Proofs of Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah with a lot of help from mom and pop.
I wish I could get that kind of $$$ help.

Well, you see those folds in the neck, there? Yes, I know you've all heard of the recapitulation theory, and it is true that the theory is demonstrably flawed, However, this is not because its premise is unsupportable. On the contrary, its premise is actually very well supported. The flaw in the theory is that these organs, which could theoretically develop into gills, follow a different route of development in the human fetus, and they never completely recapitulate their ancient function or usage. Strangely, our middle ear is actually a descendent of one of these structures that were once used for breathing. Another actually becomes our thymus. Another one becomes our parathyroid.

I know that there are rebuttals to this on many of the hundreds of Creationist web sites that pollute the Internet. The page that Christian Answers has on the subject remarks, "You start off as a little round ball of unformed substance." This statement should be revealing to anyone who has the least bit of knowledge of human embryonic development. In fact, the development of the embryo prior to this stage is very extensive, and the earliest of these stages "recapitulate" (once again, an archaic term, given that our evolutionary history has set us well apart, even at this stage, from our earliest ancestors) ancestral species that used the same orifice for both feeding and excretion.

To explain, try to think of each gill pouch on a primitive lungfish as a seperate species unto itself. Any given part of our DNA essentially lives in a state of symbiosis with the remainder of it, and this applies to the organs that are formed from it. The survival of each part of our DNA is responsible for the survival of the other parts of our DNA. Everyone has to work as a team, see? When this system fails and someone tries to strike out on his own...we get things like cancer, which can almost be regarded as cells that are attempting to parasitize our body. If they could become contagious to other humans, then they truly would become parasites, but I have never really heard of such a thing happening. Besides, it would be almost impossible, as far as I know, for most such "parasites" to transmit themselves, so, as in any decent society, crime doesn't pay.

These individual organs, although they started out in the same place, actually have the freedom to adapt themselves more or less as suits their pleasure. For reference, picture a lobster: his body is divided into roughly similar segments. Regard each of these segments as individual organisms whose surival is completely and without exception dependent upon one another. Segment one said, "Okay, boys! I will form the head!" Now, segment two said, "Got it, chief! I'll play the thorax, and I've got this great idea for growing out these special appendages. I'm calling them 'legs.'" The head says, "Good work, thorax! That is a wonderful idea! That makes life a lot easier for us!" Now, mind you, the remainder of his segments may have been around a lot longer than the advent of legs, but let's not goomer the issue.

Now, these legs are like the new kids in town, and they really want to make their father, Thorax, feel proud of them. In fact, they grow into highly sophisticated appendages. In fact, Daddy Thorax is so happy with his little twins that he makes a few others just like them. As with individual segments, each of these legs have their own genetic character, and there is really nothing to tell any of them they can't come up with their own wild and crazy ideas. The eldest twins, Starboard and Port, do exactly that. One day, Starboard nudged Port and said, "Hey, our sibs back there are starting to get uppity! Quick! We have to do something!" Well, Port thought the problem over, and he came up with this idea of Starboard and Port acting as claws, so their father could grab onto things. Yes, it was shallow and envious, but these two, little boys eventually grew into great, big warriors. Now they do the important work of defending Clan Lobster, among other duties. Clan Lobster has become one of the most successful warrior clans on the face of the Earth, and they have grown into a great nation.

You have to think of the ancestors of our thymus, middle ear and parathyroid in the same way. As our lungfish ancestors improved their ability to survive out of water, their need for these pouches to act as gills, per se, began to become greatly lessened. Oy! This put each of them in danger of becoming redundant and useless! You have to remember: our organs, once established, don't like to just be discarded! They aren't going to have any of that nonsense, by golly! So, in order to escape being thrown into the nearest homeless shelter, each of the Gill Pouch Boys discussed, brainstormed and revised a number of plans for safeguarding their positions in what was rapidly becoming Clan Reptile. Well, the common ancestor of reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, birds, and so forth. Our modern adaptations are the result. However, none of it was actually planned or intended. In truth, many of the families in Clan Reptile went their seperate ways, and many of them didn't survive. There is no burden upon a mutation to result in something useful, after all.

Explaining these in parable form makes it a lot easier to really illustrate the point. Humans never lost these old gill pouches. They're still around, only they're performing different tasks. These duties are really important, too. It all makes a great deal more sense, though, if you have actually bothered to study the subject closely. If you haven't, well, that's on you. There is a lot of stuff about these organs that I still don't know.

I just wanted to pre-emptively cut into any ignorant Creationist counter-arguments. Whether you like it or not, the molecular data shows that there is a relationship between these organs. If you don't like it, tough testicles.

Furthermore, as a student of the sciences, I take a great deal of offense over the misrepresentation of this theory by the Creationists. They have very intentionally distorted it to their own ends, with foreknowledge that they were doing so. If you were to compare the facts on which the theory is based to the representation of it shown by the Creationists, you would see a striking difference. Creationist propaganda relies upon a gross misrepresentation of how scientists actually go about forming these theories. A great deal of work is actually put into them, and it often takes a long time for them to gain widespread acceptance.

Last edited by Griff on 31 Mar 2008, 11:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yeah, it shows out when you examine the evidence.

Oh, and, by the way: I got to dissect a pig fetus today! It's the most fun I've ever had in a biology lab, and nothing in my life has so firmly placed my interests in the subject of biology. I wanna become an endocrinologist and do sciency things on the side! Yay!

wow that's amazing!! ! That beats my proof

Just to be pedantic, though, nothing, in the sciences, is ever considered proven. Any honest scientist will say, of most of the information he or she may give you, "Everything I'm saying might be considered completely false, ten years down the line. This is really a very well supported theory, but, really, anything could happen as our ability to study it improves. This is just the best explanation that we have for now."

iamnotaparakeet: Just out of curiosity, have you actually switched stances on evolution, or is there something that you're not letting onto?

I accept natural selection and speciation as scientifically valid, however I don't see extrapolation as necessarily valid. This tread is for Evos to post the evidences and interpretations so we may be convinced if they are convincing. So post cladograms, homologies, whatever you find convincing and put it here to be discussed if you so please.

*yawns*

I'm embarrassed that I bother.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQNIpW0LlsU[/youtube]

Animal cells are logistically capable of taking up chloroplasts, as demonstrated by elysia.



Furthermore, both chloroplastic and mitochondrial DNA are seperate from nuclear DNA, which lends support to the idea of them being descended from endosymbionts. Furthermore, mitochondria in plant cells and mitochondria in animal cells work in much the same way.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY[/youtube]

Interesting Nightline show from March 19th, on teaching
creationism at these so called creationist museums

How often does it need to ingest the algae, are the offspring born with chloroplasts or does each generation need to acquire them, does it have any other food source or does the algae provide total nutrition for it?

Interesting that this animal has the logistics of holding chloroplasts within its cells. Which type of cells are they particularly found in and what is the method of transfer of the chloroplasts from the algae into the cells of elysia? What is the link that implies from this example that all animal cells have the ability to receive, hold, and use a chloroplast?

BTW, isn't Euglena an animal as well? Motile protozoan with a chloroplast? No quite as interesting as an animal with tissues and organs utilizing chloroplasts for photosynthesis though. The slug is cool.

Some creationists do give bad answers and are like those, that I do not doubt.

Spudnik, although there may be flakes out there, there are also some who actually have some dignity and are respectable.

I can't find anything by Wile, who even impresses my step-dad who is very skeptical toward such matters, but I did find Sarfati, who I also respect. Here is a clip with him in it, please note the differences between him and the indoctrinators above:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]

I would love to know the answers to these questions, but I would have to ask someone who is an expert on this species of gastropod.

Sir, are you knowledgable insofar as the diversity of the cells contained within our own bodies? It is highly unlikely that this is a common capability in animal cells. Elysia merely demonstrates that animal cells are not restricted from taking up chloroplasts.

Euglena is considered a protist, and it is far more interesting than a chloroplast-robbing sea slug. It is probably one of the most abundant life-forms in the world, and multicellular life is an outright failure by comparison whether you're counting in sheer numbers or resiliance to global catastrophe.

Furthermore, protozoans are not considered closely related to animals. This is a somewhat childish assumption, really, based upon the fact that some of their adaptations bear a similarity to the adaptations of multi-cellular animal cells. Our closest relatives are actually fungi.





See? All they have in common with plants is a "primitive" cell wall. Otherwise, they are animal cells. Their method of growth is, like their pathetic excuse for a cell wall, very primitive. In fact, fungus is one of the most boring things in the world. They're like white trash, only they have better personalities and have a lower propensity for becoming crackheads.

Ah, wait. I just remembered. Choanoflagellates, which bear a resemblance to the collar cells that sponges use for feeding and the flame-bulbs found in planarians, are supposedly our closest relatives, and fungi come in second. Furthuremore, I may have been silly in dismissing any relationship between protists and animal cells.

Choanoflagellates:




Collar cells, as found in sponges:



Flame cells, as found in planarians (they're in the shape of a flame, see?):



It's really amazing, actually. One can envision the most ancient ancestors of planerians as being no more than long, sessile feeding organs. Damn, it pays to go to college! Some of these were actually on the slides for my zoology class. Look at that planerian, though. Isn't it beautiful? It expresses what we call "bilateral symmetry." They're really amazing creatures, actually. You haven't lived until you've looked at cross-sections of them!

Last edited by Griff on 01 Apr 2008, 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnxzqeT466A&NR=1[/youtube]

someone with a tail. I wonder why we don't have tails anymore.

By the way, have I won yet?