Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth

[Emma_Acid]

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.

Daniel - all you're doing here is showing how unwilling you are to learn the science. You're no convincing anyone of anything other than that.

[+Liquid Gardens]

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.

Have you ever considered that when lactation begins to develop that maybe these young can feed themselves or consume other foods and that the mother's milk is just supplemental or a better option? Evolution doesn't result in traits emerging strictly because they are 'needed', in general they just need to give a reproductive advantage. I really don't think there's any point in debating a theory that exists only in your head, and you are not giving me a lot of confidence that you are at all interested in the science behind evolution or lactation. I also doubt that asking you for the 'reasoning' behind whatever alternate theory you have would be productive either.

[Copasetic]

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.

Daniel, the point is there is a whole spectrum that currently exists for parental care. In deed birds do take much more care of their young than crocodilians. In fact some birds even do a kind of "nursing" to their young:

Birds Milk

Like mammals, the young of some birds are fed on special secretions from a parent. Unlike mammals, however, both sexes produce it. The best known of these secretions is the "crop milk" that pigeons feed to squabs. The milk is produced by a sloughing of fluid-filled cells from the lining of the crop, a thin-walled, sac-like food-storage chamber that projects outward from the bottom of the esophagus. Crops are presumably a device for permitting birds to gather and store food rapidly, minimizing the time that they are exposed to predators. Crops tend to be especially well developed in pigeons and game birds.

Crop milk is extremely nutritious. In one study, domestic chicks given feed containing pigeon crop milk were 16 percent heavier at the end of the experiment than chicks that did not receive the supplement. The pigeon milk, which contains more protein and fat than does cow or human milk, is the exclusive food of the nestlings for several days after hatching, and both adults feed it to the squabs for more than two weeks. The young pigeons are not fed insects as are the chicks of many seed-eating birds; instead, the crop milk provides the critical ration of protein.

The milk of Greater Flamingos contains much more fat and much less protein than does pigeon milk, and its production is not localized in a crop, but involves glands lining the entire upper digestive tract. Interestingly, the milk contains an abundance of red and white blood cells, which can be seen under the microscope migrating like amoebas through the surface of the glands. Young flamingos feed exclusively on this milk for about two months, while the special filter-feeding apparatus that they will later employ for foraging develops.

Emperor Penguin chicks may also be fed milk in some circumstances. Each male incubates a single egg on his feet, covered with a fold of abdominal skin, for two months of the Antarctic winter, fasting while the female is out at sea feeding. If the female has not returned with food by the time the chick hatches, the male feeds it for a few days on milk secreted by the esophagus. After its brief diet of milk, the chick will be fed by regurgitation alternately by the male and female as they travel one at a time to the sea to hunt.

Thus three very different groups of birds have evolved the capacity to produce milk as solutions to very different problems: the need for protein and fat in the pigeons, which feed very little animal material to the squabs; the need for liquid food consumption during the development of the specialized feeding apparatus of the flamingos (which would make any other form of food difficult for the chicks to ingest); and the need for a convenient food supplement when breeding on the barren Antarctic ice shelf favored by penguins.

Link

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.

Like I just highlighted above, there are various stages of parental care found in the animal kingdom. I'm not sure what your point is here, your thoughts are too disjointed.

Answer that if you can.

I just did.

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.

I just told you about a whole spectrum that exists. From animals that simply lay eggs and abandon them, to ones which partially "nurse", to ones like marsupials with highly complex lactation systems capable of delivering milk of differing components at individual nipples.

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.

Uhh, I'm not sure how the hell you got that out of anything I said. No mammals aren't birds Daniel, they are mammals. They share a set of common features which make them belong to the set: mammal, not bird.

[Copasetic]

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.

No it isn't. It is saying that lactation evolved fairly early on in the synapsid branch of the tree. From modified cutaneous glands (pilosebaceous glands). Monotremes "nurse" their young from similar glands still today. They actually don't have nipples and secrete milk from a modified mammary hair patch. Obviously lactation has become extremely diversified and complex since the earliest mammals. Not only in composition, but in delivery as well.

[+Sherapy]

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.

Hello Daniel, Truthfully I think you are demonstrating more of an understanding then I have ever seen from what I have read of your posts. I also know that part of refining ones understanding is having the willingness to ask the questions, look at where you are missing a vital piece of information.

I'll tell you too for whatever it is worth ( and of course do not take my opinion as gospel) just as feedback. I have been reading Copa for years now and so has my son who is on the deans honor list in his school, in every subject including science, My kid will be going to JC next year for Biology thanks to Copa's posts, my kid is 15. Copa has aided us by his posts/advice and my son's curriculum let me tell you I came in ignorant as they come.

So being ignorant just means you have something you can learn and Um is very fortunate to have a person such as Jay who gives so much away in the way of sound, quality science education.

IMO, people spend so much time being jealous of him and intimidated and insecure about themselves that they forget what it takes-- the work and effort this guy devotes to being as intelligent as he is and the humanitarianism of giving back.

So if this is bruised ego call on your part be respectful, don't waste his time, because when you do it takes away from those that do want to learn.

Just my 2 cents, nothing more.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Sherapy

[danielost]

That is all good for you and your son. But, copa. is putting his opinion in as fact. There are no facts, just guesses. And, as I pointed out his own quote backs up what I said. The earliest mamals were producing milk not something in between milk and sweat. Mammory glands are modified sweat glands.

Further, he stated two years ago that mammals started out by keeping their eggs most with water secretions. But, that doesn't make any sence since lizard eggs don't need to be kept most.

[Copasetic]

There are no facts, just guesses. And, as I pointed out his own quote backs up what I said. The earliest mamals were producing milk not something in between milk and sweat. Mammory glands are modified sweat glands.

No it doesn't, stating it over and over doesn't make it correct. You can look at the genes of mammals and see how they have changed overtime. Looking at genes for milk products shows that the actual composition varies greatly because of evolution. Early "milk" wasn't anything like modern milk, if you would call it milk at all. It was probably more like mucus. In fact if you had actually looked up the paper you'd see that some fish actually use prolactin (the same hormone used in mammals) to control mucusey secretions. Some of these fish actually even secrete this mucus for nourishment of their young, the cichlids are a great example.

Even more interesting and probably detrimental to your argument is the fact that cichlids belong to the class Actinopterygii or ray finned fishes. While the ancestor to tetrapods (including mammals) diverged from lobed-finned fish, or Sarcopterygii. Which means that secretions to aid in nourishing young is a trait likely far older than mammals or even early mammals.

Further, he stated two years ago that mammals started out by keeping their eggs most with water secretions. But, that doesn't make any sence since lizard eggs don't need to be kept most.

You do realize that lizards are not mammals no? If you do, did it occur to you that their eggs might be different? I mean, call me crazy.....

[Alter2Ego]

On 5/21/2013 at 8:28 AM, Quaentum said:

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.

Quaentum:

What does supposed ice ages have to do with the fact the Bible specifically says all creatures were literally created by Almighty God Jehovah?

 

Alter2Ego 

[XenoFish]

Holy Necropost Batman!!!

[cormac mac airt]

44 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Quaentum:

What does supposed ice ages have to do with the fact the Bible specifically says all creatures were literally created by Almighty God Jehovah?

 

Alter2Ego 

Just so you know Quaentum hasn’t been here for 6 1/2+ years so don’t expect a reply. 
 

cormac

[Alter2Ego]

6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just so you know Quaentum hasn’t been here for 6 1/2+ years so don’t expect a reply. 
 

cormac

cormac:

Thanks for letting me know:

I haven't been here since 2013, so I'm not sure who is here any longer.

[beyondism]

On 5/3/2013 at 4:24 AM, Alter2Ego said:

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because pro-evolutionists are notoriously atheists and dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer.

You are very wrong indeed!

Abiogenesis has been largely explained by a German patent lawyer. Charles Darwin didn't directly address the origin of life but did speculate in private correspondence.

Edited August 5 by beyondism
Removing name of patent lawyer not my job to educate

[beyondism]

Darwin only formally addressed the origin of speciation or how the myriad species  in our natural environment came to be. He did so rather elegantly.

[Alter2Ego]

  

On 5/2/2013 at 8:24 PM, Alter2Ego said:

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because pro-evolutionists are notoriously atheists and dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer.

21 hours ago, beyondism said:

  You are very wrong indeed!

Abiogenesis has been largely explained by a German patent lawyer. Charles Darwin didn't directly address the origin of life but did speculate in private correspondence.

 beyondism:

So you claim regarding my factual statement that evolution theory and abiogenesis theory are two different theories. Then you follow up that blunder with the comment that a German patent lawyer "largely explained" abiogenesis.  Below are the scientific definitions of both theories.

 

Definition of Evolution Theory

"Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

 

Definition of Abiogenesis Theory

"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

 

"(1) The idea that primitive life originated from nonliving matter (e.g. simple organic compounds) over a span of millions of years; autogenesis"

 https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/abiogenesis 

Edited August 6 by Alter2Ego

[psyche101]

Scientists Just Recreated The Chemical Reaction That May Have Led to Life on Earth

[beyondism]

On 8/6/2024 at 9:41 PM, Alter2Ego said:

  

 beyondism:

So you claim regarding my factual statement that evolution theory and abiogenesis theory are two different theories. Then you follow up that blunder with the comment that a German patent lawyer "largely explained" abiogenesis.  Below are the scientific definitions of both theories.

 

Definition of Evolution Theory

"Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

 

Definition of Abiogenesis Theory

"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. "

https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

 

"(1) The idea that primitive life originated from nonliving matter (e.g. simple organic compounds) over a span of millions of years; autogenesis"

 https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/abiogenesis 

I didn't say they weren't two separate theories. They are but interconnected. You said abiogenesis had been debunked. It hasn't. How abiogenesis occurred has been fully explained by a German chemist/patent lawyer. It just hasn't been observed. The reason it hasn't been observed is because the necessary environmental conditions on Earth no longer exist, at least not on the surface and if it did occur it would be competing with other organisms a disadvantage the first pioneer organisms probably didn't have to contend with. 

Edited August 7 by beyondism

[beyondism]

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Scientists Just Recreated The Chemical Reaction That May Have Led to Life on Earth

I'm astounded you've never heard of this person.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günter_Wächtershäuser

 

[beyondism]

On 8/4/2024 at 1:59 AM, Alter2Ego said:

cormac:

Thanks for letting me know:

I haven't been here since 2013, so I'm not sure who is here any longer.

Biochemistry and natural selection trump religion and new-age twaddle.

[beyondism]

Biochemistry mocks the sanctity of human life and the miracle of birth. We are predator apes with darting eyes.

[beyondism]

The great Brian Cox said in one of his presentations that at some early point in the history of this planet - geochemistry becomes biochemistry.

Edited August 7 by beyondism

[beyondism]

I've spoken with a geneticist in Oxford a few years ago and he thinks it probable that abiogenesis has occurred on other worlds unknown to the clergy. 

[beyondism]

Iron-sulphur world theory 

RNA world hypothesis 

One or aspects from both these predictions will be correct.

it's over for religion 

Edited August 7 by beyondism

[Piney]

33 minutes ago, beyondism said:

The great Brian Cox said in one of his presentations that at some early point in the history of this planet - geochemistry becames biochemistry.

 

31 minutes ago, beyondism said:

I've spoken with a geneticist in Oxford a few years ago and he thinks it probable that abiogenesis has occurred on other worlds unknown to the clergy. 

Have you read the universal Law of Increasing Functional Complexity? 

 The physics and chemistry involved in the growing, aging universe leads to life.

I think Brian Cox was involved in figuring this out.

[Piney]

39 minutes ago, beyondism said:

Biochemistry mocks the sanctity of human life and the miracle of birth. We are predator apes with darting eyes.

 Who somehow survived losing our niche and became a invasive species as soon as we left Africa.

 

[Guyver]

32 minutes ago, beyondism said:

Iron-sulphur world theory 

RNA world hypothesis 

One or aspects from both these predictions will be correct.

it's over for religion 

Howdy!  I don’t think it’s over for religion, and it never will be, though we may in fact be predator apes with darting eyes as you claim.  The reason is that religion is based on beliefs, not science.  A thing doesn’t have to be true, factual, or scientific for it to be believed.  Since it seems that the majority of humans on this planet have beliefs and always have, I predict this trend will continue into the future even if it could be proven that abiogenesis could occur naturally.