Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth

[danielost]

When neton got hit by that apple. He didn't jump up and yell gravity. He did many experiments over many years to come up with his gravity theory. Then others had to do them too, before theory became law.

[Rlyeh]

I believe god made man first and then using his bonly blue print designed the rest of the higher animals. Other wise explain why all of these animals have remaments of five degits.

Evolution.

[Arbitran]

I believe god made man first and then using his bonly blue print designed the rest of the higher animals. Other wise explain why all of these animals have remaments of five degits.

You have it precisely backward, in fact: humans possess five digits because humans are descended from non-human ancestors which possessed five digits. Of course, if one gets really technical, then digits are merely modified lobe-fins: very sophisticated, highly-developed lobe-fins, descended from something similar to what we observe in both modern and ancient sarcopterygians. Virtually all vertebrates which have not lost digits for various reasons (e.g., birds, horses, etc.) possess the basic pentadactyl form, and certainly even the exceptions to this rule are invariably descended, like humans, from a common ancestor: a pentadactyl tetrapod, which possessed the same five digits and four limbs common to many of its descendants.

[danielost]

Evolution.

So a fish evoled from a five fingered animal.

[danielost]

You have it precisely backward, in fact: humans possess five digits because humans are descended from non-human ancestors which possessed five digits. Of course, if one gets really technical, then digits are merely modified lobe-fins: very sophisticated, highly-developed lobe-fins, descended from something similar to what we observe in both modern and ancient sarcopterygians. Virtually all vertebrates which have not lost digits for various reasons (e.g., birds, horses, etc.) possess the basic pentadactyl form, and certainly even the exceptions to this rule are invariably descended, like humans, from a common ancestor: a pentadactyl tetrapod, which possessed the same five digits and four limbs common to many of its descendants.

Why did this animal need five fingers. Was it picking things up with hands to put it in its mouth. Besides ths animal would have fiv degits just as likely with my theory as yours. Probable. More likely, since the animal you mentioned probably ddoesn't need digets

[Rlyeh]

So a fish evoled from a five fingered animal.

lmao. Since when did fish have fingers?

What I'm saying is humans evolved from animals with digits. No evidence shows that humans were the first primates.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Rlyeh

[+Liquid Gardens]

Besides ths animal would have fiv degits just as likely with my theory as yours.

Only if you ignore the fact that there is a vast amount of scientific evidence supporting evolution, compared to your theory which is based on, what exactly?

If you're truly interested in seeing what is more 'likely', it wouldn't really hurt to put some effort forth to actually understand what evolution says about the evolution of the human hand and the evidence for it so you can more accurately determine the likelihood and criticize it if you still disagree after studying it.

More likely, since the animal you mentioned probably ddoesn't need digets

So then under your theory, why is God providing digits to prehistoric animals that do not need them? Is he an inept designer?

[+HerNibs]

Nibs

I realize my image isn't in English. So just follow the pictures.

Nibs

[Quaentum]

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:

There is nothing lacking in my quotation from the pro-evolution scientists who admitted there is no evidence in the fossils record. You are protesting because you are pro-evolution while insisting you are Christian. Evolution theory is a direct contradiction of the Genesis Creation account that clearly says Jehovah created all creatures according to their kind and says nothing whatever about creatures evolving from a common ancestor.

The Bible also says nothing about the various ice ages. We have plenty of information and evidence that they happened, but since they aren't in the Bible do you believe they never happened?

Also since you like to use the word evidence, please show evidence of two things:

1 - That the creator described in the Christian Bible actually exists

2 - That the Christian God is the one true god and all other religions are false.

[Mnemonix]

Nibs

I realize my image isn't in English. So just follow the pictures.

Nibs

I don't get it.

Maybe you could elaborate?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mnemonix

[+HerNibs]

I don't get it.

Maybe you could elaborate?

It's evolution. Showing all the branches and how we all developed from a single ancestor.

Nibs

[Mnemonix]

It's evolution. Showing all the branches and how we all developed from a single ancestor.

Nibs

Thanks.

Alright, now I get it, but not entirely.

The chart seems to just jump from one species to another, is that how evolution works, or are there supposed to be many transitional forms in between?

For example, I see the fish there, then the arrow pointing to a lizard, but no transitional forms in between of fishes with half-fins, or lizards with half-lungs.

Can you tell me more about that?

Thanks.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mnemonix

[Mnemonix]

The Bible also says nothing about the various ice ages. We have plenty of information and evidence that they happened, but since they aren't in the Bible do you believe they never happened?

Also since you like to use the word evidence, please show evidence of two things:

1 - That the creator described in the Christian Bible actually exists

2 - That the Christian God is the one true god and all other religions are false.

If the Bible implies that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, is there time for an ice age?

Maybe you could list down some evidences for the ice ages, so that the OP can evaluate them, or so that others know.

Just a suggestion.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mnemonix

[GoldenWolf]

Finish the quote."Oh, look nothing happened.". I was thinking of that quote myself.

I believe god made man first and then using his bonly blue print designed the rest of the higher animals. Other wise explain why all of these animals have remaments of five degits.

[+HerNibs]

Thanks.

Alright, now I get it, but not entirely.

The chart seems to just jump from one species to another, is that how evolution works, or are there supposed to be many transitional forms in between?

For example, I see the fish there, then the arrow pointing to a lizard, but no transitional forms in between of fishes with half-fins, or lizards with half-lungs.

Can you tell me more about that?

Thanks.

An incomplete list of transitional fossils.

The chart can't hold all of them.

Keep the below in mind.

Nibs

Edited May 21, 2013 by HerNibs

[danielost]

The problem with microevolution, are mammals. Mammals produce milk to feed their young. No mammal baby, including the egg laying ones can take care of itself. The ones that come the closest are the seals that give birth in te artic winter where in one case they need four days.

Which means that in one generation a lizard that was able to take care of itself at birth was not able to in the next generation

Any animal that feeds its young milk is a mammal.

[+Liquid Gardens]

The problem with microevolution, are mammals. Mammals produce milk to feed their young. No mammal baby, including the egg laying ones can take care of itself. The ones that come the closest are the seals that give birth in te artic winter where in one case they need four days.

Which means that in one generation a lizard that was able to take care of itself at birth was not able to in the next generation

No, that is not at all what it means; I don't know why you don't understand how gradual and incremental evolution typically is. You are not actually criticizing evolution here, you are criticizing a strawman of evolution.

[danielost]

No I am not. When ever I bring that case up or any other case up, your side comes up with the strawman excuse.

All non-mammals that give live birth do not take care of their young. Some are born as soon as they hatch inside of mom. Some eat teir siblings before they are born. In both cases as soon as they are born they are on their own.

But all mammals live birth or not take care of their young giveing them milk. So again the difference has to be a single generation, no in between. This is clear case of black and white.

[danielost]

There is also the case of the bird on one of golpagase island. There were three species of this bird on the island. They had large, medium and small beaks. The medium beaked species died out. Scientist thought it would take one hundred years for the other two to evolve to replace it. It actually take seven years. Nothing gradual there.

[Copasetic]

No I am not. When ever I bring that case up or any other case up, your side comes up with the strawman excuse.

Daniel, I see you haven't spent any of your time off learning anything. Maybe this should make you realize that when everyone from the "other side" is telling you "no this isn't how evolution works and that is a strawman" and the scientists are likewise saying "that isn't how evolution works"--maybe it actually means that isn't how evolution works and your characterization of it is wrong....I don't know call me crazy.

One would think you would have actually learned that by now, but it seems you are only capable of repeating the same broken-record nonsense about evolution you incorrectly believe about it.

All non-mammals that give live birth do not take care of their young. Some are born as soon as they hatch inside of mom. Some eat teir siblings before they are born. In both cases as soon as they are born they are on their own.

But all mammals live birth or not take care of their young giveing them milk. So again the difference has to be a single generation, no in between. This is clear case of black and white.

Your ignorance is astounding. We've actually been over this very same topic before. There are non-mammals that take care of their young. The crocodilians are great examples of reptiles that take care of their young. Who hatch from eggs, mind you. Likewise there are mammals who hatch from eggs....

I've actually devoted a whole link my profile to debunking your ignorant claims about lactation and evolution.

It turns out you are, as you usually are regarding biology, incorrect. There are still mammals which lay eggs and lactate....Something which completely highlights your ignorance regarding the topic. As has been pointed out to on many of these "problems with evolution" you propose, there are shades of gray, which you do not consider--Thus either purposefully or unintentionally misrepresent observations of the natural world.

Why not take the time to inform yourself Daniel? Are you scared you might learn something?

If we look outside the mammalian lineage, a number of independent adaptations can be seen to exist for the provision of young independent of eggs. Examples of parental secretions to nurse the young include crop gland secretion in certain species of birds, such as the pigeon (63); the specialized secretions of skin glands in a number of species of cichlid fish (54); and the production of skin tissue in a caecilian amphibian (46). These examples provide ample evidence that the selective advantage provided by the nourishment of the young is sufficient for the establishment of simple lactation-like strategies geared directly toward the protection of the neonate rather than the egg. For example, the secretion of pheromones to guide the young into the protection of its parents may provide a simple selective advantage. Thus, it seems possible that the chance secretion of a primitive molecule of immunoprotective, nutritional, or communicative value may have provided selective value significant enough to favor the incremental establishment of a more complex lactation system.

Mammals have adopted a diversity of lactation strategies, with clear differences between the major lineages. Unlike marsupials and eutherians, monotremes are hatched from small eggs covered by a parchment or leathery shell and are often regarded as close representatives of ancient mammals. Tiny hatchlings are highly altricial and depend completely on milk as a source of nutrition during the period of suckling, which is prolonged relative to gestation and incubation (30). By contrast, eutherians have invested in extended intrauterine development of the young and produce a milk of relatively constant composition, apart from the initial colostrum. Marsupials present one of the most sophisticated lactation programs. After a short pregnancy, marsupials give birth to highly altricial young that are totally dependent upon a constantly changing milk composition for development during an extended lactation period (98). Under certain conditions, some species, such as the tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii), may produce milk of differing composition from adjacent mammary glands. This phenomenon, called asynchronous concurrent lactation (ACL) (51, 71), demonstrates the importance of local control on the lactation program, including major shifts in the relative milk content of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, as well as the phase-specific expression of major milk proteins (26).

Recent advances in genome sequencing of a number of mammalian species have provided invaluable resources for the comparative evolutionary analysis of genes involved in lactation. The recent release of the bovine (Bos taurus) genome sequence has stimulated intense activity in lactation genomics (21). Lactation gene sets have been compiled from mammary gland cDNA libraries at multiple stages of mammary development or lactation status to identify unique milk proteins or important mammary genes in the cow (49) and other species, including monotremes (48) and marsupials (Table 1) (47). Genome analysis studies have shown that, in general, milk protein genes are not clustered together in the genome, with the exception of those genes encoding the caseins. The conserved genomic organization of the casein genes (48, 99) and the clustering of other milk proteins with genes important for milk production by the lactating mammary gland in the bovine genome (49) suggest that the need for coordinate expression during lactation may be an influential factor in shaping the genome of mammals. Compared to other genes of the bovine genome, mammary and milk genes are more conserved in mammals and evolve slowly in the bovine lineage. The most conserved proteins, notably the milk fat globule, are associated with secretory processes, whereas the most divergent are associated with nutritional and immunological components of milk (49). In all, the high conservation of mammary genes suggests that lactation evolved by co-opting existing structures and pathways for the synthesis and secretion of copious milk (49, 59) and that a complex lactation system was already fully implemented in early mammals. The apparently strong negative selection and the absence of positive selection in milk and mammary genes, as evidenced by the marginally but significantly smaller nonsynonymous-over-synonymous substitution ratio of milk protein and mammary genes compared with genome average and the absence of genes with large nonsynonymous-over-synonymous substitution ratio (49), support the hypothesis that milk evolution has been constrained to optimize survival of both mother and offspring.

Lactation has evolved gradually along the synapsid lineage, and a complex lactation system with elaborated milk secretion was already in place 200 Mya in the ancestors of mammals. During their subsequent radiation, mammals have diversified lactation strategies to accommodate reproductive success and adapt to the environment. There is much to learn about the genetics of lactation from the rich natural resource of animal diversity, which we have illustrated in this review through a comparative analysis of gene expression in a variety of lactating mammalian lineages. Sequencing approaches will enable a still broader exploration of lactation diversity, and we have shown that milk cells provide easy access to functional data. Comparative genome analysis of the lactation system is another new and complementary methodology that will make it possible to study in detail how the evolutionary constraints on lactation vary between lineages depending on lactation strategies or environmental adaptations.

Christophe M. Lefèvre, Julie A. Sharp, Kevin R. Nicholas. Evolution of Lactation: Ancient Origin and Extreme Adaptations of the Lactation System. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Vol. 11: 219 -238 (Volume publication date September 2010)

Lactation and evolution: for the Daniels

Here Dano, try and learn something this time round.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Copasetic

[Arbitran]

Thanks.

Alright, now I get it, but not entirely.

The chart seems to just jump from one species to another, is that how evolution works, or are there supposed to be many transitional forms in between?

For example, I see the fish there, then the arrow pointing to a lizard, but no transitional forms in between of fishes with half-fins, or lizards with half-lungs.

Can you tell me more about that?

Thanks.

The chart does skip a lot of the individuals in between, yes, because fossilization is a rare process, ergo, we can't possibly hope to find every single individual that ever lived on our planet.

The notion of 'half-fins' or 'half-lungs' though is simply laughable, and an utter misunderstanding of the concept of evolution.

The limbs that we use to walk on land are simply very-heavily-modified fins, and the lungs that we use to breath are simply very-heavily-modified swim bladders; of course fins and swim bladders are not at all useful on land, and thus when the invasion of land occurred, the early tetrapods and advanced sarcopterygians (our ancestors) survived by adapting their fins into limbs and swim bladders into lungs, you see? It's actually all quite simple if you think about it. Granted, this all happened over VERY long periods of time, mind you, and certainly no individual ever magically developed lungs or limbs—rather, it was the compounded beneficial changes over many, many generations which led to the development of the necessary features to live on land. How did these features arise and not just a lot of random, useless features? Well, useless features are useless indeed, ergo, they would not have allowed the creatures to better survive in their ecosystem, and thus any individuals which had such features did not live to reproduce and pass those traits on to later animals; this is the process of natural selection.

I hope that answered a few questions.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Thanks Copacetic, I didn't realize this conversation is a retread so no point in me even getting into it, but thanks for the science, I certainly couldn't have provided that level of detail. That last graph in particular is soaring over my head, I think it's showing the common lactation gene/chromosome amongst mammals?

No I am not. When ever I bring that case up or any other case up, your side comes up with the strawman excuse.

All non-mammals that give live birth do not take care of their young. Some are born as soon as they hatch inside of mom. Some eat teir siblings before they are born. In both cases as soon as they are born they are on their own.

But all mammals live birth or not take care of their young giveing them milk. So again the difference has to be a single generation, no in between. This is clear case of black and white.

No reason to deal with this in terms of 'sides'; 'evolution' has a specific meaning and you have to accurately address what it specifically says or yes, it's technically a strawman. I'm not positive I even clearly understand your argument, it's that a lizard began lactating and thus gave birth to a mammal and couldn't take care of itself or something, I don't think I get it at all. Is it that a non-mammal/lizard must have given birth to a lactating mammal and since the mammal requires care and the lizard does not know how to care for it that evolution is impossible? I should probably rephrase that; change the start of that question from, "Is it that...", to ,"Please tell me your argument is not that...".

[+Liquid Gardens]

Finish the quote."Oh, look nothing happened.". I was thinking of that quote myself.

Don't just finish the quote, you gotta be fair and complete the scene; you left out that the only reason nothing happened, an anti-time anomaly, is very rare. (man, I'm really geeking out here, I think I need a shower...)

[danielost]

Crocs do not take care of their young. They protect them. They do not feed them. Birds do take care of their young but they do not produce milk. Neither of these give live births. So your point is pointless.

I stated that an animal that did not need mom to produce milk for it, would have to produce milk for its young. Further, this same animal would be able to take care of its self but its kids could not. If the young could feed itself it wouldn't need mothers milk.

Answer that if you can. Don't tell me about animals who protect their young but don't feed them or who do take care of their young hut do not produce milk. Te monatrains lay eggs, but they produce milk for their young who hatch defenseless. So by your arguements mammals are birds. But since mammals were around long before the birds according to your science they can't be birds.

[danielost]

Copasitic, maybe you should reread your last quote. Because it says what I am saying. That the earliest mammals were producing milk for their young. It is right there in black and white. If I could copy and paste I would do so.