?

[Cabal]

LOL @ the chorus of Darwinists afraid to answer a simple question.

Yes, I'm sure such an illogical question would make sense to someone who demonstrably has no clue about logical thought.

 

[Targ]

LOL @ the chorus of Darwinists afraid to answer a simple question.

You cannot be serious. If there is no logic to the question, then there is nothing to answer!

 

[Freodin]

I wouldn´t say that it is an illogical question... just an incomplete one. There are prerequisites missing, but these could be concluded from our knowledge of AV´s general position.

So I´d say Mike Elphick has it correct: the question is: what would we look like, if everything else had evolved, but we hadn´t?

And here I have to disagree with his post of pock marks and parasites... if "we" hadn´t evolved, there is no necessity to assume that "we" would look like humans at all. We might... or we might not.

And who is that "we" at all?

 

[JustMeSee]

If evolution is true, what would we look like if we hadn't have evolved?

AV, what is your definition of evolution?

If 'we' means humans, I imagine we would look similar to whatever humans looked like when they first appeared on the planet.

If you are looking at it from a Biblical perspective, I imagine people would look similar to Adam and Eve, or decedents of Noah.

If you are looking at it from a modern science view of life on earth, I have trouble answering your question. We would either look like what 'humans' looked like then (an early form of single celled life?), or we could be extinct due to environmental factors.

I have trouble understanding your question. I admit, I have only a basic understanding of evolution.

 

[marktheblake]

If evolution is true, what would we look like if we hadn't have evolved?

Fabio?

 

[JustMeSee]

Fabio?

I don't know if that would be a good or bad thing. What about the women?

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone else want to comment here?

 

[Shemjaza]

Anyone else want to comment here?

Could you clarify your question please, AV?

Do you mean what would we expect to see in a specially created human?
Or do you mean what would we expect to see if life had never evolved on Earth?

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL @ the chorus of Darwinists afraid to answer a simple question.

The problem is that the question is "simple". Not simple in the sense of "not dificult", but simple in the sense of "stupid".

As so many have already explained, it's a nonsensical question.

To me, it translates to "if we wouldn't exist, what would we look like?"

It makes no sense at all.

 

[Oafman]

Hmm, what would nothing look like? Difficult to say, seeing as we have never observed nothing.

 

[Aggie]

Anyone else want to comment here?

Here's how I understand AV's question: I think he's saying that if evolution is true, there should be some aspects of our anatomy that are different from how they'd look if we'd been directly created, and he wants examples of that.

Assuming that's what he means, one famous example of this is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the nerve controlling the muscle that operates the vocal cords. Since this nerve only needs to travel from the larynx to the brain, from a design perspective there's no reason for it to be more than a few inches long. But instead it travels from the brain down into the torso, and loops under the aorta, before traveling back up into the throat.

This nerve takes a more direct route in fish, where it travels in one direction from the brain to the gills. From an evolutionary perspective, the reason it takes this indirect route in humans is because evolution can only work in small steps. As we evolved from ancestors with a fish-like body plan, it was easier for evolution to keep making the nerve slightly longer than for it to change the nerve's route. Neil Shubin discusses the significance of this trait, and a few other similar traits, in his book Your Inner Fish.

Incidentally, humans aren't the most extreme example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve nerve being inefficiently designed. This nerve follows the same route in all vertebrates, including giraffes. In giraffes the nerve is about 20 feet longer than design would require it to be. If it had the same structure in dinosaurs that it does in all other vertebrates, in dinosaurs like Sauroposeidon it would've been more than 80 feet long, when from a design perspective it only needed to be a few inches.

So, to answer the question I think AV is asking: if we hadn't evolved, but had been directly designed, this nerve would travel directly from the brain to the larynx in animals for which this is the most direct route. But in fact, it doesn't do that. AV, does that answer what you're asking?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, does that answer what you're asking?

Yes.

Thank you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't know about you, but I'd look like a 1936 Delahaye 135 Figoni

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know about you, but I'd look like a 1936 Delahaye 135 Figoni

[youtube]9vOxPUFF0T0[/youtube]

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Just in case he missed the point, here it come again.
Excellent post.
Niel Shubin's book just climbed to the top of my reading list:

Here's how I understand AV's question: I think he's saying that if evolution is true, there should be some aspects of our anatomy that are different from how they'd look if we'd been directly created, and he wants examples of that.

Assuming that's what he means, one famous example of this is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the nerve controlling the muscle that operates the vocal cords. Since this nerve only needs to travel from the larynx to the brain, from a design perspective there's no reason for it to be more than a few inches long. But instead it travels from the brain down into the torso, and loops under the aorta, before traveling back up into the throat.

This nerve takes a more direct route in fish, where it travels in one direction from the brain to the gills. From an evolutionary perspective, the reason it takes this indirect route in humans is because evolution can only work in small steps. As we evolved from ancestors with a fish-like body plan, it was easier for evolution to keep making the nerve slightly longer than for it to change the nerve's route. Neil Shubin discusses the significance of this trait, and a few other similar traits, in his book Your Inner Fish.

Incidentally, humans aren't the most extreme example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve nerve being inefficiently designed. This nerve follows the same route in all vertebrates, including giraffes. In giraffes the nerve is about 20 feet longer than design would require it to be. If it had the same structure in dinosaurs that it does in all other vertebrates, in dinosaurs like Sauroposeidon it would've been more than 80 feet long, when from a design perspective it only needed to be a few inches.

So, to answer the question I think AV is asking: if we hadn't evolved, but had been directly designed, this nerve would travel directly from the brain to the larynx in animals for which this is the most direct route. But in fact, it doesn't do that. AV, does that answer what you're asking?

 

[Aggie]

Yes.

Thank you.

I recall that you're a supporter of the Omphalos hypothesis, in which the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but in which God created it with the appearance of being much older than that. Is your opinion about the recurrent laryngeal nerve that God also designed us in the way we'd look if we had evolved, even though this isn't the most efficient design?

Also, here's a question for everyone else: why did nobody figure out what AV was asking until the fourth page of this thread? To me, his question didn't seem all that difficult to understand, and it's the sort of question that creationists shouldn't have such a difficult time getting answered at this forum. It seems like every time I come back to CF, it's never very long before I see something like this that reminds me of why I don't post here very often anymore.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It's a bit before my time, but it seems that AV doesn't really want to get answers to his questions. He only wants to ask them, and let people jump through the hoops. Sad, but that is the nature of his game.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

In fact, a quick glance at his posting regime and you should pretty much figure out that he's not on CF to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue. 20 pages of typing a number into a comment space, does not amount to anything more than 'Killing Time'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAm4nHFOir0

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Aggie!

I recall that you're a supporter of the Omphalos hypothesis, in which the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but in which God created it with the appearance of being much older than that.

Actually I'm not Omphalos.

I believe in what I call "embedded age creation."

In other words, God created the universe ... not just with the appearance of age ... but with actual age.

I define embedded age creation as: maturity without history.

Is your opinion about the recurrent laryngeal nerve that God also designed us in the way we'd look if we had evolved,

Correct.

... even though this isn't the most efficient design?

It may be serving a purpose that we haven't discovered as yet.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If evolution is true, what would we look like if we hadn't have evolved?

We would be too small to be seen with the naked eye.