mo.mentum said:
HELLO. Bad backs are the result of bad posture due to environmental stress (work place, type of work) or bad shoes! Not bad design of the back. If that were the case, then EVERYONE would have back problems.
HELLO. No, they are not. And everyone WILL have bad backs eventually. There is no repair mechanism in intervertebral discs to repair the microfractures that are an inevitable result of mechanical stress and strain. Bone has such a repair mechanism -- it's called remodelling. But discs don't. So, the Designer was smart enough to put a repair mechanism in bone but not one in the intervertebral discs!!???
BTW, before you start throwing the word "ignorant" around, you might want to look at profiles.
#1 This is only valid in humans. Most other mammals have a ***** for reproducing and a seperate "hole" for urine.
Well, didn't you say humans? However, ALL vertebrates use the same orifice for the male genitalia.
#2 This is only valid in MALE humans. Women have seperate tubes as well.
The female ureter opens into the opening of the ******. This is why females get UROGENITAL (notice the combination there?) infections, including one known as "honeymoon" cystitis.
#3 From another perspective, this can be seen as a model of efficiency, the ***** is capable of many different tasks and adapts very well to all of them.
LOL! In that case, I'm sure you won't mind having sewage dumped into your favorite swimming pond.
#4 The Human Body was created by an electrical, hydraulic, civil, neural, mechanical, computer, etc etc etc engineer. For with God is All Wisdom and Knowledge.
This is the theological problem with special creation. IF God directly designed and manufactured the human body, THEN God does not have "All Wisdom and Knowledge". Or else God is sadistic.
Let's look at another problem. God designed childbirth, according to you. Without modern medical practices, childbirth is fatal to about 10% of women per pregnancy! THAT's a wonderful design? Ford engineers are being called stupid because the Ford Explorer killed less than 0.01% of the people who used their manufactured product! So how bad is the engineer who makes a product where normal function kills 10% of the time?
Since God is Wise and Good, it's obvious that God did NOT directly design and manufacture humans. Humans were designed by natural selection. The reason that intervertebral discs don't have a repair mechanism is that they don't usually fail until the person is over 30. By that time they've already had kids and so the defect is invisible to natural selection.
aking the fossillized remains of animals that remotely resembled each other and organizing their skulls from smallest to biggest is NOT evolution.
That's not what was done with the fossil record. Many characteristics are considered. Also, the fossils have to be organized first in a TIME sequence. Only after that is done do you determine if there is a trend in any given characteristic -- such as size.
And it does NOT lay eggs. pshaaaa
"Monotremes are a sub family of Mammals and there are only 2 animals that belong to this sub family Platypus and Echidnas. monotremes lay eggs rather than giving birth to their young. "
http://home.mira.net/~areadman/plat.htm
What was that comment about ignorance you made? Haven't you heard that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
And the similarities exhibited between species can much easier be attributed to COMMON DESIGN and not COMMON ANCESTRY. The data goes that way, despite the fact that scientists hate it!
If they could be, they would be. Over half of all evolutionary biologists have been or are theists. Starting with Darwin. Why would they hate the idea? Of course, there are also the sequences of fossil INDIVIDUALS that gradually grade from one species to another. For example, this paper:
5. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. This is a rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Now, you did say SPECIES. Actually those 8 lineages connect species to new species, new genera, and in two cases a new family.
Wanna pay for my subscription so i can read the article?
Science is in your public library. Or, you can e-mail at the address in my Profile and I'll send you the PDF version of the paper.
Also, the point i was alluding to is not how come there is a placenta. But how is the blueprint for building a human being executed? How do the cells that have multiplied from the Zygot know at which point to start dividing into different KINDS of cells. Some forming the placenta, and the rest the baby.
First, you did want to know the how complex organs such as the eye could form, right? How they could have intermediate steps. The old St. Mivart argument "what use is half a wing." Placentas are complex organs and yet we have living examples of intermediates.
Now, as to the instructions in development, go to the library and find a recent text on Developmental Biology. It will be there. Or you can go to
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/index.html and read about it online. If you have specific questions, you can ask me.
Basically, there are proteins called transcription factors. These bind to DNA and open up the DNA so that particular genes can be transcribed to mRNA, which is then translated to protein. There are a family of genes, called homeodomain genes, that are transcription factors for different developmental pathways. Pax-6, for instance, turns on the pathway to make the eye. The sequence of genes in that pathway has largely been found. Wnt is another transcription factor that determines dorsal-ventral (belly-back) patterning in the limb. It's a very hot field of research.
Im not asking how the placenta came about, evolutionist will flood me with their ideas, assumptions and "connect the fossil" arguments.
You wanted to know how complex organs could have evolved thru intermediate stages. Well, the paper examines one complex organ and shows how a complex organ evolved. By looking at LIVING species, not fossils.
What you seem to be saying is that you really don't want to know the answer. You thought that you had a great "gap" to insert God into and there was no answer to your question. Now that you know there is an answer, you try to deny it by belittling the answers as "ideas, assumptions, and 'connect the fossil' arguments.
We want to know how do these identical cells start dividing as OTHER cells.
Differentian factors, which are homeodomain genes. For instance, I work with adult stem cells. All are identical. Expose them to bone morphogentic protein (BMP) and the cells differentiate to bone-forming cells. The pathway from binding of the BMP to surface receptor proteins to passing the signals to the nucleus to which proteins are turned on (sonic hedgehog as one) has been studied. Do you want the reference to read about it yourself?
Who? What? Where? What is Archie? Every transitional form i've ever heard of was later dismissed either as a forgery or just another unique creature.
Then you haven't heard of many. Archie is Archeopteryx. It is a mosaic of dino and bird features. That is, some of the features are dinosaur (like the skeleton) and some are bird (like the feathers). Thus, it is an intermediate between two "kinds" that are not supposed to have intermediates IF they are real "kinds" to begin with. Archie is an example of a transitional individual. There are examples of sequences of transitional species and examples of sequences of transitional INDIVIDUALS, such as the one connecting families of trilobites above.
I took this from a friend's site, tell me what you think:
It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.
The answer is simple. They DID NOT happen in the same individual at the same time. They gradually accrued over a number of individuals in populations that were actually several different species spread thru time.
The argument ignores that there are creatures NOW that are in the transition from water to land. Mudskippers are one. There is another but I can't remember the name offhand. Toodon, do you remember?
Do a Google search on "mudskipper" and you will see.
Your friend set up a strawman and then knocked it down. Whoopee!! He killed a caricature of evolution. So what? It wasn't evolution.
Look here:
Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.
Evolution never made any such claim. That would be special creation. Nice to know your friend thinks that is impossible. Darwin agrees. Your friend wants an instantaneous transition from a complete water-dwelling lifestyle to a complete land-dwelling lifestyle. That's not necessary. Strawman.
Instead, we have Acanthostega, a fish with 'legs'. The evidence says that Acanthostega llived in shallow, swift streams. Swimming upstream is very difficult, but Acanthostega used the legs to RUN on the streambed. So:
1: It's weight was partly supported by the water.
2: The skin was moist most of the time and only intermittently exposed to air. Individuals of Acanthostega, therefore, who had variations modifying the skin to withstand air would have a selective advantage: they could run in shallower water and for longer periods of time.
3. Since Acanthostega was in the water, kidneys weren't a problem. Again, as successor species spent more time in shallower water, it gives time for individuals with variations that modify the kidneys to be selected.
4. Heat exchange. Again, since Acanthostega is not out of water ALL the time (as all amphibians are not), this is not a problem.
5. Respiratory system. Notice that the mudskipper does not have a "perfect lung system". But it doesn't need one for its lifestyle. Neither did the first amphibians.
there's no chance of a mod throwing this in the dirty-heathen (joke) forums is there?
