Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Clete]

Then why did you just say that I should answer your question? You're not making much sense.

It isn't making sense to you because you aren't used to someone actually asking a question that they expected anyone to answer. Your answers to my questions is the whole point. They will make my argument for me, when I get to the punch line.

As far as I can see, the subject of the evolution of bones hadn't been addressed before in this thread.

No, it hasn't, not specifically but its just another detail in the same explanations that have been offered up to this point, which basically is the "fins to legs" idea.

No one seems to have a clue where other legs came from. There's been a mention of some sort of crabs that were the origin of spider legs but crabs already have legs so that doesn't really work and no mention whatsoever (that I'm aware of) of the origin of insect legs or millipede legs, etc.

So far, what we have predominantly is "fins to legs", which, incidentally, doesn't really do any better than that crab legs to spider legs idea because fins are really just water born legs. No one has a clue at all about where fins (i.e. figs legs) came from.

Still, the point of my asking was to find out what evolutionists say about where legs came from. I feel like I'm getting a pretty good representation of what and how they think on the issue.

I don't blame you. If I were you, I'd avoid it too.

I don't avoid it. Not in the transparently insulting/passively hostile manner your comment suggests. I just don't enjoy debating stupidity and mass delusion.


The moon is made of cheese.


See? Anyone can go online and make ridiculous empty assertions.[/quote]
Nice try but you'll not succeed in bating me to offer arguments to support my assertion. The religious status of evolutionary "theory" is as self-evident as the color of the sky to anyone who cares to look. That's plenty good enough for me.

Try and pay closer attention Clete. Your most recent question was about the evolution of bones and that's what I responded to.

Look, I'm trying to be a polite and cordial as I can be here. If you don't want to participate then leave but if you can't keep from being personally insulting, I'll simply put you on ignore and go on without you anyway.

I'm fully aware of what I asked and I said when I asked it that I had no intention of getting too far into the weeds on the issue. If I didn't respond in a manner you thought was adequate and my subsequent explanation wasn't good enough then get over it and leave. See if I lose a wink of sleep over it.

Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

Your answers to my questions is the whole point. They will make my argument for me, when I get to the punch line.

So it's as I said...you're not asking your questions in good faith.

No, it hasn't, not specifically but its just another detail in the same explanations that have been offered up to this point, which basically is the "fins to legs" idea.

No one seems to have a clue where other legs came from. There's been a mention of some sort of crabs that were the origin of spider legs but crabs already have legs so that doesn't really work and no mention whatsoever (that I'm aware of) of the origin of insect legs or millipede legs, etc.

So far, what we have predominantly is "fins to legs", which, incidentally, doesn't really do any better than that crab legs to spider legs idea because fins are really just water born legs. No one has a clue at all about where fins (i.e. figs legs) came from.

Still, the point of my asking was to find out what evolutionists say about where legs came from. I feel like I'm getting a pretty good representation of what and how they think on the issue.

So do you think the responses you get to your questions here at ToL are representative of the entirety of scientific knowledge on the subject?

I don't avoid it.

Yeah you do. That much is obvious.

Nice try but you'll not succeed in bating me to offer arguments to support my assertion.

Again, I don't blame you. It's far easier and safer to make empty assertions and refuse to substantiate any of them, than it is to actually make an effort to support them. Religious forums and message boards are full of failed attempts to get creationists to back up their rhetoric.

The religious status of evolutionary "theory" is as self-evident as the color of the sky to anyone who cares to look. That's plenty good enough for me.

Exhibit A

I'm fully aware of what I asked and I said when I asked it that I had no intention of getting too far into the weeds on the issue.

Of course you don't. "The weeds" is where the actual science is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Crab legs didn't give rise to spider legs. Crabs aren't chelicerates, and are only distantly related to spiders.

And legs had evolved in primitive arthropods long before chelicerates. In fact, legs evolved before arthropods.

The early Cambrian onychophoran worm Aysheaia lacked true arthropod legs, but had lobopods. These small protrusions made of muscle surrounded by a hollow core allowed a certain amount of movement.

Kerygmachela kierkegaardi was intermediate between onychophorans and arthropods.

So there's a very good likelihood that lobopods gave rise to true legs.

 

[6days]

Crab legs didn't give rise to spider legs.

Correct!
Genesis 1 "Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good..... And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day."

 

[Jonahdog]

Correct!
Genesis 1 "Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good..... And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day."

Nope, didn't happen that way at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Crab legs didn't give rise to spider legs. Crabs aren't chelicerates, and are only distantly related to spiders.

And legs had evolved in primitive arthropods long before chelicerates. In fact, legs evolved before arthropods.

Correct!

Thank you.

 

[Clete]

Crab legs didn't give rise to spider legs. Crabs aren't chelicerates, and are only distantly related to spiders.

And legs had evolved in primitive arthropods long before chelicerates. In fact, legs evolved before arthropods.

The early Cambrian onychophoran worm Aysheaia lacked true arthropod legs, but had lobopods. These small protrusions made of muscle surrounded by a hollow core allowed a certain amount of movement.

Kerygmachela kierkegaardi was intermediate between onychophorans and arthropods.

So there's a very good likelihood that lobopods gave rise to true legs.

English please.

You told me earlier and showed some sort of image that at least gave the impression that spiders came from crabs or at the very least had a "common ancestor".

It doesn't matter.

Lobopods gave rise to true legs in what? Spiders, crabs, insects, all three?

What is the evolutionist's idea of just how this happened?


(SHHH!! Don't tell Jose that I posted this! It might hurt his feelings if he finds out that I don't actually avoid such things.)

Clete

 

[6days]

Barbarian observes:
Crab legs didn't give rise to spider legs. Crabs aren't chelicerates, and are only distantly related to spiders.

And legs had evolved in primitive arthropods long before chelicerates. In fact, legs evolved before arthropods.




Thank you.

Genesis 1 "Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good..... And evening passed and morning came marking the 6th day.

 

[Jose Fly]

(SHHH!! Don't tell Jose that I posted this! It might hurt his feelings if he finds out that I don't actually avoid such things.)

Oh that's ok. I'm sure it won't be long before your "eyes glaze over", or whatever other excuse you manufacture to avoid having to actually address the data.

 

[Clete]

Oh that's ok. I'm sure it won't be long before your "eyes glaze over", or whatever other excuse you manufacture to avoid having to actually address the data.

I've have explained over and over again from the very beginning that I have no intention of "addressing the data" as you put it. That isn't why I'm asking the questions and I do not care if you like it or not!
You really need to get over it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've have explained over and over again from the very beginning that I have no intention of "addressing the data" as you put it. That isn't why I'm asking the questions and I do not care if you like it or not!
You really need to get over it.

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to "get over", since I never expected you to address the data in the first place, and you've since done nothing but confirm that expectation.

I generally go into these sorts of interactions with very low expectations for those on your side of the debate, and I'm rarely surprised.

 

[Silent Hunter]

And I don't intend to try to pick apart whatever explanation is offered. It isn't about that. I'm simply curious to know what evolution has to say about legs and why they exist and how they got here. Feel free to just offer whatever it is you understand to be what evolutionary theory has to say on the topic.

I'm going to be blunt and call this statement exactly what it is... a lie.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

I've have explained over and over again from the very beginning that I have no intention of "addressing the data" as you put it. That isn't why I'm asking the questions and I do not care if you like it or not!
You really need to get over it.

Clete don't need no stinkin' data. Facts will just confuse him.

 

[Clete]

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to "get over", since I never expected you to address the data in the first place, and you've since done nothing but confirm that expectation.

Then where's all the hostility coming from? I said I wasn't going to, you expected that I wouldn't, I haven't and I won't. Where's the problem?

I generally go into these sorts of interactions with very low expectations for those on your side of the debate, and I'm rarely surprised.

Low expectations? I've been 100% consistent and entirely honest in this thread. You seem to think you can shame me into debating something I have no interest in debating but it won't work. I'm not ashamed of anything nor do I have anything to be ashamed about. There are plenty of other people here who are more than happy to debate evolution and they do a fine job of it. They don't need my help and even if they did, I wouldn't want to engage in a debate where evolution is conceded to be legitimate science, which is the only premise underwhich most evolutionists are willing to debate. And even if they were willing to engage on that basis, it wouldn't fit with the intended purpose of this thread. In this thread, my intent from the beginning has been to enlist the unencumbered opinions and thoughts of evolutionists themselves and to allow those very statements to stand or fall under their own weight when confronted with the demonstrably true facts of reality, which have been discovered using real, actually provable science.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I'm going to be blunt and call this statement exactly what it is... a lie.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I see your presence on my ignore list is still well deserved.

 

[The Barbarian]

English please.

Sorry. Chelicerates are spiders and their kin. Crustaceans are crabs and their kin. Neither evolved from the other, but both being arthropods (animals with jointed legs and exoskeletons), they did have a common ancestor.

You told me earlier and showed some sort of image that at least gave the impression that spiders came from crabs or at the very least had a "common ancestor".

Yep. Common ancestor.

It doesn't matter.

To a biologist, it does.

Lobopods gave rise to true legs in what?

Early arthropods, prior to the evolution of more evolved members of the phylum. Probably from polychaete worms, which have lobopods (parapodia.) Polychaete worms are annelids, the same phylum as "night crawlers", the worms you find on the ground after a heavy rain. They also have very rudimentary parapodia, with setae (hairs).

Most interesting is that primitive (and some modern) arthropods had "biramous" legs, with two appendages each. Usually, one was a walking leg, and the other a gill.

Annelid parapodia:

So other than not having an exoskeleton, polychaete worms look a lot like a primitive arthropod.

What is the evolutionist's idea of just how this happened?

The key seems to be the evolution of complete exoskeletons. There were partially-covered organisms in the Precambrian, but the "Cambrian Explosion" seems to have been precisely at the point where organisms had completely covered bodies.

From that, there was a huge radiation of new forms, and lots of new ways to make a living.

(SHHH!! Don't tell Jose that I posted this! It might hurt his feelings if he finds out that I don't actually avoid such things.)

:shocked:

 

[The Barbarian]

The study on centipedes and onychophorans [8] is particularly interesting, for two reasons. First, because the trunk of centipedes and onychophorans consists of a long series of identical segments, with little or no specialization of individual segments. Yet this lack of segmental specialization is not at all reflected in the complexity of their Hox genes — all of the genes that specify the segmental diversity of the Drosophila trunk (thorax and abdomen) find clear homologues in these species (Figure 1). The second reason relates to their controversial phylogenetic positions. Centipedes and related myriapods have conventionally been thought of as being the closest living relatives of insects — although recent work has cast some doubts on this relationship — and are usually allied with both crustaceans and insects into a common clade called the mandibulates. Onychophorans, on the other hand, are thought to represent the closest living relatives of the arthropods as a whole. The study of Hox genes in these creatures is therefore particularly relevant if we are interested in finding out what types of Hox gene existed at the base of the mandibulate and arthropod trees, respectively...The overwhelming conclusion that one draws from these studies is that the number and types of Hox gene present in different arthropods do not parallel the diversity of segment types observed in their bodies — almost identical sets of Hox genes are found in arthropods with segmental patterns that vary greatly in complexity (Figure 1). These results also imply that all of the gene duplications that gave rise to these basic types of Hox gene must have occurred some time before the divergence of the different arthropod subgroups — and so before the earliest known Cambrian radiation. Surveys for Hox genes in annelids [9–11] and leeches [12] suggest that some of these duplications occurred even before the divergence of the arthropod and annelid lineages, deep within the phylogeny of protostome animals.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982206003216
(NOTE: Animals are divided into Protostomes and Deuterostomes, depending on which side of the embryo, the mouth develops)

 

[Silent Hunter]

And I don't intend to try to pick apart whatever explanation is offered. It isn't about that. I'm simply curious to know what evolution has to say about legs and why they exist and how they got here. Feel free to just offer whatever it is you understand to be what evolutionary theory has to say on the topic.

I'm going to be blunt and call this statement exactly what it is... a lie.

I see your presence on my ignore list is still well deserved.

In this thread, my intent from the beginning has been to enlist the unencumbered opinions and thoughts of evolutionists themselves and to allow those very statements to stand or fall under their own weight when confronted with the demonstrably true facts of reality, which have been discovered using real, actually provable science.

I see your reputation as a LIAR is still well deserved.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see your reputation as a LIAR is still well deserved.

I'm not buying it. There are amoral, lying creationists to point at. Clete isn't one of them.

I believe he firmly believes what he's saying. He's wrong about some things, but he's no liar.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

How did legs evolve?

Step by step?