers writes: If evolution was true then there should be millions of remnants leftover in the anatomy of creatures without practical use. Whatever makes you think that evolution requires rampant vestigiality? Evolution is all about adaptation, which is driven by natural selection. Creatures with "millions of remnants leftover" from prior environments couldn't be considered very well adapted to their current environment, and that's not what happens. The vast majority of structures that made creatures so well adapted in their old environments in their earlier evolutionary history are still there, but modified for the new environment. Now we know you already understand this explanation because you address it:
A pattern of legs and arms does not suggest evolution from common origin. Thats just a line of reason or imagination. If to you each structural change in the fossil record suggests a new original creation then you need only find evidence that life can be created this way. In the meantime evolution is the only theory that doesn't employ made-up mechanisms. Once you find evidence for your creatures-suddenly-poofing-into-existence theory you let us know. In the meantime, the major mechanisms of the theory of evolution, which are descent with modification and natural selection, lead us to expect gradual change over time, and the evidence of both the fossil record and genetics tell us that this is what happens. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Creations => Creatures; improve syntax.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Vestigial legs in whales isn't even the most famous example of vestigiality, the human appendix is. You are wrong once again Percy. The purpose of the appendix has been known for some time. It is a storage area for helpful bacteria in the digestive tract. I guess since you don't know about this, you also don't know that science still does not have a shred of evidence to support your speculation that small random mutations can add up in complexity to form larger functioning systems. Not any evidence at all. The only thing scientific about your theory is that it can't be demonstrated or verified scientifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Robert.
Robert Byers writes: If evolution was true then there should be millions of remnants leftover in the anatomy of creatures without practical use. I think there's something I can add here that won't be redundant to what others have said. Let's think logically about how we would expect evolution to happen.If an organism needs to adapt to a new environment, what do you think is the most likely way of doing this? Would it be more likely that the organism would abandon old traits and take on new ones, or that the organism would keep existing traits and modify them for the new environment? For instance, if a certain animal was moving from a grassland to a forest, would you expect it to simply abandon its old grass-eating stomach and grow a new, tree-eating stomach?Or, would you expect it to simply use the grass-eating stomach to eat trees, and modify it as needed? How about for a fish coming out of the water? Those fins are useless on land, so should the fish lose them and grow some legs? Or, should the fish use the fins on land and modify them as needed? How about a predator whose prey adapts to run faster? Should the predator lose its retractable, prey-grabbing claws and grow some speed-adapted hooves instead? Or, should the predator use its claws for running and modify them as needed? If you landed on an uninhabited island in an airplane, but needed a car on the island, would you simply modify the airplane's engine, or would you throw out the airplane engine and make a new car engine to replace it? By far, the most practical strategy is to not make new parts and abandon old ones, but to simply modify the old parts to the new requirements. This is because most structures can be used for multiple purposes. This means that there is usually little need to grow new things and lose old things, because old things can be modified to serve new purposes. So, given that modification, rather than wholesale abandonment and reconstruction, is a much more efficient strategy, we would expect evolution to follow the "modification" pathway a lot more often than it follows the "wholesale abandonment and reconstruction" pathway. So, under an evolutionary model, we should expect to observe a lot more instances of modified parts than of abandoned parts. Doesn't this seem reasonable? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are wrong once again Percy. The purpose of the appendix has been known for some time. It is a storage area for helpful bacteria in the digestive tract. So, we'll add "vestigial" to the list of scientific terms you don't understand, then?
I guess since you don't know about this, you also don't know that science still does not have a shred of evidence to support your speculation that small random mutations can add up in complexity to form larger functioning systems. Not any evidence at all. The only thing scientific about your theory is that it can't be demonstrated or verified scientifically. "On topic" seems to be another concept you don't seem to have grasped yet. Are you going to spam every thread with this nonsense? Why don't you address the replies you've already been given in other threads where it's at least tangentially relevant. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Vestigial legs in whales isn't even the most famous example of vestigiality, the human appendix is. You are wrong once again Percy. The purpose of the appendix has been known for some time. It is a storage area for helpful bacteria in the digestive tract. Maybe you should look up the word. I could give you a link, but it might help you a little if you actually had to do the research yourself. In the words of Inigo Montoya. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If evolution was true then there should be millions of remnants leftover in the anatomy of creatures without practical use. That is your own assertion, not one made by the theory of evolution.
Patterns origins fit creationism fine. We expect a common blueprint. A nested hierarchy is more than a common blueprint. You can have a common blueprint and still have NO NESTED HIERARCHY. When will you start understanding this? Please, read up on what a nested hierarchy is, and then explain why one would expect a nested hierarchy if creationism is true. So why don't we see any species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Why do bats have fur and teats while birds have feathers and regurgitation? Why is there a lack of common blueprint between the bird and bat adaptations for flight? Why is it that we see certain intermediates but not others?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024