Subduction Zone
Regular Member
The same way all other offspring survive. And no, no need for "obvious difference". That is your claim. Now back it up.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The same way all other offspring survive. And no, no need for "obvious difference". That is your claim. Now back it up.If they weren't sudden then how does the offspring survive? Do you or don't you agree that in the live birth lizard and the lizard that produced eggs, there would be an obvious difference in the reproductive organs?
You keep making unsubstantiated claims. Why would these changes have to be sudden? You need evidence. And since you do not understand the concept and refuse to discuss it you will probably never find any.
The same way all other offspring survive. And no, no need for "obvious difference". That is your claim. Now back it up.
I think it would be obvious. An egg with a shell includes all of the food supply for the offspring as he transitions from zygote to viable lizard.
A womb that provides for live birth has to be designed such that the fertilized egg can parasitically feed directly from the mother. Even in an egg there is something similar to a placenta (yolk and albumin in a chicken egg). So now, the mother does not have the egg's complete nutrient system as an advantage and no longer produces the egg but has an avenue to feed the zygote outside of a shell. How would that difference not be obvious? The egg canal and the organs needed to create the shell and its contents are not a womb. The organs are by definition different. So why wouldn't it be obvious if you dissected a live birth producing lizard and an egg laying lizard that these organs are different?
You are once again arguing from ignorance rather than providing evidence. Let's go back to the article of lizards that may be undergoing transition from egg layers to live births. And you were wrong. It was not just one lizard:
Yes, let's go back to the article and see if I didn't already alert you to the fact that it would require a major change in the organs to move from one type of birth to the other.
"Evolutionary “reversals” to egg-laying are much rarer, probably because regaining the physiological machinery for producing eggshells would be exceptionally difficult."
Doh.
But let's see what they actually say about whether this evolution is occurring.
"There is a traditional dichotomy in vertebrate reproduction: species either lay eggs or have live births. However, as is often the case in biology, things aren’t as simple as they first appear, and there are a handful of vertebrate animals that do both.
One of these is the three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis). Our recent research suggests the egg-laying S. equalis may currently be in the process of transitioning from egg-laying to giving live birth. [emphasis added]
So, the skink that is already capable of live birth is transitioning to live birth. The article doesn't even make sense. An animal that already has the capability and still does both has both sets of organs. It's not transitioning, it has this capability already.
And their other study does not say that this animal which has both characteristics has has been observed to have evolved but that it is a rare species which is they think is evidence that such a transition might be possible. You're right, the organs won't be different because this species has always had these traits.
"The lizard Saiphos equalis exhibits bimodal reproduction, with some viviparous populations, and other oviparous populations with long egg‐retention, a rare trait where most of embryonic development occurs inside the mother prior to late ovipositioning. We posit that oviparous S. equalis represent an intermediate form between “true” oviparity and viviparity."
Basically, because you didn't read or understand what I was saying about this, and disagreed that the organs would have to be different were this evolutionary change in process right now, you just look silly right now. The article you quoted does not say that they observed any change at all and their research establishes that this species of skink has always been this way, though they do suggest that it is an intermediate species.
Nah.So these are examples where the things that had to happen in other mammals didn't happen. That does not eliminate the need for the other mammals to have made a transition in the way described does it?
Nah.
I was pointing out that what you were lecturing people about with such confidence was false.
Doh indeed. You misunderstood that. It was saying that transition from egg laying to live birth appeared to be a one way street. No going back once live birth was the norm. What do you think that it meant?
So they do say that it looks as if it were evolving to live birth up north.
Individuals do not evolve. Your statement "observed to have evolved" about an individual demonstrates that you are out of your depth.
Your reading of this is so poor that it beggars belief. And no, I am not the one looking silly. My reading comprehension is not impaired by prejudice. And yes, the changes are described quite clearly. Fifteen day incubation, five day incubation with occasional rare live birth, and live birth. You can't expect to see a evolutionary transition any clearer than that.
I saw this image that you might informative:This particular species has both organs. It isn't making a transition as they watch, it is a rare species which does both. That's what the article states.
They do it more often in the north. They already have the capability. This isn't evolution being observed it is an observance that in one region this species practices live birth more than it does egg laying. Perhaps it has something to do with the cold. An egg in a cold environment probably has less chance for survival. Neat feature to be able to utilize one or the other of these features.
So, your position is that traits in species just spontaneously show up even when it isn't passed down from the parents? How does evolution even occur if not on an individual basis first?
The species is one of the "rare species" that can already do both egg laying and live birth. It has always had this capability. It isn't changing, it's just doing what was already known about it. They claim that this species is a transitional species in that it is a bridge from one to the next. Observing it perform a live birth is observing its already known capabilities. When it ceases to to have the shell-producing organs and no longer makes eggs, then it will have evolved to a new species. Until then it's just doing what it was known to already do. But then again, who can really predict what will happen? What if its evolution result in exclusive egg laying? Here's a species that could go either way. There has been no observed change.
It's dishonest.I saw this image that you might informative:
Claims in the sciences need to be backed up by evidence. Faulty logic is without merit. Your knowledge of the sciences has been shown to be extremely limited. So please,support your claims.I definitely didn't know about the specific examples you cited. But in order for a species to make changes from asexual to sexual (where the x and y is specific to the sex ) and from egg laying to live birth, a great deal of physiological changes has to occur. Changes too complex to be incremental and over long periods of time with any success. I have no confidence in my ability to identify various species. I'm not a biologist. Nor am I a geologist. But I do think that what I'm asserting as to the complexity of the changes that would be required is perfectly reasonable.
From your past history of posts this is evidence that these changes have been and are natural.I definitely didn't know about the specific examples you cited. But in order for a species to make changes from asexual to sexual (where the x and y is distributed to the sexed pairs individually ) and from egg laying to live birth, a great deal of physiological changes has to occur. Changes too complex to be incremental and over long periods of time with any success. I have no confidence in my ability to identify various species. I'm not a biologist. Nor am I a geologist. But I do think that what I'm asserting as to the complexity of the changes that would be required is perfectly reasonable.
This particular species has both organs. It isn't making a transition as they watch, it is a rare species which does both. That's what the article states.
They do it more often in the north. They already have the capability. This isn't evolution being observed it is an observance that in one region this species practices live birth more than it does egg laying. Perhaps it has something to do with the cold. An egg in a cold environment probably has less chance for survival. Neat feature to be able to utilize one or the other of these features.
So, your position is that traits in species just spontaneously show up even when it isn't passed down from the parents? How does evolution even occur if not on an individual basis first?
The species is one of the "rare species" that can already do both egg laying and live birth. It has always had this capability. It isn't changing, it's just doing what was already known about it. They claim that this species is a transitional species in that it is a bridge from one to the next. Observing it perform a live birth is observing its already known capabilities. When it ceases to to have the shell-producing organs and no longer makes eggs, then it will have evolved to a new species. Until then it's just doing what it was known to already do. But then again, who can really predict what will happen? What if its evolution result in exclusive egg laying? Here's a species that could go either way. There has been no observed change.
Makes a good conversational piece. All I said was that it was an interesting image. Nothing dishonest about that.It's dishonest.
Really? Do you know why it is dishonest? If you say no then you negate the claim you just made. How is it dishonest and why use a dishonest cartoon?Makes a good conversational piece. All I said was that it was an interesting image. Nothing dishonest about that.
It misrepresents the arguments.Makes a good conversational piece. All I said was that it was an interesting image. Nothing dishonest about that.
How did you come to that conclusion? Did you study the matter, or was it just a kind of heuristic judgement? Because it doesn't appear that you have given any thought at all to how multi-component biological systems evolve through fully functional intermediate stages, or made any attempt to learn why biologists are sure it can happen.I definitely didn't know about the specific examples you cited. But in order for a species to make changes from asexual to sexual (where the x and y is distributed to the sexed pairs individually ) and from egg laying to live birth, a great deal of physiological changes has to occur. Changes too complex to be incremental and over long periods of time with any success. I have no confidence in my ability to identify various species. I'm not a biologist. Nor am I a geologist. But I do think that what I'm asserting as to the complexity of the changes that would be required is perfectly reasonable.
It misrepresents the arguments.
It's a lie and people who create and propagate it should be ashamed of themselves.
It's a good thing they examined the evidence, rather then just saying "Yep, totally aliens."Funny fact: Scientists once discovered a constant, repeating signal from space, and thought it might be an alien transmission.
Then they discovered that it had a natural explanation: a pulsar.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?