Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Clete]

One step at a time?

I totally get it now! Legs - steps - I totally see what you did there!

I completely didn't get it this morning. :doh:

What can I say - I was rushed this morning. :idunno:

 

[Clete]

Alright, now that I've posted the video (twice) and everyone understands why I'm asking about how legs evolved, it should be clear to anyone who's honest that nothing anyone said was going to come anywhere within a million miles of explaining how the legs on those molecules could possibly have evolved.

So now, for those of you who who think that I've somehow cheated the evolutionists of a chance to find the right answer to my question, please, by all means, tell me what the legs on those motor proteins evolved from! Where is the molecular fish who's fins turned into legs?

What, no molecular fossils to shoehorn into your theory? Okay, well how about presenting the molecular biochemist that has discovered a way that the molecules could be formed that would be simpler to assemble but still work but perhaps less efficiently - a sort of theoretical prior form that may have existed? Or anything else that even theoretically proposes, even if only on a conceptual level, what those legs evolved from and why the current form is or might be superior to the former.

And remember, I'm still just focusing on the one detail of the legs! I could just as easily ask the same question about the machine that disassembles and then duplicates DNA, a process that is itself encoded within the very DNA that is being replicated, or I could ask the same question about the mechanisms involved in folding the DNA molecule, or the ones involved in telling the motor proteins that it's time to start splitting the cell in two or that the cell splits in two in the first place or any one of seemingly a thousand other things contained in that single 9 minute video that is essentially about only two of the processes that go on inside a living cell.

Face it. Evolution cannot survive real science like molecular biology but if you want to give it a try, like I said, by all means, please tell me what those legs evolved from!

Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

The moon is made of cheese.

Making ridiculous empty assertions in internet forums is fun!

 

[Jose Fly]

if you want to give it a try, like I said, by all means, please tell me what those legs evolved from!

Lol. Previously you asked how terrestrial and insect legs evolved. You were given general answers that you either ignored or waved away ("my eyes glazed over", "English please"), and now you're asking people to answer another of your questions?

The only reason to post any info would be to see what sort of excuse you'll come up with this time to dodge it.

 

[Clete]

The moon is made of cheese.

Making ridiculous empty assertions in internet forums is fun!

Lying is for fools, Jose.

It isn't an empty assertion. I have very well established and undisputed biological science to prove it. It is proven, Jose. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Not even Darwin would be a Darwinist in light of that blatantly obvious and undisputed and indisputable evidence.

 

[Clete]

Lol. Previously you asked how terrestrial and insect legs evolved. You were given general answers that you either ignored or waved away ("my eyes glazed over", "English please"), and now you're asking people to answer another of your questions?

The only reason to post any info would be to see what sort of excuse you'll come up with this time to dodge it.

If you had bothered to read the thread, I asked about any legs whatsoever. No one was coming up with anything other than the fins to legs idea and so it was left to me to prod people into whatever other directions I could think of. The point was leg evolution - ANY leg.

I haven't dodged a thing. The entire point is to let evolution's own lack luster explanations stand as their own witness against the veracity of evolution in the face of the wildly complex biological machines that that exist in every living cell, no matter how "primitive" the organism the cell belongs too. Nothing anyone has said on this thread has come within a million miles of giving even a basic idea of what the legs of motor proteins evolved from, nor will anything else that anyone might say.

I dare you to even make the attempt.

Clete

 

[Greg Jennings]

I don't want to get into the weeds on this but I just have to point out that this is just such a great example of bias confirmation/blindness. "The first to ever exist with bones"? You couldn't possibly know that, first of all, but more importantly, does it ever occur to evolutionists to ask where the bones came from? Did the bones come as a result of the fish's attempts to use their fins as legs or was it that the use of their fins as legs was made possible and thereby indirectly caused by the existence of the bones? In either case, was is just pure blind chance that it was the pectoral fins that got the bone or is it that the whole skeleton was bone and if so, why? Where is the survival advantage for the oddball first fish with bone vs. the fish's mother who had no bone but managed to reproduce and make him? Who would the first bone fish have reproduced with in order to have bone fish babies?
Such questions are as endless as they unanswerable but the evolutionist just goes right along on his merry way believing that, "Lobe-finned fish are the first to ever exist with bones." or a thousand other similar unfounded presumptions and call it a scientific theory.


"Their fins have become..."
It just astounds me that, what I think are, for the most part, well meaning, scientifically minded people, just do seem to be able to detect their confirmation biases.


Okay. Complete fantasy but, okay.


No competition for food on the surface?

Just how many unverifiable assertions are we going to need on this journey toward legs?



Okay, yes, actually, it was.

The critical point being that there was a long list of amazingly lucky genetic mutations that just so happen to coincide with circumstances that would just so happen to allow them to be useful and thereby continue to exist which led to the next astoundingly lucky mutation that just happened to be of use to the already multiple time genetic lottery winning line of fish. One might wonder why none of the land animals look anything like fish with vestigial dorsal fins and gill plates but that's a discussion for another time.

The point of my question was to get exactly the sort of thing you've offered. So, let me ask you two questions...

First, is there any other path that legs have taken on their evolutionary journey to legdom? How, for example, did spider legs or insect legs evolve?

And lastly, if, while using legs to get around, you occasionally encounter obstacles that you have to step over (not around, only over); would sufficiently long legs evolve all at once or would some have legs that are too short (and/or too long) leaving only the 'just right' legs to reproduce?

Clete

I gave you an extant real life animal that does EVERYTHING I mentioned above, yet you call it fantasy. Lungfish (it's called a lungfish for goodness sake) and arapaima breathe air, mudskippers use modified fins as legs, and so on.

But honestly, you're just too ignorant of the fossil record to educate. How do I know that sharks were around before bony fish? The ROCK LAYERS genius. Shark teeth are found lower than ANY bony fish has been. You probably don't understand the significance of that though

Spider legs (and all Arthropods) developed from aquatic Arthropods (crabs, lobsters, shrimp) that had multi-segmented bodies with more than four legs. They've been that way since they were in the water. You'll never find an arthropod with fewer than 6. They came from segmented worms, then those worms developed calcareous shells (trilobites being a prime example), then some adapted their spines into little spiny legs.

Now you might be wondering: why did the Arthropods get out of the water faster? The answer is that there used to be WAY more oxygen in the atmosphere, which we can confirm through ice core samples, along other methods. The only reason Arthropods on land are tiny is because of the lack of oxygen. Just go into the deep sea, where oxygen is highly dissolved into the water, if you don't believe me. Or order a king crab for dinner.
When there was more oxygen, the Arthropods book lungs could take in more and the animals had the ability to grow huge. We know that spiders got over 3 feet in diameter and dragonflies with 6 foot wingspans from the good ol' fossil record. And conversely, this high oxygen rate was toxic to many vertebral species, and those than could stand it were behind their terrestrial Arthropod neighbors and had to wait for the atmosphere to change to make their move.


Let me ask you something: if dinosaurs and trilobites and everything was alive all at once, why are no trilobites found with ants? Why no lions with wooly mammoths? Or tyrannosaurs alongside people?

One of the two in the pairs above is always many layers deeper than the other. Why is that?

 

[Clete]

I gave you an extant real life animal that does EVERYTHING I mentioned above, yet you call it fantasy. Lungfish (it's called a lungfish for goodness sake) and arapaima breathe air, mudskippers use modified fins as legs, and so on.

Your confirmation bias is showing!

They use their fins as they were designed to be used. Everything else you think about them is an assumption.

But honestly, you're just too ignorant of the fossil record to educate. How do I know that sharks were around before bony fish? The ROCK LAYERS genius. Shark teeth are found lower than ANY bony fish has been. You probably don't understand the significance of that though

Your confirmation bias is showing!

You base the age of the fossil on the layer it was found in and you base the age of the layer it was found in on the fossils you find in the layer.

You assume long periods of time between layers because your evolutionary worldview requires it. Everything that can be used to confirm this is accepted as scientific proof and everything that contradicts it is ignored.

Spider legs (and all Arthropods) developed from aquatic Arthropods (crabs, lobsters, shrimp) that had multi-segmented bodies with more than four legs. They've been that way since they were in the water. You'll never find an arthropod with fewer than 6. They came from segmented worms, then those worms developed calcareous shells (trilobites being a prime example), then some adapted their spines into little spiny legs.

The worms to crabs to spiders and other bugs theory has already been presented. It, like the legs from fins theory doesn't help you even the slightest bit in expaining the legs in that video, nor will any other theory you can present - which was the point of my asking the question in the first place.

Now you might be wondering: why did the Arthropods get out of the water faster? The answer is that there used to be WAY more oxygen in the atmosphere, which we can confirm through ice core samples, along other methods.

Your confirmation bias is showing.

Your understanding about the age of ice core layers is an assumption based on uniformitarianism. And most of the science done with them is based on a list of assumptions the length of your leg, all of which are designed to keep everyone well within the bounds of the evolutionary worldview. If you had to prove conclusively the age of a particular piece of ice, you couldn't do it past a few thousand year old.

The only reason Arthropods on land are tiny is because of the lack of oxygen. Just go into the deep sea, where oxygen is highly dissolved into the water, if you don't believe me. Or order a king crab for dinner.
When there was more oxygen, the Arthropods book lungs could take in more and the animals had the ability to grow huge. We know that spiders got over 3 feet in diameter and dragonflies with 6 foot wingspans from the good ol' fossil record. And conversely, this high oxygen rate was toxic to many vertebral species, and those than could stand it were behind their terrestrial Arthropod neighbors and had to wait for the atmosphere to change to make their move.

Your confirmation bias is showing!

Maybe they're smaller because great big ones couldn't eat the rotting tree logs they live on! In other words, maybe they're just exactly the size they were designed to be.

Let me ask you something: if dinosaurs and trilobites and everything was alive all at once, why are no trilobites found with ants? Why no lions with wooly mammoths? Or tyrannosaurs alongside people?

One of the two in the pairs above is always many layers deeper than the other. Why is that?

There are many theories about the sorting of fossils. I'm no expert and so won't venture an answer. My intuition tells me that your question presents a false premise and that there are likely exceptions to what you claim "never" happens, but that's just my intuition. I'll let [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] answer you more directly.

Now, I've responded to your post because I didn't want to be rude. You spent the time to time it up so I figured it deserved a response of some kind but, as I've said many times, I do not debate evolution. Not at least in the manner this post and others like it would generally require. It feels like debating doctrine with a Branch Davidian or Scientologist. If, however, you care to offer some sort of idea about what the legs on those proteins evolved from, I'd love to read it.


Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

Clete, you didn't respond to his post, you just showed your own confirmation bias. CHeers!

 

[Stripe]

Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant. It hasn't contributed a single thing to our understanding of things.

:yawn:

You rant about a guy, accusing him off going into a conversation with his mind made up, but your own declared attitude is exactly what you accuse him of.

If you want to be part of the conversation, learn to respect ideas.

But we know you're just here to troll.

 

[Jose Fly]

It isn't an empty assertion. I have very well established and undisputed biological science to prove it. It is proven, Jose. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Not even Darwin would be a Darwinist in light of that blatantly obvious and undisputed and indisputable evidence.

I have very well established and undisputed science proving the moon is made of cheese.

Empty assertions....so easy to do.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you had bothered to read the thread, I asked about any legs whatsoever. No one was coming up with anything other than the fins to legs idea and so it was left to me to prod people into whatever other directions I could think of. The point was leg evolution - ANY leg.

Right. Your questions were not asked in good faith. They were merely part of this silly ruse you think is somehow meaningful.

I haven't dodged a thing.

Yeah you did.

The entire point is to let evolution's own lack luster explanations stand as their own witness against the veracity of evolution in the face of the wildly complex biological machines that that exist in every living cell, no matter how "primitive" the organism the cell belongs too. Nothing anyone has said on this thread has come within a million miles of giving even a basic idea of what the legs of motor proteins evolved from, nor will anything else that anyone might say.

So your argument is nothing more than "Gosh, these things are really complex. I have no idea how they could have evolved, therefore the entire field of evolutionary biology has been falsified"?

If you truly think that's at all compelling, again we'll just let that speak for itself.

I dare you to even make the attempt.

Ooh, a dare....what's next, a double dog dare?

Seriously Clete, given how you've already waved away so much other information, why in the world would anyone go through the trouble of looking up, writing up, and posting more?

 

[Jose Fly]

:yawn:

You rant about a guy, accusing him off going into a conversation with his mind made up, but your own declared attitude is exactly what you accuse him of.

If you want to be part of the conversation, learn to respect ideas.

But we know you're just here to troll.

I can understand how to you, pointing out the fact that creationism is absolutely scientifically irrelevant and hasn't contributed anything to science in well over a century seems like "trolling".

In the real world however, it's simply the truth.

 

[Stripe]

I can understand how to you, pointing out the fact that creationism is absolutely scientifically irrelevant and hasn't contributed anything to science in well over a century seems like "trolling".

Nope.

The problem is not what you believe; the problem is that you are not here to contribute anything of value.

You're a self-admitted troll.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Your confirmation bias is showing!

They use their fins as they were designed to be used. Everything else you think about them is an assumption.


Your confirmation bias is showing!

You base the age of the fossil on the layer it was found in and you base the age of the layer it was found in on the fossils you find in the layer.

You assume long periods of time between layers because your evolutionary worldview requires it. Everything that can be used to confirm this is accepted as scientific proof and everything that contradicts it is ignored.


The worms to crabs to spiders and other bugs theory has already been presented. It, like the legs from fins theory doesn't help you even the slightest bit in expaining the legs in that video, nor will any other theory you can present - which was the point of my asking the question in the first place.


Your confirmation bias is showing.

Your understanding about the age of ice core layers is an assumption based on uniformitarianism. And most of the science done with them is based on a list of assumptions the length of your leg, all of which are designed to keep everyone well within the bounds of the evolutionary worldview. If you had to prove conclusively the age of a particular piece of ice, you couldn't do it past a few thousand year old.


Your confirmation bias is showing!

Maybe they're smaller because great big ones couldn't eat the rotting tree logs they live on! In other words, maybe they're just exactly the size they were designed to be.


There are many theories about the sorting of fossils. I'm no expert and so won't venture an answer. My intuition tells me that your question presents a false premise and that there are likely exceptions to what you claim "never" happens, but that's just my intuition. I'll let [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] answer you more directly.

Now, I've responded to your post because I didn't want to be rude. You spent the time to time it up so I figured it deserved a response of some kind but, as I've said many times, I do not debate evolution. Not at least in the manner this post and others like it would generally require. It feels like debating doctrine with a Branch Davidian or Scientologist. If, however, you care to offer some sort of idea about what the legs on those proteins evolved from, I'd love to read it.


Clete

Thanks for reminding me how hopelessly ignorant the lot of you are (with rare exception)


Present to me any science supporting your "theory" por favor

 

[Greg Jennings]

Your zoologist studies and attempts to classify animals. Your zoologist attempts to do this within the framework of the common ancestry belief system. (We could also find zoologists who reject that belief system)
Dr. Mitchell explains evidence within the framework of God's Word.

You still are attacking her rather than her claims about goose pimples... ad hominem.

Again, what she says about function of Goose pimples is "Those muscles that tug on our hair follicles help the protective oil produced by follicles’ sebaceous glands to ooze out onto the skin. Their muscle action can also generate a bit of additional heat on a cold day, though we can be thankful that we do not have fur to impede our evaporating sweat from cooling us on a hot day. And inside every hair follicle is a supply of cells that can transform into the raw material for healing when needed. Without this supply of epithelial cells, even minor wounds would have to slowly heal from the edges inward. Our hair follicles are also attached to sensitive nerve endings, and when strong emotions prompt our fine hairs to stand up, they are more easily touched, increasing somewhat our sensitivity to the brush of danger. There is certainly nothing useless about the equipment that produces goose bumps, and goose bumps are not the proof of an evolutionary past."
(Even Wiki says " During the formation of goose bumps, the body is warmed from the muscle tension in piloerection")

Warmed by less than 1/2 of a degree. But again, what do details matter?

Can you find even a last-grasp reason for our nictitating membrane remnants in our eyes? They too were mentioned in the last post you quoted.
More professionally called: plica semilunaris of conjunctiva

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg, when you learned zoology, did they teach you palaeontology, or there the morphological changes occurred in the geologic column?

Evolutionary zoology teaches that diploblastic became triploblastic, asymmetrical body plan became radial became bilateral etc. But did they tell you when in the geologic column this was supposed to have occurred?

I was taught these changed over time, but I find most "changes" happened spontaneously in the Cambrian explosion.

Good question from you, as always.

Diploblastic to tri, I have no clue tbh.

Radial to bilateral, you're correct that is the order. The reason being that sponges, then jellyfish (cnidarians) are the oldest multicellular fossils we find (outside of stromatolites, which are giant bacterial colonies still found in Australia). Both, if symmetrical at all in the sponges' case, were radially symmetrical for the vast majority of their life cycles. Sometimes larvae were (and are) bilateral.

The Cambrian explosion saw bilaterals rise, most notably in the many forms trilobite took. Bilateral worms made shells and diversified wildly. Prior to the Cambrian explosion, my understanding is that very little diversity of life existed.

It is IMPERATIVE to realize how much time is supposed to have passed during the "explosion." Many many millions of years

 

[6days]

creationism is absolutely scientifically irrelevant and hasn't contributed anything to science in well over a century

Creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past... not science.

There are a couple differences between them...

a) the belief in the biblical creator was largely responsible for the origins of modern science.

b) the belief in common ancestry was largely if not totally responsible for scientific racism and was partially responsible for genocides.


And perhaps most importantly.... evolutionism has never contributed to any advancement in medicine, nor ever a single new technology. Instead, evolutionism has often hindered science with false beliefs in junk DNA, psuedogenes, useless, or vestigial organs, poor design arguments etc. Evolutionism has also being the cause of false and shoddy conclusions... sometimes even frauds going into kids textbooks and being taught as truth for many many years.

 

[6days]

Warmed by less than 1/2 of a degree. But again, what do details matter?

Ok... so now you know one of the functions of goose pimples.


BTW... My car has rear heated seats. The car would still function without them...but, what do details matter?

Can you find even a last-grasp reason for our nictitating membrane remnants in our eyes?

Sure! Although this was sort of answered already I think. Even[/b] IF [/b] this '3rd eyelid' had no function, it is easy to understand how several thousand years of mutations can destroy functionality. We see this all the time in genetic disorders. The nicitating membrane though does serve important function in helping to prevent eye infection. Even secular Wiki from an evolutionary perspective says "The plica semilunaris is a small fold of bulbar conjunctiva on the medial canthus of the eye. It functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage via the lacrimal lake, and to permit greater rotation of the globe, for without the plica the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationism and evolutionism are beliefs about the past... not science.

We're all more than aware of your opinion.

b) the belief in common ancestry was largely if not totally responsible for scientific racism and was partially responsible for genocides.

Shall I post Hitler's quotes again where he justifies his policies via appeals to Christianity? Shall I post Martin Luther's antisemitic quotes again? Shall I post Henry Morris' racist quotes about blacks being subservient again?

And perhaps most importantly.... evolutionism has never contributed to any advancement in medicine, nor ever a single new technology. Instead, evolutionism has often hindered science with false beliefs in junk DNA, psuedogenes, useless, or vestigial organs, poor design arguments etc. Evolutionism has also being the cause of false and shoddy conclusions... sometimes even frauds going into kids textbooks and being taught as truth for many many years.

You've been provided the data showing that evolutionary common ancestry is the framework by which genetic function is discerned. You simply going into denial mode, stomping your little feet, and shouting "Nuh uh" doesn't change reality.

But honestly 6days, I've no interest in chasing you around the same repetitive circles any more. If all you have is the sort of dishonesty exhibited above, I'll just let that speak for itself.