Evolution and Creationism

[glorfindel87]

If creationalism was a fact,, why should human embryos and all mammals have gill slits to begin with..... I haven't the foggiest ideal how a vertebrae gets confused as a gill slit.


About the horses,, I don't know what you wrote.. but actual TOES instead of Hoofs ocassionally show up in the horse line.. I don't know what the heck your talking about. I am looking for the URL I found with that...

You didn't seem to read your own quote. The scientist said they were not gills at all, just merely slits. They are not functional at all and serve no breathing purpose. They are not even remotely similar in anything but appearance.
My horse thing you did not understand was quite simple. I started with another "vestigal" part that was claimed as proof of evolution, and showed how once again, science is right and theories are wrong. Fact, not theory as you say. Then I said that the fact that on rare occasions horses have three toes means nothing as that would mean the two-headed babies, twelve fingered men, etc. were just repressed genes. That in itself seems to me like it is evidence horses didn't have three toes, as there doesn't seem to be any other animal with repressed genes waiting to come out. What animal mutations other than this one match fossil records?
Nighty night!

[Falworth]

Originally posted by drugpimp@Dec 5 2004, 10:41 PM
I took some genetics in school and i know the DNA strand is mostly junk. The amount the human body uses is a small fraction of the total length of the DNA chain. If this is left over from us evolving do you think that scientist will be able to take part of the human DNA and create a once extenct animal? I know, it sounds like very bad sci-fi but if we are nothing but a pile of mutations that lead us to this point, should we not be able to backtrack and create a primitave ape?

Watch out,, They are fining radicals in that junk DNA which inserts itself in other places of the DNA strand.. Now, this can cause major mods or maybe no mod at all.. It's kinda new and I have been watching what they are finding...

If I read the news right in the last month or so,, Europe is going to start playing around with human DNA.. to see what happens I guess. They already stated they are going to CLONE a human... Also, they are going to take the lead on STEM Cell research.. Since, USA dont' want to do it because of morals.

[Syron]

Read some recent unbiased science articles. The embryo thing has been proven wrong.
Here is one refutal.
It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. You yourself seem behind on the times sometimes for all your "knowledge" and up to date science arguments.

The gill thing is not bogus, I can tell you that from personal knowledge. I have seen amphibian embryo's personally in a lab and the same slit structures are also present in human embryo's. This trait is present in fact in practically all Chordates, a group that dates back over 500 million years. Lower Chordates have full gills but in higher Chordates this trait has been reduced to just the slits. Have you ever seen an embryo? Go back and look at Wild Bill Keslo's picture's earlier on in the thread.

Before you say something is bogus produce the source you have that refutes this.

Here is a "why" question that evolution should be able to answere, why are we creative? I have limited knowledge on this but is there any other animal that can create just for the sake of it? And why have some animals stopped evolving should be something that evolution address too.

We are not exactly sure why we are creative but there are some ideas. There are other animals that are creative, or use their initiative such as animals like birds and apes that have created and can use tool's.

Secondly NO ANIMAL HAS STOPPED EVOLVING!
Crocodile's have changed, Ceolacanths have changed, sharks have changed, just not as quickly as others. The reasons for this are obvious, evolution is driven by the pressures of external change, when there is little change in the external factors there is no presure to evolve as much. Also what connects most of the animals that don't evolve as quickly is that they generally are scavengers by nature, they are not fussy there is no real need to have an evolutionary arms race as they will always find a way to survive on the dregs. That helped?

[Falworth]

Originally posted by glorfindel87@Dec 5 2004, 10:48 PM

You didn't seem to read your own quote. The scientist said they were not gills at all, just merely slits. They are not functional at all and serve no breathing purpose. They are not even remotely similar in anything but appearance.
My horse thing you did not understand was quite simple. I started with another "vestigal" part that was claimed as proof of evolution, and showed how once again, science is right and theories are wrong. Fact, not theory as you say. Then I said that the fact that on rare occasions horses have three toes means nothing as that would mean the two-headed babies, twelve fingered men, etc. were just repressed genes. That in itself seems to me like it is evidence horses didn't have three toes, as there doesn't seem to be any other animal with repressed genes waiting to come out. What animal mutations other than this one match fossil records?
Nighty night!

Gill slits are gill slits..... Why are they there in the first place.. as per you creationlists.. we have nothing to do with fish.... So, gill slits shouldn't even show up..


Horse mutation,, bahhh-humbug.... It happens too many times to have that type of mutation be not related to the
horse.

Amazing, now you start wanting fossil records as evidence, which you disagree to begin with. So, make up your mind,, are the fossil records correct or not? If not correct, why do you want fossil record evidence.

ok,, the Image is a sunspot I reduced from 1024 X 768.. If I knew it would show up like this, I would have posted the bigger Image. I don't know how many earths can fill that sunspot...

[drugpimp]

Ya they taught us a little about the jumping genes, didnt cover it much, most of the class didnt understand the basics anyway.

[drugpimp]

It helps a little, i wouldnt count what animals that use tools do as the creativity that I am talking about, however I guess it would be considered a precurser to art.

Why does evolution appear to have these rapid periods of growth? I know they take place right after mass extiction, but why only then? If most of the animals where wiped out, why whould the existing animals need to adapt and form so many new species so quickly (at least on a geological timescale)? I would think the lack of competing animals would stagnate change, and only when the diversity of animals was high, would the be pressure to evolve to something better.

P.S. I hope I am not pissing any of you off, I am just very curious. Also if my questions sound simplistic please dont assume I am simple minded. If the answere is complicated, hit me with it.

[Falworth]

Originally posted by drugpimp@Dec 5 2004, 11:02 PM
It helps a little, i wouldnt count what animals that use tools do as the creativity that I am talking about, however I guess it would be considered a precurser to art.

Why does evolution appear to have these rapid periods of growth? I know they take place right after mass extiction, but why only then? If most of the animals where wiped out, why whould the existing animals need to adapt and form so many new species so quickly (at least on a geological timescale)? I would think the lack of competing animals would stagnate change, and only when the diversity of animals was high, would the be pressure to evolve to something better.

P.S. I hope I am not pissing any of you off, I am just very curious. Also if my questions sound simplistic please dont assume I am simple minded. If the answere is complicated, hit me with it.

NP.. I don't know why.. I don't know if anyone else does either,,They have guesses, but don't know how you can confirm that.. If you find the answe, write a book and get famous.... I don't do biological evolution, just kinda light reading, I perfer Cosmology.. The universe and such... I like big, and you can't get much bigger than the Universe.

To glory... You still didn't answer my 250 million question in back posts.......

[Syron]

It helps a little, i wouldnt count what animals that use tools do as the creativity that I am talking about, however I guess it would be considered a precurser to art.

Oh it is very important, If it weren't for our dextrous hands then there probably wouldn't be art! We have the ability to express ourselves through them. It is highly likely that if dolphins had hands they would be capable of things that we would consider to be art. There is little reason to believe that "creativity" is confined to humans and you certainly can't say that animals would be mentally incapable of it. I think it highly more likely that creativity is a function of dexteral manipulation. Of course just my opinion but it would make sense from what we know.

Why does evolution appear to have these rapid periods of growth?  I know they take place right after mass extiction, but why only then?  If most of the animals where wiped out, why whould the existing animals need to adapt and form so many new species so quickly (at least on a geological timescale)?   I would think the lack of competing animals would stagnate change, and only when the diversity of animals was high, would the be pressure to evolve to something better.

Not all periods of rapid evolution occur after extinctions and also many species do not evolve so much in these periods either. For example Crocodiles changed very little even through the extinction that killed of the Dinosaurs. This shows that what is an evolutionary pressure for one animal is not nessecarily one for all, being an amphibious scavenger, crocodiles were very suited to a time when many things were dying giving them an easy meal!

You are right though that at periods of extinction such as "the time of great dying", the Permian extinction, where perhaps as little as 5% of species survived many new species arose but when you look closely the reason it looks this way is obvious. There were evolutionary pressures on many animals, perhaps not at first in population terms but remember this is millions of years an we are talking about the number of species that survived, not individuals. In perhaps a couple of millions years or less the number of animals would probably get back to normal. There would have been environemntal pressures, with many animals adapting to the change in the environment that sparked the extinction.

Perhaps the most important thing that extinctions do is disrupt order and i'll give examples from the two most famous extinctions:

Permian exticntion, 250 million years ago. Before the extinction creatures like Synapsids ruled the earth and all maner of strange creatures ruled the sea. After the extinction, the synapsids left suffered, the postion was open for another groups of animals to compete with them, this happened to be early Dinosaurs such as Coelophysis who somehow were better suited to the change. Because the order was disturbed this forced those creature's that had been in the background to chage to the new threats or die.

Death of the Dinosaurs, 65 Million years ago. Before this Dinosaurs thrived with small creatures like mammals living beside them. After the extinction the remnants of therapods, huge walking birds ruled such as Titanis. This was a diffferent threat that the creature's around it had to adapt to it is this shifting of order tnhat would appear to have originally started to provide mammals that were larger than just rodents.

All in all we can't be certain at the moment EXACTLY what causes every pressure but some major causes are obvious.

P.S. I hope I am not pissing any of you off, I am just very curious.

Never worry about asking questions, I worry about those who don't.

[glorfindel87]

Originally posted by Syron@Dec 5 2004, 10:55 PM

The gill thing is not bogus, I can tell you that from personal knowledge. I have seen amphibian embryo's personally in a lab and the same slit structures are also present in human embryo's. This trait is present in fact in practically all Chordates, a group that dates back over 500 million years. Lower Chordates have full gills but in higher Chordates this trait has been reduced to just the slits. Have you ever seen an embryo? Go back and look at Wild Bill Keslo's picture's earlier on in the thread.

Before you say something is bogus produce the source you have that refutes this.

Syron, I am surprised. Falworth himself posted a scientific article that said they were slits, not gills. I already posted on this. The slits are not even close to gills.

It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves.

Read the posts better.
As for you Falworth, you also are ignoring facts and still insisting that they are gill slits. THEY ARE NOT, so quit trying to ask why gill slits are on human embryos.
Now for the horse. I will merely repeat what you have repeated so often before. Just because you say so doesn't mena anything. The facts speak for themselves. Saying a mutation is a recessive gene means nothing. Prove it when there are so many other wierd mutations in the world that are certaintly not recessive genes. And these three toed horses are by no means common. They are rare mutations.

[Shigawire]

Life, by nature, is always filling any niches that it can fill, within the boundaries of time and evolution.
This reminds me of Toby the pool of water.

Toby was wondering...

Boy am I lucky to have this hole in the ground! I wonder who put it here... it's so perfectly shaped to myself! ^_^

[Portuguese Rebel]

Syron, I am surprised. Falworth himself posted a scientific article that said they were slits, not gills. I already posted on this. The slits are not even close to gills.

In the embryonic correspondent of a fish you can only see slits too (i.e. the fish embryo also doesn't have guills)s . Only then they start to differenciate into gills in fish (not in humans). There is no difference between the human slits and the fish slits. And would you mind explaining why humans (as everything above fish in the evolutionary tree) have such slits?

As for you Falworth, you also are ignoring facts and still insisting that they are gill slits. THEY ARE NOT, so quit trying to ask why gill slits are on human embryos.
Now for the horse. I will merely repeat what you have repeated so often before. Just because you say so doesn't mena anything. The facts speak for themselves. Saying a mutation is a recessive gene means nothing. Prove it when there are so many other wierd mutations in the world that are certaintly not recessive genes. And these three toed horses are by no means common. They are rare mutations.

But no rare mutation are the vestigial digits in horses. Here is an excert of the"world almanac FOR KIDS" :cool

Modern Horses top

The most marked anatomical characteristic of the modern horse is the possession of only a single toe on each of its four feet, which makes it a PERISSODACTYL, or odd-toed ungulate, along with the rhinoceros and tapir. The horse’s toe, which corresponds to the middle digit of the human hand, is much enlarged and is protected by a horny hoof that surrounds the front and sides of the toe. Vestigial splints corresponding to the second and fourth toes are situated on either side of the foot above the hoof.

Ok... They took it out of MSN Encarta encyclopedia... Still funny though :

Why does evolution appear to have these rapid periods of growth? I know they take place right after mass extiction, but why only then? If most of the animals where wiped out, why whould the existing animals need to adapt and form so many new species so quickly (at least on a geological timescale)? I would think the lack of competing animals would stagnate change, and only when the diversity of animals was high, would the be pressure to evolve to something better

Read up on "punctured equilibrium"...

And existing animals don't need to adapt after an extintion. They do so brecause the freaks in the population can use unused resources and thus be wildly successful. A lack of competition only stagnates things if the ecological space is already occupied and stabilized (native Australian fauna is an example of this). If ecological space is avaible new species will appear that make use of that avaiable space.

[glorfindel87]

Originally posted by Portuguese Rebel@Dec 6 2004, 04:44 PM

In the embryonic correspondent of a fish you can only see slits too (i.e. the fish embryo also doesn't have guills)s . Only then they start to differenciate into gills in fish (not in humans). There is no difference between the human slits and the fish slits. And would you mind explaining why humans (as everything above fish in the evolutionary tree) have such slits?

But no rare mutation are the vestigial digits in horses. Here is an excert of the"world almanac FOR KIDS" :cool

Ok... They took it out of MSN Encarta encyclopedia... Still funny though :

PR, I am surprised at you as well. Scientific knowledge has proved that these "gill slits" are not even distantly related to fish gills. Why you, Syron, and Falworth keep bringing the same thing up is beyond me. You are not making sense, and are just making yourself look stupid. Both me and Flaworth have posted scientific articles that say these slits are not gill slits. Just in case those two were not enough, here is another one.

But what about the supposed evidence for gill slits, yolk sac, and tail (to name the most used examples) in a human embryo? True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo. As they develop, however, the resemblance stops. In the fish, the folds develop into gills; but in the human, they develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas. If humans were related to fish, one would expect the gills to evolve into the lungs, trachea, and mouth. Similarly, the embryonic human "tail" is in reality the developing coccyx, or "tail bone," a vitally important, fully human feature, while the so-called yolk sac is not a source of nourishment as in a bird egg, but is the source of the embryo's first blood cells. Everything about the human embryo is totally unique and human.

Now, will you leave that alone please?
To your other quote. What did that mean? That did not prove or disprove anything I was talking about. Maybe I missed the point. If so, educate me.

[Cliomhdubh]

do any of yous arguing for creationisim actually done any biology in school if so were you asleep.
seriously like com on do you even understand those scientific explanations you gave because there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. and a scientist or at least some one who belives in science belives in evidence.

maybe i just dont really understand what creationisim is
if animals did not evolve then where did they come from?

will you answer that question or will you just avoid it like the last time it was asked?

[Portuguese Rebel]

But what about the supposed evidence for gill slits, yolk sac, and tail (to name the most used examples) in a human embryo? True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo. As they develop, however, the resemblance stops. In the fish, the folds develop into gills; but in the human, they develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas. If humans were related to fish, one would expect the gills to evolve into the lungs, trachea, and mouth.

:devil

That's about one of the most ignorant statements i've heard... gills and lungs are not linked structures (i.e. lungs did not originate from guills). where did you get this stuff? That is a clear display of poor knowlage about this subject. And who told the author of that that an embryonic structure has to develop into similar things? Does the human embryo tail evolves into a tail in the grown being? And how would it originate the mouth if the mouth (or at least the hole for it) is one of the first things to form, both in fish and humans (and all other vertebrates) and is embryologicaly connected to the digestive system origin, not the respiratory system... That's ridiculous. I would like a source for that if you don't mind. If i had a student answering me this in high school (this is high school stuff here in Portugal) i would flunk him in a heart beat...

I'm not arguing that embryos have guills. They have the percursor folds that would develop into guills if we were fish. The article Falworth posted was about embryos having real functioning guills and breathing through it. In case you didn't notice the article does not dispute the folds being an ancestral trait common to all vertebrates.


And next time you acuse someone of looking stupid don't do it to a biology major while discussing biology. That kinda gets on my nerves you know... I teach this stuff on a daily basis... while you post stuff written by someone that would clearly flunk one of my high school tests...

o your other quote. What did that mean? That did not prove or disprove anything I was talking about. Maybe I missed the point. If so, educate me.

What exactly of that quote taken from the almanac for kids didn't you understand? Horsies have little useless finger thingies around the hoof... Ya know... The kind of stuff that is left behind when your middle fingers merge into a hoof. :p

[plasticfigurine]

I kinda have a theory (sorry if this has been said...i dont wanna read 26 pages on this) i mix a little of each to get my theory. I believe that earth (and all of its inhabitants) was created in 7 days (in god's time) ...HOWEVER...--I believe that 1 day in god's time could be millions of years for humans. He created all that we have, and changed it throughout those 7 days (or millions of years) he changed things to better suit them for life.

[glorfindel87]

Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Dec 6 2004, 06:54 PM
do any of yous arguing for creationisim actually done any biology in school if so were you asleep.
seriously like com on do you even understand those scientific explanations you gave because there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. and a scientist or at least some one who belives in science belives in evidence.

maybe i just dont really understand what creationisim is
if animals did not evolve then where did they come from?

will you answer that question or will you just avoid it like the last time it was asked?

Cliomhbudh, we have been arguing in this thread for 24 pages and we have not reached a conclusion on either side. Both sides have questions to answer. So do not think that by your one post, which says nothing constructive, that we creationists are going to drop dead before your post. Read the entire thread, or at least the last five pages, and if you have anything constructive to add, add it. You evidently did not read any of our posts which say what we believe. We believe the earth did not evolved, but was created. And I think even Falsworth and PR would agree that evolution has its problems. Even if it has "advanced" science,(I don't see how, Falsworth and PR do though) science also disagrees with it on many points. It, like creationism, is a theory that needs proof. So far, no luck.
Now, I will not ignore your question, like you say we will. We believe animals did not evolve. They were created and have adapted to the changing enviroment through adaption (small changes within a species to help it survive, like thicker coats, changing colors like some moths do, etc but only because the genes of the species have the small changes in it, and our form of natural selection makes the previously undominant gene a dominant one), not by forming new species, mutating, and growing limbs.

[Scrappy Jenks]

Glorfindel, I have a question. What's up with all the fossils? What's up with the dating (much of which is based on physics so unless you think physical laws are not static dont argue that the dating is wrong)? Where are all these species? Why are their multiple species that fill the same niches as other species in other parts of the world? If God made all animals for a purpose then why do many animals fill the same niche as other animals? Why wouldn't just one animal per niche suffice?

Evolution observes data and evidence and attempts to explain the observations I made above. Please use creationism to explain them

[lycon]

Ok i believe i may have something to add to this discusion. During my studdy of the bible in high school i was told that the story of creation (god creating the world in 7 days) was made up by a priest or pope or something to explain how earth was created. The person who made it up was not a prophit, saint or anything and so it cant be said that this is what God actualy did. (that is what i have been told i havent researched it in much depth)

And thus knowing that this story is not Gods word science and evolution can co-exist with religion. i believe in everything that science has told us, that we evolved from animals, that all life can be traced back to one common ancetorial organism and that most importantly the univerce just happened out of nowhere, this is the only reason i believe in God, because it makes no sense at all for something to just happen.

[Big War Bird]

Originally posted by lycon@Dec 6 2004, 07:27 PM
Ok i believe i may have something to add to this discusion. During my studdy of the bible in high school i was told that the story of creation (god creating the world in 7 days) was made up by a priest or pope or something to explain how earth was created. The person who made it up was not a prophit, saint or anything and so it cant be said that this is what God actualy did. (that is what i have been told i havent researched it in much depth)

And thus knowing that this story is not Gods word science and evolution can co-exist with religion. i believe in everything that science has told us, that we evolved from animals, that all life can be traced back to one common ancetorial organism and that most importantly the univerce just happened out of nowhere, this is the only reason i believe in God, because it makes no sense at all for something to just happen.

Read the first couple of pages in the Bible very carefully and you will see that there are actually two creation stories. Outwardly they appear the same, but if you line them up, their timeline of events are quite different.

[glorfindel87]

Originally posted by Portuguese Rebel@Dec 6 2004, 06:59 PM

:devil

That's about one of the most ignorant statements i've heard... gills and lungs are not linked structures (i.e. lungs did not originate from guills). where did you get this stuff? That is a clear display of poor knowlage about this subject. And who told the author of that that an embryonic structure has to develop into similar things? Does the human embryo tail evolves into a tail in the grown being? And how would it originate the mouth if the mouth (or at least the hole for it) is one of the first things to form, both in fish and humans (and all other vertebrates) and is embryologicaly connected to the digestive system origin, not the respiratory system... That's ridiculous. I would like a source for that if you don't mind. If i had a student answering me this in high school (this is high school stuff here in Portugal) i would flunk him in a heart beat...

I'm not arguing that embryos have guills. They have the percursor folds that would develop into guills if we were fish. The article Falworth posted was about embryos having real functioning guills and breathing through it. In case you didn't notice the article does not dispute the folds being an ancestral trait common to all vertebrates.


And next time you acuse someone of looking stupid don't do it to a biology major while discussing biology. That kinda gets on my nerves you know... I teach this stuff on a daily basis... while you post stuff written by someone that would clearly flunk one of my high school tests...



What exactly of that quote taken from the almanac for kids didn't you understand? Horsies have little useless finger thingies around the hoof... Ya know... The kind of stuff that is left behind when your middle fingers merge into a hoof. :p

Ok, first of all, I must admit that I misrepreseted your question. I thought you had again asked why humans have gill slits. If you had, even you would agree that you were stupid. Now that I look back, I see that is not the case. You are asking why the early embryos have similar slits that later develop into different parts. My answer is based on the previous sentence. Why, if evolution were true, would the same looking slits develop into different parts if the animal had evolved?
If fish embryos have slits that develop into gills, why, so many years after fish turned to humans, would they still begin the same way? Would not the way animals develop, the embryos, evolve too? Why would two so similar looking parts turn weeks later into completely different organs if humans are so completely different from fish? Surely we would have evolved a different way to develop our thymus, parathyroid, and middle-ear canal than the way fish begin development on gills.