|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Yes marine creatures are a special case. Why?
They are amongst the few with "unused' remnants of previous body realities. No they are not.
This is different from you claiming everything is a reused and so vestigial thing. If reused is the same as vestigial then your arms and legs are vestigial fish fins.
I say and make a good case thats its impossible for all that time of evolution making billions of intermediates to results of living/fossil remains to have just a few creatures with remnants. No you don't. You seem to confuse "make a good case" with "make insane assertions". You simply assert, and then fail to supply evidence. This is usually considered to be a poor case.
You must remember all the intermediates and all the changes that took place by your idea. Saying there would be no memory in the anatomy of so many of previous body types is unlikely to most people. But why would that memory require so many vestigial features as you claim? Are our arms and legs vestigial fish fins?
theory predictions or not there would be heaps of leftovers. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
My assertion is well founded on reasoning used by evolution proponents. if you use vestigial bits to make a conclusion then the opposite conclusion is better made by the fantastic poverty of vestigial points. The conclusion is based on the fact that the vestiges we do observe fall in line with the lines of descent predicted by the theory of evolution. A vestigial pelvis in whales is consistent with whales evolving from terrestrial mammals. If there were zero vestigial organs this would not falsify this conclusion. If you were to find vestigial fur on a fish then this would falsify the conclusion.
The blueprint idea works well. Why?
first there are no such things as mammals or retiles .
Are there species that have fur, mammary glands, three middle ear bones, and a single lower jaw bone? Are there any species that have feathers, mammary glands, and three middle ear bones?
Bats are indeed just flying rats. If sparrows and bats have a common designer then why don't we see any bats with feathers or sparrows with teats?
Creatures have hair simply because they need it. not because its a trail of heritage. Why say that? False. The genes responsible for hair growth are inherited through DNA.
In fact there is a common blueprint for echolocation in bats, whales etc. No, there isn't. For example, dolphins have what is called a "melon". This is a dome of fat that acts like a lens to focus soundwaves. Bats do not have this. The blueprint is different. So I guess this falsifies the common designer then?
We all have eyes from a common design. Yet its not a sign of biological relatedness. Who is "we"? All life? All humans? You do understand how heredity works, don't you?
Your nests are just twigs of presumptions and won't bear a storm of scrunity.
The nested hierarchy is a fact, one that you can not explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I realize that's just an idiomatic phrase, but I would say that they are not the same for all purposes. Specifically, the purpose of studying evolutionary biology and the relationships between species that are or are not consider in a transition from one morphological feature to another.
As stated in the wiki article you posted earlier, it is impossible to determine (without DNA) whether a fossil is in a direct line of ancestry or not. For cladistics, no assumption of ancestry is ever made. All species are represented at the end of branches that are connected by synapomorphies (i.e. shared characteristics).
I agree that you can do this, but I don't find it particularly useful. Plus, I don't think the distinction is based solely on distance from the ancestor but also includes the morphologies, themselves. The determination of evolutionary distance would also include the accumulation of derived traits. That is one important piece of data. However, the addition of derived traits does not take away from the evidence that transitional features supply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
and why don't we see bats with the air sacs and lung system that birds use, that allows birds to breath extremely efficiently. And why don't we see birds with the highly effecient hemoglobin seen in bats?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
It is only a "fact" that they're diminished in structure and function from their original form if you take evolution as a given, which is begging the question.
You can determine if a structure is vestigial without assuming evolution. If a structure serves a secondary or rudimentary function compared to the homologous structure in another species then it is vestigial. This is the definition that Darwin used. This does not assume common descent or evolution. Therefore, the human vermiform appendix is vestigial because it does not serve the function of breaking down plant matter as part of a caecum as seen in other species. Instead, it serves a secondary and rudimentary role of housing gut flora, and even this is not a vital function for the health of the species. If you removed the appendix from an herbivore they would die from starvation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Posters here have told me that all bones etc in being reused are therefore vestigial from previous bodies. A vestigial structure is one that serves no function or a rudimentary function compared to the same structure in another species. Bones that are reused and serve a primary function would not be vestigial.
its makes my point about the poverty and not the point , you seem to be trying to say, of a common thing.
So what you are saying is that evolution tends to find viable functions for structures to fill instead of not using them.
Evolution here is making a absurd numbers claim.
No, that would be you. You are the one making the claim that vestigial features should be numerous if evolution is true without ever backing it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
the flaw is that that a biological claim is based not on biology but geology. The transitional nature of a fossil is determined by the morphology of the fossil alone. It has nothing to do with geology.
without the geology saying there has been great time the biology claim of evolution fails.
Geology does indicate long ages, so what is the problem?
The observation of the casts of bodies is not demonstrating evolution . They could easily be seen as simply a diverse speciation. So fossils don't indicate evolution but instead indicate . . . EVOLUTION!!! Diverse speciation IS EVOLUTION.
In studying the fossils there is very little biology going on.
That's a straight up lie.
Biology is about living/or recently living tissue and delicate instruments to handle it.
Biology also includes how former species worked, how they were put together, and how they were related to one another. Fossils are an important piece of this puzzle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I understand the radar genes for both dolphins and bats is the same. It isn't. Dolphins use a fatty melon to focus soundwaves. Bats do not. Also, radar uses electromagnetic frequencies. Bats and dolphins use sound waves.
further bats is rightly in the bird section as it is only about a flying division.
Are house flies in the same section?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
having two eyes is a very common thing in nature. Having no eyes is far more common. The vast majority of species do not have eyes.
From a common blueprint.
Eyes do not have a common blueprint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Actually, Robert's right about "radar genes" (if, by "radar genes," you mean, "one gene whose protein product is involved in sonar"). In a prior post he spoke about the actual anatomical structures so I assumed he was doing the same in this post. My mistake.
To summarize: there is a protein in mammalian ears called prestin, which is involved in processing high-frequency sound. While the sequence of the gene for prestin varies widely across mammals, it is virtually identical in bats and dolphins (although, the Science article clarifies that it's only the functional parts of the protein that are identical), and the researchers have hypothesized that the same sequence of mutations occurred in both. To be more specific, the cetacean and bat genes share some of the same mutations that are not found in other mammalian species and was not found in the common ancestor. However, the sequence is divergent in other sections of the protein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
no lie.
Yes it is Robert. Comparing the anatomy of different species is biology. To get my zoology degree I had to take a class called Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy.
you think your doing biological connections in studying fossils but your not.
We are directly testing the theory of evolution, as I have pointed out multiple times now. Testing a theory within biology with biological observations is called DOING BIOLOGY.
Then after a geological presumption is accepted that they are from many different ages you then claim that evolution over these ages shows a succession from a-B. The mixture of features in fossils is not determined by their age. Archaeopteryx, for example, is transitional because it has dinosaur features not found in modern birds and bird features not found in dinosaurs. This statement is NOT BASED ON ANY GEOLOGIC "PRESUMPTIONS".
If they were buried all at once and simply there was segregation in the burying from different water flows then all ones looking at is a diversity like in the amazon or amongst the cichlid fishes.
Instead of inventing fantasies why don't you actually provide evidence for your claims.
Biology is about the biology of a living being. You are aware that fossils were once alive, aren't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
It made the news about the genes for sonar being the same for bats/dolphins.
As we have shown, the genes are not the same.
Flies fly but really are just ground creatures. That screaching you hear is the goal posts being moved.
The author of scripture expects one to understand that being defined by flight is the division. Its not about kinds however.
The divisions seem to be whatever you think up at the moment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
evolution relys a great deal on the fossil record. False. The genetic evidence is overwhelming. The fossil evidence is just the icing on the cake.
I don't see evolution being greatly based on biological research.
Then remove the blinders, go to http://www.pubmed.com, and do a search for "evolution".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
No evolution by selection/mutation but instead instead adaptation with biological triggers had to be the way.
Evidence please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
The operative word is ONCE. if not alive and stripped down to mere bone/cast of bone one has no biology anymore.
Yes, it does. The articulation of bones tells us the range of motion for each joint. Rough spots on the bones tell us where muscles were anchored, and the size of the anchoring point tells us the size of the muscle. Bumps and ridges in the cranium tell us about the size of specific parts of the brain which directly relates to how the animal functioned. Features in the vertebrae of some dinosaurs tell us that they probably had an air sac type lung system like modern birds. There is a MASSIVE amount of data that one can draw from fossils, and all of it relates to how the animal worked and lived.
You are not doing biology in studying fossils.
That is a flat out lie, Robert. Perhaps you should actually attend a biology class at a university some time instead of telling scientists what their job is.
biology demand tools and opportunity to examine actual biological life.
Dinosaurs were not biological life? If you dissect a dead frog does that mean you are not doing biology because the frog is dead?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024