But why would they If a system works why bother to create another one?
And besides, how can anyone be sure that there is more than one way for amino acids to work?
That is an assertion you might have difficulty proving. It would also depend on how DNA does work.
Again, that is an assertion you would find difficulty i proving. Especially if it is (as you say it is)
Can’t you see that the fact that they are must mean something more than random assembly There are built in parameters in creation. By necessity or design? Both can be argued.(But Evolution needs one, not the other)
Then point out the items on the list that were not present in the tuna ancestor.
That wasn’t a personal comment. It was a comment about your argument, telling you to apply your suggestions to your own reasoning. (Meaning: “before attempting to correct others, make sure that you aren’t guilty of the same faults.”)
4 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
166
I do know basic physiology. Ectothermic bony fish have veins, arteries, digestive systems, and muscles. These were already present in the ectothermic ancestor of bluefin tuna. In the bluefin tuna, veins were brought closer to arteries so that the warm blood leaving the contracting muscles could pass to the arteries which resulted in endothermy. Counter-current systems are actually quite common in vertebrates.
Biological systems are not the same as human mechanical ones, They do not “adapt” or change according to the requirements. The heat exchange system for an endotherm will not be identical to the heat exchange system of an ectotherm. There is not an adjustable thermostat in both the systems that can drive either. The epidermis requirements are not the same specifications. And so on, and so on. It is not just a case of saying they both had skin! It is the make-up of the skin. that matters. Both had arteries but one just sort of grew them closer together, How convenient!
I am sorry to be so derisory, but you do the same (which is an excuse not a good reason)
Clearly you do not see what I see.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
168
What do you see in bluefin tuna that could not be produced by evolutionary mechanisms, and why?
Do you have a particular knowledge of Bluefin tuna? I can’t say that I have ever really considered fish physiology and/or metabolism. It would take some time to assemble the relevant data. Something I do not have.
So for now, tell me this. How did the hinged jaw evolve? (if you have followed all my posts you might smell a rat.)
Again, this took like 5 seconds to find with Google.
Feel free to provide a detailed critique this article using your extensive background in biology (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
PS: Since this is science argumentation by analogy or personal incredulity is not allowed.
5 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
171
Does anyone actually have a rational, open, genuine question about nested Hierarchy (i.e. Evilution) who accepts evidence? Or is there only one infinitely varied but single question that can’t hear any answer?
There is just one piece of evidence being presented. And it is being presented as fete accompli, And no other evidence, other than DNA is being accepted. I can waffle on about similarities in design, make up, anything in the macro world and it is deemed irrelevent. So, your question becomes rhetorical.
There is no question other than
Is there another interpretation of the evidence you present?
and the answer is (or appears to be)
No
I will try and explain my incerdulity. It starts with the following optical illusion
This is an example of the classic 3d misinterpretation of a 2d drawing.
Now the images of the article are blurred but I have seen them in glorious HD on my tv screen. The shapes match. And the two are pretty close to each other anatomically but,
To cut away the first gill bar needs a proverbial knife…
Gill bars and bones may have similar basic makeup but so do carbon and diamonds. You would not put a piece of carbon into a ring and expect it to turn miraculously into a diamond.
Furthermore. Once detached, it has to re-attach to the skull, (at the right points) and then be powered by the appropriate muscles and sinews that so happen to be there! (not forgetting the nerves needed to drive the muscles, and so on, and so on.)
I tell you if this is the way Evolution demonstrates the “there is no other theory” principle, it has major problems.
No Biologist in their right mind could accept the gill theory if they understood anything at all about physiology.
Richard
PS I would hesitate to accept that the above transformation could be qualified as “simple”
Where, precisely, so that I may better understand your position, is an impossible change in this theorized series of transitions: something like a choanoflagellate becomes something like a sponge; something like a sponge becomes something like Dickinsonia; something like Dickinsonia becomes something like Kimberella; something like Kimberella becomes something like a monoplacophoran; Something like a monoplacophoran begins growing in a slightly twisted pattern, which gradually increases to something like helcionellids; something like a helcionellid gets somewhat taller, develops a somewhat different radula, and grows somewhat bigger; this pattern continues for a while until something like a generic neogastropod, and then a generic buccinoid appears; this generic buccinoid grows a longer siphon, the spire gets shorter, the radula changes a bit, and something like a proto-busyconid appears; this later ends up as Busycon maximum, which gradually gets bigger and grows larger shoulder nodes, and ends up as the recent Busycon carica.
Never said I was an expert so how is that a “point”? I do accept and trust what the actual experts say though. Just like I accept and trust what experts in other fields say. And you do too, just not in biology.
But not in the same way so your analogy is invalid.
Do you really have such a dim view of the knowledge base of the people who do this for a living? Any biologist is going to understand more physiology than you. So the fact they accept evolution is not surprising. But you can trot out your vast conspiracy theory again I guess.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
177
I just wish that there was some actually decent Questions about nested Hierarchy. It’s like when I started questioning sexism in the church; is that all you got?
Just prove me wrong. Find some fantastically qualified biologists to talk me through the changes in a plausible and scientific manner. Rubbish my assertions with science. Show the progression from gill bar to jawbone in a manner that is even possible let alone plausible. Use the biological knowledge you claim I do not have.
Or preferably tell me that there is an alternative answer to the formation of the jawbone.
If this is the standard of logic and knowledge that accompanies Evolution then all my previous claims about tunnel vision and limited perspective are proven beyond doubt.
This is just one of literally thousands if not billions of transformations that Evolution claims to achieve. And I am almost certain that of those only a fraction have actually been addressed, The rest must have happened. (or do not need to be proven) The nested Hierarchy is enough! (sarcasm)
There is no way to prove a conspiracy doesn’t exist. The people in the conspiracy prevent this. That is just basic conspiracy theory 101.
And you are aware that your are calling all of the Christians in the biological sciences liars who just go along with the vast conspiracy. Would you care to address this or are you content with slandering their faith?
This isn’t a conspiracy in the strictest sense of the word. It could be disproved, in theory.
But it involves someone who has the right sort of knowledge rather than people who claim that I do not.
The proof is in the actual anatomy and physiology. Not my views.
And this is what I have been saying about Nested Hierarchy. It is not enough to just claim they exist. Nor to blind me with a mathematical smokescreen. You need to demonstrate that Nature could achieve the transformations needed to make those connections a reality
That generated a good laugh. Nested Hierarchy is the reality. It is confirmed by physical and DNA analysis. What you are basically asking for is proof that it was evolution and not a supernatural Intelligent Designer (pretty sure that is your alternate explanation) that generated the results that we see. Which is where the law of parsimony gets invoked.
It appears that this post has reached the point where meaningful discussion has ceased. Will close. If any specific aspects of nested hierarchy raise questions that you wish discussed, please feel free to start another post.
