Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's another name for "subspecies." Note that some scientists think that Neandertals are a different species. It's debatable, but the clincher for me is that they and anatomically modern humans could interbreed.

So your "species" cannot interbreed?

Species don't normally interbreed, but some can. As Darwin pointed out, this if species evolve, then the definition of "species" would be difficult, because there would be quarter-species, half-species, and so on. Which is exactly what we see. Hence some think Neandertals are a separate species. I don't think so, because they did interbreed with our particular race. This is another problem for creationists,but it makes perfect sense in evolution.

You're a hoot with your "terminology".

If you don't use words as people use them, you're going to always have trouble communicating.

How so?

Private definitions never work.

Did you just completely ignore this one?
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Neandertals had men and women just like us. I thought you knew.

 

[Right Divider]

Did you just completely ignore this one?
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Neandertals had men and women just like us. I thought you knew.

From the BEGINNING of creation.... not some later "evolved" version.

You and your evolutionist pals love equivocation. It's your favorite tool for deception.

 

[Clete]

Well, it actually has and as regards your comments about bias or being entrenched in a position one way or the other then to be fair, and by your own standards, it had to. Your words:

"The secret is to have dug your trench honestly and to have provided a means for escape from the hole you've dug if error is detected. There is one and only one single way to accomplish that. Sound reason! Unfortunately for you, logic is intellectual ground that atheists haven't earned and cannot use without borrowing from the Christian worldview. That alone disproves evolution but I almost never make or use that argument because it implies that I really ought not even be having the conversation in the first place because to do so implies your right to use the logic that rightly only belongs to my side of the argument.".

Look, I'm going to explain this one more time.

No, actually, I'm not. I get so tired of repeating myself I could puke. Suffice it to say that if your objection was valid, reason wouldn't work at all. If that's what you believe then there is no point in having a conversation with you.


Clete

 

[Arthur Brain]

Science doesn't imagine fish growing legs. Evolutionists do that.

Um, no they don't.

You are correct in that science cares nothing about peoples beliefs about the past. You and I have different beliefs... We both have our own biases. Just because someone puts on a white lab coat, they don't magically become a blank slate. Evidence is interpreted through a persons world view / biases / training/ etc.

Um, no again. That's not how science works and that, once again, is why there's such things as peer review so that any theory put forward has to pass stringent and continual testing. Anyone trying to wing their way through science or put forward theories through a bias filter ain't gonna get very far as the evidence will out.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Look, I'm going to explain this one more time.

No, actually, I'm not. I get so tired of repeating myself I could puke. Suffice it to say that if your objection was valid, reason wouldn't work at all. If that's what you believe then there is no point in having a conversation with you.


Clete

Clete, if the quoted part in my previous is indeed what you believe then it beggars belief why you would even start this thread as you couldn't possibly have been open to anything in support of evolution no matter who presented the data and what it consisted of. Your own parameters and biases declare evolution to be impossible from the get go. At this rate there probably isn't much point in continuing the conversation.

 

[Clete]

Clete, if the quoted part in my previous is indeed what you believe then it beggars belief why you would even start this thread as you couldn't possibly have been open to anything in support of evolution no matter who presented the data and what it consisted of. Your own parameters and biases declare evolution to be impossible from the get go. At this rate there probably isn't much point in continuing the conversation.

All of this has been said and responded too. I explained why I started the thread and that I feel like it's worked out pretty well.

Anyone convincing me of anything wasn't the point, nor do I ever have any expectation that anyone will ever be convinced by anything anyone says on this website, including, it seems, when the person who started the thread explains precisely what his motives where to someone who is, for some stupid reason, convinced that he's hopelessly conflicted. :bang:

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that Neandertals are human, a subspecies of our own)

RD ask:
Did you just completely ignore this one?
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Barbarian observes:
Neandertals had men and women just like us. I thought you knew.

From the BEGINNING of creation.... not some later "evolved" version.

Let's take a look...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.[2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Hmmm... no, you're wrong about that, too. God makes it clear what's there at the beginning, and there was neither male nor female. Jesus was talking about the beginning of the creation of mankind. And as you now see, Neandertals were humans as much as we are.

You love equivocation. It's your favorite tool for deception.

 

[Right Divider]

(Barbarian notes that Neandertals are human, a subspecies of our own)

RD ask:
Did you just completely ignore this one?
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Barbarian observes:
Neandertals had men and women just like us. I thought you knew.

Let's take a look...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.[2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Hmmm... no, you're wrong about that, too. God makes it clear what's there at the beginning, and there was neither male nor female. Jesus was talking about the beginning of the creation of mankind. And as you now see, Neandertals were humans as much as we are.

You love equivocation. It's your favorite tool for deception.

Jesus did NOT say at the beginning of the creation OF MANKIND.... You just have to ADD that to make your fairy tale come true.

BTW, what about LEGS? How did the knee "evolve" into a KNEE?

 

[SUTG]

BTW, what about LEGS? How did the knee "evolve" into a KNEE?

The knee of which animal(s)?

 

[Right Divider]

The knee of which animal(s)?

All of them.

 

[SUTG]

All of them.

Well, animals is a pretty broad category, and there are lots of different animals with different types and numbers of knees. So if you really want an answer to such a broad and unspecific question you've probably got better options than asking on an Internet forum.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, animals is a pretty broad category, and there are lots of different animals with different types and numbers of knees.

Describe some.

So if you really want an answer to such a broad and unspecific question you've probably got better options than asking on an Internet forum.

Did you even bother to read the OP?

 

[Jose Fly]

Clete, if the quoted part in my previous is indeed what you believe then it beggars belief why you would even start this thread as you couldn't possibly have been open to anything in support of evolution no matter who presented the data and what it consisted of. Your own parameters and biases declare evolution to be impossible from the get go. At this rate there probably isn't much point in continuing the conversation.

There are several internet forums that at least in part address the evolution vs. creationism issue, and in all of them creationists exhibit this specific behavior.

Creationist: Oh yeah? Where's the evidence? SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!

Science advocate: Here's a description of some of the evidence.

Creationist: My eyes glazed over. I stopped reading after the first sentence. None of it matters anyways. Evidence doesn't matter. All that matters is God's Word.​

I mean, the mere fact that they pose science-oriented questions in religious forums provides a pretty good indication that their questions don't stem from a good-faith interest in the actual science.

It's nothing more than an attempt to "stump the evolutionist". Thus, when an answer is posted, they just ignore it and move on to the next "Oh yeah, what about this" thing.

 

[SUTG]

Describe some.

Well, there's crabs. They usually spend alot of time in or near water and have eight legs. Most of which have kneees, I think. Speaking of water, there's also shrimp, lobsters, and crayfish with their funny knees.

Some birds have really funny knees. Have you ever seen flamingo knees? They're usually hidden under their feathers.

The there are mammals. Some of them have four legs and, along with them, four knees. Although bipedal animals, like humans, only have two knees.

Lots of different types of knees!

 

[Right Divider]

Well, there's crabs. They usually spend alot of time in or near water and have eight legs. Most of which have kneees, I think. Speaking of water, there's also shrimp, lobsters, and crayfish with their funny knees.

Some birds have really funny knees. Have you ever seen flamingo knees? They're usually hidden under their feathers.

The there are mammals. Some of them have four legs and, along with them, four knees. Although bipedal animals, like humans, only have two knees.

Lots of different types of knees!

The question was not "do animals have knees".

Go read the OP and get with the topic of the thread.

 

[musterion]

There are several internet forums that at least in part address the evolution vs. creationism issue, and in all of them creationists exhibit this specific behavior.

Creationist: Oh yeah? Where's the evidence? SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!

Science advocate: Here's a description of some of the evidence.

Creationist: My eyes glazed over. I stopped reading after the first sentence. None of it matters anyways. Evidence doesn't matter. All that matters is God's Word.​

I mean, the mere fact that they pose science-oriented questions in religious forums provides a pretty good indication that their questions don't stem from a good-faith interest in the actual science.

It's nothing more than an attempt to "stump the evolutionist". Thus, when an answer is posted, they just ignore it and move on to the next "Oh yeah, what about this" thing.

Get your facts straight. You know nothing.

 

[SUTG]

The question was not "do animals have knees".

Go read the OP and get with the topic of the thread.

Great. You can start your research by looking at a copy of the tree of life. Look at all of the various knees! Pick the one you're most interested in, and work backwards. Look at the other animals with which it shared the most recent common ancestors for hints. Knees have been around forever it seems.

 

[Right Divider]

Great. You can start your research by looking at a copy of the tree of life. Look at all of the various knees! Pick the one you're most interested in, and work backwards. Look at the other animals with which it shared the most recent common ancestors for hints. Knees have been around forever it seems.

Yep. Since God created them in the beginning.

You still have not read the OP.

 

[Jose Fly]

Get your facts straight. You know nothing.

A few weeks ago I was at a workshop with a bunch of my colleagues, and after one of them finished up a presentation on the current state of the science, another researcher stood up and said "Get your facts straight. You know nothing."

The room erupted into thunderous applause as we were all blown away by the brilliance and insight of that comment. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus did NOT say at the beginning of the creation OF MANKIND.... You just have to ADD that to make your fairy tale come true.

Let me show you again. Here's what He says was there at the beginning of creation...


Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.[2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.


Neither male nor female was there. You just equivocated His comments on the creation of mankind to make it seem like it meant the beginning of all creation.

(and a quick shift of goal posts)

BTW, what about LEGS? How did the knee "evolve" into a KNEE?

Turns out, we have lots of transitional forms showing how it happened...

If you'd like some genetic and anatomical detail on the process, let me know, and we'll start a thread on that.