Which evolved first, tendons or bones

[Nous]

Nah.
You did not raise any issue. You think that these things are unlikely to occur. Without telling me why you think so, it's difficult to answer.

In each of my posts on this thread I've noted the enormous improbabilities of concurrent genetic mutations responsible for the producing the proteins that were, for some reason, selected for and led to the development of tendons and bones and the complex neural structures that that make tendons and bones functional. At some point, the claim of simultaneous extraordinary accidents becomes implausible. The idea that we do not currently know all of the forces involved in the development of complex biological organisms is not implausible.

 

[sayak83]

In each of my posts on this thread I've noted the enormous improbabilities of concurrent genetic mutations responsible for the producing the proteins that were, for some reason, selected for and led to the development of tendons and bones and the complex neural structures that that make tendons and bones functional. At some point, the claim of simultaneous extraordinary accidents becomes implausible. The idea that we do not currently know all of the forces involved in the development of complex biological organisms is not implausible.

What concurrent mutations. Please present an example that we can discuss.

 

[HonestJoe]

Tendons connect bones together in away that enable us to have flexible movements, the
way that bones are connected together is a sign of a design and not a blind evolution, if
you think that tendons and bones were a result of mutations and natural selections then
please explain how both evolved together to achieve such an amazing job.

Maybe early creatures developed entirely flexible structures that were the starting point for later skeletons and in some they developed to be harder and stronger but the joints remained flexible as the most beneficial compromise. Maybe others developed entirely rigid forms, leading to shelled creatures. Another possibility is that shells themselves were a starting point, with developments towards more segmented shells for the benefit of movement over protection being supported by development of more directly controllable connective tissue which ultimately lead to bone and tendon.
Nobody knows of course, but it seems perfectly viable to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

As a bahai, do you believe that God communicate with humans through divine revelation and that he sent messages to humans?

You are going off topic without responding well to the science of the issue at hand. A separate thread would interesting concerning how different religions consider Revelation and scripture.

Question: What is the purpose of your question off topic of the thread?

 

[shunyadragon]

What concurrent mutations. Please present an example that we can discuss.

I agree. There is no legitimate science behind the assertion of Nous, which is similar to the claim of FearGod. I also question the misuse of probability, and 'what is plausible.' in this context. Too much subjective opinion without science interjected here.

 

[FearGod]

You are going off topic without responding well to the science of the issue at hand. A separate thread would interesting concerning how different religions consider Revelation and scripture.

Question: What is the purpose of your question off topic of the thread?

I know you'll avoid answering the question, my purpose is to expose your intent.

 

[Polymath257]

Regardless which come first and next, don't you think that all parts have to be in harmony, how the cartilage
and muscles are modified along with the evolution of the tendons, how all parts came to work in harmony?

And at each stage of evolution, all parts are in harmony. Each stage has a fully developed species that is adapted to its environment.

 

[Polymath257]

Nothing new, no real scientific answers for our sophisticated human body other than mutations and natural selection.

Well, we can look at the biochemistry of both humans and our ancestors (or related species). We can look at the fossil record. And those also give us insights into the why of our particular evolutionary path.

But one thing that does tend to happen as species diversify is that complexity of individual species increases.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know you'll avoid answering the question, my purpose is to expose your intent.

OK. I believe in Revelation from God that is universal with all religions of the world, and progressive over time. The scriptures and religious beliefs of the different religions reflect both Progressive Revelation and a human and cultural view of God at the time they were revealed. The progressive evolution of religion from the OT to the NT reflects this. I believe that religion and scripture becomes corrupted over time by human influence, and thus part of the reason for the progressive evolving nature of religion. Ever ancient religion claims their scripture and Revelation is the only and the last Revelation, This is true of Judaism Christianity, Islam and other religions.

In this thread I am waiting for you present the science behind your assertions, and you are avoiding the issue at hand.

Get over your ducking the issues of the thread, and address the issues at hand.

Your promoting a religious agenda 'Intelligent Design,' and asserting that evolution could not take place without a Divine Plan and Design without an academic background to demonstrate this based on science. Actually Intelligent Design scientists have tried to this for more than 40 years at the Discovery Institute heavily funded by fundamentalist churches, and Seven Day Adventists and have failed miserably.

I already made that abundantly clear in previous posts. God Created our physical existence. There is a distinct problem with your posts in this whole thread you do seem to even respond intelligently to my posts. God is a Creator not a human engineer who plans and designs, Intelligent Design philosophy is bogus science.

Still waiting for a scientific argument from you to support your assertions. None have been provided,

 

[FearGod]

OK. I believe in Revelation from God that is universal with all religions of the world, and progressive over time. The scriptures and religious beliefs of the different religions reflect both Progressive Revelation and a human and cultural view of God at the time they were revealed. The progressive evolution of religion from the OT to the NT reflects this. I believe that religion and scripture becomes corrupted over time by human influence, and thus part of the reason for the progressive evolving nature of religion. Ever ancient religion claims their scripture and Revelation is the only and the last Revelation, This is true of Judaism Christianity, Islam and other religions.

In this thread I am waiting for you present the science behind your assertions, and you are avoiding the issue at hand.

Get over your ducking the issues of the thread, and address the issues at hand.

Your promoting a religious agenda 'Intelligent Design,' and asserting that evolution could not take place without a Divine Plan and Design without an academic background to demonstrate this based on science. Actually Intelligent Design scientists have tried to this for more than 40 years at the Discovery Institute heavily funded by fundamentalist churches, and Seven Day Adventists and have failed miserably.

I already made that abundantly clear in previous posts. God Created our physical existence. There is a distinct problem with your posts in this whole thread you do seem to even respond intelligently to my posts. God is a Creator not a human engineer who plans and designs, Intelligent Design philosophy is bogus science.

Still waiting for a scientific argument from you to support your assertions. None have been provided,

If you think that God isn't like humans and he has no plans and no design of any kind then why
he communicates with humans? why he sent the divine laws that humans should follow.

Your religion doesn't make sense, that is really the problem with the Bahai religion, they believe that
God should make updates every now and then.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK. I believe in Revelation from God that is universal with all religions of the world, and progressive over time. The scriptures and religious beliefs of the different religions reflect both Progressive Revelation and a human and cultural view of God at the time they were revealed. The progressive evolution of religion from the OT to the NT reflects this. I believe that religion and scripture becomes corrupted over time by human influence, and thus part of the reason for the progressive evolving nature of religion. Ever ancient religion claims their scripture and Revelation is the only and the last Revelation, This is true of Judaism Christianity, Islam and other religions.

In this thread I am waiting for you present the science behind your assertions, and you are avoiding the issue at hand.

Get over your ducking the issues of the thread, and address the issues at hand.

Your promoting a religious agenda 'Intelligent Design,' and asserting that evolution could not take place without a Divine Plan and Design without an academic background to demonstrate this based on science. Actually Intelligent Design scientists have tried to this for more than 40 years at the Discovery Institute heavily funded by fundamentalist churches, and Seven Day Adventists and have failed miserably.

I already made that abundantly clear in previous posts. God Created our physical existence. There is a distinct problem with your posts in this whole thread you do seem to even respond intelligently to my posts. God is a Creator not a human engineer who plans and designs, Intelligent Design philosophy is bogus science.

Still waiting for a scientific argument from you to support your assertions. None have been provided,

"Your promoting a religious agenda "

Bad grammar aside (me no perfect) I think that's a direct quote from Hoyle talking to Lemaitre..

Similarly, all you are doing is conceding a bias against an implication you personally dislike, that's pretty much the opposite of a scientific argument isn't it?

 

[shunyadragon]

"Your promoting a religious agenda "

NO!!!! I answered questions concerning my religion against my better judgment, but no, in this thread I am arguing science for the integrity of science and Methodological Naturalism.

No bias conceded. Science is for the integrity of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you think that God isn't like humans and he has no plans and no design of any kind then why
he communicates with humans? why he sent the divine laws that humans should follow.

Your religion doesn't make sense, that is really the problem with the Bahai religion, they believe that
God should make updates every now and then.

I answered your questions concerning my belief now against my better judgement, and not related to the subject of the thread.

In this thread I am arguing pure science for the integrity of science, and separated from any religious presuppositions whatsoever.

Please, back to the subject and let's see the science to back up your assertions of evidence for the necessity of 'plan and design' in nature. In the beginning you said religion was not the subject, and yet you promote Intelligent Design (religious agenda of the Discovery Institute, invoke the necessity of God, and question me about my religion off topic.

There are no scientists outside the Discovery Institute and the theological promotion of Intelligent Design that believe as you are asserting.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

NO!!!! I answered questions concerning my religion against my better judgment, but no, in this thread I am arguing science for the integrity of science and Methodological Naturalism.

No bias conceded. Science is for the integrity of science.

Well I don't try to constrain the scientific method to adhere to a personal preference for naturalism, or intelligent agency. That's putting the conclusion before the method

why not discard the ideological bias altogether and just follow the evidence, wherever it leads?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I don't try to constrain the scientific method to adhere to a personal preference for naturalism, or intelligent agency. That's putting the conclusion before the method

why not discard the ideological bias altogether and just follow the evidence, wherever it leads?

That is actually what I do. Methodological Naturalism the determining methodology for testing the evidence. No religious bias here.

There has never been a successful testable hypothesis nor Theory that supports claim of science in Intelligent Design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is actually what I do. Methodological Naturalism the determining methodology for testing the evidence. No religious bias here.

There has never been a successful testable hypothesis nor Theory that supports claim of science in Intelligent Design.

So the Rosetta stone was carved by erosion?

 

[shunyadragon]

So the Rosetta stone was carved by erosion?

Are you proposing a testable hypothesis? Has this hypothesis been tested by scientific methods?

What does the academic literature determine as to the origin of the Rosetta Stone?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Has this hypothesis been test by scientific methods?

What does the academic literature determine as to the origin of the Rosetta Stone?

One which did not rule out intelligent design, declaring it inherently 'supernatural'- that would be circular reasoning: leaving the stone to have been accidentally created in the murky past by some process we cannot observe, repeat or measure.... just like evolution. No wonder you have to grant evolution such a 'default' win. If the theory could stand on it's own merits of evidence, there would be no need to banish anyone else from the playing field!


So intelligent design = supernatural, supernatural = impossible, thus intelligent design = impossible...?

there's no scientific argument there whatsoever, only an entirely subjective speculation- by which scientists also declared the Big Bang was ' religious pseudoscience', at the same time the bones of Piltdown man belonged together ' without question'

So I'm less interested in what is declared 'scientific' and far more interested in what is actually true, aren't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One which did not rule out intelligent design, declaring it inherently 'supernatural'- that would be circular reasoning: leaving the stone to have been accidentally created in the murky past by some process we cannot observe, repeat or measure.... just like evolution. No wonder you have to grant evolution such a 'default' win. If the theory could stand on it's own merits of evidence, there would be no need to banish anyone else from the playing field!


So intelligent design = supernatural, supernatural = impossible, thus intelligent design = impossible...?

there's no scientific argument there whatsoever, only an entirely subjective speculation- by which scientists also declared the Big Bang was ' religious pseudoscience', at the same time the bones of Piltdown man belonged together ' without question'

So I'm less interested in what is declared 'scientific' and far more interested in what is actually true, aren't you?

In the scientific method one does not "rule out" ideas out of hand. No one has ruled out that the universe was made by pixies. One simply does not accept ideas unless they are supported by evidence. There is no scientific evidence for an intelligent designer that I have ever seen. I have seen many failed arguments, but no valid evidence supporting a designer has ever been given to me.

And please, drop the Piltdown argument. By that standard Christianity is false due to the incredible number of frauds perpetuated by abusing Christianity. It is not a wise argument to use.

 

[shunyadragon]

One which did not rule out intelligent design, declaring it inherently 'supernatural'- that would be circular reasoning: leaving the stone to have been accidentally created in the murky past by some process we cannot observe, repeat or measure.... just like evolution. No wonder you have to grant evolution such a 'default' win. If the theory could stand on it's own merits of evidence, there would be no need to banish anyone else from the playing field!

Simply no one has offered a testable hypothesis nor theory by Methodological Naturalism scientific methods that would remotely demonstrate Intelligent Design.

So intelligent design = supernatural, supernatural = impossible, thus intelligent design = impossible...?

None of the above, Methodological Naturalism is neutral to all of the above.

there's no scientific argument there whatsoever, only an entirely subjective speculation- by which scientists also declared the Big Bang was ' religious pseudoscience', at the same time the bones of Piltdown man belonged together ' without question'

Nonsense. None of the above 'claims' represents tested hypothesis by scientific methods at the time these statements were made concerning the Big Bang Theory. Statements of opinion concerning the claim of a theory are not science. Nothing is considered 'without question in science.'

Added note: When the scientific methods were applied to the above claims were resolved. The various versions of the Big Bang Theory were found as possible explanations for the origins of our universe as well as various other hypothesis and models such as cyclic models for our universe. The origins of our universe and all possible universes is not conclusively resolved.

When scientific methods were applied to the research of the 'claimed' Piltdown fossils they were determined to be false.

So I'm less interested in what is declared 'scientific' and far more interested in what is actually true, aren't you?

Science is not based on what is declared 'scientific.'

Actually true? Please explain.

Failed to respond?

]
So the Rosetta stone was carved by erosion?

Are you proposing a testable hypothesis? Has this hypothesis been tested by scientific methods?

What does the academic literature determine as to the origin of the Rosetta Stone.

Is this just nonsense composed by monkeys on typewriters?