Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

So molecular legs came from fins from a water organism? Um, don't you need the molecular legs in order for the organism to even live and its cells to even function BEFORE it can even reproduce?

Sorry, you're putting the cart (fins) before the horse (molecular legs) here.

Please define what you mean by molecular legs

 

[JudgeRightly]

Please define what you mean by molecular legs

See the video in this post.

Okay, so over the last several months we've been presented basically two ideas about where legs came from...

1. Legs came from fins.
2. Pretty much everything else with legs has an exoskeleton and so had a common ancestor who probably got it's legs from some sort of worm.

I know that's way over simplifying things. I'm not attempting to insult anyone I'm just trying to be brief. If anyone wants more detail, I encourage you to read The Barbarian's posts on this thread.

I'm going to go ahead and say that there probably isn't much else out there on the issue of leg evolution. There maybe something but I suspect that if there is it's quite obscure and won't have any impact on the point of my having asked the question.

I am somewhat surprised, I have to say, by the near total lack of robustness in evolutionary thinking on this issue. I'm no scientist and I'm clearly not an evolutionist but I would have expected way better answers than these. I would have thought that with as widespread as legs are, there would have been more study put into where they came from by evolutionary biologists. It's striking how the relative lack of an explanation is perhaps as strong an argument against evolutionary theory as is what I'm about to present (again).

The following video flatly disproves evolution. It does falsify it. I'm not interested if you disagree, you don't get to disagree without proving yourself either blind or stupid. And I'm not kidding and I'm not over stating it. If the information presented in this video is true, Darwin was wrong - period. And yes, that goes for the scientist who presents the video. He obviously falls into the blind category rather than the stupid one. And that's assuming that he's actually an evolutionist. It wouldn't surprise me if he just gives Darwin some lip service to maintain his professional reputation and keep his funding coming in.

Note, while watching the video, that I chose legs to focus on in this thread but could have just as easily chosen any one of a dozen other details to focus on that the evolutionist would have had no better time at explaining that they did legs. More importantly, note that after months of asking, not one single answer gives any idea whatsoever how the legs discussed in this video could possibly have evolved. Not even the enigmatic "step by step" answer works for these legs because they either work as currently designed or the entire organism dies. There where no molecular fish with fins for these legs to evolve from. There is no evidence of some common ancestor from which the various forms of these molecular machines evolved from. There is no one with any ideas whatsoever that can explain, even on a conceptual level, how such legs could have evolved in small incremental successive steps. The legs, the feet, the fact that they walk, the molecular road they walk down, the leg's length which is sufficient to step over obstacles, the attachment for cargo, etc, etc, etc has to all be present or the whole process fails and the organism dies.

And that's not to mention the mechanisms in place that let it know that it's time to do all these things or that the cell somehow knows that it needs done at all. There are literally dozens of things in this single short video that falsify evolution and it only covers two of hundred and hundreds of functions that go on inside every living cell, all of which are equally wild in their complexity.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe floated this idea as an alternative to the molecular clock:
In other words, these scientists noticed that the equidistance result could be interpreted to mean a universal molecular clock that all mammalian species, or all species for that matter, have approximately the same substitution rate for any given protein. However, another person could have noticed the alternative that the equidistance is a result of lower complexity species having more tolerable sequence variations. This alternative is the maximum genetic diversity (MGD) hypothesis.

So we're going to test that notion. Since he mentioned cytochrome c as a useful molecule for this analysis, we'll use that.

Sequence 1:
G F S A G D S K K G A N L F K T R C A E C H G E G G N L T Q K I G P A L H G L F G R K T G S V D G Y A Y T D A K Q K G I T W D E N T L F E Y L E N P K K Y I P G T K M A F G G L K K D K D R N D I I T F M K E A T A

Sequence 2:
G D V E K G K K I F V Q K C A Q C H T V E K G G K H K T G P N L H G L F G R K T G Q A V G F S Y T D A N K N K G I T W G E D T L M E Y L E N P K K Y I P G T K M I F A G I K K K D E R A D L I A Y L K K A T N E

Since Stipe has hypothesized "complexity" as a way to explain the variations in cytochrome c, he will then easily calculate which of these has higher "complexity", and will demonstrate which organism is higher in complexity thereby.

You're on, Stipe. Show us what you have.

(Prediction: Stipe has no idea what "complexity" means in a biological system, and has no idea how to calculate it. He will therefore dodge the question, likely with generic insults)

 

[Greg Jennings]

See the video in this post.

Utterly fascinating video. Thank you

But what's the problem? Are you saying that bc the "legs" on the animated molecules exist that real legs didn't evolve? I'm confused

 

[JudgeRightly]

Utterly fascinating video. Thank you

But what's the problem? Are you saying that bc the "legs" on the animated molecules exist that real legs didn't evolve? I'm confused

Really?

Here's the gist...

I asked for any evolutionist who cared to so to explain how evolutionists say that legs evolved.

They answered and I asked follow up questions to draw out as much detail as possible on as many different kinds of legs that any of them could think of.

I got basically two answers.

1. Legs from fins.
2. Spiders and crabs from some common ancestor.

Number two doesn't really qualify as an answer but I wasn't trying to pick nits, I just wanted whatever the evolutionists felt were valid and so whatever they came up with was fine with me.

I then probed for more and got basically nothing so I then presented a YouTube video that illustrated just what is happening inside every living cell in existence 24/7/365, toward the end of which is shown a motor protein walking one two legs that not only had feet and ankle joints but were of sufficient length to "step over obstacles".

The lengthy conversations about the evolution of legs that had gone one prior to my presenting the video didn't come within a light year of explaining how the motor protein's legs could possibly have evolved. There is no "fins to legs" equivalent that is even conceptually possible and nothing else that was said touched it either nor has there been anything offered since the presentation of that video that even attempts to postulate a theoretical idea of how such molecular legs might possibly have evolved, not to mention the fact that if those motor proteins don't exist or can't do their job for whatever reason, the whole organism dies.

So, the point is that undisputed discoveries made by the hard sciences refute, without remedy, the atheist's creation myth known as evolution.

Clete

 

[Greg Jennings]

And?

How does leg-looking molecule animations factor into evolution of species ??

What could possibly be given to you to sway your opinion, if anything?

 

[The Barbarian]

I asked for any evolutionist who cared to so to explain how evolutionists say that legs evolved.

They answered and I asked follow up questions to draw out as much detail as possible on as many different kinds of legs that any of them could think of.

I got basically two answers.

1. Legs from fins.
2. Spiders and crabs from some common ancestor.

Actually, it was "legs from lobopods." All arthropods do have a common ancestor (we can go over the evidence for this, again, if you like).

Number two doesn't really qualify as an answer

"Legs from lobopods" does have considerable evidence to support it. We can go over the anatomical and genetic data, if you want to see more detail.

As you saw, there is a very large body of evidence from varied sources, supporting the evolution of legs in fish before land vertebrates even existed.

As far as the video is concerned, the "legs" aren't necessary in prokaryotes, although there are precursors to eukaryotic motor proteins in prokaryotes. However, this goes back to the origin of life, which is not part of evolutionary theory. If you want to assert that God created the first living cells with the potential to eventually develop into legs in vertebrates and arthropods that would be consistent with Christian belief and with science. Here's some other dyneins and kenesins, showing various levels of development:

Evolution of Kinesins

From our analysis we have reached similar conclusions to those in Wickstead. et al. There are organisms like Crithidia, Eimeria, Leishmania, Neospora, Trypanosoma or Naegleria that possess kinesins from 10 different families (Fig. 2). This would support the idea that the LECA was fully equipped with a complete set of kinesins for different cellular functions. However there are some other organisms like Babesia (Kinesin-8 and 13), Enterocytozoon (Kinesin-8 and 14) and Theileria (Kinesin-8 and 13) that have just two kinesins in their genomes (also previously reported by (Wickstead and Gull, 2006)). Plasmodium has just three kinesins (Kinesin-5, 8 and 13). And there are several other organisms with just three or four kinesins (Fig. 2). Importantly, in all the cases of organisms with just two, three or four kinesins, all of them possess representatives from kinesin families implicated in controlling MT dynamics, i.e. Kinesin-4, 7, 8, 13 and 14. So it is possible that the earliest eukaryotic cells (not the LECA) were equipped principally with a set of kinesins in charge of controlling MT dynamics and that kinesins specific for transport functions did not appear until later in evolution through gene duplication and specialization.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433793/

Transport kinesins turn out to be more recent than other kinesins. Which makes sense.

So, the point is that undisputed discoveries made by the hard sciences refute, without remedy, the atheist's creation myth known as evolution.

Don't see how. For two reasons:
1. Evolution is directly observed to happen and nothing in your video says that it doesn't.

2. Darwin attributed the creation of life to God, so evolution, at least in the form from Darwin on, is the product of a theist.

 

[6days]

Actually, it was "legs from lobopods." All arthropods do have a common ancestor (we can go over the evidence for this, again, if you like).

Best Evidence ...We can go over it again if you like.

Gen. 1: God made the wild animals; according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.... And God saw that it was good. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day.

1. Evolution is directly observed to happen

We observe increasing genetic load which leads to genetic disorders...diseases... and in some cases extinction.

2. Darwin attributed the creation of life to God, so evolution, at least in the form from Darwin on, is the product of a theist.

The Bible shows Darwin was wrong about God, and had a poor grasp of theology. Science shows Darwin was wrong about selection... geology and more. And of course genetics has proved Darwin wrong about Pangenesis and more. And yet.... evolutionists worship him... and worship creation / nature instead of worshipping the Creator.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And?

How does leg-looking molecule animations factor into evolution of species ??

That's kind of what I'm (and what Clete is) asking you.

What could possibly be given to you to sway your opinion, if anything?

How do molecular legs evolve?

Do you have any sort of idea how something like them could evolve? Because I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't through the evolution of fins to legs or lobopods to legs...

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, it was "legs from lobopods." All arthropods do have a common ancestor (we can go over the evidence for this, again, if you like).

Best Evidence ...We can go over it again if you like.

Gen. 1: God made the wild animals;

We know you'll admit that much. But you get upset with Him because of the way He did it.

We observe increasing genetic load which leads to genetic disorders...diseases...

And yet human intelligence and performance is higher now than even a few decades ago. Sounds as though you've had another head-on collision with reality.

and in some cases extinction.

Extinction has been the fate that happens to all species. Maybe 10 million years or so.

The Bible shows Darwin was wrong about God,

Darwin said God created living things. You must have a very odd Bible.

and had a poor grasp of theology

Darwin records that his Anglican orthodoxy was a subject of humor among the other officers on the Beagle. So you were misled about that, too.

Science shows Darwin was wrong about selection...

Let's test your belief. Which of Darwin's five points about selection have been shown to be wrong? It's very likely that you don't even know what he wrote about selection.

geology

His discovery of the way Pacific atolls form would have been sufficient to make his reputation as a geologist. You're wrong about that, too.

and more

His work on cirripedes, establishing them as crustaceans, remains the classic work on that group. You're wrong one more time.

And of course genetics has proved Darwin wrong about Pangenesis and more.

Yes, he had that wrong. He also thought that inheritance was in the blood. When scientists discovered these things, Darwin's theory was modified to include genetics. It's not holy script. In the places where he was wrong, Darwin's theory was changed.

And yet.... evolutionists worship him...

You just demonstrated that your claim is a lie. Do you even think when you write this stuff?

If you really do worship God, then trust Him and let it be His way. Stop telling God what to do.

 

[Stripe]

In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple fell from a tree it would be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experments or observational studies.COLOR="#FF0000"]A scientific theory which is contradicted by observations and evidence will be rejected. New theories that generate many new predictions can more easily be supported or falsified (see predictive power[/COLOR]). [COOR="#0000FF"]Notions that make no testable predictions are usually considered not to be part of science (protoscience or nonescience) until testable predictions can be made.[/COLOR][/COLOR]url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction[/url]ed is my emphasis for you, Stipe. And keep in mind the part in blue. We'll be showing you how that applies next post.

Pontificating on what a prediction is doesn't alleviate your mistake. :idunno:

The most important thing in science is not predictions. The most important thing is that you reject ideas that are shown false (or unfalsifiable).

As I said you believe this, because you know virtually nothing of science. Science is primarily inductive, and therefore never “proves” anything. We can only get logical certainty when we know all the rules and thereby apply them to particular things. In science, we can only observe the particulars, and infer the rules. This is far from the first time you've been told this, and you still can't get your head around it, Stipe.

I doubt even you know what you're talking about any more. :idunno:

No.

Wiki links won't help you. :idunno:

My point was not to debate which type of evolution you believe in; the point was that your approach to science is incorrect.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe floated this idea as an alternative to the molecular clock.

:darwinsm:

You're such an imbecile, Blablaman.

I presented an evolutionist's alternative to an evolutionist's idea. The point was to show you that your approach to science is incorrect. Doubling down on your mistake was not the way to go. :nono:

Oh, rats. I insulted you, right? Debate over. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian predicts:
Stipe floated this idea as an alternative to the molecular clock:

In other words, these scientists noticed that the equidistance result could be interpreted to mean a universal molecular clock that all mammalian species, or all species for that matter, have approximately the same substitution rate for any given protein. However, another person could have noticed the alternative that the equidistance is a result of lower complexity species having more tolerable sequence variations. This alternative is the maximum genetic diversity (MGD) hypothesis.

So we're going to test that notion. Since he mentioned cytochrome c as a useful molecule for this analysis, we'll use that.

Sequence 1:
G F S A G D S K K G A N L F K T R C A E C H G E G G N L T Q K I G P A L H G L F G R K T G S V D G Y A Y T D A K Q K G I T W D E N T L F E Y L E N P K K Y I P G T K M A F G G L K K D K D R N D I I T F M K E A T A

Sequence 2:
G D V E K G K K I F V Q K C A Q C H T V E K G G K H K T G P N L H G L F G R K T G Q A V G F S Y T D A N K N K G I T W G E D T L M E Y L E N P K K Y I P G T K M I F A G I K K K D E R A D L I A Y L K K A T N E

Since Stipe has hypothesized "complexity" as a way to explain the variations in cytochrome c, he will then easily calculate which of these has higher "complexity", and will demonstrate which organism is higher in complexity thereby.

You're on, Stipe. Show us what you have.

(Prediction: Stipe has no idea what "complexity" means in a biological system, and has no idea how to calculate it. He will therefore dodge the question, likely with generic insults)

Stipe doesn't disappoint us:

You're such an imbecile, Blablaman.

Prediction confirmed. Stipe had no idea at all what any of that meant, and just tossed it out as a smokescreen.

 

[Greg Jennings]

That's kind of what I'm (and what Clete is) asking you.



How do molecular legs evolve?

Do you have any sort of idea how something like them could evolve? Because I'm PRETTY sure it wasn't through the evolution of fins to legs or lobopods to legs...

Yeah I doubt so too. But molecules aren't alive, they just can help make up living things. What might've happened is that life evolved to cohabitate with useful enzymes/molecules in a similar manner to how we cohabitate with E. cool in our guts. But that's just a personal untested hypothesis

Also, they aren't literal legs. It's a best representation. I can't speak to the evolution of individual organelles or enzymes within cells. I don't know

 

[JudgeRightly]

Utterly fascinating video. Thank you

But what's the problem? Are you saying that bc the "legs" on the animated molecules exist that real legs didn't evolve? I'm confused

I was thinking about this just now, and I have a questions and then a few follow ups.

Would you agree that the "legs" (for lack of a better term) inside our cells that "walk" (again, for lack of a better term) along other molecules are less complex than the legs of a human being or any other kind of leg on any other creature?

Yeah I doubt so too.

Good.

But molecules aren't alive, they just can help make up living things.

Question: is there more to the molecules than just the molecules?

In other words, is all that exists (as far as life is concerned) "physical"?

What might've happened is that life evolved to cohabitate with useful enzymes/molecules in a similar manner to how we cohabitate with E. cool in our guts. But that's just a personal untested hypothesis.

Which falls apart when you consider what you just said, quote, "But molecules aren't alive, they just can help make up living things."

Greg, inanimate objects don't "cohabitate" with other inanimate objects, only living things "cohabitate."

According to MW Dictionary, cohabitate means "to live or exist together or in company."

If molecules aren't alive, then they, by definition, cannot cohabitate with other molecules. You see what I'm saying?

As far as "life evolved to cohabitate with useful enzymes/molecules," one problem with that. These enzymes/molecules are absolutely necessary for the cell to live. Take them out, and the cell dies because nothing is getting done.

Another way to put it, is that the cell is "irreducibly complex."

Also, they aren't literal legs. It's a best representation. I can't speak to the evolution of individual organelles or enzymes within cells. I don't know

I'm glad you're honest enough to admit so, and in so doing, you have gained some of my respect.

They may not be literal "legs," but they sure do look like them, and they're complex enough to function like legs. Question: how do these legs "know" (I'm putting know in quotes because I don't have a better word) how to walk (again, for lack of a better term) along the larger molecules (let alone how it's able to recognize when there's something in its path that it needs to step over to keep moving)? I mean, it's just molecules, right?

Greg, would you agree that these molecules at least have the appearance (Note: at this point I'm not saying they were or were not, but just that they appear to be so) of being designed to do a very specific task ("walking" along the larger molecule)

 

[Clete]

We (myself included) gave you a play by play of how it went down. What exactly would prove to you that legs came from fins? Anything?

Yes, I remember. You were round two. I did this whole thread twice. Made the exact same point twice and then just explained it to you and now you want to do it a third time. :bang:

What is it that you aren't understanding here?

I have not disputed the legs from fins theory. I don't buy it for a second but I'm not here to debate it. I'm here to solicit it from you along with any other ideas you or any other evolutionist might have about how legs evolve.

The reason I am soliciting that from you is because I strongly suspected when I started the thread that nothing any of you say will be able to even begin to explain what we see happening in every living cell that exists. That suspicion has now been confirmed.

If you think otherwise then show me the molecular corollary. Where is the molecular equivalent to fins that evolved into the fully functional legs that are vital for cell division (and a hundred other functions the cell needs to survive for one day)?

Then why does no university in the US (other than Liberty) endorse anything other than the theory of evolution ??


Saying something doesn't make it so

The question poses are false premise that I think you intend as a means of deflecting the discussion and so I'm intentionally ignoring it. If you think appeals to popularity are convincing then I can help you. That certainly isn't a scientific way of thinking, to say the least. There was a time that everyone knew that light shot out of your eyes to allow you to see. The popularity of the belief didn't make it true.

As for saying it doesn't make it so, I agree! Saying it is basically all the evolutionist has! The evidence that they are wrong is everywhere and overwhelming! I have done far more than say something in this thread. I've allowed the evolutionists to define their own position in their own words and then shown one single video that blasts their entire worldview to smithereens, which is evidenced by the fact that the only rebuttal I've received is personal attacks and deflections to irrelevancies and attempts to redefine the debate onto other topics that have nothing to do with legs or how proteins evolved not only to have them but to use them in the manufacture of other proteins, including other proteins that have different sorts of legs! In fact, no one has made any attempt whatsoever to directly deal with molecular leg evolution. Not you or anyone else! And there can be only one reason you haven't. It's because you don't have anything to respond with. You have no answer at all. Not even a basic, purely conceptual guess as to how such a thing might evolve. And here's the real problem for you. You won't ever have an answer. There is no answer. You can conceive of how it might have evolved because it cannot have evolved. Those legs exist and work as designed or the organism dies! What's more is that its not just those legs but a thousand other tiny molecular machines and probably thousands of other molecular processes, all of which much exist and function as designed or the organism dies. The cell wall, just to give one of hundreds of potential examples, with it's sodium-potassium pump and a dozen other functions that it performs to keep the cell, and, by extension, the whole of the organism, alive.

Clete

 

[Clete]

And?

How does leg-looking molecule animations factor into evolution of species ??

What could possibly be given to you to sway your opinion, if anything?

They don't just look like legs! They are legs! They walk and have feet and ankle joints and are of sufficient length to "step over obstacles", etc. They're as much legs as any you've ever seen.

 

[Clete]

I hadn't accounted for the possibility that the reason Greg Jennings hadn't offered a rebuttal to the argument was because he hadn't bothered to read the thread enough to realize what the argument even was!

:doh:

 

[6days]

Barbarian: legs evolved from lobopods

6days: quotes Genesis 1

But you get upset with (God) because of the way He did it.

We can go over it again if you like.

Gen. 1: God made the wild animals; according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.... And God saw that it was good. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day.

We observe increasing genetic load which leads to genetic disorders...diseases...

And yet human intelligence and performance is higher now than even a few decades ago.

You may not realize this, but Lamarckian evolution was proven false long ago. Diet is one factor that effects health, but meanwhile, genetic load increases.

Maybe 10 million years or so.

Jesus referred to Adam and Eve being there at the beginning of creation. The geneaologies from that first Adam to Last Adam are foundational to the Gospel.

Darwin said God created living things. You must have a very odd Bible.

Darwin seemed to have a different God from that which the Bible describes. Darwin blamed God for evil / suffering in the world, and he did not seem to recognize Jesus as Lord, nor his own need of a Savior

Darwin records that his Anglican orthodoxy was a subject of humor among the other officers on the Beagle.

No doubt!

Science shows Darwin was wrong about selection

Let's test your belief....

It isn't my belief... it's science. Darwin seemed to think selection was a power (perhaps (his savior)that could cause unlimited change. Science shows selection is a rather impotent 'force' that sometimes eliminates, but never creates.

His discovery of the way Pacific atolls form would have been sufficient to make his reputation as a geologist.

Darwin was wrong about Geology and the atolls." Now, geologists have discovered another hypothesis on which Darwin was not entirely right. According to a LiveScience report, a new paper published recently in the journal Geology shows that Darwin was wrong about how coral atolls grow" https://redice.tv/news/charles-darwin-wrong-on-theory-of-evolution-for-coral-atolls

And yet.... evolutionists worship him

You just demonstrated that your claim is a lie.

Ha... No, evolutionists DO worship Darwin. You demonstrate that by trying to defend his false beliefs about God, and about science.


As example of how evolutionists worship him, he is always honored / revered on this very day. It is on my newsfeed that this is his birthday. Evolutionists don't recognize any of the birthdays of the fathers of modern science... nor of more modern scientists. WHY? Darwinism is a religion, and Darwin is worshipped.


How was the birthday cake?

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose... it was you who ran away.

LOL....what? How odd.

I asked if you that the microsatelite region served no purpose... you still did not answer.

Microsats have no function.

As to the link...I may have it wrong, but I did suggest one function.

No, you have it wrong....completely, totally, and laughably wrong.

SO, again... the question was 'are you asking about the microsatelite region because you don't know? Or, because you believe it's junk?

They're junk.

Is the notion of non-functional sequences a problem for you and your beliefs? If so, why?