Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

Obviously it doesn’t. The flying fish uses it’s fin to swim and fly. The epaulette uses it’s fin to swim and walk. A bat uses it’s limbs to walk and fly.

True but these are functioning organs and will remain functioning as long as there’s no attempted change through mutations. It means these organism are just designed that way and will remain so for the next billion years.

I want to know how the change happens, so far it is an impossibility.
Plus, from what Evolution proposes, land animals evolved from amphibians and amphibians from fish. A flying fish therefore is no evidence for anything.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I mean, how many ways can you be wrong?

Epaulette shark - Wikipedia and…
Flying fish - Wikipedia and…
The Amphibious Bird | Bio-Aerial Locomotion and…
Are Bats Birds? | Wonderopolis

Like i said, Evolution thrives in shallow waters only. You are talking about organisms with established and functioning organs but why don’t you explain how the change happens and see how impossible it is?

Oh no you don’t. You said the original organ would lose its funcionality if it was used for another purpose. Obviously that was wrong. You said it would be fatal. Which obviously it isn’t.

And the change happens because changes at the genetic level sometimes result in some part of the body being a better fit for a new environment. So a uselessly stronger fin in the normal environment would be beneficial in a situation where there was low water levels and the fish could use it to ‘crawl’ as well as swim.

If it survives, it oasses on it’s genetic change for its ‘walking’ fin to its offspring. Which, if conditions prevail, will become the norm. And stronger fins equal a greater chance of survival so we end up with fish that can walk through mud.

Simple really. But if you have a better answer then I’d be glad to hear it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Obviously it doesn’t. The flying fish uses it’s fin to swim and fly. The epaulette uses it’s fin to swim and walk. A bat uses it’s limbs to walk and fly.

True but these are functioning organs and will remain functioning as long as there’s no attempted change through mutations. It means these organism are just designed that way and will remain so for the next billion years.

I want to know how the change happens…

See above. That’s how evolution works. You must have known that…

If the environment didn’t change for billions of years, then nothing would change. Change and Isolation — New England Complex Systems Institute

 

[Noose001]

Oh no you don’t. You said the original organ would lose its funcionality if it was used for another purpose. Obviously that was wrong. You said it would be fatal. Which obviously it isn’t.

I didn’t say organs loose functionality when they are used for a wrong purpose, they loose functionality when there’s a change within any of the many systems from which it derives its functionality.
For example, a limb will not function if there are changes in the nervous system that support its function. It will not function if there is a change in the muscular system that supports its function and this is true for all the other essential systems.
So, for there to be a change which allows continued functionality of the limb, the change has to be collaborative in all the essential systems that support its functionality. Collaboration is never an accident.

And the change happens because changes at the genetic level sometimes result in some part of the body being a better fit for a new environment. So a uselessly stronger fin in the normal environment would be beneficial in a situation where there was low water levels and the fish could use it to ‘crawl’ as well as swim.

This is the impossibility i’m talking about. There’s no ‘uselessly stronger fin’ that can be used to walk in shallow water, it is a fin that was design to walk in shallow waters from the beginning and there was no change from a weaker fin to a uselessly stronger fin, that change is an impossibility.

 

[Noose001]

See above. That’s how evolution works. You must have known that…

If the environment didn’t change for billions of years, then nothing would change. Change and Isolation — New England Complex Systems Institute

Okaaay, let me try another approach.

Let me know which point# you don’t agree with:

For a limb to function as a limb;

1. The circulatory system has to be functioning
2. The nervous system has to be functioning
3. The skeletal system has to be ok
4. The muscular system has to be ok
5. A change in one of the above renders the animal sick and thus the physiology of the limb is less functional.
6. For the limb to continue functioning under changes, all the systems must have a corresponding change.Example, the lengthening or shortening of skeletal tissues must be followed by physical changes in the blood supply, nerve endings, muscular connection e.t.c

 

[rossum]

Well, I read the source, and it shows evolutionary speculative theory is unproven.

Yes. All scientific theories are unproven because all scientific theories ore open to replacement by a better theory. Newton’s theory of gravity was always unproven. It has since been replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. That also is unproven and will in its turn be replaced by a theory of Quantum Gravity, which is currently being worked on. That in its turn will also be unproven and will in its turn be replaced by a better theory.

Any source that uses “The theory of evolution is unproven” as an argument is grossly ignorant of science. You need to find a better source, one that will not mislead you by giving you ineffective arguments like this one.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

See above. That’s how evolution works. You must have known that…

If the environment didn’t change for billions of years, then nothing would change. Change and Isolation — New England Complex Systems Institute

Okaaay, let me try another approach.

Let me know which point# you don’t agree with:

For a limb to function as a limb;

1. The circulatory system has to be functioning
2. The nervous system has to be functioning
3. The skeletal system has to be ok
4. The muscular system has to be ok
5. A change in one of the above renders the animal sick and thus the physiology of the limb is less functional.
6. For the limb to continue functioning under changes, all the systems must have a corresponding change.Example, the lengthening or shortening of skeletal tissues must be followed by physical changes in the blood supply, nerve endings, muscular connection e.t.c

Aha. Got you at 5.

The changes are incremental. I hope you don’t think that we go from fin-which-is-great-for-swimming-and-not-walking to fin-which-is-great-for-both.

Let’s say that my son, because of a genetic glitch, has slightly bigger leg muscles than me. And any of other of kids I might have. Now all things being equal, that would be a disadvantage because it makes him larger and therefore he requires a little more food to keep going. If food is hard to come by, you generally get people who are wiry rather than bulky.

But…if the environment changes from us picking berries (big leg muscles useless) to chasing down game (big leg muscles usefull) then he’s ahead of the game. So he might survive when one of his kin didn’t. So his kids will tend to have the physical attributes that will help *them survive better.

Rinse and repeat.

So a fish that has a fin that is just a tiny bit stronger than other fish if that’s an advantage will survive - all other things being equal - better than one which doesn’t. IF the environment requires it.

So saying that any changes are detrimental is nonsensical unless you consider the environment. But in any case, just because my son might have slightly larger leg muscles wouldn’t ‘render the animal sick’ in any case.

Most changes are detrimental so eventually they are removed from the lineage. You don’t see them. They’re gone. But those that aren’t detrimental continue on for quite some time. Until external changes (like the environment) prompt another direction.

If the environment in which the ‘walking fish’ lived changed so that the extra muscles and blood supply wasn’t required…became a negative characteristic rather than a positive one, then they’d go extinct.

 

[rossum]

Doesn’t matter, an attempt to change an organ is fatal because the original organ looses its functionality first.

So humans cannot talk because their mouth is for eating and, according to you, it is impossible for any organ to have more than one function.

Hmmm… I think you have made a mistake there somewhere. Some organs have two functions, so it is possible to add a function to an existing organ while retaining the original function.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Oh no you don’t. You said the original organ would lose its funcionality if it was used for another purpose. Obviously that was wrong. You said it would be fatal. Which obviously it isn’t.

I didn’t say organs lose functionality when they are used for a wrong purpose, they loose functionality when there’s a change within any of the many systems from which it derives its functionality.
For example, a limb will not function if there are changes in the nervous system that support its function. It will not function if there is a change in the muscular system that supports its function and this is true for all the other essential systems.

Maybe you don’t understand the biology behind this. It’s like saying that if I pumped iron for a year and built my musculature then because my skeltal system and cardiovascular system wouldn’t change then I’d die.

Your body adapts to suit its own environment.

If you have a gene switched on for a larger muscle then the body adapts to that change. Otherwise every daughter that was significantly larger that her parents would die. If your son turns out to suffer dwarfism (a small glitch in the genes) what do you think those genes change? Just height? Just the amount of skin you need? The length of muscles but not bones or vice versa?

The genetic glitch changes all spects of a characteristic. Not just isolated components of that characteristic.

 

[Noose001]

Aha. Got you at 5.

The changes are incremental. I hope you don’t think that we go from fin-which-is-great-for-swimming-and-not-walking to fin-which-is-great-for-both.

Let’s say that my son, because of a genetic glitch, has slightly bigger leg muscles than me. And any of other of kids I might have. Now all things being equal, that would be a disadvantage because it makes him larger and therefore he requires a little more food to keep going. If food is hard to come by, you generally get people who are wiry rather than bulky.

But…if the environment changes from us picking berries (big leg muscles useless) to chasing down game (big leg muscles usefull) then he’s ahead of the game. So he might survive when one of his kin didn’t. So his kids will tend to have the physical attributes that will help *them survive better.

Allow me to

We are talking about physiological changes which includes structural changes.
Change from a fin to a limb and from a limb to a wing entails huge changes in structure and can not be compared to one having a son with huge leg muscles. I mean, your sons leg is still a leg.
Change from a fin to a limb is what evolution entails, bearing a son with a huge leg muscle is nothing more than adaptability which doesn’t necessarily require changes in a genome.

Your example therefore is not comparable to what i said. If you want to compare apples with apples, talk of having a son whose femur or tibia bone is longer than the muscles therefore protrudes outside or a leg that bends forwards at the knee joint instead of backwards. That leg will not be functional at all because of the structural change. So my point #5 is valid. Evolution proposes whole changes in the structure and not just adaptability.

The fin and the limb as so different physiologically and more so, structurally that a shift from one to another can not happen even in a billion years. An attempt to change will render useless the functionality of either of them.

It will certainly require either lengthening or shortening of the skeletal structure or a change in the formation and even density of the skeletal structure too (example, a joint that allows bending). If the changes in the skeletal structural are to happen albeit small, corresponding changes in the muscular system has to happen and this is true for all other other systems- for the limb or fin to continue functioning, otherwise that will be the end of its function and probably the organisms life.

 

[Noose001]

So humans cannot talk because their mouth is for eating and, according to you, it is impossible for any organ to have more than one function.

Hmmm… I think you have made a mistake there somewhere. Some organs have two functions, so it is possible to add a function to an existing organ while retaining the original function.

Organs designed for dual function will definitely function as per their design, no mystery here. Most vulva are used for both excretion system as well as reproduction system.

 

[Noose001]

Your body adapts to suit its own environment.

If you have a gene switched on for a larger muscle then the body adapts to that change. Otherwise every daughter that was significantly larger that her parents would die. If your son turns out to suffer dwarfism (a small glitch in the genes) what do you think those genes change? Just height? Just the amount of skin you need? The length of muscles but not bones or vice versa?

The genetic glitch changes all spects of a characteristic. Not just isolated components of that characteristic.

A muscle gene switched for a larger muscle gene will require a corresponding glitch in the nerve gene and blood supply gene and yet another corresponding glitch in the skeletal gene, all these to accommodate the needs that come with bigger muscles otherwise the organ will be rendered useless.

Dwarfism is a disorder that doesn’t kill, it has nothing to do with benefiting from the environment.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Aha. Got you at 5.

The changes are incremental. I hope you don’t think that we go from fin-which-is-great-for-swimming-and-not-walking to fin-which-is-great-for-both.

Let’s say that my son, because of a genetic glitch, has slightly bigger leg muscles than me. And any of other of kids I might have. Now all things being equal, that would be a disadvantage because it makes him larger and therefore he requires a little more food to keep going. If food is hard to come by, you generally get people who are wiry rather than bulky.

But…if the environment changes from us picking berries (big leg muscles useless) to chasing down game (big leg muscles usefull) then he’s ahead of the game. So he might survive when one of his kin didn’t. So his kids will tend to have the physical attributes that will help *them survive better.

Allow me to

We are talking about physiological changes which includes structural changes.
Change from a fin to a limb and from a limb to a wing entails huge changes in structure…

They require changes that you would hardly be able to measure extrapolated over very large chunks of time. Which result in huge changes.

I’m not sure you understand the process. You’ll need to do that if you want to argue against it.

Thanks for your time.

 

[DictatorCzar]

So by the way you’re saying it, you think it’s a young earth?

 

[rossum]

Organs designed for dual function will definitely function as per their design, no mystery here.

Let’s try that in a different key:

Organs evolved for dual function will definitely function as per their evolution, no mystery here.

You have made a big assumption, and not provided any evidence to support it. Evolution can show a sequence of changes from lobe-fin fish to legs on early amphibians to land tetrapods to three different types of wing: pterosaurs, birds and bats. Bird wings have in at least one case further evolved for swimming, back to the original function of the lobe-fin. Evolution has the evidence to support its case. Where is your evidence?

 

[Noose001]

They require changes that you would hardly be able to measure extrapolated over very large chunks of time. Which result in huge changes.

I’m not sure you understand the process. You’ll need to do that if you want to argue against it.

Thanks for your time.

This is even worse; small changes in the skeletal system must be accompanied by corresponding small changes in all other systems all along to maintain functionality of the organ. There are no small changes in Physiology or genetics, addition or removal of a single nucleobase from a gene means the protein that will expressed from such a gene will not be functional.

 

[Freddy]

There are no small changes in Physiology or genetics, addition or removal of a single nucleobase from a gene means the protein that will expressed from such a gene will not be functional.

Where do you get this from?

 

[Noose001]

You have made a big assumption, and not provided any evidence to support it. Evolution can show a sequence of changes from lobe-fin fish to legs on early amphibians to land tetrapods to three different types of wing: pterosaurs, birds and bats. Bird wings have in at least one case further evolved for swimming, back to the original function of the lobe-fin. Evolution has the evidence to support its case. Where is your evidence?

There’s no evidence for this shift, what you are seeing is different life forms, with different organs used differently. What you are assuming is that these organs changed over a period of time while maintaining functionality. What i’m saying is that this is an impossibility considering the molecular/cellular changes and the coordination required not accidental changes.
You are the one to give evidence not me.

Do you agree that for a fin to function the circulatory system has to be ok, the skeletal system (structure) has to be ok, the nervous system has to be ok, the muscular system has to be ok?
and that for there to be a meaningful structural change, a corresponding chnage has to happen for these other supporting systems?

I mean, for an organism to move from water to land it requires not only limbs but also lungs, is this not a coordinated change? Tell me both appear via a series of accidents for a period of time. Unbelievable.

 

[Freddy]

I mean, for an organism to move from water to land it requires not only limbs but also lungs, is this not a coordinated change?. Tell me both appear via a series of accidents for a period of time. Unbelievable.

Are you saying that there are no fish that can live outside of water?

 

[Noose001]

Where do you get this from?

You know how DNA is and how genes work. They are made of nucleobases arranged in a very specific manner that holds coded information; removal or addition of a single nucleobase disrupts the code and there’s loss of information. The expressed protein from such a gene is function-less.