PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Crazy 'design'
       or is it crazy creation?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How is it that a Designer/Creator would use this bone structure:


To produce an appendage that looks like this:




Hmmm...

Omniscience in action, folks!


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:52 PM on October 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hum...

Devolution?

Nono, wait! Some creator's foresight!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:32 PM on October 15, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
I don't mean to pick fault, but what is actually wrong with that bone structure?



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 9:30 PM on October 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fingers in a species that needs none.

I'm sure it must have atrophied muscles to move them around like other fingered creatures (not meant in a sexual way).

That's one thing we can do, and you can't: make predictions.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:54 PM on October 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 9:30 PM on October 15, 2009 :
Derwood
I don't mean to pick fault, but what is actually wrong with that bone structure?




Whats that?  You are not ignoring me anymore?

Hooray!

Tell me what is right with it?

Why put the same bones that in a primate form fingers  in a structure that has none?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:25 AM on October 16, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if it shouldn't have 'fingers' then how should it's skeletal structure of its flippers look like?

I imagine that the existing bone structure would give the Manatee greater strength and/or dexterity in the flipper.


now I know that Manatees and dugongs of the order Sirenia. which is different from the orders of Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and Pinnepedia (seals, sea lions and walrus).
but isn't it strange that all three orders evolved from hoofed land animals?







-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 08:53 AM on October 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 08:53 AM on October 16, 2009 :
if it shouldn't have 'fingers' then how should it's skeletal structure of its flippers look like?


Maybe more like a fan?




I imagine that the existing bone structure would give the Manatee greater strength and/or dexterity in the flipper.

Why would you imagine that?



now I know that Manatees and dugongs of the order Sirenia. which is different from the orders of Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and Pinnepedia (seals, sea lions and walrus).



Wiki expertise is amazing, isn't it?

Pinnipeds and cetaceans also have "hand" bones in their flippers.  Weird.


but isn't it strange that all three orders evolved from hoofed land animals?


No, it is strange that someone who presents himself as being informed on evolution would actually write something that demonstrates the opposite.
The LCA of manatees and horses was not hoofed.


Earliest fossil sirenians can be found in the eocene.  During the eocene, the only hooved mammals were not even hooved yet - the ancestors of horses (eohippus) were three-toed and the toes were more like claws.

Which means that they diverged earlier than that, during which time there were certainly no hooved mammals.

One should not take modern relationships to indicate ancestor-descendant relationships.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:55 PM on October 16, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe more like a fan?
did you mean like the extremely elongated digits for the bat wing?
if not then could you please be a little more descriptive

Why would you imagine that?
the statement "greater strength and/or dexterity" is still dependant on the alternative bone structure.
thicker bones are able to support larger muscles (more muscle fibres), and thus give it more strength.
by moving its "fingers" spread throughout the flipper would give it a reasonable amount of dexterity. (the statement of "greater dexterity" was based on shark fins who's fins are rigid not flexible)
if I am wrong in either of these statements please correct me.

Wiki expertise is amazing, isn't it?
not from Wiki this time ^_^
I actually used this site:  Manatee Brain
(and I already knew whales and dolphins where from the Cetacea order. but was unsure where the Manatees went)

No, it is strange that someone who presents himself as being informed on evolution would actually write something that demonstrates the opposite.
I know! why would someone writing an entire web page on the evolution of Manatees say they are classified as "subungulates, which derived from a primitive ungulate ancestral stock".
for all those who don't know, Ungulates = meaning roughly "being pawed" or "hoofed animal" (thank you Wiki)

maybe I found a dud site?
- Manatees are classified as [sub-]ungulates, even though they live in the water
- considered "subungulates", meaning they may be evolutionary offshoots of a primitive ungulate (hoof) stock
- Sirenians are members of the group known as subungulates
- thought to have evolved from primitive hoofed mammals ("condylarths") along the shores of the ancient Tethys Ocean. (Wiki)
make that quite a few dud sites.

Derwood. where did you get your information on the evolutionary ancestors of the Manatee? so I can use that site in the future.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:59 PM on October 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Nice toenails.

So you figured that fingers are good in flippers... So why not put them in sharks?


(Edited by wisp 10/17/2009 at 02:43 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:38 AM on October 17, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood, after preforming more research since my last post I have found that you were right (not all that surprising I will admit. I do consider you proficiency to be one of your more favourable traits)

the evolutionary ancestor of the manatee are of an order of ungulate mammals called Condylarths. and not all Condylarths are necessarily hoofed, most are clawed.
I have not found which Condylarth is believed to have evolved into Manatees. so I have no reason not to believe you when you said:
The LCA of manatees and horses was not hoofed.


this being said, whales (who also have finger like bones in their fins) are believed to have evolved from these ancestors:

Mesonychids: four digits on each foot that ended in tiny hoofs
Pakicetus: three toes with claws
Ambulocetus: small hoof at the end of each toe (described as being almost identical to the Mesonychids)
Dalanistes: webbed feet
Rodhocetus: small claws on long toes
Odontocetes (toothed whales): flippers / fins


although Manatees (may or) may not have evolved from hoofed ancestors. the whales certainly did.
and isn't it strange how such an evolutionary line happened? especially in regards to their "feet".



also, just for the sake of it: hoof types found in [i]ungulates[/]



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 8:32 PM on October 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:32 PM on October 17, 2009 :
Derwood, after preforming more research since my last post I have found that you were right (not all that surprising I will admit. I do consider you proficiency to be one of your more favourable traits)

the evolutionary ancestor of the manatee are of an order of ungulate mammals called Condylarths. and not all Condylarths are necessarily hoofed, most are clawed.

I am unaware of ANY condylarths  that were hooved.

I have not found which Condylarth is believed to have evolved into Manatees. so I have no reason not to believe you when you said:
The LCA of manatees and horses was not hoofed.


this being said, whales (who also have finger like bones in their fins) are believed to have evolved from these ancestors:

Mesonychids: four digits on each foot that ended in tiny hoofs
Pakicetus: three toes with claws
Ambulocetus: small hoof at the end of each toe (described as being almost identical to the Mesonychids)
Dalanistes: webbed feet
Rodhocetus: small claws on long toes
Odontocetes (toothed whales): flippers / fins


although Manatees (may or) may not have evolved from hoofed ancestors. the whales certainly did.
and isn't it strange how such an evolutionary line happened? especially in regards to their "feet".


I suggest you take a look at the phylogeny that YOU presented and tell us which whale common ancestor was hoofed.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:01 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

although Manatees (may or) may not have evolved from hoofed ancestors. the whales certainly did.
Perhaps you meant "scientists certainly believe they did". Anyway, i think you're lying when you say that you don't believe in Evolution. I think this Freudian slip is a glimpse into your real belief.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:31 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 08:53 AM on October 16, 2009 :now I know that Manatees and dugongs of the order Sirenia. which is different from the orders of Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and Pinnepedia (seals, sea lions and walrus).
but isn't it strange that all three orders evolved from hoofed land animals?


You've already accepted that the Sirenians did not evolve from hoofed animals and there is nothing in your arguement to suggest that Pinnipeds did. In fact they are part of the order Carnivora which has no hoofed species and the closest relatives include bears (Ursidae) and dogs (Canidae) which, along with the pinnipeds, all belong to the Carniformian (dog-like) suborder.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:45 AM on January 4, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you figured that fingers are good in flippers... So why not put them in sharks?

This is a good point that most creationists either ignore or hand wave.  Why would an intelligent designer give animals in a similar environment dissimilar design?  It is illogical and makes no sense.  Why does a whale have a forearm more similar to mine instead of one more similar to a shark?  Evolution explains it, intelligent design does not.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:49 AM on January 4, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 07:49 AM on January 4, 2010 :
So you figured that fingers are good in flippers... So why not put them in sharks?

This is a good point that most creationists either ignore or hand wave.  Why would an intelligent designer give animals in a similar environment dissimilar design?  It is illogical and makes no sense.  Why does a whale have a forearm more similar to mine instead of one more similar to a shark?  Evolution explains it, intelligent design does not.


Modification of structures is something that creationists ignore constantly. There are a plethora of examples of fish with modified appendages that suggest either evolution or poor planning on the part of the designer. The modified first dorsal fin in remoras that allows them to attach to sharks, the modified first dorsal spine of the anglerfishes that acts as a lure, the suction cup-like pectoral and pelvic fins of the gobies and clingfishes respectively. Why would an intelligent designer simply modify the fins rather than create specialised structures? Creationists simply answer this with a shrug of the shoulders and say "thats how God wanted them to be".
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:28 PM on January 4, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.