It’s too bad you can’t step back and look and see how irrational what you’ve written is, connecting the dots in an almost random fashion. And the bolded portion – good grief.
1 Like
You never supplied sufficient information for anyone to interpret your question. What do you mean by ‘attached only to flesh’? What actual structures are you talking about? Do you think fish fins are attached only to flesh?
Well, yeah. That’s probably why nothing like that occurred in the evolution of tetrapod limbs. Limbs are modified fins, which already had a well-defined structure including bones, muscles, and nerves, as well as functional attachment to the rest of the skeleton.
Which is why the former is how limbs developed and not the latter. You seem to be asking about the latter, which is something that didn’t happen.
1 Like
Show me images of this transition please…unless you have images, yours are just words without evidence.
Images for the transition?
Um, what? That’s more than a little bit ridiculous – it’s like saying that because a mechanic uses tools in his work then he’s nothing more than a tool.
And that one’s like saying that a software developer came into existence from computer code.
2 Likes
5 Likes
I’m no expert on fossil tetrapods but a simple google-search revealed an image of two transitional species between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods. The diagrams show that the arm and leg bones articulated with the rest of the skeleton and were not just “floating free in flesh”. Here’s what wikipedia says about Acanthostega: "
Acanthostega is the earliest stem-tetrapod to show the shift in locomotory dominance from the pectoral girdle to the pelvic girdle. There are many morphological changes that allowed the pelvic girdle of Acanthostega to become a weight-bearing structure. In more ancestral states the two sides of the girdle were not attached. In Acanthostega there is contact between the two sides and fusion of the girdle with the sacral rib of the vertebral column. These fusions would have made the pelvic region more powerful and equipped to counter the force of gravity when not supported by the buoyancy of an aquatic environment.[4] It had internal gills that were covered like those of fish. It also had lungs, but its ribs were too short to support its chest cavity out of water.
The colours in drawings are always speculative but here’s an artist’s rendering of Acanthostega just for fun:
3 Likes
Like this:
The discovery of pelvic girdle and fin material of the tetrapodomorph Tiktaalik roseae reveals a transitional stage in the origin of the pelvic girdle and appendage: although retaining primitive skeletal architecture, these elements are enhanced in size and robusticity much like tetrapods.
2 Likes
No, but science reflects reality, the physical reality of God’s creation and how it was created. It is not subject to an unreal interpretation of the Bible.
1 Like
Especially one that refuses to acknowledge Genesis as the ancient literature it is.
1 Like
Phil dont you find that just a little bit problematic…ie that feet apparently developed bones that supported body weight without any skeletal attachment to a spine?
Wouldnt one think that a logical solution to this issue would be for bones to grow from a spine outwards forming legs given that appendages attached purely to flesh not only hinder movement, but that they would simply get ripped off on land?
To put this another way, has anyone ever seen a house roof supported without any wall framing? Could an Elephant sized animal walk on legs without said legs being attached to a spine? Obvously not, so why should one think that by scaling down the enormity of the problem, it simply goes away?
Im glad there are likes to your post Phil…it truly shows how little thought has gone into those likes! It never ceases to amaze me how people blindly follow without really “doing the math” so to speak.
Im reminded of a famous saying… “stupid is as stupid does sir” (Forest Gump)
Nope, reality wins, not YECism’s imaginary physics. You will be chagrined eventually.
So you dont believe that Satan is real because you cannot scientifically test and prove his existence? Your reality is running down a theological rabbit warren.
Bait and switch and red herrings. Have a good weekend, Adam.
3 Likes
No theological answer Dale…no biblical passage in support of your claim?
the problem here is klw, that is not the transition between fins and legs…that is after the connection to the spine has already been made. Take a look at the well-known transitional images (bones in feet that have no connection to a spine…this is my point)
And whilst on the above…might i remind you of what Genesis 1 says
26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.”
27So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.e
then Genesis 2: 7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
Do you not see the huge theological dilemma when you read that animals were already alive BEFORE God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils but that Adam was not at this point even though he was formed?
clearly, the Bible very specifically claims that God created animals first, and then he created Adam.
The animals were already alive and when God formed Adam, but Adam was NOT ALIVE when he was first formed in Gods image!
Animals are very definitely not in Gods image…and since man only came to life after God breathed into his nostrils, then we have a problem…either God is a liar (because his word is inspired) or Evolution is clearly wrong about man coming from amphibians (or any other animal for that matter)
The point is, if we evolved from “living animals”, how could Adam have been brought to life by God AFTER he was formed…evolution says he was already alive?
I don’t think people that have responded to you understand what diagram or bones you’re referring to. At least I don’t. As I asked at the start of this topic, can you please post the diagram that you were apparently looking at to give us all something firmer to go on?
And W.R.T. God’s image, many Christians do not interpret that as a physical form, but rather a role that God assigned to humans as priests/kings within creation.
3 Likes
How do you explain this…
if we evolved from “living animals”, how could Adam have been brought to life by God AFTER he was formed…evolution says he was already alive?
and before you answer with “it was a spiritual bringing to life”…might i remind you that Christ lived and died on the cross physically for the wages of sin…you cannot claim that is spiritual given Christs phsyical incarnation and death shows such a view to be fundamentally wrong…so you will need a far better argument!
This is not the topic of this thread. Start a new thread on that topic if you wish. But where is the diagram of the bones that we are here to discuss?
5 Likes
Assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of other people, unless they identify otherwise. The purpose of discussions here is not to judge the legitimacy or efficacy of anyone’s faith or lack of faith.
2 Likes