The current model of Evolution is false because of its hocus pocus mechanisms. Early I read a thread in reference to bones and how non-boned organisms could develop into boned organisms through RM+NS [random mutation + natural selection]. The question was simple, what on a non-boned organism could be modified to become a bone therefore demonstrating common ancestry – descent with modification ?
I postulated this question to a pro-evolutionist and to my amazement I received the following answer, “it just happened”. Hardly scientific.
8 comments
Maybe because the mechanism was already explained, and you just didn't understand it? Fish that were soft and squishy had a harder time surviving, so the tougher ones bred, and eventually bones formed, which were then passed on to land animals. Simple.
random mutation and/or retroviruses can also account for the adding or taking away of chromosomes and developing of totally new appendages. The desire for a hard shell or protection also makes a creature rigid, however there is also a demand for larger growth which is essentially very difficult with any invertebrates, thus muscle grows around the original protection, which in turn develops into bone. That's one possibility.
Well, I accept evolution as a fact and natural selection as a valid theory for explaining it, but I have to admit that Joshua actually has a valid question here, and the answer he received was, in fact, a very poor answer -- on par with a fundie's belief in creation, in fact.
The evolution of bone is still an open question; not because there are no non-bone structures that could be modified to become bone, but because there are several, and we don't have enough information yet to choose between them. Our knowledge of the evolution of bone is also hampered by the fact that proto-bone (unmineralized) doesn't fossilize well.disagreement between the theory and known facts.
This is totally off the top of my head as I'm not a palaeontologist. I would imagine it would be something to do with a mutation of the precursor gene of Cbfa1/Runx2 (I think!) which resulted in osteoblastogenesis (formation of osteoblasts) and the ossification of cartilage via the depositing of minerals (e.g. hydroxyapatite) in ossifying tissue. Cartilaginous species are usually ancient (e.g sharks). But, as I said, I'm no palaeontologist.
“The current model of Evolution is false because of its hocus pocus mechanisms.”
“ The question was simple, what on a non-boned organism could be modified to become a bone therefore demonstrating common ancestry – descent with modification ?”
“I postulated this question to a pro-evolutionist and to my amazement I received the following answer, “it just happened”. Hardly scientific.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
