How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

[The Engineer]

Many creationists claim that creationism is a full-blown scientific theory, and that it is a much better theory than evolution, in that it fits the evidence better than the evolution theory.

If so, then how do creationists explain that vestigal organs exist? Why do humans have a coccyx, or muscles that move your ears? Why do whales have hind leg bones?

Furthermore, why are dinosaur fossils never found in the same sedimentary layers as dogs, or cows, or rabbits? How can bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics? And how do physical traits get carried from generation to generation?

As creationism is a better scientific theory than evolution, I'm pretty sure the creationists on here will have no trouble giving a scientific explanation for these phenomenons.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Cdesign proponentsists typically handwave away "vestigial" organs and structures, and fabricate contrived explanations, usually to the tune of 'well, the coccyx isn't vestigial, thars' muscle that attatch to it.' If they don't have an explanation for it, they just jettison it into their physchological chasm we call cognitive dissonance.

 

[Jamin4422]

If so, then how do creationists explain that vestigal organs exist?

The same way that science explains what they call Junk DNA. Tonsils and the appendix are considered to be vestigal organs. At least that is what doctors tell people when they remove them. Yet we know they are a part of the immunity system. We can live without them, but the immunity system is compromised and not as strong as it would be. So just because you have an organ you can live without or they do not know what it does. That does not make it a vestigal organ.

Why do humans have a coccyx, or muscles that move your ears?

Clearly that is an arguement for an Intelligent Designer. God wants people to look cute when they wiggle their ears at parties to make people laugh and entertain them. This falls into the God has a sense of humor category.

How can bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics?

Bacteria does not evolve resistant to antibiotics. There has always been antibiotic resistant bacteria. Actually antibiotics have improved and we have less resistant bacteria then what we had before.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually antibiotics have improved and we have less resistant bacteria then what we had before.

I call shenanigans on this one. Back this statement up, because I claim it is nonsense. We now have pathogenic bacteria with multiple drug resistance and it is a real problem when you get an infection with these "super bugs."
Multiple drug resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Metal Minister]

Many creationists claim that creationism is a full-blown scientific theory, and that it is a much better theory than evolution, in that it fits the evidence better than the evolution theory.

If so, then how do creationists explain that vestigal organs exist? Why do humans have a coccyx

Because without it you can't go to the bathroom. There are 9 muscles that attach to your coccyx, enabling you to have bowel movements

, or muscles that move your ears?

My wife and I must've been jipped because neither of us can do that.

Why do whales have hind leg bones?

They don't. Those bones are used for mating

Furthermore, why are dinosaur fossils never found in the same sedimentary layers as dogs, or cows, or rabbits?

If you're refering to the geological column that thing is a mess, and only exists in it entirety in textbooks. On this same line of questioning, I could ask why we find millions of petrified sea shells on the tops of mountains?

How can bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics?

By overuse of said antibiotics. What you're refering to here is variation, or "micro-evolution". We "creationists" agree this happens, as it is observable, testable, and repeatable.

And how do physical traits get carried from generation to generation?

Through DNA. Again, variation. It's the only definition of evolution everyone can agree on. You must have a very low, stereotypical view of "creationists".

As creationism is a better scientific theory than evolution, I'm pretty sure the creationists on here will have no trouble giving a scientific explanation for these phenomenons.

I believe I did.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Guy1]

Because without it you can't go to the bathroom. There are 9 muscles that attach to your coccyx, enabling you to have bowel movements

We use our sphincter to poop- not our tailbone.

My wife and I must've been jipped because neither of us can do that.

Eh, genetics. I can do so quite easily.

They don't. Those bones are used for mating.

Oh please go on. I'm fascinated to hear how whales use leg bones buried deep inside their bodies to mate.

If you're refering to the geological column that thing is a mess, and only exists in it entirety in textbooks. On this same line of questioning, I could ask why we find millions of petrified sea shells on the tops of mountains?

I wish I cared more about geology. Good luck with this one!

By overuse of said antibiotics. What you're refering to here is variation, or "micro-evolution". We "creationists" agree this happens, as it is observable, testable, and repeatable.

And here we draw the arbitrary line. You do realize that's all anyone ever proposed, right? Changes being selected for in a non-random fashion by the environment. These changes add up and, in isolated populations, reach a point where said population can no longer interbreed with the ancestral gene pool.

Through DNA. Again, variation. It's the only definition of evolution everyone can agree on. You must have a very low, stereotypical view of "creationists".

You accept this, you accept pretty much the whole theory. After this point it's just a matter of discarding the bits of evidence you don't like that we find in support of this conclusion.

I believe I did.

Straight from Wikipedia: A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

 

[Metal Minister]

We use our sphincter to poop- not our tailbone.

And what do you think those muscles are anchored too? Don't believe me? Injure your coccyx and see how much fun it is to go to the bathroom.

Eh, genetics. I can do so quite easily.

Oh please go on. I'm fascinated to hear how whales use leg bones buried deep inside their bodies to mate.

Again, they are not leg bones. Have you ever even seen them? Have you watched discovery channel before? They can't exactly do the horizontal hula like we can.
http://creation.mobi/the-strange-tale-of-the-leg-on-the-whale

I wish I cared more about geology. Good luck with this one!

And here we draw the arbitrary line. You do realize that's all anyone ever proposed, right? Changes being selected for in a non-random fashion by the environment. These changes add up and, in isolated populations, reach a point where said population can no longer interbreed with the ancestral gene pool.

So would that make two rabbits that can no longer interbreed different kinds of animals? That's where the line truly lies. Where one kind of animal becomes a completely different kind of animal. That is where the science stops and the faith must step in.

You accept this, you accept pretty much the whole theory. After this point it's just a matter of discarding the bits of evidence you don't like that we find in support of this conclusion.

And what bits of evidence show a molecule to a man? There isn't any. There is a lot of speculation and assumption, but there is no direct evidence for this idea.

Straight from Wikipedia: A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Exactly, you must be delusional to believe everything came from a single cell that magicked itself into existence from a chemical soup billions of years ago with no direct proof and plenty against it.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[The Engineer]

The same way that science explains what they call Junk DNA. Tonsils and the appendix are considered to be vestigal organs. At least that is what doctors tell people when they remove them. Yet we know they are a part of the immunity system. We can live without them, but the immunity system is compromised and not as strong as it would be. So just because you have an organ you can live without or they do not know what it does. That does not make it a vestigal organ.

How about you comment on the vestigal organs I posted, not on the ones that I deliberately left out because I knew they had a purpose?

How do you explain that humans have wisdom teeth, for example?

Clearly that is an arguement for an Intelligent Designer. God wants people to look cute when they wiggle their ears at parties to make people laugh and entertain them. This falls into the God has a sense of humor category.

I guess you find wiggling ears funny, not the coccyx, right?

So you're telling me God literally created muscles that move the ears because that looks funny?

By the way, your explanation is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific.

Bacteria does not evolve resistant to antibiotics. There has always been antibiotic resistant bacteria. Actually antibiotics have improved and we have less resistant bacteria then what we had before.

Source?

Because without it you can't go to the bathroom. There are 9 muscles that attach to your coccyx, enabling you to have bowel movements

Point taken.

And where does it come from? Why do humans have this mechanism, not another one? And why does it look so much like a vestigal tail?

My wife and I must've been jipped because neither of us can do that.

You still have the muscles, you just can't use them. Then why do you have them?

They don't. Those bones are used for mating

Vestigal organs are not necessarily useless, they just have lost their original function.

How did whales get these bones in the first place?

If you're refering to the geological column that thing is a mess, and only exists in it entirety in textbooks.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

On this same line of questioning, I could ask why we find millions of petrified sea shells on the tops of mountains?

The scientific consensus is that the mountains used to be in another sedimentary layer, but were pushed up by tectonic movements.

By overuse of said antibiotics. What you're refering to here is variation, or "micro-evolution". We "creationists" agree this happens, as it is observable, testable, and repeatable.

So you believe in microevolution, but you do not believe in macroevolution, even though they both work by the exact same mechanisms?

Through DNA. Again, variation. It's the only definition of evolution everyone can agree on. You must have a very low, stereotypical view of "creationists".

Read above.

I believe I did.

They still relied pretty strongly on untestable claims, so, no.

Exactly, you must be delusional to believe everything came from a single cell that magicked itself into existence from a chemical soup billions of years ago with no direct proof and plenty against it.

So you have a problem with a single cell "magicking itself into existence", but you have no problem with EVERYTHING being magicked into existence?

 

[Metal Minister]

Point taken.

And where does it come from? Why do humans have this mechanism, not another one? And why does it look so much like a vestigal tail?

Some would say a common designer. You have to admit the system works quite well considering. My thought might be if we all evolved from something, wouldn't there be massive differences in systems like this?

You still have the muscles, you just can't use them. Then why do you have them?

Actually I thought about this a bit. There are dozens of muscles in our face that are connected to points alone our skulls, each helping with our facial expressions. The fact that some can use them independently enough to wiggle their ears is just an extra.

Vestigal organs are not necessarily useless, they just have lost their original function.

How did whales get these bones in the first place?

Again, this speaks of design. I posted a link on a reply to another poster you may find interesting. Do you know that that supposed "pelvis" isn't even attached to the spine?

Do you have evidence for this claim?

http://creation.mobi/does-geologic-column-exist

The scientific consensus is that the mountains used to be in another sedimentary layer, but were pushed up by tectonic movements.

This shifting would've destroyed a lot of these fossils, but another way to look at it would be as evidence for a world wide flood. Especially considering most of these fossils are found hundreds of miles from any body of water.

So you believe in microevolution, but you do not believe in macroevolution, even though they both work by the exact same mechanisms?

Again, they do not. Macro-evolution involves say a horse eventually turning into a dog. Something along those lines. There is no evidence for this, but people try to push it as a logical step when its a leap of faith. There is nothing in genetics that would allow for this type of change. There are natural limiters in place.

Read above.

They still relied pretty strongly on untestable claims, so, no.

So you have a problem with a single cell "magicking itself into existence", but you have no problem with EVERYTHING being magicked into existence?

It's not magic, its God. I have no problem saying my view is religious, but evolutionists do.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[BondiHarry]

Many creationists claim that creationism is a full-blown scientific theory[/qote]

Really? I don't know of any Christian who claims this. We believe creationism (and by this I mean God the Creator created all we know) because God said in the beginning He created and not because of any science to back up His claim (which He did NOT provide in the Bible). There is scientific evidence that the Bible is true but it is scant as we are speaking of the science of men who are of limited intelligence and sensory power to explain the events that are caused by a Being of infinitely greater intelligence and not limited as man is in sensory perception.

and that it is a much better theory than evolution, in that it fits the evidence better than the evolution theory.

We don't look at creationism as a 'theory' but as the revealed word of God.

If so, then how do creationists explain that vestigal organs exist? Why do humans have a coccyx, or muscles that move your ears? Why do whales have hind leg bones?

Man doesn't know the answers to these questions.

Furthermore, why are dinosaur fossils never found in the same sedimentary layers as dogs, or cows, or rabbits?

Perhaps because dinosaurs died out before God created dogs, cows or rabbits?

How can bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics? And how do physical traits get carried from generation to generation?

Since the Bible doesn't explain these things why ask them here?

As creationism is a better scientific theory than evolution, I'm pretty sure the creationists on here will have no trouble giving a scientific explanation for these phenomenons.

Again, creationism isn't science, it is the revealed word of God.

 

[The Engineer]

Some would say a common designer. You have to admit the system works quite well considering. My thought might be if we all evolved from something, wouldn't there be massive differences in systems like this?

Not if the system evolved in a common ancestor, then it would likely have no reason to change.

If the same system evolved separately, we would expect there to be changes; if there weren't, that would be a point for intelligent design, not evolution theory, unless there was an explanation for why it could only evolve that way.

Squids have eyes, just like mammals, and they are pretty effective, too. However, whereas the first layer in our eyes are nerve bundles, the first layer in a squid eye are the receptors. Our eyes are quite similar to squid eyes, their retina has just got a different order of layers.

An evolutionist would say that this is because their eyes evolved separately from our eyes. What's the creationist explanation for this? Wouldn't God rather create the same system twice, then invent a new one that has the exact same function and even mechanism?

Actually I thought about this a bit. There are dozens of muscles in our face that are connected to points alone our skulls, each helping with our facial expressions. The fact that some can use them independently enough to wiggle their ears is just an extra.

You can look those muscles up in a diagram. The auricular muscles, as they are called, are fairly separate from the other facial muscles. They can't change the facial expression, at all, even when used together with the other muscles. They are useless for us, basically.

Again, this speaks of design. I posted a link on a reply to another poster you may find interesting. Do you know that that supposed "pelvis" isn't even attached to the spine?

I've read about it, now. It doesn't necessarily speak of design, as it still makes sense with evolution.

http://creation.mobi/does-geologic-column-exist

I can't comment on this right now, because I lack knowledge of the field, and because I don't have the time to read up whether this really makes sense. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I don't know yet.

This shifting would've destroyed a lot of these fossils, but another way to look at it would be as evidence for a world wide flood. Especially considering most of these fossils are found hundreds of miles from any body of water.

Who says that most fossils weren't destroyed? That still doesn't mean some couldn't have survived.

That the bodies of water move, too, is nothing new. Compare a map of the world as it looked like 100 million years ago with a recent map.

Again, they do not. Macro-evolution involves say a horse eventually turning into a dog. Something along those lines. There is no evidence for this, but people try to push it as a logical step when its a leap of faith.

It has never been directly observed, that is true, but there have been multiple species that are thought to have underwent it, so it's not as far fetched as you claim. The Gray Treefrog and the Cope's Gray Treefrog come to mind. Both species are very similar, but have a different number of chromosome pairs.

What is important is that macroevolution is just microevolution which results in the affected individuals becoming another species. In the case of the Gray Treefrog, it simply means that one set of larvaes had another pair of chromosomes and couldn't breed with the Cope Gray Treefogs. There is no mechanism would prevent such a thing.

There is nothing in genetics that would allow for this type of change. There are natural limiters in place.

For example? What are these limiters?

It's not magic, its God. I have no problem saying my view is religious, but evolutionists do.

Because such claims are untestable, and unfalsifiable.

EDIT:
I just found this. Apparently, speciation has been observed, multiple times.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

This article deals with the same thing. It's easier to understand, but I'm not sure if it's correct.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

 

[OllieFranz]

The same way that science explains what they call Junk DNA. Tonsils and the appendix are considered to be vestigal organs. At least that is what doctors tell people when they remove them. Yet we know they are a part of the immunity system. We can live without them, but the immunity system is compromised and not as strong as it would be. So just because you have an organ you can live without or they do not know what it does. That does not make it a vestigal organ.

Clearly that is an arguement for an Intelligent Designer. God wants people to look cute when they wiggle their ears at parties to make people laugh and entertain them. This falls into the God has a sense of humor category.

Bacteria does not evolve resistant to antibiotics. There has always been antibiotic resistant bacteria. Actually antibiotics have improved and we have less resistant bacteria then what we had before.

I call shenanigans on this one. Back this statement up, because I claim it is nonsense. We now have pathogenic bacteria with multiple drug resistance and it is a real problem when you get an infection with these "super bugs."
Multiple drug resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Jamin's faith icon, he is UCC, which is usually one of the more progressive denominations. I suspect that his answers were meant to be a tongue-in-cheek attempt at a Poe. Just consider his response to the ear question. God attached muscles to our ears so some of us can wiggle them at parties? Who can take that answer seriously?

 

[Guy1]

And what do you think those muscles are anchored too? Don't believe me? Injure your coccyx and see how much fun it is to go to the bathroom.

I know where they're anchored. You still use them to poop.

Again, they are not leg bones. Have you ever even seen them? Have you watched discovery channel before? They can't exactly do the horizontal hula like we can.

First of all, they are leg bones. If you refuse to accept that, that's your problem. Second, I've yet to see you explain how they're used during mating, or even provide a good scientific source that does.

So would that make two rabbits that can no longer interbreed different kinds of animals?

Pretty much.

That's where the line truly lies. Where one kind of animal becomes a completely different kind of animal. That is where the science stops and the faith must step in.

This is where the science excels. This is the logical conclusion of that little step you accepted earlier. The little changes keep occurring and they add up. Is this really so hard to understand?

And what bits of evidence show a molecule to a man?

I don't get this bit.

There isn't any. There is a lot of speculation and assumption, but there is no direct evidence for this idea.

Except, you know: Phylogenetic trees, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, vestigial systems, the neat and ordered layering of fossils in an extremely predictable and consistent manner, etc.

Exactly, you must be delusional to believe everything came from a single cell that magicked itself into existence from a chemical soup billions of years ago with no direct proof and plenty against it.

This is a red herring and a non-sequitur. I do not endorse the use of these.

 

[Jamin4422]

Wouldn't God rather create the same system twice, then invent a new one that has the exact same function and even mechanism?

So you think you know more about this then God does? Talk about near sighted. All your looking at is the eye. That is a VERY small part of what is going on. First of all you got to start with light and where did light come from? Did light evolve? Then be it natural or artificial light you have to have an object to reflect, refract, defuse or whatever. Did that evolve also. The atmosphere also has an effect on the light. Then you have to look at the atoms and the way the atoms deal with the light. Did that evolve? Because it is all a part of what the eye can see, receive or perceive. Science and Creationism deals with the whole pkg. What does Evolution deal with? A VERY small part of it. Then how do you explain that a photograph can store all of that information? When you look at it all, then you see evolution is just a fine tuner and a very small part of the big picture.

By the way, you do know that the eye is a Creationist arguement don't you? Even going back to the watchmaker and William Paley

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Bacteria does not evolve resistant to antibiotics. There has always been antibiotic resistant bacteria. Actually antibiotics have improved and we have less resistant bacteria then what we had before.

This is FALSE.

 

[AECellini]

Bacteria does not evolve resistant to antibiotics. There has always been antibiotic resistant bacteria. Actually antibiotics have improved and we have less resistant bacteria then what we had before.

to quote:

"The emergence of resistance of bacteria to antibacterial drugs is a common phenomenon. Emergence of resistance often reflects evolutionary processes that take place during antibacterial drug therapy. The antibacterial treatment may select for bacterial strains with physiologically or genetically enhanced capacity to survive high doses of antibacterials. Under certain conditions, it may result in preferential growth of resistant bacteria, while growth of susceptible bacteria is inhibited by the drug."

wikipedia - antibacterial

 

[Jamin4422]

Emergence of resistance often reflects evolutionary processes that take place during antibacterial drug therapy.

Not true, antibacterial resistant bacteria has alway been around. No evolution has taken place. You just quoted someone that does not know what they are talking about. You do know that bacteria has been around for 4 billion years don't you? They did not just invent it yesterday.

"Nearly half of 50 hospital rooms tested by researchers were colonized or infected with a multidrug-resistant bacteria, a new study says."

Hospital Rooms Crawling With Drug-Resistant Germs: Study - US News and World Report

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in 4-million-year-old cave


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...nt-bacteria-found-in-4-million-year-old-cave/

"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Four-hundred-eighty-seven meters below the earth in the Lachuguilla cave system, part of Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico, researchers discovered that drug resistance has been around, well, forever. Although many people have blamed the fact that we are overusing antibiotics and creating "superbugs," it seems that bacteria's drug resistance evolved naturally millions of years ago."

You should figure out a way to get your antibotics to evolve.
[/FONT]​

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Not true, antibacterial resistant bacteria has alway been around. No evolution has taken place. You just quoted someone that does not know what they are talking about. You do know that bacteria has been around for 4 billion years don't you? They did not just invent it yesterday.

"Nearly half of 50 hospital rooms tested by researchers were colonized or infected with a multidrug-resistant bacteria, a new study says."

Hospital Rooms Crawling With Drug-Resistant Germs: Study - US News and World Report

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in 4-million-year-old cave


Antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in 4-million-year-old cave - HealthPop - CBS News

"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Four-hundred-eighty-seven meters below the earth in the Lachuguilla cave system, part of Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico, researchers discovered that drug resistance has been around, well, forever. Although many people have blamed the fact that we are overusing antibiotics and creating "superbugs," it seems that bacteria's drug resistance evolved naturally millions of years ago."

You should figure out a way to get your antibotics to evolve.
[/FONT]​

You do realize that the vast majority of antibiotics have been discovered as naturally occurring compounds? Penicillin and vancomycin, for instance, are made by microorganisms, so it's exceedingly obvious that there are basal levels of resistance that were generated a long time ago (as long as the compounds were around).

We have, however, through our use of antibiotics, generated lots of mutant strains.

I took me 2 seconds to find a paper where researchers were able to take a strain of bacteria in a lab and make it more resistant to an antiseptic.

Exposure of Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1... [J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Jazer, you are not a microbiologist and frankly you know very little about microbiology or medicine.

 

[AECellini]

Not true, antibacterial resistant bacteria has alway been around. No evolution has taken place. ]

what you quoted from the second article contradicts what you said in bold.

of course drug resistant bacteria have been around for a long time, antibiotics are found in nature (ex. penicilin.) however the medical application of antibiotics has weeded out the bacteria that can't resist the drugs and has left us with populations of that are resistant to current drugs and can adapt well to new ones.

 

[The Engineer]

So you think you know more about this then God does?

Considering God doesn't exist, yes.

Talk about near sighted. All your looking at is the eye.

You do know that's an example, right? I could also use the brain as an example. Squids are very intelligent (at the level of cats), but their brains are completely different from mammal brains, because they evolved separately.

That is a VERY small part of what is going on. First of all you got to start with light and where did light come from?

The light on earth came from the sun, or from fluorescent organisms. Where light itself came from is another question.

Did light evolve?

Eh, no?

Then be it natural or artificial light you have to have an object to reflect, refract, defuse or whatever. Did that evolve also.

Do you mean the phenomenons themselves, or the objects?

The atmosphere also has an effect on the light. Then you have to look at the atoms and the way the atoms deal with the light. Did that evolve? Because it is all a part of what the eye can see, receive or perceive. Science and Creationism deals with the whole pkg. What does Evolution deal with? A VERY small part of it. Then how do you explain that a photograph can store all of that information? When you look at it all, then you see evolution is just a fine tuner and a very small part of the big picture.

Evolution deals with the things it has to deal with. For the other questions, you have other theories in other branches of science.

By the way, you implied that evolution and science are separate. They are not.

Evolution can't tell you why light behaves the way it does. It can, however, tell you how eyes that react to this light evolved, and that's what it wants to do, and nothing else.

By the way, you do know that the eye is a Creationist arguement don't you? Even going back to the watchmaker and William Paley

It's been used by creationists, doesn't mean it can't be used by evolutionists, too.

There's no reason why the human eye would be unable to evolve. Sure, it is very complex, but then again, it had literally millions of years to evolve.

By the way, you look rather upset.