And my claim has not been refuted. If the entire system does not work the species dies.
First, I showed that you had completely overlooked the mechanism of developing placental feeding *in addition to* the pre-existent yolk-feeding method, not as an immediate *replacement* for it to which you had simplistically limited your thinking.
The problems of the sharks curious mode of reproductive development are similar, but not as great as those with human development, but they are also pretty large - including the implantation problem, and complete loss of the shell - again in one generation I guess. So this example proves nothing. What it does prove is that two totally unrelated species were able to do a quite extraordinary transformation, neither of which you can explain.
Structures or processes which may have been necessary novel developments for the first primitive placenta, which you claim (without any real support) are somehow impossibly difficult.
My whole post# 542 dealt with just that. It showed what scientists say, it has links for those who wish more information, it shows a picture which shows the significant differences between an egg laying circulatory system and a live bearing one. What more do you want?
If you can refute the statements made there by SCIENTISTS then go ahead and prove them wrong. In particular you need to refute the following:
This adaptation has entailed a dramatic restructuring of the maternal anatomy (such as expansion of the oviduct to form the uterus) as well as the development of a fetal organ capable of absorbing maternal nutrients.
The above alone proves my statement that it could not have happened in one generation. Your repeating what has already been answered in full shows quite well that you cannot disprove my statement but are trying to dishonestly claim you have. You cannot even give a detailed description as to how all these SYSTEMS which are clearly necessary in live birth could have arisen in a gradual manner - and no evolutionist authors have been able to do so either otherwise you would have cut and pasted it or typed it in. Your snow job does not cut it.
Do you admit that your original presumption that it "had" to occur "in one mutation, in one generation" was faulty? Yes or no.Note the "note"... Strike one. Care to try for two? Or would you like to actually directly address the questions this time?Do you admit that you erred when you presumed that mammals would have had to "develop" structures and processes which, oops, were already present in the egg-laying method of reproduction? Yes or no.
Do you withdraw your original claim that gradualistic development of placental birth would be "impossible"? Yes or no.
Note: This is a test of your intelligence and honesty. Respond accordingly.
And my claim has not been refuted.
Who, exactly, do you think you're fooling here?
If the entire system does not work the species dies.
Sure, but that's hardly the same thing as demonstrating that it had to happen "all at once" in a single generation. So stop mumbling your slogans and address the issue you're dodging: Doesn't the retention of the yolk during the (possibly long) development of a fully-functioning placenta provide a way for the "system to work" during "development"? Yes or no?
Doesn't this invalidate your claim that it *had* to happen in a "single mutation, single generation"? Yes or no?
"First, I showed that you had completely overlooked the mechanism of developing placental feeding *in addition to* the pre-existent yolk-feeding method, not as an immediate *replacement* for it to which you had simplistically limited your thinking."
The problems of the sharks curious mode of reproductive development are similar, but not as great as those with human development, but they are also pretty large - including the implantation problem, and complete loss of the shell - again in one generation I guess. So this example proves nothing. What it does prove is that two totally unrelated species were able to do a quite extraordinary transformation, neither of which you can explain.
Why are you babbling about sharks? My statement had nothing to do with sharks. Don't be confused by the fact that I once, many posts ago, demonstrated the workability of a given system by showing that it works in sharks. My statement to you here has nothing to do with sharks. Here it is again, without any sharks, so don't be afraid of sharks, there aren't any under the bed, honest:
"First, I showed that you had completely overlooked the mechanism of developing placental feeding *in addition to* the pre-existent yolk-feeding method, not as an immediate *replacement* for it to which you had simplistically limited your thinking."This point still stands, unless you can rebut it without doing your irrelevant shark-o-phobia.
"Structures or processes which may have been necessary novel developments for the first primitive placenta, which you claim (without any real support) are somehow impossibly difficult."
My whole post# 542 dealt with just that.
No, actually, it didn't. It was just a coredump of biology texts. It was a description of *modern* placentas. Where, exactly, did you make any examination of what might be minimally necessary for, I quote, "the first primitive placenta"? Try to stay focused.
It showed what scientists say, it has links for those who wish more information,
...about *modern* placentas. I have repeatedly asked you to support your claims about what the *first* mammalian placenta necessarily would have.
If I asked you for the requirements of a minimal primitive aircraft, would you post blueprints of a Stealth Bomber? You probably would, even though a sensible person would describe something more akin to the Wright Brother's first model.
it shows a picture which shows the significant differences between an egg laying circulatory system and a live bearing one.
No, you just posted a picture of the inside of an egg from a poultry website and then *declared* it "significantly different". Hardly the same thing as "showing" any real differences. In fact, visually, as I pointed out, it looks a lot like a cow fetus/placenta.
What more do you want?
Intellectual honesty. Got any?
I want you to stop waving your hands, dodging the questions, refusing to abandon lost arguments, and repeating yourself while pretending that there are standing rebuttals which you have not yet dealt with.
If you can refute the statements made there by SCIENTISTS then go ahead and prove them wrong.
There's nothing wrong with what they say, the problem is your insistence that it supports your flawed argument. Again I point you to the "blueprints for a Stealth Bomber" issue -- the problem isn't that the blueprints are wrong, it's that they don't address the question that was posed.
In particular you need to refute the following: "This adaptation has entailed a dramatic restructuring of the maternal anatomy (such as expansion of the oviduct to form the uterus) as well as the development of a fetal organ capable of absorbing maternal nutrients."
No need to refute it, it's essentially correct, although it's worded in a way that might be misleading. When the author talks of the "development of a fetal organ", it might sound like he means from scratch, although the organ in question (the placenta) is clearly just a modified chorion (present in eggs). But it is true that this needs to be "developed" into a form more suitable for use as a placenta.
So, is there any, um, "special reason" you neglected to deal with the following passage, FROM THE SAME PAGE AND SECTION as the passage you just quoted?
"Birds and mammals are both descendants of reptilian species. Therefore, it is not surprising that mammalian development parallels that of reptiles and birds. What is surprising is that the gastrulation movements of reptilian and avian embryos, which evolved as an adaptation to yolky eggs, are retained even in the absence of large amounts of yolk in the mammalian embryo. The mammalian inner cell mass can be envisioned as sitting atop an imaginary ball of yolk, following instructions that seem more appropriate to its reptilian ancestors."Now your turn -- as you say, "in particular you need to refute the following", which is from YOUR OWN SOURCE. Did I just hear someone say, "If you can refute the statements made there by SCIENTISTS then go ahead and prove them wrong"? Go for it.
The above alone proves my statement that it could not have happened in one generation.
If that's all you had said, there'd be no disagreement, but unfortunately you also claimed that it couldn't happen across *multiple* generations, either.
Your repeating what has already been answered in full shows quite well that you cannot disprove my statement but are trying to dishonestly claim you have.
I must again ask, just who do you think you're fooling here?
I have raised multiple problems for your scenario which you have not only not "answered in full", but you haven't answered *at all*.
You cannot even give a detailed description as to how all these SYSTEMS which are clearly necessary in live birth
Except in cows, apparently (yet another point you keep skipping).
could have arisen in a gradual manner - and no evolutionist authors have been able to do so either otherwise you would have cut and pasted it or typed it in.
And speaking of points which you keep pretending not to have even seen, much less dealt with (despite your pious claim to have "answered in full"), I again point you to the point I made in my last post (and elsewhere):
I include in this category those structures/processes which you simply *declare* to be absolutely necessary but for which you have not provided any sort of actual evidence. *You're* the one making the claim of impossibility, *you* document the alleged impossibilities and demonstrate that they are, indeed, absolutely necessary steps. You have the burden of proof.You made a claim of impossibility. I've been dismantling the many flaws in it (and in your attempts to salvage it). I don't need to provide any counterclaim in order to prove yours wrong, I just need to point out when your "facts" are wrong, and when your reasoning is faulty.