EvC Forum: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

In all fairness, 'surviving synapsids' and mammals are synonymous.

Yes - they are. My point was that the non-surviving synapsids may have had mammary glands, or similar. So it is not a completely unique characteristic.

"Cynodonts for example" of what? There is no soft tissue remains of cynodonts or other indication that they milk fed their offspring. Remember, Doddy is looking for compelling examples that underpin evolutionary theory.

The sentence before should give you a clue. Let me conjoin them for you. It is supposed that other synapsids lactated too - Cynodonts for example.

But you are damn right that there is no soft tissue remains of cynodonts - but there are indications that they milk fed their offspring (go to google, type in "synapsid evolution lactation". You stated that reptiles don't have mammary - but we do not know how the tetrapods we came from fed their young, for the same reason, no soft tissues.

Remember, Doddy is looking for compelling examples that underpin evolutionary theory.

I wasn't talking to Doddy, I was responding to you that male nipples undermine evolutionary biology...or rather the explaining thereof.

Why? They are just another mammal that milk feeds its offspring. That they lay eggs is totally beside the point.

I was referring to the monotreme's lactation method, not their birthing method. That is to say: it is more primitive than our own.

The point is that producing milk adequate for the survival of offspring is a very complex business. Mammals do it. Reptiles don't. Yes, this is a standard 'irreducible complexity' argument, but one that anyone finding comfort in the refutation of evolutionary theory could deem to be quite compelling and conclusive

So we should avoid any argument where evolution has to have occurred. Should we avoid eyes as well? What about antibiotic resistance?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the first step in meeting Doddy's criterion for providing convincing arguments to creationists for the theory of evolution is to stop providing anti-arguments; things like Modulus' statement: "
After all, we evolved from fish - but fish don't have lungs!
which is really an argument against evolution.

But anything is then an argument against evolution if we say that the development of a new trait is an argument against evolution we are completely knackered!

Actually, what I was looking for in my post's challenge was for someone to point out that mammary glands are modified sweat glands...

Yes - I hinted at that with cynodonts and monotremes. I figured you'd be able to figure out the rest yourself. Take a look at this

For me, some of the most compelling arguments for evolution are the ones that show that many of the complex systems, like mammary glands, flagella, or what ever that seem to emerge suddenly and miraculously actually have strong antecedents in cladistic ancestors. Irreducible complexity is an illusion born of ignorance.

But...that's what I was doing! I just figured you were intelligent enough to figure the details out. Seems you were

Edited by Modulous, : tidying it up a little

4 online now:	Omnivorous, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0