Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Silent Hunter]

Concerning Clete...

I'm not buying it. There are amoral, lying creationists to point at. Clete isn't one of them.

Sure he is. He says he wants "opinions and thoughts" and that he has no desire to "pick apart whatever explanation is offered". Yet, when given "opinions and thoughts" (facts) goes right on the offensive to "pick apart whatever explanation is offered". I don't know how you define "lying" but it seems your definition is outside the norm.

I believe he firmly believes what he's saying.

What Clete "believes" about creationism has nothing to do with his contradictory actions relative to his stated intentions in his OP.

He's wrong about some things,

Some?

... but he's no liar.

The facts suggest otherwise.

 

[The Barbarian]

Concerning Clete...

Sure he is. He says he wants "opinions and thoughts" and that he has no desire to "pick apart whatever explanation is offered". Yet, when given "opinions and thoughts" (facts) goes right on the offensive to "pick apart whatever explanation is offered". I don't know how you define "lying" but it seems your definition is outside the norm.

I certainly don't expect him to sit there and let me lecture him without him questioning me and calling me out, if he thinks there's a flaw my argument. I welcome that; it's what discourse is for. If he meant to say that he wasn't going to question things, then that was wrong. But I don't think that's what he meant by "pick apart." You're free to question him about that, of course.

What Clete "believes" about creationism has nothing to do with his contradictory actions relative to his stated intentions in his OP.

I think you could reasonably make an argument for that, but given his past behavior, I don't think you're right. I notice that he's willing to listen, and doesn't reflexively reject what he's reading.

 

[The Barbarian]

One other thing. In annelid worms and in mollusks,parapodia often function as gills. The first parapodia seem to have merely been bumps that increased the surface area of the skin, facilitating gas exchange.

Since the body walls of annelids are muscular, the parapodia were capable of movement, and so the lobopods were preadapted as legs.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Concerning Clete...

Sure he is. He says he wants "opinions and thoughts" and that he has no desire to "pick apart whatever explanation is offered". Yet, when given "opinions and thoughts" (facts) goes right on the offensive to "pick apart whatever explanation is offered". I don't know how you define "lying" but it seems your definition is outside the norm.

I certainly don't expect him to sit there and let me lecture him without him questioning me and calling me out, if he thinks there's a flaw my argument. I welcome that; it's what discourse is for.

Well, finding out the "opinions and thoughts" about the "origin of legs... through evolution" without "pick(ing) apart whatever explanation (was) offered" WAS his stated intent in the OP. That he did otherwise implies he was being deceitful from the onset.

If he meant to say that he wasn't going to question things, then that was wrong. But I don't think that's what he meant by "pick apart." You're free to question him about that, of course.

Been there... done that.

What Clete "believes" about creationism has nothing to do with his contradictory actions relative to his stated intentions in his OP.

I think you could reasonably make an argument for that, but given his past behavior, I don't think you're right. I notice that he's willing to listen, and doesn't reflexively reject what he's reading.

Seriously? He might read "opinions and thoughts" about evolution but I'm quite sure he has absolutely no intention of considering the evidence of evolution. Perhaps you missed this gem...

I do not debate evolution. Evolution is not science and, to my mind, not worthy to be debated. It is perhaps history's greatest example of an unfalsifiable mass delusion and deserves no more time devoted to debate than would have been debating the existence of witches in Salem. It is flat out stupidity and anyone who is even the slightest bit objective can see readily that is has nothing to do with science. It is a creation myth for the atheist, minus the evidence.

He couldn't be more of a LIAR were he a politician.

 

[6days]

Step by step?

In six days, God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

In six days, God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them.

Pull the other one and you will see the joke

 

[Jose Fly]

Then where's all the hostility coming from? I said I wasn't going to, you expected that I wouldn't, I haven't and I won't. Where's the problem?

I think you're confusing amusement with hostility.

Low expectations? I've been 100% consistent and entirely honest in this thread. You seem to think you can shame me into debating something I have no interest in debating but it won't work. I'm not ashamed of anything nor do I have anything to be ashamed about. There are plenty of other people here who are more than happy to debate evolution and they do a fine job of it. They don't need my help and even if they did, I wouldn't want to engage in a debate where evolution is conceded to be legitimate science, which is the only premise underwhich most evolutionists are willing to debate. And even if they were willing to engage on that basis, it wouldn't fit with the intended purpose of this thread. In this thread, my intent from the beginning has been to enlist the unencumbered opinions and thoughts of evolutionists themselves and to allow those very statements to stand or fall under their own weight when confronted with the demonstrably true facts of reality, which have been discovered using real, actually provable science.

As has been demonstrated, you're not asking your questions in good faith. You ask for the evolutionary explanations for things (e.g., legs), and then when someone like Barbarian goes through the bother of writing some of it up and posting it in (IMO) a laughably timid manner so as to not scare you away, you simply wave it all away ("my eyes glazed over", "English please") and declare that this is just one big setup for some "punch line" that you're eventually going to spring on everyone.

IOW, Barbarian's efforts are totally in vain. It's just part of some silly game you're playing.

Now, let's be clear here.....that doesn't make me angry or upset in any way. Rather, I find the whole thing pretty amusing. It's funny to watch you in all your false hubris make all sorts of overly confident declarations about evolutionary biology, but then refuse to defend any of it, in what is an obvious cover for your insecurities. IOW, you don't wan't to defend any of it because you're scared to. You know what'll happen, likely because it's happened to you before, so you create this facade of arrogance and hide behind it to avoid getting burned again and having your beliefs threatened.

I don't know if you appreciate this, but the only person who cares about your views on evolutionary biology is you. In the real world, the science of evolutionary biology marches on, new discoveries are made, our knowledge continues to advance, and all without any concern at all for what "Clete at ToL thinks". Public support for creationism in the US is at an all-time low, and continues to decline. Among young people the numbers are even more stark, and it won't be long before the US is pretty much in line with the rest of the world in its public views on evolution.

Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant. It hasn't contributed a single thing to our understanding of things in well over a century. No one uses it for actual science....not in private industry, academia, or anywhere else.

So you can go on and on all you like about how you believe evolutionary biology is a hoax, lie, or failed science. But I hope you appreciate that for what it truly is.....just some guy ranting on an internet forum.

 

[The Barbarian]

IOW, Barbarian's efforts are totally in vain. It's just part of some silly game you're playing.

In any debate like this, the participants rarely change their minds. But others are watching, and they might, depending on how things go. Clete asks good questions, and he doesn't mess around with rhetorical tricks or dodges, the way some others do here.

So it's good for the people still willing to be persuaded.

 

[Jose Fly]

In any debate like this, the participants rarely change their minds. But others are watching, and they might, depending on how things go.

Yep, I'm familiar with the appeal to anonymous lurkers. I'm not fully convinced that it's a real and significant thing, but I understand how it can be a motivating factor.

Clete asks good questions, and he doesn't mess around with rhetorical tricks or dodges, the way some others do here.

I guess we'll have to see. He keeps referring to this "punch line" that he's going to spring on us at some point, so.....

So it's good for the people still willing to be persuaded.

I agree. I used to research and post descriptions of the data in response to creationists' challenges and talking points, similar to what you've been doing. At the very least it was an impetus to learn about subjects I might not have otherwise. But I've kind of lost interest in trying to explain science to people who have a vested interest in not understanding it, and I've moved on to focusing more on the human behavioral aspects of it all. And I've found that angle to be positively fascinating.

So don't get me wrong...I recognize your efforts, patience, and willingness to "get into the weeds". :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

At the very least it was an impetus to learn about subjects I might not have otherwise.

For me, it's the best part. For example, I never really gave much thought to the origin of lobopods (which after all, is a critical step in arthropod legs).

Now, it makes sense to me.

 

[Clete]

Sorry. Chelicerates are spiders and their kin. Crustaceans are crabs and their kin. Neither evolved from the other, but both being arthropods (animals with jointed legs and exoskeletons), they did have a common ancestor.



Yep. Common ancestor.



To a biologist, it does.



Early arthropods, prior to the evolution of more evolved members of the phylum. Probably from polychaete worms, which have lobopods (parapodia.) Polychaete worms are annelids, the same phylum as "night crawlers", the worms you find on the ground after a heavy rain. They also have very rudimentary parapodia, with setae (hairs).

Most interesting is that primitive (and some modern) arthropods had "biramous" legs, with two appendages each. Usually, one was a walking leg, and the other a gill.

Annelid parapodia:

So other than not having an exoskeleton, polychaete worms look a lot like a primitive arthropod.

The key seems to be the evolution of complete exoskeletons. There were partially-covered organisms in the Precambrian, but the "Cambrian Explosion" seems to have been precisely at the point where organisms had completely covered bodies.

From that, there was a huge radiation of new forms, and lots of new ways to make a living.




:shocked:

Perfect post. That's precisely the sort of stuff I was hoping to hear about in this thread.

Thank you for taking the time.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Step by step?

Okay. Conceptually accurate, if not exactly full of detail.

I'll accept it as a valid answer from the evolutionist's worldview.

 

[Clete]

I think you're confusing amusement with hostility.


As has been demonstrated, you're not asking your questions in good faith. You ask for the evolutionary explanations for things (e.g., legs), and then when someone like Barbarian goes through the bother of writing some of it up and posting it in (IMO) a laughably timid manner so as to not scare you away, you simply wave it all away ("my eyes glazed over", "English please") and declare that this is just one big setup for some "punch line" that you're eventually going to spring on everyone.

IOW, Barbarian's efforts are totally in vain. It's just part of some silly game you're playing.

Now, let's be clear here.....that doesn't make me angry or upset in any way. Rather, I find the whole thing pretty amusing. It's funny to watch you in all your false hubris make all sorts of overly confident declarations about evolutionary biology, but then refuse to defend any of it, in what is an obvious cover for your insecurities. IOW, you don't wan't to defend any of it because you're scared to. You know what'll happen, likely because it's happened to you before, so you create this facade of arrogance and hide behind it to avoid getting burned again and having your beliefs threatened.

I don't know if you appreciate this, but the only person who cares about your views on evolutionary biology is you. In the real world, the science of evolutionary biology marches on, new discoveries are made, our knowledge continues to advance, and all without any concern at all for what "Clete at ToL thinks". Public support for creationism in the US is at an all-time low, and continues to decline. Among young people the numbers are even more stark, and it won't be long before the US is pretty much in line with the rest of the world in its public views on evolution.

Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant. It hasn't contributed a single thing to our understanding of things in well over a century. No one uses it for actual science....not in private industry, academia, or anywhere else.

So you can go on and on all you like about how you believe evolutionary biology is a hoax, lie, or failed science. But I hope you appreciate that for what it truly is.....just some guy ranting on an internet forum.

Evolutionary biology is precisely that, a lie as was the gist of this post. I've been around here for a very long time. I know hostility when I see it. You're miffed because you think it's somehow dishonest of me to refuse to fight this battle on your ground.

 

[Clete]

Okay, so over the last several months we've been presented basically two ideas about where legs came from...

1. Legs came from fins.
2. Pretty much everything else with legs has an exoskeleton and so had a common ancestor who probably got it's legs from some sort of worm.

I know that's way over simplifying things. I'm not attempting to insult anyone I'm just trying to be brief. If anyone wants more detail, I encourage you to read The Barbarian's posts on this thread.

I'm going to go ahead and say that there probably isn't much else out there on the issue of leg evolution. There maybe something but I suspect that if there is it's quite obscure and won't have any impact on the point of my having asked the question.

I am somewhat surprised, I have to say, by the near total lack of robustness in evolutionary thinking on this issue. I'm no scientist and I'm clearly not an evolutionist but I would have expected way better answers than these. I would have thought that with as widespread as legs are, there would have been more study put into where they came from by evolutionary biologists. It's striking how the relative lack of an explanation is perhaps as strong an argument against evolutionary theory as is what I'm about to present (again).

The following video flatly disproves evolution. It does falsify it. I'm not interested if you disagree, you don't get to disagree without proving yourself either blind or stupid. And I'm not kidding and I'm not over stating it. If the information presented in this video is true, Darwin was wrong - period. And yes, that goes for the scientist who presents the video. He obviously falls into the blind category rather than the stupid one. And that's assuming that he's actually an evolutionist. It wouldn't surprise me if he just gives Darwin some lip service to maintain his professional reputation and keep his funding coming in.

Note, while watching the video, that I chose legs to focus on in this thread but could have just as easily chosen any one of a dozen other details to focus on that the evolutionist would have had no better time at explaining that they did legs. More importantly, note that after months of asking, not one single answer gives any idea whatsoever how the legs discussed in this video could possibly have evolved. Not even the enigmatic "step by step" answer works for these legs because they either work as currently designed or the entire organism dies. There where no molecular fish with fins for these legs to evolve from. There is no evidence of some common ancestor from which the various forms of these molecular machines evolved from. There is no one with any ideas whatsoever that can explain, even on a conceptual level, how such legs could have evolved in small incremental successive steps. The legs, the feet, the fact that they walk, the molecular road they walk down, the leg's length which is sufficient to step over obstacles, the attachment for cargo, etc, etc, etc has to all be present or the whole process fails and the organism dies.

And that's not to mention the mechanisms in place that let it know that it's time to do all these things or that the cell somehow knows that it needs done at all. There are literally dozens of things in this single short video that falsify evolution and it only covers two of hundred and hundreds of functions that go on inside every living cell, all of which are equally wild in their complexity.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Okay. Conceptually accurate, if not exactly full of detail.

I'll accept it as a valid answer from the evolutionist's worldview.

Either you have a very dry avant-garde sense of humour or you just didn't get it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionary biology is precisely that, a lie as was the gist of this post.

I'm sure that's what you believe. Reality however, is quite different.

You're miffed because you think it's somehow dishonest of me to refuse to fight this battle on your ground.

FYI, there is no "battle" to be fought. As has been noted, evolutionary theory is utilized at all sorts of levels in the scientific world....private industry, medical science, government research, academia....whereas creationism isn't used at all and hasn't accomplished anything in at least 100 years.

So whatever "battle" you think exists only does so in the same sense that there's a "battle" over whether the earth is flat or spherical. It's just something a handful of people argue about in internet forums.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know that's way over simplifying things.

I hoped you would keep that in mind, but.....

I'm going to go ahead and say that there probably isn't much else out there on the issue of leg evolution. There maybe something but I suspect that if there is it's quite obscure and won't have any impact on the point of my having asked the question.

That's positively hilarious. First you admit that you're oversimplifying by quite a lot, but then you say "I'm assuming that's all there is". If you don't see the problem with that, well.....let's just let that speak for itself.

I am somewhat surprised, I have to say, by the near total lack of robustness in evolutionary thinking on this issue. I'm no scientist and I'm clearly not an evolutionist but I would have expected way better answers than these. I would have thought that with as widespread as legs are, there would have been more study put into where they came from by evolutionary biologists. It's striking how the relative lack of an explanation is perhaps as strong an argument against evolutionary theory as is what I'm about to present (again).

Let's summarize what's happened here.

Some anonymous fundamentalist Christian goes onto a religious message board, asks how legs evolved, and then assumes that whatever responses he gets on this religious message board make up the totality of scientific work on the subject. Then from that basis, he expresses his shock at how apparently thin the science is.

Not only that, but when responses are posted, the fundamentalist Christian admits that he doesn't understand them ("my eyes glazed over", "English please")!

The fact that you truly believe that to be at all rational is fascinating. I'm trying to imagine taking this sort of approach to some other highly technical subject. Let's say I go to a Jehovah's Witness internet forum and start a thread where I ask about neuroscience. Do you think it's reasonable to 1) pose that sort of question in that sort of forum, 2) assume that the responses I get at that forum constitute the entirety of scientific knowledge on the subject, and 3) use those responses to draw conclusions?

If so, then, well.....again we'll just let that speak for itself.

The following video flatly disproves evolution. It does falsify it.

???????? It doesn't do that at all. How odd.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

How did legs evolve?

One step at a time?

 

[JudgeRightly]

One step at a time?

:ha:

 

[Clete]

Evolution is exactly nothing other than a creation myth for the atheist. Anyone who thinks that video doesn't falsify evolution has an unfalsifiable notion of what evolution is, which will be most (virtually all) of the people who believe in it.