I could go on, but I have other things to do. I just couldn’t quite bring myself to be as taciturn as the Times reporter, who correctly but tersely wrote:
As it happens the evolutionists do have answers — but in a fossil record spanning many more billions of years than a literal interpretation of Genesis allows.
Given that the reporter probably had a deadline, I can understand why he didn’t take the time to do a more detailed refutation. It took me a good chunk of a day to read a few technical papers and try to bang out this quick summary about bone evolution, which is why these rhetorical questions are so effective. Being incredulous is easier than research.
I think we could dig out some good information about the current state of knowledge about the origin and evolution of bones, but it would take some effort. Someone in the last day or so posted a few pictures of creatures with more primitive bones than mammals, but it would probably be helpful if we could find examples of extant creatures with just a simple cartilaginous hard part or two. There's the single-celled diatoms (a type of algae) whose cell walls are made of silica.
Found a couple articles at Wikipedia about the earliest creatures with skeletons of some sort. Here's a brief excerpt about the Namacalathus, an Ediacaran fossil:
A U–Pb zircon age from the fossiliferous rock in Namibia and Oman provides an age for the Namacalathus zone in the range from 549 to 542 Ma, which corresponds to the Late Ediacaran. These organism and Cloudina are the oldest known evidence in the fossil record of the emergence of calcified skeletal formation in metazoans, a prominent feature in animals appearing later in the Early Cambrian.
The fossil is lightly calcified, preserved as calcite crystals; its original morphology is unknown.
This excerpt is from the Wikipedia article on Cloudinid:
They formed millimetre-scale conical fossils consisting of calcareous cones nested within one another; the appearance of the organism itself remains unknown.
Cloudinids are important in the history of animal evolution for two reasons. They are among the earliest and most abundant of the small shelly fossils with mineralized skeletons, and therefore feature in the debate about why such skeletons first appeared in the Late Ediacaran.
So the earliest examples of skeletons in the fossil record were very, very simple, but we know very little about these organisms.
It also appears that bones and skeletons may have been a later development, that calcium based hard surfaces may have first developed externally with cartilage taking the place of bones internally.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
eek, that's a clearly false notion of evolution. evolution is not directed, nor does it forbid convergence, nor does it necessitate that once an adaptation is successful that it be adopted across lineages
I guess I wasn't very clear. I was assuming that my remarks would be read in the context of IC's argument, which is that if skeletons evolved, then every species with a skeleton should contain individuals who have less-evolved skeletons. Remember? He keeps asking why, if the human skeleton evolved piece by piece over millions of years, why we don't see humans with piecemeal skeletons.
And the answer is because they've already evolved skeletons; every human being inherits the genes for a fully-evolved skeleton from their parents. No human being has to evolve their own skeleton, they already have a fully-evolved one that they inherited.
ICDesign has this notion that evolution is a kind of slow change that happens in individuals, where a fish grows legs and lungs and takes a step onto land. Of course, he looks around and doesn't see any of this happening at all, so naturally he doesn't believe in "evolution." He sees individuals growing into static adult forms and then not changing at all.
We keep trying to tell him that evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individuals, but ICDesign believes that learning things is not a good way to understand things, he believes that knowing the least about a scientific field puts you in the best position to assess its merit. So, naturally, we will be unable to convince him that evolution is not a slow change that happens to individuals, it's a slow change that happens to populations of individuals as a result of how individuals are born different from each other.
ICDesign is determined to be the person who knows the least about biology in these conversations because he believes that's the best way to judge conclusions in the field of biology. Of course, somehow I doubt he goes to doctors who have yet to attend medical school, or has his car maintenance done by people who have never in their lives seen automobiles. For some reason it's only science where ICDesign believes that the best way to know what's true is to know nothing at all.
Second of all, any system such as the first circulatory system has to be complete with the pipelines to every location, the heart fully developed and so-forth. I have brought all this up in great detail in the past and the lame answer comes back that this all developed at the same time. Even if that were possible (which it isn't) you have the catch 22 problem. The complete system would have taken eons of time to develop. How could life be possible during this time?
And this is the trouble with Creationists: you don't know your biology.
Pick up any decent textbook on the diverse biology and read it. You'll soon discover that there are animals living today that prove your argument completely wrong. There are animals in which the organs are simply suspended in fluid. Animals which have a sort of circulation system with no heart in which the fluid is moved simply by the motions of the animal. Animals with a primitive sort of heart - really nothing more than a bit of muscle that keeps the fluid moving. Animals with the separated lung/body circulation you see in humans, but an undivided heart so that the oxygenated and deoxygenataed bloods mix as it pumps, semi-divided hearts that improve the separation of the two and then hearts like ours which fully divide the two.
If you took the time to study even a little bit of biology you'd know how absurd your claims that such things couldn't exist and wouldn't work really are.