Why do animals keep evolving into crabs?

It seems to have been overlooked that crabs are like other Arthropds. They are "stuck" in a chitinous cuticle exoskeleton that hardens in a process called sclerotization. The animal must molt to grow. That leaves them vulnerable to predators. Other animals did not evolve to have that problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tachyphylaxis
May 29, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
It seems to have been overlooked that crabs are like other Arthropds. They are "stuck" in a chitinous cuticle exoskeleton that hardens in a process called sclerotization. The animal must molt to grow. That leaves them vulnerable to predators. Other animals did not evolve to have that problem.
Well, you know how evolution is--"whatever works"!

As humans, we boldly carry the torch of "satisficing" into the future. ;-)

Thanks for pointing that out, though. I doubt it would have occurred to me, and it's certainly an important part of the story.
 
"So how can it be taught as fact in the first place?" I believe you are referring to the biochemistry and the mechanisms of evolution, not that biological evolution is a fact. That can easily be taught... One example:

"Critics of evolution relish in emphasizing the complexity and unsolved problems surrounding its mechanisms. They point to errors made by earlier researchers, and enthusiastically conclude from all of these difficulties that evolution is “only a theory.” They routinely misinterpret or ignore the repeatable, observable, measurable scientific evidence that overwhelmingly supports evolution as a fact. This evidence is abundant. It is the worldwide, sum total of the fossil record. Sedimentary rocks and the fossils preserved in these rocks, even though an incomplete paleontological record, are primary, factual evidence of what has happened back through time. One thing apart from all others presents a compelling case for evolution that is independent of its weaknesses. It is the simple, repeatable observation that deeper, older rocks contain fossils of more primitive, less-evolved organisms than do the younger rocks that rest above them. Consider the magnificent Grand Canyon in Arizona. The rock layers at the base of the gorge are undeniably older than those at the top. No matter how much time was involved in cutting the gorge through all these rocks, there is no way of reasonably denying that as one takes the winding path down the gorge and passes across the layers of rock one also goes back through recorded time. Today we can observe the same thing, obviously on a vastly smaller scale, in the layers of trash at waste disposal sites. The old newspapers, bottles and cans, the less “evolved” cameras and telephones, 78-rpm records, and vacuum-tube radios are preserved among the layers found toward the bottom. The younger more evolved “fossils” are among those found near the top. In the vast Grand Canyon geological “dump” the deeper flat-lying rock layers contain the simpler, more primitive fossils. Gaps in the record notwithstanding, there are shells buried there that record the presence of species not found in the younger rocks above, and no bones of any kind are to be found. The rocks at the top contain fossil remains of still more evolved (developed) animals. All of these thousands of feet of flat-lying rocks rest directly on still older layers. Those below are set at a steep angle. Obviously, substantial time must be allowed for these even older sediments to have been deposited, hardened, turned on edge by mountain-building processes, and later cut down by erosion. In these much older rocks there are precious few fossils of any kind. There are neither shells nor bones. Only a few fossils of simple, microscopic life forms have been found. Geologists find similar rock sequences in many regions of the globe. While these may not have the grandeur and ease-of-visibility that the deeply cut Grand Canyon offers, their included fossils exhibit the same upward changes. I find it hard to escape the conclusion that from this overall geological and paleontological evidence there has been an increase upwards through time in the complexity and sophistication of life. The global fossil record does not present a jumbled mixture of large and small, older and younger, as would be the case after a giant flood of some kind. This record is repeatable, undeniable factual global evidence for a long process of evolution…of biological change over time. The total fossil record reveals these same upward changes, irrespective of the mechanisms that caused them."
 
So, you accept the 4.5 billion year old geological record. . It's clearly NOT just a theory. It's a fact. Right?

(We know how amino acids might be formed. 20 in the genetic code (plus two others that must have evolved later....Hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine).

But you continue to deny that natural biological evolution took place? Some obviously intelligent "higher power" designed and managed it all. OK...where does that leave us? What sort of research can be done to test this "higher power" and her design?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyreddogg
May 29, 2023
2
2
10
Visit site
So, you accept the 4.5 billion year old geological record. . It's clearly NOT just a theory. It's a fact. Right?

(We know how amino acids might be formed. 20 in the genetic code (plus two others that must have evolved later....Hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine).

But you continue to deny that natural biological evolution took place? Some obviously intelligent "higher power" designed and managed it all. OK...where does that leave us? What sort of research can be done to test this "higher power" and her design?
(We know how amino acids MIGHT be formed. 20 in the genetic code (plus two others that MUST HAVE evolved later....Hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine).

I appreciate your realistic approach, but this is not a language use of something proven time after time. I thank the people that take realistic approaches, because no, carbon dating is not 100% reliable, & those that put this out there are just being completely honest. It isn't.

Scientists can be Christians. They just study what God created. Our end all be all is not science alone. There's alot of archeology that supports The Bible. And in instances involves physicalities such as balls of sulfur where Sodom & Gomorrah used to be. They are buried deep in the different layers of dirt, land, & rock. Life in the Earth is possible because math & constants are just right allowing for the right temperatures to permit life, just like in the Universe itself. Although in planets themselves, the temperatures & imbalances do not allow for vegetation, humans, water, nor animals to exist. Not anywhere that we have studied. If any of the conditions are off, it's catastrophic, at least here on Earth. We live because those conditions are perfect. Honestly, it's a little blurry for me to see that the earth was made in seven days or so. But it's more blurry to see that it was all accidental. The fact that us humans struggle with addictions, & sometimes fail to see some as such, means that we are so weak and helpless without a higher power. Simply that we do things that we at times shouldn't, such as being judgmental or being upset. Yet, we've had experiences that unexpectedly made our lives better after we weren't sure that they would; circumstances, dreams, feelings, visions, messages directly or indirectly in ourselves, & in others. We see compassion in others. Therefore, for God to not vow to us, & tell us where we can see that he exists is understandable. Some people will not follow him, no matter what that person sees or has experienced. We are wicked even so, & stubborn. Thus a person that follows him without seeing him physically is more loyal than someone that physically has seen him. By the way, there are also predictions in The Bible that have been accurate, that there was no sensible explanation how they could have been brought up in the first place, or why. Some in involve the technology of today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyreddogg
May 29, 2023
2
2
10
Visit site
Just taking a look at humanity and the extremely complicated human Proteome, The amount of protein seems to vary anywhere from 10,000 or so, all the way up to 350,000. And, besides our alpha aminos, we need dozens of other aminos just to exist. We take in these aminos from what we eat. Even from being out in the sun! I really find it fascinating, we are truly wonderfully made.

We can look at photosynthesis that now has been observed to have a quantum element to it. Now all of these things, just the ones discussed in my paragraph, or comment, seems to me to point to something other than random coincidence.

And, the epochs of time, Periods of time that had spanned hundreds of millions of years, could Not have birthed life along with its extremely complicated infrastructure by just sitting there. Humans never ran around with dinosaurs, and the earth and all life was not created in 6 24-hour days. That is just ludicrous. A person can be a student of science and a student of scripture. I have disagreements with many religious individuals claiming 6 24-hour days. As a matter of fact, the Bible doesn't even mention 6 24-hour days.

Life is so complicated, It would take humanity and eternity to try and figure it out. Unfortunately, the churches and religious organizations have created a toxic competition with science. That's unfortunate, because science and religion, actually scripture can get along quite well.

As a matter of fact, science has beyond a doubt prove in that the Earth is round. But you still have individuals that believe the earth is flat. In the book of Job, it talks about the Earth being round and hanging on nothing. This was closer to 3 millenia ago. Way before telescopes.

Intelligent design makes more sense than stuff just happening by laying around and marinating. What one calls that intellect is up to every individual. They make their own choices.
Very science oriented and true! Also, very sensible, reasonable, logical, & spiritual!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyreddogg
So, you accept the 4.5 billion year old geological and paleontological record. Biological evolution is clearly NOT just a theory. It's a fact. Right? So how can we test this intelligent design... that is just a theory?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyreddogg
You know, if this wasn't so ridiculous it would be a joke. Horseshoe crabs have been around since almost forever. I find it interesting that the opinion of evolution, animals go back and forth back and forth back and forth, why? Why did original single cell organisms evolve from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? From meiosis to mitosis? Simpler is easier right? Except it seems that things end up evolving as you claim into much more complex species. And for what reason? Why? There is no chasing the wind evolution, but there is adaptation! Birds with longer beaks can get the nectar, birds with shorter beaks starve. So those genetic traits are passed on to the offspring. That's interspecie selection. Same with insects, same with animals with longer necks and shorter necks, and if things change, so do the animals and other life forms. They produce nothing new, no new species! Again, interspecie selection. So-called evolutionary enlightenment changes week to week month to month and year to year with new so-called discoveries. So how can it be taught as fact in the first place? If life is just an accident, then why is it so diverse? Birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, fish, plant life, fungus, mosses, microscopic to macroscopic, and everything in between! Intelligent design, not an accident!
I think you missed the point of the article. Yes, horseshoe crabs have the crab-like body plan, but they're not crabs! Why did they evolve that body plan? Why has it worked for them for so long? It's clearly successful, but why? Many times in history animals have evolved to look (more or less) like crabs. The question is why?
 
Why? "It seems to have been overlooked that crabs are like other Arthropds. They are "stuck" in a chitinous cuticle exoskeleton that hardens in a process called sclerotization. The animal must molt to grow. That leaves them vulnerable to predators. Other animals did not evolve to have that problem."
 
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Visit site
"Just like why did the apes or chimps evolve into the humanoid species but then again there are still apes and chimps?"
Creationists really demonstrate their ignorance with that statement. Humans are apes. Apes did not evolve into humans. Chimps didn't evolve into humans. Chimps still exist. Chimps and humans have a common ancestor that diverged 4-6 million yrs ago. Is it really so difficult to grasp a first grade concept ? Go look at an evolutionary tree of apes before making brain dead theistic arguments.


Note the 2nd diagram that shows the modern great apes, including us, and their evolutionary relation.

The apes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
 
Last edited:
Feb 13, 2023
38
4
55
Visit site
Why? "It seems to have been overlooked that crabs are like other Arthropds. They are "stuck" in a chitinous cuticle exoskeleton that hardens in a process called sclerotization. The animal must molt to grow. That leaves them vulnerable to predators. Other animals did not evolve to have that problem."
It's obviously not a problem since it is a highly successful strategy. We have our vulnerabilities with an external meat sack. Their bodies work for them, as ours does for us. Lets see which is still around in a 100 million years. Lets see which one is more likely to exist in the oceans of Enceladus or Europa.
 
Might I suggest that you look at yourself in the mirror when spouting off about the brain dead!

Yes, around 98 and a half percent of our DNA is similar. But a lot of those genes function differently between apes and humans! Some, provide different functions depending on species. Some amino acids are used differently. So, the question is, why? Why are there still apes and chimpanzees when they have supposedly evolved into humans? I thought that evolution was supposed to increase survivability and a continuation of that particular branch of life? The supposed divergence actually happened because of what? And if survivability was the issue, why are there still the apes and chimps? I highly doubt you want to get into some juvenile tit for tat, it's fairly obvious that your brain hasn't evolved to the point of rational thought. So, you can be on your way.
Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyreddogg
Jan 14, 2020
18
6
4,535
Visit site
Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
I suppose you're right Dawn. You know why I liked talking to or debating with Broadlands? Because the man is smart. And, he's willing to look at another opinion based on a different point of view. And, I actually learned from his comments. I hope I stay focused enough to cross his path again! What bothers me, is the juvenile and ignorant responses. It's not necessary, and it really makes a positive interaction impossible.

What I was getting at initially was the difference between adaptation and the standard evolutionary theory. And those get confused quite a bit. Adaptation is the same species, they can still mate with those that they've adapted from. The genetics are the same. Darwin actually did that particular experiment. I believe it was called Darwin's finches. But it's applicable to every other life form on this planet. Take a species, anyone in particular or make one up. Say most of the food sources died off at the level where these species or this specie could reach and eat. But there were a few that were taller and could still reach the food, fruits nuts whatever. The short ones would die off, they would continue to be born, but the ones that would live would be the taller of the species. Then when the food is back to where they all can reach, the species goes back to the original form. That's not evolution, that's adaptation.

Anyway, cheers. 🤝
 
Jan 14, 2020
18
6
4,535
Visit site
So, you accept the 4.5 billion year old geological and paleontological record. Biological evolution is clearly NOT just a theory. It's a fact. Right? So how can we test this intelligent design... that is just a theory?
I just wanted to say my brother, that I enjoyed our conversation, it's obvious that you have a deeper understanding of science than I do, although I think I do all right, lol! But I appreciate your rational discussion and thoughtful responses. I hope we can do this some more. What I've noticed also, is folks seem to enjoy reading this sort of thing.
 
I suppose you're right Dawn. You know why I liked talking to or debating with Broadlands? Because the man is smart. And, he's willing to look at another opinion based on a different point of view. And, I actually learned from his comments. I hope I stay focused enough to cross his path again! What bothers me, is the juvenile and ignorant responses. It's not necessary, and it really makes a positive interaction impossible.

What I was getting at initially was the difference between adaptation and the standard evolutionary theory. And those get confused quite a bit. Adaptation is the same species, they can still mate with those that they've adapted from. The genetics are the same. Darwin actually did that particular experiment. I believe it was called Darwin's finches. But it's applicable to every other life form on this planet. Take a species, anyone in particular or make one up. Say most of the food sources died off at the level where these species or this specie could reach and eat. But there were a few that were taller and could still reach the food, fruits nuts whatever. The short ones would die off, they would continue to be born, but the ones that would live would be the taller of the species. Then when the food is back to where they all can reach, the species goes back to the original form. That's not evolution, that's adaptation.

Anyway, cheers. 🤝
"Why are there still apes and chimpanzees when they have supposedly evolved into humans?"

It was this bit that I was responding to. It's such a tired old "argument " and I can't believe anyone is still using it in 2023.

Apes and chimpanzees did not evolve into humans! We had a common ancestor somewhere back in the mists of time that evolved into both of us. Furthermore, it was their offspring over many, many generations that led to the new species, usually as a result of changing survival pressures long term. So whatever that initial population was it led to other populations with their own genome as a result of being separated from the original and having different pressures.
 
Jan 14, 2020
18
6
4,535
Visit site
Well, I can see what you're driving at, but still, it would be more of an adaptation than an evolution. 2023, are you saying that evolution has evolved? There's been more revision in the theory of evolution than probably almost any other scientific research. Eventually, it ends up being a square peg forced into a round hole. They still use those charts in school. Why would they? If they are outdated. I suppose that's why it's still called the theory of evolution, because the theory keeps changing and the more gaps in the record that seem to be painstakingly explained, even more end up appearing. How many evolutionary trees have you seen that are diametrically opposed to each other? I've seen quite a few. I've seen some of these trees with branches lopped off, others grafted on, even trees that are somehow circular, supposed new records discovered, even issues with fraud and fakery. I've read papers that claim Whales Left the water to walk on land several times. Certain exclusive rigidity is entrenched, and it's forced to work by any means necessary. It's the same with most religions, once the lying starts, once the deception starts, once the fakery starts, It becomes, say, anti-inclusive. And, where entrenched dogma in religion and science is excluding works and discoveries and opinions and research that doesn't jibe up with their dogmas. And that my friend is why humanity can be more un-human than animals. Because religion will tell you the other guy is rotten to the core, will burn in hell, come back as a cockroach and/or is less than human. Conversely science will tell you that we are all just one of the great apes, without a missing link. Sometime one has to think, what if the truth you believe is wrong?
 
Jun 28, 2020
4
0
4,510
Visit site
"So how can it be taught as fact in the first place?" I believe you are referring to the biochemistry and the mechanisms of evolution, not that biological evolution is a fact. That can easily be taught... One example:

"Critics of evolution relish in emphasizing the complexity and unsolved problems surrounding its mechanisms. They point to errors made by earlier researchers, and enthusiastically conclude from all of these difficulties that evolution is “only a theory.” They routinely misinterpret or ignore the repeatable, observable, measurable scientific evidence that overwhelmingly supports evolution as a fact. This evidence is abundant. It is the worldwide, sum total of the fossil record. Sedimentary rocks and the fossils preserved in these rocks, even though an incomplete paleontological record, are primary, factual evidence of what has happened back through time. One thing apart from all others presents a compelling case for evolution that is independent of its weaknesses. It is the simple, repeatable observation that deeper, older rocks contain fossils of more primitive, less-evolved organisms than do the younger rocks that rest above them. Consider the magnificent Grand Canyon in Arizona. The rock layers at the base of the gorge are undeniably older than those at the top. No matter how much time was involved in cutting the gorge through all these rocks, there is no way of reasonably denying that as one takes the winding path down the gorge and passes across the layers of rock one also goes back through recorded time. Today we can observe the same thing, obviously on a vastly smaller scale, in the layers of trash at waste disposal sites. The old newspapers, bottles and cans, the less “evolved” cameras and telephones, 78-rpm records, and vacuum-tube radios are preserved among the layers found toward the bottom. The younger more evolved “fossils” are among those found near the top. In the vast Grand Canyon geological “dump” the deeper flat-lying rock layers contain the simpler, more primitive fossils. Gaps in the record notwithstanding, there are shells buried there that record the presence of species not found in the younger rocks above, and no bones of any kind are to be found. The rocks at the top contain fossil remains of still more evolved (developed) animals. All of these thousands of feet of flat-lying rocks rest directly on still older layers. Those below are set at a steep angle. Obviously, substantial time must be allowed for these even older sediments to have been deposited, hardened, turned on edge by mountain-building processes, and later cut down by erosion. In these much older rocks there are precious few fossils of any kind. There are neither shells nor bones. Only a few fossils of simple, microscopic life forms have been found. Geologists find similar rock sequences in many regions of the globe. While these may not have the grandeur and ease-of-visibility that the deeply cut Grand Canyon offers, their included fossils exhibit the same upward changes. I find it hard to escape the conclusion that from this overall geological and paleontological evidence there has been an increase upwards through time in the complexity and sophistication of life. The global fossil record does not present a jumbled mixture of large and small, older and younger, as would be the case after a giant flood of some kind. This record is repeatable, undeniable factual global evidence for a long process of evolution…of biological change over time. The total fossil record reveals these same upward changes, irrespective of the mechanisms that caused them."

As you say, the fact of the evolution of life is undeniable. The sharply cut Grand Canyon is a beautiful example of the long history of life's Evolution.