Jump to content


Photo

Facts Of Evolution (Cassiopeia Project)


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:29 PM

Those are actually very interesting questions and not being a professional scientist I don't know the answers.  But, maybe it all comes down to timing like when did mammals first develop horns; was it before or after primates split off? Which fish developed gizzards and, most importantly, when?

 

Timing wouldn't matter.  In the case that a non-ancestral trait is found in a species then it will simply be classified as the evolution of a new trait, or convergent evolution if the trait is also found in unrelated lineages. 



#22 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:41 PM

Vestigials need not be non-functioning.

 

Where did I claim vestigials need to be non-functioning? You just quoted me as stating "reduced" function.

 

Explain how an animal can have a trait that is not from an ancestor.

Well of course it must have an ancestor in the context of evolution theory.   But remember we never actually see evidence of these mystical phantom ancestors.  We only see evidence of the branching lineages or "tips of the branches".  So the "new trait" would be  assumed to be a trait acquired by that lineage over time, like the bird's wing.  As opposed to a trait being reduced after inheritance from a common ancestor, like the human appendix. 



#23 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:09 PM

Timing wouldn't matter.  In the case that a non-ancestral trait is found in a species then it will simply be classified as the evolution of a new trait, or convergent evolution if the trait is also found in unrelated lineages. 

 

Sure it does.  You asked why primates don't have horns even though other mammals do such as deer, etc.  Well, if the common ancestor for both primates and other horned mammals didn't have horns (and horns evolved after primates split off), then you wouldn't expect primates to have horns ... not even vestigial horns.



#24 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:10 PM

Sure it does.  You asked why primates don't have horns even though other mammals do such as deer, etc.  Well, if the common ancestor for both primates and other horned mammals didn't have horns (and horns evolved after primates split off), then you wouldn't expect primates to have horns ... not even vestigial horns.

 

Do you know what convergent evolution is?



#25 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:18 PM

Do you know what convergent evolution is?

 

Sure .... what does that have to do with vestigial organs?



#26 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:39 PM

Sure .... what does that have to do with vestigial organs?

 

Nothing, in this case.  I am simply discussing rescue devices that evolutionists use to explain any arrangement of character traits found in living things.   If the trait is present in an ancestor, than it is homologous in the descendent.  If it is present in an ancestor but descendent has "reduced" function, then it is homologous and vestigial.  If it is not present in an ancestor than it is a newly evolved trait. (and possibly convergent and violating other nested hierarchy predictions)

 

And this was your previous comment:

 

Well, if the common ancestor for both primates and other horned mammals didn't have horns (and horns evolved after primates split off), then you wouldn't expect primates to have horns ... not even vestigial horns.

 

This suggests to me that you do not understand the concept behind convergent evolution, as convergent traits are typically not restricted by the timing of prior branching orders. 



#27 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 09:19 PM

Nothing, in this case.  I am simply discussing rescue devices that evolutionists use to explain any arrangement of character traits found in living things.   If the trait is present in an ancestor, than it is homologous in the descendent.  If it is present in an ancestor but descendent has "reduced" function, then it is homologous and vestigial.  If it is not present in an ancestor than it is a newly evolved trait. (and possibly convergent and violating other nested hierarchy predictions)

 

And this was your previous comment:

 

 

This suggests to me that you do not understand the concept behind convergent evolution, as convergent traits are typically not restricted by the timing of prior branching orders. 

 

I think the problem is that I'm not following your point.  In a previous post, in talking about gizzards, you said, "Fish have them, too.  Another supposedly shared common ancestor to humans" in a post that I thought was discussing vestigial organs.  And, I actually thought it was an interesting point ... if that was the point you were making.   Why do we have some vestigial organs, but not others when considering all of our ancestors dating back to fish, etc. ?



#28 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 09:45 PM

I think the problem is that I'm not following your point. 

I think I summed my point up above:

 

I am simply discussing rescue devices that evolutionists use to explain any arrangement of character traits found in living things.   If the trait is present in an ancestor, than it is homologous in the descendent.  If it is present in an ancestor but descendent has "reduced" function, then it is homologous and vestigial.  If it is not present in an ancestor than it is a newly evolved trait. (and possibly convergent and violating other nested hierarchy predictions)

 

Do you follow this?  I can try to go into more detail but you'll have to explain what you're having trouble understanding.

 

In a previous post, in talking about gizzards, you said, "Fish have them, too.  Another supposedly shared common ancestor to humans" in a post that I thought was discussing vestigial organs.  And, I actually thought it was an interesting point ... if that was the point you were making.   Why do we have some vestigial organs, but not others when considering all of our ancestors dating back to fish, etc. ?

This was in reference to the evolution video's claim that we should not expect to find a gizzard in a human, because, presumably the video creators were thinking of the gizzard as an exclusively avian trait.  (a lineage not ancestral to primates)   So I pointed out that some fish and mammals have gizzards, which means those traits could be expected to be found in a common ancestor to primates.  I am certainly not arguing that humans should have gizzards.  I'm only pointing out that the video creators arbitrarily created a nested hierarchy as if it were some fulfilled prediction of Common Descent, when it is really just a bluff. 

 

The main point being this: If gizzards and/or horns were found on any primate, evolutionists would instantly label it an example of convergent evolution, as they do in every other case where an unexpected trait is discovered.



#29 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 09:53 PM

I think I summed my point up above:

 

I am simply discussing rescue devices that evolutionists use to explain any arrangement of character traits found in living things.   If the trait is present in an ancestor, than it is homologous in the descendent.  If it is present in an ancestor but descendent has "reduced" function, then it is homologous and vestigial.  If it is not present in an ancestor than it is a newly evolved trait. (and possibly convergent and violating other nested hierarchy predictions)

 

Do you follow this?  I can try to go into more detail but you'll have to explain what you're having trouble understanding.

 

This was in reference to the evolution video's claim that we should not expect to find a gizzard in a human, because, presumably the video creators were thinking of the gizzard as an exclusively avian trait.  (a lineage not ancestral to primates)   So I pointed out that some fish and mammals have gizzards, which means those traits could be expected to be found in a common ancestor to primates.  I am certainly not arguing that humans should have gizzards.  I'm only pointing out that the video creators arbitrarily created a nested hierarchy as if it were some fulfilled prediction of Common Descent, when it is really just a bluff. 

 

The main point being this: If gizzards and/or horns were found on any primate, evolutionists would instantly label it an example of convergent evolution, as they do in every other case where an unexpected trait is discovered.

 

Oh, ok, now, I see what you are saying.   Nevermind.



#30 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 10:13 PM

The main point being this: If gizzards and/or horns were found on any primate, evolutionists would instantly label it an example of convergent evolution, as they do in every other case where an unexpected trait is discovered.

 

Can I ask if  some horned primate was discovered, what would your explanation be?

With the YEC model.



#31 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 13 January 2014 - 10:58 PM

Just gonna throw this out there, and I don't believe it for a second, but to play devils advocate for a moment, couldn't evolutionists turn around and say something to the effect of "ant-eaters and birds have gizzards, so they must've had a common ancestor farther back then we realized!" And just invoke a deeper time aspect? I mean, if everything came from a single cell that magicked itself from soup, wouldn't one expect many animals to have incredibly similar features? /devil's advocate. Whew! I think I need a shower! ;) Lol!

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 January 2014 - 12:10 AM


Additionally I agree with Lollypop :)

What have I done? Since Lifepsyop is demonstrating to be such a valuable member, we should make sure he doesn't feel the new nickname is offensive... :(

#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 January 2014 - 12:40 AM

What have I done? Since Lifepsyop is demonstrating to be such a valuable member, we should make sure he doesn't feel the new nickname is offensive... sad.png

 

Yes that would be for the best. Sorry I fell into the same rut, trying to make sure I spelt the username correctly, so I gave up :)



#34 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 14 January 2014 - 05:50 AM

Can I ask if  some horned primate was discovered, what would your explanation be?

With the YEC model.

 

That the anatomy in question is the result of a pre-existing function found in that Kind's genotype.



#35 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 14 January 2014 - 06:01 AM

Just gonna throw this out there, and I don't believe it for a second, but to play devils advocate for a moment, couldn't evolutionists turn around and say something to the effect of "ant-eaters and birds have gizzards, so they must've had a common ancestor farther back then we realized!" And just invoke a deeper time aspect? I mean, if everything came from a single cell that magicked itself from soup, wouldn't one expect many animals to have incredibly similar features? /devil's advocate. Whew! I think I need a shower! wink.png Lol!

 

Well they might say it was a feature found in amniotes before "Sauropsids" (reptile lineage) and "Synapsids" (mammalian lineage) split off.  But if the trait is only appearing in a couple distant branches, then it would probably make the most sense to just slap the convergent label on it.  306.gif



#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 January 2014 - 06:31 AM

I wonder what did they do for the platypus? Or is that the 'I'm not touching that with a 50 foot pole'? wink.png



#37 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 14 January 2014 - 06:49 AM

Just gonna throw this out there, and I don't believe it for a second, but to play devils advocate for a moment, couldn't evolutionists turn around and say something to the effect of "ant-eaters and birds have gizzards, so they must've had a common ancestor farther back then we realized!" And just invoke a deeper time aspect? I mean, if everything came from a single cell that magicked itself from soup, wouldn't one expect many animals to have incredibly similar features? /devil's advocate. Whew! I think I need a shower! wink.png Lol!

 

I doubt it.  I think the general consensus is that all mammals have a common ancestor which would imply that an anteater is no more closely related to birds than you or me.



#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 January 2014 - 06:56 AM

I doubt it.  I think the general consensus is that all mammals have a common ancestor which would imply that an anteater is no more closely related to birds than you or me.

 

So convergent evolution is used then?



#39 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 14 January 2014 - 08:55 AM

That the anatomy in question is the result of a pre-existing function found in that Kind's genotype.

I would pretty much have to agree.



#40 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:08 AM

If we examine the bone structure in primate hands and bat wings and bird wings
and pterosaur wings and whale flippers and penguin flippers and horse legs and
mole forelimbs and frog legs, we find they ALL have the same bones in the same
relative positions. The standard tree diagram easily demonstrates why these
different species have this same structure. That is they have common ancestors
who possessed these structures.

 

Standard flawed argument of homology.

 

Similar features are homologous and therefore evidence of evolution.

Differentiated features are lineage-specific adaptations and therefore evidence of evolution.

 

For example, absence of the radius or ulna bone in one of these species would be 'evidence' that the lineage evolved to no longer rely on that bone for fitness, thus it became vestigial and eventually unexpressed.   

 

Simply put, both the presence and absence of any feature is evidence of evolution.

 

If certain features are too strikingly contrasted with other members of a lineage, then a new lineage can be created for the oddball.  The story will be that this lineage branched off from the others in an earlier common ancestor.  (such as was done with Monotremes: platypus and echidna).   The oddball characteristics themselves will be used as 'proof' of this.  Any number of mystical phantom events can be conjured up to accommodate discrepant characteristics.


And if they are backed into a corner in their homology storytelling of a particular transitional sequence, evolutionists have already demonstrated they have no problem invoking mystical mutation events of the past to explain the discrepancy in alleged dinosaur-bird homology.
 

Embryologists and some paleontologists who oppose the bird-dinosaur link, have long numbered the digits of birds II-III-IV on the basis of multiple studies of the development in the egg. This is based on the fact that in most amniotes, the first digit to form in a 5-fingered hand is digit IV, which develops a primary axis. Therefore, embryologists have identified the primary axis in birds as digit IV, and the surviving digits as II-III-IV. The fossils of advanced theropod (Tetanurae) hands appear to have the digits I-II-III (some genera within Avetheropoda also have a reduced digit IV). If this is true, then the II-III-IV development of digits in birds is an indication against theropod (dinosaur) ancestry....

 

... One research team has proposed a frame-shift in the digits of the theropod line leading to birds (thus making digit I into digit II, II to III, and so forth). However, such frame shifts are rare in amniotes and—to be consistent with the theropod origin of birds—would have had to occur solely in the bird-theropod lineage forelimbs and not the hindlimbs (a condition unknown in any animal)

 

http://en.wikipedia....#Digit_homology

 

 

(From what I gather there are also many cases where otherwise homologous phenotypic traits, are developed by non-homologous genetic pathways.  Apparently this is also no problem for evolution. )






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users