Creationists cant answer....

Loudmouth · Apr 30, 2008

jamesrwright3 said:
Simple disuse does not mean it decreases the chance of survivability on the part of a species.

Disuse would remove selection on mutations which reduce the functionality of the organ. That is the whole point.

I can't see why still having a cecum would decrease the survivability of the species.

A caecum full of bacteria with little to eat would cause the commensal bacteria to die off. This would open niches for pathogenic organisms such as certain Clostridial species which currently cause serious colitis in humans.

I also find it hard to believe that something used to digest food would suddenly change its function into something that has a positive effect on the immune system, maintains gut flora, and also helps fetal development by producing hormones.

It's minor contribution to the immune system is outweighed by it's propensity to house pathogenic organisms. The reason that the HVA is flooded with white cells is that it is a good place for pathogenic organisms to get a foothold in the gut. It's a bit like claiming that the US border is a great barrier to immigration due to the number of border agents found in the area.

So instead of becoming a vestigal organ which usually connotes a decrease in functionality, the appendix actually took on multiple positive new roles and probably has more functionality than the original cecum

And those roles are . . . ?

There is a question of whether or not it is vestigal . . . .

Not among biologists or anyone familiar with the evidence.

Sure, if you start to use expanded definitions of vestigality and believe that vestigal organs can actually increase in functionality from their previous incarnations which goes against the conventional wisdom

Expanded definitions? Here is the definition laid out by Darwin:

An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object.--Origin of Species

From the very start of the theory this has been the definition.

jamesrwright3 · Apr 30, 2008

Are you claiming that you can digest grass via a bacteria colony in your caecum?

If not then we can say that for certain.

All of the great apes have an appendix.

Nope. I have no idea, but if we no longer ate grass then there is no need for the caecum to be maintained and in that case genetic drift could make it into the vestigial structure it is today.

Oh ok the whole genetic drift since you cannot explain why it disappeared via natural selection. As I stated before, disuse doesn't mean it would be eliminated. Obviously every single primate before the great apes had one. In order to explain how it totally diseapprered you would need to explain how it made those primates less fit for their environment.

Doesn't. If a structure is no longer used genetic drift can change it .

I would imagine that it had those secondary functions before the primary function became vestigial and that they were maintained.

No, it didn't, at least in terms of immunology. The main reason the appendix plays a role is that it has lymph tissue..something not present in the cecum . If it has those functions in creatures that still have the cecum, then scientists should be able to prove it pretty quickly by studying animals that still have one..I have not seen any studies indicating as such.

A good piece of evidence for common descent I'd say

Maybe, maybe not.

Nope. I would like to see evidence that the caecum in grass eating animals does not have all the extra uses that still exist in the human caecum before I'd concede that.

As I said above it doesn't have the immune function.
It's up to you to prove it has those functions-you are the one claiming that those features were there originally and the cecum actually lost one function..the ability to digest grass..but you have no evidence to support that and as I said above..the immune function doesn't appear to have been possible with the cecum..as it does not have lymph tissue.

My contention is that the vestigial nature of the human caecum is because it has lost the ability to digest cellulose. I say nothing about any other functions attributed to it.

See above

evowiki is some creationist site.

No it's not

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page

I wasn't using an expanded definition, I was using the scientific definition that was extant before my birth, decades before my birth.

Decades before your birth...but well after it became apparent that many of those formerly vestigal organs were not vestigal organs. The list was close or at 100 organs at one time but many fell off as we increased our scientific knowledge.

No one has provided evidence that the caecum has increased functionality aside from the loss of grass digestion in humans.

The appendix has been proven to have increased functionality

Vene · Apr 30, 2008

jamesrwright3 said:
All of the great apes have an appendix.

And they should. If they didn't it would be very confusing from an evolutionary perspective.

Oh ok the whole genetic drift since you cannot explain why it disappeared via natural selection. As I stated before, disuse doesn't mean it would be eliminated. Obviously every single primate before the great apes had one. In order to explain how it totally diseapprered you would need to explain how it made those primates less fit for their environment.

A mutation destroying the functionality of an unused organ is not selected against. Through genetic drift it spreads through the population. It's not that it makes the great apes more fit, it's that it doesn't decrease fitness.

No, it didn't, at least in terms of immunology. The main reason the appendix plays a role is that it has lymph tissue..something not present in the cecum . If it has those functions in creatures that still have the cecum, then scientists should be able to prove it pretty quickly by studying animals that still have one..I have not seen any studies indicating as such.

link
"Cancer cells were injected into the rat cecum submucosa to create metastasis in the meso-cecum lymph node, which corresponds to the sentinel lymph node of the cecum."
The cecum has lymph nodes. Problem solved.

Maybe, maybe not.

Then why do we have the cecum?

As I said above it doesn't have the immune function.
It's up to you to prove it has those functions-you are the one claiming that those features were there originally and the cecum actually lost one function..the ability to digest grass..but you have no evidence to support that and as I said above..the immune function doesn't appear to have been possible with the cecum..as it does not have lymph tissue.

Already shown to by wrong.

No it's not

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page

It sure isn't a scientific site because there is no evolution/creationism controversy among biologists.

Decades before your birth...but well after it became apparent that many of those formerly vestigal organs were not vestigal organs. The list was close or at 100 organs at one time but many fell off as we increased our scientific knowledge.

How many times do you have to be told that vestigial doesn't mean that it has no function, it means that it's original function was lost? The cartilage in our trachea is a good example, it comes from gills, but has since been modified in such a way as to support the windpipe.

The appendix has been proven to have increased functionality

[Citation Needed]

Naraoia · Apr 30, 2008

jamesrwright3 said:
Can't say that for certain. If you are assuming natural selection was the mechanism by which it changed functions, can you tell me what deleterious effect on the survivial of distant (the apes have an appendix) primates the original form had? Simple disuse does not mean it decreases the chance of survivability on the part of a species. It actually has to have a negative effect on survivability. I can't see why still having a cecum would decrease the survivability of the species.

It wouldn't. However, there's a good chance that not having it would increase survivability (of the individual, not the species, by the way. And reproductive output, not survivability). A monstrous big caecum takes energy and resources to grow, and if there's no need for a caecum because you don't eat all that much cellulose, it's better to turn those resources to another use (say, gamete production).

I also find it hard to believe that something used to digest food would suddenly

Why suddenly?

change its function into something that has a positive effect on the immune system, maintains gut flora, and also helps fetal development by producing hormones. You actually have to go back to non-primates to find species that do not have a veriform appendix.So instead of becoming a vestigal organ which usually connotes a decrease in functionality, the appendix actually took on multiple positive new roles and probably has more functionality than the original cecum

Indeed, does the original caecum not have those functions? Maintaining gut flora seems rather obvious, after all housing a flora was what it originally did.

I am able to comprehend the definitions quite fine.
There is a question of whether or not it is vestigal and regardless, vestigal organs do not either prove or disprove evoltion..and that is according to evowiki..not some creationist site.

I'm not sure where EvoWiki is coming from with that. Vestigial (and not "vestigal") organs are among the most obvious pieces of evidence for common descent, as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, if you start to use expanded definitions of vestigality and believe that vestigal organs can actually increase in functionality from their previous incarnations which goes against the conventional wisdom

The definitions only say that a vestigial structure has lost some or all of its original function. They have no implications for other functions.

Loudmouth · Apr 30, 2008

jamesrwright3 said:
Oh ok the whole genetic drift since you cannot explain why it disappeared via natural selection. As I stated before, disuse doesn't mean it would be eliminated.

Disuse removes selective pressure on mutations which reduce the organ. That's the point. It is the same effect that we see at the DNA level. Pseudogenes accumulate a lot of mutations because those mutations are not selected against. It is also why we see more mutations in introns than in exons.

Obviously every single primate before the great apes had one. In order to explain how it totally diseapprered you would need to explain how it made those primates less fit for their environment.

You need to explain why great apes have an appendix. It's like finding someone who uses a burned out TV for a boat anchor, or a computer keyboard for a hammer. The gut is already amply supplied with lymph nodes and other immune systems. It doesn't need another one, especially one that is overly designed for a function that is no longer needed.

The main reason the appendix plays a role is that it has lymph tissue..something not present in the cecum .

Which is a rudimentary function given the fact that the gut is overloaded with lymph nodes already (e.g. Peyer's patches). People without appendixes have sufficient immune function. However, people who have had their lymph nodes removed due to lymphomas can struggle.

In fact, some people lack an appendix altogether from birth and they do just fine.

The appendix has been proven to have increased functionality

Increased over what?

Baggins · Apr 30, 2008

jamesrwright3 said:
All of the great apes have an appendix.

Yes? and?

O

h ok the whole genetic drift since you cannot explain why it disappeared via natural selection.

Why does it need to disappear through natural selection?

As I stated before, disuse doesn't mean it would be eliminated.

As a whales legs shows amply

Obviously every single primate before the great apes had one.

And every one since

In order to explain how it totally diseapprered you would need to explain how it made those primates less fit for their environment.

It hasn't totally disappeared. that is what we are talking about. remember?

Doesn't. If a structure is no longer used genetic drift can change it

.

So ?

No, it didn't, at least in terms of immunology.

You'd have to show that it had no immunological function in animals where its primary function was digestive.

And you haven't.

The main reason the appendix plays a role is that it has lymph tissue..something not present in the cecum .

So what

If it has those functions in creatures that still have the cecum, then scientists should be able to prove it pretty quickly by studying animals that still have one..I have not seen any studies indicating as such.

makes you wonder why Creationists don't spend some of their millions on stuff like this instead on animatronic dinosaurs doesn't it?

Maybe, maybe not.

Decisive

As I said above it doesn't have the immune function.
It's up to you to prove it has those functions-you are the one claiming that those features were there originally and the cecum actually lost one function..the ability to digest grass..but you have no evidence to support that and as I said above..the immune function doesn't appear to have been possible with the cecum..as it does not have lymph tissue.

Couldn't care less. The biological community say the caecum is vestigial, they are more intelligent than you, that's good enough for me.

See above

see below

No it's not

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page

Fair enough, I was obviously confusing it with some other wiki. But I forget your point. Assuming you had one.

Decades before your birth...but well after it became apparent that many of those formerly vestigal organs were not vestigal organs. The list was close or at 100 organs at one time but many fell off as we increased our scientific knowledge.

I think Charles Darwin in his book, you may have heard of it, defined vestigial in the same way.

I'm not sure how far back in time you wish to travel. But I'd consider before the genesis of evolution as a theory too far myself.

The appendix has been proven to have increased functionality

Increased above what.

You still can't eat grass and digest it using your appendix/caecum.

So all other arguments appear to be beside the point and more in the way of muddying the waters and allowing you to attempt to maintain a vestige of dignity rather than of any real import.

ResoluteShaman · Apr 30, 2008

RobertByers said:
For example originaly women were not to have birthpain . However God gave Eve the punishment of birthpain, which female animals don't have, and since this pain comes from womens unique body shape then we must conclude there bodies were changed at the fall.
Still sexy but might of even been better.

Excuse me? Have you been around any birthing animals? I have. Cats yowl and squirm with pain, dogs whine and squirm, as do other animals.

Beccs · Apr 30, 2008

RobertByers said:
Fine with the teeth. Yes in post flood days we had a more vigourous diet of meat.
Our bodies are fine. I don't know the actual original body of Adam and so some changes may be in order.

For example originaly women were not to have birthpain . However God gave Eve the punishment of birthpain, which female animals don't have, and since this pain comes from womens unique body shape then we must conclude there bodies were changed at the fall.
Still sexy but might of even been better.

What a loving deity he is, huh? Making all women suffer because ONE imaginary woman millennia ago sinned!

I would like to see (scientific) citation that animals don't suffer birthpain.

RobertByers · May 2, 2008

ResoluteShaman said:
Excuse me? Have you been around any birthing animals? I have. Cats yowl and squirm with pain, dogs whine and squirm, as do other animals.

That you are contending that animals have pain is just unscientific. Women have the PAIN for a good reason.

If cats or dogs had pain they would be beserk in actions.
Yowling and whineing is not a creature in pain. its discomforit or wanting supper.
If you are saying that animals have pAIN like women or any then commit yourself intellectually. Your knowledge and scientific abilities.
This is no a new subject to mankind.

HammOnWry · May 2, 2008

RobertByers said:
That you are contending that animals have pain is just unscientific. Women have the PAIN for a good reason.

Yes. It probably has something to do with the size of the baby's head combined with the arrangement of the female pelvis, y'think?

If cats or dogs had pain they would be beserk in actions.
Yowling and whineing is not a creature in pain. its discomforit or wanting supper.
If you are saying that animals have pAIN like women or any then commit yourself intellectually. Your knowledge and scientific abilities.
This is no a new subject to mankind.

I really do wish that I could find that video of a Spotted Hyena giving birth. I mean, it was all sunshine and rainbows for her when her [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] ruptured and left a gaping wound in its wake, I'm sure.

ChordatesLegacy · May 2, 2008

RobertByers said:
That you are contending that animals have pain is just unscientific. Women have the PAIN for a good reason.

If cats or dogs had pain they would be beserk in actions.
Yowling and whineing is not a creature in pain. its discomforit or wanting supper.
If you are saying that animals have pAIN like women or any then commit yourself intellectually. Your knowledge and scientific abilities.
This is no a new subject to mankind.

Having spent the first thirty years of my life on a farm, do not tell me animals do not suffer; they do. Often in animals (sheep, cattle, pigs etc) just as in humans birthing does not do to planned, leading to excruciating pain and sometimes dead for the mother and/or the baby.

There is good reason such animals make little sound during birth; it is because it would attract predators, which quite clearly is something they do not want.

As far as cats and dogs go, I have often observed them doing the same thing as humans when in pain; they go find somewhere comfortable and safe and lie there until well or dead.

Again you show a lack of understanding for the natural world. I am still waiting for you to reply to posts in Dinosaur Foot Prints Destroys Creationism

Naraoia · May 2, 2008

RobertByers said:
That you are contending that animals have pain is just unscientific.

UNSCIENTIFIC???
Lucky I don't have an irony meter. This would be the moment it exploded into my face.

Women have the PAIN for a good reason.

That being what?

If cats or dogs had pain they would be beserk in actions.

Where on earth do you get that?

Yowling and whineing is not a creature in pain. its discomforit or wanting supper.

Yeah, sure it's supper I'd want when a litter of kittens is squeezing out of me... And, pain is discomfort if you ask me.

If you are saying that animals have pAIN like women or any then commit yourself intellectually. Your knowledge and scientific abilities.

Huh?

This is no a new subject to mankind.

This being what?

Vene · May 2, 2008

Naraoia said:
Where on earth do you get that?

[bible]Genesis 3:16[/bible]
At least, that's the only reason I could think of.

flatworm · May 2, 2008

RobertByers said:
That you are contending that animals have pain is just unscientific.

...

Yowling and whineing is not a creature in pain. its discomforit or wanting supper.

Hold on a minute: you expect us to believe that the world is 6000 years old on your say-so, but when someone points to a hyena crying out as her [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] ruptures and says "that animal is in pain", that 's "unscientific"?

ondaball · May 2, 2008

Since when is relevant reserach material spam?

Yes, it's relevant to all the somewhat sarcastic spam/flame/troll OPs/posts whose threads it's added to

& that's a counter-report

God bless!

Ian

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 2, 2008

ondaball said:
Just time, before I go to bed, to pass on these helpful links for you & for anyone who needs inspirational reading for this long, wet UK Bank Holiday Weekend:-

http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/library/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/mp3/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/videos/index.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/radio

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/..._resources.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/guides.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/archive/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/postings.asp

http://www.creationontheweb.org - inc great search

Click info for FAQ, magazines, articles archive, 7 online books, many quotable quotes, etc

Great way to use my blog post *500

God bless!

Ian

This is not just a series of links. It's a series of links to other links. In debate this is called an elephant hurl but this stuff is so lightweight it is more like a mouse toss.

RobertByers · May 7, 2008

ChordatesLegacy said:
Having spent the first thirty years of my life on a farm, do not tell me animals do not suffer; they do. Often in animals (sheep, cattle, pigs etc) just as in humans birthing does not do to planned, leading to excruciating pain and sometimes dead for the mother and/or the baby.

There is good reason such animals make little sound during birth; it is because it would attract predators, which quite clearly is something they do not want.

As far as cats and dogs go, I have often observed them doing the same thing as humans when in pain; they go find somewhere comfortable and safe and lie there until well or dead.

Again you show a lack of understanding for the natural world. I am still waiting for you to reply to posts in Dinosaur Foot Prints Destroys Creationism

Well thats what I'm telling you!
The pain of some animals is only special cases. Kitties hiding is not evidence of pain. Why do you think it is?
The birthing leading to death is not the natural course but a special problem.
Animals make no noise because there is no reason to make noise. Its normal that they have no pain.
The reason for pain is a specific problem. A problem animals do not have. in fact evolution has had to come up with a reason for this. They argue upright, unique to people, walking changed the pelvis etc which made birthing the large baby painfull. Animals do not have this problem.

You say you watched birthing on the farm (except the hiding cats I guess). Well then committ to a answer of whether 100% or 50% or 5% had what can be called PAIN. Not a ouch but like what the word PAIN conveys.
I say only 10-15 % would have some issue leading to some degree of some lenght of time PAIN. Otherwise easy as laying an egg. (unless your chickens are in agony).
I think the evolution thumpers here are laying an intellectual egg.

ResoluteShaman · May 7, 2008

I can clearly state that when our horses, cats, dogs gave birth, they nickered, meowed or whimpered in pain. All the births were normal, no dramas. Since our domestic pets are descendants of their wild versions, they still tend to have the 'keep quiet(er) so the predators can't hear!', but they do voice and evince pain when giving birth.

flatworm · May 7, 2008

RobertByers said:
Well thats what I'm telling you!
The pain of some animals is only special cases.

...

Animals make no noise because there is no reason to make noise. Its normal that they have no pain.

...

The reason for pain is a specific problem. A problem animals do not have.

...

Animals do not have this problem.

...

I say only 10-15 % would have some issue leading to some degree of some lenght of time PAIN. Otherwise easy as laying an egg. (unless your chickens are in agony).

Spotted. Hyena. Ruptured. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

FishFace · May 8, 2008

People are just whining critters.

Also, it's impossible to make a loud noise and push at the same time. Why? Because to push you need to have your diaphragm flat, pushing your stomach and so on down onto the uterus.
To use an unfortunate example, it's the same if you're constipated. You can't push if you're exhaling rapidly.

RobertByers probably gets his evidence of birth pain from TV dramas.

Creationists cant answer....

Contributor

jamesrwright3

Guest

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Apprentice Biologist

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Apprentice Biologist

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Veteran

ondaball

Guest

Contributor

Regular Member

Junior Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads