It’s hard to have any life without environment, without ecology, let alone any changes to either. So ecology drives evolution in exactly the same way that existence of life does? Whatever works.
If this is helpful, I “liked” the posts for a couple of reasons: (1) because the posts assumed that your request to show information about the transition of fish to amphibian was made in good faith, and (2) they cited credible scientific publications to show the current research on this. Thanks.
Oh. I thought you were asking about bone attachments.
To clarify, “whatever works” emphasizes that the popular concept of “survival of the fittest” is not true. Any individual that is fit enough survives. I have survived for a while myself without being at the apex of human fitness. How fit is fit enough depends on the environmental conditions, the level of competition, etc.
Onychophorans walk fine on legs despite not having any bones. But in vertebrates, the amphibian - like fish do have articulation between limb bones and the axial skeleton. Just as modern mudskippers can scoot across mudflats with their fins, early amphibians and amphibian-like fish would only need to be able to scoot across land - they had no competition from more agile vertebrates. Purely flesh appendages do work to carry loads on land, though - think about elephant trunks.
Beat me to it, @paleomalacologist! Incredible animals.
Yeah I think these days “survival of the fit enough” is probably a better description.
you know what St Roymond, seeing as you like insulting people as a source of fact supporting your twisted theology…outline your theological explanation of the following text:
Christ said in Mathew 24, (also found in Mark 10 & Luke 17) the following
“For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
Please explain it with reference to:
Christs physical death on the cross (cross referencing that its in fulfillment of Genesis 3:15)
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death
The Second Coming - 1 Thessalonians 4: 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. 17After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.
Revelation 21: 4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new… 8But to the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.”
It will be interesting to see how long it is before forum members repeat what they have done many times before regarding any bible writer who taught a literal reading of Genesis accounts of creation and the flood. the usual response from these forums to such passages is that Moses or Paul didnt know science…but they cannot make the claim Christ didnt know science and yet He quotes the flood event., talks about the genealogies, talks about the Tabernacle, talks about Creation…Christ talks about all of these things.
Are you able to show me the skeletal structure of Onychophorans?
Are you really going to make the claim we evolved from Onychophorans? (velvet worms for those who may not be familiar).
If you are, would you mind explaining how it is that an animal (velvet worm) that already had limbs and could walk on them, lost those limbs, became an amphibian with a skeletal structure, then regained limbs without any attachment to said skeleton apparently because the evolutionary method suddenly realised its mistake and decided the animal had better regrow them again…albeit without any skeletal support?
Do you see the nonsense of this example now?
They don’t have one. That’s the point, Adam, you made a claim:
David and I pointed out that Onychophorans are perfectly capable of bearing their own weight without a skeletal structure, which refutes your claim.
… is you missing the point.
You consider this to be twisted?:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds:
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,
by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
Who was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
He suffered and was buried
and the third day He rose again in accordance with the scriptures
and ascended into heaven, and sit on the right hand of the Father,
and He shall come again in glory to judge both the living and dead.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son and worshipped and glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets.
And we believe one catholic and apostolic church;
we acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins
and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
That’s my theology.
And BTW, I made no insult, I made a statement of fact.
Jesus used the story of Noah as an example.
Christ didn’t care about science – that’s your idea, that the Bible is interested in the least about science. You’ve made a principle from atheist philosophy into an idol, and thereby make Christianity look foolish.
(That reminds me of a conversation we have at our house, whether something is a complaint or a statement of fact. ; - )
To be precise, onychophorans use fluid pressure as a hydrostatic skeleton. But I also explained that the fish that are ancestral to amphibians did have an adequate level of skeletal support of the limbs to be able to crawl around on land. Beware of nonsense that supports what you want to be true.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.