Which evolved first, tendons or bones

[A Vestigial Mote]

... 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.

This is opinion only. Not fact. Nowhere near fact. There also exists no evidence outside of conjecture to support this. I'm not claiming that explanations that don't involve God have "the answer" either. However, an explanation without God is very much more likely to come along with attempts to draw some logical, or even evidential propositions together, whereas an explanation involving God comes with nothing more than "He did it." In other words, there is very little (if any) actual thought, investigation or consultation of facts/evidence brought to bear in a god-based explanation. I'm not sure which of these types of claims you tend to favor typically, but I can tell you which is far more likely to hold up in court.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Again . . .

They did not evolve simultaneous in their primitive form. Muscles came first, then cartilage, then tendons, and then bones. Of course, as animals became more complex they evolved simultaneously harmoniously like all aspects of evolution, which is how the nature of evolution adapts to changing environments, and competition.

You have asserted this, but you have failed to demonstrate a scientific basis for this imaginary problem.

 

[FearGod]

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.

Why you think that God doesn't make a plan? how do you know what is God and what method he use to create?

 

[FearGod]

Again . . .

They did not evolve simultaneous in their primitive form. Muscles came first, then cartilage, then tendons, and then bones. Of course, as animals became more complex they evolved simultaneously harmoniously like all aspects of evolution, which is how the nature of evolution adapts to changing environments, and competition.

You have asserted this, but you have failed to demonstrate a scientific basis for this imaginary problem.

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?

 

[FearGod]

This is opinion only. Not fact. Nowhere near fact. There also exists no evidence outside of conjecture to support this. I'm not claiming that explanations that don't involve God have "the answer" either. However, an explanation without God is very much more likely to come along with attempts to draw some logical, or even evidential propositions together, whereas an explanation involving God comes with nothing more than "He did it." In other words, there is very little (if any) actual thought, investigation or consultation of facts/evidence brought to bear in a god-based explanation. I'm not sure which of these types of claims you tend to favor typically, but I can tell you which is far more likely to hold up in court.

Knowing that God created a thing doesn't mean we don't need to study it, but that doesn't mean we can do what God did,
you'll never let the sun rises from the west, that is how the system worked, we know it but we can't change it

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Can't be understood by *you* you mean. Others understand it just fine.

Of course, those are people that have studied the matter and have an understanding of what the natural world does and is capable of doing. It's very easy to conceive of evolution generating musculoskeletal systems in the manner outlined in this thread. The individual elements appeared separately - first muscle, then collagenous connective tissue, then mineralized bone.

Did you read it? You never commented on the explanation. The reasonable assumption is that you either didn't look at it or didn't understand it.

It's no more mysterious than lava hardening, soil forming from its erosion, and seed finding their way into the soil to generate a grassy hill. The various elements can arise sequentially and form a system.

You're argument that an intelligent designer is necessary because some aspects of nature are as yet still unexplained, or because you just can't see how the complexity seen in biological systems can be accounted for without one, has been debunked. You chose not to respond. You are probably unfamiliar with academic standards, but that is treated as a concession. The assumption is that if you could defend your position, you would have

Those are the standards in formal debate and in the courtroom as well: If the other debater or attorney makes an argument that sounds plausible to an audience or jury, and it is not successfully rebutted, you lose the debate or go to prison.

Likewise here. You were given a series of logical fallacies that you were accused of making explicitly or implicitly, as well as being asked why in the world the scientific community would toss out a successful and useful scientific theory for a religious concept that has no use apart from promoting a religion, and you hid from it all.

Until and unless you successfully address those challenges, your argument is dead in the water.

all parts have to be evolved simultaneously to achieve the job and to work in harmony

Nope.

That's a variant of an irreducible complexity argument not unlike the ones offered by the ID community. The eye, the flagellum, the coagulation cascade, and the immune system have all been called irreducibly complex because they contain many interacting parts, all needed for the system to work as it does, with the implied claim that the entire system would have to have come into being at once - a task beyond naturalistic processes.

But their arguments were as wrong as yours, and all have been debunked.

that can't be the work of nature alone without intelligence being involved.

You've never offered a reason for why that must be true better than that you just can't see it. Others can.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

There is no reason why natural evolution cannot evolve in harmony, because that is what the evidence demonstrates. If they are not in harmony they simply do not survive.

You have failed to present any scientific evidence to support your claims.

God Created naturally without any sort of plan nor design, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

 

[FearGod]

There is no reason why natural evolution cannot evolve in harmony, because that is what the evidence demonstrates. If they are not in harmony they simply do not survive.

You have failed to present any scientific evidence to support your claims.

God Created naturally without any sort of plan nor design, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

The question is how such parts connected in harmony?, of course they won't survive if connections failed.
so tell us how before making survival as an answer, that's again tautology, you aren't giving scientific answers
other than if succeeded then it survived and hence passing it to the next generation.

 

[Nous]

This would be the place to start.
Bones and Cartilage

It provides highly interesting facts. Though I didn't finish reading it yet, I didn't see that any facts were cited that would reduce the improbabilities of the series of concurrent accidental genetic mutations responsible for the coding of proteins that led to bone, tendons and the neuronal structures that make bones and tendons functional.

Again, I am not at all convinced that we are currently aware of all of the forces that are involved in the development and selection of highly complex biological organisms. Indeed, I'm quite skeptical of the repeated confluence of such extraordinary accidents.

 

[sayak83]

It provides highly interesting facts. Though I didn't finish reading it yet, I didn't see that any facts were cited that would reduce the improbabilities of the series of concurrent accidental genetic mutations responsible for the coding of proteins that led to bone, tendons and the neuronal structures that make bones and tendons functional.

Again, I am not at all convinced that we are currently aware of all of the forces that are involved in the development and selection of highly complex biological organisms. Indeed, I'm quite skeptical of the repeated confluence of such extraordinary accidents.

You are more than halfway through reading a 920 page scientific textbook on skeletal evolutionary biology over Christmas??!!

 

[Nous]

You are more than halfway through reading a 920 page scientific textbook on skeletal evolutionary biology over Christmas??!!

No. Was I required to get more than half-way through? Are the issues I've raised answered at the half-way point?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The question is how such parts connected in harmony?, of course they won't survive if connections failed.
so tell us how before making survival as an answer, that's again tautology, you aren't giving scientific answers
other than if succeeded then it survived and hence passing it to the next generation.

Did anyone even attempt an evolutionary solution to the problem here? Much easier just to throw sticks and stones at alternative explanations i guess..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Careful using fact in this context, Many laymen and scientists misuse the term.

True, few things are as subjective as facts!

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

So if you unearthed the Rosetta Stone, and concluded that it required intelligent design to explain it's existence

is this an unscientific, philosophical/theological assertion?

 

[Sapiens]

It is an error to think that bones needed to exist first. When life evolves existing structures are quite often repurposed. Our lungs used to be a swim bladder if you go back far enough. Even if we can't find out how tendons evolved that does not do anything to falsify the theory of evolution. There are always unanswered questions in science. Unanswered questions do not falsify a theory. Theories are falsified when the answer they give to a question is wrong. "We don't know that yet" is a perfectly fine answer in the sciences. It is what keeps the sciences going.

With that in mind it makes your OP rather pointless.

A minor correction: lungs did not evolve from the swim bladder, in fact primative lungs were outpouchings on the digestive tract and may, in fact, predate swim bladders and (some authorities say) even gills.

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

You've yet to demonstrate, or even effective argue for, the design part.

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.

It is rather evident that I have seen far more of life, in terms of both breadth and depth, than you have. What amazes me is your inability to recognize how the universe works without falling back on Bronze Age mythology.

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

None is so blind as he who refuses to see.

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.

Indeed. Belief requires faith and faith is, as Mark Twain observed, "believing what you know ain't so."

Odd response. I believe in God.

I do not and still find his response most odd.

Do you believe that God created life on earth?

No.

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.

There was no requirement for simultaneity.

Why you think that God doesn't make a plan? how do you know what is God and what method he use to create?

Easy. First demonstrate that there is, or was, a god and they we might reasonably consider what is or was god and what method he, she, or it chose to use to create. Stop putting the cart before the horse.

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?

That's called Natural Selection.

The question is how such parts connected in harmony?, of course they won't survive if connections failed.
so tell us how before making survival as an answer, that's again tautology, you aren't giving scientific answers
other than if succeeded then it survived and hence passing it to the next generation.

Survival is not the issue, successful reproduction is.

 

[FearGod]

A minor correction: lungs did not evolve from the swim bladder, in fact primative lungs were outpouchings on the digestive tract and may, in fact, predate swim bladders and (some authorities say) even gills.

You've yet to demonstrate, or even effective argue for, the design part.

It is rather evident that I have seen far more of life, in terms of both breadth and depth, than you have. What amazes me is your inability to recognize how the universe works without falling back on Bronze Age mythology.

None is so blind as he who refuses to see.
Indeed. Belief requires faith and faith is, as Mark Twain observed, "believing what you know ain't so."

I do not and still find his response most odd.

No.

There was no requirement for simultaneity.

Easy. First demonstrate that there is, or was, a god and they we might reasonably consider what is or was god and what method he, she, or it chose to use to create. Stop putting the cart before the horse.

That's called Natural Selection.
Survival is not the issue, successful reproduction is.

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

 

[sayak83]

No. Was I required to get more than half-way through? Are the issues I've raised answered at the half-way point?

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

There is no need for any more 'real answers' to demonstrate the evolution of life and humanity. It is simply good science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The question is how such parts connected in harmony?, of course they won't survive if connections failed.
so tell us how before making survival as an answer, that's again tautology, you aren't giving scientific answers
other than if succeeded then it survived and hence passing it to the next generation.

Problem: I can't give anymore answers to someone who has no knowledge of the basics of the science of evolution, nor is willing to present a science based argument for your assertions. The information I provided was ignored.

 

[FearGod]

Problem: I can't give anymore answers to someone who has no knowledge of the basics of the science of evolution, nor is willing to present a science based argument for your assertions. The information I provided was ignored.

 

[FearGod]

There is no need for any more 'real answers' to demonstrate the evolution of life and humanity. It is simply good science.

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