Which evolved first, tendons or bones

[columbus]

How do you know what God is?

I don't. That's why I don't make religious claims about God.

You do.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the difference between religion and science.
Science tosses out false conclusions as best as limited human beings can. Religion enshrines them and insist that God said them. That's why science is usually correct and religion usually wrong.
Tom

And usually not even wrong.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... is a sign of a design and not a blind evolution...

Invertebrates don't have bones or tendons. What makes you so sure they aren't the predecessor forms of creatures who do have those particular body-widgets? There is also cartilage to take into consideration - which can be a substrate for bone supplantation, or can be a stand-alone support mechanism within an organism (for example, sharks). Perhaps a creature with only cartilage for internal support is an in-between form for one who is evolving toward bone. After all, within evolutionary reality, EVERYTHING would be considered an in-between form.

You know my favorite part of this entire thread? The fact that you @FearGod, in 6-7 whole pages, chose not to reply to one of the very first replies, on the first page by @It Aint Necessarily So. I feel this poster very handily tore to pieces your conclusion that the bone/tendon relationship is definitively a "sign of a design." Why exactly is it that you chose to respond to so many others, and not this particular post? Is it mainly God that you fear? Based on this I would suggest you double-check...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Competition for survival, that's tautology.

You probably should go back to the apologetics source from which you got this claim and reread its argument so that you can present it in a way that suggests that you know what a tautology is. From Wiki:

"Survival of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology. The reasoning is that if one takes the term "fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" (which is roughly how Spencer understood it), then "survival of the fittest" can simply be rewritten as "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving"​

Incidentally, the phrase is a misnomer. It's more properly stated as the perpetuation or relative success of the most fecund, which depends on more than mere survival. The fittest are those who transcend merely surviving and go on to reproduce most prodigiously, without which, survival alone is irrelevant for purposes of evolution.

you don't explain how it happened, you only make an empty reply, all happened to evolve together and it worked, they survived and their genes passed to the next generations.

That should be sufficient for somebody willing to believe by faith. What you challenge above are the standards of such a person, one who never feels a need to offer how a god does it, or feels any need to demonstrate that such a thing exists.

If you can't see how evolution can work without a god, just believe it by faith.

 

[FearGod]

I don't. That's why I don't make religious claims about God.

You do.
Tom

Did I say how God looks like? tell me where.

 

[FearGod]

Invertebrates don't have bones or tendons. What makes you so sure they aren't the predecessor forms of creatures who do have those particular body-widgets? There is also cartilage to take into consideration - which can be a substrate for bone supplantation, or can be a stand-alone support mechanism within an organism (for example, sharks). Perhaps a creature with only cartilage for internal support is an in-between form for one who is evolving toward bone. After all, within evolutionary reality, EVERYTHING would be considered an in-between form.

You know my favorite part of this entire thread? The fact that you @FearGod, in 6-7 whole pages, chose not to reply to one of the very first replies, on the first page by @It Aint Necessarily So. I feel this poster very handily tore to pieces your conclusion that the bone/tendon relationship is definitively a "sign of a design." Why exactly is it that you chose to respond to so many others, and not this particular post? Is it mainly God that you fear? Based on this I would suggest you double-check...

If the answers aren't in relation to the question of the OP then I don't have to respond.
I don't see tell this page a meaningful reply other than claiming it to be.

 

[Kev100504]

Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees

God said???? Who was God talking to? Was someone there to hear God speak? How does a timeless spaceless entity talk? Lol

 

[SalixIncendium]

God said???? Who was God talking to?

The person that wrote Genesis. Try to keep up.

 

[Kev100504]

What's your point?

My point is that you use reason and observation in all aspects of your life but when it comes to the extra
oridinary claims from the bible you throw reason and observation out the window?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

My point is that you use reason and observation in all aspects of your life but when it comes to the extra
oridinary claims from the bible you throw reason and observation out the window?

Reason and observation only applies to the natural world. God's world needs a different approach.

 

[sayak83]

What did you understand from your quoted title, did ligaments and tendons evolved before or all have been evolved simultaneously with bones.

Before bones. They evolved along with cartilage and later bones evolved.

 

[sayak83]

I've only read the first and last page of this thread, but, geez, many of the posters responding here are really unattractively haughty in their dismissiveness of the OP question. It's a legitimate question; I think it's a question that raises important issues that beg for answers. And, in fact, an attempt to answer might lead one at least to a greater sense of wonderment of the processes of evolution, or even to a broader perspective on these processes and the forces at play that are perhaps currently unknown.

It doesn't explain anything to merely assert that bones and tendons “evolved together”. A real explanation begins with a genetic mutation that coded for the production of a protein, then an explanation as to why this protein (or its effect on the organism) was selected for. Unless the bones and tendons and the building of such structures are the products of the same protein (which I suppose is not the case), then the improbability of accidental correlations increases enormously. But, more than that, there is the additional issue of the neural machinery necessary to make bones and tendons functional to an organism--an another dramatic increase in the improbability of accidental occurrences.

The Wikipedia has a very informative article on the evolution of eyes: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia Nevertheless, more is missing from this account than is elucidated. There is simply no information provided about the genes or proteins whose selection had to have occurred in conjunction with the evolution of eyeballs and which led to the development of the neuronal systems that process the information taken in by the eyeballs, as well as the additional genetic changes and proteins responsible for the muscles that move eyeballs, and that perform the difficult function of maintaining the integrity of transparent membranes, and so forth. It's even more astounding (and improbable as an accident) that "[c]omplex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently some 50 to 100 times.[1]"

I am not at all convinced that we currently know of all the forces at work in which the evolution of complex, functioning biological organisms occurs.

This would be the place to start.
Bones and Cartilage

 

[sayak83]

God said???? Who was God talking to? Was someone there to hear God speak? How does a timeless spaceless entity talk? Lol

His heavenly host, obviously.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem that you claim that you know the reality while you're lying, you have repeated multiple times;

I never claimed to know. How am I lying.

that you can't explain it because I don't have good knowledge in biology, . . .

I did explain it, and you did not accept my explanation. Your responses reflect a lack of knowledge, and making assertions and interpretations based a religious agenda.

I don't know why you have interest in religious forum, there're a lot of forms for scientists like you, so better to waist your time in science than religion.

I believe in God and science.

 

[Sapiens]

Tendons connect bones together in away that enable us to have flexible movements, the
way that bones are connected together is a sign of a design and not a blind evolution, if
you think that tendons and bones were a result of mutations and natural selections then
please explain how both evolved together to achieve such an amazing job.

Once again, yet again, your lack of biological background marches to the fore. Tendons predate bone, they used to connect cartilage that was later replaced by bone in fish. As an aside, modern sharks appear to have come by their cartilage secondarily. The fossil Gogoselachus lynbeazleyae exhibits remnant bone cells in its cartilage which shows that modern sharks stem from bony fish and evolved their cartilaginous skeletons later, cartilage being less dense and thus an adaptation to compensate for the absence of a swim bladder.

 

[FearGod]

Once again, yet again, your lack of biological background marches to the fore. Tendons predate bone, they used to connect cartilage that was later replaced by bone in fish. As an aside, modern sharks appear to have come by their cartilage secondarily. The fossil Gogoselachus lynbeazleyae exhibits remnant bone cells in its cartilage which shows that modern sharks stem from bony fish and evolved their cartilaginous skeletons later, cartilage being less dense and thus an adaptation to compensate for the absence of a swim bladder.

I really wonder that you have knowledge in biology while taking the matter very fatuously, still the question remains, if the tendons
evolved before bones or cartilage, then what their purpose before the evolution of the cartilage or the bone, no escape that both
including other components to be evolved simultaneously and that's impossible to be the case except if designed to be so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really wonder that you have knowledge in biology while taking the matter very fatuously, still the question remains, if the tendons
evolved before bones or cartilage, then what their purpose before the evolution of the cartilage or the bone, no escape that both
including other components to be evolved simultaneously and that's impossible to be the case except if designed to be so.

It is an error to think that bones needed to exist first. When life evolves existing structures are quite often repurposed. Our lungs used to be a swim bladder if you go back far enough. Even if we can't find out how tendons evolved that does not do anything to falsify the theory of evolution. There are always unanswered questions in science. Unanswered questions do not falsify a theory. Theories are falsified when the answer they give to a question is wrong. "We don't know that yet" is a perfectly fine answer in the sciences. It is what keeps the sciences going.

With that in mind it makes your OP rather pointless.

 

[FearGod]

It is an error to think that bones needed to exist first. When life evolves existing structures are quite often repurposed. Our lungs used to be a swim bladder if you go back far enough. Even if we can't find out how tendons evolved that does not do anything to falsify the theory of evolution. There are always unanswered questions in science. Unanswered questions do not falsify a theory. Theories are falsified when the answer they give to a question is wrong. "We don't know that yet" is a perfectly fine answer in the sciences. It is what keeps the sciences going.

With that in mind it makes your OP rather pointless.

Evolution is a fact, but the process is designed to be so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is a fact, but the process is designed to be so.

If you want to claim that there is any "design" involved the burden of proof is upon you. So far I have not seen any. I have seen quite a few failed arguments, but that is all.

Once again, to even have evidence you need a testable idea first. That means one of the first questions you need to think of is "what test could conceivably falsify my beliefs".

 

[FearGod]

If you want to claim that there is any "design" involved the burden of proof is upon you. So far I have not seen any. I have seen quite a few failed arguments, but that is all.

Once again, to even have evidence you need a testable idea first. That means one of the first questions you need to think of is "what test could conceivably falsify my beliefs".

You don't see what I see, the proof is the amazing life itself, you see that life evolved accidentally, it wasn't planned but
it just happened to be so for no reason, while I see that life on earth and how things work point to a planner.