Religions > Atheism > TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2003 09:05:49 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II |
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other serious
problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures
prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs
were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on
land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery
environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major
change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal fertilization,
before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new
sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts—all of which
constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.
Enclosing the egg in a shell made necessary further remarkable changes in
order to make possible the development of a reptile and, finally, its release
from the shell. For example, within the shell there is the need for various
membranes and sacs, such as the amnion. This holds in the fluid in which the
embryo grows. The Reptiles describes another membrane called the allantois:
“The allantois receives and stores embryonic waste, serving as a sort of
bladder. It also has blood vessels that pick up oxygen that passes through
the shell and conduct it to the embryo.”
Evolution has not accounted for other complex differences involved. Embryos in
fish and amphibian eggs release their wastes in the surrounding water as
soluble urea. But urea within the shelled eggs of reptiles would kill the
embryos. So, in the shelled egg a major chemical change is made: The wastes,
insoluble uric acid, are stored within the allantois membrane. Consider this
also: The egg yolk is food for the growing reptile embryo, enabling it to
develop fully before emerging from the shell—unlike amphibians, which do not
hatch in the adult form. And to get out of the shell, the embryo is
distinctive in having an egg tooth, to help it break out of its prison.
Much more is needed to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile, but
these examples show that undirected chance just cannot account for all the
many complex changes required to bridge that wide gulf. No wonder
evolutionist Archie Carr lamented: “One of the frustrating features of the
fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the
evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was
developing.”
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email
.
|
|
| User: "Sarotherodon" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II |
15 Sep 2003 09:35:39 AM |
|
|
<Jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bk4gvt$lmn$1@news.netmar.com...
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other
serious
problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures
prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs
were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on
land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery
environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major
change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal
fertilization,
before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new
sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts-all of which
constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.
<snip>
This doesn't relate to how shelled eggs arose, but there are examples of
internal fertilization in fish and amphibians and arachnids.
There may be missing info or other problems related to the evolution of
shelled eggs, but internal fertilization doesn't seem to be one of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II |
15 Sep 2003 05:48:05 PM |
|
|
"Sarotherodon" <SPAMFREE@.rr.com> wrote in message news:<%6k9b.91229$7G2.20420@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
<Jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bk4gvt$lmn$1@news.netmar.com...
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other
serious
problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures
prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs
were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on
land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery
environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major
change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal
fertilization,
before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new
sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts-all of which
constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.
<snip>
This doesn't relate to how shelled eggs arose, but there are examples of
internal fertilization in fish and amphibians and arachnids.
There may be missing info or other problems related to the evolution of
shelled eggs, but internal fertilization doesn't seem to be one of them.
Could you direct me to any site to confirm this???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sarotherodon" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II |
15 Sep 2003 07:00:07 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309151448.5e04eed7@posting.google.com...
"Sarotherodon" <SPAMFREE@.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<%6k9b.91229$7G2.20420@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
<Jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bk4gvt$lmn$1@news.netmar.com...
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other
serious
problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg.
Creatures
prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the
eggs
were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs
on
land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery
environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a
major
change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal
fertilization,
before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved
new
sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts-all of which
constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.
<snip>
This doesn't relate to how shelled eggs arose, but there are examples of
internal fertilization in fish and amphibians and arachnids.
There may be missing info or other problems related to the evolution of
shelled eggs, but internal fertilization doesn't seem to be one of them.
Could you direct me to any site to confirm this???
Have to get back to you on the site, kinda busy this week. But, all fish of
the genera Poecilia and Anableps, as well as sharks and rays have internal
fertilization.
Not sure of the extent in amphibians, but at least the European Fire
Salamander, Salamandra salamandra has internal fert. Also, at lest some
races of S.salamandra give birth to live young. It's well know in arachnids,
I can dig up one of my old zoology texts if you still have doubt.
http://www.lander.edu/rsfox/310arthro6Lec.html here's one for spiders.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sarotherodon" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II |
15 Sep 2003 07:05:20 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0309151448.5e04eed7@posting.google.com...
"Sarotherodon" <SPAMFREE@.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<%6k9b.91229$7G2.20420@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
<Jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bk4gvt$lmn$1@news.netmar.com...
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other
serious
problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg.
Creatures
prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the
eggs
were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs
on
land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery
environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a
major
change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal
fertilization,
before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved
new
sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts-all of which
constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.
<snip>
This doesn't relate to how shelled eggs arose, but there are examples of
internal fertilization in fish and amphibians and arachnids.
There may be missing info or other problems related to the evolution of
shelled eggs, but internal fertilization doesn't seem to be one of them.
Could you direct me to any site to confirm this???
Have to get back to you on the site, kinda busy this week. But, all fish of
the genera Poecilia and Anableps, as well as sharks and rays have internal
fertilization.
Not sure of the extent in amphibians, but at least the European Fire
Salamander, Salamandra salamandra has internal fert. Also, at lest some
races of S.salamandra give birth to live young. It's well know in arachnids,
I can dig up one of my old zoology texts if you still have doubt.
http://www.lander.edu/rsfox/310arthro6Lec.html here's one for spiders.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II |
15 Sep 2003 10:28:31 PM |
|
|
On 15 Sep 2003 15:48:05 -0700, (JaBrIoL) posted in
alt.atheism:
Could you direct me to any site to confirm this???
Guppies are internally fertilized. Go to a pet store.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\Amphibian and Reptile; Hole II |
20 Sep 2003 01:44:58 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<bk4gvt$lmn$1@news.netmar.com>...
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other serious
problems.
How? Please define what the problem is.
A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures
prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs
were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on
land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery
environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major
change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal fertilization,
before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new
sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts?all of which
constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.
So there are no fish - modern fish alive today that develop their
young internally? How clueless you are.
[rest of this weak and brain-dead argument deleted]
Evolution has not accounted for other complex differences involved. Embryos in
fish and amphibian eggs release their wastes in the surrounding water as
soluble urea. But urea within the shelled eggs of reptiles would kill the
embryos. So, in the shelled egg a major chemical change is made: The wastes,
insoluble uric acid, are stored within the allantois membrane.
And where is your evience that this never happened and could never
happen in transitional amphibians/reptiles?
Here is a list of transitionals to help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Consider this
also: The egg yolk is food for the growing reptile embryo, enabling it to
develop fully before emerging from the shell?unlike amphibians, which do not
hatch in the adult form. And to get out of the shell, the embryo is
distinctive in having an egg tooth, to help it break out of its prison.
And your evidence that this could not have evolved in step with a
stronger eggshell is where? Oh that's right, this is an argument from
incredulity. You *have no evidence*! All you can whimper is, "Well I
am too stupid to see how this could happen, please believe me"!
So you have plagiarised yet another pathetically weak argument and you
don't even attribute this one at all. How old is this one? Two
decades? Half a century? A century? What a cheap, lying, useless,
clueless hopeless, worthless thief you are.
Is this suppsoed to be one of those mythical "colossal holes" you
pretend exist, which you have failed to list, let alone define despite
repeated requests from me? Well it doesn't work. Keep trying.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
