Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8993 total)
84 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,114 Year: 10,862/23,288 Month: 114/1,763 Week: 81/390 Day: 2/32 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How creationism explains babies with tails
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 59 (615625)
05-14-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Caleb
05-14-2011 7:23 PM


Re: Just Some Thoughts
* sighs *

How much of this did you actually research? You've got about two things right and you didn't understand them.

Really, what point do you think you're making when you compare a frog's limbs and a human's digits? Yes, they are controlled by different genes. Because they are not homologous parts.

Why not compare a frog's limbs to a human's limbs and a frog's digits to a human's digits? You do know what digits are, don't you?

Human limbs start out as limb buds, like those of frogs. Human digits start out connected by webbing (I presume this is what you're not-really-thinking-of when you talk about a "plate"), like those of frogs ...

... which is lost during the eighth week --- except in some rare cases where a baby is born with webbed hands (syndactyly).

Squid eyes are different from human eyes in a number of important respects which you don't know about, because you never bothered to research the subject. For example, a squid's eyes focus by moving the lens backwards and forwards like a camera, not by stretching it like a human lens. Also, the squid retina is the right way round, which means that squid have no "blind spot".

You have not bothered to make explicit what dumb mistake you're trying to make about the platypus, please try harder. Yes, evolutionists are jolly pleased to have some live monotremes to look at, what's your point?

You are right about different organisms producing light in different ways. This is why they are not claimed to be homologous.

As to your claim that "When human embryos have a "tail" it is really just the coccyx" ... sheesh.

Here is an x-ray of a baby with a tail.

And this is what a coccyx looks like.

Also, a coccyx is interior to the body, unlike a tail, which goes on the outside.

Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about, while you're here?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Caleb, posted 05-14-2011 7:23 PM Caleb has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Caleb, posted 05-14-2011 10:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 59 (615630)
05-15-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Caleb
05-14-2011 10:06 PM


Re: Just Some Thoughts
Sorry if I confused you about limbs and digits. I meant to say digits instead of limbs. So, human digits form from a plate like structure while frog digits grow from their "hand". Both frog and human limbs form from buds. Their digits form differnently. Frogs form from buds while in human hands the fingers seperate from each other. Then they have the webbing left which should disappear before they are born, but like you said sometimes the webs are still their.

You're still wrong. Saying that humans digits develop from digital plates but frog digits develop from buds is like saying that a horse has four legs but a donkey has a tail.

Frogs do develop digital plates, which are mentioned frequently in this paper on the limb development of frogs. And a quick google search reveals that mammals (including humans, mice, opossums, and guinea pigs) develop digital buds.

For the platypus and the animals that glow in the dark I was trying to make a point to a comment I read earlier about God not using feautures of one organism in another. Therefore, I gave examples that I think show that some organisms have features that you would normally expect to be on a different set of animals. Birds not only have beaks, but a mammal does also. Same with eggs.

But the "beak", as you like to call it, of a platypus is only very superficially like the beak of a bird, in that it's flat and sticks out. If you look at the anatomy it's quite different.

The platypus has these prongs of bone over which skin is stretched to form a "bill", quite unlike birds. Which confirms the evolutionists' point rather nicely. Supposedly God wanted to give the platypus a "beak", as you call it --- but he couldn't give it the beak of a bird, he had to give it an superficially beak-like adaptation of mammalian jaw bones. Can creationists explain why? I know why, but then I'm not a creationist.

As to the eggs, for heaven's sake, what do reptiles lay? and what are mammals supposed to be evolved from? Right. So here we have a creature which both lays eggs and gives milk and you somehow think that evolutionists should find this fact disquieting? It's a living relic of an intermediate stage.

(Interestingly, non-monotreme mammals possess non-functioning genes for making egg proteins. Feel free to provide a creationist explanation for this fact.)

I was also trying to make a point that evolution has to "create" a lot of the same (or almost the same in most situations) structures multiple times. Hence the glow in the dark animals and the squid eye compared to a human eye. If it will make you happier I will say squid eye compare to vertabrate eye. The squid eye and vertabrate eye are very similiar in structural desing. Notice I said similiar this time and the previous time because I acknowledge that there are some differences in the eye. It is just suprisingly similiar to the vertabrate eye because a squid is an invertabrate.

It's similar in that it is a lensed eye. It's different in practically every other respect. Which is just what evolutionists expect if the two eyes evolved separately. They are analogous, but they are not homologous. Of course, a creator God could just have made one the copy of the other, just as he could have copied the beaks of birds for the beaks of platypuses, but he didn't --- for reasons which are staggeringly obvious to me.

When I was talking about the tail being the coccyx in embryo development I was refering to a normal human embryo. Where the baby's coccyx is sometimes refered to as a tail.

I've never heard anyone call a coccyx a tail. It's sometimes called the "tailbone", perhaps that's what's confusing you.

However, what I said about the tail not being very useful to monkeys, humans, or their "common ancestor" still applies.

They are not useful to humans, which is why they are lost in normal development. What's your point?

If you think they're not useful to monkeys, then perhaps next time you're praying you could mention to God how you think he screwed up.

And yes I did my research.

Did your research by any chance involve reading creationist websites, or did it involve actual research?

It didn't take me at all long to find that frogs develop digital plates. You, I presume, also know how to use google. Perhaps in future you should ... how shall I put it? ... bypass propaganda and go straight to the people who actually study the embryology of frogs.

---

P.S: I've just been reading your website. Apart from the fact that it is lazy, muddled, and inaccurate, what on earth made you think that the world needs another creationist website --- written by someone with no scientific knowledge and only a shaky grasp on English composition?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Caleb, posted 05-14-2011 10:06 PM Caleb has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020