evolutionists time to put your dunce caps back on
Michael
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
diet
So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
chris thompson
Kolesová, H., Lametschwandtner, A., and Roček, Z. 2007. The evolution
of amphibian metamorphosis: insights based on the transformation of
the aortic arches of Pelobates fuscus (Anura). J. Anat. 210:379-393.
Read it for free at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100297/
Next time, do your own leg work.
Chris
Dan Listermann
"Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8259cd6f-28dd-4f67...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
"Goddidit." Don't bother yourself about it. Go red something really old.
You will be happier.
.
Reddfrogg
By variation in the population, and natural selection. Why do you
see this as a problem for evolution?
DJT
Michael
That doesn't answer the question.
Michael
Please detail for us HOW this occurred.
Reddfrogg
Well, you have to read the paper, it won't explain itself.
DJT
Michael
I did, and it doesn't address my question.
Reddfrogg
Reddfrogg
What is it that you want to know? How does metamorphosis happen, or
how does an organism go from gills to air breathing?
Try to be a little more clear in what you want.
DJT
alextangent
http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf
Covers insect metamorphosis and evolution. The paper for amphibians is
behind paywalls;
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109699426/abstract
Reddfrogg
By variation in the population, and natural selection. That's how it
happened. If you are looking for the most likely pathways, you need
to read the article that Chris gave you above.
There are still fish that can both breathe air, and use gills to
extract oxygen from the water. Why do you think it's a problem for
evolution to explain this trait in frogs?
DJT
Christopher Denney
I think you want developmental biology, try down the hall, this is
evolution.
John Stockwell
By mutation and natural selection operating on semi-aquatic
quadrupeds, likely from Devonian, or perhaps earlier.
Assuming that you actually care about the answer, the authors
of the paper in Chris Thompson's message point out that
known fossil aquatic quadrapeds likely spent some limited time
out of the water. So most of their development would be
aquatic, owing to an availability of food and/or an avoidance
of aquatic predators, land dwelling was selected for. The difference
between ancient aquatic quadrupeds and modern frogs and toads
is that while both spawned and underwent development in the
water, frogs and toads adapted to spend extended time on land
in moist environs.
-John
-John
John Harshman
had both gills and lungs. You will note that some living fish have
lungs, and most have swim bladders, which are modified lungs. Note also
that some early tetrapods, like Ichthyostega, had both gills and lungs
as adults. Starting from that precursor with both structures, all that's
necessary is for development of lungs to be delayed so that they
gradually appear later and later in the process, and for the gills to
gradually atrophy in the adult. If you wonder about this sort of thing,
look up "heterochrony". (It may not even be necessary to delay the
appearance of lungs; I don't know the taxonomic distribution of lungs in
fish larvae, and maybe they always appear late.)
Similarly, all the other features could evolve gradually -- legs
appearing later in development, etc. None of this is beyond imagining as
gradual evolution. Why would you think it was a problem?
Uncle Arnold
>> I did, and it doesn't address my question.
You didn't have 'a question', butthead. You had an insult ('dunce caps') and
what you hoped would be the chance to make a knock-down point out of it. And
it didn't work. Tough shit.
Why don't you tell us what *you* think....? I bet it goes something like
"Tadpoles turn into frogs, therefore Jehovah exists...". Isn't that how it
goes, butthead...?
A.
Will in New Haven
Kleuskes & Moos
There are many amphibians who can do both at the same time, if i'm
notvery much mistaken...
Uncle Arnold
>
> What is it that you want to know? How does metamorphosis happen, or
> how does an organism go from gills to air breathing?
>
> Try to be a little more clear in what you want.
He wants you to believe in Jehovah. That's all. Nothing to see here...
A.
Ernest Major
<c87c453d-c701-4745...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Reddfrogg <redd...@bresnan.net> writes
>On Jan 7, 2:06�ｿｽpm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 4:03�ｿｽpm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 7, 1:57�ｿｽpm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 7, 3:24�ｿｽpm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jan 7, 3:10�ｿｽpm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>>
>> > > > > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis,
>> > > > >in which
>> > > > > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
>> > > > > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
>> > > > > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
>> > > > > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
>> > > > > diet
>>
>> > > > > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>>
>> > > > > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>>
>> > > > of amphibian metamorphosis: insights based on the transformation of
>> > > > the aortic arches of Pelobates fuscus (Anura). J. Anat. 210:379-393.
>>
>> > > > Read it for free at:
>>
>> > > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100297/
>>
>> > > > Next time, do your own leg work.
>>
>> > > > Chris
>>
>> > > That doesn't answer the question.
>>
>> > Well, you have to read the paper
>>
>> I did, and it doesn't address my question.
>
>What is it that you want to know? How does metamorphosis happen, or
>how does an organism go from gills to air breathing?
Or how does metamorphosis evolve?
>
>Try to be a little more clear in what you want.
>
>DJT
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Prof Weird
Via slight modifications of what was already present - changes in
timing of development of limbs.
Standard variation plus selection.
What is supposed to be the problem that requires evo folk to put on
their dunce caps ?
Google search for 'Gerobatrachus hottoni' - a frogamander. Has frog
traits PLUS salamander traits. Considered a
'missing link' between frogs and salamanders.
Nature 22 May, 2008 has the article about it.
So a frog is just a rather modified salamander.
Suspect you will now attempt the Behe Blither - 'well, if you don't
know EXACTLY which base pairs were changed in which ancestors, and
what the population sizes and selective advantages were FOR EACH AND
EVERY MUTATION in the lineage over thirty million years, then I MUST
reject evolution in favor of Magical Skymanism/'Intelligent' Design !'
(which illustrates the evo-denier double standard : evolution
supporters must provide infinite detail, while Magical Skymanism
boosters gets a free pass)
Your 'explanation' is what again ?
You 'determined' that your explanation is equal or better than
standard evolution HOW ?
Eric Root
We were never issued dunce caps, being somewhat smarter than average,
and anyway, the entire supply went to creationists, who average kind
of on the dumb side.
Eric Root
Dan Listermann
"Reddfrogg" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:e97535ba-f3ed-45f0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
to try to explain things without using these concepts. It is a bit like
explaining how airplanes fly without using the word "air."
.
Dan Listermann
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:L8ydnYV2d8X...@giganews.com...
He probably thinks this sort of change happened instantly through a single
generation. They really don't understand much.
.
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
The paper Chris cited is an excellent answer to the question
you asked. If you meant to ask a different question, then you
should clarify yourself.
I suspect that your only motive was to hurl insults. You succeeded.
Tim
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Michael
<yos...@hotmail.com>:
>On Jan 7, 3:24�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 3:10�pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>>
>> > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
>> > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
>> > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
>> > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
>> > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
>> > diet
>>
>> > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>>
>> > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>>
>> Kolesov�, H., Lametschwandtner, A., and Ro?ek, Z. 2007. The evolution
>> of amphibian metamorphosis: insights based on the transformation of
>> the aortic arches of Pelobates fuscus (Anura). J. Anat. 210:379-393.
>>
>> Read it for free at:
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100297/
>>
>> Next time, do your own leg work.
>That doesn't answer the question.
The question was "From an evolution standpoint, how did this
(amphibian metamorphosis) occur?"
The answer was a reference to a scientific paper titled "The
evolution of amphibian metamorphosis".
If you wanted to ask a different question you should have
phrased it differently.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Frank J
So what is *your* "theory" and how does *it* explain it.
All-seeing-I
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> diet
>
> So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
Didn't you know?
EVERYTHING is an example of speciation.
Reddfrogg
apparently, he doesn't. Likewise, you are equally ignorant.
>
> EVERYTHING is an example of speciation.
No, it's not. Metamorphosis is not speciation. You've been given
several examples of speciation. None of them were tadpoles turning
into frogs.
DJT
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not a problem for evolution. It is a problem for the
evolutionists that think that may be a transitional species
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:madman-93c5143f-ead7-...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
have decedents. However such species that demonstrate more than one way of
doing things are a strong clue to how earlier species "transitioned." Now
shove your head back into the sand and sing la,la, la . . .
.
Michael
> On Jan 7, 2:00�pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 1:10 pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> > > > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> > > > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> > > > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> > > > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> > > > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> > > > diet
>
> > > > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> > > > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>
> > > By variation in the population, and natural selection.
>
> > Please detail for us HOW this occurred.
>
> By variation in the population, and natural selection. � That's how it
> happened. �If you are looking for the most likely pathways, you need
> to read the article that Chris gave you above.
I don't subscribe to that.
Have him post it here.
Michael
In order to get onto land, wouldn't they need legs?
Dan Listermann
"Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:793fc12a-10ea-4d1e...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Tell that to a snake.
.
Michael
Is a snake a frog?
Dan Listermann
I addressed you point, you are trying to deflect. I can't wait until you
point out that snakes have vestigial legs that evolved away.
.
Michael
No sir not at all.
I am waiting for the article about amphibian metamorphisis.
The fact is, the frog is a rather simple creature.
From an evolutionary standpoint, you really don't have the first clue
how this occurred. And that is a fact.
Burkhard
No, but it is a land animal that manages just fine without legs,
showing that they are not necessary to get onto land.
Michael
Ok.
So you have a tadpole that breathes underwater, nevermind how it got
there from
a land breather in the first place, and as an adult, shimmies its way
onto land and presto lungs appear
after it does that,
Ye Old One
No, there are a number of living examples of fish that spend short
periods on land without legs.
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
John Harshman
interpreting frog metamorphosis as the necessary path of adult evolution
from fish to frog. But it didn't work that way, as I explained before.
To recap: the fish immediately ancestral to tetrapods had lungs *and*
gills; legs, too, more or less. Or you might want to call them leg-like
fins. Whatever.
John Harshman
water, gradually. Tiktaalik has legs, sort of, and it was a fish. Again,
the ancestor of the amphibian had legs as an adult, and many amphibians
have legs even as tadpoles. All that's necessary again is a bit of
heterochrony, delaying development of the legs until they're needed.
Steven L.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> diet
>
> So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
I assumed it was similar to how human fetuses lose their gills and tails
before birth.
What's the creationist explanation for human fetuses with gills and
tails?
And what's their explanation for the (admittedly rare) cases where a
human baby is actually born with a tail, a tail it can actually move?
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kleuskes & Moos
You've been presented with a paper addressing that question. Have you
read it, yet?
Moist Lipwig
> On Jan 7, 4:20 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 7, 2:00 pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Jan 7, 1:10 pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>> > > >
>> > > > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs ... [go] from
>> > > > breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>> > > > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>> > >
>> > > By variation in the population, and natural selection.
>> > >
>> > Please detail for us HOW this occurred.
>> >
>> By variation in the population, and natural selection. That's how it
>> happened. If you are looking for the most likely pathways, you need
>> to read the article that Chris gave you above.
>
> I don't subscribe to that.
> Have him post it here.
>
-----------------------------------------------
He did, you nitwit. You've refused to read it.
January 7, 2010
> "chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Kolesov�, H., Lametschwandtner, A., and Rocek, Z. 2007. The evolution
Dana Tweedy
No one claims that frogs are transitional species. Again, why would it
be a problem?
DJT
>
Dana Tweedy
So, you were lying when you said you read the article.
> Have him post it here.
As Chris said, do you own legwork.
DJT
>
Dana Tweedy
if it didn't it wouldn't last very long.....
> nevermind how it got
> there from
> a land breather in the first place,
not many animals are "land breathers". Land doesn't provide a good
medium for oxygen exchange. Air is a better choice.
Tadpoles are the larval form of an air breathing animal. That larval
form retains the gills it's ancestors had.
> and as an adult, shimmies its way
> onto land and presto lungs appear
> after it does that,
Actually, the lungs develop before the tadpole climbs onto land. Lungs
develop from an outpouching of the esophagus, not from the gills.
Early tetrapods, the ancestors of frogs, and all other land dwelling
vertebrates had those lungs as well as gills
DJT
I AM
That was a different article idiot!
>
> > Have him post it here.
>
> As Chris said, do you own legwork.
I don't subsribe to that one.
Others here said they read it.
So obviously they do.
Post it here imbecile!
I AM
> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8259cd6f-28dd-4f67...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> > diet
>
> > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>
> I assumed it was similar to how human fetuses lose their gills
> What's the creationist explanation for human fetuses with gills
human fetuses have pharyngeal or branchial pouches that are sometimes
called gill slits. They are transitory structures that eventually
become parts of the jaw and the upper respiratory tract and they do
not function like gills at all.
I AM
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was talking about chris' article, as that didn't address jacksquat,
but
this article by another nym here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109699426/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Post the article here.
I AM
Should be wasn't instead of was in the above.
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109699426/abstract?CRETRY=...
>
> Post the article here.- Hide quoted text -
I AM
So you are claiming that an animal had both lungs and gills AT THE
SAME TIME.
Call for evidence.
John Harshman
That's easy enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
Or, if you're looking for a fossil of about the right age to be an
amphibian ancestor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
Or pick just about any living fish, and ask yourself what that swim
bladder resembles.
Dan Listermann
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:v8WdnZRXeaxa5drW...@bresnan.com...
.
Kermit
> On Jan 8, 12:31�pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8259cd6f-28dd-4f67...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> > > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> > > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> > > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> > > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> > > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> > > diet
>
> > > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> > > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>
> > I assumed it was similar to how human fetuses lose their gills
> > What's the creationist explanation for human fetuses with gills
>
>
> human fetuses have pharyngeal or branchial pouches that are sometimes
> called gill slits. They are transitory structures that eventually
> become parts of the jaw and the upper respiratory tract and they do
> not function like gills at all.
Correct. In fish embryos the pharyngeal pouches *do become gills.
Kermit
Dan Listermann
"I AM" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:695bef88-b570-4dd3...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
structures EVER functioned as gills in human fetuses.
Improve you reading comprehension and study logic fallacies.
.
chris thompson
You meanie. Now you made them sad.
Chris
I AM
I am not talking about a current animal but the alleged ancestor of
the frog.
>
> Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
> amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
"Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
If you notice, they only used one or the other.
Now, you have to have a hypothetical animal that used both their gills
and lungs simultaneously.
This hypothetical, would then have to have drastic changes to the DNA,
in order to have young
that had gills, then huge morphological changes to do away with the
gills and produce the
lungs.
Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
One day.
It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
A day, charlatan, a day
Inez
"Primary" means most often used, not used exclusively.
> Now, you have to have a hypothetical animal that used both their gills
> and lungs simultaneously.
Why would he have to have that?
> This hypothetical, would then have to have drastic changes to the DNA,
> in order to have young
> that had gills, then huge morphological changes to do away with the
> gills and produce the
> lungs.
It wouldn't need to change its DNA, it would only need to have DNA
that exchanged gills for lungs at a certain stage of development.
> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> One day.
> It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
> A day, charlatan, a day-
So what, butthead, so what?
I AM
Don't call me butthead.
If anything I figured you would call me beavis.
Anyway, something just occurred to me.
Jehovah who is Jesus created the world.
But at the time he hadn't been exalted, he was given the title
role position of deity before the world.
What you are looking at here creation was the result of a child.
Now he did really good with the frog.
Designed it so its young would breath under water, and transform to
breathe
on land.
You would have to learn the languange of DNA, but it looks
as if it would be relatively straightforward and easy.
Of course your mind wouldn't have some of the childproofing it
has now, you would need some of it taken off to do it.
Now if someone here in mortality had some of the childproofing
removed, you might want to watch out for that guy.
Now let me go, so the childproofing comes back on.
According to scripture, the Earth was organized in 6 time periods, but
watch out, here comes revelation, he will do it for you in 6
seconds ...
Dana Tweedy
> On Jan 8, 1:19 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On 1/8/10 9:13 AM, Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 4:20 pm, Reddfrogg<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 7, 2:00 pm, Michael<yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, Reddfrogg<reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Jan 7, 1:10 pm, Michael<yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>>
>>>>>>> At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
>>>>>>> they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
>>>>>>> transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
>>>>>>> legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
>>>>>>> intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
>>>>>>> diet
>>
>>>>>>> So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>>
>>>>>>> From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>>
>>>>>> By variation in the population, and natural selection.
>>
>>>>> Please detail for us HOW this occurred.
>>
>>>> By variation in the population, and natural selection. That's how it
>>>> happened. If you are looking for the most likely pathways, you need
>>>> to read the article that Chris gave you above.
>>
>>> I don't subscribe to that.
>>
>> So, you were lying when you said you read the article.
>
> That was a different article idiot!
No, I was referring to the article that you claimed to have read.
>
>>
>>> Have him post it here.
>>
>> As Chris said, do you own legwork.
>
> I don't subsribe to that one.
Then you lied when you said you read it....
> Others here said they read it.
Because they know how to read.
> So obviously they do.
> Post it here imbecile!
Again, do you your own legwork. All you have to do is click the link
Chris provided.
DJT
>
I AM
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvjoh14.htm
14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again]
unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto
the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
After he was resurrected:
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvmat28.htm
28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given
unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Dana Tweedy
I was talking about the article that Chris linked to, which explained
how metamorphsis evolved.
> but
> this article by another nym here:
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109699426/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
I wasn't talking about that article. If you want to read the article,
click the link, or go look it up in a proper library.
>
> Post the article here.
And I should do this for you, why?
DJT
>
I AM
That one doesn't address the issue.
Why do you keep harping about it?
It basically says there are huge morphological changes and talks about
one of them.
Like I need a science paper to tell me there are huge morphological
changes, idiot!
Prof Weird
You ASKED for an example of an animal that *HAD* both lungs AND gills
at the same time.
You got one. So why (except for your need to be an annoying prat) are
John's examples invalid ?
> > Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
> > amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
>
> "Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
> primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
> on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
>
> If you notice, they only used one or the other.
But they had both - which one was used MOST OFTEN was different.
Went from 'gills plus lungs (gills primary means)' to 'gills plus
lungs (lungs primary means)'.
From the lungfish wiki, of the three known species, only one can still
use its gills even though all still have gills.
What sort of deranged creator would make fish with non-functional
gills ?
> Now, you have to have a hypothetical animal that used both their gills
> and lungs simultaneously.
Your question was about animals HAVING both gills and lungs; nothing
requires they both be used simultaneously.
> This hypothetical, would then have to have drastic changes to the DNA,
> in order to have young
> that had gills, then huge morphological changes to do away with the
> gills and produce the
> lungs.
Not really. Just a change in developmental timing - for tadpoles, the
lungs start to form about the same time as the legs do. The lungs are
present, they just don't do much until later in development. The
metamorphosis is under hormonal control (thyroxin and prolactin,
IIRC). In other words, the cells that will form the lungs and limbs
are present, but won't start dividing and developing until given the
correct hormonal signals.
> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> One day.
> It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
> A day, charlatan, a day
Given that the frog's LUNGS began developing about the same time as
its back legs did whilst still a tadpole, that is a 'problem' why ?
As the lungs develop, the tadpoles spent more and more time at the
surface as they resorb their gills.
Their front legs emerge from the gill pouch - so by the time they can
walk on land, their lungs have developed fully and their gills are
gone.
Why are you calling John a 'charlatan' ? Because he gave you an
answer you do not like or understand ?
Your 'alternative explanation' is what again ? Tinkering by an
unknowable Magical Sky Pixie ?
RAM
Yes how would you know otherwise.
Inez
> On Jan 8, 3:32�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:13�pm, I AM <yost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> > > One day.
> > > It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
> > > A day, charlatan, a day-
>
> > So what, butthead, so what?
>
> Don't call me butthead.
I would go back in time and un-call you that, but my time machine is
on back order.
> If anything I figured you would call me beavis.
Well, you're wrong about a lot of things.
> Anyway, something just occurred to me.
> Jehovah who is Jesus created the world.
> But at the time he hadn't been exalted, he was given the title
> role position of deity before the world.
> What you are looking at here creation was the result of a child.
> Now he did really good with the frog.
> Designed it so its young would breath under water, and transform to
> breathe
> on land.
> You would have to learn the languange of DNA, but it looks
> as if it would be relatively straightforward and easy.
> Of course your mind wouldn't have some of the childproofing it
> has now, you would need some of it taken off to do it.
> Now if someone here in mortality had some of the childproofing
> removed, you might want to watch out for that guy.
> Now let me go, so the childproofing comes back on.
> According to scripture, the Earth was organized in 6 time periods, but
> watch out, here comes revelation, he will do it for you in 6
> seconds ...
I like Cocoa Puffs, but I'm not coo coo for them.
Dana Tweedy
You asked for an animal that had both lungs and gills at the same time.
Lungfish are such an animal. The ancestor of frogs, and all other
land vertebrates was very similar to lungfish.
>
>>
>> Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
>> amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
>
> "Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
> primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
> on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
>
> If you notice, they only used one or the other.
No, they don't.
> Now, you have to have a hypothetical animal that used both their gills
> and lungs simultaneously.
Like the lungfish has now.
> This hypothetical, would then have to have drastic changes to the DNA,
> in order to have young
> that had gills,
Since it already had gills, no drastic changes are needed.
> then huge morphological changes to do away with the
> gills and produce the
> lungs.
Not such a big change, considering it already had lungs.
> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> One day.
Yes. Your point?
> It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
> A day, charlatan, a day
So? What's your point?
DJT
>
chris thompson
Know Anything About Respiratory Anatomy?
Dana Tweedy
How do you know, since you didn't read it?
>
> Why do you keep harping about it?
Because it would have answered your question.
>
> It basically says there are huge morphological changes and talks about
> one of them.
The article I'm talking about addresses directly how metamorphosis in
amphibians like frogs evolved.
>
> Like I need a science paper to tell me there are huge morphological
> changes, idiot!
Apparently you do need a science paper to discuss why such changes happen.
DJT
>
chris thompson
Stop right there Prof W!!
Why are you buying into this?
Doesn't the breathtaking stupidity of demanding an organism that uses
gills and lungs simultaneously just...well, take your breath away?
Chris
chris thompson
> On Jan 8, 3:32�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:13�pm, I AM <yost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> > > One day.
> > > It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
> > > A day, charlatan, a day-
>
> > So what, butthead, so what?
>
> Don't call me butthead.
Right. She should not call you butthead. The butthead association just
called and they're really pissed she mixed you up with them.
Would you care to explain just how it's possible to use gills and
lungs simultaneously?
Here's an experiment: pretend for a moment you have gills. Dive to the
bottom of your local swimming pool and try to use your lungs. Make
sure there's a lifeguard handy.
Once you are out of hospital, go to your friend's house- the one with
the aquarium- and do this experiment. When he's not looking, go to his
aquarium and remove his albino platinum arowana, and coax it to use
its gills while it's lying on his living room carpet.
You'll spend more time in hospital after the second experiment; I
guarantee it.
Chris
And yes, I just chez watted you on the gill/lung thingy.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>On Jan 7, 2:10�pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>>
>> At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
>> they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
>> transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
>> legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
>> intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
>> diet
>>
>> So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>>
>> From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>Didn't you know?
If he did, why would he have asked?
>EVERYTHING is an example of speciation.
Uh, no, it's not. Specifically (NPI) his question dealt with
metamorphosis, which is definitely not an example of
speciation.
(Buy 'em their books, send 'em to school, and they eat the
teacher. Sheesh...)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Michael
<yos...@hotmail.com>:
>On Jan 7, 4:20�pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 2:00�pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 7, 3:55 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 7, 1:10 pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>>
>> > > > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
>> > > > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
>> > > > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
>> > > > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
>> > > > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
>> > > > diet
>>
>> > > > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>>
>> > > > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>>
>> > > By variation in the population, and natural selection.
>>
>> > Please detail for us HOW this occurred.
>>
>> By variation in the population, and natural selection. � That's how it
>> happened. �If you are looking for the most likely pathways, you need
>> to read the article that Chris gave you above.
>I don't subscribe to that.
It's not a subscription issue; the paper is available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100297/
>Have him post it here.
That would be a bit illegal; copyright and all that...
He posted the link; if you're interested in the answer to
your question go read the paper. If not, stay ignorant. Your
choice.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by I AM
<yos...@hotmail.com>:
Not only "had", but "has".
>Call for evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
Note the comments referring to "atrophied gills" in all but
the Australian lungfish; this points to an evolutionary
change in the species. Referring to the part of the Wiki
article about Australian lungfish:
http://www.lungfish.info/australian.php
You're welcome.
Desertphile
<yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> diet
>
> So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
> From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
Via evolution, idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:31�pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8259cd6f-28dd-4f67...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
> >
> > > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> > > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> > > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> > > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> > > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> > > diet
> >
> > > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
> >
> > > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
> >
> > I assumed it was similar to how human fetuses lose their gills
>
> > What's the creationist explanation for human fetuses with gills
> http://bayo2pisay.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/mythbuster-human-fetuses-have-pharyngeal-pouches-not-gills/
>
> human fetuses have pharyngeal or branchial pouches that are sometimes
> called gill slits. They are transitory structures that eventually
> become parts of the jaw and the upper respiratory tract and they do
> not function like gills at all.
Scientists don't say they do.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:10�pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
> >
> > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> > diet
> >
> > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
> >
> > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
> Didn't you know?
> EVERYTHING is an example of speciation.
Idiot.
John Harshman
Who cares what you're talking about? Your implicit claim was that an
animal couldn't have both gills and lungs at the same time. That claim
is false.
>> Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
>> amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
>
> "Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
> primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
> on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
Sorry, I just picked a reference without being sure it was correct. In
fact, Ichthyostega had both gills and lungs. Which it relied on more is
an open question, but why should that matter? It had both.
> If you notice, they only used one or the other.
No, even the wiki article doesn't say that.
> Now, you have to have a hypothetical animal that used both their gills
> and lungs simultaneously.
> This hypothetical, would then have to have drastic changes to the DNA,
> in order to have young
> that had gills, then huge morphological changes to do away with the
> gills and produce the
> lungs.
No. The ancestor had both gills and lungs in the adult.
> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> One day.
Actually, that isn't true. It happens gradually.
> It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
> A day, charlatan, a day
Do you have some kind of point to make about evolution?
William Morse
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> diet
>
> So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>
from a creationist standpoint, why should this occur? Why would God
create something that had to go through "a dramatic transformation of
morphology and physiology"? Why not just create little frogs that grew
into big frogs? I await your explanation.
Dan Listermann
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hi90c...@news3.newsguy.com...
"Mysterious ways . . ."
.
Mike Lyle
> I AM wrote:
[...]
>
>> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
>> One day.
>
> Actually, that isn't true. It happens gradually.
>
>> It goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land, in a day.
>> A day, charlatan, a day
>
> Do you have some kind of point to make about evolution?
I'd be a little more respectful: your interlocutor, if he isn't using a
false name, is the Creator himself. We now have nearly a full set in the
group: "I Am" himself, his Consigliere Ray, his Prophet ASI, and the
altar-boy Nashton. As soon as the other altar-boys, Spintronic and
Backspace, and the devadasi Suzanne reappear from whatever it is they're
doing, I reckon the stage is set for the full Apocalypse bit.
--
Mike.
Michael
> "I AM" <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:695bef88-b570-4dd3...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:31 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> >> > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> >> > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> >> > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> >> > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> >> > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> >> > diet
>
> >> > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> >> > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>
>
> >> What's the creationist explanation for human fetuses with gills
>
>
> > human fetuses have pharyngeal or branchial pouches that are sometimes
> > called gill slits. They are transitory structures that eventually
> > become parts of the jaw and the upper respiratory tract and they do
> > not function like gills at all.
>
No you tried to deceieve and make it appear in the above context that
human
fetuses have gills.
Michael
<snip>
> > This hypothetical, would then have to have drastic changes to the DNA,
> > in order to have young
> > that had gills, then huge morphological changes to do away with the
> > gills and produce the
> > lungs.
>
> Not really. �Just a change in developmental timing - for tadpoles, the
> lungs start to form about the same time as the legs do. �The lungs are
> present, they just don't do much until later in development. �The
> metamorphosis is under hormonal control (thyroxin and prolactin,
> IIRC). � In other words, the cells that will form the lungs and limbs
> are present, but won't start dividing and developing until given the
> correct hormonal signals.
It seems that the DNA is rather efficient.
Seems far fetched to me.
Michael
I never claimed that.
I simply called for evidence on one of your claims.
>
> >> Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
> >> amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
>
> > "Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
> > primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
> > on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
>
> Sorry, I just picked a reference without being sure it was correct. In
> fact, Ichthyostega had both gills and lungs. Which it relied on more is
> an open question, but why should that matter? It had both.
>
> > If you notice, they only used one or the other.
>
> No, even the wiki article doesn't say that.
You are truly an idiot.
When under water it used gills.
When on land it breathed using lungs.
Are you totally braindead?
> > Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> > One day.
>
> Actually, that isn't true. It happens gradually.
Bullshit, the frog loses it gills and acquires lungs in about 24
hours, idiot!
Dan Listermann
LOL! That is exactly what you were trying to do!
.
John Harshman
You called for evidence on my claim that early fish had lungs and gills.
We can determine this from both fossils and extant species, and I showed
you some of that evidence.
>>>> Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
>>>> amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
>>> "Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
>>> primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
>>> on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
>> Sorry, I just picked a reference without being sure it was correct. In
>> fact, Ichthyostega had both gills and lungs. Which it relied on more is
>> an open question, but why should that matter? It had both.
>>
>>> If you notice, they only used one or the other.
>> No, even the wiki article doesn't say that.
>
> You are truly an idiot.
> When under water it used gills.
> When on land it breathed using lungs.
> Are you totally braindead?
Not true. It almost certainly used its lung and its gills at once while
in the water, as modern-day lungfish do. Anyway, if there's any sort of
evolutionary problem, it isn't about using both at once, is it?
>>> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
>>> One day.
>> Actually, that isn't true. It happens gradually.
>
> Bullshit, the frog loses it gills and acquires lungs in about 24
> hours, idiot!
Can you back up that claim? It certainly doesn't match either my
personal experience or anything I know about frog development. As far as
I can see, the process takes weeks.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would I go around claiming human fetuses have gills, idiot!
Michael
Is this how you admit being wrong?
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
> >>>> amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
> >>> "Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
> >>> primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
> >>> on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
> >> Sorry, I just picked a reference without being sure it was correct. In
> >> fact, Ichthyostega had both gills and lungs. Which it relied on more is
> >> an open question, but why should that matter? It had both.
>
> >>> If you notice, they only used one or the other.
> >> No, even the wiki article doesn't say that.
>
> > You are truly an idiot.
> > When under water it used gills.
> > When on land it breathed using lungs.
> > Are you totally braindead?
>
> Not true. It almost certainly used its lung and its gills at once while
> in the water, as modern-day lungfish do.
Do you mean simultaneously?
> >>> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
> >>> One day.
> >> Actually, that isn't true. It happens gradually.
>
> > Bullshit, the frog loses it gills and acquires lungs in about 24
> > hours, idiot!
>
> Can you back up that claim? It certainly doesn't match either my
> personal experience or anything I know about frog development. As far as
> I can see, the process takes weeks.
That is because you are a pretend evolutionary biologist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis_(biology)#Frogs_and_toads
The animal develops a big jaw, the gills disappear as well as the gill
sac. The eyes grow at a very fast rate as well as the legs, a tongue
is formed and all this is completed with the associated changes in the
neural networks (development of stereoscopic vision, loss of the
lateral line system etc.) All of this can happen in about a day, so it
is truly a metamorphosis.
Take a look at the pictures to the right also.
John Harshman
No.
>>>>>> Or, if you're looking for a fossil to be an
>>>>>> amphibian ancestor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega#Adaptations_for_land_life
>>>>> "Though Crossopterygians possessed lungs, they used gills as their
>>>>> primary means of acquiring oxygen; Ichthyostega appears to have relied
>>>>> on its lungs as its primary apparatus for breathing"
>>>> Sorry, I just picked a reference without being sure it was correct. In
>>>> fact, Ichthyostega had both gills and lungs. Which it relied on more is
>>>> an open question, but why should that matter? It had both.
>>>>> If you notice, they only used one or the other.
>>>> No, even the wiki article doesn't say that.
>>> You are truly an idiot.
>>> When under water it used gills.
>>> When on land it breathed using lungs.
>>> Are you totally braindead?
>> Not true. It almost certainly used its lung and its gills at once while
>> in the water, as modern-day lungfish do.
>
> Do you mean simultaneously?
Yes, that is what "at once" means.
>>>>> Now if you notice, the frog does this in a day. About 24 hours.
>>>>> One day.
>>>> Actually, that isn't true. It happens gradually.
>>> Bullshit, the frog loses it gills and acquires lungs in about 24
>>> hours, idiot!
>> Can you back up that claim? It certainly doesn't match either my
>> personal experience or anything I know about frog development. As far as
>> I can see, the process takes weeks.
>
> That is because you are a pretend evolutionary biologist:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis_(biology)#Frogs_and_toads
>
> The animal develops a big jaw, the gills disappear as well as the gill
> sac. The eyes grow at a very fast rate as well as the legs, a tongue
> is formed and all this is completed with the associated changes in the
> neural networks (development of stereoscopic vision, loss of the
> lateral line system etc.) All of this can happen in about a day, so it
> is truly a metamorphosis.
>
> Take a look at the pictures to the right also.
You will note that the tadpole has lungs and legs long before this
metamorphosis happens. What's happening quickly are changes to the jaw
and loss of the gills.
I AM
In the pictures at right the tadpole doesn't appear to have legs ...
John Harshman
Click on it to make the picture bigger, then look again.
Caranx latus
> On Jan 9, 3:10 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>> Take a look at the pictures to the right also.
>> You will note that the tadpole has lungs and legs long before this
>> metamorphosis happens.
>
> In the pictures at right the tadpole doesn't appear to have legs ...
Yes, it does. Click on the pictures to get better resolution.
Michael
And if you read the exchanges above I said gills.
Do you deny the gills go away in 24 hours?
John Harshman
Dan Listermann
Per above," I assumed it was similar to how human fetuses lose their gills"
.
Prof Weird
When one is willfully ignorant, EVERYTHING is 'far fetched' (and thus
can be hand-waved away with the standard "if *I* can't figure it out,
the only possible explanation is 'My favorite unknowable being somehow
did stuff sometime in the past for some reason !' ")
What is so far fetched about frog metamorphosis ? The ancient
ancestor of frogs had both lungs and gills, so it is only a matter of
timing when parts develop. For frogs, limbs and lungs don't develop
until later in development; for their close relatives the salamanders,
they're born with limbs already developed, with lung development
delayed until they resorb their gills.
Some frog tadpoles (Xenopus) breathe air right off; preventing them
from using their lungs delays their metamorphosis. Other frogs
develop lungs later, so its not like lung development timing cannot
vary.
Did you have some sort of point to make, or just assuming your
ignorance qualifies as evidence against evolution (and magically
supports your 'alternative' via a stolen default fallacy ?)
Scientist
> On Jan 7, 3:57 pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:24 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 3:10 pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Life_cycle
>
> > > > At the end of the tadpole stage, frogs undergo metamorphosis, in which
> > > > they transition into adult form. Metamorphosis involves a dramatic
> > > > transformation of morphology and physiology, as tadpoles develop hind
> > > > legs, then front legs, lose their gills and develop lungs. Their
> > > > intestines shorten as they shift from an herbivorous to a carnivorous
> > > > diet
>
> > > > So, it goes from breathing under water, to breathing on land.
>
> > > > From an evolution standpoint, how did this occur?
>
> > > of amphibian metamorphosis: insights based on the transformation of
> > > the aortic arches of Pelobates fuscus (Anura). J. Anat. 210:379-393.
>
> > > Read it for free at:
>
> > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100297/
>
> > > Next time, do your own leg work.
>
> > > Chris
>
> > That doesn't answer the question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> you asked. If you meant to ask a different question, then you
> should clarify yourself.
>
> I suspect that your only motive was to hurl insults. You succeeded.
>
> Tim
I think the point here is to dispute things and get it into record
multiple times. Then, other fundies can reference and quote his
posts, building yet another "authoritative source"