What transitional form will we have this week?

reply to post by Astyanax

And what do we usually call these?

snakes.

Hmmm snakes that used to have feet where have I heard that before?

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:" Gen3:14

Science once again proves the Genesis Account!!!! Thanks MIMS!!!!

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Are you kidding me? Those are lizards; not snakes in the least. It's called convergent evolution, my friend. Science will as soon prove any aspect of genesis story correct as it will Narnia or Harry Potter.

Regardless; I could happen to write a book one day explaining how my god says that horses actually descended from shrimp, and that they exist in their present form because he said that "they are unworthy of the sea" or some other rediculous garbage and "cursed them to the land". Does that make it correct?

Similar reasons account for why we can tell that a wolf-like creature such as Ambulocetus probably evolved into whales.

P.S.
Heronumber0, allow me to ask exactly why you doubt that whales had land-living ancestors? For instance, otters are living examples of creatures that can live on land and in water, but they bear a huge amount of similarity to land living mustelids.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

Whales are among the most specialized of all mammals
and include the largest animals that ever lived. The
movement of the ancestral cetaceans from the terrestrial
to an aquatic environment involved extensive remodeling
of the morphological, physiological, and behavioral
systems (Barnes and Mitchell 1978; Gingerich et al.
1983; Barnes 1984a). The order Cetacea is generally
considered to be a monophyletic group, although a separate
origin of the two morphologically highly divergent
suborders of living whales, the Odontoceti (toothed
whales) and the Mysticeti (baleen whales), has been favored
by others (e.g., Yablokov 1965). The origin of and
evolutionary relationships among fossil and extant cetaceans
are disputed (Barnes 19840; Barnes et al. 1985;
Heyning and Mead 1990; Fordyce 1992; McLeod et al.
and the phylogenetic distinctness of the extinct suborder Archaeoceti is problematic
(Fordyce 1989; Wyss 1990).

The fossil record of
cetaceans is incomplete and has not provided unequivocal
evidence on whether the archaeocetes gave rise to
one, both, or neither suborder of living whales (see, e.g.,
Barnes and Mitchell 1978; Barnes 1984~; Barnes et al.
1985; Fordyce 1992; McLeod et al. 1993).
Phylogenetic studies of extinct and extant cetaceans
are complicated by their highly modified morphology.
However, a close phylogenetic relationship between cetaceans
and ungulates was first suggested more than 100
yr ago (Flower 1883) and was more recently confirmed
by paleontological (Van Valen 1966; Szalay 1969; Gingerich
et al. 1983, 1990; Thewissen and Hussain 1993)
and molecular studies (Goodman et al. 1985; Miyamoto
and Goodman 1986; McKenna 1987; Czelusniak et al.
1990; Irwin et al. 199 1; Milinkovitch 1992; Milinkovitch
et al. 1993). Several independent approaches support a
sister-group relationship of cetaceans with artiodactyl
ungulates. Accordingly, artiodactyls are more closely related
to cetaceans than they are to perissodactyl ungulates
(see, e.g., Czelusniak et al. 1990; Gingerich et al. 1990

Link to Paper

I do not want to be accused of misrepresentation so I have included a considerable quote. Despite the authors saying that the link is confirmed, I also see a problem with the sheer lack of fossils to prove a descent from Pakicetus or Ambulocetus to the present day whales. I tried to look it up but could not find the numbers. What if there are only a handful of Pakicetus? How strong would the 'paradigm' be?

[edit on 19/4/2008 by Heronumber0]

OK. Just curious. Thank you for providing a valuable answer. Will check it out.

reply to post by Heronumber0


Speaking for what I know of whales, they have vestigial bones where they would have had bones, as do snakes. Something that indicates that at one point, they walked on land and had use of them.
The flippers of dolphins have similarities to the structures of land animals, and, I believe, but am not as certain, they also have vestigial bones like whales and snakes.
Birds and bats both show evidence in their bone structures that their ancestors had limbs meant for other than flying. Birds still have a nub on their wings where a claw used to exist.
Take your pet dog, if you have one, and look at its foot. Most liekly you'll notice a vestigial pad, to high up on it's leg to be of any actual use. If God created all animals at one moment, why are there so many animals with vestigial limbs, bones, or even genes, like when a human is born with a tail.

reply to post by Heronumber0

This is the story of Science all over surely where there is no complete certainty but always room for modification of a previous theory.

Yes, this is the great virtue of science. Its conclusions are always open to correction or modification in the face of new evidence. Thus it easily accommodates reality and is strengthened by it.

In clear contrast, religion insists that all new ideas and discoveries must accord with its prescribed tenets. It sets itself against reality, but reality is an implacable and unyielding opponent. On that rock, all faith is broken.

That is why faith can never win a debate against science. Fantasy can never be defeated by reality.

Doubtless there are inconstencies in taxonomics, gaping holes in the fossil record, controversy over results from molecular biology, disagreements about punctuated equilibrium, etc. In time, the disagreements will be resolved by new evidence and the debaters will move on to wrangle about something else. This is the very stuff of science; it is how we make progress. Science, like the objects it studies, evolves.

In contrast, all creationists can ever do is find more inconsistencies and present them to evolutionary science, saying 'how do you explain this? They have no falsifiable theory of their own, you see, no explanation for the vast body of consistent evolutionary evidence from biology, palaeontology, geology, physics and other sciences that a brainy nine-year-old would not find risible. All they can do is heckle from the margins.

And pardon me for asking, but isn't such a patent yearning for certainty unbecoming to a hero? The belief that certainty is attainable displays a very forgivable failure of intellect, but the desire for it indicates a very unheroic failure of nerve. There is only one certainty in life: all things must pass. Embrace this truth; to paraphrase someone or other, it shall set you free.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

wow, i provide evidence of a transitional form (something that creationists and IDists keep asking for) and i don't even get a reply.

how odd

Well, I'll give you this much: you certainly are convinced. You are also frequently triumphalist and assume you've put another nail in the coffin of the alternative view. Evolution will one come down like a pack of cards, when people start thinking for themselves and seeing through its fallacies.

Lizards to snakes was one of my last objections to creation before I rejected evolution about 25 years ago.

Having legs to having no legs entails LOSS of genetic information, not an increase. It is degeneration, not evolution. The same goes for cave fish - their forbears had eyes, now they've become dysfunctional through genetic deterioration. Not surprising in a restricted genetic pool.

Think about it.

Genetic information is never added, it is only lost. Start with the perfect, end up with the degenerate through mistakes in replication. Two parents with the same mistake: bingo - big problems, and increasingly likely in a restricted environment.

Dogs: start with parents with all the genetic information for long/short/curly hair, etc. this colour, that colour, long ears/short ears, etc. etc. As the generations go on some populations get separated, even domesticated & bred for particular features. Result: certain genes are lost in certain populations.

Skin colour & facial features in people. Same principle. And on, and on, and on.

THINK ABOUT IT.

Genetic information is never added. Chance cannot design, much less mutation - which is invariably harmful, and very often fatal.

Evolution can't, and doesn't happen, apart from in biology books!

reply to post by pause4thought

Ahh... a nice and easy one.

Evolution will one come down like a pack of cards, when people start thinking for themselves and seeing through its fallacies.

You mean, like how Creationism did after Evolutionary theory became widespread?

Having legs to having no legs entails LOSS of genetic information, not an increase. It is degeneration, not evolution. The same goes for cave fish - their forbears had eyes, now they've become dysfunctional through genetic deterioration. Not surprising in a restricted genetic pool.

That is incorrect. Firstly, while there are examples of true degeneration (such as certain parasitic barnacles), this is always to the organism's benefit; otherwise, it would not happen.

Secondly, cave fish may have lost their eyes, but they gained a hyper-efficient lateral line system and electroreception, which grants them details of their environment matching any fish with eyes. Having kept these sorts of fishes in aquaria - indeed, the very species (Astyanax mexicanus) whose genus name appears to have inspired Astyanax's user name - I have witnessed the prowess that they use when navigating. That is, after a few hours of mentally mapping the environment, they never bump into any object.

Snakes, similarly, have lost their legs, but the method of locomotion they gained, and the musculature required to operate it, is complex. Fast snakes can keep pace with fast lizards, and many snakes are equally adept on land and in water, something comparatively few lizards can accomplish. Many snakes can also climb trees with prowess exceeding that of most lizards, and sea snakes can clearly compete in their particular environment. The loss you claim to see is only an illusion, not even touching on the fact that the fast majority of evolution clearly produces more advanced and complex forms.

Genetic information is never added, it is only lost. Start with the perfect, end up with the degenerate through mistakes in replication. Two parents with the same mistake: bingo - big problems, and increasingly likely in a restricted environment.

No, natural selection removes species inept at survival. Also, to call early jawless fishes perfect, which you imply to do, especially when compared to modern ray-finned fishes, sharks, mammals, birds, and all their other descendants, is clearly a poor judgement given the unfathomable amount of adaptations now present.

Dogs: start with parents with all the genetic information for long/short/curly hair, etc. this colour, that colour, long ears/short ears, etc. etc. As the generations go on some populations get separated, even domesticated & bred for particular features. Result: certain genes are lost in certain populations.

They are not lost, they simply are unexpressed.

Genetic information is never added. Chance cannot design, much less mutation - which is invariably harmful, and very often fatal.

You may want to look into Conway's Game of Life. Chance can design, selective pressures can design, and they can create complexity vastly exceeding the basal form.

THINK ABOUT IT.

I did. This post, and my others, are it's production.

Once more with gusto... I'll be a bit more straightforward here. If no form of eveloution or something at all similar occured, then how come there exists vestigial bones, muscles, genes, ect in pretty much all creatures alive today? THere's no reason now for humans to have genes that specify tails, or for birds to have claws, or for dogs to have an extra pad and claw about an inch up their foot.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


haha you guys just got owned

GJ whammy


on a side note

reply to post by RuneSpider


the point is moot. Pointing out similarities amongst creatures and making educated guesses as to their "lineage"/"place in time" is futile. If you apply your critical thinking skills we can avoid all of this nonsense.






wow, it's uncanny how similar these two different pictures are!~ They were even painted two years apart.

OH wait. It's because they were created by the same Artist.

You'd expect that if an artist creates multiple works, there will be similarities amongst his creations.

Here's Monets' wiki gallery.

en.wikipedia.org...

With that analogy in mind; look at his paintings.



[edit on 4/20/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


I'm not talking about similarities. i'm talking about genes for tails in humans, the remnants of leg bones in whales, the remnants of leg bones in snakes, the extra claw and foot pad on dogs, the nubs on birds wings where there used to be claws, and it goes on and on.
We aren't just looking at bones and saying that looks like that, so must be related to that. We are looking at modern animals and genetics and seeing that there are leftovers in their DNA, and commonalities in the DNA that show that there is something other than straighforward Creationism.

Thus strikes the double post.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by RuneSpider]

reply to post by JPhish

You mean my own and other's utter evisceration of all the Creationist arguments on this thread doesn't amount to ownage?

Sigh. Again reason and logic suffers another blow.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by JPhish

 

I'm not talking about similarities. i'm talking about genes for tails in humans, the remnants of leg bones in whales, the remnants of leg bones in snakes, the extra claw and foot pad on dogs, the nubs on birds wings where there used to be claws, and it goes on and on.
We aren't just looking at bones and saying that looks like that, so must be related to that. We are looking at modern animals and genetics and seeing that there are leftovers in their DNA, and commonalities in the DNA that show that there is something other than straighforward Creationism.

duly noted

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
reply to post by JPhish

 

You mean my own and other's utter evisceration of all the Creationist arguments on this thread doesn't amount to ownage?

Sigh. Again reason and logic suffers another blow.

and no sly- I said "Take a look at some paintings and get back to me."

I never boasted any claims in this debate, so i in affect, cannot be "owned"

[edit on 4/21/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by SlyCM (work)

cave fish may have lost their eyes, but they gained a hyper-efficient lateral line system and electroreception, which grants them details of their environment matching any fish with eyes. Having kept these sorts of fishes in aquaria - indeed, the very species (Astyanax mexicanus) whose genus name appears to have inspired Astyanax's user name - I have witnessed the prowess that they use when navigating. That is, after a few hours of mentally mapping the environment, they never bump into any object.

More premature triumphalism.

I don't have time for a proper reply now - will be back later. Suffice it to say I have no objection to natural selection. The fish have become more reliant on the lateral line and other senses which were part of the original design.

Thanks for reminding me of what a wonderful designer God is! Secondary back-up systems for when one fails.

Awesome.

reply to post by pause4thought

SlyCM(work) has already dealt with your post from a phenotypic perspective. Now let's look at the genetic angle, shall we?

Having legs to having no legs entails LOSS of genetic information

Not necessarily. Here, count the genes.

It is degeneration, not evolution.

As I pointed out in my reply to HeroNumber0, evolution is not a teleological process. It is not aimed at some kind of goal. There is nobody to do the aiming.

Genetic information is never added, it is only lost.

Not at all. Compare with previous link. Reptiles existed before mammals -- even if your authority on evolution is the Book of Genesis.

Also compare -- just to rub it in a little -- with this.

I suppose you don't believe in mutation, either. No haemophiliacs, sickle-cell anaemics and Huntingdon's choreacs in your family, no sir!

Dogs: start with parents with all the genetic information for long/short/curly hair, etc.

No-no. Dogs: start with this:

extensive genetic analyses of the dog and other wolf-like canids clearly show that the dog is derived from gray wolves only, rather than jackals, coyotes, or Ethiopian wolves (Fig. 1C; Wayne et al. 1987aGo,bGo; Vila et al. 1997Go, 2005Go; Leonard et al. 2002Go; Savolainen et al. 2002Go). Consequently, the immense phenotypic diversity in the dog owes its origin to primarily the standing genetic variation existing in the ancestral population of gray wolves and any subsequent mutations that occurred during the brief history of domestication.

-- The Canine Genome, Ostrander & Wayne, 2005

And as for variation being lost, well,

The dog genome is similar in size to the genomes of humans and other mammals, containing approximately 2.5 billion DNA base pairs.

-- Press release, National Human Genome Research Institute

Dogs don't lose genes when they are bred. Mutagenic change is not a tool employed by kennel clubbers. We have genetic engineers for that.

25 years ago, eh? Just imagine how much you could have learned in that time, if you hadn't simply shut your mind to this subject.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Hi. I wish we could just have a rational discussion, people. Astyanax, do you really think haughtiness encourages people to respect your views?

25 years ago, eh? Just imagine how much you could have learned in that time, if you hadn't simply shut your mind to this subject.

a haughty spirit goes before a fall

(Proverbs 16:18)

You have failed to understand what I said to such an extent that your counter-arguments are irrelevant; have no weight at all.

I said that having legs to having no legs entails LOSS of genetic information. You replied:

Not necessarily. Here, count the genes.

No. Counting the genes means taking the sum total of all genes - whose expression relates to the makeup of the entire creature; without providing data that relates exclusively to the feature in question your point makes no sense.

I had intended to open my remarks by responding to part of SlyCM's post. My point is that my opening 'snakes to lizards' comment was an off the cuff remark meant to encompass the whole 'legs to no legs' issue - I just didn't have time to start going into all the ins and outs. One possible answer to SlyCM's point about the greater agility of some snakes over their lizard counterparts is that they may have actually started as two separate created 'kinds'. In this scenario if you find a lizard with vestigial legs it is a lizard; if you find a snake with vestigial legs it is a snake.

The background to this is that Genesis 1 repeatedly states that all creatures were made "according to their kinds". Where to draw the line is not always obvious: lions and tigers can interbreed, suggesting there may originally have been one 'kind' that contained the genes for both. As populations became separated, different genotypes emerged.

On the other hand, if snakes and lizards are descended from one original 'kind', the progenitors simply contained sufficient genetic information to allow for very diverse arrangements of musculature, etc. As to ability to live in and out of water, land and sea snakes, for example, may have started as separate 'kinds'. Alternatively the genes may have been there for both at the beginning.

By instilling the potential for huge genetic variation in the original kinds, the Creator equipped them to spread throughout the earth and survive in all manner of environments. Like I say, I have no problem with natural selection.

Back to Astyanax' replies:

I said genetic information is never added, it is only lost. He replied:

Reptiles existed before mammals -- even if your authority on evolution is the Book of Genesis.

You are still thinking in terms of evolution. You need to think out of the box. Reptiles and mammals are simply not related. At all. It makes no difference which were made first!

The data you provided on nematodes is irrelevant for the same reason.

I suppose you don't believe in mutation, either. No haemophiliacs, sickle-cell anaemics and Huntingdon's choreacs in your family, no sir!

On the contrary this proves my earlier point PERFECTLY. I said:

Chance cannot design, much less mutation - which is invariably harmful, and very often fatal.

Think about it.

And as to your point about grey wolves being the ancestors of dogs - I can't believe that you can sink so low as to assume I didn't know that. Any fair reader would see that is what I meant, and I'll say it again:

Dogs: start with parents with all the genetic information for long/short/curly hair, etc. this colour, that colour, long ears/short ears, etc. etc. As the generations go on some populations get separated, even domesticated & bred for particular features. Result: certain genes are lost in certain populations.

'parents' = wolves.

Your final point re genes not being lost will have to wait - my wife wants some DIY work doing...

This may seem out of place since I am a newcomer, but I am starting to go the way of many others and not see a point here. If the creator can create all the evidence of evolution, then I suppose that's your eternal answer. I, on the other hand, will stick to my science until there is some solid evidence to raise Young Earth Creationism to the level of science... though there will most likely never be such evidence.

In my opinion a world where things can be explained partially by science, therefore creating huge amounts of interest as the rest is gradually discovered, doesn't need and is better off without stories denouncing the evidence it has found. Indeed... "isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Sigh... it's faith versus reason, and faith will never lose...

But anyways, back on topic... 'cause I have nothing else to do...

Reptiles and mammals are simply not related. At all.

As a matter of fact they are, though very distantly. Birds could be seen to represent another branch, with reptiles - though not the kind that exist today - forming the base. Lobe-finned fish evolved into amphibians, and amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into both Cynodonts and Archosaurs, and then into mammals and birds, respectively.

As such, and as evidence, all these animals share certain features unique to "those types". Calcified bones, heavily muscled legs, movable lower jaws, etcetera. Regardless of supported theory, these animals must be related, certainly when shown next to a squid, or a lobster, or a flatworm.

Think about it.

I supposed you did not visit the link I posted, on Conway's Game of Life? With predetermined environmental characteristics (the known laws of physics) chance can design, and mutation - indeed, mistake - can help as well as harm.

Another notable occurance is "virtual life" whose developer I have forgotten (thogh trolling wikipedia may yield an answer), in which a single reproducing computer code was written, the simplest the author could imagine (40 bytes), and simply left alone. Eventually, the programs began making mistakes after a few hundred thousand reproductions, and the vast majority of these were lost, being unable to reproduce efficiently (being longer: 41 bytes). On the other hand, a new program eventually was born out of a chance mistake with 39 bytes, and since it could reproduce faster, it gained the upper hand. Much later, an even bigger mistake by a program created one with much fewer bytes, around 20. These were thought to be doomed by the author, but to his surprise they actually parasitized the larger programs, hijacking the individual reproduction codes.

Here is another similar experiment performed years after.

Summary: chance can design, mistake can be helpful.

reply to post by pause4thought

I'm sorry if I seemed haughty. I was merely pointing out that your rejection of evolution -- a phenomenon that is hardly in question; see the first post in this thread, which seeks to lay out the ground rules for debate in this forum -- has blocked your access to important knowledge. As for 'rational discussion', well...

I said that having legs to having no legs entails LOSS of genetic information. You replied, 'not necessarily. Here, count the genes.' (But) counting the genes means taking the sum total of all genes... without providing data that relates exclusively to the feature in question your point makes no sense.

The number of DNA base pairs (which carry the genetic information) is not necessarily diminished when one species evolves into another. It may increase, as I showed you with my links. In either case, the change would be due to mutation.

Alternatively, the number of base pairs might be conserved but some DNA cease to code, or simply continue to code for proteins that are no use to the organism in its new specific form. In either case, the genetic variety is not lost; it is still in the genome, unexpressed. Such changes in gene expression are also, of course, the result of mutation.

Finally, mutation and only mutation also accounts for all genetic variation within a species -- hence the concept of the variome. These variations in the genotype give rise to variations in the phenotype of the species. You can tell how old a species is by counting nucleotide polymorphisms; the more variation, the more time has passed since the species diverged from its predecessor. The results generally agree quite well with the fossil record.

Your argument against evolution appears to be that mutation is always deleterious; that mutations beneficial to the organism cannot take place. Can you offer a scientific argument to support that position? Remember, it will have to be rational, and also take into account contemporary molecular studies that can date the appearance of a mutagenic polymorphism, such as (for example) the very interesting research on the mutation for adult lactose tolerance, an undoubtedly beneficial development.

By instilling the potential for huge genetic variation in the original kinds, the Creator equipped them to spread throughout the earth and survive in all manner of environments. Like I say, I have no problem with natural selection.

So you claim this 'benevolent' creator set his creation up to be vulnerable to deleterious mutations, parasite attack, disease, deformity, predation, scavenging, environmental catastrophe and extinction? I thought you wanted to have a rational conversation!

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by SlyCM (work)

Sigh... it's faith versus reason, and faith will never lose.

Courage!

It's fantasy versus reality, and reality always wins in the end.

Creationism can only triumph in a new Dark Age in which science is destroyed, or at the very least forced underground, by superstition. But the world has advanced too far for that; we depend far too much on technology, which is utterly dependent on science. There will be no Luddite Zion.

You will certainly not convince the Bible-waving creationists who come to evangelize on this forum, but who cares? They'll never be more than a tiny, vociferous minority. Scientific materialism is based on evidence and logic. All you have to do is keep telling it like it is, leaving the rest to the intelligence of the membership, and the truth will surely out. You are winning the argument, never fear.

Look at the present example. MiMS presents the discovery of a transitional form. The creationists are on him in a flash. But -- and we're now way down the second page of the thread -- we have yet to see a persuasive evidence-based argument refuting the OP. All we have had are red herrings, amusing misunderstandings of genetics and speciation, bad one-liners and incomprehensible ranting. Whence this constitutional inability to stay on topic? It arises from not having any meaningful rebuttal to make.

I may have a 'haughty spirit', you may feel like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, but at least we're not displaying egregious bad faith and wilful ignorance. People can tell the difference, believe me.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Astyanax]