Snakes with legs and dolphins with 4 flippers. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Snakes with legs and dolphins with 4 flippers.


Gunhaver
04-25-2012, 22:13
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6187320/Snake-with-foot-found-in-China.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061106-dolphin-legs.html

Where did the genetic information come from to form a functioning clawed foot on a snake or rear flippers on a dolphin?

That information has always been there like the data that can be recovered from deleted memory cards. Some mutation turned on a gene that caused that information to be read and the limbs to grow.

Interesting! :wavey:

Javelin
04-25-2012, 22:21
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTu2-jHFI3whhPmidSmhOy7_zSx7-pE2eGtvkuUje3vTqHX9yAZsFjFZMs7kA

Woofie
04-26-2012, 08:23
So a tornado went through the Boeing junkyard and a lizard missing three legs is all it could throw together?

Evolution is so dumb.

http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Antoine-Dodson-So-Dumb-for-Real.jpg

:tbo:

Woofie
04-26-2012, 08:27
You evolutionists really think this is how it works?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155351/retard-babies-butt-sex

Bren
04-26-2012, 09:07
So a tornado went through the Boeing junkyard and a lizard missing three legs is all it could throw together?

Evolution is so dumb.

I'm not sure if you are joking, or if you really didn't understand the significance of gunhaver's post.:dunno:

Gunhaver
04-26-2012, 09:32
He was just joking. I laughed.

G23Gen4TX
04-26-2012, 09:41
In the snake picture it actually looks like the snake ate some lizard and the lizard's foot poked out of its stomach.

Gunhaver
04-26-2012, 11:06
In the snake picture it actually looks like the snake ate some lizard and the lizard's foot poked out of its stomach.

It's possible, hard to say for sure without looking at it in person but snakes do show up with little mutant feet from time to time.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xH7y99pY6qE/TVqArCdwNpI/AAAAAAAAAnM/og_TfXfsAxc/s1600/Snake+with+leg+Claws+4+my-bestphotos.blogspot.com.jpg

There are many, many in between stages. Lizards with no front legs, lizards with no back legs, lizards with no legs at all and snakes with tiny leg remnants. You have to look at the eyes and tongue to know if it's a snake or lizard sometimes. That's all evidence of evolution until the goalposts are pulled back.

Woofie
04-26-2012, 11:46
In the snake picture it actually looks like the snake ate some lizard and the lizard's foot poked out of its stomach.

I don't have time to read back over the article, but it seems like I remember it being said that the snake used the leg to hang on the wall. I got the impression that the leg was functional.

Woofie
04-26-2012, 11:46
I'm not sure if you are joking, or if you really didn't understand the significance of gunhaver's post.:dunno:

It was a joke.

Geko45
04-26-2012, 12:48
It's sad that there is a place where Woofie's statement could be mistaken for genuine.

Gunhaver
04-26-2012, 13:46
I'm perfectly willing to admit that that may be a lizard leg poking out. Can't say for sure it isn't and the accounts from the old woman are as good as the photo. It'll be interesting what the autopsy shows. For now interesting that the leg seems to have the same marking as the rest of the snake.

But if anybody doesn't like the snake evidence feel free to focus on the dolphin. If dolphins were created in their current form by god then why would he include latent genetic information for fully functional rear flippers?

Whale evolution - YouTube

And if you don't like that then you can always think about the fact that human embryos have gills and tails until they are developed away. Where did that information come from?

Bren
04-26-2012, 14:26
It's sad that there is a place where Woofie's statement could be mistaken for genuine.

I didn't think he was one of the nuts, but that statement wouldn't surprise me here, if it was serious.

G23Gen4TX
04-26-2012, 15:27
I don't have time to read back over the article, but it seems like I remember it being said that the snake used the leg to hang on the wall. I got the impression that the leg was functional.

The story and picture may not even be related. The story takes place somewhere in china.

I know snake and lizard mutations occur. Just saying this one looks like he ate something.

Kingarthurhk
04-26-2012, 15:36
It's sad that there is a place where Woofie's statement could be mistaken for genuine.

That is one of the few things we can agree on.

eracer
04-26-2012, 15:39
C'mon Gunhaver...

'Intelligent Design' has an answer for any evolutionary question you might ask.

Question: "Why did God make whales with vestigial leg bones?"
Answer: "Because he did."

Kingarthurhk
04-26-2012, 15:45
C'mon Gunhaver...

'Intelligent Design' has an answer for any evolutionary question you might ask.

Question: "Why did God make whales with vestigial leg bones?"
Answer: "Because he did."

Why do you have nipples?

Altaris
04-26-2012, 15:52
I'm perfectly willing to admit that that may be a lizard leg poking out. Can't say for sure it isn't and the accounts from the old woman are as good as the photo. It'll be interesting what the autopsy shows. For now interesting that the leg seems to have the same marking as the rest of the snake.

But if anybody doesn't like the snake evidence feel free to focus on the dolphin. If dolphins were created in their current form by god then why would he include latent genetic information for fully functional rear flippers?

Whale evolution - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok)

And if you don't like that then you can always think about the fact that human embryos have gills and tails until they are developed away. Where did that information come from?


Gunhaver, I know you mentioned previously liking biology. This series "Inside Nature's Giants" would probably be one you would enjoy. There are more episodes on the side bar.

Right after the 44min mark they show the legs in the dead whale as well, and how they still haven't fully gone away. For those that don't want to watch the whole thing, this was a beached whale that they tried to dissect before the tides washed it away.

Inside Nature's Giants Episode 2/17 The Fin Whale (Channel 4) - YouTube

eracer
04-26-2012, 15:56
Why do you have nipples?Because my embryo started out as female, then androgenic hormones caused my internal and external reproductive organs to develop into male parts. The nipple remained (without functional secretory glands) the same way my foreskin remained without a clitoral sheath.

Altaris
04-26-2012, 15:57
Why do you have nipples?

As embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the ***** and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay.

Nipples and breast tissue have no function as such except for perhaps protecting the heart and lungs from injury.

Male Breasts Can Produce Milk and Get Breast Cancer
A certain level of the female hormone estrogen is present in all men. If, as a result of disease or a condition affecting hormones, breast tissue in men can grow (gynecomastia- abnormal enlargement of breasts,) and men can produce milk.

Kingarthurhk
04-26-2012, 15:59
Because my embryo started out as female, then androgenic hormones caused my internal and external reproductive organs to develop into male parts. The nipple remained (without functional secretory glands) the same way my foreskin remained without a clitoral sheath.

Alright, these things can be desribed as vestigal then. They serve no purpose to you as a male, but none-the-less they are there.

eracer
04-26-2012, 16:07
Alright, these things can be desribed as vestigal then. They serve no purpose to you as a male, but none-the-less they are there.Not sure what your point is. My nipples serve me quite nicely.

Kingarthurhk
04-26-2012, 16:19
Not sure what your point is. My nipples serve me quite nicely.

Not as well as you might imagine.:supergrin:

Family Guy - Breast Feeding - YouTube

eracer
04-26-2012, 16:21
Not as well as you might imagine.:supergrin:

Family Guy - Breast Feeding - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OkcucXIuVI)Excellent...:supergrin:

IhRedrider
04-26-2012, 16:56
So you are a worthless woman without a clitoral sheath?

This explains much.

Geko45
04-26-2012, 17:57
I didn't think he was one of the nuts, but that statement wouldn't surprise me here, if it was serious.

Exactly my point.

Ramjet38
04-26-2012, 18:05
I'm getting excited!!


:yawn:

G23Gen4TX
04-26-2012, 18:56
Why do you have nipples?

For nipple clamps.

You see, god thought of everything.

Woofie
04-26-2012, 19:18
I didn't think he was one of the nuts, but that statement wouldn't surprise me here, if it was serious.

Plenty of people would describe me as one of the nuts. Just not that kind of nut.

Woofie
04-26-2012, 19:22
Why do you have nipples?

For milking.

Because my embryo started out as female, then androgenic hormones caused my internal and external reproductive organs to develop into male parts. The nipple remained (without functional secretory glands) the same way my foreskin remained without a clitoral sheath.

Oh.

As embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the ***** and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay.

Nipples and breast tissue have no function as such except for perhaps protecting the heart and lungs from injury.

Male Breasts Can Produce Milk and Get Breast Cancer
A certain level of the female hormone estrogen is present in all men. If, as a result of disease or a condition affecting hormones, breast tissue in men can grow (gynecomastia- abnormal enlargement of breasts,) and men can produce milk.

Oh . . .

I'm getting excited!!


Woah:shocked:

Animal Mother
04-27-2012, 00:22
Alright, these things can be desribed as vestigal then. They serve no purpose to you as a male, but none-the-less they are there. When did Kingarthurhk start defending the evolutionary position?

Kingarthurhk
04-27-2012, 18:09
When did Kingarthurhk start defending the evolutionary position?

No, rather, I am allowing through the explanations give the reason for vestigal items. They apparently served a purpose durring gestation, and their remnants remain. This is not advocating evolution.

Now, I do believe in adaptation, or what you might refer to as "micro evolution", but not completely alien species turning into something diametrically different altogether.

I see it as a God who foresaw in advance, that in a world full of sin and predation that adaptation would be necessary for life to continue in the current atmosphere of existance.

Altaris
04-27-2012, 19:32
No, rather, I am allowing through the explanations give the reason for vestigal items. They apparently served a purpose durring gestation, and their remnants remain. This is not advocating evolution.

Now, I do believe in adaptation, or what you might refer to as "micro evolution", but not completely alien species turning into something diametrically different altogether.

I see it as a God who foresaw in advance, that in a world full of sin and predation that adaptation would be necessary for life to continue in the current atmosphere of existance.

So a walking land mammal with legs that over time evolves into the a swimming creature, and the largest animal on the planet, isn't diametrically different?

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 19:50
So a walking land mammal with legs that over time evolves into the a swimming creature, and the largest animal on the planet, isn't diametrically different?

Don't bother as soon as you read the micro/macro nonsense you are faced with someone that doesn't understand evolution but rather has a view that can never be changed. God made everything as we see it today with no exception, instantaneously and with no process otherwise their fragile belief would somehow be shattered. As if God could not have done so because men wrote a book that they believe said God did not.

Animal Mother
04-27-2012, 21:33
No, rather, I am allowing through the explanations give the reason for vestigal items. They apparently served a purpose durring gestation, and their remnants remain. This is not advocating evolution. Of course it is. Nipples don't serve a purpose during gestation, for either gender, but they are indicative of the evolutionary, sexual undifferentiated past of mammals.
Now, I do believe in adaptation, or what you might refer to as "micro evolution", but not completely alien species turning into something diametrically different altogether. Is this because you're aware of some biological factor which would allow the first but prevent the second? If so, could you share it with us? If not, why would you hold such a position? What would a bunch of "micro evolution" changes look like all piled on top of one another?
I see it as a God who foresaw in advance, that in a world full of sin and predation that adaptation would be necessary for life to continue in the current atmosphere of existance. How does that explain nipples on males?

Gunhaver
04-27-2012, 23:01
Is this because you're aware of some biological factor which would allow the first but prevent the second? If so, could you share it with us? If not, why would you hold such a position? What would a bunch of "micro evolution" changes look like all piled on top of one another?


I'm curious about this as well KA. If you think about the wide variety of animals in just a single class it gets to where you would have to concede that the ark couldn't carry them all. Not even all reptiles or all birds or all mammals and certianly not all insects would fit. You solve for this by claiming that only some birds and some reptiles ect would need to board the ark. How much micro evolution would have to be allowed to let those few birds flourish into what we have today?

Would an ostrich be able to micro evolve into an emu and a cassowary so that only the ostrich would need the ark ride? Is that even micro evolution given the stark differences between those 3 animals? Would one snake, one turtle, one lizard be enough to micro evolve into all current reptiles?

I guess what I'm asking is, where exactly does micro end and macro begin? And more importantly, what makes you better qualified to make that determination than scientists that take numerous factors into account, many of which you have no idea of, to decide where to place an animal on the taxonomy spectrum?

And honestly, if the answer is just, "I don't know, the bible says so and I believe it" that's fine, but I would expect that admission of ignorance would cut way down on the, "evolution is BS" statements that come from you. It might even be nice if, like the Catholic church, you could entertain the idea that evolution may very well be god's mechanism for creation. Because I can tell you right now that for someone like me that's studied it most of my life, the truth doesn't get much clearer.

eracer
04-28-2012, 09:05
So you are a worthless woman without a clitoral sheath?

This explains much.I assume you forgot to use the 'Quote' button while referring to my post.

At the risk of insulting you by refreshing your 9th grade biology lesson - maleness or femaleness is determined by the presence of a 'Y' chromosome. So, while I may be a worthless man without a foreskin (mine was removed in a barbaric ritual when I was an infant) I assure you that I neither have a clitoral sheath - because I lack a clitoris - (my glans would have become a clitoris had I not received the 'Y' chromosome during conception) nor am I female (for the same reason.)

Either your deductive reasoning skills are sorely lacking, or you are Swiftian in your use of satirical prose.