LOL....I shared what I thought and now I am on my way back to the bleachers to watch the rest....good luck.
ascott said:LOL....I shared what I thought and now I am on my way back to the bleachers to watch the rest....good luck.
cdmay said:ascott said:LOL....I shared what I thought and now I am on my way back to the bleachers to watch the rest....good luck.
Me too! By the way, did someone mention egg tooth somewhere?
N2TORTS said:"Egg teeth of Squamate reptiles and their phylogenetic significance
Original and published data on the structure of egg teeth in Squamate reptiles and the phylogenetic significance of corresponding characters are reviewed, elaborating A.M. Sergeev’s ideas on the subject. Problems are discussed concerning the use of this character in modern phylogenetic constructions and the necessity of new embryological investigations to resolve the issue concerning the formation of an unpaired egg tooth rudiment in all Squamata except the Dibamidae and Gekkota."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1062359013070029
Now here is what blows my mind …..
The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) with for other species of Echidna (Monotremes) are the only mammals that lay eggs. Also in fact one of the few venomous mammals , with the male platy having a spur on the hind foot that delivers venom. This very unique animal makes for an important subject in the studies of evolution biology.
N2TORTS said:N2TORTS said:"Egg teeth of Squamate reptiles and their phylogenetic significance
Original and published data on the structure of egg teeth in Squamate reptiles and the phylogenetic significance of corresponding characters are reviewed, elaborating A.M. Sergeev’s ideas on the subject. Problems are discussed concerning the use of this character in modern phylogenetic constructions and the necessity of new embryological investigations to resolve the issue concerning the formation of an unpaired egg tooth rudiment in all Squamata except the Dibamidae and Gekkota."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1062359013070029
Now here is what blows my mind …..
The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) with for other species of Echidna (Monotremes) are the only mammals that lay eggs. Also in fact one of the few venomous mammals , with the male platy having a spur on the hind foot that delivers venom. This very unique animal makes for an important subject in the studies of evolution biology.
Opps....I mean "four" .....I was never proficient at writing well , nor proof checking my work. Another one of my faults. .....sorry.
diamondbp said:Sorry I never responded to this. I simply didn't realize someone else had chimed in because it went over a week without any comments.
It doesn't matter "when" a egg tooth supposedly emerged, the problem remains the same.
You said "Well, it would be difficult to say why natural selection would state that this ancestor had the need for an egg tooth"
It's only difficult if you believe in evolution. It's quite easy to say what the "need" for an egg tooth is. The need is "the ability to hatch" because if not the creature dies lol. So again this is not difficult to understand for a creationist.
The fact that we see an egg tooth in so many different types of animals points to a common designer much more than a common ancestor. Especially if you (and other evolutionist) can't give a remotely feasible scenario for the emergence of such a structure.
Losing structures isn't evolution as much as you might like to think it is. Yes it is a "change" to a certain degree, but it displays a loss of information and not a gain. Losing structures plays no part in supposed "macro" evolution, which is what creationist and evolutionist butt heads about the most.
Thanks for the input but nothing of value was offered to the problem originally presented.
The fact that we see an egg tooth in so many different types of animals points to a common designer much more than a common ancestor. Especially if you (and other evolutionist) can't give a remotely feasible scenario for the emergence of such a structure.
Losing structures isn't evolution as much as you might like to think it is. Yes it is a "change" to a certain degree, but it displays a loss of information and not a gain. Losing structures plays no part in supposed "macro" evolution, which is what creationist and evolutionist butt heads about the most.
This leads me to believe you don't quite know what you're talking about. I don't think you quite understand evolution, nor do you understand the concept of phylogenies. A loss of a trait is indeed evolution and does not imply a loss of information. A loss of a trait could lead to the gain of many others, so your point is ill-informed and moot for more reasons that I've mentioned.
Overall, I would have to guess that you need to pick up a book on understanding phylogenies before you can come back to me and argue your creationism. I'm open to the idea of creationism, and I'm not a crazed evolutionist like you may think. I currently think evolution is the more compelling argument and I personally subscribe to it. "Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology" by Baum and Smith is a good introductory textbook that could teach you the basics of tree thinking.
Every perspective has it's weaknesses, and you tend to be focused purely on the problem that scientific explanation currently doesn't answer one question you have about something very specific. The problem with science is that evidence (physical or observed) and inferences from that evidence are used to back explanations, not the simple thought that the explanation "makes sense" like creationists tend to go by. Creationism has no tangible evidence whereas evolutionism does.
diamondbp said:Sorry I never responded to this. I simply didn't realize someone else had chimed in because it went over a week without any comments.
It doesn't matter "when" a egg tooth supposedly emerged, the problem remains the same.
You said "Well, it would be difficult to say why natural selection would state that this ancestor had the need for an egg tooth"
It's only difficult if you believe in evolution. It's quite easy to say what the "need" for an egg tooth is. The need is "the ability to hatch" because if not the creature dies lol. So again this is not difficult to understand for a creationist.
The fact that we see an egg tooth in so many different types of animals points to a common designer much more than a common ancestor. Especially if you (and other evolutionist) can't give a remotely feasible scenario for the emergence of such a structure.
Losing structures isn't evolution as much as you might like to think it is. Yes it is a "change" to a certain degree, but it displays a loss of information and not a gain. Losing structures plays no part in supposed "macro" evolution, which is what creationist and evolutionist butt heads about the most.
Thanks for the input but nothing of value was offered to the problem originally presented.
I don't think you have an understanding of the nature of the scientific argument behind evolution. I could do what you just did and fabricate plausible explanations for the evolution of an egg tooth and I could still say evolution is more plausible than creationism. Scientific explanation arises from observed or inferred evidence, not the act of simply forming explanations with no basis such as your own. The ability to hatch was never questioned by me. I was simply venturing deeper into question than answering the first "why". For every answer, there is another question; you don't just stop at "a need to hatch."
The fact that we see an egg tooth in so many different types of animals points to a common designer much more than a common ancestor. Especially if you (and other evolutionist) can't give a remotely feasible scenario for the emergence of such a structure.
This is totally incorrect. Seeing an egg tooth in many kinds of animals would point to the idea that all of these animals stemmed from a common ancestor a very long time ago, and that ancestor had the egg tooth which was a retained trait in all of these lineages. You're explanation for an egg tooth is just as baseless as anything I could come up with, because I'm not doing research specifically on the origins of the egg tooth. That does not at all mean creationism is the correct answer.
Losing structures isn't evolution as much as you might like to think it is. Yes it is a "change" to a certain degree, but it displays a loss of information and not a gain. Losing structures plays no part in supposed "macro" evolution, which is what creationist and evolutionist butt heads about the most.
This leads me to believe you don't quite know what you're talking about. I don't think you quite understand evolution, nor do you understand the concept of phylogenies. A loss of a trait is indeed evolution and does not imply a loss of information. A loss of a trait could lead to the gain of many others, so your point is ill-informed and moot for more reasons that I've mentioned.
Overall, I would have to guess that you need to pick up a book on understanding phylogenies before you can come back to me and argue your creationism. I'm open to the idea of creationism, and I'm not a crazed evolutionist like you may think. I currently think evolution is the more compelling argument and I personally subscribe to it. "Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology" by Baum and Smith is a good introductory textbook that could teach you the basics of tree thinking.
Every perspective has it's weaknesses, and you tend to be focused purely on the problem that scientific explanation currently doesn't answer one question you have about something very specific. The problem with science is that evidence (physical or observed) and inferences from that evidence are used to back explanations, not the simple thought that the explanation "makes sense" like creationists tend to go by. Creationism has no tangible evidence whereas evolutionism does.
The lack of an egg tooth does not necessarily mean a hatch rate of 0%. Perhaps the egg tooth improved hatch rates and was thus taken on through natural selection. You are implying that a lack of egg tooth means that a species could not hatch which is not true. Perhaps a lack of egg tooth still had effective hatch rates, high enough to allow for the survival of a species, but once the egg tooth developed, hatch rates gradually improved and allowed the species to flourish.These are some excellent points Cajun Turtle. The fact is that, had there been a real need for an egg tooth to begin with, the species in question would have died off before the structure could have developed. In other words how were they able to hatch before there was an egg tooth? The structure must have been there from the start.
Regarding the gaining or losing of structures, Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands have recently been observed with changing sizes in their beaks within a surprisingly few number of generations. The cause is changes in the flora and the seeds in which these finches are consuming. Some evolutionists have referred to this as 'micro'- evolution at work. Yet others state that it is simply an inherent genetic response to environmental changes. Yet the everyone agrees that the birds are, and will remain Darwin's finches. They are not evolving.
changing of beak size does not imply evolution of a new species. beak change could be for the reasons above and adaptation. A new species would arguably be one that cannot create viable offspring with the current Darwin's finches. evolution on the grand scale takes, hundreds, thousands of years. Not a few generations within the scope of vertebrates. The birds are indeed evolving as everything is, just not at an observable rate. Evolution is not exclusive to phenotypic change, nor does evolution imply observable change. A species that remains the same for a long time is still evolving...
I honestly skipped over your anecdote because it looked awfully boring. If you had something compelling feel free to summarize for me, or I can revisit and read it.
ascott said:The cricket are chirping at the evolutionist on this post. I was anticipating more attempts at explaining the evolutionary emergence of the egg tooth, but sadly very few have tried. Perhaps that's because there is no evolutionary explanation?
I always find it entertaining to watch this egg on (pun intended) of argument/debate/banter--etc....I don't see how it is that creation and evolution are two individual acts.....you see, how is it so far fetched to see that creation was set in play with a cornucopia of evolutionary steps to play out to trigger the big picture...a start, a middle and an end....all that occurs from start to end is an evolution of a creative plan....what is the argument?
You provide a perfectly reasonable explanation, and I appreciate your ability to understand the nature of things like this. Just believe what you want, and don't ask other for their opinion unless you want to use their opinion to build upon and change your own through perspective. This post in particular just seems to be "creationists" that don't understand nor do they want to understand what the theory of evolution actually is.
cdmay said:I see your point. But here again you are assuming that these very different forms of life had common ancestor because it fits the evolution model.
Just because a useful feature like an egg tooth is shared by many egg laying animals does not mean they are de facto relatives. If so the same would then be true of animals that possess fur--or any kind of hair. Or if your egg tooth scenario is true then you could say that all animals with scales had a common ancestor. Or even further--that all animals with eyes can be traced back to a common ancestor.
Having a common ancestor doesn't necessarily imply the last ancestor was common. A common ancestor could be a hundred ancestors away. Maybe 10, maybe 5. A ton of different species didn't just erupt from a single ancestor. You don't understand in the slightest what you're arguing against.
cdmay said:I don't have the slightest idea what I'm arguing against?
Thanks, nothing like a great laugh to start the day!
OctopusMagic said:cdmay said:I don't have the slightest idea what I'm arguing against?
Thanks, nothing like a great laugh to start the day!
You truly do not. You may understand your own perspective, but you understand very little about the evolutionist perspective. It's very apparent from your responses and input to this "discussion." I've recommended a book for you all to take a gander at. It's very clear to me that you don't understand the very basics of evolution and phylogenics. You also bring up irrelevant points, such as claiming that all evolutionists agree with strictly Darwinian theory. So, this being your only response, it's obvious that your ego is just too big to admit your willful ignorance. I've no interest in talking to those who don't wish to grow and understand other perspectives. Have a nice day.
tffnytorts said:*grabs notepad and pop corn*
ascott said:*Angela climbing down from the bleachers, just for a moment *
You gentlemen all realize that you are arguing a topic that will never be agreed upon, right? j
*Angela grabs another glass of wine and heads back up to her seat *