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.

 

Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
mmm...or maybe like ...a disease on the bark of the trees, or maybe something like the moss...
...indeed, a very lifeless appearance....




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
mmm...or maybe like ...a disease on the bark of the trees, or maybe something like the moss...
...indeed, a very lifeless appearance....


We don't have lichen like that where I live. Most of the lichen I am familiar with are in the desert, and maintain a distinct appearance from that which you've posted.

Moss don't appear lifeless.

But in any case, you were going to point out the ways in which lichen are similar to differentiated tissue, not quiz me on some vague hypothetical perception.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
But in any case, you were going to point out the ways in which lichen are similar to differentiated tissue, not quiz me on some vague hypothetical perception.

Exactly. And here is what I said:


Lets there were 2 types of cells in a symbiotic structure so strong that they could not leave separately and there was a corss-breeding between them. The new cell could have been the very first of the multicellular organisms.

The point was that different types of cells can form structures that resemble organisms.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
Lets there were 2 types of cells in a symbiotic structure so strong that they could not leave separately and there was a corss-breeding between them. The new cell could have been the very first of the multicellular organisms.

The point was that different types of cells can form structures that resemble organisms.

Whoops, my mistake again.

I forgot that you're willing to accept something you dream up as being 'evidence.'



And in any case, this doesn't answer the question of how the mass of 'cross-breeding cells' resembles differentiated tissue in a living organism.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
OK, lets say I'm wiling to except something that I "dream" as being evidence (also Einstein "dreamed" that he could see his face in the mirror normaly even if would travel with a speed very close to that of light...), but if it is not an evidence, how would you describe in terms of ID tissue differentiation and embryo evolution? Just curious about that.
As for tissue differentiation in my example that could be triggered by an external factor, such as scarce food, "predators", temperature... whatever. It is not necesary that the tissue differentiation in the very first living creature that made the transition from colony/symbiosys to a multicellular organism should be so complex as for the humans. The first multicellular organism had probably only 2 types of cell - something like a derma for protection and a body. And derma differentiation, like I said, could be triggered by the presence of "predators"...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
OK, lets say I'm wiling to except something that I "dream" as being evidence (also Einstein "dreamed" that he could see his face in the mirror normaly even if would travel with a speed very close to that of light...), but if it is not an evidence,

It's not evidence, and Einstein never cited any dreams he had as evidence of anything. That you are willing to accept your imagination and dreams as evidence speaks volumes though.

I do appreciate comparing yourself to Einstein it was a nice touch, and I got a good laugh.


how would you describe in terms of ID tissue differentiation and embryo evolution? Just curious about that.

As far as tissue differentiation is concerned, it would be described as exactly what it is, a complex process wherein cells diverge into types in the development of an organism. What specific predictions, etc. ID would make are dependent on the specifics of the system being studied and the question being asked.

With respect to embryos, they would be described for what they are, and again specific predictions can be offered when a more specific system or question is highlighted.


As for tissue differentiation in my example that could be triggered by an external factor, such as scarce food, "predators", temperature... whatever. It is not necesary that the tissue differentiation in the very first living creature that made the transition from colony/symbiosys to a multicellular organism should be so complex as for the humans.

So you're saying tissue differentiation is analogous to responding the external environment?


The first multicellular organism had probably only 2 types of cell - something like a derma for protection and a body. And derma differentiation, like I said, could be triggered by the presence of "predators"...

And there is how much evidence to suggest that this is the case? Oh yeah... no real evidence, just thoughts running through your head.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
I do appreciate comparing yourself to Einstein it was a nice touch, and I got a good laugh.

Your welcome...though I never did that. Einstein's "dreams" lead him to his discoveries.



What specific predictions, etc. ID would make are dependent on the specifics of the system being studied and the question being asked.

OK, take the human embryo. Why tissue differentiation takes place in the way it does?



With respect to embryos, they would be described for what they are, and again specific predictions can be offered when a more specific system or question is highlighted.

Why in its early stages of development, the human embryo has a tail? Why dolphin embryos have fingers?



So you're saying tissue differentiation is analogous to responding the external environment?

In the first creature it could have been. What is the case today? Who activates those swithes?


The triggering mechanisms for the plasticity of bone marrow-derived stem cells seemed to be an insufficient pool of stem cells intrinsic to this tissue in concert with an increased demand for the production of new cells and changes in the microenvironment as a result of tissue injury at the site
source

(bold mine)


And there is how much evidence to suggest that this is the case? Oh yeah... no real evidence, just thoughts running through your head.

Take the sponges:


The simplest extant (currently living) multicellular organisms, sponges, consist of multiple specialized cellular types cooperating together for a common goal

Though the different cell types create an organized, macroscopic multicellular structure—the visible sponge—they are not organized into true interconnected tissues. This is illustrated by the fact that a sponge broken up in a blender will reaggregate from the suviving cells. If individually separated, however, the particular cell types cannot survive alone
source

Ok, it's not exactly what I said, but it's close enough. If you do not want to make the connections, you're free to do that.

Another good example of adaptation/evolution taking place under our own eyes is the development of resistance to antibiotics


Widespread use of antibiotics is thought to have spurred evolutionarily adaptations that enable bacteria to survive these powerful drugs. Other microbes such as viruses, fungi, and parasites have developed resistance as well. Antimicrobial resistance provides a survival benefit to microbes and makes it harder to eliminate infections from the body

A key factor in the development of antibiotic resistance is the ability of infectious organisms to adapt quickly to new environmental conditions. Bacteria are single-celled organisms that, compared with higher life forms, have small numbers of genes. Therefore, even a single random genetic mutation can greatly affect their ability to cause disease. And because most microbes reproduce by dividing every few hours, bacteria can evolve rapidly. A mutation that helps a microbe survive exposure to an antibiotic will quickly become dominant throughout the microbial population.
random link


edited to add:
How does ID explains that?

[edit on 15/9/06 by Apass]

edited to add another good example of how tissue differentiation is related to external enviroments


[crocodiles] Sex is also determined by nest temperature - males are produced around 31.6° Celsius. Any deviation from that temperature will result in a female hatchling.
random link


[edit on 15/9/06 by Apass]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
OK, take the human embryo. Why tissue differentiation takes place in the way it does?

It's due to influence of various hormonal and genetic factors.



Why in its early stages of development, the human embryo has a tail? Why dolphin embryos have fingers?

Well... firstly stating that 'dolphins have fingers' and 'humans have tails' is somewhat of a stretch, as these are embryonic forms. Surely you're not going to come back with a statement akin to 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.'

In any case, the human 'tail' develops into one of the most important bones with respect to human movement and upright posture, the coccyx. The reason it sticks out in an embryo such as the one you show (what is it about 1 month?) is because the rest of lower body is as of yet undeveloped. So it's part of the developmental process.

The 'fingers' or I suppose more technically phalanges, are part of the dolphins... flipper - though I am unsure if 'flipper' is technically correct. They're not fingers, in that there's no apototic event to remove the skin between the fingers. They may vaguely resemble syndactylous 'fingers,' but are distinctly not fingers.

There certainly is some speculation that this homology is due to common descent, and this may very well be, in any case, common descent is perfectly compatible with ID.



In the first creature it could have been. What is the case today? Who activates those swithes?

It's not a who... they're activated by a genetic program.



The triggering mechanisms for the plasticity of bone marrow-derived stem cells seemed to be an insufficient pool of stem cells intrinsic to this tissue in concert with an increased demand for the production of new cells and changes in the microenvironment as a result of tissue injury at the site
source

(bold mine)

You are of course aware that 'microenvironment' in this case refers to intraorganismal environment, IOW, inside the organism, and not in response to external stimuli.


Take the sponges:


The simplest extant (currently living) multicellular organisms, sponges, consist of multiple specialized cellular types cooperating together for a common goal

Though the different cell types create an organized, macroscopic multicellular structure—the visible sponge—they are not organized into true interconnected tissues. This is illustrated by the fact that a sponge broken up in a blender will reaggregate from the suviving cells. If individually separated, however, the particular cell types cannot survive alone
source

Ok, it's not exactly what I said, but it's close enough. If you do not want to make the connections, you're free to do that.

Yep sponges are pretty cool. I do have to admit that much. They are freaks, and posses many anomalies as far as animals are concerned. In fact, they used to be classified as plants. In terms of bizarre unanimalike adaptations the sponges
  1. Except for sponges, animal cells are arranged into tissues
  2. Sponges are assymetrical
  3. Many produce by budding, in fact
  4. They may produce sexually, or asexually.
  5. Sponges are often monoecious
  6. As you pointed out, sponges that are broken down to the level of their cells can reassemble.


Though your statement about the cells not being able to survive individually isn't entirely true. If it were the sponge wouldn't be able to bud, and many sponges in fact reproduce via oviparous fertilization, necessitating the ability to survive away from the organism.

Sponges are classified as animals for a few reasons, multicellular structure, lack of photosynthetic pigments, ingestion of molecules, and 'shared genes.' In higher animals the gene alleged to be shared controls the growth of eyes, brains and the central nervous system. Of these, only the genetic evidence is currently considered conclusive evidence that sponges are animals, even in light of the many differences.

In my personal opinion, sponges are not likely to be ancestors of animals, and don't even belong in the same kingdom. However, I do understand I am not in the majority here. But in any case, as I mentioned earlier, common descent doesn't stand in opposition to ID.


Another good example of adaptation/evolution taking place under our own eyes is the development of resistance to antibiotics


Widespread use of antibiotics is thought to have spurred evolutionarily adaptations that enable bacteria to survive these powerful drugs. Other microbes such as viruses, fungi, and parasites have developed resistance as well. Antimicrobial resistance provides a survival benefit to microbes and makes it harder to eliminate infections from the body

A key factor in the development of antibiotic resistance is the ability of infectious organisms to adapt quickly to new environmental conditions. Bacteria are single-celled organisms that, compared with higher life forms, have small numbers of genes. Therefore, even a single random genetic mutation can greatly affect their ability to cause disease. And because most microbes reproduce by dividing every few hours, bacteria can evolve rapidly. A mutation that helps a microbe survive exposure to an antibiotic will quickly become dominant throughout the microbial population.
random link


edited to add:
How does ID explains that?


Antibiotic resistance isn't evidence of evolution. Antibiotic resistance was present in populations of bacteria prior to antibiotics even being discovered. Antibiotics don't induce any change in an organism. Antibiotics kill off sensitive organisms, leaving resistant ones behind... that is the resistant individuals were present in the population already. The use of antibiotics has merely changed the frequency of pre-existing alleles. The organisms haven't changed, only the numbers of resistant strains relative to sensitive strains.

Antibiotic resistance genes are a necessary consequence of antibiotics; the organisms that produce antibiotics also, by necessity must produce antibiotic resistance genes. Antibiotic resistance genes are generally shuffled freely between different types of bacteria via horizontal transmission as well.

So antibiotic resistance isn't evidence for evolution in that it doesn't create anything new, it merely shuffles pre-existing genetic information both within and between populations. Furthermore, much of this is done via horizontal gene transfer. There is no mechanism in place in multicellular organisms where genetic information can be transferred horizontally. So even if horizontal gene transfer was evidence for evolution, it couldn't be applied to multicellular organisms.

ID explains antibiotic resistance exactly as it should: Intraspecies variation.





[crocodiles] Sex is also determined by nest temperature - males are produced around 31.6° Celsius. Any deviation from that temperature will result in a female hatchling.
random link

Amazing, isn't it? Though it's not limited to crocodiles... as I understand it, many reptiles are subject to this particular method of sex selection. In any case, not sure that this makes your case as well as you think. This innovation occurs after the process of tissue differentiation has more or less occured. While it's true that the gonad tissue isn't mature, it has distinctly differentiated itself to gonad tissue. What remains is development into either sex, but the gonad tissue is no longer pluripotent. IOW gonad tissue is differentiated.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm trying to figure what is the point of bringing in the issue of the production of sulphates when we are focusing on the nature of fossils? The major reason we think of the KT boundary period as involving an extinction event is the fact we have fossils of dinosaurs below KT, but they do not occur above it. Something happened during that period.




I was refering to the process of mineralization in the presence of an acid. This should have led to the preservation of the tissues structure, not just a pile of bones.

Also, the shaping of the bones in fabrication these days does not seem to allow for the buoyant force, which is greatest at the bottom of a system. The bones in production these days tend to taper at that locale, and do not seem capable of supporting a rapid change in direction. If there were no deflection in the force introduced by shifting fluids/tissues/connected bones, I would assume a break.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bothered
I was refering to the process of mineralization in the presence of an acid. This should have led to the preservation of the tissues structure, not just a pile of bones.

Also, the shaping of the bones in fabrication these days does not seem to allow for the buoyant force, which is greatest at the bottom of a system. The bones in production these days tend to taper at that locale, and do not seem capable of supporting a rapid change in direction. If there were no deflection in the force introduced by shifting fluids/tissues/connected bones, I would assume a break.


As I said, few fossils are found in the KT boundary anyway.

I would have thought the presence of strong acid rain would have aided decomposition of dead animals.

So you have issues with fossils that we generally don't find anyway. What about the fossils we do find above and below KT?

Again, I don't see what the second paragraph has to do with anything. Assume a break in what?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
@mattison0922



And there is how much evidence to suggest that this is the case? Oh yeah... no real evidence, just thoughts running through your head.


Holy sweet baby jesus! (mod Edit - personal attack) Your knocking down this guy and yet claiming ID is a valid science WITH NO EVIDENCE of ANYTHING being DESIGNED!

Get off the soapbox, it's not reserved for (Mod Edit - personal attack).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T&C's

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 16-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Holy sweet baby jesus! Too bad there isn't a hypocrit award on ATS, youd've won it for this one. Your knocking down this guy and yet claiming ID is a valid science WITH NO EVIDENCE of ANYTHING being DESIGNED!

I'm sorry, when did I claim there was evidence for design? Actually, I've repeatedly pointed out, it's an inference, not a conclusion.


Get off the soapbox, it's not reserved for hypocrits.

Would you care to discuss specifics, or were you just going to rant during recess?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Ah, but I never did say you said there was any evidence for design. You and other IDist's do think IDism (READ: CREATIONISM) is a valid science right upto par with evolutionary theory and should be taught side by side.

This is where the hypocracy steps in my friend. Your knocking down this guy's "inference" through lack of evidence and yet fully believing that your "inference" without evidence is just as valid as something WITH evidence. The idiocy just astounds me when it come's to IDist's. Changing definitions to include the supernatural does not a science make.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Ah, but I never did say you said there was any evidence for design. You and other IDist's do think IDism (READ: CREATIONISM) is a valid science right upto par with evolutionary theory and should be taught side by side.

Really? Hmmm...news to me, especially since I'm on record dozens of times in this forum stating that ID SHOULDN'T be taught in public schools.


This is where the hypocracy steps in my friend. Your knocking down this guy's "inference" through lack of evidence and yet fully believing that your "inference" without evidence is just as valid as something WITH evidence. The idiocy just astounds me when it come's to IDist's. Changing definitions to include the supernatural does not a science make.

No one's changed the definition of anything. You have no idea what my inference is.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Really? Hmmm...news to me, especially since I'm on record dozens of times in this forum stating that ID SHOULDN'T be taught in public schools.

Regardless of what you think about if it should/shouldn't be taught in school, your still knocking down this guy's thought's due to lack of evidence and yet trying to pass of IDism as a legitimiate scientific front that has literally no evidence at all to back it up. Is faulty by nature. Does nothing more then poke at the hole's in what we don't know or have not yet discovered. Your a hypocrit. You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously honestly ashamed.



No one's changed the definition of anything. You have no idea what my inference is.


Really? Seem's strange that the mighty dimwit Behe himself acknowledge's that this other, you know ... non existant definition of science allow's for thing's such as alchemy, astrology, magic and a whole host of other "supernatural" and/or psuedoscience explanation's to be just as valid as TRUE science. Along with ID of course.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Regardless of what you think about if it should/shouldn't be taught in school, your still knocking down this guy's thought's due to lack of evidence and yet trying to pass of IDism as a legitimiate scientific front that has literally no evidence at all to back it up.

Baloney. I simply asked him to stop calling stuff he made up in his head 'evidence.'
Where have I elaborated on the evidence backing up ID?


Is faulty by nature. Does nothing more then poke at the hole's in what we don't know or have not yet discovered.

Completely and patently untrue. Obviously, you're not reading any ID. I don't doubt that you've read the refutations. Refutations are pretty much worthless if you're not familiar with what is being refuted.


Your a hypocrit.

Do you think you could let your spelling teacher have a look at this stuff before you post it? I think you mean to write: "You're a hypocrite."


You should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously honestly ashamed.





Really? Seem's strange that the mighty dimwit Behe himself acknowledge's that this other, you know ... non existant definition of science allow's for thing's such as alchemy, astrology, magic and a whole host of other "supernatural" and/or psuedoscience explanation's to be just as valid as TRUE science. Along with ID of course.

Baloney. You're going to have to back this up with some sort of quote or other ref.

BTW, Newton: Alchemist.
Kary Mullis thinks astrology deserves another chance as a science, and is a big fan of astral projection. You may want to email him... though I doubt you have any idea who Mullis is.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by ApassOK, take the human embryo. Why tissue differentiation takes place in the way it does?

It's due to influence of various hormonal and genetic factors.

Correct, but that's not the answer for my question. This is HOW it's happening, not WHY it is happening like it happens.



Why in its early stages of development, the human embryo has a tail? Why dolphin embryos have fingers?
Surely you're not going to come back with a statement akin to 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.'

No, at least not in the classic sense because that's not correct.


The reason it sticks out in an embryo such as the one you show (what is it about 1 month?) is because the rest of lower body is as of yet undeveloped. So it's part of the developmental process.

Indeed, the lower part of the body si not developed but you can see the buds in my picture (wich is a fetus around 5 weeks).
But that "tail" is in fact a tail. (In french literature is called something like tail appendix - "appendice caudal"). And by the end of the 8th week is gone through apoptosis. (sorry, but for this I have links only in french (go to altavista's babelfish for a translator) because it seems that the english speakers like only the formation of fingers...)

De même, la disparition de l'appendice caudal, chez le f?tus humain, et dû à ce phénomène d'apoptose.
source

(translation: in the same time, the disappearance of the human fetus' tail appendix is caused by apoptotic phenomenon)


Au cours de la 5e semaine l'existence d'une «queue embryonnaire» atténuée est caractéristique.
Cet appendice caudal va régresser entre la 6e et la 8e semaine.
www.embryology.ch...
L'appendice caudal va régresser complètement à la fin de la 8e semaine.
www.embryology.ch...

(translation:
-The existance of an embryonic tail is characteristic for the fifth week . This tail appendix will regress between the sixth and the eighth week.

-The tail appendix will regress completly by the end of the eighth week)

So it seams that for some it is a tail after all. A tail that we don't need but yet we get it during embryo evolution. Why? (in ID terms)


The 'fingers' or I suppose more technically phalanges, are part of the dolphins... flipper - though I am unsure if 'flipper' is technically correct.

From the evolution point of view we (or at least we who believe in evolution) understand why it is happening like that. But if the dolphin needs a fin and not a hand...then why in ID terms the phalanges need to develop first and not in the same time with the fin?


There certainly is some speculation that this homology is due to common descent, and this may very well be, in any case, common descent is perfectly compatible with ID.

Just to understand. How would look like this common descent?





The triggering mechanisms for the plasticity of bone marrow-derived stem cells seemed to be an insufficient pool of stem cells intrinsic to this tissue in concert with an increased demand for the production of new cells and changes in the microenvironment as a result of tissue injury at the site
source

(bold mine)

You are of course aware that 'microenvironment' in this case refers to intraorganismal environment, IOW, inside the organism, and not in response to external stimuli.

Hmmm...yes, but again this is not a complete answer. Intraorganismal enviroment is not internal for the stem cells themselves. For the stem cells themselves microenviroment is external enviroment. It's not the stem cells who trigger the response of the organism to a injury. In fact, the response of the organism triggers stem cells differentiation.




[crocodiles] Sex is also determined by nest temperature - males are produced around 31.6° Celsius. Any deviation from that temperature will result in a female hatchling.

This innovation occurs after the process of tissue differentiation has more or less occured. While it's true that the gonad tissue isn't mature, it has distinctly differentiated itself to gonad tissue.... IOW gonad tissue is differentiated.


That's like saying the tissue differentiates into bones muscles and gonads, forgeting that radius bone is not a phalange (same tissue type but not the same tissue) or that stomach muscles are not cardiac muscles (different tissue type). The gonads are also of 2 types - those who produce male gametes and those who produce female gametes. The undifferentiated gonad tissue of crocodiles differentiates and sets the final sex becasue of the nest temperature.



Take the sponges:

Yep sponges are pretty cool. I do have to admit that much. They are freaks, and posses many anomalies as far as animals are concerned.

In my personal opinion, sponges are not likely to be ancestors of animals, and don't even belong in the same kingdom.

That's convenient to say that. In this way you don't have to deal with them any more. However, even if they are not in the same kingdom as animals, they fit evolution quite well...if you want to make the connections (that evolutionists "dream").


Though your statement about the cells not being able to survive individually isn't entirely true. If it were the sponge wouldn't be able to bud, and many sponges in fact reproduce via oviparous fertilization, necessitating the ability to survive away from the organism

Why it wont be able to bud? And for oviparous fertilization you don't need regular sponge cells. You need sperm and eggs. My link said nothing about the ability to survive for the sperm and the egg. The link said regular sponge cells can not survive alone.

As for the antibiotic resistence, OK, it sounds plausible also in ID terms.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
Correct, but that's not the answer for my question. This is HOW it's happening, not WHY it is happening like it happens.

Science doesn't answer why questions, philosophy does.



No, at least not in the classic sense because that's not correct.




Indeed, the lower part of the body si not developed but you can see the buds in my picture (wich is a fetus around 5 weeks).

Thanks for the clarification.



But that "tail" is in fact a tail. (In french literature is called something like tail appendix - "appendice caudal"). And by the end of the 8th week is gone through apoptosis. (sorry, but for this I have links only in french (go to altavista's babelfish for a translator) because it seems that the english speakers like only the formation of fingers...)


It's okay... you referencing your info, which is all I really care about. I can speak French anyway.
.

In any case, calling something that disappears, and is not present in the adult form a tail, seems like a bit of stretch to me. But it appears we agree that 'ontogeny DOESN'T recapitulate phylogeny' so the fact that something resemble a tail is irrelevant humans don't have tails, (with the rare exception of fatty deposits in this area, no muscle or bone to my knowledge) and dolphins don't have fingers the point is somewhat moot. Don't you agree?


(translation: in the same time, the disappearance of the human fetus' tail appendix is caused by apoptotic phenomenon)

I'm sorry... how does this support the notion that humans have tails?



-The existance of an embryonic tail is characteristic for the fifth week . This tail appendix will regress between the sixth and the eighth week.... -The tail appendix will regress completly by the end of the eighth week)

Exactly. Humans don't have a tail. It disappears. WHY it develops this way... can't say for sure, could be common descent, but honestly... I don't know.


So it seams that for some it is a tail after all. A tail that we don't need but yet we get it during embryo evolution. Why? (in ID terms)

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. But as to why... common descent maybe? Not sure.



From the evolution point of view we (or at least we who believe in evolution) understand why it is happening like that. But if the dolphin needs a fin and not a hand...then why in ID terms the phalanges need to develop first and not in the same time with the fin?

ID is perfectly comfortable with common descent of all mammals. I don't disbelieve in evolution. Hell... this year alone I identified two new species of plant pathogen. I know... or at least I think I know that they weren't specially created this year. They are variations on a common peronospora theme, that is they 'evolved' from other pathogens. ID has no problem with this.


Just to understand. How would look like this common descent?

Hmmm... sorry are you asking how would this look like common descent (not picking on you... I know english isn't your 1st language... or at least I'm assuming this). I don't really understand the question. It looks like common descent to the IDist for the same reasons it looks like common descent to the evolutionist. Does this answer your question?


Hmmm...yes, but again this is not a complete answer. Intraorganismal enviroment is not internal for the stem cells themselves. For the stem cells themselves microenviroment is external enviroment. It's not the stem cells who trigger the response of the organism to a injury. In fact, the response of the organism triggers stem cells differentiation.

Your right, in a technical sense, but the closed microenvironment, is just that closed. The human, and in fact most if not all mammals maintain a significant amount of homeostasis in their internal microenvironment. IOW, the internal microenvironment exhibits little change with respect to ambient conditions. The differentiation of mammalian cells is largely controlled by hormonal and genetic factors. It has to be due the stasis maintained inside vertebrate mammals.



That's like saying the tissue differentiates into bones muscles and gonads, forgeting that radius bone is not a phalange (same tissue type but not the same tissue) or that stomach muscles are not cardiac muscles (different tissue type). The gonads are also of 2 types - those who produce male gametes and those who produce female gametes. The undifferentiated gonad tissue of crocodiles differentiates and sets the final sex becasue of the nest temperature.

Yep... I agree with you... diffentiated bone tissue is bone tissue irrespective of whether it ends up in your jaw or your foot. They're the same tissue type, but not the same tissue. Gonad is a 'tissue type,' that is it's differentiated. It's not pluripotent. It's destined to become gonads, male or female, but it has no 'choice' other than that. IOW, gonad tissue is differentiated, even if it's not assigned a particular sex.


That's convenient to say that. In this way you don't have to deal with them any more. However, even if they are not in the same kingdom as animals, they fit evolution quite well...if you want to make the connections (that evolutionists "dream").

It may be convenient, but it happens to be my opinion. We can talk about sponges all you want. I didn't say drop the subject. I pointed out some specific reasons why, I and some other biologists don't believe sponges are animals.

We certainly don't have to stop talking about them though. Like I said... they're pretty frickin' cool organisms.


Why it wont be able to bud? And for oviparous fertilization you don't need regular sponge cells. You need sperm and eggs. My link said nothing about the ability to survive for the sperm and the egg. The link said regular sponge cells can not survive alone.

But this isn't true. Budding isn't oviparous fertilization, it's budding. Asexual reproduction of sponges occurs via budding; a small piece of sponge, not chanocytes, not oocytes, regular sponge cells fall off of the main sponge and grow into a new one. IOW, individual sponge cells can survive away from the parent sponge.


As for the antibiotic resistence, OK, it sounds plausible also in ID terms.

Thanks for your honesty, and civil post... looking forward to more discussion with you



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
We are not alone....?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: madnessinmysoul

Trans Panspermia . Never been Proven , but has people who Believe it .



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join