If a vestigial bone is not an “impassible burden” then neither would a newly emergent bone be an “impassible burden”.
3 Likes
I guess that would depend on the relative size of the bone (or whatever) in question,
However, if you really think a bone could grow independent of the “host” animal and then integrate itself at a later date you are a bigger fool than I am.
(because that is the reverse of that bone in the dolphin.)
Richard
I don’t think bones grow independently of the animal, so I guess that isn’t a problem. I don’t know of a single biologist who thinks this. We don’t see bones floating around animals completely disconnected and independent of them, nor do we think these are the sources of subsequent evolutionary adaptations.
2 Likes
Why should that be a point? It certainly isn’t relevant to evolution.
That’s what he keeps saying.
I’d say it’s the last part he especially fails to grasp. The whole thing about feathers being for flight is a perfect illustration: feathers could have been for shedding sweat and still could have ended up being useful for flight.
Warm blooded is warm blooded.
From your posts I would conclude that you have a tinker-toy level of understanding of anatomy.
Okay, that’s just a lie – it’s been defined clearly, you just reject it because “philosophy” or some other excuse like saying it isn’t sufficient.
This has also been sated. One example: a change in the shape of a folded protein. Another: a shift in how many layers of cells there are in a section of skin.
A change in beak size is a macro change. A new pair of legs is the result of a huge collection of macro changes.
It seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse and deceptive, pretending not to grasp things I taught to seventh-graders in biology – any of them would have laughed at the notion that a change so massive as an alteration in beak size would count as “small”!
Heh – from experience I can testify that the human leg is a severely flawed design, especially in the hips, the knees, the ankles, the tibia . . . .
No. Go back and take fifth grade science again.
First you object when details are provided, screaming at us that we’re too focused on details, now you want details! The real trouble is that you ignore the real details and pick out things that aren’t details at all – like the development of wings.
1 Like
What, are you thinking that different body parts begin as separate organisms and animals decide they like one and so attach to it?
This is just ridiculous.
So what is that bone in a Dolphin?
That is where this part of the discussion started… As an answer to my challenge about unadapted bones with not ancillliary muscles etc.
Richard
Ps. @St.Roymond If this is answered sufficiently I will address your “complaint” about details.
You could start with that.
I have never found that to be beneficial.
Nine times out of ten the difference does not matter… Perhaps, in some aspects of, science, it does, but not in this case, I think. ToE is hardly an exact science.
Richard
You have never found what to be beneficial?
Your posts are a constant illustration of your lack of knowledge of your lack of knowledge.
1 Like
It’s a bone that is connected to the dolphin and is dependent on the dolphin. That bone doesn’t exist without the dolphin.
Your challenge doesn’t seem to apply to any adaptation that has happened in vertebrates. It is a meaningless challenge.
1 Like
That seems to be a common theme throughout these types of discussions on ID and creationism. There seems to be this hardened position where people fail to consider the idea that a feature could have served a different function in the past, or perhaps was selected for because of a feature it still has (e.g. feathers serving as insulation).
You are echoing my own thoughts. The human leg is pretty good for what it does, but perfect? One only has to look at how many orthopedic doctors there are to see through that one. And why would the perfect human leg just happen to have the same one bone, two bones, lots of little bones construction seen in quadrapeds? Why weren’t crabs or insects given these features?
3 Likes
At least not in your observation.
(But then you can only observe a minute fraction of the relevant data)
Richard
If you can’t show how your challenge applies to actual biology, then what’s the point of the challenge?
3 Likes
My rabbit hole is a time machine.
Your rabbit hole is specific examples.
Neither can be defeated with the data that is available.
Stalemate
Richard
I’m pretty sure @T_aquaticus has answered, and often more-than-answered everything you’ve thrown his way (to the extent that I’ve followed it all.) And your responses (again - those I’ve seen) all seem to be variations of “Back off”, “stop teaching me”, “I’m not persuaded and will never be persuaded by you…” etc. So - I don’t think ‘stalemate’ is the accurate word here, except maybe as in regard to the goal of persuading you. What you do seem to have established is that you are a bit of a conscientious objector against much of commonly accepted scientific methodologies. Which is fine - and totally your prerogative. But, not a convincing response to those who do understand and accept scientific methods, though.
4 Likes
If you think that I need to be taught that is hardly surprising…
I know that my arguments do not sit well with the scientific (evolutionary scientific) mind.
It doesn’t matter.
This is not about right, wrong, or even persuasion.
If you are happy with the “answers” then you are not fully udnderstanding the questions. No offence. They are noit scietific arguments.
The “stalemate” amounts to niether is persuaded to chang, and/ or neither is convinced by the arguments givn.
As i see it, you are happy with ToE, so, there you go.
Richard
Sorry I’m late to the party.
Mervin’s memory is correct. EC/TE are the same thing. Denis Lamoureux (@DOL) coined the term “evolutionary creation” in his 2008 book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. He explains his reasoning in a 2009 essay posted here:
The most important word in the term evolutionary creation is the noun “creation.” These Christian evolutionists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the world is a creation that is absolutely dependent for every instant of its existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this category is the adjective “evolutionary,” indicating simply the method through which the Lord made the cosmos and living organisms. This view of origins is often referred to as “theistic evolution.” However, such a word arrangement places the process of evolution as the primary term, and makes the Creator secondary as merely a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in priority is unacceptable to me and other evolutionary creationists. Another reason for the category of evolutionary creation is that the word “theistic” carries such a wide variety of meanings today. Derived from the common Greek word for god (theos), the proper definition of theism refers to belief in a personal god, like the God of Christianity. But as everyone knows, there are many different gods, and consequently, countless uses of this word.
Lamoureux persuaded most folks to drop TE in favor of EC, but the Discovery Institute (ID) continued using TE as a derogatory descriptor. (See their 1000-pg book Theistic Evolution, published in 2017 and suitable for use only as a doorstop.)
Note: For the record, Wayne Grudem defined “theistic evolution” as essentially deism, which most who identify as EC would repudiate. The rest of the book argued against this straw man, which is why it’s a 1000-page turd.
2 Likes
“Show me a partially made bone, or even an unadapted one. Let alone a limb without supplementary muscles, ligaments , nerves, blood vessels. And that is ignoring bone marrow and cartilage that is necessary for some of them. A bone unconnected, would be an impassible burden. A cylindrical bone with no developed ends would be unusable. How do you justify the perfection of a human leg? Bit by bit? Convenient the way the ball at the end fits the socket of the hip!”–RichardG
Why do you want us to show you a partially made bone? What’s the point you are trying to make?
3 Likes
Richard seems unfamiliar with the hyoid bone.
I’m guessing something related to irreducible complexity, but who knows?
- Okay, I won’ try; instead I’ll quote a mutual acquaintance:
- Chat GPT: "So, were biblical figures flat earthers or young Earth creationists?
- Christ, Peter, and Paul? No evidence for any such belief, and significant contextual reasons to doubt it.
- Moses and the OT authors? Possibly assumed certain ancient cosmologies, but did not elevate them to theological dogma.
- Chat GPT: "So, were biblical figures flat earthers or young Earth creationists?
The cosmological language of scripture reflects its time—but the message transcends it. Flat Earth and YEC debates today often miss the deeper point: the Bible was written to shape our understanding of God and humanity, not to settle our arguments about astronomy and geology.
4 Likes