Evolutionists...When/how did it change?

Question

How did the first living thing that required sweating, sweat? Through its pores? Its tongue? Some other way? How did we go from sweating through the tongue to sweating through pores? Has an intermediate ever been identified that produced sweat through the tongue AND pores? If not, how do you explain the change?

Just as I thought...can't answer it, so you're just rude and immature instead.

Peace

Answer 1

No animal sweats through its tongue so your question is unanswerable.

Some animals such as dogs cool themselves by panting which evaporates saliva from their tongues. Others use sweat glands which also have other functions such as secreting oils and other chemicals which protect the skin and keep the hair in good condition.

Only a small minority of animals sweat, the pores having probably evolved from hair follicles.

Answer 2

What is an evolutionist? Do you call someone who accepts the fact that gravity exists a gravitationist?

One does not sweat through the tongue. The tongue is a moist organ that has a surface area that is conducive to heat loss through evaporation. There are no sweat glands there.

Further, not all mammals have sweat glands, dogs do not, for example. They pant.

Humans are excellent examples of intermediate, as are any other mammals with sweat glands and pores. Some mammals such as dogs do not sweat. They do have pores, however. Most birds do not sweat, but they do have pores. Peacocks CAN sweat. I have observed this. They also pant when hot. So, any animal that can do both, I claim, is intermediate.

If you really had a question, instead of making a false assertion poised as a question, I think it may have been, "How did pores evolve?"

Answer 3

Well, I can't answer your question because I don't study biology, I study linguistics, but I can tell you that while on the one hand I can understand why you would ask a question like that, and it's a fair enough question, from my experience in answering questions for the uninitiated in the field of linguistics, I can say that very often the proper answer will be very very long and probably not too interesting, as people that work in the given field have their own specific jargon and competing theoretical frameworks and are probably not investigating the subject in question from this perspective that you're taking.

Anyway, to sum up this long mess of words here, there is probably a good answer to your question, but it would almost certainly not be very satisfying to somebody who doesn't actually study this subject, especially to somebody who is taking your perspective, presumably creationist. I don't mean it to be sarcastic, it's just that when we delve into a field which we aren't well versed in, the questions we have can quite often appear misguided and simplistic, therefore it's usually best to approach things like this with a little more humility and in a less confrontational manner, if you see what I'm getting at.

Just some friendly advice for more fruitful future dialogue

Answer 4

Hello, have you looked at this mountain of evidence? Must we be able to explain every little bit right here, right now? Do I look like a evolutionary biologist? Is this a forum for asking questions about evolutionary biology? Would it perhaps be possible that you ask this question not to learn, but to 'attack' something which you so wrongly perceive as to be "against your faith"? Maybe?

I imagine it happened slowly. Irreducible complexity is a crap argument that has been proven wrong time and time again. There is a mountain of evidence that says we evolved from earlier, simpler forms and that everything alive on this planet has a single common ancestor. Deal with it.

Answer 5

Mammals have two kinds of sweat glands, apocrine and eccrine, which provide for thermal cooling. In this paper we describe the distribution and characteristics of these glands in selected mammals, especially primates, and reject the suggested development of the eccrine gland from the apocrine gland during the Tertiary geological period. The evidence strongly suggests that the two glands, depending on the presence or absence of fur, have equal and similar functions among mammals; apocrine glands are not primitive. However, there is a unique and remarkable thermal eccrine system in humans; we suggest that this system evolved in concert with bipedalism and a smooth hairless skin.

atheist

Answer 6

Such things are very clearly explained in evolutionary theory. Go study it first and THEN submit a question if you still don't understand; don't be so bloody lazy and expect us to drag you through the entire theory and 150 years of evidence found for it.

Answer 7

It took literally trillions of generations of extremely small physical mutations and selective breeding changes over hundreds of millions of years. These changes were, as they are occurring today, all but imperceptible on a generation to generation basis. You are looking for discrete changes with a chronology of when they occurred. Sorry, that's not the way evolution works.

Answer 8

Probably an odd mutation in the Triassic that expressed nephritic glomeruli genes in cells near the epidermis. Weird, huh?

Answer 9

Actually, contrary to popular belief, most mammals sweat, including dogs. They just have fewer sweat glands than humans.

Before researching (ie Googling) this for you, can you tell me whether you're interested in apocrine sweat glands or eccrine sweat glands?

Answer 10

Why are we supposed to know everything about evolution. Are you incapable of using Google. We don't believe in god, that does not automatically make us evolutionary biologists or geneticists.

Atheist.

and FYI, there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'.