Give Me An Evolution Explanation

[deadlock 3]

Ornithorhynchus anatinus( Platypus)

 

1 - The only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young.

 

2 - The male Platypus has a spur on the hind foot which delivers a poison capable of causing severe pain to humans.

 

3 - The Platypus uses its tail for storage of fat reserves, an adaptation it shares with the Tasmanian Devil.

 

4 - It has webbed feet and a large, rubbery snout; these are features that appear closer to those of a duck than to those of any known mammal.

 

5 - The Platypus has an average body temperature of 31–32 °C (88–90 °F) rather than the 38 °C (100 °F) typical of placental mammals.

 

6 - The Platypus jaw is constructed differently from that of other mammals, and the jaw opening muscle is different.

 

7 - As in all true mammals, the tiny bones that conduct sound in the middle ear are fully incorporated into the skull, rather than lying in the jaw as in cynodonts and other pre-mammalian synapsids.

 

8 - The Platypus has extra bones in the shoulder girdle, including an interclavicle, which is not found in other mammals.

 

9 - It has a reptilian gait, with legs that are on the sides of the body, rather than underneath.

 

10 - Monotremes are the only mammals known to have a sense of electroreception: they locate their prey in part by detecting electric fields generated by muscular contractions. The Platypus' electroreception is the most sensitive of any monotreme.

 

11 - The female Platypus has a pair of ovaries but only the left one is functional.

12 - It lays one to three (usually two) small, leathery eggs (similar to those of reptiles).

 

13 - The newly hatched young are vulnerable, blind, and hairless, and are fed by the mother's milk.

 

14 - Although possessing mammary glands, the Platypus lacks teats.Instead, milk is released through pores in the skin. There are grooves on her abdomen that form pools of milk, allowing the young to lap it up.

 

15 - In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the Platypus has ten s@x chromosomes, compared to two (XY) found in most other mammals (for instance, a male Platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY). Furthermore, one of the Platypus' Y chromosomes shares genes with the ZZ/ZW s@x chromosomes found in birds. This news further pronounced the individuality of the Platypus in the animal kingdom. However it lacks the mammalian s@x-determining gene SRY, meaning that the process of s@x determination in the Platypus remains unknown.

 

 

Informations extracted from Wiki

[deadlock 3]

It would be truly a blow for evolution if that "duck bill" was truly like a duck's bill and the webbed feet were truly like duck's feet. Then we would have no idea how the animal evolved. A duck's bill is stiff and without nerves. A platypus bill is soft and filled with electroperceiving sensors, a truly unique quality. And the duck's webbed feet do not have poisonous claws.

 

No Homologous features are truly like each other and that fact never was a problem to evolutionists, because they give more importance to similarities when it´s convenient and do the same thing to diferences when it´s convenient.I still want to know how so strange animal evolved, who is its common ancestor ? How can it have 10 S@xual chromossomes ? How can it share chromossomes with birds ?

[jason78 0]

No Homologous features are truly like each other and that fact never was a problem to evolutionists, because they give more importance to similarities when it´s convenient and do the same thing to diferences when it´s convenient.I still want to know how so strange animal evolved, who is its common ancestor ? How can it have 10 S@xual chromossomes ? How can it share chromossomes with birds ?

13552[/snapback]

Just out of interest, what is the creation explanation for this animal? It certainly doesn't fit into any of the established kinds.

[TempestTossed 0]

No Homologous features are truly like each other and that fact never was a problem to evolutionists, because they give more importance to similarities when it´s convenient and do the same thing to diferences when it´s convenient.

Yes, you are right. No homologous features between species are exactly the same. I still think it is fair to say that they objectively share important qualities. The questions are, "What would we expect from common descent?" and "What might we see if common descent did NOT occur?"

 

duck feet: http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/MO27-lg.jpg

seagull feet: http://hometown.aol.com/autumnnberkeley/feet2.jpg

swan feet: http://www.usefilm.com/image/453871.html

 

You notice that all of those bird feet have things in common. Three digits point generally forward, and there is one tiny opposed hind digit. The two forward outside digits are pointing to either side, forming the frame of the webbing.

 

According to the standard phylogenetic tree, all three of these birds are related, descended from archosaurs.

 

Archosaur foot (dinosaur foot is on the right): http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/images/archoankle.gif

context: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archomm.html

 

And now we look at the Platypus feet: http://www.ryanphotographic.com/images/JPE...latypus%204.jpg

 

It is very distinctly different from the bird feet. It has five digits on each paw, all pointing forward. Compare the platypus's feet to your own hands and feet. Five digits pointing forward.

 

And dog paws: http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/saortho/chapter_26/26f1.jpg

And cat paws: http://maxshouse.com/anatomy/claws/Forepaw...ton_%20crop.jpg

And cetacean flippers: http://cetacea147.tripod.com/images/tursiopsflipper.gif

And ancient therapsid Gorgonopsia feet: http://www.kheper.net/evolution/therapsida/Gorgonopsia.htm

 

Platypuses and ducks/swans/seagulls both have webbed feet simply because it is an easy adaptation for swimmers (convergent evolution). The skeletal digits are clearly very different. If common descent did not occur, we might see platypus feet that are almost exactly like duck/swan/seagull feet!

 

Thanks for reading and arguing about this.

[ikester7579 20]

I would get into this debate. But I don't know much about the Platypus to make a halfway decent post on the subject. But I do believe that God made this creature this way so that the theory of evolution could not explain the evolution tree of this species. Because as we know today, different kinds cannot outterbreed (outside of species) and produce offspring.

 

The only way this creature could be produced is if there was a outterbredding point in the evolution process. But, that cannot be proven and would be considered a wild guess with not one once of evidence to support it. Because it would also mean it would have to be proven through DNA code that this could actually happen. Currently there is still much we do not know about DNA to even make such a conclusion.

 

The outterbreeding point process would also have to explain why it happened only for one creature and not the rest.

[trilobyte 0]

TempestTossed...think about what you are saying in post 2.

 

The platypus sure is some awesome transitional. Heck, most animals you evos claim are transitional only have a single trait change...and the odds against a random mutation occurring again and again many times over in just the right spot in its offspring DNA as to develope this SINGLE trait change is astronomical...NOW you want me to believe an animals like the platypus has naturally selected mutations at a rate that looks like Fourth of July fire works?????

[trilobyte 0]

tempesttossed also said:

"You notice that all of those bird feet have things in common. Three digits point generally forward, and there is one tiny opposed hind digit. The two forward outside digits are pointing to either side, forming the frame of the webbing.

 

According to the standard phylogenetic tree, all three of these birds are related, descended from archosaurs."

 

...But I say, isn't this a good argument for a common creator?

 

Just for the record:

Biologist have noticed for a while that different species of animals share similar features.

For example the bone structure of the limbs of the bat, porpoise, horse and human are considered as homologous and explained as a product of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

 

This evolutionary concept has some basic problems.

 

If homology is defined as similar features due to descent with modification from a common ancestor then it is circular reasoning it uses as evidence for common descent.

 

Here’s why:

For the evolutionist homologies are similar structures in animals.... explain by descent with modification from a common ancestry.

 

For example:

If the similar bone patterns of the forelimbs are to be considered as common ancestry of the vertebrates...then you must determine if they are indeed derived from a common ancestor.

 

Often the evolutionist point to the similarities and claim they have the evidence that shows descent with modification was derived from a common ancestor.

 

In other words the similaraties show they are homologus...the homologies show they are descended from a common ancestor....the descention from a common ancestor is the reason for the similaraties....the similaraties show they are homologus..and round and round it goes.

 

The circular reasoning has began and continues to this day.

 

The best the evolutionist can do is make the claim that homology is the anticipated and expected consequence of evolution. Homology is not evidence of evolution.

 

“A mere succession of similar forms does not furnish its own explanation.â€ÂÂ

 

reference: Icons of Evolution

[TempestTossed 0]

tempesttossed also said:

"You notice that all of those bird feet have things in common. Three digits point generally forward, and there is one tiny opposed hind digit. The two forward outside digits are pointing to either side, forming the frame of the webbing.

 

According to the standard phylogenetic tree, all three of these birds are related, descended from archosaurs."

 

...But I say, isn't this a good argument for a common creator? 

I personally think that you can point to it and at least say it is possible that the common designer made it that way. In order for it to count as an argument for that common designer, then there must be a contrary circumstance that the intelligent design proposition does NOT support. Like, suppose one species of duck had feet like a platypus and the rest had feet like other aquatic birds. Can ID accommodate that? Sure! Because there is a common designer of both ducks and platypuses. This would be in contrast to what would happen to the theory of evolution. It would become the defining problem for the fringe fairy-tale evolutionary biologists, because the theory of evolution predicts that closely-related taxa must have homologous features. ID seems to leave no such opportunity for falsification. If it does, then I apologize, please correct me.

Just for the record:

Biologist have noticed for a while that different species of animals share similar features. 

For example the bone structure of the limbs of the bat, porpoise, horse and human are considered as homologous and explained as a product of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

 

This evolutionary concept has some basic problems.

 

If homology is defined as similar features due to descent with modification from a common ancestor then it is circular reasoning it uses as evidence for common descent.

 

Here’s why:

For the evolutionist homologies are similar structures in animals.... explain by descent with modification from a common ancestry.

 

For example:

If the similar bone patterns of the forelimbs are to be considered as common ancestry of the vertebrates...then you must determine if they are indeed derived from a common ancestor.

 

Often the evolutionist point to the similarities and claim they have the evidence that shows descent with modification was derived from a common ancestor.

 

In other words the similaraties show they are homologus...the homologies show they are descended from a common ancestor....the descention from a common ancestor is the reason for the similaraties....the similaraties show they are homologus..and round and round it goes.

 

The circular reasoning has began and continues to this day.

I think the reasoning goes like this:

 

1) We observe organisms and see similarities.

2) Similarities show homology

3) Homology is explained by common descent.

 

That is where it ends. It is a perfectly linear argument, but you dressed it up as a circular argument through an unintentional trick of language. Let me give you an example.

 

1) We think Fred shot Tom.

2) We know because a bullet was found in Tom's skull.

3) The bullet matches Fred's gun.

4) That happened because Fred shot Tom.

 

You begin and end with the same statement. Circular reasoning, right? Well, no, it is perfectly good reasoning, when presented properly. Just take out the first line.

 

1) A bullet was found in Tom's skull.

2) The bullet matches Fred's gun.

3) That happened because Fred shot Tom.

The best the evolutionist can do is make the claim that homology is the anticipated and expected consequence of evolution.  Homology is not evidence of evolution.

 

“A mere succession of similar forms does not furnish its own explanation.â€ÂÂ

 

reference: Icons of Evolution

13592[/snapback]

The claim that homology is the anticipated and expected consequence of evolution actually counts for a lot in terms of evidence. If we didn't have much homology (or if we had homology criss-crossing the proposed family tree horizontally), it would falsify the theory. The bullet matching Fred's gun is the anticipated and expected consequence of Fred shooting Tom. Any other sort of bullet exonerates Fred.

[deadlock 3]

Yes, you are right. No homologous features between species are exactly the same.  I still think it is fair to say that they objectively share important qualities.  The questions are, "What would we expect from common descent?" and "What might we see if common descent did NOT occur?"

 

duck feet: http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/MO27-lg.jpg

seagull feet: http://hometown.aol.com/autumnnberkeley/feet2.jpg

swan feet: http://www.usefilm.com/image/453871.html

 

You notice that all of those bird feet have things in common.  Three digits point generally forward, and there is one tiny opposed hind digit.  The two forward outside digits are pointing to either side, forming the frame of the webbing.

 

According to the standard phylogenetic tree, all three of these birds are related, descended from archosaurs.

 

Archosaur foot (dinosaur foot is on the right): http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/images/archoankle.gif

context: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archomm.html

 

And now we look at the Platypus feet: http://www.ryanphotographic.com/images/JPE...latypus%204.jpg

 

It is very distinctly different from the bird feet.  It has five digits on each paw, all pointing forward. Compare the platypus's feet to your own hands and feet. Five digits pointing forward.

 

And dog paws: http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/saortho/chapter_26/26f1.jpg

And cat paws: http://maxshouse.com/anatomy/claws/Forepaw...ton_%20crop.jpg

And cetacean flippers: http://cetacea147.tripod.com/images/tursiopsflipper.gif

And ancient therapsid Gorgonopsia feet: http://www.kheper.net/evolution/therapsida/Gorgonopsia.htm

 

That´s a typical evolutionist explanation, and I love it because it demonstrates how the theory of evolution has no scientific background.

 

First, Tempesttossed said : "What would we expect from common descent?" and "What might we see if common descent did NOT occur?"

 

So anyone would expect some scientific method to determine what trait is caused by common descent and what is convergent evolution.But what did we get ? Only a subjective explanation about what traits he thinks are similar enough to be defined as common descent traits.What kind of scientific method is this ? If I want to use this method in other cases what should I do ? Should I make a phone call to Tempesttossed ? Why does he think "three digits point generally forward" are more important than to share genes with birds ? It has webbed feet and a large, rubbery snout; these are features that appear closer to those of a duck than to those of any known mammal.Why is this homology less important ? What is the scietific method behind those evaluations ? Why has it ten S@xual chromossomes if no mammal has them? Why does it share similarity with a marsupial ? Why does it brood the eggs like birds and not only put them into a hole dug and let them to incubate by themselves like other repitiles ?

 

 

Platypuses and ducks/swans/seagulls both have webbed feet simply because it is an easy adaptation for swimmers (convergent evolution).  The skeletal digits are clearly very different. If common descent did not occur, we might see platypus feet that are almost exactly like duck/swan/seagull feet!

 

Convergent evolution , the most famous evolution´s Ad Hoc.Convergent evolution is only an euphemism to "coincidence".Traits are caused by random mutations, there is no law of nature which guarantees that two animals will have the same mutations that generate similar traits only because they share similar environments.So , it´s only an Ad Hoc used to explain why two living beings share similar traits although they haven´t a common ancestor.

[deadlock 3]

I think the reasoning goes like this:

 

1) We observe organisms and see similarities.

2) Similarities show homology

3) Homology is explained by common descent.

 

That is where it ends. It is a perfectly linear argument, but you dressed it up as a circular argument through an unintentional trick of language.

 

Homology is not explained by common descent.Common descent is one of possible causes of homology.So, you cannot use homology as a proof of common descent, you can only say that homology does not falsify evolution.

[deadlock 3]

If we didn't have much homology (or if we had homology criss-crossing the proposed family tree horizontally), it would falsify the theory.

 

No, it wouldn´t.Mutations are random , so there is no guarantee to homology.Homology criss-crossing is explained by convergent evolution.

[trilobyte 0]

tempesttossed...you seemed to skip right over post 7 ????

Anyway, you said:

 

 

I think the reasoning goes like this:

 

1) We observe organisms and see similarities.

2) Similarities show homology

3) Homology is explained by common descent.

Nice try.

Number 1 is correct.

 

Number 2 isn't. Similarities do not show homology. That is an unproven theory.

 

Number 3 also falls short. Homology is explained by common descent if number 2 is assumed...and number 2 assumes number 3 is correct.

 

Round and round you go.

[TempestTossed 0]

That´s a typical evolutionist explanation, and I love it because it demonstrates how the theory of evolution has no scientific background.

 

First, Tempesttossed said : "What would we expect from common descent?" and "What might we see if common descent did NOT occur?"

 

So anyone would expect some scientific method to determine what trait is caused by common descent and what is convergent evolution.But what did we get ? Only a subjective explanation about what traits he thinks are similar enough to be defined as common descent traits.What kind of scientific method is this ? If I want to use this method in other cases what should I do ? Should I make a phone call to Tempesttossed ? Why does he think "three digits point generally forward" are more important than to share genes with birds ? It has webbed feet...

Don't call me. I am not a biologist. I only do this as a hobby. You can go to where actual biologists hang out, like talk.origins. You may be able to get answers that are less subjective. I'll just give you my subjective opinion. The way I excuse convergent evolution from being ad hoc is by seeing if the convergent features are useful for survival of both of the separated taxa, but the non-useful features connect to the expected sides of the family tree. The webbing is useful for swimming, therefore we can expect convergent evolution for webbed feet among mammals, birds, and others without common descent or design. If the webbing is by common descent (homology) or by common design, then we would also expect convergence of the non-useful features. Ducks would be just as well-served with 2, 4, or 5 forward pointing digits, but we see only 3 among ducks. Platypuses would be just as well-served with 3, 4, or 6 forward pointing digits, but we see only 5. And that arrangement of non-useful features corresponds to their expected place in the family tree.

...and a large, rubbery snout; these are features that appear closer to those of a duck than to those of any known mammal.Why is this homology less important ? What is the scietific method behind those evaluations ?

You may be surprised to learn that the beaks of all birds are not rubbery. They are very stiff. The platypus bill is rubbery and filled with electromagnetic sensors. The similarity seems superfluous, not indicative of either homology or common design. It is simply an analogy. "Ah, that bill reminds me of a duck bill."

Why has it ten S@xual chromossomes if no mammal has them?

You got me here. I don't know. It is a unique feature of platypuses (as far as we know--other monotremes have not been so examined).

Why does it share similarity with a marsupial ?

Because it is a mammal like marsupials? What do you mean?

Why does it brood the eggs like birds and not only put them into a hole dug and let them to incubate by themselves like other repitiles ?

You got me here, too. I don't know what reptiles do with their young.

[TempestTossed 0]

Homology is not explained by common descent.Common descent is one of possible causes of homology.So, you cannot use homology as a proof of common descent, you can only say that homology does not falsify evolution.

13603[/snapback]

You may have a different definition of "explain" than I do. If common descent is one of the possible causes of homology, then common descent explains homology. Let me bring back Fred and Tom.

 

Prosecution: "Fred's gun matches the bullet found in Tom's skull, and that is explained by Fred shooting Tom."

Defense: "But there are other possible explanations, so that doesn't count as evidence."

Prosecution: "But I have the most likely explanation. What is your explanation?"

Defense: "God."

 

God may have created the circumstances that made the bullet found in Tom's skull match Fred's gun. That hardly matters. Nothing can falsify the proposition that God specially created the murder scene. But the proposition that Fred killed Tom can be falsified by a bullet that doesn't match. Does this make sense?

[TempestTossed 0]

"tempesttossed...you seemed to skip right over post 7 ????

I'm sorry. Please let me know ahead of time what you think is most important for me to address so I can prioritize appropriately.

TempestTossed...think about what you are saying in post 2.

 

The platypus sure is some awesome transitional. Heck, most animals you evos claim are transitional only have a single trait change...and the odds against a random mutation occurring again and again many times over in just the right spot in its offspring DNA as to develope this SINGLE trait change is astronomical...NOW you want me to believe an animals like the platypus has naturally selected mutations at a rate that looks like Fourth of July fire works?????

My analysis judges only 5 out of the 15 interesting traits as being unique to the platypus. The rest are either reptilian, mammalian, or transitional. I am not sure how long the theory expects those 5 unique traits to have evolved, so, no, I am not going to ask you to believe that they evolved at an Independence Day rate.

"I think the reasoning goes like this:

 

1) We observe organisms and see similarities.

2) Similarities show homology

3) Homology is explained by common descent."

 

Nice try.

Number 1 is correct.

 

Number 2 isn't. Similarities do not show homology. That is an unproven theory.

 

Number 3 also falls short. Homology is explained by common descent if number 2 is assumed...and number 2 assumes number 3 is correct.

 

Round and round you go.

What you perceive as circular reasoning is only redundancy on my part. Let me cut out the last line.

 

1) We observe organisms and see similarities.

2) Similarities show homology

 

What do think? Circular reasoning still? It isn't circular reasoning, but #2 may fail as there are similarities that are not thought to be homologous. I'll revise it again, including the argument I made earlier about non-useful features.

 

1) We observe organisms and see similarities of non-useful features.

2) Similarities of non-useful features show homology.

[trilobyte 0]

TempestTossed,

You seem to be nothing more than an indoctrinated surface guy. All you have is the prescribed answer...but have absolutly no clue as to the hows.

 

Tell us how mutation add up. Like other evos, just don't tell us that they do. Show us how they can.

 

Answer post 7.

[TempestTossed 0]

TempestTossed,

You seem to be nothing more than an indoctrinated surface guy. All you have is the prescribed answer...but have absolutly no clue as to the hows.

 

Tell us how mutation add up.  Like other evos, just don't tell us that they do.  Show us how they can.

You are right in a sense. All I know is the basics. Mutations happen by reproduction and genetic recombination. One side of the DNA is taken apart, combined with the another, and slight variations happen in the resulting DNA. If the mutation benefits the survival of the genes, then it is more likely to be propagated. If the mutation hurts the survival of the genes, then it is more likely to die out. So the beneficial mutations add up over each successive generation, one at a time. I am not sure if that is enough explanation. Please let me know if it is not.

Answer post 7.

13619[/snapback]

I included my response to it in my previous post.

[trilobyte 0]

You are right in a sense.  All I know is the basics.  Mutations happen by reproduction and genetic recombination.  One side of the DNA is taken apart, combined with the another, and slight variations happen in the resulting DNA. If the mutation benefits the survival of the genes, then it is more likely to be propagated.  If the mutation hurts the survival of the genes, then it is more likely to die out.   So the beneficial mutations add up over each successive generation, one at a time.  I am not sure if that is enough explanation.  Please let me know if it is not.

I included my response to it in my previous post.

13621[/snapback]

Well that's the theory...but do you really think it can work?

 

Think about it. the human has like 3.2 BILLION base pairs of DNA.

 

Not all base pairs are responsible for each trait.

 

What are the odds of an offspring having a mutation occur in a portion of its DNA in a fashion that allows it to add to a trait that was changed by a mutation from one of its previous ancestors?

 

Right a way the odds are increased because half your traits come from mom and the other half come from dad.

 

Not to mention that the mutations are random and don't just happen over and over again in a particular portion of DNA responsible for the developement of a certain trait.

 

Then the odds are increased again because very few mutations would even be considered as beneficial. In fact almost all mutation are harmful. Its very much more likely that many harmful mutations would occur long before a beneficial mutation would occur and effect said trait.

 

There is also the error checking mechanism that happens during reproduction that has the ability to fix errors in the DNA code. Once again your odds are increased.

 

BUT, lets say you beat these enormous odds and a trait is added to in a way that increases the fitness of the offspring......what are the odds of it becoming selected and actually added to the gene pool? Just because something has an advantage doesn't mean it will be added to the gene pool. Its mate alone could have the dominant gene and set you back to square 1. The ration of those with out this new trait to the one or very few that have the trait will be high. The environment swings back and forth so much any small change would hardly be noticed.

 

Now for the sake of the argument...lets say your mutation actually has the ability to occur in a beneficial fashion, get naturally selected and added to the gene pool....It must now occur again and again many, many times over for a major morphological change to be realized...such as developing the echo-location system in a dolphin or changing a fin into a leg.

 

But then again you were taught (indoctrinated) that it happens. So It must be true.

[deadlock 3]

Don't call me. I am not a biologist. I only do this as a hobby. You can go to where actual biologists hang out, like talk.origins. You may be able to get answers that are less subjective. I'll just give you my subjective opinion.

 

I don´t think talk.origins has a better explanation than yours.

 

The way I excuse convergent evolution from being ad hoc is by seeing if the convergent features are useful for survival of both of the separated taxa, but the non-useful features connect to the expected sides of the family tree. The webbing is useful for swimming, therefore we can expect convergent evolution for webbed feet among mammals, birds, and others without common descent or design. If the webbing is by common descent (homology) or by common design, then we would also expect convergence of the non-useful features. Ducks would be just as well-served with 2, 4, or 5 forward pointing digits, but we see only 3 among ducks. Platypuses would be just as well-served with 3, 4, or 6 forward pointing digits, but we see only 5. And that arrangement of non-useful features corresponds to their expected place in the family tree.

 

First, the primary source of traits are mutations and there is no law of nature that can guarantee two different species will have the same traits only because they are useful to each other.

 

Second, it does not exist non-useful features.

[Guest kega]

i think its a real life chimera

 

maybe God put it together for fun and Adam liked it so much it stayed