[_ Old Earth _] Five Fingers vs. Evolution

[Hammer]

In my biology text in school, the chapter on Evolution presented a number of circumstantial "proofs" pleading for Evolution. One example was an illustration of diverse species with five digits at the end of their limbs. Evolutionists love to point to similarity between structures in diverse animals as proof of common ancestry. This similarity is called homology. I’ll quote an Evolutionist in regards to five digits allegedly showing common ancestry:

There are countless examples of these kinds of homologies.

One frequently cited example is the pentadactyl (five digit) limb of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). When you consider the vastly different functions of the various limbs of all of these creatures (grasping, walking, digging, flying, swimming, etc.) there is no functional reason for all of these limbs to have the same basic structure. Why do humans, cats, birds and whales all have the same basic five digit limb structure? (Note: adult birds actually have three digit limbs, but embryonically these digits develop from a five digit precursor.)

The only idea that makes sense is if all of these creatures developed from a common ancestor that happened to have five digit limbs.

The Evolutionist author doesn't explain why this makes sense in Evolution. It’s as if he’s thinking, “Look, five, five five, now believe Evolution.†I’d like to explain why it doesn't make sense in Evolution.

The Evolutionist asserts, “There is no functional reason for all these limbs to have the same basic structure.†I agree. If there’s no functional reason for five, there’s no reason for Natural Selection to preserve five digits. Think about the vast distances between humans, cats, birds, whales (and, bats, etc.). Keep in mind, the Evolutionist believes that tens of millions of years is all it took to turn dinosaurs into birds and rodents into people.

We’re suppose to believe that natural forces, that caused such transformation in tens of millions of years, somehow preserved, without the aid of Natural Selection (or in spite of Natural Selection), five digits? Not just once but through many different, isolated lineages. Sorry, that’s just not credible!

If Evolution were true, we should be seeing a practically random number of digits between distant species because species undergo continuous random mutations. Oligo/polydactylism is when an animal or person has something other than five digits. There are a number of known mutations that cause this. In some species, like cats, it’s surprisingly common.

Rather than five digits supporting Evolution, it contradicts Evolution. As a matter of philosophy, not the pseudoscience of Evolutionists, I see five digits as a signature of God. Five is a result of the common designer, not a result of common descent.

 

[Grazer]

Why are you pitching evolution against God as competing explanations?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hammer]

Why are you pitching evolution against God as competing explanations?

I'm pointing out that Evolution isn't an explanation for the homology of five digits, in spite of it being a popular "proof" by Evolutionists. We could leave God completely out of this.

 

[Barbarian]

If you're right, polydactyly (more than five, which is very common in large dogs) means God messed up each time.

Sounds unlikely to me. The number of digits isn't directly coded for in genes, BTW. It's a consequence of how long the fetal hand takes to complete the process which leads to fingers.

Early tetrapods had more, but the number quickly settled on five, for reasons that are not clear. But yes, it is another indication of common ancestry.

 

[Hammer]

If you're right, polydactyly (more than five, which is very common in large dogs) means God messed up each time.

Your reply is completely non-responsive to the central point of my post, that five-digit homology doesn't support Evolution.

Polydactyly dogs are completely consistent with Creationism. Creationism holds that there are mutations, and that those mutations deterioration or noise in the genome. The fact of the standard five digits of dogs is a contradiction to Evolution.

The number of digits isn't directly coded for in genes, BTW. It's a consequence of how long the fetal hand takes to complete the process which leads to fingers.

The mechanism by which genes result in a given number of digits is irrelevant. The fact remains that genes determine the number of digits and that a number of specific mutations have been identified which result in different numbers of digits.

Early tetrapods had more, but the number quickly settled on five, for reasons that are not clear. But yes, it is another indication of common ancestry.

Five digits for reasons that are unclear? I thought the reason was clear, common ancestry? Tsk, tsk.

As already noted, more than five digits is okay with Creation. There's also nothing in Creationism that forbids five-digit individuals from dying out. And, there's nothing in Creationism that requires an intelligent designer to give five digits to a species where five digits is inappropriate.

Those "early tetrapods" with more than five digits can't be the five-digit common ancestors to modern tetrapods.

The argument is if Evolution were true, the number of digits should be essentially random between species, not five as the norm.

 

[lordkalvan]

In my biology text in school, the chapter on Evolution presented a number of circumstantial "proofs" pleading for Evolution. One example was an illustration of diverse species with five digits at the end of their limbs. Evolutionists love to point to similarity between structures in diverse animals as proof of common ancestry. This similarity is called homology. I’ll quote an Evolutionist in regards to five digits allegedly showing common ancestry...

Which textbook are you referring to and can you tell us which 'Evolutionist' you are quoting and from where?

The Evolutionist author doesn't explain why this makes sense in Evolution. It’s as if he’s thinking, “Look, five, five five, now believe Evolution.†I’d like to explain why it doesn't make sense in Evolution.

Well, I suppose we'll have to take your word for it that this author doesn't provide an explanation, but here's one that may help clarify the situation:

'The evolutionary explanation of the pentadactyl limb is simply that all the tetrapods have descended from a common ancestor that had a pentadactyl limb and, during evolution, it has turned out to be easier to evolve variations on the five-digit theme, than to recompose the limb structure.

If species have descended from common ancestors, homologies make sense; but if all species originated separately, it is difficult to understand why they should share homologous similarities. Without evolution, there is nothing forcing the tetrapods all to have pentadactyl limbs.'

Source: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution17.asp 

The Evolutionist asserts, “There is no functional reason for all these limbs to have the same basic structure.†I agree. If there’s no functional reason for five, there’s no reason for Natural Selection to preserve five digits.

Yes, there is, because it's morphologically easier and genetically more efficient to adapt an existing structure than it is to develop a completely new one. If five digits exist in an ancestral species, why do you suppose it makes more evolutionary sense to do away with those digits entirely than it is to adapt the structure to new purposes?

Think about the vast distances between humans, cats, birds, whales (and, bats, etc.). Keep in mind, the Evolutionist believes that tens of millions of years is all it took to turn dinosaurs into birds and rodents into people.

Okay, I'm keeping it in mind, but what are these 'vast distances' you refer to? And what about the presumably less 'vast distances' amongst the primates?

We’re suppose to believe that natural forces, that caused such transformation in tens of millions of years, somehow preserved, without the aid of Natural Selection (or in spite of Natural Selection), five digits? Not just once but through many different, isolated lineages. Sorry, that’s just not credible!

Why? It's easier and more efficient to adapt and modify than it is to generate new structures.

If Evolution were true, we should be seeing a practically random number of digits between distant species because species undergo continuous random mutations.

Why? All the evolutionary algorithm 'says' is to modify, repeat if successful, otherwise discard. From your own example, birds and bats have modified five digits exactly as you suggest we might expect from evolutionary theory if it is true.

Oligo/polydactylism is when an animal or person has something other than five digits. There are a number of known mutations that cause this. In some species, like cats, it’s surprisingly common.

And? Not all mutations are equally useful and so selected for in populations.

Rather than five digits supporting Evolution, it contradicts Evolution. As a matter of philosophy, not the pseudoscience of Evolutionists, I see five digits as a signature of God. Five is a result of the common designer, not a result of common descent.

Then why did God, in your own example, adapt five digits in birds to result in three wing-supporting bones? After all, you have just told us that five is indicative of a divine signature, but apparently birds can make do with only 60% of this signature. 

 

[cupid dave]

Five is a result of the common designer, not a result of common descent.

Do you mean a common designer who used Spontaneous Generation to make apes and men with five fingers?

I mean, believing in a creator is irrelevant to this discussion of how the creating was done.

Was the creating of five fingers apes and men spontaneous creation or a result of some natural process like Evolution contends?

 

[cupid dave]

I'm pointing out that Evolution isn't an explanation for the homology of five digits, in spite of it being a popular "proof" by Evolutionists. We could leave God completely out of this.

Its not a "proof" for Spontaneous Generation, either.

The evolution idea is a rational explanation of some process used in that creation.
Spontaneous Generation is an irrational explanation for some process used in that creation.

It is not a "proof" of the process of the process utilized, but a theory or idea that such a process is possible as an explanation for how the creator worked, other than Spontaneous Generations.

 

[Hammer]

Which textbook are you referring to and can you tell us which 'Evolutionist' you are quoting and from where?

It could be anyone of many school biology texts. The link is provided in the original post. Sorry if it doesn't stand out more.

Yes, there is, because it's morphologically easier and genetically more efficient to adapt an existing structure than it is to develop a completely new one. If five digits exist in an ancestral species, why do you suppose it makes more evolutionary sense to do away with those digits entirely than it is to adapt the structure to new purposes?

It appears the only purpose of your post is to share Evolutionist assertions without giving any thought to the reasoning I provided.

Okay, I'm keeping it in mind, but what are these 'vast distances' you refer to? And what about the presumably less 'vast distances' amongst the primates?

You believe in the natural progression between a human to an ape to a rodent to a lizard to a dinosaur to a bird. And, you believe that through all that change that it's to be expected that selection-neutral, easily-changed pentadactylism would be preserved.

Get back to me when you're willing to be serious.

 

[lordkalvan]

It could be anyone of many school biology texts.

Well, that's rather vague and not very informative.

The link is provided in the original post. Sorry if it doesn't stand out more.

Yes, my fault for not seeing it. Sorry. I've read the Cline link and, while I don't take a great deal of issue with your reporting of it, I think you would have been better advised to search out an argument by an evolutionary biologist.

It appears the only purpose of your post is to share Evolutionist assertions without giving any thought to the reasoning I provided.

And how have I failed to address your reasoning? Do you mean I have disagreed with it?

You believe in the natural progression between a human to an ape to a rodent to a lizard to a dinosaur to a bird. And, you believe that through all that change that it's to be expected that selection-neutral, easily-changed pentadactylism would be preserved.

I say that you have given no reason to suppose that it wouldn't other than to misunderstand what evolutionary theory says about the likelihood of such changes occurring.

Get back to me when you're willing to be serious.

I was being serious. Of course, if all you want is agreement with your declarations, then a discussion forum isn't really the place to bring them. I notice, for example, that you completely ignore the 'serious' point of the digits in a bird's wing. So what do you regard as a 'serious' contribution to this discussion?

 

[cupid dave]

You believe in the natural progression between a human to an ape to a rodent to a lizard to a dinosaur to a bird. And, you believe that through all that change that it's to be expected that selection-neutral, easily-changed pentadactylism would be preserved.

Get back to me when you're willing to be serious.

But you have no evidence for otherwise what must have been a Sppontaneous Generation in the cae if each living organism, since they have not been sourced from earlier life forms.

You have zero examples for such spontaneous genrations and the Bible suggests that only one such incident took place when God said "Let the earth bring forth "grass"... (i.e., Hebrew = "first sprouts of life on Earth").

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If you're right, polydactyly (more than five, which is very common in large dogs) means God messed up each time.

Your reply is completely non-responsive to the central point of my post

Just pointing out the logical error.

, that five-digit homology doesn't support Evolution.

In the sense that the last common ancestor of tetrapods had five digits, it does.

Polydactyly dogs are completely consistent with Creationism.

Any belief system that uses unscriptural miracles to cover inconsistencies can incorporate anything into their new doctrines.

Creationism holds that there are mutations, and that those mutations deterioration or noise in the genome.

If so, then it's wrong. Many examples of favorable mutations have been documented.

The fact of the standard five digits of dogs is a contradiction to Evolution.

I know you want to believe that, but the evidence won't support it.

Barbarian observes:
The number of digits isn't directly coded for in genes, BTW. It's a consequence of how long the fetal hand takes to complete the process which leads to fingers.

The mechanism by which genes result in a given number of digits is irrelevant.

Not if the truth is important to you. God is truth. If you are a Christian, you should never be afraid of the truth.

The fact remains that genes determine the number of digits and that a number of specific mutations have been identified which result in different numbers of digits.

It's possible for mutations to affect the number of digits, but the number is not coded somewhere in our genome. You've been misled about that.

Early tetrapods had more, but the number quickly settled on five, for reasons that are not clear. But yes, it is another indication of common ancestry.

Five digits for reasons that are unclear?

Four or six would have been workable. Creationism can just make up a story to explain things. Science needs evidence.

As already noted, more than five digits is okay with Creation. There's also nothing in Creationism that forbids five-digit individuals from dying out. And, there's nothing in Creationism that requires an intelligent designer to give five digits to a species where five digits is inappropriate.

And yet, creationism can't explain the extra digits of birds that appear and then disappear in embryos.

Those "early tetrapods" with more than five digits can't be the five-digit common ancestors to modern tetrapods.

You just said that genes could change the number. So they could, if that was the only reason. But other reasons show that they are close to the group that gave rise to today's tetrapods, but are not the species that gave rise to them.

The argument is if Evolution were true, the number of digits should be essentially random between species, not five as the norm.

Creationists have argued so, but as you see, evolutionary theory and the evidence show otherwise.

 

[cupid dave]

Creationists have argued so, but as you see, evolutionary theory and the evidence show otherwise.

No, that is not the case at all.

The discipline of Science has constructed a lattice of theories which argues that the creative forces of the Cosmos through Natural Laws enumerated by the discipline conclude that Evolution was the process utilized in vreating life forms.

In the disicpline of Theology, theologians have insisted that after God created "grass" by a Spontaneous Generation of that life form, he did so in every case thereafter.

These are both just arguments based upon certain premises or axioms, or postulates which can not be proven in either case.
In both cases, one must accept the axioms as true befors one agrees with the logic that founds the conclusions stated in each case.

 

[Barbarian]

In the disicpline of Theology, theologians have insisted that after God created "grass" by a Spontaneous Generation of that life form, he did so in every case thereafter.

Some did, but it has never been Christian orthodoxy.

 

[cupid dave]

Some did, but it has never been Christian orthodoxy.

?
my undestanding is that evolutionists insist that from one initial start in a Spontaneous generation which they refer to as Abiogenesis, all life was derifed from those first earliest cells.

On the other side, the religious community has insisted that each kind of life form is unrelated to the others.
Each life form was individually and spontaneous generated initially and thereafter parented other members of its kind.

 

[Adam]

?
my undestanding is that evolutionists insist that from one initial start in a Spontaneous generation which they refer to as Abiogenesis, all life was derifed from those first earliest cells.

You have a very misled understanding, then. Evolutionary biologists insist nothing about abiogenesis. However, if they did, they would not be talking about "spontaneous generation."

 

[cupid dave]

You have a very misled understanding, then. Evolutionary biologists insist nothing about abiogenesis. However, if they did, they would not be talking about "spontaneous generation."

lame...

On the one side here, we have people who insist that the appearance of life on earth was due to an initial process of Abiogenesis followed by evolution.

The other side here says initially life came into being by Spontaneous Generation, followed by a series of further Spontaneous Generations for each and every life form on earth.

 

[Adam]

lame...

On the one side here, we have people who insist that the appearance of life on earth was due to an initial process of Abiogenesis followed by evolution.

The other side here says initially life came into being by Spontaneous Generation, followed by a series of further Spontaneous Generations for each and every life form on earth.

That's a false dichotomy.

Besides, you've backpedaled, agian, from your original claim:

"my undestanding is that evolutionists insist that from one initial start in a Spontaneous generation which they refer to as Abiogenesis."


That understanding is wrong.

 

[cupid dave]

That's a false dichotomy.

Besides, you've backpedaled, agian, from your original claim:

"my undestanding is that evolutionists insist that from one initial start in a Spontaneous generation which they refer to as Abiogenesis."


That understanding is wrong.

Well the way I see the issue of Evolution Vs Creation, which every forum on the net discusses as one of its main stickies is that:

Science minded people on the one side states that all present life on earth has been derived from some initial appearance of Life, which they call Abiogenesis, and then that life has merely diversified into wwhat we see today.

The other side is the Bible Bangers who read into Genesis that each and every life form (species) has been initially created by a Spontaneous Generation.

Which side are you on?

 

[Adam]

Well the way I see the issue of Evolution Vs Creation, which every forum on the net discusses as one of its main stickies is that:

Science minded people on the one side states that all present life on earth has been derived from some initial appearance of Life, which they call Abiogenesis, and then that life has merely diversified into wwhat we see today.

The other side is the Bible Bangers who read into Genesis that each and every life form (species) has been initially created by a Spontaneous Generation.

Which side are you on?

Neither.

I am not convinced that there was only one initial point or single event of abiogenesis. As a natural event, where there is one instance, there are likely to be more. The solar system, as far as I am concerned, is probably littered with varying forms of life. Titan is an excellent example of where life probably exists.

While I believe that all forms of life we see on earth today are related, that does not mean there was some point where lifeforms from two or more abiogenesis events did not compete, either forcing the other derived lifeforms into extinction or combining into a single organism type during the advancement of the first probionts.

I do not conform to your generalization about "science minded people."

I am also a "bible banger.' However, that does not meen that I, or any other bible banger must believe that the bible says anything about spontaneous generation. Maybe that is the way fundamentalists and literalists veiw the situation, but I am not a fundamentalist.

Genesis makes no mention of abiogenesis, anyway. The first life it even mentions is tender herbs and sprouts. It does not say that they suddenly appeared out of nowhere. God says "Let the earth BRING FORTH"

The word in Hebrew means "grow" or "sprout up."

Growing is not a spontaneous event, but takes a matter of time.

It would be different if the bible said "God said let the grass suddenly appear!" It does not, however.

So I do not conform to that other generalization, either.

I believe your dichotomy is a choice between atheists who probably do not have a science degree and fundamentalist Christians. Many people who have complex opinions on evolution and abiogenesis and the bible are neither and their views should be taken into account.


In any case, I hope that you have learned that "evolutionists," or at least biologists that specialize in abiogenesis do not insist that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing.