Would you be so offended?

troodon said:

Ugh, Pete beat me to give the definition





Tails good enough?

Click to expand...

Don't you mean pseudo-tails? I've heard of these and they are usually branched from one's spinal cord. That? Evolution? Well if you call it that, then you call it that...

Pete Harcoff said:

Ah. So it is an ego thing.

Click to expand...

I won't even address the use of this 'ego' word anymore. Call it whatever you wish, it really doesn't matter to me.

prince didymus said:

That? Evolution? Well if you call it that, then you call it that...

Click to expand...

Sure; classic example of an evolutionary reversal. The info's already there but it's covered up by a gene. Destroy that gene and the tail is allowed to form.

There are lots of other examples of beneficial mutations (the precursors of evolution) occuring in humans that have been mentioned in this forum. Just search for a few minutes.

I couldn't find the thread I was looking for (I fear it was lost in the crash) but this site has a nice example of such a mutation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html

Edit: put in wrong link

troodon said:

There are lots of other examples of beneficial mutations (the precursors of evolution)

Click to expand...

I took some time and found some more examples (that's how much I care about you )

AIDS resistance:
http://www.aegis.com/news/re/1996/RE960834.html
http://www.isat.jmu.edu/users/klevicca/Case_Studies/351 aids resistance.doc

Malaria resistance (sickle cell):
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html
http://www.umm.edu/blood/sickle.htm

Malaria resistance (non-sickle cell):
http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0626011.htm
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/2/1/5

Milk digestion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ivu-veg-news/message/97

Also, you YEC's, you did evolve from a single-celled organism, weather you like it or not.

by "evolve", I mean "change over time" and by "single-celled organism", I am refering to a zygote

Unless, of course, you think medical science goes against the Bible too.

Plus to me it takes more faith to believe in evolution's big bang theory.

Click to expand...

I annoys me it how creationist they propagate the term "evolution" and overgeneralize it to include an intrinsic portion of mainstream science (such as Big Bang Theory) as if it were some malevolent aberrance.
Evolution simply means change over time and given Second Law of Thermodynamics and general nature of things, things do change over time. You evolve, I evolve, our bodies evolve and mature as we age. Our culture and language evolve as time progresses.

Think about it when did order ever come out of any explosion?

Click to expand...

Why must you insist on making uninformed statements? Our existence today is the indirect result of that explosion and I'm simply not in the mood to provide you with a synopsis of cosmology, google search it if you are unbiased enough to desire to learn about it.

prince didymus said:

First response, I'm not an animal.

Click to expand...

You belong to Kingdom Animalia, so by definition you are an animal.

Edit: Oops, someone already said that. But the fact remains that you are an animal, and I don't know what you mean when you said people use the term to describe "lesser intelligent" species. Many animals do have less intelligence, but make up for it in other survival traits, like strength, humans had to be intelligent to make spears for killing sabre-tooth tigers, etc.

prince didymus said:

I have the Holy Spirit with me and My Father God and the Lord Jesus Christ are watching over me. So I won't lose my life to some bear.

Click to expand...

Now there's a testable prediction.

MartinM said:

Now there's a testable prediction.

Click to expand...

It has been tested, they threw Daniel in the Lion's den and he came out just fine. Then they threw his accusers in and they were eaten, even before they hit the ground.

MartinM said:

Now there's a testable prediction.

Click to expand...

And one that fails the test.

Fact - Chrstians have been killed by bears. And Lions. And Earthquakes. And famines....

prince didymus said:

I have yet to grow anything extra

Click to expand...

You are still young, but as you get older you may start to grow things that were not there before. Not because of evolution, but because we still live in a fallen world. Of course we can always pray about it, so maybe it will not be a problem.

I was looking in our bathroom and we have a whole shelf of things in there for skin care. There is soap, lots of different lotions, even bandaids. I did not use to use bandaids much, but my son is of the opinion that if he bumps himself the pain will go away if he puts a bandaid on it.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Fact - Chrstians have been killed by bears. And Lions. And Earthquakes. And famines....

Click to expand...

It is also a fact that Samson killed a lion with his bear hands:

Judges 14:5-6
So Samson went down to Timnah with his father and mother, and came to the vineyards of Timnah.
Now to his surprise, a young lion came roaring against him. [6] And the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he tore the lion apart as one would have torn apart a young goat, though he had nothing in his hand. But he did not tell his father or his mother what he had done.

Christians today live in the age of Grace, we are no longer responsable for physical symbols in the natural world. (Other than to be able to explain them to people) But all Christian's need to be able to defend themselves againt the "lion".

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

prince didymus said:

When I say 'animal' I am referring to people using it to put us on the same level as those that are less intelligent.

Click to expand...

Ah. I see. So it's an intelligence thing. Shall I then say that "animal" refers to anything less intelligent? What about the mentally handicapped children I worked with two years ago--the ones who couldn't learn conditioned responses as well as any pet dog can? You know, the ones who do not have the mental capacity to feed themselves, dress themselves, or use the restroom in an appropriate place? My dog was much smarter than those kids are. So is the dog more "human" than the kids because it was more capable of learning?

I'd sure like to see the evidence you have for us not being animals...other than some words in a book written by men who had no concept of electricity, much less an idea of how to classify life forms. Let me guess...you have none other than your feelings on the issue.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

And one that fails the test.

Fact - Chrstians have been killed by bears. And Lions. And Earthquakes. And famines....

Click to expand...

Sorry, it must have 'failed' for you.

HazyRigby said:

Ah. I see. So it's an intelligence thing. Shall I then say that "animal" refers to anything less intelligent? What about the mentally handicapped children I worked with two years ago--the ones who couldn't learn conditioned responses as well as any pet dog can? You know, the ones who do not have the mental capacity to feed themselves, dress themselves, or use the restroom in an appropriate place? My dog was much smarter than those kids are. So is the dog more "human" than the kids because it was more capable of learning?

I'd sure like to see the evidence you have for us not being animals...other than some words in a book written by men who had no concept of electricity, much less an idea of how to classify life forms.

Click to expand...

Believe whatever you want. It needn't concern me. If that's what YOU see as true then it's true to YOU. And don't get me started on this 'intelligence' issue, if you find dogs or whatever else to be more intelligent than humans (no matter what the condition) then that's your business and surely not mine.

Let me guess...you have none other than your feelings on the issue.

Click to expand...

Whatever you say.... ....just keep on guessing.

No, I haven't been eaten by a bear. Other Chrstians have. That's the point.

prince didymus said:

Don't you mean pseudo-tails? I've heard of these and they are usually branched from one's spinal cord. That? Evolution? Well if you call it that, then you call it that...

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't even take the time to read the topic provided.

"It should be noted here that the existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails, since true human tails are complex structures which have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae and cartilage (Bar-Maor et al. 1980; Dao and Netsky 1984; Fara 1977; Sugamata et al. 1988), they can move and contract, and they are occasionally inherited (Dao and Netsky 1984; Ikpeze and Onuigbo 1999; Standfast 1992; Touraine 1955). Furthermore, Gish, Menton, and ReMine all argue that human vestigial tails are not true tails if they lack vertebrae - an erroneous claim since M. sylvanus is a primate whose fleshy tail also lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23)."

WinAce said:

You obviously didn't even take the time to read the topic provided.

"It should be noted here that the existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails, since true human tails are complex structures which have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae and cartilage (Bar-Maor et al. 1980; Dao and Netsky 1984; Fara 1977; Sugamata et al. 1988), they can move and contract, and they are occasionally inherited (Dao and Netsky 1984; Ikpeze and Onuigbo 1999; Standfast 1992; Touraine 1955). Furthermore, Gish, Menton, and ReMine all argue that human vestigial tails are not true tails if they lack vertebrae - an erroneous claim since M. sylvanus is a primate whose fleshy tail also lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23)."

Click to expand...

Like I said, call it whatever you want.......

I see a lot of the "I don´t listen to you - lalala lalala" arguments here.

Are you not able to provide a reasonable argument for your cause?

prince didymus said:

I won't even address the use of this 'ego' word anymore. Call it whatever you wish, it really doesn't matter to me.

Click to expand...

I was just joshin' with ya, don't get so huffy (I probably should've included a smilie for good measure).

Point is, evolution is a subject that deals with biology, and biologically speaking we are animals; we are no different than cats or dogs or monkies, etc, in that regard.

Pete Harcoff said:

I was just joshin' with ya, don't get so huffy (I probably should've included a smilie for good measure).

Click to expand...

Everything is cool, no grudges held here .

Freodin said:

I see a lot of the "I don´t listen to you - lalala lalala" arguments here.

Are you not able to provide a reasonable argument for your cause?

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware anyone said anything about they not listening here...

Adressing the question at hand, Carl Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot contains an excellent chapter entitled The Great Demotion, which chronicles the shift of how we perceive ourselves relative to our universe and why religious fundamentalists still cling to faded notions of humanity possessing a "revered position" in the cosmos.

Many people reject the evidence of kinship between Homo Sapiens and our primate cousins because even reticent acceptance throws their implicit superiority of human beings into doubt.

This arrogance may even be extended to fellow human beings. Those viewed as different for reasons of "race", religion, or any other dividing line of convenience have been and continue to be dehumanized.

Perhaps religious fundamentalists will never concede that Homo Sapiens decended from ealier hominids based on the staggering amount of evidentiary bits and pieces. This certainly does not impart integrity to an argument based on their emotions rather than the cold, hard facts.