[part of a much longer rant]
Now this is curious.....why would all species of frogs lay eggs, except one? Taken from "The Great Evolution Mystery" by Gordon Rattray Taylor
Then there is the puzzling frog discovered in the mountain meadows of New Guinea, which Professor Etienne Wolff described in 1971 under the rubric "The Big Problems posed by a little Frong." Unlike all other frogs, which lay eggs, Nectophrymoides occidentalis brings forth its youth alive. That implies a womb, a placenta, a yolk sac and other modifications, for which it must possess the genes. (SS: or not) Are they present in other frogs unactivated? If so, why have they been activated in this one species? On the evolutionary scale it has jumped a few million years. Similarly, there is just one viviparous earwig. Or again, only one shark in the genus Mustelus has a placenta, although they all live in an identical environment, namely coastal waters.
Speaking of frogs, if you go here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea ...15/i2/frog.asp you'll learn of actually another frog who gives birth to live young -- but these frogs give birth through their mouths. Go figure.
And evidently there are other organisms who just simply don't fit in with their peers. This, it would seem to me, to be difficult for ToE to explain...
40 comments
I don't understand...the fact that a certain species of frog has a different mode of reproduction than other frogs would be indicative of evolution, not counter to it...oh well, maybe I'm missing something.
The Nectophrynoides occidentalis I think is the African Nimba frog though I can't get any reference of it giving birth to live young.
Not that this would require a placenta or anything like that. Only that it store the eggs in it's body under suitable conditions until they hatched.
As for the other frog that's exactly what it does. It is not "giving birth" out of it's mouth (especially since the frog in question is the MALE) It simply swallows the eggs of it's young to protect them.
Both of these would is perfectly easy for evolution to explain. The species mutated to the point where they developed a trait of hatching their eggs inside their body and this was beneficial enough that it helped the species survive.
If anything, it demolishes the creationist claim that there are inseparable "kinds".
right, animals evolving to exhibit different traits completely destroys the ToE...oh wait. C'mon, you didn't even mention the sea horse who also stores it's eggs until they hatch (and also in the male of the species). How peculiar that vastly different species could have some traits in common. It's almost like we're all linked together or something.
I don't get it. I went and read his whole rant. He finishes with:
Ultimately, evolution, as Darwinists describe it, is a fairytale. Change is real -- ToE is not. Natural selection is a fairytale and has absolutely nothing to do with biological change, as adaptive biological change stems from an interaction between the individual and its local environment....and this is science's deep, dark secret that they want no one to know.
and I still don't get it.
You know I am starting to think this guy is just one hell of a dedicated Troll. He comes out with the worlds dumbest statements, then calls people names for laughing at him. Maybe it's how he blows off steam from having orders yelled at him all day (I said NO FRIES DUMBFUCK!)
Hell, I saw a young lady smooch a frog once. Damned if the thing didn't turn into a prince. Tights, cape, crown, the whole bit. Try to tell me that wasn't evolution.
It's because this critter evolved to fill a niche. What is so hard to understand?
Monotremes are another evolutionary mystery, but they have evolved to their environment.
I think there's an ovivivparous setup where it's not really a womb, but they have eggs and simply let them hatch before releasing them.
Apparently this is only beneficial for a few species in each category.
BTW, this should actually be evidence against Creationism, because this frogs clearly go against the 'kinds' God defined for them.
they evolved.
If Supersport told me the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe it.
I wouldn't even look out the window to see for myself.
He just has that much credibility.
The correct term is ovoviviparous. Eggs hatch in the oviduct and continue to be nourished by the yolk sack. Though some ovoviviparous sharks consume unhatched eggs and smaller siblings.
Ovoviviparity is common in sharks. Less common in snakes and very rare in amphibians. It's widely recognized as an evolutionary step towards viviparity. Viviparity, where the offspring is nourished by a placenta, is seen in a few sharks and all placental mammals.
Ironically, as usual, SS has referenced one of the strongest possible arguments for evolution. Several different "kinds", driven by similar needs, have evolved the same mechanism for giving their young a head start.
BTW, frogs giving birth orally is a lie. Though some frogs do eat tadpoles.
Actually the scientific terms have changed very recently, ovoviviparous causes confussion and is being removed. Animals are being placed into the two catagories viviaporous (live young) and oviparous (eggs). Ovovivaparity is now referred to as lecithotrophic vivaparity as they still give birth to live young but the internal mechanisms are diferent. Its interesting he mentions sharks because they have many different varieties of reproduction including the above mentioned plus oviphagus vivaparity (egg eating) in mako sharks where the mother nourishes the young by continuing to produse eggs, and inter-uterine canabalism in grey nurse sharks in which the siblings compete in the womb and one dominent neonate in each uterine chamber will eat its siblings. Sharks of the same genus often have different reproductive strategies.
Oh Noes! The frog demolishes the theory of evolution!
But the Suriname Toad disproves the existence of God!
It's a push, really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCayq56wHSA
I'm going to call the local zoo in the morning and ask what the (ovoviviparous) anaconda does with the placenta.
What he's saying is wrong. I've heard of this frog before and it doesn't have a "womb" and placenta, its reproduction is outlined below:
Mother lays eggs.
Father fertilizes eggs.
Mother swallows eggs.
Eggs grow in stomach.
Eggs hatch tadpoles swim inside of stomach.
Mother carries baby frog around in mouth when it's reached adult form.
Baby frog ages and leaves mother's mouth, attaining full adulthood.
Also, it amuses me how he thinks that we, as humans, are more evolutionarily advanced than frogs. The "attitude" of evolution is "if it works, do it." not "alright, we're at this stage, in 2 million years we'll advance to the next one..."
And evidently there are other organisms who just simply don't fit in with their peers.
Yes Sport, you're one of them.
I have to agree with earlier posters.
Supersport is either one of the most dedicated trolls around on the 'net, or one of the stupidest people on the planet.
For the sake of humanity, I hope it's the former.
Supersport, here, is quoting a passage written by Gordon Ray Taylor.
The scary thing, though, is where Supersport interjects his own comment:
"... for which it must possess genes. (SS: or not)".
Supersport seems to be saying that he doubts the very existence of genes!
Not sure about the latin name you gave, it's been a thousand years since I took bio, however, there is a frog that lays the eggs on her own back, grows skin over them to protect them, then when they grow they burst through and leave. It's the same system of reproduction except instead of abandoning the eggs, she carries them with her. (Grossly simplified version of events btw.)
The frogs that give birth through their mouth: The male keeps the eggs in his throat sack (usually used to amplify his calls) then releases them when they've developed.
"And evidently there are other organisms who just simply don't fit in with their peers. This, it would seem to me, to be difficult for ToE to explain... " Actually, it helps strongly support the ToE.
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.