Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Jose Fly]

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.

So Clete's "argument" is exactly as I described at the outset...."Gosh, this is so complex. I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it didn't, which means the entire field of evolutionary biology is false".

Anyone who finds that at all compelling.....well, they should seek help.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So Clete's "argument" is exactly as I described at the outset...."Gosh, this is so complex. I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it didn't, which means the entire field of evolutionary biology is false".

Anyone who finds that at all compelling.....well, they should seek help.

What would be compelling is if you could show (even just a general idea of it) how such legs could have evolved. Perhaps you could explain, in the most general way, how it could happen?

 

[Jose Fly]

What would be compelling is if you could show (even just a general idea of it) how such legs could have evolved. Perhaps you could explain, in the most general way, how it could happen?

As the video indicates, we've only come to understand these molecular structures relatively recently. So given the short amount of time since we've even come to understand what they are, what they do, and how they work, why is it a surprise that we don't yet fully understand how they evolved? And more importantly, how in the world does that falsify the entirety of evolutionary biology?

I mean.....how is that anything but a massive God of the Gaps fallacy?

 

[JudgeRightly]

As the video indicates, we've only come to understand these molecular structures relatively recently. So given the short amount of time since we've even come to understand what they are, what they do, and how they work, why is it a surprise that we don't yet fully understand how they evolved? And more importantly, how in the world does that falsify the entirety of evolutionary biology?

I mean.....how is that anything but a massive God of the Gaps fallacy?

I'm not asking for details or specifics, just a general idea or concept of how something like them could have evolved.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not asking for details or specifics, just a general idea or concept of how something like them could have evolved.

Let me be clear.....I don't know. It's not something I've ever looked into, and it's not an area of biology in which I typically work. And to be honest, it's not something I'm really inclined to spend a lot of time on either.

Right now I'm more interested in how creationists seem to be going from "scientists don't know how these molecular structures evolved" to "therefore all of evolutionary biology is false". As it stands, no creationist seems to be willing to explain their own argument.

 

[Stripe]

a what "complexity" means in a biological syst 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 L K K A T N ESince 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 wiBarbarian predicts:[]Stipe floa I F A G I K K K D E R A D L I A Ynce 1:G F S A Gant, and just tossed it out as a smoity thereby.You're on, Stipe. Show us what you have.(Prediction: Stipe has no idell demonstrate which organism is higher in complexore dodge the question, likelK 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 of that meem, and has no idea how to calculate it. He will therefkescreeny with generic insults) [/IStipe doesn't disappoint usrediction confirmed. Stipe had no idea at all what anyted this idea as an alternative to the molecular clock:So we're going to test that notion. Since he mentioned cytochrome c as a useful molecule for this analysis, we'll use that.Seque D R N D I I T F M K E A T ASequence 2:G D V E K G K K I F V Q K C A Q C H T V E .

:mock: Blablaman.

The problem is not that you are irredeemably stupid, the problem is that you won't even consider the possibility that your ideas might be wrong.

Predictions are not the No. 1 aspect of science.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:mock: Blablaman.

The problem is not that you are irredeemably stupid, the problem is that you won't even consider the possibility that your ideas might be wrong.

Predictions are not the No. 1 aspect of science.

The irony's so thick you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw...

Quit being a pompous, arrogant clown and address what Barb has challenged you with, or, do your usual lame and oh so predictable smileys and continue being a bloody great bore.

:yawn:

 

[Stripe]

The irony's so thick you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw...Quit being a pompous, arrogant clown and address what Barb has challenged you with, or, do your usual lame and oh so predictable smileys and continue being a bloody great bore.yawn:

:darwinsm:

:mock: Arthur's brain.

 

[6days]

Is the notion of non-functional sequences a problem for you and your beliefs?!

Nope. There have been several thousand years of mutations, so of course there can be non functional sequences.

Microsats have no function.

You could also claim that 97% of our genome is junk...or that our appendix has no function. Fortunately not all scientists believed those claims, and continued to research.


Re. Microsatelites, its interesting that they are often not random and can cause a gain or loss of gene function... Function has been found and research continues...there is purpose and design to these repeating sequences. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/6/991/1050711 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004837/

 

[Arthur Brain]

Usual, lame it is then.

Wow, that was a shocker.

I hope you're better at rugby than science Stipe.

:dizzy:

 

[Stripe]

Usual, lame it is then.Wow, that was a shocker. I hope you're better at rugby than science Stipe. izzy:

:darwinsm:

:mock: Arthur's brain

 

[Greg Jennings]

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?



Good.



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"?



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."



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)

JR, you seem plenty intelligent to hold a conversation with, but I'm afraid I've become averse to such long posts. If you ask me one to two questions at a time, I'm much more likely to find time to answer.

I'm sorry I'm being inconvenient. My apologies.

Greg

 

[Bright Raven]

Evolution is a farce. Legs didn't evolve.

 

[Greg Jennings]

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)?


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

Alright, so intracellular machinery and multicellular machinery are quite different. Do you understand this ?

 

[Greg Jennings]

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.

They don't have joints. You are looking into an animation and projecting your own thoughts into it.

No shame in that. But it is not accurate

 

[Clete]

Alright, so intracellular machinery and multicellular machinery are quite different. Do you understand this ?

Of course they are different. Are you suggesting that because they're different that they didn't evolve? If not, what's the point in saying something so obvious?

 

[Clete]

They don't have joints. You are looking into an animation and projecting your own thoughts into it.

No shame in that. But it is not accurate

They do indeed have joints, of a kind. There'd be no way of putting one foot in front of the other without some sort of pivot point (a.k.a. joint) and the foot has a specific function beyond simply being the end of the leg and it too has a pivot point. I understand that its a protein, folding and unfolding, but that doesn't mean that the pivot points that we would call a joint in any other context don't exist.

Regardless, the point is that they are fully function legs. They aren't "like a leg"; they don't just look like legs in appearance; they function precisely as fully fledged legs, similar in function to any other set of legs you want to name. Their structure is different but their function is not. They are legs - period.

Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. There have been several thousand years of mutations, so of course there can be non functional sequences.

Why then do you spend so much effort trying to argue against the notion that some genetic sequences are non-functional?

Re. Microsatelites, its interesting that they are often not random and can cause a gain or loss of gene function... Function has been found and research continues...there is purpose and design to these repeating sequences. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/6/991/1050711 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004837/

It's fascinating that you would cite those papers, where they explain the evolutionary history of certain sequences (and how the evolutionary framework is the basis for their discoveries), and in doing so describe how mutations turn non-functional repeats into functional sequences. One would think that such a process would be an increase in "genetic information", would it not?

 

[The Barbarian]

The irony's so thick you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw...

Quit being a pompous, arrogant clown and address what Barb has challenged you with, or, do your usual lame and oh so predictable smileys and continue being a bloody great bore.

:yawn:

No one really expected Stipe to back up his daffy notion of complexity. As predicted, blurted out some generic insults and ran for the bunker.

It's his M.O.

Every other YE creationist peddling the "complexity" scam does the same thing. Let's make it easier for Stipe, who is clearly befuddled by the data I gave him.

Stipe, just tell us which has more complexity, a rabbit or a bumblebee? Show your numbers and how you got them.

(prediction: Stipe will yet again dodge the question and give us some more generic insults)

 

[Arthur Brain]

No one really expected Stipe to back up his daffy notion of complexity. As predicted, blurted out some generic insults and ran for the bunker.

It's his M.O.

Every other YE creationist peddling the "complexity" scam does the same thing. Let's make it easier for Stipe, who is clearly befuddled by the data I gave him.

Stipe, just tell us which has more complexity, a rabbit or a bumblebee? Show your numbers and how you got them.

(prediction: Stipe will yet again dodge the question and give us some more generic insults)

Don't need to be clairvoyant to see the future on that one...