It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
since it involves the evolution of two different complementary structures that exist and become useful at different times in an organism's life.
How is the advent of this system described by pure creationists?
How can the female uterus with it's thickened lining and the embryonic placenta both evolve at the same time through natural selection when neither is useful without the other?
Evolution of placental specializations in viviparous African and South American lizards.
[...]South American lizards of the genus Mabuya exhibit several reproductive specializations that are convergent on those of eutherian mammals, including viviparity, long gestation periods, ovulation of tiny eggs, and placental supply of the nutrients for development. Studies of placental morphology and development indicate that New World Mabuya share several other derived features, including chorionic areolae and a "Type IV" epitheliochorial placenta with a villous, mesometrial placentome. Some characteristics of these lizards are shared by two African skinks, M. ivensii and Eumecia anchietae, including minuscule eggs, placentotrophy, an absorptive chorioallantois, and features of the yolk sac.
Available evidence is consistent with two explanations: (1) placentotrophy originated in Africa, predating a trans-Atlantic colonization by Mabuya of the New World; and (2) placentotrophy arose two or three separate times among these closely related skinks. As illustrated by analysis of these animals, not only can data on fetal membrane morphology yield phylogenetic information, but phylogenetic evidence in turn provides a valuable way to reconstruct the evolution of fetal membranes in a biogeographic context. When appropriately interpreted, morphological and phylogenetic evidence can be combined to yield robust evolutionary conclusions that avoid the pitfalls of circular reasoning
abstract
The evolution of complex organs is a source of controversy because they require the contributions of many adaptations to function properly. We argue that placentas are complex, that they have evolved multiple times in Poeciliopsis, and that there are closely related sister taxa that have either no placentas or intermediate stages in the evolution of a placenta. Furthermore, placentas can evolve in 750,000 years or less, on the same ime scale as suggested by theoretical calculations for the evolution of complex eyes. Independent origins of such complexity, accompanied by ister taxa that either lackor have intermediate stages in the evolution of the trait, present an opportunity to study the evolution of novelty and omplexity from a comparative, evolutionary perspective.
There are numerous accounts of philosophical, anatomic and evolutionary kind that discuss the placental evolution. For instance, Mossman (1987), in his extensive classic on comparative placentation, devotes much time to explain the possible derivation of various placental structures. Ramsey (1989) traces the "History" of the human placenta and Soma (1978) provided a review in Japanese with many color illustrations of unusual species. Kaufmann & Burton (1994) have also published an excellent review that is replete with literature citation. It is primarily directed to the understanding of the human placenta and, i.a., it traces the origin of "chorion" to Aristotle and "placenta" (cake) to Realdo Columbus.
Over such huge distances, for what humans perceive as "improvements" (increase in complexity) fitness will fall. We can demonstrate (Fig 2.2) that fitness will fall as a relative measure, against an ancestor from a line that widely diverged from original type. But there is evidence that fitness falls absolutely for increase of complexity too.
Sexual reproduction is more complex than earlier evolving asexually reproduction. But for reproduction by sex genotype fitness falls by 50%, over 100% for the less complex asexual forms. (Fitness falls by 50% of DNA unique to an individual. But expressed genes can be less than 3% of total DNA, and mostly these will be 100% conserved. See Smart Gene Hypothesis.) We suspect (there are no agreed ways to measure it) that earlier, prokaryote life, is reproductively fitter than more complex eukaryotes, which evolved later.
Originally posted by Nygdan
How is the advent of this system described by pure creationists?
Literally, "God did it". I don't think IDists consider it to be "irreducibly complex" and therefore 'designed'. IDists, in fact, consider almost nothing to have evidence of design, and most of them, like I think Behe and Dembski, think that man evolved from lower primates and that the different kinds of animals have all evovled thru time. But YECists and OECists don't have any explanation, indeed, their entire idea is that there simply is no explanation and that god dreamt the whole thing up.