Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Right Divider]

And chickens have the genes to make teeth, left over from their evolutionary history as theropod dinosaurs.

That is pure speculation.

When you remove the gene suppression, the chicken embryo produces reptile teeth.

More pure speculation.

Some creationist websites have an hilarious 'explanation' for the presence of these genes, a sort of 'just in case' argument. But with Jesus coming soon, how is it likely that chickens will find themselves in a new position of suddenly needing teeth?

They don't say what other genes the chickens have waiting 'in case'.

Obviously these creationists are not Calvinists.

Stuart

:french:

 

[Greg Jennings]

It means that you did and are doing precisely what I predicted you'd do.


That's stupitity on parade!

How, in any way, is that at all responsive to anything I said? Or is this what you are proposing happens inside living cells?

Nothing even remotely similar to dumping amino acids in water and hoping the right proteins happen to form inside a living cell. On the contrary. A very specific set of information is communicated via a symbolic logic scheme so as to create a very specific protein for very specific purposes, not the least of which is the creation of other proteins.

The fact is that atheists have no theory, nor even a working hypothesis on the subject of how such a process could possibly have evolved. Nor will they ever have one because it cannot have happened. You cannot get an information based symbolic logic from inanimate matter. Language requires a mind.


God did it.

Clete

Clete, I try to be polite here, but since you have no interest in that I will not hold back on you.

You're just not smart. You cannot work out logic. Seriously have ever studied ANYTHING? You seem like a complete moron. 6, Stripe, and others can at least put up a struggle sometimes. All you do is say "No! That's stupid! I'm right!" I doubt you had ever even heard of an amino acid before I told you about them.

As I said, WE DO THIS IN THE LAB DAILY. WE PRODUCE ORGANIC COMPUNDS FROM INORGANIC ROCKS IN EARLY EARTH CONDITIONS. Do you know what that means? Obviously not!

I'm sorry. But talking to deluded idiots is not on my schedule today. Feel free to tell me your education level in regards to biology, genetics, zoology, or evolution.

I predict you won't because you've never had one. In your case, likely bc you're an idiot who couldn't hack it

 

[Stuu]

The distinction is merely rhetorical. There is no such actual distinction, not logically. Evolutionists believe that society itself is an evolutionary development, as is everything else associated with life.

It's called an extended phenotype. Have you ever thought that it takes both genes and society for you to learn to speak? There is no point in having the genes for speaking without the society. They are both products of natural selection that evolved 'together'.

We are either social apes or we aren't.

We are.

We are either nature's most evolved animal or we aren't.

If 'most evolved' means anything then it should probably be awarded to whichever small, fast-reproducing animal has come under the most selection pressure due to a frequently changing environment. Hate to guess which that is. Maybe Barbarian or another biologist here could suggest some candidates.

If evolution has provided you with the ability to reproduce more effectively by killing me

So does science say we are social, or not? You can't have it both ways.

then who am I to argue with the experiments performed on my dead body designed to further your race by cleansing the world of mine?

Er, you've got me there. What on earth are you talking about? Is there some eugenic cult that thought it could carry out genocide through knowledge gained from cadavers? Never heard of it.

Do you believe that aliens abduct and probe humans?

It is the logical extension of the evolutionary worldview.

You mean it is an extension of a racist worldview, or a lack of understanding of the difference between natural selection and artificial selection.

If you don't like it, you'll have to drop evolution or live with an irrational, compartmentalized worldview that you've made up so as to salve and balm your emotional state of mind.

That would only be necessary if I had no idea about the difference between Social Darwinism and evolution by natural selection.

Stuart

 

[The Barbarian]

If 'most evolved' means anything then it should probably be awarded to whichever small, fast-reproducing animal has come under the most selection pressure due to a frequently changing environment. Hate to guess which that is. Maybe Barbarian or another biologist here could suggest some candidates.
Stuart

Yeah, "most evolved" means "most changed from an ancestral population." So a number of monkeys, such as baboons would qualify. But primates would fall far behind arthropods, some of which have evolved far more than any primate.

The key is that "evolved" doesn't mean "better." Humans retain a lot of primitive mammalian characteristics. In many cases, a less-evolved population will be more fit, because generalized organisms tend to be more adaptable.

And "more evolved" doesn't mean "more complex", either. Birds, for example have simplified a lot of things that were more complex in dinosaurs. Those gene for teeth, for example. Mammals have simplified jaws and shoulder joints, and have lost cervical ribs entirely.

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: chickens have the genes to make teeth, left over from their evolutionary history as theropod dinosaurs.

That is pure speculation.

Read about it on creationwiki. See how I've saved you the hassle of having to look up the 'creationist perspective' this time. Once they explain the science they then try to make it fit the hilarious 'just in case' model.

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hey guys: this is a Tasmanian handfish. It walks along the seafloor. This is how legs evolved

It's real. What now Cletus?

 

[Greg Jennings]

That is pure speculation.


More pure speculation.


:french:

Careful. Your ignorance is showing

 

[6days]

Hey guys: this is a Tasmanian handfish. It walks along the seafloor. This is how legs evolved

It's real. What now Cletus?

Not sure is you are joking or not? Tasmanian handfish appear designed for their environment. Just because a fish (Ambystoma mexicanum, handfish, mudskippers, red finned batfish and more) has 'legs' does not mean the legs evolved... or that these or any other fish is evolving into anything different than what they already are.
Evolutionists seem to have even imagined 'legs' where none exist (coelacanths).

 

[6days]

Stuu: chickens have the genes to make teeth, left over from their evolutionary history as theropod dinosaurs.

You have a wild imagination. It is not difficult to imagine a bird with teeth being selected out (breeding or natural). However it is wild speculation to imagine a chicken can be reverse engineered to become a dinosaur.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not sure is you are joking or not? Tasmanian handfish appear designed for their environment. Just because a fish (Ambystoma mexicanum, handfish, mudskippers, red finned batfish and more) has 'legs' does not mean the legs evolved... or that these or any other fish is evolving into anything different than what they already are.
Evolutionists seem to have even imagined 'legs' where none exist (coelacanths).

Well scientists would strongly disagree.

Fish with hand-like fins that they use to crawl around with is a critical step in the development of legs. Every single step is accounted for. There aren't really any missing links here. You can pretend that each example of a transitional feature is just "God did it" but that doesn't jive with reality.

Lobe-finned fish (like your coelacanth) gave rise to crawlers like the one above. Then they get out of the water a little (mudskippers), then they breathe air some (lungfish), then they are very nearly amphibian. In fact some salamanders lack hind legs, as well.

 

[Jonahdog]

. However it is wild speculation to imagine a chicken can be reverse engineered to become a dinosaur.

Only a creationist would suggest that,

 

[6days]

The key is that "evolved" doesn't mean "better." Humans retain a lot of primitive mammalian characteristics. In many cases, a less-evolved population will be more fit, because generalized organisms tend to be more adaptable.

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being....the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib.

 

[6days]

Only a creationist would suggest that,

NOPE! Haven't you heard of Jack Horner? He ain't no creationist. Only an evolutionist would think you can turn chickens into dinosaurs.

 

[6days]

Lobe-finned fish (like your coelacanth) gave rise to crawlers like the one above. Then they get out of the water a little (mudskippers), then they breathe air some (lungfish), then they are very nearly amphibian.

Once upon a time... long long ago...in a land far far away, there lived a lobe finned fish. Little by little he came out of the water. His fins became legs...his swim bladder turned into lungs. Then, boys and girls, the fish eventually became a philosopher and lived happily ever after.

 

[Stuu]

You have a wild imagination. It is not difficult to imagine a bird with teeth being selected out (breeding or natural). However it is wild speculation to imagine a chicken can be reverse engineered to become a dinosaur.

My reply to RD:

Read about it on creationwiki. See how I've saved you the hassle of having to look up the 'creationist perspective' this time. Once they explain the science they then try to make it fit the hilarious 'just in case' model.

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

NOPE! Haven't you heard of Jack Horner? He ain't no creationist. Only an evolutionist would think you can turn chickens into dinosaurs.

You have repeatedly refused things that I've put in front of you from Horner in the past on account of his credibility issue, and now you bring him to your own defense? Rich

 

[Greg Jennings]

Once upon a time... long long ago...in a land far far away, there lived a lobe finned fish. Little by little he came out of the water. His fins became legs...his swim bladder turned into lungs. Then, boys and girls, the fish eventually became a philosopher and lived happily ever after.

You can misrepresent my views all you want. But I can explain them in detail and support them with evidence every step of the way. Every step is accounted for, despite your head-shaking, foot-stamping disapproval. Intelligent, educated scientists taught me and showed me reality. You've never even spoken to one. Your premier evolution expert is a freaking obstetrician.

Meanwhile you'll never explain how lions survive eating only grass. Or how dinosaurs and all animals got in the ark. Or how all the water got there to begin with. Or how old the universe is. Or the speed of light. Or why the entire field of science started with the same beliefs as you but changed as evidence was discovered over two centuries. You can't explain any of it. None.


You contradict every known truth and act like you know something. It's laughable. Unless you're a schoolteacher. Then it's downright horrifying

 

[Stuu]

You contradict every known truth and act like you know something. It's laughable.

They're full of religious trash talk. They're obsessed with Saul of Tarsus, and lap up stuff like this in Corinthians: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, so the unwritten social contract that professional scientists have with the public to provide robust and high-quality information means nothing to them. They feel no responsibility for anything, except perhaps preaching to their choir of thankers. How little do they realise that Saul's later metaphors in Corinthians apply to them: they have no love and are as a clanging bell, failing to put away childish things.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

They're full of religious trash talk. They're obsessed with Saul of Tarsus, and lap up stuff like this in Corinthians: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, so the unwritten social contract that professional scientists have with the public to provide robust and high-quality information means nothing to them. They feel no responsibility for anything, except perhaps preaching to their choir of thankers. How little do they realise that Saul's later metaphors in Corinthians apply to them: they have no love and are as a clanging bell, failing to put away childish things.Stuart

:blabla:

 

[chair]

These threads about the mechanism of the evolution of various things are basically pointless. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that nobody had any idea at all of how legs evolved. Not a clue. It would not make evolution go away. Legs evolved. As did just about every living this on earth. The animals and plants that we have today were not around millions of years ago, and the animals and plant from back then do not exist today in their ancient form.

Animals and plants changed over time. That is evolution. Whether or not scientists can explain the mechanism of this or that detail- or any mechanism at all for all of evolution- makes no difference. Evolution happened. I understand that this is a problem for people with particular religious views, but arguing about the mechanism won't help them.

To make "evolution go away" so your religious beliefs won't be challenged, you'd need to show that "evolution didn't happen", not that "scientists don't understand the mechanism of leg evolution."

Chair