Which evolved first, tendons or bones

[Darkstorn]

You don't see what I see, the proof is the amazing life itself, you see that life evolved accidentally, it wasn't planned but
it just happened to be so for no reason, while I see that life on earth and how things work point to a planner.

The "La la la la la i'm not listening" - argument? Classy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't see what I see, the proof is the amazing life itself, you see that life evolved accidentally, it wasn't planned but
it just happened to be so for no reason, while I see that life on earth and how things work point to a planner.

So you have no clue how evolution works or you are rather dishonest. Why didn't you say so?

But thanks for admitting that you have no evidence for your beliefs at all. I asked a fairly simply question rather politely and you dishonestly ran away. That is almost the same as you admitting that you are wrong.

 

[FearGod]

So you have no clue how evolution works or you are rather dishonest. Why didn't you say so?

But thanks for admitting that you have no evidence for your beliefs at all. I asked a fairly simply question rather politely and you dishonestly ran away. That is almost the same as you admitting that you are wrong.

We aren't in a competition, it's up to you if you chose to fool your own self.

 

[shunyadragon]

I really wonder that you have knowledge in biology while taking the matter very fatuously, still the question remains, if the tendons
evolved before bones or cartilage, then what their purpose before the evolution of the cartilage or the bone, no escape that both
including other components to be evolved simultaneously and that's impossible to be the case except if designed to be so.

You even failed to read my posts, and continue to rattle on mindlessly. Tendons did not evolve before cartilage and bones.

Muscles evolved first as found in Jellyfish, and primitive pre-muscle myosin in sponges. Cartilage evolved next, and than tendons. Than cartilage evolved to bones, as in primitive fish and sharks that have bony cartilage. Sharks evolved to have no bones for reasons previously described. They actually did not begin simultaneously, but evolved with specific responses to the need of adaptation to the environment and prey predator relationships such as size speed, strength. Evolution is clearly demonstrated as primitive forms appearing first, and as evolution developed more complex and diverse species more complex. Each lineage of species evolved muscle, cartilage, tendons and bones to adapt to competition and changing environments.

 

[shunyadragon]

We aren't in a competition, it's up to you if you chose to fool your own self.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To think that people have this infallibility attitude towards science, I think is absurd.

I have never seen that claim made by anybody, although I have frequently seen the idea condemned as if that were the position of those who admire science.

What is said is that science is the only method that we have for understanding physical reality, and that its method works, is self-correcting and has had stunning success.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evolution is a fact, but the process is designed to be so.

Careful using fact in this context, Many laymen and scientists misuse the term. Facts are evidence that the science of evolution and all science is based on. Facts in and of themselves as evidence do not change. Evolution is a science where the knowledge increases and evolves as new information is acquired through discoveries and research.

The process described as 'design' is a philosophical/theological assertion and not based on science,

 

[Subduction Zone]

We aren't in a competition, it's up to you if you chose to fool your own self.

Don't be foolish. I explained to you what you needed to do to show that you had evidence. You have no reliable evidence, you only have a superstitious belief. There are certain standards in the sciences when it comes to evidence, that is one of the reasons that it works so well. You could not meet that standard instead you posted nonsense. That was running away. That was you tacitly admitting that you were wrong. It would have been wiser to have been honest.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Invertebrates don't have bones or tendons. What makes you so sure they aren't the predecessor forms of creatures who do have those particular body-widgets? There is also cartilage to take into consideration - which can be a substrate for bone supplantation, or can be a stand-alone support mechanism within an organism (for example, sharks). Perhaps a creature with only cartilage for internal support is an in-between form for one who is evolving toward bone. After all, within evolutionary reality, EVERYTHING would be considered an in-between form.

You know my favorite part of this entire thread? The fact that you @FearGod, in 6-7 whole pages, chose not to reply to one of the very first replies, on the first page by @It Aint Necessarily So. I feel this poster very handily tore to pieces your conclusion that the bone/tendon relationship is definitively a "sign of a design." Why exactly is it that you chose to respond to so many others, and not this particular post? Is it mainly God that you fear? Based on this I would suggest you double-check...

Thanks for asking about that.

I created a post addressing that as part of a larger issue, but declined to hit "Post Reply" because I didn't feel good about it. I didn't want to be too critical of FearGod.

It was on the subject of bad faith disputation, which I feel is a legitimate discussion. I provided two examples of it from FearGod, yours being the second.

I think I'll include it here concealed in a spoiler.

No offense intended, FearGod. I'm sure that you're doing your best to do your part as you understand it. If you read the following, please understand that it is intended as constructive criticism - a chance for you to see how you are perceived and what is expected of you.

Spoiler

I didn't refute evolution

Yes, I know. You can't. Neither can I or anybody else. The theory is correct in the sense that there is too much evidence in support of it for it to ever be overturned, like the germ theory of (infectious) disease and the heliocentric theory.

You also ignored the question asked of you. I call that bad faith disputation. We each have a duty to read posts written to one another carefully, and address the points made and the questions asked. If you say something I agree with, I should acknowledge that. If I disagree, I should say why. If you ask a question, I should give you a direct answer.

My question was asked to get a sense of your purpose. You give conflicting indications. Sometimes you sound like a creationist looking to undermine science, sometimes you take a more skeptical and reasonable approach. But you put this thread in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum, so perhaps you are a creationist hoping that science will replace evolutionary science with something else because it can’t tell you about the evolution of connective tissue.

But alas, a waste of effort. All I got was that you didn’t refute evolution.

You also ignored a post to you on logical fallacies, which I also consider bad faith disputation. You could have addressed why you think that they don't apply to you if that's what you think, or agree that they did, or even ask why I thought they might, but you chose to simply ignore the words.

Are you familiar with the concept called ethos in the discussion of argumentation? It refers to how one is perceived by his audience separate from his message, such as whether the speaker or writer is knowledgeable about that of which he speaks, is fair, has any apparent unstated purpose, is polite, seems trustworthy - that is, whether his character, credibility, competence, and motivations suggest that he can be trusted to be making informed, ethical arguments.

The way that you are perceived by your audience will determine how it reacts to you. Nous commented that you are being treated dismissively. I’m about there myself now.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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.

Wishful thinking and specualtion?

'Nature will find a way' Jurassic Park ... but that would be a work of fiction

 

[FearGod]

Stay in the dark and enjoy living the same as other species do, good luck

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you want to claim that there is any "design" involved the burden of proof is upon you. So far I have not seen any. I have seen quite a few failed arguments, but that is all.

You don't see what I see, the proof is the amazing life itself, you see that life evolved accidentally, it wasn't planned but it just happened to be so for no reason, while I see that life on earth and how things work point to a planner.

If what you "see" isn't evident to others, then by definition, it's not evidence. Evidence is evident.

Scientific skeptics are people that question all claims, need a reason to believe, use reason and evidence to arrive at correct and useful beliefs, and hold those beliefs tentatively and commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence.

You can't accomplish anything telling others how the world looks to you. Your beliefs are meaningful to you, but surely you recognize that they are of no interest or value to others not willing to believe you on faith. What others care about is not what you believe, but what you know and can demonstrate. Simply enumerating your religious convictions is not persuasive.

Subduction Zone indicated that you have the burden of proof. I would add to that you only have a burden of proof if you want to be believed. If you don't care to be believed, you don't need to defend your opinions, but you might want to be mindful of the meta-message that that choice sends. If you are unable to defend your claims, your actual message to the thread is that you have no reason to believe what you do, and by extension, neither do your readers.

I'm guessing that that isn't your purpose.

 

[shunyadragon]

Stay in the dark and enjoy living the same as other species do, good luck

The darkness is you hiding in Plato's cave. There is alight at the other end if you wish to come out in the future.

 

[FearGod]

The darkness is you hiding in Plato's cave. There is alight at the other end if you wish to come out in the future.

The tomb, that's your future,.imagine if by science we were able to live fore ever, but God
made a decision that no one can escape death, the evolution is wise, it makes our lives limited
otherwise life will end on earth due to the lack of resources.

BTW, discussing with the disbelievers about the existence of a creator is a waste of time.

 

[Polymath257]

The tomb, that's your future,.imagine if by science we were able to live fore ever, but God
made a decision that no one can escape death, the evolution is wise, it makes our lives limited
otherwise life will end on earth due to the lack of resources.

BTW, discussing with the disbelievers about the existence of a creator is a waist of time.

I, for one, do not wish to live forever. Anything past a few thousand years would just be too much.

 

[shunyadragon]

The tomb, that's your future,.imagine if by science we were able to live fore ever, but God
made a decision that no one can escape death, the evolution is wise, it makes our lives limited
otherwise life will end on earth due to the lack of resources.

BTW, discussing with the disbelievers about the existence of a creator is a waste of time.

Odd response. I believe in God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If the answers aren't in relation to the question of the OP then I don't have to respond.
I don't see tell this page a meaningful reply other than claiming it to be.

So informing you that the very basis of one of the claims you make in the OP has no logical backing or support is not on topic? Is that seriously what you're going with here? You have to admit, you DID NOT simply "ask a question" in the OP. Clear as day you inferred a "designer." That is what that post we're referring to was about, and so it had loads to do with your OP. And I sincerely believe that you know that... and that you knew it even as you replied to my post calling you out for ignoring it. Not cool, man. Not cool.

 

[FearGod]

Odd response. I believe in God.

Do you believe that God created life on earth?

 

[FearGod]

So informing you that the very basis of one of the claims you make in the OP has no logical backing or support is not on topic? Is that seriously what you're going with here? You have to admit, you DID NOT simply "ask a question" in the OP. Clear as day you inferred a "designer." That is what that post we're referring to was about, and so it had loads to do with your OP. And I sincerely believe that you know that... and that you knew it even as you replied to my post calling you out for ignoring it. Not cool, man. Not cool.

All components that connect the bone to the bone and the bone to the muscle can't be
understood other than a work of design, all parts have to be evolved simultaneously to
achieve the job and to work in harmony. that can't be the work of nature alone without
intelligence being involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you believe that God created life on earth?

I already made that abundantly clear in previous posts. God Created our physical exists. 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.