Vestigial embryonic/adult structures

[ImaAtheistNow]

A few days ago, in response to something someone else posted, I ask why manatees have toenails. I am going to run with that idea here.



Manatees

1) Why do manatees have toenails?

2) Manatees don't have hindlimbs, so why do some manatees have hip sockets?

3) Why was a fossil of a four-legged, land-dwelling ancestor of manatees (indicated by the diagnostic skeletal feautues of manatees) found that had full-sized hindlimbs?

4) Why was a fossil of a precursor of manatees (indicated by the diagnostic skeletal feautues of manatees) found that had half-sized hindlimbs?



Dolphins and whales

1) Why do dolphin and whale embryos begin forming hindlimbs?

2) Why do dolphin and whale embryos, in the process of forming the single blowhole on the top of the head, first form two nostrils just above the mouth - like land mammals have, after which they must migrate upward and fuse to form the blowhole?

3) Why do dolphin and whale 'flippers' have internal skeletons that are homologous to the hands of humans, as well as the "hands" of other land mammals?

4) Why do some whales have a vestigial pelvis?



Birds

1) Why do birds, despite not having teeth, have genes for developing teeth?

2) Why do birds, despite not having long bony tails like reptiles do, start off in embryonic development with long bony tails - like reptiles do - that then must be reduced in number and fused together to form the bird's pygostyle?



Humans

1) Why do humans, which lack postanal tails - unlike most all other mammals - develop a postanal tail during embryonic development?

2) Why do humans, which lack pharyngeal slits, develop pharyngeal slits, similar to those of a fish embryo?

3) Why do human embryos start off with a fish-like arrangement of arteries and aortic arches, which then require much remodeling to transform the system from the fish-like arrangement to the human arrangement?

4) Why do human embryos/fetuses develop the functional kidneys of "lower" animals (these kidneys being the pronephros and mesonephros) on the path to forming the human metanephros?

5) Why do humans, which lack a notochord - unlike many vertebrates (fish, amphibians, many lizards, for example) - begin with a notochord during embryonic development --- like all other vertebrates do?

6) Why do humans, which lack a premaxillary bone - unlike most mammals, which have one - develop a premaxillary bone early in embryonic development?

7) Why do developing humans have a vestigial yolk sac? Our embryos/fetuses obtain nutrition from their mother, not from a yolk sac.



All of the above 'oddities' make perfect sense in the light of MACROevolution.

Creationists, what legitimate explanation ("God just did it that way", "God works in mysterious ways", and other useless copouts don't count) can you give for the above facts?

[Allied35]

ImaAtheistNow, I'm sure you saw the thread I recently added, based in part on the same question of manatee toenails. You did a far better job! :notworthy:Well done, I will follow this thread closely. Thanks!

I didn't know that whale embryos developed 2 nostrils which then migrate and join. Very interesting.

I wonder if any Creationists will reply.

[ImaAtheistNow]

I didn't know that whale embryos developed 2 nostrils which then migrate and join. Very interesting.

I know that that happens during embryonic development in dolphins, and I know that fossil evidence shows that it happened over generations and evolutionary time for whales. But does this actually occur during the embryonic development in individual whales? Here's a link to a page that indicates it does Whale blowhole evolution (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html) However, it is not 100% clear that it actually states that migration/fusion occurs in whale development.

Ah, got a direct hit.
"The whale embryo starts off with its nostrils in the usual place for mammals, at the tip of the snout. But during development, the nostrils migrate to their final place at the top of the head to form the blowhole (or blowholes). "
(http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/)



Some types of whales have 2 nostrils/blowholes as adults (weird), so in them, fusion of the nostrils to form a single blowhole does not occur.

[Allied35]

Did you notice the fingers on the hands of the embryo too?
http://www.neoucom.edu/DLDD/interst/develop/blowhole/94670vent.jpg
Amazing!

[ImaAtheistNow]

Did you notice the fingers on the hands of the embryo too?
http://www.neoucom.edu/DLDD/interst/develop/blowhole/94670vent.jpg
Amazing!

Ah, I hadn't noticed the 'fingers of the hand'.


Here's a pic of a the skeleton of an adult whale's flipper ("arm" and "hand").

http://www.austmus.gov.au/mammals/images/collections/200/whale_fin_tour_43.jpg

[chichiflys]

I know it's probably been beat to death - but I was always partial to the male nipples thing (OK don't take that the wrong way - I mean from an evolutionary standpoint!) and the abilty for men to nurse their children.

[Allied35]

I know it's probably been beat to death - but I was always partial to the male nipples thing (OK don't take that the wrong way - I mean from an evolutionary standpoint!) and the abilty for men to nurse their children.

You mean inability to nurse... Right?

[Coragyps]

Another two for humans, that just coincidentally (hah!) also apply to gorillas and chimps:

8) Our vomeronasal organs start out developing in the roof of the mouth, but migrate up into the septum of the nose before birth. And they fail to develop (or retain?) any sensory cells that would make the organ functional.

9) The accessory olfactory bulb, the part of the brain that receives signals from the vomeronasal organ in, say, lemurs and howler monkeys, is present in human/great ape embryos, but is resorbed by about the time of birth.

These are pretty devastating to the "no common descent" position when you consider how they are distributed among primates. I've never got any answer from a creationist on VNOs or AOBs.

[ImaAtheistNow]

I know it's probably been beat to death - but I was always partial to the male nipples thing (OK don't take that the wrong way - I mean from an evolutionary standpoint!) and the abilty for men to nurse their children.

You mean inability to nurse... Right?

Newborn boys (as well as newborn girls) can secrete milk from their nipples: so-called "witches' milk". But I personally have never heard of an adult male being able to nurse a child - well, except for maybe that one Family Guy episode :-)
Considering how many oddities biology presents us with, I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened at least once by some fluke.

Does anyone here know if it can occur, and if so, how rare/common it is?


******************
ETA: I should have known that Wikipedia would have something on this :-)

The phenomenon of male lactation in humans has become more common in recent years due to the use of medications that stimulate a man's mammary glands. Though boys and men have nipples, many are unaware that they also have mammary glands. In ordinary circumstances, there is so little mammary tissue that it is unnoticeable; if the male breasts develop visibly, the condition is called gynecomastia. Under the appropriate hormonal stimulus—that nature provides to human females when they become pregnant and give birth—the mammary glands of human males can also produce milk.[1] The volume of milk produced is low relative to that of a lactating female. Newborn baby boys (and girls) can occasionally produce milk because of the intense hormones involved in their mother's pregnancy and the hours of childbirth; this is called witch's milk.

Male lactation is most commonly caused by hormonal treatments given to men suffering from prostate cancer. Female hormones are used to slow the production of cancerous prostate tissue, but the same hormones also stimulate the mammary glands. Male-to-female transsexuals may also produce milk owing to the hormones they take to reshape their bodies. It can occasionally be a side-effect of antipsychotic medication. Extreme stress combined with demanding physical activity and a shortage of food has also been known to cause male lactation. The phenomenon occurred in survivors of the liberated Nazi concentration camps after World War II.[1] Some American POWs returning from the Korean and Vietnam Wars also experienced male lactation. Anthropolist Barry Hewlett has observed male breastfeeding among certain Pygmies of central Africa for whom "male and female roles are virtually interchangeable".[2] The phenomenon has also been observed in isolated cases in other parts of the world.[3]

The phenomenon of male lactation occurs in some non-human species, notably the Dayak fruit bat (Dyacopterus spadiceus), and the lactating males may assist in the nursing of their infants. In addition, male goats are known to lactate on occasion.[4]

In Why Is Sex Fun?, Jared Diamond reports of male and female cancer patients being treated with estrogen who proceeded to lactate when injected with prolactin, and suggests that mechanical stimulation of male breasts, by releasing prolactin, could result in lactation. He also mentions teenage boys lactating after self stimulation of their nipples.[5]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation)

[Allied35]

Wow, I learn so much on this forum! Thanks.

[WCH]

I know it's probably been beat to death - but I was always partial to the male nipples thing (OK don't take that the wrong way - I mean from an evolutionary standpoint!) and the abilty for men to nurse their children.Have you read Stephen Jay Gould's essay, "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples," wherein he argues that the male nipple and the female orgasm both arise from the fact that the human reproductive systems are undifferentiated until the addition (or lack) of testosterone while in the womb, at which point the until-then-identical systems develop in different ways, and genetic changes which effect one also effect the other. So, selecting for a powerful orgasm in men leads to a powerful orgasm in women, and selecting for nipples on women leads to nipples on men.

[ImaAtheistNow]

So, selecting for a powerful orgasm in men leads to a powerful orgasm in women, and selecting for nipples on women leads to nipples on men.

So does selecting for a vagina in women select for a vagina in men? Just think of how much time, money, and aggravation a man could save if he just had his own vagina! :Cheeky:

[Doddy]

Creationists, what legitimate explanation ("God just did it that way", "God works in mysterious ways", and other useless copouts don't count) can you give for the above facts?

What of the one they use for the vestigial pelvic spurs of snakes, which says that before 'The Fall' (or some other event) it was all different and God changed those animals only partially so the remnants of their previous nature remains for us to see?

[clayheart]

2) Why do humans, which lack pharyngeal slits, develop pharyngeal slits, similar to those of a fish embryo?

We are referring to pharyngeal arches, also called branchial arches, sometimes still erroneously called gill slits, and in layman terms could be called folds in the neck. Referring to these as slits is erroneous because they are not slits at all. These are folds like those of a man with a double or triple chin. Believe it or not that overweight man sitting at the table next to you does not have slits in his throat, just skin folded over on itself. Now why do human embryos have this neck folding? Simply because the brain and spinal cord are growing faster than to rest of the body so that the spinal cord is longer than the body causing the embryo to cruel up and these structures (none of which are related to breathing) fold over.

[Doddy]

2) Why do humans, which lack pharyngeal slits, develop pharyngeal slits, similar to those of a fish embryo?

We are referring to pharyngeal arches, also called branchial arches, sometimes still erroneously called gill slits, and in layman terms could be called folds in the neck. Referring to these as slits is erroneous because they are not slits at all. These are folds like those of a man with a double or triple chin. Believe it or not that overweight man sitting at the table next to you does not have slits in his throat, just skin folded over on itself. Now why do human embryos have this neck folding? Simply because the brain and spinal cord are growing faster than to rest of the body so that the spinal cord is longer than the body causing the embryo to cruel up and these structures (none of which are related to breathing) fold over.
Not related to breathing except for the fact that those same folds, which occur in all vertebrates, develop into gills in those animals that have them (tadpoles, fish etc).

[ImaAtheistNow]

2) Why do humans, which lack pharyngeal slits, develop pharyngeal slits, similar to those of a fish embryo?

We are referring to pharyngeal arches, also called branchial arches, ...

Yes and no.

While I am implicitly referring to the pharyngeal arches, I am also referring to the SLITS that form between some of those in human embryos. I'll add emphasis to the following ...


“The [pharyngeal] slits may be permanent, as in fishes in which they are exits for respiratory water from the gills, or they are temporary, as in most tetrapods. … Only one or two of the more anterior pouches of mammals may rupture. Cervical fistulas occasionally seen in human beings are usually the result of the failure of the cervical sinus, housing the third and fourth slits, to close.”
(George C. Kent & Robert K Carr, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates: Ninth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2001, p7)



...


These are folds like those of a man with a double or triple chin. Believe it or not that overweight man sitting at the table next to you does not have slits in his throat, just skin folded over on itself. Now why do human embryos have this neck folding? Simply because the brain and spinal cord are growing faster than to rest of the body so that the spinal cord is longer than the body causing the embryo to cruel up and these structures (none of which are related to breathing) fold over.

Wrong. Flat out wrong.

From my personal notes ...


To try to argue against the compelling evidence for common descent and descent with modification provided by pharyngeal slits, some Creationists claim that the visible structures on the embryo’s exterior (pharyngeal arches and ectodermal grooves) are nothing more than folds of skin in the neck region from the embryo’s head being tucked down. A mere physical consequence of body orientation, and not in anyway regulated genetically.

Their assertion is false. Pharyngeal pouches, ectodermal grooves, and phayngeal arches are all genetically controlled developmental structures in chordate embryos … just like a limb bud is.

The pharynx is essentially the throat, and is lined with endoderm. The ectoderm is the outermost layer of cells/tissue (on the embryo’s surface), and between the endoderm and ectoderm lies the mesoderm.

Under genetic influence (Fgfs), the endoderm of the pharynx begins to migrate laterally and segment into a series of pharyngeal pouches; these outpocketings of the pharynx begin growing outward toward the ectoderm. At about the same time, a series of ectodermal grooves begin to grow inward directly toward the pouches. Eventually, only a thin membrane, called a branchial plate, remains separating each pouch from its corresponding groove. In the meantime, neural crest cells have migrated into the regions between consecutive pouches/grooves to form pharyngeal arches.

If a branchial plate ruptures, an open passageway, called a pharyngeal slit, is formed, running from the interior (pharynx) to the outside of the embryo’s body. Pharyngeal slits are either permanent (as in fishes) or transient (as in humans and most other tetrapods).

During the above steps in the development of the pharynx, four basic structures were developing within the confines of each pharyngeal arch. These include one pharyngeal skeletal element (formation of which is controlled by signals from pharyngeal endoderm), one aortic arch (which connects the ventral aorta to the dorsal aorta), one cranial nerve, and branchiomeric muscles that operate the arch.

[Reason]

(crickets chirping, owls hooting to fill the absence of input from theists/creationists) :huh:

[ImaAtheistNow]

Captain Rock, feel free to read the OP and post your explanation that is better than macroevolution.

[ImaAtheistNow]

bump, for CRock, who I just invited (in a different thread where he is posting) to take a gander at this thread

[chichiflys]

bump, for CRock, who I just invited (in a different thread where he is posting) to take a gander at this thread

He is busy mining quotes at the moment.

Oh and thank you for the Wiki spread on the male lactation thing.

[Berthold]

Oh and thank you for the Wiki spread on the male lactation thing.
This thread (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=170907) has quite a few links, including one to a free pdf of Gould's article.

Well, if they are still operational, it's a bit old :) .

[Peez]

[b]ImaAtheistNow:
Here's a pic of a the skeleton of an adult whale's flipper ("arm" and "hand").
http://www.austmus.gov.au/mammals/images/collections/200/whale_fin_tour_43.jpgNote the bone-for-bone similarity (humerus, radius and ulna, carpals, metacarpals, phalanges):
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/ilt/000f09ce.gif

Peez

[Captain Rock]

ImanAtheistNow -

Back on June 26th, at 10PM, I posted, on another thread that has now been locked, a partial rebuttal of Cartwright and Theobald's joint rebuttal to Scadding's article. Consider this post a continuation of that post.

First, I want to return to a point I previously addressed. C & T malign skeptics for illegitimately quote mining when they write that Scadding said “vestigial organs do not provide evidence of evolution.” C & T note that Scadding actually wrote “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” (Emphasis mine).

For the following two reasons, C & T are wrong in this criticism of the skeptics. What the skeptics have written is not illegitimate quote mining.
1) The abstract at the beginning of Scadding’s article says “vestigial organs’ provide no evidence of evolutionary theory," and (2) Naylor, in his article, summarily dismisses the C & T type of rebuttal of Scadding’s position.

As to (1) above, C & T, to their credit, point out that the language of the abstract makes the very assertion they charge the skeptics of wrongfully making. Verbatim repetition of the words contained in an abstract, instead of a verbatim repetition of the words of the body of the article to which the abstract is attached, is at best a hypertechnical gotcha. Thus, C & T’s point is so minor it is not worthy of being taken seriously.

But, nonetheless, let’s look at the substance of the charge. C & T argue that Scadding (with respect to his statement that “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution”) does not say that vestigial organs have no evidentiary value as proof of evolution. C & T argue that Scadding agrees that vestigial organs are proof of evolution in asserting that vestigial organs support the homology argument. But Naylor dismisses this line of thinking. In his article (the article that C & T ”champion” as a convincing rebuttal to Scadding), Naylor strongly suggests that the “supporting homology argument line of proof” as unimportant. He states, “As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another, related organism,” the point that vestigial organs are simply a special case of homologous organs "contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument."

Thus, C & T here are trying, unsuccessfully, to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[greenbear]

ImanAtheistNow -

Back on June 26th, at 10PM, I posted, on another thread that has now been locked, a partial rebuttal of Cartwright and Theobald's joint rebuttal to Scadding's article. Consider this post a continuation of that post.

First, I want to return to a point I previously addressed. C & T malign skeptics for illegitimately quote mining when they write that Scadding said “vestigial organs do not provide evidence of evolution.” C & T note that Scadding actually wrote “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” (Emphasis mine).

For the following two reasons, C & T are wrong in this criticism of the skeptics. What the skeptics have written is not illegitimate quote mining.
1) The abstract at the beginning of Scadding’s article says “vestigial organs’ provide no evidence of evolutionary theory," and (2) Naylor, in his article, summarily dismisses the C & T type of rebuttal of Scadding’s position.

As to (1) above, C & T, to their credit, point out that the language of the abstract makes the very assertion they charge the skeptics of wrongfully making. Verbatim repetition of the words contained in an abstract, instead of a verbatim repetition of the words of the body of the article to which the abstract is attached, is at best a hypertechnical gotcha. Thus, C & T’s point is so minor it is not worthy of being taken seriously.

But, nonetheless, let’s look at the substance of the charge. C & T argue that Scadding (with respect to his statement that “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution”) does not say that vestigial organs have no evidentiary value as proof of evolution. C & T argue that Scadding agrees that vestigial organs are proof of evolution in asserting that vestigial organs support the homology argument. But Naylor dismisses this line of thinking. In his article (the article that C & T ”champion” as a convincing rebuttal to Scadding), Naylor strongly suggests that the “supporting homology argument line of proof” as unimportant. He states, “As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another, related organism,” the point that vestigial organs are simply a special case of homologous organs "contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument."

Thus, C & T here are trying, unsuccessfully, to make a mountain out of a mole hill.Whether, in your opinion, C&T's point is , to use your phrase, " a hypertechnical gotcha", the fact remains that those who use Scadding's article to support the statement that vestigial structures offer no evidence for evolution are guilty of quotemining.

Further, as clearly shown by Naylor, Scadding's whole argument depends on an incorrect definition of vestigial and a denial of clearly vestigial structures.

So, not only is your use of Scadding's paper a quotemine, but you are also using a paper which has serious flaws.

You may consider it making a mountain out of a molehill but that seems to be motivated by the fact that you were caught quotemining the article and using a flawed paper as support for your view.

[Occam's Aftershave]

ImanAtheistNow -

Back on June 26th, at 10PM, I posted, on another thread that has now been locked, a partial rebuttal of Cartwright and Theobald's joint rebuttal to Scadding's article. Consider this post a continuation of that post.

First, I want to return to a point I previously addressed. C & T malign skeptics for illegitimately quote mining when they write that Scadding said “vestigial organs do not provide evidence of evolution.” C & T note that Scadding actually wrote “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” (Emphasis mine).

For the following two reasons, C & T are wrong in this criticism of the skeptics. What the skeptics have written is not illegitimate quote mining.
1) The abstract at the beginning of Scadding’s article says “vestigial organs’ provide no evidence of evolutionary theory," and (2) Naylor, in his article, summarily dismisses the C & T type of rebuttal of Scadding’s position.

As to (1) above, C & T, to their credit, point out that the language of the abstract makes the very assertion they charge the skeptics of wrongfully making. Verbatim repetition of the words contained in an abstract, instead of a verbatim repetition of the words of the body of the article to which the abstract is attached, is at best a hypertechnical gotcha. Thus, C & T’s point is so minor it is not worthy of being taken seriously.
Here we see CRock display his woeful ignorance of all things scientific again. The abstract of a paper is simply a high level overview of the topics covered in the paper. It's the body of the paper that has the specific details (that you call 'hypertechnical gotchas' :rolleyes:), which is by far the most important part.

As always, Cretos hate scientific details because they're so darn hard to handwave away. As I've noted many times

Scientific details ==> Creationist as Kitchen light ==> cockroach.

But, nonetheless, let’s look at the substance of the charge. C & T argue that Scadding (with respect to his statement that “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution”) does not say that vestigial organs have no evidentiary value as proof of evolution. C & T argue that Scadding agrees that vestigial organs are proof of evolution in asserting that vestigial organs support the homology argument. But Naylor dismisses this line of thinking. In his article (the article that C & T ”champion” as a convincing rebuttal to Scadding), Naylor strongly suggests that the “supporting homology argument line of proof” as unimportant. He states, “As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another, related organism,” the point that vestigial organs are simply a special case of homologous organs "contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument."

Thus, C & T here are trying, unsuccessfully, to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Yeah CRock, except quote-mining Cretos like you keep tripping over those pesky 'mole hill' scientific details and falling flat on your face. :grin::grin::grin:

[ImaAtheistNow]

blah blah blah

None of your garbage addressed the examples I gave, or my request for a better explanation for them than MACROevolution.

Care to give it another try?

[Captain Rock]

ImanAtheistNow -

Back on June 26th, at 10PM, I posted, on another thread that has now been locked, a partial rebuttal of Cartwright and Theobald's joint rebuttal to Scadding's article. Consider this post a continuation of that post.

First, I want to return to a point I previously addressed. C & T malign skeptics for illegitimately quote mining when they write that Scadding said “vestigial organs do not provide evidence of evolution.” C & T note that Scadding actually wrote “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” (Emphasis mine).

For the following two reasons, C & T are wrong in this criticism of the skeptics. What the skeptics have written is not illegitimate quote mining.
1) The abstract at the beginning of Scadding’s article says “vestigial organs’ provide no evidence of evolutionary theory," and (2) Naylor, in his article, summarily dismisses the C & T type of rebuttal of Scadding’s position.

As to (1) above, C & T, to their credit, point out that the language of the abstract makes the very assertion they charge the skeptics of wrongfully making. Verbatim repetition of the words contained in an abstract, instead of a verbatim repetition of the words of the body of the article to which the abstract is attached, is at best a hypertechnical gotcha. Thus, C & T’s point is so minor it is not worthy of being taken seriously.

But, nonetheless, let’s look at the substance of the charge. C & T argue that Scadding (with respect to his statement that “vestigial organs provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution”) does not say that vestigial organs have no evidentiary value as proof of evolution. C & T argue that Scadding agrees that vestigial organs are proof of evolution in asserting that vestigial organs support the homology argument. But Naylor dismisses this line of thinking. In his article (the article that C & T ”champion” as a convincing rebuttal to Scadding), Naylor strongly suggests that the “supporting homology argument line of proof” as unimportant. He states, “As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another, related organism,” the point that vestigial organs are simply a special case of homologous organs "contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument."

Thus, C & T here are trying, unsuccessfully, to make a mountain out of a mole hill.Whether, in your opinion, C&T's point is , to use your phrase, " a hypertechnical gotcha", the fact remains that those who use Scadding's article to support the statement that vestigial structures offer no evidence for evolution are guilty of quotemining.

Further, as clearly shown by Naylor, Scadding's whole argument depends on an incorrect definition of vestigial and a denial of clearly vestigial structures.

So, not only is your use of Scadding's paper a quotemine, but you are also using a paper which has serious flaws.

You may consider it making a mountain out of a molehill but that seems to be motivated by the fact that you were caught quotemining the article and using a flawed paper as support for your view.

Ah!! There it is again. The MANTRA -- "quote-mining". It is like that little dance that the witch doctor does at your door and the chants -- the mantras -- to keep the evil spirits away.

[Captain Rock]

blah blah blah

None of your garbage addressed the examples I gave, or my request for a better explanation for them than MACROevolution.

Care to give it another try?


if they have a function, then end of story. It may not be evolution.

[Captain Rock]

(crickets chirping, owls hooting to fill the absence of input from theists/creationists) :huh:

Time is the only thing keeping me from participating more frequently on this thread.

[Captain Rock]

blah blah blah

None of your garbage addressed the examples I gave, or my request for a better explanation for them than MACROevolution.

Care to give it another try?


Presently, I am focusing on finishing up my critique of Cartwright's and Theobald's rebuttal of Scadding.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Ah!! There it is again. The MANTRA -- "quote-mining". It is like that little dance that the witch doctor does at your door and the chants -- the mantras -- to keep the evil spirits away.
Since the evidence is quite clear that you are guilt of quote-mining and equivocation, and all you can do in reply is your silly little creto whine while you avoid the germane points raised, confronting your lack of honesty is most appropriate.

Now if only we could come up with a mantra to keep the CRock of shite trolls away.

[Chemist99a]

So, selecting for a powerful orgasm in men leads to a powerful orgasm in women, and selecting for nipples on women leads to nipples on men.

So does selecting for a vagina in women select for a vagina in men? Just think of how much time, money, and aggravation a man could save if he just had his own vagina! :Cheeky:

Fraid not. You can make one or the other, but very seldom functional versions of both on the same individual. Plants of course can be monecious, but I don't think they deal in "convenience". Besides the real world selects against linages which are too inbred!

[ImaAtheistNow]

None of your garbage addressed the examples I gave, or my request for a better explanation for them than MACROevolution.

Care to give it another try?


if they have a function, then end of story. It may not be evolution.

You didn't even bother to read the examples, did you?

Most of the examples I listed are embryonic structures (such as hindlimbs in dolphins, postanal tail in humans, fish-like arrangement of dorsal & ventral arteries & aortic arches in humans) that are inappropriate for that animal's adult stage and in fact disappear before the animal is even born. But, those structures are present in the adult forms of related species (for dolphins, mammalian terrestrial tetrapods; for humans, mammals in general and even fish) which makes perfect sense in the light of MACROevolution.

You're not even paying attention to what's being said: you're just brainlessly repeating the same C'Rock of shite you've been peddling for the past several weeks in other threads.

[Steviepinhead]

Yep. Even C.Rock's entertainment value is rapidly diminishing, as he increasingly recycles his whines...

Sigh. Truly lasting founts of Creo-tard, like AF Dave Hawkins, are few and far between. He certainly quote-mines, equivocates, and recycles his few main "points." But at least the details he pulls out of the various hoary creationist "sources" are presented in ever-fresh and endlessly amusing combinations.

[Captain Rock]

if they have a function, then end of story. It may not be evolution.

You didn't even bother to read the examples, did you?

Most of the examples I listed are embryonic structures (such as hindlimbs in dolphins, postanal tail in humans, fish-like arrangement of dorsal & ventral arteries & aortic arches in humans) that are inappropriate for that animal's adult stage and in fact disappear before the animal is even born. But, those structures are present in the adult forms of related species (for dolphins, mammalian terrestrial tetrapods; for humans, mammals in general and even fish) which makes perfect sense in the light of MACROevolution.

You're not even paying attention to what's being said: you're just brainlessly repeating the same C'Rock of shite you've been peddling for the past several weeks in other threads.

fish-like arrangement of dorsal & ventral arteries & aortic arches in humans -- is this anything like the gill slits in human embryos that turns out not to be gill slits at all.

[ImaAtheistNow]

You didn't even bother to read the examples, did you?

Most of the examples I listed are embryonic structures (such as hindlimbs in dolphins, postanal tail in humans, fish-like arrangement of dorsal & ventral arteries & aortic arches in humans) that are inappropriate for that animal's adult stage and in fact disappear before the animal is even born. But, those structures are present in the adult forms of related species (for dolphins, mammalian terrestrial tetrapods; for humans, mammals in general and even fish) which makes perfect sense in the light of MACROevolution.

You're not even paying attention to what's being said: you're just brainlessly repeating the same C'Rock of shite you've been peddling for the past several weeks in other threads.

fish-like arrangement of dorsal & ventral arteries & aortic arches in humans -- is this anything like the gill slits in human embryos that turns out not to be gill slits at all.

No, it's just what it says. Human embryos start off with an arrangement of aortae and arteries in the pharyngeal region that is very fish like, and also very non-human like.


Use this diagram to follow along with the following discussion of fish.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/F/fish_heart.gif

Adult fishes need to oxygenate their blood, which they do using their gills. Deoxygenated blood flows from their heart through their ventral aorta, reaching the proximal side of the aortic arches in the pharyngeal region. The blood then passes through aortic arches in the pharynx reaching the gills where oxygenation occurs. Then the oxygenated blood flows out of the gills into the dorsal aorta and from there to the rest of the body.


Now look at the embryonic human arrangement and consider the similarities to that of adult fish.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Gray472.png/250px-Gray472.png

1) Like adult fish, human embryos have both a ventral and dorsal aorta. Note that when born, humans do NOT have both: they have only 1 aorta.

2) Like adult fish, human embryos have aortic arches in their pharyngeal region. Note that when born, humans do NOT have aortic arches in their pharyngeal region.

3) Like adult fish, human embryos route their blood from the heart into the ventral aorta, which carries it to the pharyngeal region, where the blood then passes through the aortic arches - where the gills would be in fish - and into the dorsal aorta, from which the blood flows to the rest of the body. Note that when born, humans do NOT pass their blood through this pathway/network.



The circulation of blood in human embryos is highly similar to that in adult fish, but is extremely different than that of adult humans.

4) In the following, note all the remodeling that has to be done to the fish like arrangement of aortae/aortic arches in human embryos to finally arrive at the human arrangement.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Gray473.png/250px-Gray473.png



The circulation of blood in human embryos is highly similar to that present in adult fish, but is extremely different than that present in adult - and even newborn - humans.

This makes perfect sense in light of MACROevolution: the genetic instructions to build a fish's circulatory system were inherited and then modified over time - a fine example of descent with modification at the genetic and anatomical/physiological levels.

[Captain Rock]

This is a continuation of my critique of Cartwright's and Theobald's joint rebuttal of Scadding's article. I apologize about doing this piecemeal but these arguments take a long time to develop.

The definition of Vestigial Organs.

According to C & T and Naylor, Scadding is wrong in defining vestigial organs as entirely useless organs. This debate over the definition of vestigial organ is of little or no concern to the skeptic. Nonetheless, I concede that defining vestigial organs to include organs that have partial function negates Scadding’s eye-opening statement that Wiedersheim’s list of 100 vestigial organs is diminished to 5 organs.

The attempt to rehabilitate Wiedersheim’s list of 100 vestigial organs by arguing that yours is the more correct definition of “vestigial” as that term is used in the evolutionary community, in no way impacts on or has relevance to the issue of whether vestigial organs provide evidence of evolution. (A purely hypothetical example to illustrate my point: We could argue endlessly as to who was the better batter: Babe Ruth who batted .250 in a 3 foot strike zone or Mickey Mantle who batted .300 in a 2 foot strike zone. Changing the definition (size) of the strike zone has no relevance to the issue of who is the better batter).

Nor does defining vestigial organs to include partially-functional organs in any way diminish the persuasiveness of Scadding’s two main points: (1) the vestigial-organ-argument is a religious, not a scientific, argument; and (2) the vestigial organ argument is a failed-from-the-start-argument of proving a negative -- that an organ does not have a function. Scadding’s two main points do not stand or fall on whether vestigial is defined as totally useless or partially useless. These two points are logical arguments that go to the heart of the issue, whereas the definitional argument (discussed above) does not.

I would think that C & T would not challenge Scadding on this point. Claiming that a partially functional vestigial organ or a vestigial organ with a different use than that of the hypothetical ancestor will never silence the skeptic. A partially functional organ does not answer the skeptic’s criticism. Saying an organ is “atrophied” or “rudimentary” is saying that an organ is “less than it could be.” This certainly is a matter of much speculation and subjective judgment. You say it is and I say it isn’t. A piece of art may be a beautiful masterpiece to one person and at the same time a blight on the landscape to another.

Moreover, using partially functional organs as evidence of evolution just opens up the evolutionist to a myriad of unnecessary ancillary arguments that must be answered in order to convince the unconvinced. A skeptic can have fun with the evolutionist who argues that a partially functional vestigial organs is evidence of evolution. The skeptic need only ask, “How do we know that it is partially functional as opposed to fully function?” Its function may be very important to the survival of he creature even though it is of short duration, such as the structure or organ that appears only in the embryonic development of the organism.

Further, there are several reasons that explain the current state of the organ (I.e., explain how the organ became partially functional or totally unfunctional) that are not true evolutionary explanations. Reasons such as disuse, harmful mutations, or a physical law akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

How do we know that deleterious mutations in the genes didn’t cause the organism to lose function in that organ (i.e., flightless birds)?” This is not evolution. No one disagrees that things go from good to bad to worse. The debate over Evolution is whether evolution truly has the power to create new functional structures, whether it has the power to increase complexity over time. The example of the wingless bird does not speak to this issue. Thus, none of these reasons stated above (I.e., disuse, harmful mutations, or a physical law akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) can be claimed as an evolutionary process. A skeptic wants to know if evolution is capable of creating new fully functional structures -- is it capable of increasing complexity. Illustrations of organs with decreased capacity or function, which demonstrate only the running down or degradation of the organism have no relevance to proving evolution as a creative force, and therefore have no bearing on the issue of whether evolution is true or not.

[Chemist99a]

How do we know that deleterious mutations in the genes didn’t cause the organism to lose function in that organ (i.e., flightless birds)?” This is not evolution. No one disagrees that things go from good to bad to worse.

Please document how the loss of flight capability for the birds which lost it was not a beneficial change for those species in the environments they exist in! Consider the terror bird which once filled the large predator niche. Having to support flight capability would have been a distinct disadvantage for that species. Imagine the investment an Ostrich would have to make in order to remain a flying creature especially with respect to the very minor advantage to be gained.

("Rag-Bearers"), or terror birds, were a family of large carnivorous flightless birds that were the dominant predators in South America during the Cenozoic, 62–2 million years (Ma) ago. They were roughly 1–3 meters (3–10 feet) tall. Their closest modern-day relatives are believed to be the 0.8 m-tall seriemas. Titanis walleri, one of the larger species, is known from Texas and Florida in North America. This makes the phorusrhacids only known example of large South American predators migrating north during the Great American Interchange (which occurred after the volcanic Isthmus of Panama land bridge rose ca. 3 Ma ago). It was once believed that T. walleri only became extinct around the time of the arrival of man in North America[1], but subsequent datings of Titanis fossils have failed to provide evidence for their survival more recently than 1.8 Ma ago.[2][3]

A recently discovered species, Kelenken guillermoi from Middle Miocene some 15 million years ago, discovered in Patagonia in 2006 represents the largest bird skull yet found. The fossil has been described as being a 28-inch (71 cm), nearly intact skull. The beak is roughly 18-inches long and curves in a hook shape that resembles an eagle's beak. It is thought that this new species would easily be able to swallow dog-sized prey. Most species described as Phorusrhacidae birds were smaller, 2 to 3 feet (0.6 - 0.9m) tall, but the new fossil belongs to a bird that probably stood about 10 feet tall (3 m). Although scientists cannot be sure, they predict that the large terror birds were extremely nimble and quick runners able to reach speeds of 30 mph.[4]

Phorusrhacids are colloquially known as "terror birds", because their larger species were apex predators and the most fearsome carnivores of their habitat (before the arrival of saber-toothed cats 2.5 Ma ago). Their wings had evolved into meathook-like structures that likely could be stretched out like arms to perform a hacking motion which theoretically would help in bringing down prey. Most of the smaller and some of the larger species are believed to have been fast runners.

[Coragyps]

Cap'n, when was the last time you used your vomeronasal organ? And what did you do with that nice accessory olfactory bulb that you had in utero?

[Occam's Aftershave]

A skeptic wants to know if evolution is capable of creating new fully functional structures -- is it capable of increasing complexity.

YEP.

Genetics Of Multi-chambered Heart Evolution

A 2006 paper in Genetics and Development has shown that a simple mutation in the Ciona intestinalis (sea squirt) resulted in a portion of a population of the animals being born with a fully functional two-chambered heart instead of the normal single heart tube.

As reported in Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060930094021.htm)

A new paper in the October 1 issue of G&D elucidates the genetics of heart formation in the sea squirt, and lends surprising new insight into the genetic changes that may have driven the evolution of the multi-chambered vertebrate heart.
Brad Davidson and colleagues in Michael Levine's lab at UC Berkeley have discovered that the transcription factor Ets1/2, along with the signaling molecule FGF, controls early heart formation in the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis.
Sea squirts are most commonly found in shallow ocean waters attached to algae, rocks or seaweed. They have been used for over 100 years as a highly useful experimental model organism for the study of animal development. A simple chordate, Ciona is being used in the lab to study the heart development of higher organisms because it shares several characteristics with vertebrates - although ultimately, Ciona, develops a heart with just one chamber (as opposed to vertebrates' multi-chambered heart).
All of the cells that form the Ciona heart are originally derived from two early embryonic cells (called bastomeres). These cells divide into separate lineages: the smaller rostral cells become heart muscle, while the larger caudal cells become tail muscle. Davidson and colleagues found that Ets1/2 underlies the cells' decision to become either heart or tail. When activated, Ets1/2 instructs cells to form heart muscle.
When the scientists blocked Ets1/2 activity (either by inhibiting the Ets1/2 gene, itself, or its upstream modulators), Ciona heart specification was likewise blocked. Alternatively, the over-expression of Ets1/2 in caudal cells caused the cells to switch their fate from tail to heart.
The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.

The whole paper may be found here

Evolutionary origins of the vertebrate heart: Specification of the cardiac lineage in Ciona intestinalis (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11469.full)

(Apologies to regular IIDB readers, as I have posted this several times before, every time some ignorant YEC belches the "evolution can't produce new structures!!" canard.)

[greenbear]

According to C & T and Naylor, Scadding is wrong in defining vestigial organs as entirely useless organs. According to C&T and Naylor and mainstream biology.


This debate over the definition of vestigial organ is of little or no concern to the skeptic. What debate? Scadding was wrong.


I can see why evolution deniers flee from the proper definition, it destroys their case.


Nonetheless, I concede that defining vestigial organs to include organs that have partial function negates Scadding’s eye-opening statement that Wiedersheim’s list of 100 vestigial organs is diminished to 5 organs. Game, set, and match.



The attempt to rehabilitate Wiedersheim’s list of 100 vestigial organs by arguing that yours is the more correct definition of “vestigial” as that term is used in the evolutionary community, in no way impacts on or has relevance to the issue of whether vestigial organs provide evidence of evolution. You might want to tell Scaddings that as the definition is the core and heart of his paper. Withput the proper definition, there would be no need to write his paper.


(A purely hypothetical example to illustrate my point: We could argue endlessly as to who was the better batter: Babe Ruth who batted .250 in a 3 foot strike zone or Mickey Mantle who batted .300 in a 2 foot strike zone. Changing the definition (size) of the strike zone has no relevance to the issue of who is the better batter). Your example is incompetent.

The actual accurate example would be Scaddings defining the size of the strike zone as the only criteria used in determining the best batter.





Nor does defining vestigial organs to include partially-functional organs in any way diminish the persuasiveness of Scadding’s two main points: (1) the vestigial-organ-argument is a religious, not a scientific, argument; and (2) the vestigial organ argument is a failed-from-the-start-argument of proving a negative -- that an organ does not have a function. Scadding’s two main points do not stand or fall on whether vestigial is defined as totally useless or partially useless. These two points are logical arguments that go to the heart of the issue, whereas the definitional argument (discussed above) does not. Again, Scaddings definition is the heart and soul of his argument. Without it, his paper goes nowhere.

Proving a negative? C&T covered this quite clearly in their article.

I expect you either overlooked it or more likely ignored it because it effectively quashes your inept "prove a negative" blather.





I would think that C & T would not challenge Scadding on this point. Claiming that a partially functional vestigial organ or a vestigial organ with a different use than that of the hypothetical ancestor will never silence the skeptic. A partially functional organ does not answer the skeptic’s criticism. Saying an organ is “atrophied” or “rudimentary” is saying that an organ is “less than it could be.” This certainly is a matter of much speculation and subjective judgment. You say it is and I say it isn’t. A piece of art may be a beautiful masterpiece to one person and at the same time a blight on the landscape to another. "Less than it could be" is your phrase, not biology's.

Moreover, using partially functional organs as evidence of evolution just opens up the evolutionist to a myriad of unnecessary ancillary arguments that must be answered in order to convince the unconvinced. A skeptic can have fun with the evolutionist who argues that a partially functional vestigial organs is evidence of evolution. The skeptic need only ask, “How do we know that it is partially functional as opposed to fully function?”Easy. In the case of the human tailbone, it no longer is used for grasping or maintaining balance. In the case of whale hips, they are no longer used for walking.

Fun will be had but at the evolution denier's expense.



Its function may be very important to the survival of he creature even though it is of short duration, such as the structure or organ that appears only in the embryonic development of the organism.Examples?





Further, there are several reasons that explain the current state of the organ (I.e., explain how the organ became partially functional or totally unfunctional) that are not true evolutionary explanations. Reasons such as disuse, harmful mutations, or a physical law akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.Harmful mutations? Depends on the environment. check out Sickle Cell Anemia.

A physical law akin to the 2ndLOT?

Oh dear, could you describe this law and how it influences evolution?




How do we know that deleterious mutations in the genes didn’t cause the organism to lose function in that organ (i.e., flightless birds)?” This is not evolution. No one disagrees that things go from good to bad to worse. The debate over Evolution is whether evolution truly has the power to create new functional structures, whether it has the power to increase complexity over time. The example of the wingless bird does not speak to this issue. Thus, none of these reasons stated above (I.e., disuse, harmful mutations, or a physical law akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) can be claimed as an evolutionary process. A skeptic wants to know if evolution is capable of creating new fully functional structures -- is it capable of increasing complexity. Illustrations of organs with decreased capacity or function, which demonstrate only the running down or degradation of the organism have no relevance to proving evolution as a creative force, and therefore have no bearing on the issue of whether evolution is true or not.See above.



So Captain, you tell us that Mayr, Gould and others are the top experts that we should be listening to.

These folks all accept that vestigial structures are evidence for evolution, so shouldn't we accept their word rather than the word of a minor player whose claim to fame is that he wrote a paper using an inaccurate defintion?


Seems that along with your incessant quotemining, cherry-picking can be added to your toolbag.

[ImaAtheistNow]

A skeptic wants to know if evolution is capable of creating new fully functional structures -- is it capable of increasing complexity.

YEP.

Genetics Of Multi-chambered Heart Evolution

A 2006 paper in Genetics and Development has shown that a simple mutation in the Ciona intestinalis (sea squirt) resulted in a portion of a population of the animals being born with a fully functional two-chambered heart instead of the normal single heart tube.

As reported in Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060930094021.htm)
...

Nice.

I've also posted this before for Creationists: it shows the increasing complexity of "living intermediates" in heart evolution in chordates.

No heart: peristaltic ventral aorta: no erythrocytes or hemoglobin in blood [amphioxus]

“The closed circulatory system [of amphioxus] is complex for so simple a chordate. The flow pattern is remarkably similar to that of the primitive fishes, although there is no heart. Blood is pumped forward in the ventral aorta by peristaltic-like contractions of the vessel wall, then passes upward through the branchial arteries (aortic arches) in the gill bars to the paired dorsal aortas, which join to become a single dorsal aorta. From there the blood is distributed to the body tissues by microcirculation and then is collected in veins, which return it to the ventral aorta. Lacking both erythrocytes and hemoglobin, the blood is thought to transport nutrients but play little role in gas exchange.”
(p488)


2-chambered heart [lampreys]

“Characteristics of Class Cephalospidomorphi [lampreys]
…
5. Heart with one atrium and one ventricle; aortic arches in gill region”
(p503)


2-chambered heart, along with 3 accessory hearts [hagfishes]
“Characteristics of Class Myxini [hagfishes]
…
5. Heart with one atrium and one ventricle; accessory hearts in caudal region; aortic arches in gill region
…
Hagfishes have several other anatomical and physiological pecularities, including a low-pressure circulatory system served by three accessory hearts in addition to the main heart positioned behind the gills.”
(p501, 502)


2-chambered heart, nucleated red blood cells [bony fishes]

“Characteristics of Class Osteichthyes [bony fishes]
…
7. Circulation consisting of a two-chambered heart, arterial and venous systems, and characteristically four pairs of aortic arches; blood containing nucleated red blood cells”
(p510)


3-chambered heart, with double circulation [amphibians]
“Characteristics of Modern Amphibians
…
7. Circulation with three-chambered heart, two atria and one ventricle, and a double circulation [pulmonary and systemic circuits] through the heart …
…
As in fishes, circulation in amphibians is a closed system of arteries and veins serving a vast peripheral network of capillaries through which blood is forced by action of a single pressure pump, the heart. The principal changes in circuitry involve the shift from gill to lung breathing. With the elimination of gills, a major obstacle to blood flow was removed from the arterial circuit. But two new problems arose.

The first was to provide a blood circuit to the lungs. As we have seen, this problem was solved by converting the sixth aortic arch into pulmonary arteries to serve the lungs and by developing new pulmonary veins for returning oxygenated blood to the heart.


The second and evidently more difficult evolutionary problem was to separate the pulmonary circulation from the rest of the body’s circulation. …

Tetrapods solved the problem by evolving a partition down the center of the heart, creating a double pump, one for each circuit. Amphibians and reptiles have made the separation to varying degrees. Birds and mammals have the most completely divided hearts containing two atria and two ventricles.
(p534, 542)


3, 3 ½, or 4-chambered heart, with double circulation [reptiles]

“Characteristics of Class Reptilia
…
5. Three-chambered heart; crocodilians with four-chambered heart; usually one pair of aortic arches; systemic and pulmonary circutits functionally separated.
…
Characteristics of Reptiles That Distinguish Them From Amphibians
…
5. Reptiles have a more efficient circulatory system and higher blood pressure than amphibians. In all reptiles the right atrium, which receives unoxygenated blood from the body, is completely partitioned from the left atrium, which receives oxygenated blood from the lungs. In the crocodilians there are two completely separated ventricles as well; in other reptiles, the ventricle is not completely separated. Even if reptiles with incomplete separation of the ventricle, flow patterns within the heart prevent admixture of pulmonary (oxygenated) and systemic (deoxyngenated) blood; all reptiles therefore have two functionally separate circulations.”
(p552, 553)


4-chambered heart, double circulation, and nucleated red blood cells [birds]

“Characteristics of Class Aves [birds]
…
6. Circulatory system of four-chambered heart, with the right aortic arch persisting; reduced renal portal system; nucleated red blood cells”
(p574)


4-chambered heart, double circulation, and nonnucleated biconcave red blood cells [mammals]

“Characteristics of Class Mammalia
…
7. Circulatory system of a four-chambered heart, persistent left aorta, and nonnucleated, biconcave red blood corpuscles”
(p598)



“The biconcave shape [of red blood cells] is a mammalian innovation that provides a larger surface for gas diffusion than would a flat or spherical shape. All other vertebrates have nucleated erythrocytes that are usually ellipsoidal in shape”
(p673)



All quotes from “Integrated Principles of Zoology: 10th Edition”, Cleveland P. Hickman, Jr., et al., WCB McGraw-Hill, 1997

[greenbear]

All quotes from “Integrated Principles of Zoology: 10th Edition”, Cleveland P. Hickman, Jr., et al., WCB McGraw-Hill, 19971997? For christ's sake Ima, you know the Captain is convinced that Biological science closed shop in 1963.

[ImaAtheistNow]

All quotes from “Integrated Principles of Zoology: 10th Edition”, Cleveland P. Hickman, Jr., et al., WCB McGraw-Hill, 19971997? For christ's sake Ima, you know the Captain is convinced that Biological science closed shop in 1963.

:-)

I gave my 1997 edition to my university's library when I bought the 2008, Fourteenth Edition for myself. But I haven't spent the time needed to lookup the quotes for page numbers in the new edition and update my personal notes.

[Captain Rock]

fish-like arrangement of dorsal & ventral arteries & aortic arches in humans -- is this anything like the gill slits in human embryos that turns out not to be gill slits at all.

No, it's just what it says. Human embryos start off with an arrangement of aortae and arteries in the pharyngeal region that is very fish like, and also very non-human like.


Use this diagram to follow along with the following discussion of fish.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/F/fish_heart.gif

Adult fishes need to oxygenate their blood, which they do using their gills. Deoxygenated blood flows from their heart through their ventral aorta, reaching the proximal side of the aortic arches in the pharyngeal region. The blood then passes through aortic arches in the pharynx reaching the gills where oxygenation occurs. Then the oxygenated blood flows out of the gills into the dorsal aorta and from there to the rest of the body.


Now look at the embryonic human arrangement and consider the similarities to that of adult fish.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Gray472.png/250px-Gray472.png

1) Like adult fish, human embryos have both a ventral and dorsal aorta. Note that when born, humans do NOT have both: they have only 1 aorta.

2) Like adult fish, human embryos have aortic arches in their pharyngeal region. Note that when born, humans do NOT have aortic arches in their pharyngeal region.

3) Like adult fish, human embryos route their blood from the heart into the ventral aorta, which carries it to the pharyngeal region, where the blood then passes through the aortic arches - where the gills would be in fish - and into the dorsal aorta, from which the blood flows to the rest of the body. Note that when born, humans do NOT pass their blood through this pathway/network.



The circulation of blood in human embryos is highly similar to that in adult fish, but is extremely different than that of adult humans.

4) In the following, note all the remodeling that has to be done to the fish like arrangement of aortae/aortic arches in human embryos to finally arrive at the human arrangement.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Gray473.png/250px-Gray473.png



The circulation of blood in human embryos is highly similar to that present in adult fish, but is extremely different than that present in adult - and even newborn - humans.

This makes perfect sense in light of MACROevolution: the genetic instructions to build a fish's circulatory system were inherited and then modified over time - a fine example of descent with modification at the genetic and anatomical/physiological levels.

To today's evolutionists, similarity is evidence of evolution. It was never so in Darwin's time. Both before Darwin and during Darwin's lifetime, no scientist ever looked at similarity (as demonstrated in the Linnean classification system) as evidence of evolution.

Furthermore, this reminds me a lot of Ernst Haekel's biogenetic law, which was subsequently abandoned by scientists.

[Captain Rock]

Cap'n, when was the last time you used your vomeronasal organ? And what did you do with that nice accessory olfactory bulb that you had in utero?

I hear ya! But you need to read Scadding's main points in his article.

[Lightseeker144]

To today's evolutionists, similarity is evidence of evolution. It was never so in Darwin's time. Both before Darwin and during Darwin's lifetime, no scientist ever looked at similarity (as demonstrated in the Linnean classification system) as evidence of evolution.
Why should that be surprising, since Darwin's theories of evolution have been supplanted by better and more accurate models a dozen times over since then?

[Philosoft]

To today's 1945's evolutionists, similarity is evidence of evolution. It was never so in Darwin's time.
Fixed.
Both before Darwin and during Darwin's lifetime, no scientist ever looked at similarity (as demonstrated in the Linnean classification system) as evidence of evolution.
I'm pretty sure that theories of common descent precede Charles Darwin by more than 50 years. Besides... so what?
Furthermore, this reminds me a lot of Ernst Haekel's biogenetic law, which was subsequently abandoned by scientists.
What reminds you of Haeckel's biogenetic law?

[Peez]

CRock:
To today's evolutionists, similarity is evidence of evolution.Still posting falsehoods, I see. "Similarity" is not considered evidence of evolution by any competent person. Remember when I pointed out that you don't know anything about what constitutes evidence? I do. That you have refused to address this while repeatedly make false statements regarding evidence speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty.

Peez

[omgofra]

Manatees

1) Why do manatees have toenails?

2) Manatees don't have hindlimbs, so why do some manatees have hip sockets?

3) Why was a fossil of a four-legged, land-dwelling ancestor of manatees (indicated by the diagnostic skeletal feautues of manatees) found that had full-sized hindlimbs?

4) Why was a fossil of a precursor of manatees (indicated by the diagnostic skeletal feautues of manatees) found that had half-sized hindlimbs?

Dolphins and whales

1) Why do dolphin and whale embryos begin forming hindlimbs?

2) Why do dolphin and whale embryos, in the process of forming the single blowhole on the top of the head, first form two nostrils just above the mouth - like land mammals have, after which they must migrate upward and fuse to form the blowhole?

3) Why do dolphin and whale 'flippers' have internal skeletons that are homologous to the hands of humans, as well as the "hands" of other land mammals?

4) Why do some whales have a vestigial pelvis?

Birds

1) Why do birds, despite not having teeth, have genes for developing teeth?

2) Why do birds, despite not having long bony tails like reptiles do, start off in embryonic development with long bony tails - like reptiles do - that then must be reduced in number and fused together to form the bird's pygostyle?

Humans

1) Why do humans, which lack postanal tails - unlike most all other mammals - develop a postanal tail during embryonic development?

2) Why do humans, which lack pharyngeal slits, develop pharyngeal slits, similar to those of a fish embryo?

3) Why do human embryos start off with a fish-like arrangement of arteries and aortic arches, which then require much remodeling to transform the system from the fish-like arrangement to the human arrangement?

4) Why do human embryos/fetuses develop the functional kidneys of "lower" animals (these kidneys being the pronephros and mesonephros) on the path to forming the human metanephros?

5) Why do humans, which lack a notochord - unlike many vertebrates (fish, amphibians, many lizards, for example) - begin with a notochord during embryonic development --- like all other vertebrates do?

6) Why do humans, which lack a premaxillary bone - unlike most mammals, which have one - develop a premaxillary bone early in embryonic development?

7) Why do developing humans have a vestigial yolk sac? Our embryos/fetuses obtain nutrition from their mother, not from a yolk sac.

I expect that the creationist response to these assertions is that the creator(s) came up with one or more sets of genetic/developmental templates, which it/she/he/they then "tweaked" in various ways to spin off various results. Basically, common characteristics exist because the creator(s) prefer code-reuse. This doesn't explain why we have a nested hierarchy, and it suggests that the creator(s) only care about getting things good-enough. But there you go.

[Peez]

omgofra:
I expect that the creationist response to these assertions is that the creator(s) came up with one or more sets of genetic/developmental templates, which it/she/he/they then "tweaked" in various ways to spin off various results. Basically, common characteristics exist because the creator(s) prefer code-reuse. This doesn't explain why we have a nested hierarchy, and it suggests that the creator(s) only care about getting things good-enough. But there you go.Hi omgofra,

Indeed, I have seen that sort of response. Of course the creationists (as they so often do) shoot themselves in the foot with this one, because it implies a god with human limitations. We re-use designs not because that is the ideal way to do things, rather because we have limits to our knowledge, abilities, and resources. As usual, theists create god as a caricature of humans.

Peez

P.S.: This sort of creationist argument also illustrates quite nicely why creationism is not science, since any potential observation can be interpreted as just being somehow the way god wanted it.

[omgofra]

Hi omgofra,

Indeed, I have seen that sort of response. Of course the creationists (as they so often do) shoot themselves in the foot with this one, because it implies a god with human limitations. We re-use designs not because that is the ideal way to do things, rather because we have limits to our knowledge, abilities, and resources. As usual, theists create god as a caricature of humans.

Peez

P.S.: This sort of creationist argument also illustrates quite nicely why creationism is not science, since any potential observation can be interpreted as just being somehow the way god wanted it.

What this line of reasoning basically does is that it maps god's creative process, point for point, onto the the observed facts of nature. Bend the theory to fit the facts. However, this is not creationism's natural state of repose, this is creationism under duress. The theory begins to take on a resemblance to Frankenstein as all the lacunae and stress fractures get filled in and patched over. Why are there fossils? Why are there homologies (as mentioned in the OP)? Why do they fall into a nested hierarchy? Why do the nested hierarchies of the phenotype and the genotype mirror each other so perfectly? How do we work around apparent moral flaws in the created order? Why is the Earth so old? How do we work around modern evidence of evolution, as observed both in the lab and in nature? Etc, etc, etc.

[Peez]

omgofra:
Why are there fossils?Goddidit.Why are there homologies (as mentioned in the OP)?Goddidit.Why do they fall into a nested hierarchy?Goddidit.Why do the nested hierarchies of the phenotype and the genotype mirror each other so perfectly?Goddidit.How do we work around apparent moral flaws in the created order?Goddidit.Why is the Earth so old?Goddidit.How do we work around modern evidence of evolution, as observed both in the lab and in nature?Goddidit.Etc,Goddidit.etc,Goddidit.etc.Goddidit.

There, that was easy.

;)
Peez

[Captain Rock]

Hey Guys and Girls,

I know ya'll miss me. I'll be back to answer all your questions. I know you can't wait. Right now I am finishing up an exam and moving. But I will be back on August 1st and we can party again. I'm looking forward to it. C u then.

Captain Rock

[Steviepinhead]

C.Rock:
I'll be back to answer all your questions.
Not, we trust, as governor of California.

You realize that we'll hold you to this promise. As in: All. Our. Questions.

Somehow, I doubt you're up to this.

But, then, you've worked for a period of a couple of months to very successfully lower my expectations.

[Captain Rock]

C.Rock:
I'll be back to answer all your questions.
Not, we trust, as governor of California.

You realize that we'll hold you to this promise. As in: All. Our. Questions.

Somehow, I doubt you're up to this.

But, then, you've worked for a period of a couple of months to very successfully lower my expectations.

As to your last statement, I bet your expectations were never very high to begin with. You weren't about to let them be met. They were, might you say, "self fulfilling."

[Steviepinhead]

Well, and to be sure, my expectations of creo-loonies is never very high. So far, that's been a very safe "assumption." One in which you've left not the slightest dent or ding.

And, as for "self-fulfilling," that's not something we've had to worry about. No matter how low the bar's been set, you've managed to eel under it.

Limbo lower now.

[Captain Rock]

I just wanted to spice things up a bit with the following link: (From the Telegraph in the UK)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/08/05/scicomputers.xml

Specifically, I would like to point out paragraphs 2, 11, 12 and 18. Paragraph 2 starts out by saying: "The idea that life owes its existence to some 'vital essence' or 'animating spark' has long been discredited in scientific circles."

I think they put that to a vote. It was discredited (I'm sure) by Darwin's special theory of natural selection. Isn't great that science can be so "democratic"?

But, when we read paragraphs 11, 12, and 18, these poor scientists (and not an intelligent design or creationist among them) have lost the "faith" -- the faith in natural selection. Something more is needed, they say. Natural selection is insufficient -- it cannot create complexity!

So, if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inadequate, and something else is needed (desperately needed), does this open the door again to 'vital essence' or 'animating spark'? You betcha!

They posit "self-organization" as that "something else". However, in my opinion, self-organization is a pipe dream. It is important, nonetheless, because it points to a real deficit in the scientific understanding of life and its evolution.

But, so that everyone feels comforted, they say that "something else" is not intelligent design -- is not GOD! Heaven forbid! They put that to a vote as well. "We vote that God, or at least some super-intellect, does not exist."

Great article. Keep the faith, ALifers!!!

Btw, this was just an aside. I will not respond to it or its contents because I am very far behind in my responses to other comments directed at me on this thread and on other threads. They deserve my responses.

[greenbear]

I just wanted to spice things up a bit with the following link: (From the Telegraph in the UK)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/08/05/scicomputers.xml

Specifically, I would like to point out paragraphs 2, 11, 12 and 18. Paragraph 2 starts out by saying: "The idea that life owes its existence to some 'vital essence' or 'animating spark' has long been discredited in scientific circles."

I think they put that to a vote. It was discredited (I'm sure) by Darwin's special theory of natural selection. Isn't great that science can be so "democratic"?Vote? Nah, just good old scientific method and a great mound of evidence.

You seem to have little knowledge of how science works.

But, when we read paragraphs 11, 12, and 18, these poor scientists (and not an intelligent design or creationist among them) have lost the "faith" -- the faith in natural selection. Something more is needed, they say. Natural selection is insufficient -- it cannot create complexity!

So, if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inadequate, and something else is needed (desperately needed), does this open the door again to 'vital essence' or 'animating spark'? You betcha!

They posit "self-organization" as that "something else". However, in my opinion, self-organization is a pipe dream. It is important, nonetheless, because it points to a real deficit in the scientific understanding of life and its evolution.

But, so that everyone feels comforted, they say that "something else" is not intelligent design -- is not GOD! Heaven forbid! They put that to a vote as well. "We vote that God, or at least some super-intellect, does not exist."

Great article. Keep the faith, ALifers!!!Hmmmm.........the scientists quoted didn't seem to be ringing the death bell of natural selection. Mechanisms of evolution have been discussed for years and the discussion continues. That is science. You really should keep up with the progress of evolution theory.









Btw, this was just an aside. I will not respond to it or its contents because I am very far behind in my responses to other comments directed at me on this thread and on other threads. They deserve my responses.Seems to be a pattern developing here.

[Kharakov]

I just wanted to spice things up a bit with the following link: (From the Telegraph in the UK)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/08/05/scicomputers.xml


Sheesh. Life is simple: it simply is a consequence of the patterns of energy's behavior. To create artificial life we have to understand the patterns of energy's behavior and create a form of energy that will utilize the existing patterns (such as ourselves) to create other patterns. Of course, this will be a consequence of energy's behavior (creating us) so.... it's not like we get the credit or anything. :Cheeky:

[J842P]

It [vitalism] was discredited (I'm sure) by Darwin's special theory of natural selection.


Actually no. Darwin's theory really didn't have much to do with it, in fact, one could could be a vitalist and a darwinist and be perfectly consistent. No, it was Organic chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry#Historical_highlights) is that killed vitalism.

[Keith C]

From the Telegraph article cited by Rock,
"Other versions of computer evolution followed. Researchers thought that with more computer power, they could create more complex creatures - the richer the computer's environment, the richer the ALife that could go forth and multiply.

But these virtual landscapes have turned out to be surprisingly barren. Prof Mark Bedau of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, will argue at this week's meeting - the 11th International Conference on Artificial Life - that despite the promise that organisms could one day breed in a computer, such systems quickly run out of steam, as genetic possibilities are not open-ended but predefined. Unlike the real world, the outcome of computer evolution is built into its programming."
I think the problem here is that when selection is for most rapid reproduction or for use of minimal resources under one very specific set of conditions, the obvious response is simpler organisms without anything but the most essential features.
More challenging environments could select for very different characteristics. For example, if the environment changed relatively frequently between conditions, selection would be for organisms which function adequately under all conditions.
If the switching is frequent, then organisms which switch most rapidly have an advantage.
If conditions switch to completely new conditions, then real innovation rather than genetic memory of previous solutions becomes more important.

there are almost an infinite number of possibilities, and only the simplest have been explored.

[ImaAtheistNow]

Captain Rock, it is rude to hijack someone else's thread.

If you are going to post in MY thread then address MY points.

If you are going to post whatever the fuck you want to, then create your own fucking thread.

[Steviepinhead]

C.Rock:
Darwin's special theory of natural selection.
Einstein, C.Rock is not.

'Nuff said.

[Captain Rock]

Captain Rock, it is rude to hijack someone else's thread.

If you are going to post in MY thread then address MY points.

If you are going to post whatever the fuck you want to, then create your own fucking thread.

Actually, I wasn't trying to hijack your thread. It was just an aside. I actually like this thread and I am not finished with the discussion of vestigial organs.

[Captain Rock]

I know it's probably been beat to death - but I was always partial to the male nipples thing (OK don't take that the wrong way - I mean from an evolutionary standpoint!) and the abilty for men to nurse their children.Have you read Stephen Jay Gould's essay, "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples," wherein he argues that the male nipple and the female orgasm both arise from the fact that the human reproductive systems are undifferentiated until the addition (or lack) of testosterone while in the womb, at which point the until-then-identical systems develop in different ways, and genetic changes which effect one also effect the other. So, selecting for a powerful orgasm in men leads to a powerful orgasm in women, and selecting for nipples on women leads to nipples on men.

Thus, the point is here that male nipples are not vestigial organs? I think that is what you are saying.

[Captain Rock]

C.Rock:
Darwin's special theory of natural selection.
Einstein, C.Rock is not.

'Nuff said.


Most academics distinguish between Darwin's general theory of descent with modification and his special theory of natural selection. "General" in this context means something like "overarching," as opposed to "special" meaning something like "particular" or "more limited". For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity versus his special theory of relativity.

[Philosoft]

Most academics distinguish between Darwin's general theory of descent with modification and his special theory of natural selection. "General" in this context means something like "overarching," as opposed to "special" meaning something like "particular" or "more limited". For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity versus his special theory of relativity.
The hell? Descent with modification traces its philosophical roots back at least to Anaximander and received serious empirical consideration from E. Darwin and Lamarck decades before C. Darwin's contributions.

Why don't you ask the academics here if they are familiar with your attributions and terminology?

[Captain Rock]

Most academics distinguish between Darwin's general theory of descent with modification and his special theory of natural selection. "General" in this context means something like "overarching," as opposed to "special" meaning something like "particular" or "more limited". For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity versus his special theory of relativity.
The hell? Descent with modification traces its philosophical roots back at least to Anaximander and received serious empirical consideration from E. Darwin and Lamarck decades before C. Darwin's contributions.

Why don't you ask the academics here if they are familiar with your attributions and terminology?

Philosoft,

Of the antiquity of the idea of evolution writ large ("all of life connected through heredity"), there can be no doubt. Certainly, there were people putting forward this idea even shortly before Darwin. I cite, for example purposes only, Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus, and who could forget the forgettable Robert Chambers. For further reading (and much benefit), read The Firmament of Time by Loren Eiseley (copyright 1960). As for making a distinction about the general theory of descent with modification and the special theory of natural selection, I again refer you to Eiseley's book. I am pretty sure Eiseley addresses this. But to be on the safe side, I refer you to Chandak Sengoopta's 8-lecture series, Evolution and Its Discontents. Sengoopta is a senior lecturer on the history of modern medicine and science at Birkbeck College, University of London. Sengoopta expressly makes this distinction. There are others as well.

[Philosoft]

Of the antiquity of the idea of evolution writ large ("all of life connected through heredity"), there can be no doubt. Certainly, there were people putting forward this idea even shortly before Darwin. I cite, for example purposes only, Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus, and who could forget the forgettable Robert Chambers. For further reading (and much benefit), read The Firmament of Time by Loren Eiseley (copyright 1960). As for making a distinction about the general theory of descent with modification and the special theory of natural selection, I again refer you to Eiseley's book. I am pretty sure Eiseley addresses this. But to be on the safe side, I refer you to Chandak Sengoopta's 8-lecture series, Evolution and Its Discontents. Sengoopta is a senior lecturer on the history of modern medicine and science at Birkbeck College, University of London. Sengoopta expressly makes this distinction. There are others as well.
If you desire credibility for an assertion that "most academics" say this but not that, you'll need to provide evidence that most academics indeed say this but not that. The author of a nearly 50-year-old book and one history teacher are not "most academics" nor do I accept them as representative of the academics whose work I have been reading for more than a decade and who mention Darwin's "special" and "general" theories not at all.

[Captain Rock]

Of the antiquity of the idea of evolution writ large ("all of life connected through heredity"), there can be no doubt. Certainly, there were people putting forward this idea even shortly before Darwin. I cite, for example purposes only, Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus, and who could forget the forgettable Robert Chambers. For further reading (and much benefit), read The Firmament of Time by Loren Eiseley (copyright 1960). As for making a distinction about the general theory of descent with modification and the special theory of natural selection, I again refer you to Eiseley's book. I am pretty sure Eiseley addresses this. But to be on the safe side, I refer you to Chandak Sengoopta's 8-lecture series, Evolution and Its Discontents. Sengoopta is a senior lecturer on the history of modern medicine and science at Birkbeck College, University of London. Sengoopta expressly makes this distinction. There are others as well.
If you desire credibility for an assertion that "most academics" say this but not that, you'll need to provide evidence that most academics indeed say this but not that. The author of a nearly 50-year-old book and one history teacher are not "most academics" nor do I accept them as representative of the academics whose work I have been reading for more than a decade and who mention Darwin's "special" and "general" theories not at all.


Philosoft,

The truth of the matter is that even Darwin himself confused the two at times. Many times in his writing it appeared that he was claiming sole credit for the general theory of descent with modification. At times, he would catch himself and back off of that position.

Btw, that nearly 50 year old book was written by one of the great popular writers on evolution in America. From the 60s through the 80s, Eiseley was revered for his writing style and he, perhaps more than anyone, informed America of the various aspects of the theory of evolution. He was no slouch, he was a science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. You would learn much by reading his books.

The evolutionary scientists of the 50s, 60s and 70s were the giants in the field. They were the ones who developed the Neodarwinian theory that is still controlling today. Eiseley was among that crowd; he may not have been in on the development of the neodarwinian theory, but he was there writing about it and popularizing it. The scientists today, except for perhaps Gould and Llewelyn, don't hold a candle to those guys.

[Philosoft]

The truth of the matter is that even Darwin himself confused the two at times. Many times in his writing it appeared that he was claiming sole credit for the general theory of descent with modification. At times, he would catch himself and back off of that position.

Btw, that nearly 50 year old book was written by one of the great popular writers on evolution in America. From the 60s through the 80s, Eiseley was revered for his writing style and he, perhaps more than anyone, informed America of the various aspects of the theory of evolution. He was no slouch, he was a science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. You would learn much by reading his books.

The evolutionary scientists of the 50s, 60s and 70s were the giants in the field. They were the ones who developed the Neodarwinian theory that is still controlling today. Eiseley was among that crowd; he may not have been in on the development of the neodarwinian theory, but he was there writing about it and popularizing it. The scientists today, except for perhaps Gould and Llewelyn, don't hold a candle to those guys.
I'm having trouble finding words to express how little I care about this. I would like the following: a) some indication that "most academics" refer to common descent and evolutionary theory in the ways you describe, or b) a retraction.

[ImaAtheistNow]

Most academics distinguish between Darwin's general theory of descent with modification and his special theory of natural selection. "General" in this context means something like "overarching," as opposed to "special" meaning something like "particular" or "more limited". For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity versus his special theory of relativity.

I know Creationists use the terms "general theory" and "special theory" applied to evolution: can you shows us any recent (say, 2005 or later) instances of biologists using these terms (in a non-historical context) in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

[ImaAtheistNow]

If you desire credibility for an assertion that "most academics" say this but not that, you'll need to provide evidence that most academics indeed say this but not that. The author of a nearly 50-year-old book and one history teacher are not "most academics" nor do I accept them as representative of the academics whose work I have been reading for more than a decade and who mention Darwin's "special" and "general" theories not at all.

You beat me to it!

[Captain Rock]

Most academics distinguish between Darwin's general theory of descent with modification and his special theory of natural selection. "General" in this context means something like "overarching," as opposed to "special" meaning something like "particular" or "more limited". For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity versus his special theory of relativity.

I know Creationists use the terms "general theory" and "special theory" applied to evolution: can you shows us any recent (say, 2005 or later) instances of biologists using these terms (in a non-historical context) in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Well, it is not after 2005, but it is close. (Give me a little more time - more than the 5 minutes I have taken so far - and I will come up with something more recent).


The Evolution of Adaptive Systems: The General Theory of Evolution (Kindle Edition)
by James Patrick Brock (Author)
Academic Press; 1 edition (June 14, 2000)
ASIN: B001D0JBFG
From the author: The data of evolutionary biology have changed in a very radical way in recent years, the most significant input to this revolution being the advances made in developmental genetics. Another recent development is a noticeable shift away from extreme specialization in evolutionary biology. In this, we are perhaps to be reminded of George Gaylord Simpson's comments: "evolution is an incredibly complex but at the same time integrated and unitary process." The main objective of this book is to illustrate how natural adaptive systems evolve as a unity--with the particular objective of identifying and merging several special theories of evolution within the framework of a single general theory.
The book provides an interdisciplinary overview of the general theory of evolution from the standpoint of the dynamic behavior of natural adaptive systems. The approach leads to a radically new fusion of the diverse disciplines of evolutionary biology, serving to resolve the considerable degree of conflict existing between different schools of contemporary thought.
About the author: Dr. James Brock is the present Keeper of the Natural History at the Horniman Museum in London. His primary research interest, evolutionary theory, and received his Ph.D. in evolutionary theory in Imperial College in London.

[Captain Rock]

Most academics distinguish between Darwin's general theory of descent with modification and his special theory of natural selection. "General" in this context means something like "overarching," as opposed to "special" meaning something like "particular" or "more limited". For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity versus his special theory of relativity.

I know Creationists use the terms "general theory" and "special theory" applied to evolution: can you shows us any recent (say, 2005 or later) instances of biologists using these terms (in a non-historical context) in peer-reviewed scientific journals?


2005? Does that mean I can't cite anything said by Stephen Jay Gould? The man died in 2002.

[ImaAtheistNow]

I know Creationists use the terms "general theory" and "special theory" applied to evolution: can you shows us any recent (say, 2005 or later) instances of biologists using these terms (in a non-historical context) in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Well, it is not after 2005, but it is close. (Give me a little more time - more than the 5 minutes I have taken so far - and I will come up with something more recent).


The Evolution of Adaptive Systems: The General Theory of Evolution (Kindle Edition)
by James Patrick Brock (Author)
Academic Press; 1 edition (June 14, 2000)
ASIN: B001D0JBFG
From the author: The data of evolutionary biology have changed in a very radical way in recent years, the most significant input to this revolution being the advances made in developmental genetics. Another recent development is a noticeable shift away from extreme specialization in evolutionary biology. In this, we are perhaps to be reminded of George Gaylord Simpson's comments: "evolution is an incredibly complex but at the same time integrated and unitary process." The main objective of this book is to illustrate how natural adaptive systems evolve as a unity--with the particular objective of identifying and merging several special theories of evolution within the framework of a single general theory.
The book provides an interdisciplinary overview of the general theory of evolution from the standpoint of the dynamic behavior of natural adaptive systems. The approach leads to a radically new fusion of the diverse disciplines of evolutionary biology, serving to resolve the considerable degree of conflict existing between different schools of contemporary thought.
About the author: Dr. James Brock is the present Keeper of the Natural History at the Horniman Museum in London. His primary research interest, evolutionary theory, and received his Ph.D. in evolutionary theory in Imperial College in London.

That example misses the mark (though so does my original request).

You said DARWIN'S general theory and DARWIN'S special theory. This book talks about a modern attempt to formulate a general theory of evolution from several contemporary theories.

[Steviepinhead]

C.Rock:
2005? Does that mean I can't cite anything said by Stephen Jay Gould? The man died in 2002.
Your ongoing failure to appreciate, despite much instruction, that your continuing -- incessant, obsessive, addictive -- appeals to authority just don't cut the mustard around here, is noted.

We don't care what Gould said, in general. We care about the work he did, the observations he made, the evidence he elucidated.

You apparently care about his popular publications, about the big stir over "punctuated evolution" and "spandrels" and the like, in which he managed to confuse himself, the general public, and at least some of his colleagues over and over again. Dennett has dissected all this foofooraw rather authoritatively (threw that in just for you) in Darwin's Dangerous Idea back in the mid-late '90s.

Please don't drag Gould's name through the mud every other time you are trying to present yet another of your evidence-free assertions. For the nth time, quotations from "authorities" are not evidence. Observations published in peer-reviewed journals are much more likely to amount to evidence and are just as searchable on the internet as your tedious quote-mining of obsolescent authorities.

[Captain Rock]

C.Rock:
2005? Does that mean I can't cite anything said by Stephen Jay Gould? The man died in 2002.
Your ongoing failure to appreciate, despite much instruction, that your continuing -- incessant, obsessive, addictive -- appeals to authority just don't cut the mustard around here, is noted.

We don't care what Gould said, in general. We care about the work he did, the observations he made, the evidence he elucidated.

You apparently care about his popular publications, about the big stir over "punctuated evolution" and "spandrels" and the like, in which he managed to confuse himself, the general public, and at least some of his colleagues over and over again. Dennett has dissected all this foofooraw rather authoritatively (threw that in just for you) in Darwin's Dangerous Idea back in the mid-late '90s.

Please don't drag Gould's name through the mud every other time you are trying to present yet another of your evidence-free assertions. For the nth time, quotations from "authorities" are not evidence. Observations published in peer-reviewed journals are much more likely to amount to evidence and are just as searchable on the internet as your tedious quote-mining of obsolescent authorities.

Most (all?) of the quotes from scientists that I put on this thread are as authoritative as any that you put on. Dennett's logic never impressed me. I put quotes on of scientific observations (which are facts) and the logic used by the various scientists (which is sound). Since they just cite facts and/or sound logic, the age of the quote, the age of the book, the age of the scientist is irrelevant.

Btw, I will be in Atlanta from tomorrow morning until late Friday night. Hopefully, from my hotel room, I will be able to discuss these wonderful issues with you kind gentlemen.

Btw, I w

[Steviepinhead]

C.Rock:
Most (all?) of the quotes from scientists that I put on this thread are as authoritative as any that you put on.
Once again, you miss the point. Quotes aren't "authoritative" at all. Evidence is.
Dennett's logic never impressed me.
Imagine my surprise. Of course, I won't be expecting you to defend Gould on spandrels, say, against Dennett's debunking.
I put quotes on of scientific observations (which are facts)--
Odd how the rest of us have missed this...
-- and the logic used by the various scientists (which is sound).
Not if unsupported by up-to-date observations.
Since they just cite facts and/or sound logic, the age of the quote, the age of the book, the age of the scientist is irrelevant.

Again, your oblivion is supreme. Actual scientists uncover new observations all the time. Evo-devo is an almost entirely new field -- whose findings have massively supported and amplified evolutionary theory, while confounding some expectations formed when fewer observations were available -- which has arisen since the '80s. Citing scientists, or other out-dated authorities, who lacked any awareness of these findings, does your already threadbare argument no favors. But that you don't perceive this is entirely in character.

Have fun in Atlanta! Try to visit the Fernbank natural history museum (http://www.fernbankmuseum.org/) while you're there to see what the evidence actually looks like! Leave the quotes from authorities behind on your flight -- it'll lighten your luggage and maybe even save you one of those proliferating extra-bag fees...

[greenbear]

Most (all?) of the quotes from scientists that I put on this thread are as authoritative as any that you put on. Laughable. Your admitted guide is an almost forty year old book written not by a biologist or even a scientist but, wait for it......a lawyer.

Your quotes by scientists certainly could have been viewed as authoritative but the quotes you use are worn-out quotemines which in no way represent the views of the scientists quoted.

It would save you a mountain of typing and derision if you would just consult "The Quotemine Project" at talkorigins before posting any supposed authoritative quote. But then, you would have nothing to post or any support for your "novel" :eek: ideas on biology.






I put quotes on of scientific observations (which are facts) and the logic used by the various scientists (which is sound). Since they just cite facts and/or sound logic, the age of the quote, the age of the book, the age of the scientist is irrelevant. See above