It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Just like in a person's arms, in a frog's front legs are bones called the humerus, the radius and the ulna. However, a frog's radius and ulna are fused into one bone. The same is true for a frog's legs -- the femur supports its upper leg, and the bones of the lower leg, the tibia and fibula, are fused. A frog has two scapulae, or shoulder blades, and clavicles, or collarbones, that are shaped a lot like the same bones in a person's body.
A collection of small bones makes up a frog's digits, or its fingers and toes. Most of the time, a frog has five toes on its back legs and four toes on its front legs.
Originally posted by The Mack
reply to post by platosallegory
Yes i think this is the common misconception of intelligent design. People who do not agree with it just say it's religion trying to be science. intelligent design is really just a theory that these changes observed in a species may be the product of intelligence rather than chance. Now if the intelligent design is done by the spirit, god or the subconscience is up for debate. Both ID and evolution have their flaws and can't be explained at this point.
intelligent design would say the thumb was developed out of need for a thumb while evolution would say a thumb appeared.
Originally posted by on_yur_6
Seriously? It's just a monkey. Amazing how life was created by accident in some primordial soup. And everything evolved from an accidental single cell life form. For some reason, we can't recreate life in the most sophisticated science labs the world has ever seen.
Unless someone invents a time machine we will never answer this question. Creation and Evolution both require a lot of faith.
Natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).
It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).
"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).
Originally posted by The Mack
I do not think evolution is 100% wrong it just does not explain and does not make as much sense to me as ID. Evolution is true in the respect of a species changing over time as pointed out in one the links provided. But evolution does not explain complex structures like the eyes,brian and liver. Evolution can not explain morality in humans. It is a self-fulfilling theory, an evolutionist can put things into the "order which they evolved" then put them as seperate species with a common ancestor when new evidence comes to light. Just as christian IDers can put everything into the category of things god created.