“Common sense” question for an evolutionist

[Polymath257]

So I have no other choice but to conclude that you’re talking about an evolving animal that, for billions of generations, used two breathing systems simultaneously (extracting oxygen from both water and air).

More likely, just millions of generations.

That would be an incredible mechanism, and one that would surely require perfection in order to operate! Tell me more about how that second (the alternate) breathing system is operational while it is undergoing slow development over those many generations of offspring.

And here is where you are wrong. It most certainly does NOT require perfection or anything approaching it. All it needs is to be able to add to the oxygen acquired from the primary system.

Many animals alive today have more than one mechanism for getting oxygen onto their systems.

For example, many frogs have gills when young, lungs when older, and *always* have significant oxygen transfer across their skin. This is true also for other small amphibians (getting oxygen from transfer across skin requires both a moist skin and a small enough animal that surface to volume ratio is high).

Many fish are able to move across land, going from one pond to another while using primitive lungs (few elaborations into bronchi, for example). They will also use gills while in good water.

Many types of fish will gulp air, especially in ponds that are oxygen deprived.

The point is that a breathing system is primarily a way to get oxygen into the blood system and waste gases out. ALL that is required is a membrane exposed to oxygen and blood vessels to pick up that oxygen. Fish mostly get their oxygen from what is dissolved in the water using gills (which use large surface area to get more oxygen out), but will also get it from across skin or from lungs/swim bladders. Different fish, depending on their environment, have adapted very different mechanisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi again Tom,
Your follow up was thorough and appreciated. But I gotta note 2 things:
- It sounds like you’re leaning towards wrapping up the nice conversation? Are you?
- You brought up flying fish, and I have now asked you twice some simple questions. Yet you’re dodging. So, last time if I may: Is the flying fish an example of an animal which will someday live out of the water? How will it’s gills change into lungs and still be useful to this animal, whether in or out of the water?

...One other associated comment, based on something in your last comments:
You say that all of our offspring will always be humans - - there’s no going back. Yes, absolutely, total agreement here! So we must conclude that in the distant future, we (humans) will be observing firsthand the way those flying fish gills are successfully changing into lungs. Would you concur?

Not necessarily. It depends upon whether there is evolutionary pressure to drive those fish in that direction. Meanwhile there are already fish with lungs that spend more time out of water than in. Did you not know that?

 

[Crossboard]

Not necessarily. It depends upon whether there is evolutionary pressure to drive those fish in that direction. Meanwhile there are already fish with lungs that spend more time out of water than in. Did you not know that?

Did not know that! Amazing! But what is this suppose to convince me of regarding evolution? Logic must still apply. What use is that lung when it is in a million different stages of incompleteness, in a million different fish? How did it slowly begin to function?

Apply this reasoning to any other organ which had to change. A 4-chamber heart changing into a 3-chamber heart? Apply logic and reason to this occurring and you simply cannot! You have to leap over common sense and just state that it occurred - - that many of these animals were kept alive by hearts which were neither 3-chamber or 4-chambered, but somewhere in between.

Last time I heard about a baby born with a hole in it’s heart (i.e. the slightest of alterations), the change in blood flow leads to instant complications.

Where is common sense being so terribly mis-applied?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did not know that! Amazing! But what is this suppose to convince me of regarding evolution? Logic must still apply. What use is that lung when it is in a million different stages of incompleteness, in a million different fish? How did it slowly begin to function?

Apply this reasoning to any other organ which had to change. A 4-chamber heart changing into a 3-chamber heart? Apply logic and reason to this occurring and you simply cannot! You have to leap over common sense and just state that it occurred - - that many of these animals were kept alive by hearts which were neither 3-chamber or 4-chambered, but somewhere in between.

Last time I heard about a baby born with a hole in it’s heart (i.e. the slightest of alterations), the change in blood flow leads to instant complications.

Where is common sense being so terribly mis-applied?

More strawman arguments that only indicate ignorance at best. Those lungs are not "incomplete". And you are not using "logic".

Here is a polite hint. Please do not try to ask bogus questions. Bogus questions are one where you have a false assumption buried in the sentence itself. If you don't understand try to ask honest questions. What you have is not "common sense".

 

[Crossboard]

More strawman arguments that only indicate ignorance at best. Those lungs are not "incomplete". And you are not using "logic".

Here is a polite hint. Please do not try to ask bogus questions. Bogus questions are one where you have a false assumption buried in the sentence itself. If you don't understand try to ask honest questions. What you have is not "common sense".

Call it bogus if you like, but readers of this thread are seeing a simple question going unaddressed. I’ll ask again:
Did or did not a million generations of animals somehow survive with a heart that was neither 3-chambered or 4-chambered?

I could state the answer you must give, but the readers want to hear your words.

FYI, I have 2 readers in mind: Two work friends (one a creationist, one sort of one-the-fence between creation/evolution.) They have been enjoying keeping up with this thread, And though I haven’t been in touch with them in a day or so, I have a feeling they want to hear your follow up.

In all kindness, looking forward to a direct reply.

 

[sayak83]

Call it bogus if you like, but readers of this thread are seeing a simple question going unaddressed. I’ll ask again:
Did or did not a million generations of animals somehow survive with a heart that was neither 3-chambered or 4-chambered?

I could state the answer you must give, but the readers want to hear your words.

FYI, I have 2 readers in mind: Two work friends (one a creationist, one sort of one-the-fence between creation/evolution.) They have been enjoying keeping up with this thread, And though I haven’t been in touch with them in a day or so, I have a feeling they want to hear your follow up.

In all kindness, looking forward to a direct reply.

Have your question about wings and flight evolution answered adequately? Have you realized the plausibility of a tree living animal that jumps from branch to branch to evolve transitional features that enable it to glide and then eventually to fly?

 

[Polymath257]

Call it bogus if you like, but readers of this thread are seeing a simple question going unaddressed. I’ll ask again:
Did or did not a million generations of animals somehow survive with a heart that was neither 3-chambered or 4-chambered?

10 seconds and google gives this:

New Understanding of the Heart's Evolution

Turtles, for example, have a 3 chambered heart, but with a partial septum, which improves the flow of oxygenated blood to the tissues. Interesting enough, there is a specific transcription factor that is intermediate in turtle between other reptiles and birds and mammals.

No, this is NOT a claim that turtles are ancestral to birds and mammals. But it is a claim that they have an ancester in common in which the heart had already started to develop a septum.

Here's an article (with description of observations) concerning the development of a 2 chambered heart:

Evolution of the Heart

I could state the answer you must give, but the readers want to hear your words.

FYI, I have 2 readers in mind: Two work friends (one a creationist, one sort of one-the-fence between creation/evolution.) They have been enjoying keeping up with this thread, And though I haven’t been in touch with them in a day or so, I have a feeling they want to hear your follow up.

In all kindness, looking forward to a direct reply.

It really doesn't take much to learn how things work, especially in today's society where a wealth of information is at your fingertips.

 

[Crossboard]

10 seconds and google gives this:

New Understanding of the Heart's Evolution

Turtles, for example, have a 3 chambered heart, but with a partial septum, which improves the flow of oxygenated blood to the tissues. Interesting enough, there is a specific transcription factor that is intermediate in turtle between other reptiles and birds and mammals.

No, this is NOT a claim that turtles are ancestral to birds and mammals. But it is a claim that they have an ancester in common in which the heart had already started to develop a septum.

Here's an article (with description of observations) concerning the development of a 2 chambered heart:

Evolution of the Heart





It really doesn't take much to learn how things work, especially in today's society where a wealth of information is at your fingertips.

We will check it out! Thanks.. Long day ahead, I’ll reply asap

 

[Crossboard]

Have your question about wings and flight evolution answered adequately? Have you realized the plausibility of a tree living animal that jumps from branch to branch to evolve transitional features that enable it to glide and then eventually to fly?

Hi Sayak,
I’m eager to dive a little deeper with you into an evaluation of the “branch to branch” animals. Would you like to do that?

Since this thread has become so long with a variety of tangent topics, could you begin a new thread with a copy/paste of your comment, and link me to that thread?

Thanks..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Call it bogus if you like, but readers of this thread are seeing a simple question going unaddressed. I’ll ask again:
Did or did not a million generations of animals somehow survive with a heart that was neither 3-chambered or 4-chambered?

Yes, so what? Your questions are poorly formed most of the time, and they are bogus. A lack of understanding is not a refutation. Three chambered hearts work fine for animals with lesser needs. But a separated heart does give a species advantages. In fact a partially separated heart gives advantages. The four chambered heart would have evolved from an three chambered heart with ever increasing separation. Here is an article that may help you to understand:

New Understanding of the Heart's Evolution

I could state the answer you must give, but the readers want to hear your words.

FYI, I have 2 readers in mind: Two work friends (one a creationist, one sort of one-the-fence between creation/evolution.) They have been enjoying keeping up with this thread, And though I haven’t been in touch with them in a day or so, I have a feeling they want to hear your follow up.

In all kindness, looking forward to a direct reply.

Regardless you still need to learn how to ask questions properly if you want a polite response. Your questions indicate that you are trying to use an argument from ignorance. "I don't know, therefore God" is a logical fallacy. You would be wise to avoid that approach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

10 seconds and google gives this:

New Understanding of the Heart's Evolution

Turtles, for example, have a 3 chambered heart, but with a partial septum, which improves the flow of oxygenated blood to the tissues. Interesting enough, there is a specific transcription factor that is intermediate in turtle between other reptiles and birds and mammals.

No, this is NOT a claim that turtles are ancestral to birds and mammals. But it is a claim that they have an ancester in common in which the heart had already started to develop a septum.

Here's an article (with description of observations) concerning the development of a 2 chambered heart:

Evolution of the Heart





It really doesn't take much to learn how things work, especially in today's society where a wealth of information is at your fingertips.

LOL! I found the same article independently.

 

[columbus]

id not know that! Amazing! But what is this suppose to convince me of regarding evolution?

That most of your questions are unreasonable and would be easily answered by an elementary grasp of the subject.
Nothing personal, but I found it frustrating to get questions like "What will flying fish evolve into? "
I am happy that better versed and more patient posters have taken the trouble to respond.
Tom

 

[jonathan180iq]

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

As an individual organism under its own power?
Or as a group using tools?

 

[Audie]

Did not know that! Amazing! But what is this suppose to convince me of regarding evolution? Logic must still apply. What use is that lung when it is in a million different stages of incompleteness, in a million different fish? How did it slowly begin to function?

Logic is good, it is even better when it has some data to work with!

Regarding lungs, and how did if slowly begin to function-

Exchange of gasses between the atmosphere, or
water, and the circulatory system requires that there
be a thin permeable membrane between the two.

There is a lungless salamander,for example-no lungs.
No gills. But, it is long and skinny, lots of surface area to volume, and all respiration takes place through the skin.

Softshell turtles get a lot of their oxygen from the water, tho they have no gills.

So,,now think of fish, gulping air. We've all seen it.

Some fish have a highly vascularized esophagus.
Electric eels, for one.

So for a really primitive simple lung, dont have a lung at all, just, gulp some air, absorb it from your mouth and throat.

But what about a little enlargement, like a bit of a pocket, that would hold a big more air.

See where this is going?

 

[Crossboard]

Logic is good, it is even better when it has some data to work with!

Regarding lungs, and how did if slowly begin to function-

Exchange of gasses between the atmosphere, or
water, and the circulatory system requires that there
be a thin permeable membrane between the two.

There is a lungless salamander,for example-no lungs.
No gills. But, it is long and skinny, lots of surface area to volume, and all respiration takes place through the skin.

Softshell turtles get a lot of their oxygen from the water, tho they have no gills.

So,,now think of fish, gulping air. We've all seen it.

Some fish have a highly vascularized esophagus.
Electric eels, for one.

So for a really primitive simple lung, dont have a lung at all, just, gulp some air, absorb it from your mouth and throat.

But what about a little enlargement, like a bit of a pocket, that would hold a big more air.

See where this is going?

Thanks for the comments.
The data you mention in the 3 animal examples is indeed data. But it’s data which describes they way those particular animals function, and nothing more.

Very true that different animals access their oxygen in a variety of ways. But this fact does not inherently promote an evolution from one type of oxygen-gathering system in one animal to a different system altogether.

 

[Sapiens]

Thanks for the comments.
The data you mention in the 3 animal examples is indeed data. But it’s data which describes they way those particular animals function, and nothing more.

Very true that different animals access their oxygen in a variety of ways. But this fact does not inherently promote an evolution from one type of oxygen-gathering system in one animal to a different system altogether.

I fail to understand why you ask questions that an easy google and click can give you the answer for. In this case: From water to land or The Evolution of Lungs or Evolution of tetrapods - Wikipedia or most any of the 3,140,000 other hits. It's not like there's a paucity of information out there. But ... it is downright impolite and ignorant to not try and do for yourself before you importune others with what are junior high school level questions (unless you are, indeed, a junior high student).

 

[Audie]

Thanks for the comments.
The data you mention in the 3 animal examples is indeed data. But it’s data which describes they way those particular animals function, and nothing more.

Very true that different animals access their oxygen in a variety of ways. But this fact does not inherently promote an evolution from one type of oxygen-gathering system in one animal to a different system altogether.

I dont think I know what "inherently promote" means in this context, but, you asked... What use is that lung when it is in a million different stages of incompleteness, in a million different fish? How did it slowly begin to function?

and I told you. To repeat; the use is to get air.
You did not acknowledge that I told you.

How did it slowly begin to function? I told you.
Did you acknowledge that?

Now you are asking about "one animal to a
different system altogether" ?

It is not "one animal" and it is not a "different system all together". It is the same system.

I see this often, from people who are questioning evolution but have not actually studied it.

another version is "evolve from one species to a completely one".

That is not it at all. The whole subject of comparative
vertebrate anatomy is about how the entire skeletal-muscular, nervous, digestive and respiratory / circulatory systems are based on the same pattern,
it is theme and variation from fish to elephant.

There is no such thing as "completely different"
in this context.

The "not hing more" is your chosen editorial comment,
not one based on knowledge of the topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I dont think I know what "inherently promote" means in this context, but, you asked... What use is that lung when it is in a million different stages of incompleteness, in a million different fish? How did it slowly begin to function?

and I told you. To repeat; the use is to get air.
You did not acknowledge that I told you.

How did it slowly begin to function? I told you.
Did you acknowledge that?

Now you are asking about "one animal to a
different system altogether" ?

It is not "one animal" and it is not a "different system all together". It is the same system.

I see this often, from people who are questioning evolution but have not actually studied it.

another version is "evolve from one species to a completely one".

That is not it at all. The whole subject of comparative
vertebrate anatomy is about how the entire skeletal-muscular, nervous, digestive and respiratory / circulatory systems are based on the same pattern,
it is theme and variation from fish to elephant.

There is no such thing as "completely different"
in this context.

The "not hing more" is your chosen editorial comment,
not one based on knowledge of the topic.

"Change of kind" is, as you pointed out, a creationist strawman. By any reasonable definition of "kind" evolution is a change within kinds. Men still are apes, and they still are mammals, and they still are vertebrates etc. .... No change of kind needed.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the comments.
The data you mention in the 3 animal examples is indeed data. But it’s data which describes they way those particular animals function, and nothing more.

Very true that different animals access their oxygen in a variety of ways. But this fact does not inherently promote an evolution from one type of oxygen-gathering system in one animal to a different system altogether.

Once again, the essential function of lungs and gills is to increase the surface area over which gas transfer occurs.

A small organism in a wet environment doesn't need gills or lungs because gases will transfer across the skin.

Do you agree that some individuals will have skin that is looser than others? Or they might have a bit of extra skin in their mouth or throat? In that case, the amount of gas transfer will be larger. And that is an advantage. So, if that 'defect' is genetic, it will be more likely to happen in the next generation. And *that* is evolution in process.

Look at how populations change over time because of changes in genetics of the individuals and in response to basic phsyical factors like rates of gas exchange, or ability to run fast, etc. Those changes are evolution happening int he population.

And yes, from they outpocketings of skin or in the throat, or whatever, you can develop gills or lungs over the course of many small changes and many generations.

 

[Crossboard]

Once again, the essential function of lungs and gills is to increase the surface area over which gas transfer occurs.

A small organism in a wet environment doesn't need gills or lungs because gases will transfer across the skin.

Do you agree that some individuals will have skin that is looser than others? Or they might have a bit of extra skin in their mouth or throat? In that case, the amount of gas transfer will be larger. And that is an advantage. So, if that 'defect' is genetic, it will be more likely to happen in the next generation. And *that* is evolution in process.

Look at how populations change over time because of changes in genetics of the individuals and in response to basic phsyical factors like rates of gas exchange, or ability to run fast, etc. Those changes are evolution happening int he population.

And yes, from they outpocketings of skin or in the throat, or whatever, you can develop gills or lungs over the course of many small changes and many generations.

Agreed! Animals change for a variety of reasons, environmentally and otherwise. What you describe is observed and known, and undeniable. But what you, and evolution, implies - - that this change naturally continues to the point that entirely different animals are produced - - is not being observed; this idea has never occurred and never will.

While adaptation is natural in any type of animal, there’s a limit to that change... only the same type of animal is produced.