Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

I can't tell where you're going with this, so ICDESIGN may be unsure, too. Maybe some clarification? Do you think the problem is that ICDESIGN thinks evolution teaches that one kind can give birth to a different kind? Or that he doesn't understand that all reproduction involves change? Or that evolutionary change is almost always gradual?--Percy

That's the one. Its such a fundamental blocker. If you don't grok nested sets or if you just don't know enough biology to see how birds and bees are related then you'll never 'get it'.This is drifting far from the specific topic: 'Evolving the Musculoskeletal System' but I thought if we could get past the blocker and then establish how new varieties come into being by the addition of features to existing varieties then maybe we could then move on and maybe enumerate some of the necessary additions/acquired features that would lead to the development of a musculoskeletal system.I think that to answer his original question we need to explain general developmental processes, how any organ in the body gets its form, cell fates and how they are determined, explain extracellular matrix, how bone is a tissue comprised of cells and ECM, early unicellular examples of ECM, unicellular examples of cell signaling therefore leading on to how multicellular organisms could have developed from unicellular forms, how our genome 'specifies' form, establish that changes in the genome cause changes in form, how NS can act on this and therefore generate the complex musculoskeletal systems that we see today.His original question is a good one and is a good opportunity to explain developmental processes and evolution. I just find the task of explaining all that stuff rather daunting. To avoid writing a textbook on developmental and evolutionary biology (which I'm not really qualified to do even if the forum had the space for it) I thought that if I could establish a dialog with ICDESIGN then maybe we could go at his pace, find out what he knows and just concentrate on the stuff that he doesn't understand. I thought that a dialog with ICDESIGN would give any explanation more structure and keep it briefer (I wouldn't have to cover every possible question that he might have, just the ones that he asks.)Edited by scarab, : Why is it that you can preview something twenty times, hit submit, then see silly extraneous words? Where do they come from? How did they hide?Edited by scarab, : better definition of bone

Oh, OK. I never got an e-mail notification so I was getting ready to give E.F. Hutton a call then go have coffee with the Maytag repair man. I do feel a little intimidated with scarac. Its no secret I am no biology major but I think its fair to say I can hold my own in the common sense department.I don't care how gradual the change is, eventually you reach a line that has to be crossed where one kind becomes another kind. Its not MY law that says that line cannot be crossed, but never the less THE law says that line cannot be crossed.If we had such a smooth blend from one kind to another that this law was not violated then we wouldn't even be able to tell one kind from another. Commonality on the Genome level is not enough to convince me. The common denominator of coming from a single Creators spoken command can account for the common link we see in biology.Maybe I missed it but did anyone reference a web-site that is rich with pictures of the evolution of the skeletal system after fish hit the land? I'm not interested in broad assertions.Respectfully,
IC

I'm not sure why you think common sense is a useful substitute for knowledge when it comes to biology. I'm about eight weeks off finishing a degree in biology and let me tell you, even outside of Evolution, common sense is a rubbish guide to understanding how biological systems work.

So, let's see if we can find out where this line is.Do you think that it's possible to get a Grizzly Bear and a Polar bear from a common ancestor? (There are "musculoskeletal" differences between them, although they're minor, relatively speaking).If not, why not?If so, then could you get all bears from a common ancestral bear? (More differences here, but not dramatic ones).If not, why not?We could start from there, and see what changes in animals you think could happen naturally.It's worth considering that Polars and Grizzlies can produce hybrid offspring.

Well Mr. Jack. I never said anything about common sense being a substitute for knowledge first of all. And I don't care what degree's you may have sir. I have said it before and I will say it again.
ToE fails miserably with many common sense tests. The most brilliant of men in history with vast amounts of knowledge for their day were later proven to be dead wrong and not even close.Its all about coming to the right conclusions with the knowledge you have. I think all of you are missing the boat. That's my opinion.Thank you,
IC

Drawing a line is even more interesting in a ring species.There is the ability to interbreed between populations A and B, B and C, C and D, etc. but not A and X.Where would one draw this line?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In a way. Why not give IC a seagull example, or another of your choice, and we can work on that as well.But bears are good, because they're big and easy to look at and visualise, and there are some interesting skeletal differences between the two bears I mentioned.

But there's no such law.The notion that species are "kinds", that a dog (for instance) has some kind of innate dog "essence" that is fundamentally different from (say) a wolf's essence is "species essentialism", a notion that has been discredited for over a hundred years.There just aren't any observable barriers between species like that. There's literally no inherent barrier to species change. Creationists have never been able to tell one kind from another. Every time they think they have two "kinds", we've been able to find examples of interbreeding between species supposedly in those two different "kinds."The reasonable conclusion is that there is no such thing as "kinds."

Can you at least address the possibility that having imperfect or incomplete knowledge leads to imperfect or incomplete conclusions?How could it not?

I'm trying hard not to laugh without success.I can't even respond to this post without attacking your intelligence so I'll just leave it alone.

There's no need to attack my intelligence; just attack my arguments. Where is there such a law? What is your source for laws about biology?

You lost me there as well. What Law?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

There's no law that says different species cannot interbreed. The more similar two species' genomes are, the more likely the possibility of interbreeding. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Horses and donkeys can interbreed.I've read ahead a bit and found this exchange: But obviously you're wrong, and elsewhere you said this: Your insufficient knowledge is leading you to incorrect conclusions. When do foothills become mountains? When does harbor become sea? When does a boy become a man? Any line of division we choose is arbitrary because the change is gradual.A smooth blend from one species to another with no clear lines of demarcation is produced by the gradual change of evolution. Species A₁ evolves into A₂ and then into A₃ and A₄ and so forth. At some point the chain of evolution includes so much change that A_n is no longer able to breed with A₁. But A_n can still interbreed with A_n-1 and A_n-2 and so forth, but not with all prior species back to A₁. At some point they become too different.--Percy

Lions and tigers are still within the same kind which is the cat family. Horses and donkeys are of the same family as well.
Lets see you breed a lion with a donkey. That is the line! That is the law I am talking about!!