That’s a second question, and as far as I know it seems as though endochondral bone is an osteichthyan innovation.
according to this phylogeny the blind snake should be more primitive, and yet it doesnt have these spurs:
(https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Phylogenetic-tree-showing-lizard-and-snake-relationships-and-the-distribution-of-venomous_fig1_267739974)
why not actually? at least we can make ageneral hierarchy by classifying vehicles into groups.
sorry but i dont see why a designer cant make different groups of creatures. as we see in human design: a group of cell-phones, a group of cars, a group of toys etc. so lets agree to disagree.
That phylogeny doesn’t show that. It shows relative ages of the common ancestors, not how “primitive” any extant species is.
1 Like
indeed. but as for these spurs it should retain them since it suppose to evolved from more ancient group. unless we are talking about convergent loss. but it will be after the fact explanation.
They all evolved from “more ancient group”.
i mean that the blind snake should represent a group that is more primitive then what the boa represent.
that is about 136 pages. any specific reference?
the point is that hierarchy by itself doesnt prove non design. thus the same is true for living things.
But it has evolved for just as long from that common ancestor, as the other snakes have.
1 Like
so? it should retain some more primitive traits such as these spurs.
Why??
Blind snakes are a group containing many species, and some of them do in fact retain pelvic spurs.
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/27268/comparativeosteo36list.pdf
2 Likes
What @scd means, though he may not know how to say it, is that if blind snakes lacked pelvic spurs, that would require convergent loss of spurs in blind snakes and non-boids. True. The fact that some blind snakes have them is further evidence for convergent loss. You win.
Sure, if even a single blind snake, boa, or python species is missing pelvic sours then that implies some amount of convergent loss. I’ve got no problem with that.
I was just pointing out that the claim that no blind snakes have pelvic spurs (not to mention the implication that blind snakes are a single species) is incorrect.
Good post on snakes and limbed ancestors:
2 Likes
I use my limbs as part of my reproductive system as well, but they are still limbs to me.
Is it even worth pointing out that dolphins also have hair? Or will you simply respond that “its not really hair”?
https://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/index.php/2014-10-21-00-13-26/dolphin-science-factoids/item/94381-do-dolphins-have-hair
Also perhaps I missed something with the tree of vehicles, but isn’t the point of YEC to argue not only for shared design, but also shared design in seven days? Yet there is a considerable gap between the first production car in 1885 (Benz), the first truck in 1896 (Daimler), First airplane flight 1903 (by New Zealander Richard Pearse 
) and the space shuttle in 1981. So don’t your example vehicles also show development over considerable time?
2 Likes
Nice. This earlier one is also interesting.
1 Like
Don’t go back and ask questions by editing posts that precede the post you’re quoting, the thread will become confusing to anyone who tries to read it chronologically.
In answer to your question: gee I don’t know, why don’t you try the chapter titled “the pelvic girdle”? There’s a chance it might discuss pelvic girdles.
2 Likes
I wish I could do that but the site doesnt let me to do that. oh, now its ok somehow.
by the way i have noticed that the ZRS region in boa and lizard is almost identical (fig 4). how its possible if they split off about 160 my ago? i also noticed a small deletions (?) in the mammals species, or am i wrong?
That may well be the point you were hoping to make, but I think you have unintentionally made some other points. Do you believe that a “thing that moveth upon the earth” is a different Kind from a thing “that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven”? And that one kind cannot come from another? But your vehicle example clearly shows that:
- the flying kind of vehicles came much later than the moving upon the earth vehicles
- the flying kind of vehicles inherited concepts from the moving upon the earth vehicles (rather like snakes with vestigial limbs and young dolphins with whiskers)
- the flying kind of vehicles added new information and concepts that were not present in any form in the moving upon the earth vehicles
If there is strong selection for a particular function, sequences can changed for many millions of years, this isn’t news.
As for deletions, yes there’s 2 single bp deletions in mouse, what’s your point?
im not sure what is your main point (maybe because my english). but basically designed objects can appeare at different time during the history. that doesnt make them less designed and its also true for living creatures. by the way its also seems to be almost impossible to change a car into an airplane by small steps. even by design. so i dont think that one kind of creature can evolve into another one.
but this suppose to be a pseudogene (because of that 17 bp deletion). so natural selection suppose to be irrelevant here.
but isnt that region suppose to be active in mouse?