The platypus does not really have a duck bill. It looks like a bill, but is composed of completely different tissue and is used as a highly developed sense organ. Don’t let poorly chosen words fool you. The Tasmanian Tiger isn’t a tiger, it’s not even a placental mammal (if you want another example)
And no ones claims birds are dinos just because some dinos had feathers. In fact, the bird/dino theory long predates the discovery of feathers on dinos and was based on many points of similar morphology. But that theory was pretty controversial until the wealth of dino fossils with feathers were found. The feather aspect is only one piece of the puzzle. Keep in mind that it’s not a matter of saying the dinos had something that looks like feathers (like the platypus has something that looks like duckbill, but isn’t). These are feathers, and we can tell that by the detailed structure seen in the fossilized feathers. OTOH, even a layman would quickly figure out that the duck-billed platypus doesn’t have a duck bill.
Funny you should mention that. Actually, we now know that legs did evlove in water for a different type of aquatic movement. Check out this site.
Not to be snarky or anything, but you have many really incorrect conceptions of what happened in the evolutionary process of life on earth, and you are knocking down evolution with what are essentially strawman arguments.
I was speaking to the fact that it had a ‘similiar’ appendage (feathers between birds also differ quite a bit), BUT more importantly it lays eggs… maybe it developed a different structure from it’s bill from it’s needs… but hasn’t evolved into live birth of other mammals…
There are other examples … thought that one was clear enough … guess I was wrong
You don’t know that anymore than someone could say ‘god spoke and legs appeared’… there is evidence (as you provided) that some animals developed fingers/legs… and they currently use them to navigate wetlands… doesn’t mean that is the order others took (as you know)… BUT it is evidence that it is possible
See… and here is my point… we don’t KNOW the evolutionary process… there are multiple theories of that process… and some even share common aspects
And maybe I need to say it again… I personally believe that not only is it possible, but it is the best solution for the problem presented… BUT it is not complete (nor will it likely ever be) nor is it beyond discussion
I have no idea what you’re talking about in that post. Feathers may differ a bit, but they’re all made out the same thing. There is absolutely no relationship between a duck’s bill and a platypus’ bill except superficial apperance, and the fact that both are attached to a head.
What branch of science is “complete”? If that’s your debate, then no one is going to argue the other side. You might was well decry the “gaps” in our understanding of which genes control which body parts. But that doesn’t mean the body parts we haven’t linked to genes come about by magic.
It’s absurd to criticize evolution for not being “complete”. But note that every time you bring up a specific example of the “incompleteness”, you’ve been shown that you’re wrong. Again, not to be snarky, but you are extremely ignorant* of just how rich the fossil record is. You should be asking questions about it instead of making absurd claims about somethiing you have so little understanding of. Please take that as advice to educate yourself, not as a put down.
*not in the “stupid” sense, but the “uninformed” sense
Indeed: but it’s a mammalian amniote all the same.
I don’t think you read the link carefully enough. This particular transition from water to land is pretty well nailed down. The lobed fish from which all tetrapods were descended even had the same general number and morphology of “digits” that the early tetrapods had. They had the same sorts of gill/primitive lung combos.
You are confusing the general theories of evolution with the contingent history of evolution. Evolution, being a contingent process, works off of historical events and past forms. There are many cases in which we simply do not know enough of the history to know exactly why or how this or that event happened. There are probably even some major evolutionary events that we don’t even know existed. But this doesn’t itself call into question evolutionary theory, anymore than the fact that sometimes there are crimes with no physical evidence means that forensic science is bogus.
First of all, mutation is far more common than most people think. Every individual has several mutations in their own genome. And even that is forgetting that a huge chunk of “bad” germ line mutations are actually weeded out long before they become individuals: they are gametes that are too damaged to function, embryos that fail to thrive, implant, or continue on to a live birth, and so on.
Even in just the last few centuries: a tiny tiny blip on the scale of evolutionary change, we’ve seen mutations for 4-color vision, ultra-dense unbreakable bones, increased musculature, resistance to the LDH cholesterol problems of modern diets, and so on. And that’s just the most dramatic examples (the vast majority cause minor differences) off the top of my head in just humans, one of the slowest evolving creatures.
Without having numbers on hand, I’d tentatively agree, if only due to medical science reducing our mortality rates. How many people with genetic ‘weaknesses’ would have lived to adulthood without the benefits of modern science?
Also, the concept of ‘fitness’ among humans really is unlike that among animals.
May I address one point which has come up, but which I think needs to be made even more explicit than other posters have made it.
The ellipsis is a useful punctuation mark, but has only one legitimate meaning - to indicate that text has been deleted from a longer passage. Your affectation of using it instead of commas, dashes, periods, and, as in the above example, inserting it into sentences where no punctuation mark of any sort would be appropriate, is a very significant disadvantage to your argument, which you are imposing on yourself unnecessarily.
If you want to be taken seriously, stop doing this. Thank you.
You protest about the strength of the evidence for the current understanding of the transition from water to land, but you haven’t actually informed yourself of the evidence that currently exists.
There was an article in Scientific American regarding this topic within the last 4 months (article might be available on their website), it was pretty interesting and highly informative.
Asking questions to get informed about the current set of evidence is certainly legitimate, but protesting scientists conclusions without knowing why they came to that conclusion does not make much sense.
Yes. I don’t know the exact rate, but the “slowness” of average genetic change is one of the things used to group us with chimpanzees among the great apes. Mice and rats on the other hand, are blazing fast. This is in part because their system for correcting error and mutation is much much more lax than ours.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank John Mace for his thoughtful replies.
I do not agree with most of his political views but his posts on this thread have shown a large measure of patience and tact, which are always welcome on this board. My respect meter, already high, has climbed with this thread. I most likely would have replied “ Look double E dude, evidence for evolution = big stacks and stacks. Evidence for ID = 0. Get a clue.”
One must also consider whether what is being measured is rate per generation or rate per year. If the latter, the elephant may be slower than we are, and rats and mice are even faster.
EEMan, put simply, you are projecting your profound ignorance of evolution, genetics etc upon the scientific community at large; You keep saying “we don’t know…” followed by statements that openly betray your shallow understanding of what you’re trying to describe. frankly, I’m having a really hard time swallowing your assertions that you’re not some variety of creationist, because the arguments you’re using (the whole “we don’t know, so anybody could be right; it’s all just faith!” thing) are dyed-in-the-wool creationist rhetoric.
I have to support this. If humans could have five to ten litters a year, our “rate of evolution” would be comparable to mice.
I don’t get Apos’s comment that mice have a "system for correcting error and mutation … much much more lax than ours. " The mouse’s need to feed constantly to keep warm makes it quite vulnerable and any mouse with a debilitating mutation would quickly die off, with little chance that his fellow mice will set up a mouse health care system that would let him survive to adulthood. Any mutation that is slightly harmful will be a problem for a mouse, while humans have more leeway and are more “lax” about it.
One doesn’t often see the “trailing-off” ellipsis in the narrative of non-fiction writing, though, which is why EEMan’s posts look more like stream-of-consciousness than a well-considered, tightly drawn and self-edited statement of fact and/or reasoned opinion, with the aim of clarity and convincingness (that’s a real word; I looked it up).
Don’t electrical engineers take technical writing any more? I did, and I was just a computer science major.
Hey, if I can generate that kind of love, I’ll change my political views any day of the week!
Thanks. I’m not quite yet convinced that **EE **is a closet creationist, but maybe I’m being naiive. If we’re still at this after 4 pages, my evil twin will take over.
It’s not really that simple. Rates of mutation generally continue on by year, regardless of generation (though they get worse the older a given creature gets), because they are just errors in the DNA, which can happen at any time. Rates of morphological change, on the other hand is moderated by both generation time and the particulars of the beings involved, from their selection pressures to how flexible their genomes are at any given place.
